Posted by Benis on 9/21/2015 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 9/21/2015 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarvolon on 9/21/2015 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 9/21/2015 3:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tarvolon on 9/21/2015 2:46:00 PM (view original):
I don't agree that preferences to play should be like promises. I believe that they should be recruiting factors that give extra boost to schools that offer promises (and possibly schools that have light depth charts at the position--not sure how hard that'd be to code, but it'd be awesome to see recruits look at the current depth chart regarding their preferences), and this boost should be significant, but it should be possible to overcome without offering promises. Difficult, but possible.
Also, I do agree with the option of career-long promises, and I think penalties for broken promises could be ramped up (although penalties for not playing a guy because he was injured are stupid and should be toned down bigtime).
i think we were saying they should be based off promises. if you don't promise, and still sign, the preference doesn't mean jack. only the promise(s) made.
I was intending to respond to Benis, who I think was saying something different.
ohhh. gotcha. i didn't take that sentence so literally, i thought he was saying preferences should just run off promises. i totally agree - recruiting preferences should have no impact on in-season play or player management. there should be a bit of a wall between them. once you sign a guy, hes yours, and all you are stuck with is the promises you made.
No, I was saying what Tarvolon thought I was saying. That high level recruits inherently come with expectations. I think it's already a little like that when you have upperclassmen who are barely playing, they'll tell you they're mad and threaten to transfer.
I thought that was talked about before. How a high D1 team can get a 5 star and sit him on the bench for 2 seasons?
My logic was that when looking at where to sign, a recruit has a strong preference to play right away and to start. Even if it's not promised to him, does he suddenly no longer care about that strong preference right after he signs?
i agree with that sentiment - that its not normally ok to bench a 5 star sophmore year. i think its best to make the freshman promises, baseline expectations for the rest of his career. i guess alternatively, you could display the recruit's original preferences and star level, if those are the factors you are using to figure playing time and starts. but, generally, i think the playing time requirements should be transparent and easy to predict. for that reason, i definitely favor the promises carrying forward route, over having some more complex equation for what is ok for future years.
besides, if you look at kentucky, they have some NBA players not starting as sophmores. its possible. i suspect that was discussed in the recruiting process - earn it - or sit. it applies to everyone, regardless of star rating. but if you tell the guy otherwise... thats where the real problem should be! i understand that if you tell some kids, hey, you have to earn it, and they dont, and they don't start - they still might be whiny and quit - but i prefer not to have the emotions of hormonal teenagers simulated in this game :) besides, true 5 stars, they are playing meaningful roles (if not starting) on top teams in HD, almost universally. i don't think thats a problem as much as the situation where you promise a freshman, then bench him as a sophmore like, completely, to play a freshman you want to promise something, for the recruiting perks. i guess neither approach is perfect, but i think the promises carrying forward is more straight forward.
to answer you final question - i would say yes, he no longer has that preference after he signs. i look at not promising a guy who expects it, as a negative - because most folks are going to promise it. i suspect that is like in real life, a guy who expects to start, most schools are offering that start - its only the cream of the crop who may not. in those cases, they have to get the recruit to buy in to their system. if he buys in, if the school overcomes that preference - i think the recruit should stay bought in.