I don't have a problem with any of the 3 recruits individually - they're all high-upside, which is what you need at a C prestige school - but I'm curious why you took 3 guards in one class? Esp since you RS'ed a guard last season, so you're still going to have 3 guards in one class even with this season's RS.

Posted by bhansalid00 on 1/9/2013 4:18:00 PM (view original):
I don't have a problem with any of the 3 recruits individually - they're all high-upside, which is what you need at a C prestige school - but I'm curious why you took 3 guards in one class? Esp since you RS'ed a guard last season, so you're still going to have 3 guards in one class even with this season's RS.

Well, Pate will be red-shirted and Murdoch is ineligible, so Kim is the only one who will play this year/graduate in 4 years (grades permitting on Murdoch). That leaves me with two freshman "guards" but the kid I red-shirted last year is really more a SF given his BH/Pass limits.

That said, I would have preferred to add a big this one, but the only one that was attractive to me that didn't slam the phone down got snatched up by a low-D1. In retrospect, I should have perhaps battled for him and then just taken the walkon if I lost, but Kim (the 3rd signing) had enough upside where I talked myself into going for him instead.

It seems as though you don't have confidence/faith in your recruiting abilities.  You did very well at D3 and that same strategy will translate over fine to D2.  Don't worry what other people think, if the kid is good enough for you, that's all that really matters.  Hell, you could be getting votes from coaches who have NO idea what they're doing.

Posted by angmar on 1/9/2013 4:38:00 PM (view original):
It seems as though you don't have confidence/faith in your recruiting abilities.  You did very well at D3 and that same strategy will translate over fine to D2.  Don't worry what other people think, if the kid is good enough for you, that's all that really matters.  Hell, you could be getting votes from coaches who have NO idea what they're doing.

I'm relatively confident in my abilities, but added perspective is always valued. 

And I know for certain I am getting voted from coaches who have NO idea what they're doing, but the poll allows me to see who voted for what, so I can discount those pretty easily. 

I like the ineligible kid best. Hope he doesn't show (since I have to play you at least twice a year )

Depending how many blues for Pate are really greens, he could go from good to great by a Jr/Sr in my opinion.

Murdoch, if he shows, will be a decent gunner who could grade better if you get lucky and both Ath and BH trend toward the higher end of the average spectrum.

Kim will become a good "knife" player that can go 1 or 2 for you, but will be a liability this season as you start and give 15 minutes unless you grabbed someone there that knows both your O and D. It's a good CYA signing just in case Murdoch stiffs you.

My biggest concern with the class (which I graded OK, because I don't think you've whiffed three times and will get at a minimum one solid player from this trifecta) is that all three start with rather low starting ratings for D2 and, unless there's a lot of green hidden amid that blue, will likely finish their careers average or sub-average in terms of overall rating value. I don't know what world we're talking about, so the human competition component might be different than in Naismith (where I coach UMSL), but with a C prestige, my gut says you ought to be able to find recruits that project to similar senior-year end ratings (or better) with higher start values.

[Edit: just looked and saw you're in GLV-Tark, which I know can be a bloodbath for recruiting, so I'll downgrade some of my critcalness regarding start values as you're definitely in a rougher world that Naismith to be recruiting from...]

I really like Pate, and I understand the idea that Kim is an insurance policy on Murdoch, basically, but the 2 are really quite redundant.  Both of them are sub-par in terms of athleticism, and will likely top out at below-average defensively.  Would likely be a defensive liability to ever start them alongside one another.  I tend to agree with bhansalid, though.  I gave you an OK because the recruits are ok, and likely Pate will be a very good player and one of the others should be able to start for you, likely whichever you prefer, really.  But realistically, it would have been better for you to go scout more states and take a walk-on but find a post you liked.  Heck, reach down and take a post.  You've only got 3 on your roster now, so you'll be hurting for rebounding this season already.  2 of those 3 graduate at the end of this year and the other's a junior.  If you recruited one post he would play this year and start next year.  You should have been looking to recruit 2 - one to play this year and start next year, the other to play next year and start the following.  Obviously these things don't always go as planned - right now I'm desperately trying to find a guard I can use this year and potentially start next at Methodist for the same reason - but it really seems like a mistake to load up on guards that heavily.  Not sure that you can get away with the gimmicky guard-heavy lineup in that conference.  Good luck, though.

if you get lucky with a bunch of high-highs on the highs that you don't know they could all be starters, and at worst case all three should be rotation players

Posted by zbrent716 on 1/9/2013 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by angmar on 1/9/2013 4:38:00 PM (view original):
It seems as though you don't have confidence/faith in your recruiting abilities.  You did very well at D3 and that same strategy will translate over fine to D2.  Don't worry what other people think, if the kid is good enough for you, that's all that really matters.  Hell, you could be getting votes from coaches who have NO idea what they're doing.

I'm relatively confident in my abilities, but added perspective is always valued. 

And I know for certain I am getting voted from coaches who have NO idea what they're doing, but the poll allows me to see who voted for what, so I can discount those pretty easily. 

Didn't know it would show who voted how, that certainly helps!

im going to post this at the risk of being totally redundant (from the last one).

by raw talent, these guys are not bad by any means. they are not what i consider great pickups talent-wise for your prestige (although i am in total agreement that your locale makes things difficult - i think the extra money evens things out with more experience, but for someone newer to the game, its definitely harder). but they are definitely talented enough for a solid coach to make some post seasons and get prestige up a grade or more, which is really the primary metric for success with low prestige (IMO).

my issue is on the team planning side of things (like some of the other posters). the reality is you have zero bigs now in 2 consecutive classes - thats a major issue. to compensate for having less talent that some others, you really need to be killing it from a team planning standpoint. now, in 2 seasons, you'll have 6 upperclassmen (or so, i guess 5 because of the ineligible) - of those, only 3 can start! thats really a huge it. its not the talent of the players that needs to go up - but the coordination is critical, and i think that you would be a lot better off with some better team planning.

one thing new d2 coaches often struggle with is utilizing that extra cash. in d3, you dont have much, often cant scout all that much, evals at range must be strictly limited, that kind of stuff. well, you have about double the money now, between the GLV cash and the d2/d3 scholarship money difference. a huge part of the d3 to d2 transition is learning to look under more rocks. and, you cant be afraid of a walkon here or there. you basically just have to keep looking until you find a guy who is suitable for the role you need him to play. you needed a big, preferably a guy with strong rebounding - between internationals, jucos (can redshirt a juco 2 to get a soph, or a juco 3 would give you a soph or a fr, if you redshirt), dropdowns, pulldowns, and plain old d2 freshman - theres got to be someone, somewhere! you can easily spend over 5K scouting in d2 without it being a waste of money. i thought the local bigs were kind of scarce, so i can see how you could struggle to find someone - but did you scout states far away too?

all in all, not bad, especially within the context of you being new to d2. i would work on trying to go into recruiting with a clear plan for the type of players you need, and sticking to it. the reality is the talent level of the teams between say 30th and 100th in the country, its often not that different. its the construction of the team, and how well the coach plays them, that makes such a difference. you have access to more players now that you did in d3 - so you should be MORE selective about the roles you need to fill, not just taking what is available, than you did in d3.

Like Murdoch as a scorer (although if that BH was high he'd be MUCH better), other 2 are fringy bench guys. You need more ath. And what billyg said. 

If Kim is green in DEF, BH, and P, he will be better than a player I currently have starting for a GLV (Allen) team that's ranked #20 (RPI #5) after non-conference. I took him as a safety net guy in my first ever D2 season after I lost a couple of battles, but he's been a fine player for me as a junior this year. Won't get too much offense out of him, but he can defend competently and distribute well. And if that's the case, he and Murdoch won't be redundant, since Kim could grow into a PG role, whereas Murdoch is clearly a SG (and a pretty good-lloking one). 

Pate could be anywhere from decent to a flat-out stud, depending on how many of those blues are green. Speed is the important one. If he stops at 61, he's a step slow at SG and too poor a rebounder for SF. 

Keep in mind this is from someone who is only in his third D3 season and is fairly inexpert at this. I'm going to take billyg's scouting advice to heart (btw, are you saying FSSing more states, or actually sending more scouting visits to look for high-highs?)

both, really.