It was broke. And I don't run the game. I was just one of a thousand that pointed it out and discussed. Was just sharing why

I'm always in favor of a better game. And not a "easier game for ME". We all have different opinions of course. My gripe is with Adam opening up the flood gates to D1. Now anybody can get to D1 with basically no effort resume or profile. I HATE it. But it got changed. So I live with it and move on

I kinda agree tho that the promises being forced on the second season isn't the best fix. As i stated in my previous post

Posted by utthead on 4/26/2021 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 4/25/2021 9:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by utthead on 4/22/2021 7:30:00 PM (view original):
A totally unnecessary patch. Who campaigned for this?!?

I know I campaigned for this. It's ridiculous that we can offer 25 min and a start to a recruit and not have to honor it.

Maybe a different fix could've been blacking out the promise option if a player is inel, and once he becomes eligible, it lights up for use.

Offering a start and 25 minutes to a recruit, and not having to honor it....... that concept doesn't need some sort of fix to you?!

Well thanks for nothing.

This wasn't a problem and definitely wasn't worthy of this problem causing fix.

The balance to offering promises to ineligibles was always that they may become eligible and you would have to honor those promises.

And that was fine. Nobody was getting some cheating advantage from this.

Don't fix things that ain't broke.

And the idea of multi-season promises is even more unnecssary. Nobody wants this except maybe a few select people determined to overthink and over manage the game.

Yep, this.

Posted by topdogggbm on 4/26/2021 7:26:00 PM (view original):
It was broke. And I don't run the game. I was just one of a thousand that pointed it out and discussed. Was just sharing why

I'm always in favor of a better game. And not a "easier game for ME". We all have different opinions of course. My gripe is with Adam opening up the flood gates to D1. Now anybody can get to D1 with basically no effort resume or profile. I HATE it. But it got changed. So I live with it and move on

I kinda agree tho that the promises being forced on the second season isn't the best fix. As i stated in my previous post

I agree with top on this one - it was broken. I only offered start/25 if the recruit had unusually high stamina, simply because I did not want to risk playing him until he hits very tired or ******* him off because I did not fulfill a promise. I know that other coaches exploited the loophole, but for me the risk was too great. This just levels the playing field for coaches like me. If you weren't exploiting the loophole, then making this effective immediately does no harm.

What loophole?!?
It wasn't a loophole.
Nobody was getting an advantage.
Sheesh.

The bigger issue is how it was changed with no warning. It was a known issue for a long time. Not something that NEEDED IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. That way of addressing perceived issues has HUGE implications. Imagine enforcing a hypothetical five class max instead of six for all active rosters going into effect NOW. Wouldn’t affect most human controlled teams, but would unfairly make some cut a sixth player FROM 1 or 2 classes. What the issue is is irrelevant. It was a long-standing part of the game that changed overnight and arbitrarily affects the coaches who happen to have ineligible players this particular season. What does it hurt to give one more season of notice? Is there ANY drawback to that?

Posted by utthead on 4/26/2021 9:07:00 PM (view original):
What loophole?!?
It wasn't a loophole.
Nobody was getting an advantage.
Sheesh.

Nobody was getting an advantage? In D1, where coaches should have had several years of seasoning, I still run into coaches who I just don't know if they understand recruiting. There's plenty of small things to do to give you a leg up. Ineligibles' promises go under that statement. They may not have felt abusable, they may not be as frequent (that may be my bias as I don't target inels as much as others), but they did provide an unnecessary advantage.

And to the coaches saying "the promise is for your freshman year.. if you hit your grades, you will be rewarded with a start". Is that not your assumption? The button is labeled "promise start". Not "promise only first year on campus ", not "promise only if you hit your grade requirements". The way I read it would be "I promise I'll start you". The update, although the timing of it without warning was suspect, address that.

"Loophole" tends to imply something not intended. Going back ages, the then admin people said this was how it worked in HD.

One can think the way the game worked wasnt optimum and that it should be changed. That is fine. But changing without notice a long acknowledged rule of the game is not the way to run a game. What rules will Nu Admin decide to change next? Make all promises last for four seasons? Require games scheduled against SIMs to rotate home and home because it is a "loophole" to play away at SIMs repeatedly? Declare any aspect of how the game works and change it in a way that changes the effects of decisions made a couple months ago?

ooops, I let it out - it can be smart to play away against certain non conf opponents.....loophole loophole loophole

Posted by fd343ny on 4/26/2021 10:42:00 PM (view original):
"Loophole" tends to imply something not intended. Going back ages, the then admin people said this was how it worked in HD.

One can think the way the game worked wasnt optimum and that it should be changed. That is fine. But changing without notice a long acknowledged rule of the game is not the way to run a game. What rules will Nu Admin decide to change next? Make all promises last for four seasons? Require games scheduled against SIMs to rotate home and home because it is a "loophole" to play away at SIMs repeatedly? Declare any aspect of how the game works and change it in a way that changes the effects of decisions made a couple months ago?

+1

Posted by upsetcity on 4/26/2021 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by utthead on 4/26/2021 9:07:00 PM (view original):
What loophole?!?
It wasn't a loophole.
Nobody was getting an advantage.
Sheesh.

Nobody was getting an advantage? In D1, where coaches should have had several years of seasoning, I still run into coaches who I just don't know if they understand recruiting. There's plenty of small things to do to give you a leg up. Ineligibles' promises go under that statement. They may not have felt abusable, they may not be as frequent (that may be my bias as I don't target inels as much as others), but they did provide an unnecessary advantage.

And to the coaches saying "the promise is for your freshman year.. if you hit your grades, you will be rewarded with a start". Is that not your assumption? The button is labeled "promise start". Not "promise only first year on campus ", not "promise only if you hit your grade requirements". The way I read it would be "I promise I'll start you". The update, although the timing of it without warning was suspect, address that.

My take is that if a coach is in D1 and still doesn't understand recruiting, well, that's on them. The ineligible thing was not an "advantage" to one coach over another as every coach had the option to use it. Some chose to, some chose not to.......personal preference.

My biggest gripe is the timing of the announcement. Should have announced it, let all the worlds cycle through a season to have any ineligibles recruited prior to the change not be affected, then put it in place. Would have been simple and almost no one would have complained.

The WE glitch? That was a loophole. One could even make an argument that back in the day pulldowns were a loophole. But not this, this was common knowledge.

Yeah, I'm one of the people who definitely got hurt by this since my Maine team went from having to start 3 freshmen (enough for my PG and my scoring big to start) to 4 (playing without a PG right now), and it really doesn't matter that much (it could feasibly cost me an NT bid but that doesn't matter too much in long term), but it just sets such a bad precedent for the future. Tell the community what changes are happening a season before they happen in dynasty games...

Posted by gillispie on 4/24/2021 7:51:00 PM (view original):
i still don't really get the idea that its easier for lower teams to fill promises. how? it seems to me the teams in the middle are the hard ones. if you are in a major rebuild season and going to miss the NT anyway, who cares, and if you are a top 10 team, its a couple seeds this way or that rarely makes much difference. i think those teams struggling to compete with the bigger clubs are the ones who really need their regular seasons to be good, the C to B prestige teams trying to make it to the NT, where the regular season being a little better or worse really counts and where the regular season impact on prestige isn't irrelevant (like it is for the perennial NT teams).

i don't think its that important of a point, it just is totally backwards. dealing with promises is a coaching problem, and its just way easier if your team is amazing and your freshman start 700. i don't mind promises at low d1, i start young players for growth and did so well before 3.0 promises forced our hands. but the low d1 struggle is real, and dealing with promises is a real obstacle for a lot of those folks. if you missed an NT with a quality wisconsin, surely you can appreciate how folks would miss the NT with some no-name school on B- prestige with a borderline NT caliber team, from having to start 2-4 freshman, and how much tougher that can make the overall rebuild.

i am not a fan of 4 year promises though! and definitely not when 'make them count for the NT too' creeps in. this game doesn't have realistic freshman, in real life some freshman come in and are some of the best players in the country on day 1. HD doesn't have that, largely due to IQ, but also ratings. if there were more freshman who could walk in and play and people could selectively promise the ones who were prime time ready or something, that would be different i guess. i don't know. i'm not a fan of beefing up the promises area of the game in general, i suppose.

Currently the top D1 teams can offer 2-3 starts every season. Whether or not this hurts them in the regular season isn't the point. They will continue to do this regardless because they need those top recruits and other teams are going to offer a start and 25 min. Currently, offering a start and 20/25 mins to multiple recruits every season is necessary to be competitive at the top levels of D1.

Now imagine a world where promises last the entire career of a recruit. Suddenly these top D1 teams can only afford to offer 4 or maybe 5 starts every 4 seasons. They have to think about how they use them and on which players they need to use them on. Can they afford to promise a start to a 3-star guy when they're also battling for a 5-star recruit? Maybe not, which might give that Harvard team an advantage since that 3-star guy would be Harvard's best player. It will free up a lot of those "good but not great" recruits for mid-major schools. The types of players that would normally be a 10 mpg backup at North Carolina.

Can you offer a start to PF recruits 3 seasons in a row? Sure, if that fits your team's playstyle, but you'd have to think about those types of things now. Like I said earlier, I don't want 4-year promises because it would be more realistic. I want them because the current promises are very cookie-cutter. You get in a battle, you make promises. There's very little strategy involved in that. I feel like 4-year promises make the game more dynamic as they would be a more powerful tool, but one that would need to be wielded more judiciously.

The reason it helps lower D1 schools isn't because they can fulfill promises more easily. It's because it will give them an advantage on many of those 3-star and 4-star recruits that the top D1 schools can't afford to offer starts to.

To make it even more interesting, keep the 1-year promises and just add the option of a 2-year and 4-year promise. San Diego State might be excited to offer a 4-year start to a recruit that would be their best PG ever. While UCLA would need to think twice about using that many resources on a single player. It just adds a bit of dynamic thought and roster management to the game. It's adds strategy, which consequently reduces a bit of luck.

i get where you are coming from mlitney - i should have responded to shoe directly, it was really a response specific to what he said, although in retrospect i probably didn't understand what he was saying, either. i was really only trying to comment that i felt promises as currently implemented are easier on the big teams, i think you and i are on the same page there.

i do think 4 year promises could change that, but i don't think it would be particularly enjoyable to navigate a complex promises scheme like that. even if the fundamentals of the promises themselves are simple (1 yr, 4 yr, whatever), the team planning ramifications are pretty significant. currently, a lot of coaches really don't plan that far ahead, i think it could cause a significant amount of consternation, with folks feeling like they either need to get that much more engaged, or else will be missing out. plus the amount of rope you'd be given to hang yourself with over promises would be a lot more.

so i suppose i'm not really disagreeing with the thesis that 4 year promises could level the field a bit, but i am concerned about the costs. plus i feel like the d1 field is already pretty level. the lack of a level field is more of a problem in the hearts and minds of HD coaches than in reality, IMO. i see aggressive B prestige schools pick up 5 stars and 5 star caliber recruits all the time.

Posted by davefilby on 4/16/2021 6:16:00 PM (view original):
Iba is currently recruiting. I signed an ineligible player on April 14th, and made promises. I might have recruited differently if I'd known those changes were coming. Will players currently subject to recruiting actions (or recruiting actions pre April 15th) be subject to this new change?

same boat for me. tough scene. But, i'm glad i happened to stumble upon the discussion so I knew before he transferred away a couple from now. Very rare case for me where I actually hope the guy I had already signed goes eligible now lol. Either that or we're going to be on FCP and target mins (losing combo)// an extra rebuilding year for us when my guy does make it to the court

Posted by gillispie on 4/27/2021 12:23:00 PM (view original):
i get where you are coming from mlitney - i should have responded to shoe directly, it was really a response specific to what he said, although in retrospect i probably didn't understand what he was saying, either. i was really only trying to comment that i felt promises as currently implemented are easier on the big teams, i think you and i are on the same page there.

i do think 4 year promises could change that, but i don't think it would be particularly enjoyable to navigate a complex promises scheme like that. even if the fundamentals of the promises themselves are simple (1 yr, 4 yr, whatever), the team planning ramifications are pretty significant. currently, a lot of coaches really don't plan that far ahead, i think it could cause a significant amount of consternation, with folks feeling like they either need to get that much more engaged, or else will be missing out. plus the amount of rope you'd be given to hang yourself with over promises would be a lot more.

so i suppose i'm not really disagreeing with the thesis that 4 year promises could level the field a bit, but i am concerned about the costs. plus i feel like the d1 field is already pretty level. the lack of a level field is more of a problem in the hearts and minds of HD coaches than in reality, IMO. i see aggressive B prestige schools pick up 5 stars and 5 star caliber recruits all the time.

That's true. They'd probably need to add a page solely for the purpose of keeping track of your promises haha. I can understand that it would be more difficult for some of the more casual coaches. I just like the idea of "skill gap". I like areas of the game where spending more time equates to more success. Where knowledge equals wins. The types of things that separate the good coaches from the great ones. Obviously, there's already a lot of those areas implemented in the game, but I'll keep pushing for more.