Any sort of feedback at all is welcome. I'll refrain from giving my own impressions until I have a chance to hear from those with more experience above D3. My experience to date has been only D3.

Blue is High (didn't find if it was high-high or not, so a crapshoot - assume only 21 growth).

Red is low.

Black is average.

Italics Green is high-high.

Wass is ineligible, so may not even show up.

Name	Pos.	GPA	FG%	FT%	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	TOT
Edward Adams	C	3.13	46.2	58.2	62	12	61	47	60	18	25	24	30	45	55	11	450
Percy Fleishman	PG	3.54	49.2	65.0	35	56	1	29	1	1	47	51	64	46	78	20	429
Chris Reaves	PG	3.00	51.0	66.3	52	66	1	50	1	12	49	50	22	54	53	66	476
Jerry Wass	PG	2.43	70.0	70.7	23	53	1	23	1	29	37	53	33	76	65	51	445

Tremendous class imo. Only player I don't like is Wass. 

Adams and Fleishman are very good. 
Reaves is a step behind Fleishman.
Wass is average to below average.

what O/D do you run? It may affect my opinion on Wass especially. 

If those blues are low high Adams will be a good to slightly above average D 2 big. If a couple are high highs (esp ath and def) he'll be borderline elite. (The low LP keeps him from being special - although if his ath gets into the 90s he could avg 6-7 ppg on put backs and athletic plays around the rim)

Similar with Fleishman. If those HHs crap out at 30 gain he'll be good. If they are the 50-60 pt variety he could be a 80/80/80/90+ guy with excellent bh and pas - a stud.

Reaves low ath makes him either a career backup or, if you need/want to, he can be the distributing PG if that PAS turns out to be HH. Ok player. 

Wass has 1 knock for being ineligible, another for the maximum of 41 or 42 defense. If his other highs are the HH variety he'll be a good scorer off the bench. Wakest of the 4 signings. 

Without knowing HH vs LH or even how high high Fleishman's are, I'll give the overall class a grade of B+. If everything plays out in your favor, that becomes an easy A. 

ETA: After writing that I checked the team out - this is for GLV Tark... maybe slightly lower opinion based on knowing who they'll have to face night in and night out, but still nothing to be ashamed of. D2 recruiting isn't really that different from the high D 3 recruiting you are used to...

dacj501 - that last part is really what threw me, and why I was disappointed overall in the class.

If this was at Hamline, I wouldn't have been disappointed in this class. Not thrilled, but also not disappointed. I expected the quality of the recruits I landed to go up in D2, especially when I looked around the GLV.

I realize it is going to be baby steps to build the program I want, but this class just seemed to be an incredibly small baby step, if it was one forward at all.

Right now the team runs motion/press. I'm unlikely to keep that. I'm thinking of giving triangle and press-zone a try, though that is far from settled.

I like Adams a lot.   I think he is very strong DII post defender.   He won't score, but IMO, those guys are easier to land.

Fleischman and Reiss will both be good defenders and Fleschman will be a scoring maching..

Reiss is only a defensive roler player IMO.

Wass is a waste in a big boy conference.

I disagree about Wass.  Sure, he could end up being a non-factor.  But if either ath or spd is high/high and per gets to the 80+, he could come in as a third option and hit some 3s as a junior and senior.

No, I wouldn't recruit him, but he may not be a "waste," either.

Yeah, I guess you're right.  He could be a 3 point shooter at 80 SPD-80 PER-65 BH.    He's always gonne be a defensively liability at 50-80-40, but if he is the coming off the bench, he'll get you some points.   The other down side is he'll develop slowly (although the 76 WE might offset this) because he won't get many minutes  the first few years.  He is unplayable where he is now (and probably will be as a soph as well).

i agree about wass, i probably wouldnt sign him. the 6 months ago coach_billyg might have signed him, until it was repeatedly hammered into his head (with a hammer and anvil and everything) how absolutely critical ath/def is in the new HD. 

i REALLY like adams though. im guessing, given the long distance nature, those highs are all unknown - based on the info we have, hes a great pickup. i really dont care about the lack of lp, he will score enough anyway, and can be an elite defender/rebounder type, my favorite type of big man. of course, if you get screwed at its all 20 highs, like someone pointed out, hes not as great, but hes at least good, and thats pretty damn good for a worst case scenario.

fleishman, given his high/highs, really could have some nice maximums, and could really be a nice player because hes still a solid defender, could be a great scorer, and still, can play pg. thats a nice and not too common combo. however, id try to get him time sooner than later, 48 work ethic is solid but he has so much potential, it would really help you to get that up as soon as you can. also, i would NOT recommend triangle zone/press, triangle/zone fine - but the half court press is effectively a waste, and the amount of potential you get in d2 recruiting combined with the slow rate of improvement in HD today, i think you really suffer if you give up all those minutes for a very unimpressive half court press.

reaves, im not sure about. for a fb team like mine will be, he actually looks pretty good, i think. but for a triangle zone, i dont see him fitting. his passing is too low to ever play at the 1 for sure, and still hes a liability at the 2. defensively, he is all in all pretty good, which is important, but i think you need to have 2 clear strengths to make a viable player, and i don't see a second. offensively, he will be able to put up decent ppg, but he cant really shoot 3s, and so i dont really consider that a clear strength. but at the same time, hes not a bad player, all around hes fairly good, and its not like hes going to really hold your team back. but with the biggest part of success being, building a team of players who really complement each other and give you clear strengths to take advantage of, while keeping your weaknesses at a manageable, non-critical level - im just not really a fan - because hes not the "right" guy for ANY role, really. i more see him taking up time at the 3 because you don't really have anyone else, and he will certainly do alright there for you. if you pull some good potential in defense especially, and to a lesser extent, spd, he could be a really good defender, which could redeem him, but worst case, hes just quality filler.

Wass decided to show up. With guys who begin as ineligible, is it still true that they do not practice? So, I should dump all the minutes into SH?

wass was the ineligible? that is surprising, i forgot to check which guy it was after your comments about signing an ineligible in conference. im curious why you signed him - in d2, you definitely should be spending money, rollover is a distant member of the list of concerns in d2 recruiting. so i would think you would have had to sign him on his own merits - but i think hes your worst player, and generally speaking ineligibles have to be GREAT to sign them, your ineligible should have been your best or 2nd best man - otherwise, why sign them? you can just take a walkon and try to find someone better next year - so they should AT LEAST be average - and when you factor in the chance of losing them, not being able to fill your spots, wasting the money you spent on them - and in the best case, having an empty spot there for a whole year - i think they have to be significantly above average for the players you bring in, to sign one.

Posted by coach_billyg on 11/8/2012 3:02:00 AM (view original):
wass was the ineligible? that is surprising, i forgot to check which guy it was after your comments about signing an ineligible in conference. im curious why you signed him - in d2, you definitely should be spending money, rollover is a distant member of the list of concerns in d2 recruiting. so i would think you would have had to sign him on his own merits - but i think hes your worst player, and generally speaking ineligibles have to be GREAT to sign them, your ineligible should have been your best or 2nd best man - otherwise, why sign them? you can just take a walkon and try to find someone better next year - so they should AT LEAST be average - and when you factor in the chance of losing them, not being able to fill your spots, wasting the money you spent on them - and in the best case, having an empty spot there for a whole year - i think they have to be significantly above average for the players you bring in, to sign one.

I mostly agree with tat, but with that caveat that if you find one with nice potentials and take a flier for $110 to see if he shows that's usually an ok plan - I don't think Wass fits that description though, and in this case (especially in that conference) I'd have not signed him. I was hoping for your sake he wouldn't show actually...

Posted by zbrent716 on 11/8/2012 2:13:00 AM (view original):
Wass decided to show up. With guys who begin as ineligible, is it still true that they do not practice? So, I should dump all the minutes into SH?

Yes
Yes

Posted by dacj501 on 11/8/2012 6:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 11/8/2012 2:13:00 AM (view original):
Wass decided to show up. With guys who begin as ineligible, is it still true that they do not practice? So, I should dump all the minutes into SH?

Yes
Yes

Follow-up question...

Do guys actually fail? If, for example, I gave Wass no study hall at all, is there a chance he fails out of school and frees up the scholarship next year? If so, are there negative reputation ramifications? Or any other?

guys fail but they dont leave over it, they just cant play (but they still take up a spot). any player who ends the year ineligible will have lower offseason improvements because of it, but he will make grades so he can start playing the next term.

you can pull his scholarship for a minor rep hit (A+ to A-) but you risk another player leaving, possibly from the same class? anyway, thats the only way to get a guy off your team with any reliability.