I don't have experience so I'm just speculating.

It doesn't seem like 1 should be a big problem. Maybe teams run uptempo press/fast break and require 12 deep. But, to me, 11 deep is probably plenty. So, if forced to sign one "unplayable" guy, it shouldn't be a big deal. 2 doesn't seem to be the end of the world either as you'll only be giving minutes to one "unplayable" guy and everyone else will be in the same boat in the same river. I believe the days of 3-6 EE will end soon enough. Teams just won't be able to recruit the "super class".

Now, as I understand it, you're not penalized for cutting a walk-on. So, and I'm trying to learn, if you have 1 expected EE, isn't the best strategy to go all in during RS1 and RS2 on one playable guy and hope to win a VH/H battle? That way, if you lose, you get your walk-on, let him sit the bench, rescind scholarship and repeat the process?

for what it is worth, here is a link to a thread I posted on my first cycle of EE experience under 3.0

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=497816

a useful discussion until it got turned into an argument

I think I did some good things in that cycle and had some luck. Could well have turned out very badly - with slightly different results my team goes from consistent final fours to a disaster area

Ok, I checked a recent complainer's roster(name withheld in hopes of preventing an unnecessary argument). He does run a press/fast break. He has 1 player averaging just over 9 minutes and another just over 7. He utilizes the full 12. So, if he missed in RS2 and had to accept a walk-on, he'd have to replace less than 8 minutes with 11 players. Maybe that's a huge obstacle but it doesn't seem to be from where I sit. If he missed on 2, he'd have to replace 16 minutes. That's tougher as he has a group of 5 averaging 14-16 minutes. But it still only forces an extra 1:45 on the other 10. So I'm not sure getting jacked on 2 EE prevents one from running preferred O/D. Which now makes me wonder if the big "problem" is being unable to replace a current EE with a future EE. And, as stated, if that's the case, I don't think that's what WifS wants. So, because I think whatever potential change is made will not placate the masses, I'd be surprised if a change is made.

IOW, expectations probably need to change.

My biggest worry with EEs in 3.0 is inability to cover a position. You can find yourself with way too little in the way of rebounding or ballhandling if unpredictable EEs hit you and you fail to cover. Overall roster size matters, but if you are playing DI and end up with, say, just two guys over 50 in REB, you are in deep trouble. I dont think it is good for game play to put customers in a situation where they have no path to cope with events that may doom them for a season or two.

An implication of the example Mike cites may be that fastbreak/press is not longer consistent with an EE oriented approach to recruiting. It may be that if you want to play 40 minutes of hell, peddle to the metal, we control the pace, then you need to aim for guys who are less likely to EE. Guys like the guys who play in real life for West Virginia or played for Arkansas in the day....

One final point, those last couple of spots on the team are important not just for the current season but for the future. Walkons dont become SO and JR with IQs to match. The answer here may be that roster development tactics have to change.

"Which now makes me wonder if the big "problem" is being unable to replace a current EE with a future EE. ... IOW, expectations probably need to change."

Precisely. It's entirely possible to sign a guy in the second recruiting period even if you didn't put any effort into him in the first recruiting period. Coaches do it all the time when they change jobs, for example. But the days when EE's were low hanging fruit for the top schools are over, and that is as it should be. Koopman points out that EE's are valuable commodities, and valuable commodities shouldn't come without some risk and big effort.

FWIW, the low minute guys I checked were JR/SR players. No idea if that's consistent with roster construction on most teams with EE problems but those two were more filler than help.

And you are correct. While 40 minutes of hell was 20-25 years ago, I don't think Richardson was getting the 5 star players who went on to be NBA legends. He really needed players who'd buy into that system and, IMO, those guys are more grinder than star.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/14/2016 11:30:00 AM (view original):
"Which now makes me wonder if the big "problem" is being unable to replace a current EE with a future EE. ... IOW, expectations probably need to change."

Precisely. It's entirely possible to sign a guy in the second recruiting period even if you didn't put any effort into him in the first recruiting period. Coaches do it all the time when they change jobs, for example. But the days when EE's were low hanging fruit for the top schools are over, and that is as it should be. Koopman points out that EE's are valuable commodities, and valuable commodities shouldn't come without some risk and big effort.

Well, the "expectations" is was speaking of are the potential "fixes". Early declaration isn't going to happen. That opens the door to replacing EE with more EE. I don't think that's what WifS has in mind. They "might" put a hold on signings in the first cycle or two of RS2 but, IMO, that is a bad idea. I hate the idea of allowing a user to dump resources into a player all thru the first session only to have him snatched away in the 2nd session by a higher prestige team. Again, it's users not schools. All you doing is swapping one users' issues to another user.

As someone who will have had around 12 days of inactivity once RS2 starts, I'd like to find a way to give users something to do if they suck. I'd probably say "Don't suck" but it's just a fact that some will. 12 days is a long time to have nothing to do . I just don't know how to start RS2 earlier. But that would probably help the EE users and the sucky users.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/14/2016 11:30:00 AM (view original):
"Which now makes me wonder if the big "problem" is being unable to replace a current EE with a future EE. ... IOW, expectations probably need to change."

Precisely. It's entirely possible to sign a guy in the second recruiting period even if you didn't put any effort into him in the first recruiting period. Coaches do it all the time when they change jobs, for example. But the days when EE's were low hanging fruit for the top schools are over, and that is as it should be. Koopman points out that EE's are valuable commodities, and valuable commodities shouldn't come without some risk and big effort.

I agree that expectations need to be adjusted and I also agree with your previous sentiment that you have to be prepared (whenever reasonably possible...sometimes it's just not possible to prepare for every contingency).

but in my experience, your second point is just flat out wrong. it is almost impossible to sign D1-caliber players in the second recruiting period if you hadn't already unlocked them in the first. practically every D1-caliber player signs in the first two cycles. it takes you one cycle to unlock the scholarship and a second to unlock the actions, so you can't spend money until the third cycle. yes, a handful of players don't, and you can get lucky, but it's just a guessing game. literally every time i have fallen into this trap, I'm watching players sign the same cycle i have unlocked actions.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 12/14/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/14/2016 11:30:00 AM (view original):
"Which now makes me wonder if the big "problem" is being unable to replace a current EE with a future EE. ... IOW, expectations probably need to change."

Precisely. It's entirely possible to sign a guy in the second recruiting period even if you didn't put any effort into him in the first recruiting period. Coaches do it all the time when they change jobs, for example. But the days when EE's were low hanging fruit for the top schools are over, and that is as it should be. Koopman points out that EE's are valuable commodities, and valuable commodities shouldn't come without some risk and big effort.

I agree that expectations need to be adjusted and I also agree with your previous sentiment that you have to be prepared (whenever reasonably possible...sometimes it's just not possible to prepare for every contingency).

but in my experience, your second point is just flat out wrong. it is almost impossible to sign D1-caliber players in the second recruiting period if you hadn't already unlocked them in the first. practically every D1-caliber player signs in the first two cycles. it takes you one cycle to unlock the scholarship and a second to unlock the actions, so you can't spend money until the third cycle. yes, a handful of players don't, and you can get lucky, but it's just a guessing game. literally every time i have fallen into this trap, I'm watching players sign the same cycle i have unlocked actions.

If Duke could get EE quality players with little effort like in 2.0 then I'd say "yeah maybe they should be harder to replace".

But that's not how 3.0 is. Duke no longer has a insurmountable advantage over my New Mexico State team. I can now compete with Duke for 4 and 5 star guys with a D prestige school. This makes them pretty difficult to get in the first place. They are not gifted to anyone anymore (if you want to call it that).

Posted by Benis on 12/14/2016 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bathtubhippo on 12/14/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/14/2016 11:30:00 AM (view original):
"Which now makes me wonder if the big "problem" is being unable to replace a current EE with a future EE. ... IOW, expectations probably need to change."

Precisely. It's entirely possible to sign a guy in the second recruiting period even if you didn't put any effort into him in the first recruiting period. Coaches do it all the time when they change jobs, for example. But the days when EE's were low hanging fruit for the top schools are over, and that is as it should be. Koopman points out that EE's are valuable commodities, and valuable commodities shouldn't come without some risk and big effort.

I agree that expectations need to be adjusted and I also agree with your previous sentiment that you have to be prepared (whenever reasonably possible...sometimes it's just not possible to prepare for every contingency).

but in my experience, your second point is just flat out wrong. it is almost impossible to sign D1-caliber players in the second recruiting period if you hadn't already unlocked them in the first. practically every D1-caliber player signs in the first two cycles. it takes you one cycle to unlock the scholarship and a second to unlock the actions, so you can't spend money until the third cycle. yes, a handful of players don't, and you can get lucky, but it's just a guessing game. literally every time i have fallen into this trap, I'm watching players sign the same cycle i have unlocked actions.

If Duke could get EE quality players with little effort like in 2.0 then I'd say "yeah maybe they should be harder to replace".

But that's not how 3.0 is. Duke no longer has a insurmountable advantage over my New Mexico State team. I can now compete with Duke for 4 and 5 star guys with a D prestige school. This makes them pretty difficult to get in the first place. They are not gifted to anyone anymore (if you want to call it that).

False. D can't compete with A unless preferences are totally in their side and D puts 80 ap all the way.

Bath mentioned something about second session being really tough and is right... Even D2 and D3 teams beat out high D1 teams. Second session is a continuation of the battles in the first session or a fill-in sessions, which happens to be pointless for D1 since players left are not worth the scholly.

Zorzii is right on the first part, a D will get knocked out of signing range by an A who goes all in with effort. Where a D can compete with an A is with a B-level recruit, whom the A does not prioritize as high (for example, when the D promises a start, and the A won't). If effort is equal, A blows D out of the water. If D is competing, effort isn't equal, and that's a function of priority.

Yeah PK and Zorzii, totally agree. And that's kind of what I meant. Duke WILL beat NMSU with everything being equal. However, if NMSU goes all in and Duke only puts in a little bit of effort (for whatever reason), NSMU CAN win. That's my point. It's a possibility that I can beat Duke because I know he can't go all in on every recruit and may be prioritizing other players or battling other teams.

Or maybe NMSU has an advantage with more openings (6 vs 2) and has a couple preference advantages. Now it's even harder for Duke and they will need to put forth quite a bit of effort to knock me off.

That's my entire point. Yes, if Duke wants to win, they'll win. But they won't beat me while also battling UNC for another guy and battling MSU for another guy. Or at least, he won't win all 3, I should say.

Nor should they. How in the hell do you sell a game where "Duke always wins"?

Forgot to mention - Although not relevant to the EE topic, this same prestige advantage is going to exist for D2 and D3 too. So it's not just Duke that will beat NMSU every time when all things being equal. But A+ Goucher will beat C- Stevenson every time with all other things being equal.