So, I tried my best, got lucky and it was okay - but remains frustrating

Maryland in Naismith.

We had two graduating seniors - SF and C - and 5 guys on the big board as possible EEs

10 - SO - PF - likely going
55 - JR - C - on the fence
59 - SO - G - likely staying
76 - SO - G - likely staying
85 - JR - G - on the fence

with just two openings, I had limited resources in the first phase.

Filled one slot rather cheap with a good juco G. That helped my budget and gave me some comfort against the risk of the three possible G EE's

For second slot I wanted a strong player - preferably a big. But, the best guy I could get was an outstanding local SF who rebounds well enough to play at the 4. I was fortunate to be able to sign him.

At the same time, I tried to open up some late signers for phase two. But, hard to know what positions - leaned toward bigs, but also some others.

We lost in the Elite Eight in the tunament and then lost 3 EEs - the top three on the above list, despite one of those being a "likely staying".

I was positioned to try to recruit a few guys - playable guys, not elites, but was way behind. Could not get traction for most of them. They signed with other teams before I could invest enough to have a chance.

Ended up signing a good big man who is ineligible. IF he enrolls, he'll help next year. Also signed a marginally useful SF - a bench player.

I think I played it pretty well - although phase two of rectruiting sure was frustrating. Spent lots of time looking for DI playable guys. We'll be able to play next season - when we'll again face EE challenges as the transition continues.

My opinion - I think the balance isnt right on replacing EEs. It should be rather easy to replace an EE with a serviceable DI player. It isnt. I am fine with it being darn hard if not impossible to replace a departing EE with a new likely EE. These views reflect both realism and game play concerns.

thats my experience and opinion. for whatever it may be worth,

I agree you played it pretty well, but one question. When you say you didn't have time to get traction on guys in the second period, does that mean you didn't have actions unlocked prior to the second period? Or does that mean you didn't want to go all-in on anyone out of the gate, and tried to just do a few actions at a time to test where he was at with the other guys?

the guys who were unlocked, had dominant positions by strong opponents

the guys who were partly unlocked, became dominant by others before I could make progress.

two openings in first cycle just didnt provide enough AP to unlock multiple guys. Might have been enough if I had aimed even lower on those guys - from useful guys toward guys you regret having on the roster

It's a learning process for sure, learning just what caliber of player would actually be reachable in the second session, and getting a couple of them lined up in the first session to cover the possibilities. Or, flying without a net into the second session. Some coaches may choose that. Interesting choices, either way. Not as easy to replace EE's as it used to be, that's for sure.

Based on my experience, in the transition situation of 2 slots and then 2-4 EE's at various positions, I doubt that the game currently makes it possible to land useful - not elite - DI players to replace those EEs. May well be doable with fewer - and more certain - EEs.

I guess it's the "dominant position" that I would approach a little differently, personally. As an A+ school, I suspect you can get yourself into contention with any late preference signee you want. You may not be able to knock the other guy down, but if you decide to go all in with resources (visits), you'll get in signing range. If the guy wants PT, you can offer minutes (and a start) without offering a scholarship. I would guess there is literally no recruit out of reach of signing range for you, if you prioritize him high enough.

It's also worth noting here, you signed an *excellent* 3.0 class. A top 5 player, an excellent juco pg, a very good big (if he comes to campus, of course) and a sf that I would guess lots of D1 teams would have considering offering a start to, if they didn't worry about having to fight you for him.

If they just did two things it would make it much better.

1. Have the first 4 turns be protected (no players can sign).

2. Extend recruiting a few turns as well.

need to consider 2nd phase tactics - and the best way to set up possibilities in 1st phase. the arithmetic is hard with AP with just two 1st phase slots

I have signed EE caliber players to replace EEs. At GA Tech, I had no openings, but expected at last one EE, so I put all 20 AP on one guy and left it there for the entire first recruiting period - The #6 SG out of Florida, who was ineligible and a late signer. I was able to win that battle, and sign him. I also had the same thing happen at Oklahoma and was able to sign a 4 star #8 ranked PF. It may be easier with 0 openings though because you don't have to worry about recruiting a current person.

Since I have been tending to have at least 1-2 EEs every time, I try to build up a lot of AP on one extra guy that is a late signer, and that seems to be working pretty well.

In the case of having w or more EEs though, it would be really hard to replace all of them with EE caliber players. But if you can fill the other spots with players like that, and then take a walk-on or two, you are not too bad off.

"1. Have the first 4 turns be protected (no players can sign)."

There has been quite a bit of discussion on why that isn't a good idea.

Funny, I recall the opposite--quite a bit of discussion in favor of at least one or two signings-free cycles.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 11/20/2016 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Funny, I recall the opposite--quite a bit of discussion in favor of at least one or two signings-free cycles.

Indeed. I think most people are in favor of a couple signing free cycles. It's a REALLY good idea.

Posted by Benis on 11/20/2016 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bathtubhippo on 11/20/2016 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Funny, I recall the opposite--quite a bit of discussion in favor of at least one or two signings-free cycles.

Indeed. I think most people are in favor of a couple signing free cycles. It's a REALLY good idea.

I agree, one or two no-signing cycles for late preference recruits (though I would let others sign as normal during those cycles).

I don't like extending the second period, though. It's plenty long. I don't hear many complaints about not having enough overall cycles to sign guys, mostly it's that people can't find enough guys they want to recruit when their top targets go elsewhere; though I think that will get better for people as they get more efficient in scouting.

Posted by pkoopman on 11/20/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 11/20/2016 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bathtubhippo on 11/20/2016 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Funny, I recall the opposite--quite a bit of discussion in favor of at least one or two signings-free cycles.

Indeed. I think most people are in favor of a couple signing free cycles. It's a REALLY good idea.

I agree, one or two no-signing cycles for late preference recruits (though I would let others sign as normal during those cycles).

I don't like extending the second period, though. It's plenty long. I don't hear many complaints about not having enough overall cycles to sign guys, mostly it's that people can't find enough guys they want to recruit when their top targets go elsewhere; though I think that will get better for people as they get more efficient in scouting.

I think it should be one or two signing free cycles for ALL recruits regardless of tendency.

Posted by Benis on 11/20/2016 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bathtubhippo on 11/20/2016 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Funny, I recall the opposite--quite a bit of discussion in favor of at least one or two signings-free cycles.

Indeed. I think most people are in favor of a couple signing free cycles. It's a REALLY good idea.

Oh, I agree that there is at least a vocal few that want it. I was thinking of rational analysis from a game point of view, which indicates that it isn't good for the game overall. It benefits a few elite teams that weren't prepared in session one for EE's, and a few coaches who change schools, and a few coaches who totally screwed up their session one recruiting ... at the expense of everyone else. Bad, bad odds.