It also really messes up seedings. I have had a #1 seed and played a 16 seed that should be like a 4-5 but is rated 16 because the lineup was so different.

I don’t completely agree with you but then I don’t care either. The game changed and it doesn’t bother me.

Promises do that. I can’t get my best lineup in during the season.

inevitable effect of capping effort - with effort capped the relative impact of promises increased

What if promises were absolute? Promised start and minutes means 100% including postseason. Would that provide enough of a penalty to make it less prevalent?

That would be an interesting idea. I'm not sure how many games you could get away without starting a player on a guaranteed promise, but if it's 1-2 I could see the Final Four teams making the switch at that point.

It does make me wonder if they should give O/D IQs more weight. That still may not work though as the teams with superior ratings would probably win just enough to be a low seed and screw up brackets even more similar to what chap saw.

Although not the first thing to do, I would love more different preferences

warm climate, cold climate

party school, academic school

pipelines - where having recruited a guy from the same high school creates a preference - or where having recruited a guy from the same town or foreign country creates a preference.....would have to define town in a way that gives it uniform ish recruit population - NYC cant be a town the same as Upper Nowhere, South Dakota is a town,,,

Promises should stay if effect for longer than one season. In real life a stud recruit who is promised a start + min. would expect to start throughout his career. Transfers should be more common.

Posted by starrider19 on 7/21/2019 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Promises should stay if effect for longer than one season. In real life a stud recruit who is promised a start + min. would expect to start throughout his career. Transfers should be more common.

interesting idea, i think its more realistic to do it that way. i do think it will result in some weird juggling situations, like you can technically meet 6 promised starts - i feel like meeting those would be no fun though.

what about just eliminating promises altogether? do we even need them? if everyone is doing them, im not sure it really adds any value or depth to recruiting. maybe sims aren't doing it but i suspect most humans are.

part of this problem is also an old one, the biggest unresolved complaint from 2.0 (IMO at least), which is the hard caps. we are all used to them now, and they do make sense in some situations, but in real life juniors and seniors get better. maybe it makes sense for FT and ath to have hard caps or something, but not really everything. that's probably a big change, and we haven't gotten it after 8 years so not holding my breath.

anyway, if we had soft caps (lets say that meant no offseason improvement but regular season improvement at the rate like where it tips from black to orange, something in that general ballpark), it seems like there'd be less value in starting young players over older ones. starters matter more so starter growth matters more (for the current season), it probably doesn't take that much starter growth to get folks wanting to start their actual starters again?

Posted by starrider19 on 7/21/2019 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Promises should stay if effect for longer than one season. In real life a stud recruit who is promised a start + min. would expect to start throughout his career. Transfers should be more common.

I've been saying this for a couple years. I think it should extend beyond promises too. If a player starts at a FR and then loses their starting gig, they shouldnt be very happy about it. It should also impact EEs. If a guy has lost his starting job as a Sophomore or Jr, they should be more likely to leave.

Balancing playing time and keeping players content with their role on the team should be a much bigger part of the game IMO.

Posted by Benis on 7/22/2019 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by starrider19 on 7/21/2019 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Promises should stay if effect for longer than one season. In real life a stud recruit who is promised a start + min. would expect to start throughout his career. Transfers should be more common.

I've been saying this for a couple years. I think it should extend beyond promises too. If a player starts at a FR and then loses their starting gig, they shouldnt be very happy about it. It should also impact EEs. If a guy has lost his starting job as a Sophomore or Jr, they should be more likely to leave.

Balancing playing time and keeping players content with their role on the team should be a much bigger part of the game IMO.

i was all for it, but when you put it that way, babysitting the players' virtual emotions actually sounds less attractive :) there is also the issue that sometimes players do lose their job when not performing and stuff - i guess it feels sort of unrealistic to really be promising spots in the first place. i'd guess most coaches are not promising most of their players time (IRL), only the opportunity. maybe that is the real issue, that promises themselves just inherently aren't realistic and don't fit the model, and trying to fix them will remain unrealistic and messy. maybe they just need to go. i liked them in 2.0 because they were a useful tool, but i don't personally feel they are adding much if anything to 3.0 recruiting strategy.

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/22/2019 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/22/2019 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by starrider19 on 7/21/2019 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Promises should stay if effect for longer than one season. In real life a stud recruit who is promised a start + min. would expect to start throughout his career. Transfers should be more common.

I've been saying this for a couple years. I think it should extend beyond promises too. If a player starts at a FR and then loses their starting gig, they shouldnt be very happy about it. It should also impact EEs. If a guy has lost his starting job as a Sophomore or Jr, they should be more likely to leave.

Balancing playing time and keeping players content with their role on the team should be a much bigger part of the game IMO.

i was all for it, but when you put it that way, babysitting the players' virtual emotions actually sounds less attractive :) there is also the issue that sometimes players do lose their job when not performing and stuff - i guess it feels sort of unrealistic to really be promising spots in the first place. i'd guess most coaches are not promising most of their players time (IRL), only the opportunity. maybe that is the real issue, that promises themselves just inherently aren't realistic and don't fit the model, and trying to fix them will remain unrealistic and messy. maybe they just need to go. i liked them in 2.0 because they were a useful tool, but i don't personally feel they are adding much if anything to 3.0 recruiting strategy.

Well, maybe it's not exactly babysitting if you plan it correctly. If you don't think through your decisions to make promises or plan out your roster, it turns in to that. But you should be thinking long term with your team, IMO.

Promises should be a major decision in your recruiting thought process. Right now, I offer starts without a 2nd thought because I know I don't need to worry about them in the postseason or any subsequent season. If you made it harder to keep promises, you'd make the decision to give them much tougher- which should be the entire point. You are making a choice and taking a risk that could help you in the short term but burn you in the long run.

I'll also add that I like that it would help rebuilding teams who can offer promises to help them get better players and make it more difficult for top teams to stockpile talent just to have them ride the pine in postseason.