To be clear, in the most recent cycle in Naismith, I opened up a couple of guys in phase one - one very good player and one darn weak player who I wasnte even sure I wanted at all. When my EE left, I tried for the weak guy in phase two but could not make progress before he was gone.

At that point, I didnt find anyone who I thought could make my roster and took a walkon in the last roster spot. In 2.0 and prior, I almost always filled all 12 spots cause I usually would see how the cards were running in time to go for one of many possible backups. Seems not to work for me that way in 3.0.

That said, I was very happy with the guys I got in phase one in naismith and I expected that one EE so it was no shock, no surprise, no harm

But sadness

Posted by fd343ny on 1/9/2017 1:40:00 PM (view original):
To be clear, in the most recent cycle in Naismith, I opened up a couple of guys in phase one - one very good player and one darn weak player who I wasnte even sure I wanted at all. When my EE left, I tried for the weak guy in phase two but could not make progress before he was gone.

At that point, I didnt find anyone who I thought could make my roster and took a walkon in the last roster spot. In 2.0 and prior, I almost always filled all 12 spots cause I usually would see how the cards were running in time to go for one of many possible backups. Seems not to work for me that way in 3.0.

That said, I was very happy with the guys I got in phase one in naismith and I expected that one EE so it was no shock, no surprise, no harm

I am way late to this conversation, but I have ran on a sign to 10 rule for years. I would usually be able to get to 12 but it's difficult to get 12 players PT anyway so having a walkon or two isn't a bad thing, with how 3.0 works it's almost a must to have at least one or two openings unless you can really find a player worth signing.

If you're not running a 12 man rotation, with the bottom 3 getting 20ish total minutes, you don't need 12. Take the walk-on and get a player you like next season.

agree, Z - a walkon or two makes even more sense in 3.0, I think

Around College Park there remains sadness at the early departure of Timmy Schenk. He could have had such a great senior year.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/9/2017 1:51:00 PM (view original):
If you're not running a 12 man rotation, with the bottom 3 getting 20ish total minutes, you don't need 12. Take the walk-on and get a player you like next season.

Mike - historically, I have wanted to go 12 deep not to have 11 and 12 play more than a trivial amount - but rather so that they could improve skillz and learn IQ so that i could maintain a team with deep IQ. That has been my approach. Likely changing somewhat in new environment.

Of course, never good to give a schollie to a player who doesnt deserve it

Posted by fd343ny on 1/9/2017 1:51:00 PM (view original):
agree, Z - a walkon or two makes even more sense in 3.0, I think

Around College Park there remains sadness at the early departure of Timmy Schenk. He could have had such a great senior year.

You will make up for it.

Posted by fd343ny on 1/9/2017 1:51:00 PM (view original):
agree, Z - a walkon or two makes even more sense in 3.0, I think

Around College Park there remains sadness at the early departure of Timmy Schenk. He could have had such a great senior year.

The funny thing is I preach this but haven't followed it with my last two classes in D1... oops. I just happened to get guys that will play while my Simmy recruited guys phase out. There's an exception to every rule for sure but it does make recruiting less stressful when you know you're only trying to get 3 on 5s $$.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/9/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):
Arizona, motion/man. Essentially a 9 man rotation with 3 others getting minimal minutes.

Towles doesn't have the SPD to play.
Burbank is the worst with low ATH/SPD/DEF.
Haubrich is a FR who just doesn't have the BH/P/SPD of the other guards.

Truth is, it's a guy like Burbank that I think is "serviceable". He's out of place on your team but he's not terrible. He's not in the ballpark athletically of your other guys and well below average in D but he's B+ in IQ. He's also OK as a BH/P and has 5th best PER on your team.

on this, we 100% agree! i would happily take a couple "burbank-quality" players on every team to replace my EEs. as you suggested, he'll never be a starter, but he can eat minutes without killing you and by his jr/sr year, he will be a good outside shooter. if i could usually get a guy like this in the second session, I'd be happy. the problem is that he's the exception not the rule. usually the choice is take D2-rejects or walk-ons. if it's 1, it isn't a big deal, of course. more than this can be an issue, especially if some of your backup plans need redshirts or are ineligible....or if you've changed teams and you're recruiting 6 players in the second session....

i've said this from the start of HD3, but I still think the path of least resistance is trying a single signings-free cycle in session 2 where people can either open up 1 or 2 more players or gauge their competition before cycle 2 hits and signings start.

I believe one could achieve those goals either by having one signing free cycle at the start of phase 2 or by announcing EEs with one or two cycles left in phase one.

DII teams might be less hurt by the latter than by the phase two approach. I think.

either is a pretty unobtrusive attempt to solve this issue. i can see how a signings-free cycle might harm D2 teams, but at the same time, it's high risk high reward for them, isn't it? shouldn't they too occasionally lose their gamble, just as D1 teams that grasp at 5-stars are playing high risk high reward with EEs? at the same time, early declaration of EEs doesn't help coaches who change teams at all.

Surely you don't think that D2 always wins those situations, right?

Posted by fd343ny on 1/9/2017 5:08:00 PM (view original):
I believe one could achieve those goals either by having one signing free cycle at the start of phase 2 or by announcing EEs with one or two cycles left in phase one.

DII teams might be less hurt by the latter than by the phase two approach. I think.

I think they should add one day to the season and have day 1 be no signing. That gives morning start to mid afternoon for cycle 1 and 2 more cycles until signings start. I'd gladly be up for one non signing cycle too though.

Something just occurred to me. The drop downs/unsigned may have been ineligible. And I didn't have them scouted down to L4 or, in some cases, L3. I just used chapelline's guide to what each letter meant. So they may have also been "no improvement" types. But they would have easily been the best on my team. That's why I recall them as I should have been able to sign them.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/9/2017 5:49:00 PM (view original):
Surely you don't think that D2 always wins those situations, right?

not at all. but D2 wins all the battles in which a D1 (after a coaching change or surprise EE) couldn't open any recruiting actions, because they signed in the first cycle of session 2.