I've recruited a D3 freshman with 1 WE, and it worked out fine.  Guy came in with high 70s perimeter, and I needed a shooter off the bench.  He had adequate defense, and even wound up starting a number of games his senior year once his IQs rose to around the A-/A level.  You just have to know going in that the lower the WE, the more you have to be comfortable looking at the player as he is now and essentially ignoring the potential.  But I certainly think all the coaches who say, "I won't recruit any freshman with a WE less than x" are just shooting themselves in the foot.  There aren't a lot of guys out there you want to play at D2/D3 with their initial ratings, but keep in mind that WE does carry some weight in the calculation of where players think they belong, so a D3 recruit with very low WE is likely to be at least a slightly better starting player, on average, than a D3 recruit with very high WE.  I just don't see why anyone would ever basically rule out 15-20% of all recruits without honestly weighing them against their higher-WE competition.

Depending on your system, you play undergraduates anywhere from a decent amount to quite a bit on an average team.  Sure, the high WE player is going to be better their senior year, probably by the end of their junior year.  But that means that for the first 2+ seasons, and the first 2 postseasons, the low WE player is more valuable.  If your team is good right away, and the low-WE guy fills a need, he might well be the better choice.  If you're a cream-of-the-crop coach and you're going, say, E8 or better every season, maybe you never throw a roster spot to a low-WE guy.  But otherwise, if he helps you compete in your more competitive seasons, sometimes you have to go for it.  And let's be honest, there's so little competition for low-WE players they're cheap as dirt.  If it's a choice between a second walk-on and a low-WE shooter or rebounder, go for the player, even if you are a top-tier coach.

Check out my BWC team,  I have an 11 and a 1 WE......the 11 is going to be very good (he is a JR now with a 17 WE)......the 1 WE guy is going to be a career reserve.

Scaturo You have more willpower than I do. I can't see myself grabbing a guy with 1 WE... I did with a 7 WE and he still stinks.

I've taken a couple very low WE guys in Phelan.  I had a thread dedicated to tracking a guy with a 7 WE.  He had massive potential and I gave him a ton of minutes, but he never really made an impact.  I've just signed another, John Brown.  This one with a 1 WE, but he starts with such good ratings, and he has to start as a freshman, that I think he might develop at some point.  More likely, he'll start for his first two seasons and be a backup as an upperclassman.

I think you can get good improvement out of guys with WE in the mid-to-high teens.  If you can give them minutes or starts as a freshman, but get them to redshirt as a sophomore, that is ideal.  Below that and the rate of WE growth is so slow that they just never can improve enough in ratings or IQ to be very good as Seniors.

11, but I think he's a pretty good player. Redshirted his first season then started and has played decent minutes throughout. His work ethic has gone up 16 so far maybe could go up one more. I loved his defense and athleticism right away and he had high high potential for speed, defense, and perimeter. He's only improved 100 points since coming in but since they've mostly come in those three categories he's actually got solid cores. He was really good as a Junior, kinda regressed against a tougher schedule his senior year but still solid. If you can really focus their practice plan on a couple categories (guards especially if you can 0 out rebounding and low post) low work ethic players are a good option in my mind.

http://whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=2756083

I think it comes down to how desperate you are. With an A prestige, and no recruiting battles to eat up your budget, you can afford to look for the 30+ guys. That is always my starting point. But you seldom get a player that has everything you are looking for, so it is a matter of where you are willing to sacrifice. At times that sacrifice may need to be WE. So occasionally, I am willing to go as low as 20. And with a new team and a C prestige or lower, I have gone below 20 to get a player with the skills to help right away.

On a 1st cut, I typically avoid WE below 30 and really, below 35.
If I can't find the right guy, though, I'll go down to the teens.  My current bottom basement is 14.  I can envision scenarios where I'd take someone less, but that is a very rare scenario.  If they are 14-25, though, they better be smart.  If I can skimp on study hall, then that helps make up for some of the lower WE.  
The other thing I like to do with low WE guys is play them a lot their freshman year.  Even if it means my team will take some lumps, I'll play them alot if I can still get a decent seed.  Then, their sophomore year, I'll redshirt them.  This way, they get a redshirt year with a higher w/e and I've captured a few extra points.  Not everyone will take a redshirt sophomore year, but on most of my teams, I generally have a deep team so even sophomores see the wisdom of redshirting

Posted by colonels19 on 12/27/2014 9:44:00 AM (view original):
I too don't like to go under 30...TrentonJoe will say otherwise, but I don't think his low WE guys ever really turn out that great.  They never max out and their progress is slow.

The biggest problem i have noticed is the offseason.......it isn't unusual for guys with WE in th 70+ range to gain 8-15 points while guys under 20 are almost certain to lose 1-7 points.....it can be frustrating when you lose 3 points in a core skill.....with that being said I think the low WE guys do serve a purpose.....they are mostly role players but can usually be signed late and cheap...at every level but high D1 they have value......poke through my teams you'll find all sorts of players with WE's that started less than 20.....You can decide yourself how good they are.

I like 24 as a breaking point. It's high enough that I don't have to worry about the player going backwards during the offseason. You can find some gems in that range, because so many coaches restrict their searches by WE, and 30 is a very popular number for that restriction.

He may not max if he's got a lot of blue, but so what? I care more about players who can contribute to a winning team than the psychological satisfaction of not leaving anything on the table. 

I usually set the minimum at 22 or 23

Posted by pkoopman on 1/3/2015 6:07:00 PM (view original):
I like 24 as a breaking point. It's high enough that I don't have to worry about the player going backwards during the offseason. You can find some gems in that range, because so many coaches restrict their searches by WE, and 30 is a very popular number for that restriction.

He may not max if he's got a lot of blue, but so what? I care more about players who can contribute to a winning team than the psychological satisfaction of not leaving anything on the table. 

Indeed

I have a senior with my Slippery Rock team who started at 29. He's been good all along.

I think if you are going to start them, then you can go as low as 25, but if they are going to ride the bench for two seasons or so, then I wont go lower than 40. When rebuilding and starting some frosh, I will grab many that have WE between 30-40

After reading all of the messages, I can now see me going below 25 for a right away starter.

Thanks for all of the insights everyone.