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,