Walk Ons vs Lower Recruits

[Timmuh]

I specifically targeted a lower level recruit who wanted limited playing time to fill my roster.

He came in at 1* with no potential. Meanwhile I had two walk ons that are showing 2 1/2 stars.

I realize there are other factors...maybe they aren’t actually that good and my staff is wrong.

Just wondering if anyone else has had similar results recruiting

[Wildcat18]

Thing about walk-ons is they are often really bad at something that can often make them unplayable. Like a PG that is a good facilitator but can't defend and won't shoot even when he's wide open, or a PF that can't score in the paint. They can be useful pieces in the right situation, but shouldn't necessarily be relied on.

Also, define no potential. Oftentimes you can have a lower ranked recruit who's a 1-star who can have a major impact. For example, in my current save I got a 1-star PG (both in terms of recruit ranking and his potential) who started right away at SG for me because he came in as a 6 overall/10 potential defender and gets a ton of steals. AI won't play him because he's a 1 potential at shot blocking and rebuilding, and his passing and ball handling isn't good enough to play PG for more than short stretches, but he shoots 35% from three and is a great tertiary option on offense and is the lynchpin of the D.

[Timmuh]

Really good reply thanks.

The other point is that they don’t know the strategies at all. My 1* is showing 1 star max potential but as a junior/senior should know the offenses and may have some value.

[TripLykely]

Did you get any camp data on the 1*? I had a season where I had to walk-on PG and a true freshman who was top 25 at regional camp but showed as a 1/2* potential. Started him and he averaged 10pts and 6ast with a 45pt outing in the conference championship. Next season my scouts had him at 3 1/2* w/4* potential.

IMO, it only makes sense to offer scholarships to players you have camp data on - your threshold for acceptance (decent, top25, etc) depends on recruiting ability and the strength of your program.

I’d also agree mostly about walk-ons, although you can get some solid role players. It seems on occasion they have player traits that really help. FWIW I’ve generally had most success with walk-on PG playing a handful of minutes as a distributor. In my current run of 11 seasons I’ve had 2 walk-on PG with the ball magician trait who averaged nearly an assist per minute in spot duty.

[Wildcat18]

Did you get any camp data on the 1*? I had a season where I had to walk-on PG and a true freshman who was top 25 at regional camp but showed as a 1/2* potential. Started him and he averaged 10pts and 6ast with a 45pt outing in the conference championship. Next season my scouts had him at 3 1/2* w/4* potential.

IMO, it only makes sense to offer scholarships to players you have camp data on - your threshold for acceptance (decent, top25, etc) depends on recruiting ability and the strength of your program.

I’d also agree mostly about walk-ons, although you can get some solid role players. It seems on occasion they have player traits that really help. FWIW I’ve generally had most success with walk-on PG playing a handful of minutes as a distributor. In my current run of 11 seasons I’ve had 2 walk-on PG with the ball magician trait who averaged nearly an assist per minute in spot duty.

Camp data is great to have, but it’s going to be rare to have a low-ranked recruit at the camp. If you’re a school that’s recruiting those 1-star recruits, however, you shouldn’t be counting on them to play serious minutes right away like you could a 3/4/5 ⭐️ recruit, so you can usually afford to take risks with your 11/12/13 scholarships. Even the largest rotation isn’t more than 10 or 11 deep, so you can always keep those guys on the back of the bench if they bust.

[Timmuh]

I didn’t explain it real well.

He was a 3* recruit who had a top 25 showing in my local camp.

Once on my roster is showing as a 1* with the same potential

[TripLykely]

I didn’t explain it real well.

He was a 3* recruit who had a top 25 showing in my local camp.

Once on my roster is showing as a 1* with the same potential

Is your scouting any good? If not then I’d say you’re good with that player, I’ve had plenty like that. Sometimes a player takes a bit to reach potential and sometimes scouts are just wrong. If he was top25 then he will be good (and might be now even showing a 1*)

[Timmuh]

Seems you are exactly right.

Just wrapped up my season...checking now he is a 1 1/2* with 4* potential.

Maybe he jumped...but I did also have bad scouting across all my coaches

Thanks for all the feedback

[jfsolo23]

Even though they don't know the sets which does limit their effectiveness, IMO walk-ons should rarely be scouted or actually perform at a level above a 1 1/2 star. It's been improved from how it use to be, but seeing a 4 star walk-on starting and making second team AA at Gonzaga is a bit much.

Also a feel like lower rated scouts are often way too incompetent in their evaluations. If a player has played 3 years at an all conference level, IMO that performance level in games should somehow outweigh what seems to be "dice roll" of a coaches low rating making him incorrectly lower his evaluation of a player to much lower than it really is despite what everyone in all of college basketball has seen from the player for multiple seasons.

[locus]

High quality walkons do happen in real life, whether it's a late bloomer, a player who could have gotten a scholarship from a lesser D1 program but had his heart set on your school, or two-sport athletes whose scholarship counts against the football program rather than the basketball program. They should be rare but it feels like they are rare in the game, at least in terms of the ones that actually perform. A large fraction of the highly rated walk ons are fool's gold as mentioned above, with several good skills but a dealbreaker deficiency in some area. To some extent this is an issue of the rating system not fully taking that into account.