Promises lasting 4 years is ridiculous, what is this middle school? If a coach finds a new recruit with more talent than the current existing starter, you best believe that starter will be sitting on the bench the next season, and in the worst case scenario that starter will be cut to make room for a player of more talent. There's no way to mitigate this, that's just the way it works in RL and in this game. Why would I make a promise that will last 4 years? Chances are I will find a better replacement in that time.

I would be on board with more transfers due to lack of minutes/starts especially for top tiered upperclassmen that aren't getting the minutes that they feel they deserve, but that would end up making EE problems an even bigger problem to Big 6 coaches.

So you can't just promise minutes to everyone. It would spread the talent. I made promises to 1 at UNC Asheville this season. Odds are I'll make promises to 4-5 next season. And a couple more the season after that. Can only start 5 and have 200 minutes to distribute. Adds up quickly.

For me, at crappy UNC Asheville, I have to promise starts/minutes to get the players I'll be able to get.

Posted by zagsrulez on 12/20/2017 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Promises lasting 4 years is ridiculous, what is this middle school? If a coach finds a new recruit with more talent than the current existing starter, you best believe that starter will be sitting on the bench the next season, and in the worst case scenario that starter will be cut to make room for a player of more talent. There's no way to mitigate this, that's just the way it works in RL and in this game. Why would I make a promise that will last 4 years? Chances are I will find a better replacement in that time.

I would be on board with more transfers due to lack of minutes/starts especially for top tiered upperclassmen that aren't getting the minutes that they feel they deserve, but that would end up making EE problems an even bigger problem to Big 6 coaches.

I think that's the point - this isn't the way it works in RL.

If a player is a starter as a FR/SO then is stuck on the pine his JR season because a more talented player comes in, then he's going to transfer or jump to the NBA. Look at the Harrison twins at UK. They knew Cal recruited more lottery picks to take their jobs so they went EE, even though they shouldn't have.

but would D1 coaches be okay with MORE players going EE? Now their reasons for leaving would be talent AND lack of playing time.

Of course they wouldn't. Hence my posts about "FIX TRANSFERS!!!!!"

But it would be more realistic. That said, people only want realism when it works FOR them.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/20/2017 11:55:00 AM (view original):
So you can't just promise minutes to everyone. It would spread the talent. I made promises to 1 at UNC Asheville this season. Odds are I'll make promises to 4-5 next season. And a couple more the season after that. Can only start 5 and have 200 minutes to distribute. Adds up quickly.

For me, at crappy UNC Asheville, I have to promise starts/minutes to get the players I'll be able to get.

Maybe a bigger penalty should exist for broken promises besides a small WE hit. Players should become more likely to transfer if they don't get what they deserved that current year. These promises shouldn't have to drag on multiple season.

Posted by zagsrulez on 12/20/2017 12:03:00 PM (view original):
but would D1 coaches be okay with MORE players going EE? Now their reasons for leaving would be talent AND lack of playing time.

You get to recruit others transfers tho.

and this would apply to all levels.

I don’t know that there’s a problem that needs to be solved here. 3.0 has made recruiting more competitive. If a team has a roster comprised of only NBA talent, they have likely gotten pretty lucky, winning a lot of RNG rolls. And the better a team is, the more promised starts and minutes hurt, so there is some built-in pain in the risk/reward calculation. I probably agree with mully here, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. I wouldn’t make this any kind of a priority for the developers.

That said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making promises impact a player’s work ethic, and in extreme cases causing transfers, past the freshman season, if that’s something the developers feel like tweaking. Especially for players with a playing time preference, it would make sense that their work ethic be more sensitive to demotions and PT decreases. But I would hesitate to support anything that significantly increases transfers. I think most of the effect should be focused on the individual player’s work ethic, and the coach’s reputation, if such a tweak is made.

Posted by zagsrulez on 12/20/2017 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Promises lasting 4 years is ridiculous, what is this middle school? If a coach finds a new recruit with more talent than the current existing starter, you best believe that starter will be sitting on the bench the next season, and in the worst case scenario that starter will be cut to make room for a player of more talent. There's no way to mitigate this, that's just the way it works in RL and in this game. Why would I make a promise that will last 4 years? Chances are I will find a better replacement in that time.

I would be on board with more transfers due to lack of minutes/starts especially for top tiered upperclassmen that aren't getting the minutes that they feel they deserve, but that would end up making EE problems an even bigger problem to Big 6 coaches.

If a coach finds a new recruit with more talent than the current existing starter, you best believe that starter will be sitting on the bench the next season

Odds are that he won't return for the next season. Which is the point. In real life, if you promise a player starting time, he doesn't just hold you to that for your freshman season. He expects to play a lot for his entire career and when that doesn't happen, he'll go somewhere else.

Another example: Jarrod Uthoff at Wisconsin. Bo Ryan recruits him and redshirts him, but clearly promises him big things. Then Ryan lands Sam Dekker, a more talented player at the same position. Instead of being a 3 or 4 year starter, Uthoff is looking at being a career backup. So he transfers to Iowa.

Of course, if the penalty increases(work ethic/transfer), the bonus for offering starts/minutes for 4 seasons should probably increase.

That said, I think it would turn the game on it's ear. The mid/low level teams have no problem offering because they suck. The big time schools have already offered and can't keep the promises.

Interesting discussion

The best fix for this would of course be more human coaches in DI. The concentration of talent has a lot to do with too many SIM AI teams

One could imagine different flavors of promises - FR only, FR and SO etc. GD had some of that long ago when I played

went back and looked at my maryland Naismith 97 title team - just 5 went to the NBA - but 2 or 3 others were super players with flaws that didnt keep them from playing their roles. I dont think you need 9 NBA players to win it all.

Maybe the solution is that you can choose which years the promise will be effective for.

So when the B- prestige team is battling the A prestige team, the B- team might promise that the player will be a starter+20mpg for all four years, while the A team will promise 10mpg for all four years, but starter jr&sr season only.

To make it even more interesting, then you could offer a guy a redshirt plus guaranteed minutes in future years, which may be just as -- or even more valuable than -- offering a schollie with no redshirt, but no minutes promised.

It's all chatter but, yeah, several options for promises would be nice.

10m as a FR
15m as a SO
Starter/15m as a JR
Starter/20m as a SR

And as many combinations within the 1-4 year starter/10-25m as needed.