i don't disagree with the handful of responses that basically state the current system is unreasonable, from a reality standpoint. i think that is more or less a given. i'm just not sure what is being proposed is any more realistic, to shoe's point. it doesn't feel more realistic to me, and debating which option is more ridiculous from a reality standpoint, seems pointless?

to benis's earlier point, i think its about game play. apparently i may be in the minority, but i just don't enjoy juggling promises. i don't hate it, i personally started about as many young folks in 2.0, without promises, for growth. but i definitely don't enjoy it. do you guys enjoy promises, where you are interested in even more promise juggling? or is it just that the current system is dumb, so anything seems better by comparison?

4 year promises would be tough to manage but I think like any game you get adjusted and adapt to new wrinkles.

I like the 1 year promises as a way to land players that otherwise I might not be able to sign. Then I don't like it as I have to manage a team during the season and fulfill those promises. I guess my coach doesn't always agree with my recruiter on running a team.

My one suggestion is... If you promise a freshman to be a starter and 15 minutes and pull him at NT time he should get a little upset. Maybe not transfer upset but WE drops some upset. Then at the start of next season if he isn't a starter and his minutes drop he gets more upset as his sophomore season goes along. At this point he might be transfer upset. That seems more Real World to me.

And maybe we add a Transfer Portal?? Late D1 recruiting for new coaches would have a ton of experienced players to choice from just like the NCAA does now. That would also lead to D2 and D3 players that have grown to 700+ players to move up and fill the voids of transfers or EE.

Posted by gillispie on 9/1/2021 10:01:00 AM (view original):
i don't disagree with the handful of responses that basically state the current system is unreasonable, from a reality standpoint. i think that is more or less a given. i'm just not sure what is being proposed is any more realistic, to shoe's point. it doesn't feel more realistic to me, and debating which option is more ridiculous from a reality standpoint, seems pointless?

to benis's earlier point, i think its about game play. apparently i may be in the minority, but i just don't enjoy juggling promises. i don't hate it, i personally started about as many young folks in 2.0, without promises, for growth. but i definitely don't enjoy it. do you guys enjoy promises, where you are interested in even more promise juggling? or is it just that the current system is dumb, so anything seems better by comparison?

I don't think people 'enjoy' juggling promises from a game to game standpoint. But my point is that you *should* think about offering promises during recruiting. Before you click that promise start button, you should evaluate your team and think through what that would do to your roster planning. But right now, there is absolutely ZERO thought from me before I click the button. Any time I'm in a battle, I send a promised start without even considering what else is going on with my team - because I don't have to. I just start him through the regular season and then I get my upperclassmen to play in the tourney - there is very little downside unless you're a borderline tourney team or something.

So IMO, having promises extend (in some way) beyond their freshmen regular season would require much more thought and strategy. I won't be able to blindly send promises and will actually need to THINK about what I'm doing.... which on the other hand... wait a minute..

I don't really like this idea but wonder if it is a way to add recruiting options.

Add
2 year promise
3 year promise
4 year promise

Basically these all have additional recruiting weight? vs. the standard 1 year starting promise. This would definitely make roster management trickier and could increase transfers when the promises are not met.