Since my arrival at Hampton in Tark, I've had some small successes in the postseason with a three 2nd round appearances and a recent Sweet 16. As much as I'd love to take any and all credit, I have to admit it was a lot of luck. Two sim-coaches, an upperclassmen-heavy mid-major, and only one top tier coach. In the game against the top tier coach, I'd say I won largely because my roster was more of a ~6-7 seed in talent but received a 13-seed after starting freshman all season due to promises.

I'm all for upsets in the postseason as they just make the game more fun. The problem is instances like mine where freshman promises are the biggest reason for the upset. In Tark's most recent NT, there were 10 first round upsets and 8 of them did just this. A 9, two 10s, two 11s, two 13s, and a 15 seed all advancing to the 2nd round after starting a freshman until the CT. For the record, I know plenty of higher seeded teams are doing this as well. The point is that the higher seeded teams 'earned' that higher seed with the reward of facing.. a self-limiting team who is ready to go by the NT.

I've gotten lucky but many of my conference mates in the MEAC have had phenomenal seasons cut short because they're paired against a double digit seed who started 2+ freshman all season until the CT started. I believe promises need to extend into postseason play. Period. It would reduce the stupid seeding problem where random low seeded teams are incredibly strong. People would be more cerebral in how they offer promised starts which would allow for more diversity in recruiting and likely helping teams who need talent more. I'd love to say 'start into postseason play or face losing the recruit / losing WE' but the top tier recruits would be promised the start and subsequently have the promise broken with the mindset of "well, they were gone next year anyway". I don't know. Just a thought I'd be considering.

This was discussed at length here I believe: https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=521538

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 8/27/2020 1:48:00 PM (view original):
This was discussed at length here I believe: https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=521538

Ah, that's on me. I figured a search for "promise" would result in too many "how many starts does he need before I can sit him" posts that I didn't even try.

Promises should include postseason, and should extend throughout a player's career even if the kid turns out to be a dud.

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/27/2020 2:01:00 PM (view original):
Promises should include postseason, and should extend throughout a player's career even if the kid turns out to be a dud.

Agreed, or maybe extend the list of promises to include through soph. or jr. year (using these for hypothetical cutoffs as the elite recruits would be offered 4-year starts with the knowledge they'd likely leave after 2 or 3). Even expand to percentages, allowing for 25, 50, 75, and 100% of starts first year. I read through the other thread posted and someone suggested a shorter list. I think making less available promises does nothing but make the game more straightforward.

Similar to the issue with most of these promised start ideas, it would need appropriate consequences for breaking a promise - such as a diminishing return on upcoming promises, rejection of upcoming promises, guaranteed transfer of the recruit, and a low rate of losing or hurting the WE of another player. Drops in WE and potentially transferring just wouldn't cut it. Also, less room for wiggle room. If you're afraid of not being able to set your roster appropriately, you can have two exhibitions + 1-2 noncon games w/ an email after the first exhibition saying "hey, you know I'm supposed to be a starter, right?" and a followup after game 2 saying "You better make this right". It just makes this game feel too played out when every person is starting their freshman all season to fulfill a promise half-heartedly.