i guess i fail to see the value in a promise system where the logical conclusion is where we are now - most competitive coaches promise any recruit with a whiff of competition, and the regular season becomes a bit of a joke as coaches collectively meet a ton of promises.

i'm sure there's folks out there not promising that are basically just paying a tax on not knowing what is going on - but is there a sizable portion of competitive folks who withhold promises in competitive fights? if not, what's the point? i don't really find the system to be that enjoyable either. just not sure what the benefit is for all the complexity and anxiety around meeting promises, and the downsides on the competitiveness of regular season play. i'll grant that 2.0 promises were probably even worse, but if this is their great rebirth, why not just scrap the whole thing?

thoughts?

I think promises need more teeth to be used more strategically. They could easily make promises that either have to be kept all 4 years (or however long the player is on campus) or that HAVE to be kept in the postseason. I mean logically imagine how most real student athletes would feel if they start all year and then ride the pine during the most meaningful of situations, the tournament. Or, imagine how a student athlete who started as a freshman would then feel being relegated to the bench for the next 3 years (I know this sometimes happens and kids are okay with it, but it happens way more in hd) To be clear I play the game we have. My UCLA team is starting 4 freshmen due to promises, my Kansas team 5, Uconn 4, and my Maryland team will start 5 when that world rolls. And all should make the tournament, I'll play my "real lineup" and some 1 seed will draw me in the second round or sweet 16 and get a much tougher game (hopefully) than they should have.

Interested why they were even worse in 2.0.

Yeah, the promise system is a fuckin joke. Takes fun out of the game that the regular season is meaningless. I vote you have to hold a promise all 4 years.

Posted by cubcub113 on 7/5/2020 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Interested why they were even worse in 2.0.

Yeah, the promise system is a fuckin joke. Takes fun out of the game that the regular season is meaningless. I vote you have to hold a promise all 4 years.

8.0.1

Or provide a system where you can make promises across years. Adds more strategy and different promises could hold different weights. If you promise a guy he will be your leader from day one and will start all four years that would be totally different than "I'll start you and give you 25 minutes a game your freshman year just so you'll sign but you're getting benched in the postseason and may not see serious minutes again until your senior year".

I agree though that at present it's pretty ridiculous. At D3 I'm fairly good at finding talent that gets overlooked but requires ~2 seasons to develop into a useful player so I avoid battles for most of my spots but I always end up in 1 or 2 battles and I don't think I've ever not promised at least 10 minutes for a guy I'm battling for. I've definitely had to promise minutes to guys I would have loved to RS.

There is definitely a thread in my head for certain battles where I think "well if I promise this kid a start to win this battle, I'll probably drop 2-3 extra games in the regular season but I'll still make the NT and can bench him then/he'll have developed enough to be a better contributor by then". And it's silly that teams are willing to take on added risk/lose a few games just to sign a kid because of how powerful the promise system is/how necessary it can often be to offer a promise on top of 20 home visits and a CV just to have a fighting chance for a kid, even in a D3 vs D3 battle.

Posted by piman314 on 7/5/2020 3:00:00 PM (view original):
I think promises need more teeth to be used more strategically. They could easily make promises that either have to be kept all 4 years (or however long the player is on campus) or that HAVE to be kept in the postseason. I mean logically imagine how most real student athletes would feel if they start all year and then ride the pine during the most meaningful of situations, the tournament. Or, imagine how a student athlete who started as a freshman would then feel being relegated to the bench for the next 3 years (I know this sometimes happens and kids are okay with it, but it happens way more in hd) To be clear I play the game we have. My UCLA team is starting 4 freshmen due to promises, my Kansas team 5, Uconn 4, and my Maryland team will start 5 when that world rolls. And all should make the tournament, I'll play my "real lineup" and some 1 seed will draw me in the second round or sweet 16 and get a much tougher game (hopefully) than they should have.

my concern with more teeth is - do i really want to spend more effort juggling promises than i already do? my personal answer is definitely no. it doesn't really fit with my ideal of college ball should be either, a bunch of kids fighting for starting spots based on effort and merit. are real life coaches promising guys career long starting spots? i'm sure sometimes they are, but it just feels like... the best coaches expect them to earn it.

i could get on board with being able to promise perhaps 1 or 2 players a year, something like that, but i would really rather just see them removed and regular seasons return to something approximating post season ball. its not such a problem for low-mid NT teams but to compete at the top it sort of feels mandatory, intense promise utilization, and i feel like making the scheme bigger and nastier is not really the answer. the more competitive among us will still feel forced to utilize the system extensively, and i find navigating promises to really be more than a hassle than a joy (perhaps many do not feel that way? im curious). i've been on the fence about what should be done about promises but the more i think about it, the answer should probably make the system simpler and less cumbersome, not the opposite. seems we've been going in the more complex, more cumbersome direction for some time, and i'm not sure its helped.

Posted by cubcub113 on 7/5/2020 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Interested why they were even worse in 2.0.

Yeah, the promise system is a fuckin joke. Takes fun out of the game that the regular season is meaningless. I vote you have to hold a promise all 4 years.

8.0.1

not clearly worse, but perhaps. i wouldn't really argue with someone taking either view point (at least not at the macro level). old school promises were worth less, but they could be applied and removed at will without penalty. for example, my standard practice was to promise 100% of potential recruits everything up front, and i took them off for 90% of recruits later in the process.

you also had some weird stuff, the '110 special' where for $110 (which was very cheap) you could put pretty much effort on a player with a ship, start, and minutes in the same cycle, coming out of nowhere if you felt like it. this could be used for all kinds of weird stuff, some of which was a little absurd, some of which fell squarely in the savage category. the only reason lower division recruiting didn't descend into total chaos, i assume, is that coaches were either too gentlemanly or just simply didn't want to play the game hd would become if too many coaches went down the savage path.

Posted by gillispie1 on 7/5/2020 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by piman314 on 7/5/2020 3:00:00 PM (view original):
I think promises need more teeth to be used more strategically. They could easily make promises that either have to be kept all 4 years (or however long the player is on campus) or that HAVE to be kept in the postseason. I mean logically imagine how most real student athletes would feel if they start all year and then ride the pine during the most meaningful of situations, the tournament. Or, imagine how a student athlete who started as a freshman would then feel being relegated to the bench for the next 3 years (I know this sometimes happens and kids are okay with it, but it happens way more in hd) To be clear I play the game we have. My UCLA team is starting 4 freshmen due to promises, my Kansas team 5, Uconn 4, and my Maryland team will start 5 when that world rolls. And all should make the tournament, I'll play my "real lineup" and some 1 seed will draw me in the second round or sweet 16 and get a much tougher game (hopefully) than they should have.

my concern with more teeth is - do i really want to spend more effort juggling promises than i already do? my personal answer is definitely no. it doesn't really fit with my ideal of college ball should be either, a bunch of kids fighting for starting spots based on effort and merit. are real life coaches promising guys career long starting spots? i'm sure sometimes they are, but it just feels like... the best coaches expect them to earn it.

i could get on board with being able to promise perhaps 1 or 2 players a year, something like that, but i would really rather just see them removed and regular seasons return to something approximating post season ball. its not such a problem for low-mid NT teams but to compete at the top it sort of feels mandatory, intense promise utilization, and i feel like making the scheme bigger and nastier is not really the answer. the more competitive among us will still feel forced to utilize the system extensively, and i find navigating promises to really be more than a hassle than a joy (perhaps many do not feel that way? im curious). i've been on the fence about what should be done about promises but the more i think about it, the answer should probably make the system simpler and less cumbersome, not the opposite. seems we've been going in the more complex, more cumbersome direction for some time, and i'm not sure its helped.

Kind of an "informed outsider' perspective, but I think a less cumbersome system is definitely a plus.

How about adding promises to CT/NT/PI (as a reset of sorts)? Why not make this the case for all players? As previously said, if a player starts all year and then comes off the bench or plays very little when it counts, they often wouldn't be happy. It could be dependent on the "sense of self" that gil has coined. If it takes 85% starts in the regular season to keep a player happy, you have to start them 85% of your CT/NT/PI games to keep them happy.

Increasing transfers when a work load decreases substantially (if it can be coded well based on the sense of self) could also help. Imagine the tansfer pool (like in real life) being flooded when a played "loses favor" and slides down the depth chart. This also would affect prestige (maybe not meaningfully for some), if they continually lose sophs/juniors who after being supplanted by 5 freshman starters and add a negative impact to recruiting when promises are overused.

Also, maybe disable the ability to offer promises when a player is ineligible, except to D3 teams. This would probably reflect real life if a player can go play right away or have to sit out a year to play.

CT/NT/PI wouldn't do it IMO and it would make it worse.

If you think you might win a title, 35*.8 = 28. 6 NT games means you can only sit for 1 regular season/CT game if you want to be safe. If you're not gunning for a title I'm sure you'll have 3/4 for the CT and 1/3 for the NT.

Why is it even worse? Because at least right now I can look forward to 3/4 marquee matchups per year where both teams start their real lineup in the regular season. We wouldn't get that if we couldn't bench the guys for a couple of games.

And if you think teams willing to start FR for 21 games wouldn't for 26, I think that's probably 80-85% incorrect.

Posted by cubcub113 on 7/5/2020 5:02:00 PM (view original):
CT/NT/PI wouldn't do it IMO and it would make it worse.

If you think you might win a title, 35*.8 = 28. 6 NT games means you can only sit for 1 regular season/CT game if you want to be safe. If you're not gunning for a title I'm sure you'll have 3/4 for the CT and 1/3 for the NT.

Why is it even worse? Because at least right now I can look forward to 3/4 marquee matchups per year where both teams start their real lineup in the regular season. We wouldn't get that if we couldn't bench the guys for a couple of games.

And if you think teams willing to start FR for 21 games wouldn't for 26, I think that's probably 80-85% incorrect.

i agree, and this is where i've moved away from a more rule-based system in the future. forcing the starts for the post season or future years, i feel like the reality is gonna stay the same - top coaches will feel obligated to push the promises system to its limit, promising for as many recruits as possible (most in d1, some - but all the competitive ones - in d2/d3). i feel like it will get worse before it gets better moving in that direction. i could see weakening promises to make it feel less like an obligation to use them extensively - but then what is the point?

Posted by cubcub113 on 7/5/2020 5:02:00 PM (view original):
CT/NT/PI wouldn't do it IMO and it would make it worse.

If you think you might win a title, 35*.8 = 28. 6 NT games means you can only sit for 1 regular season/CT game if you want to be safe. If you're not gunning for a title I'm sure you'll have 3/4 for the CT and 1/3 for the NT.

Why is it even worse? Because at least right now I can look forward to 3/4 marquee matchups per year where both teams start their real lineup in the regular season. We wouldn't get that if we couldn't bench the guys for a couple of games.

And if you think teams willing to start FR for 21 games wouldn't for 26, I think that's probably 80-85% incorrect.

I agree with what you said, but I meant promises that don’t include RS and CT/NT/PI, they apply again to CT/NT/PI as it’s own set. Then if you have ten tournament games, they have to start 8 or so to be happy. Starting zero tournament games is the same as starting zero RS games. Just wanted to make sure you knew what I meant.

How about diminishing returns on promises? If the percentage of scholarship athletes on your team is higher, a promise has lower weight in recruitment value. If a coach gives out promises to 100% of recruits then they are worth less value than a coach who only offers 1-2 a year.

That doesn’t require any coach manipulation of postseason vs regular season but has an effect if it overused. Of course that could work mainly for promising starts. Not sure about minutes.

I’m agnostic on promises. As long as the system is based on rational risk/reward calculations, I’m cool with it. I will say, the original premise, that top level teams *must* offer promises or are just ignorant of what they do, is completely false. I do offer a couple promises most years; but I also sign lots of guys who won’t see much playing time until they’re a few years in. You can survive and thrive putting together all sorts of teams, including teams without the kinds of players who require promises. You can also sign top level talent without promises. It often feels like a lot of folks want to treat this game as if there is a *one right way* and that’s just not what this is, thank god. Lots of wrong ways, but plenty of right ways too. Promises can be a part of it, but certainly don’t have to be.

I will say I would definitely not be in favor of extending promises. Also, if promises are removed, it is absolutely vital that the playing time preference remain, and be adjusted to have recruits make intelligent decisions, for example taking into account depth at position, etc.

Granted I’ve never had this problem because I’m always had mostly low DI schools, so normally if I am promising starts and minutes it’s because I am legitimately for the most part mean it and want them their, not just because I have to and to get them to sign.

But back to the issue on hand, I think the biggest way to correct this, is just having Freshman and Sophomores go pro, instead of mostly Juniors and Seniors, if I’m not mistaken, a Freshman will never go pro in HD, which is completely wrong and unlike real life. If a top recruit signs with a top school and starts all the games and plays a lot of minutes you beat their a$$ in real life they gone. Not sure why this would be different?? Yes you would still have promises but now they would be somewhat legitimate because if they are one and done players then of course you are starting them, would be no point in sitting them on the bench if they are leaving. Also, I think they should make transfers more realistic like in real life, if a top recruit signs and starts all their Freshman year and ride the pine their Sophomore year, they will be like bye Felicia, I am going where someone wants me to play, this will balance all the promises and even out the talent. It shouldn’t be allowed for top teams to horde the talent and just bench great recruits without repercussions.

Creating an issue where there really isn't a problem. If a team wants to risk a low seed and tougher NT games and higher risk of getting knocked out so be it.

Most coaches can't afford to throw away regular season games.

Posted by mullycj on 7/6/2020 10:22:00 AM (view original):
Creating an issue where there really isn't a problem. If a team wants to risk a low seed and tougher NT games and higher risk of getting knocked out so be it.

Most coaches can't afford to throw away regular season games.

therein lies the problem (although i definitely do this myself the whole way up the d1 stack). i agree that a borderline top 25 team working their way up the prestige stack can't really afford promises on a mass scale, like if they have a 5 man class and promise all 5, it could really hurt them. they can (and should) promise in their key battles though. but for guys like piman or me? its not even a hesitation. some a+ program coach recently asked about if they could meet their 6 promised freshman by rotating them in and out. our a+s are secure, we are only playing for the post season, and it just makes it that much harder for other teams to keep up. its not like piman's seeding hit is the norm either he takes it to the extreme, running 5 fr and a tough schedule and the like. normally its a minimal to negligible hit, like at ucla, we are in line for the 2nd 1 seed starting 3fr and 2so, which is still pretty young. we got a 4 at delaware state recently running 5 true freshman which is kind of a hit but its not like that was a 1 seed caliber team, either. they lost in the 2nd round.

the whole point of having a promise system, in my understanding, was to give the smaller schools an advantage. feels to me like its the opposite. the big schools have no reason not to do this every year and so many of us do. the peasant schools can do it because their teams are trash anyway, but the guys in the middle? they have a real decision to make. if that is the system - one more advantage for the big dogs - wtf is the point?