Ok sorry I used the word loophole. Maybe not the right term. But it was definitely a goofy *** "something". Promising a player something to gain effort, and never having to honor that promise is ridiculous!

I'll repeat, the best fix could've been to not even allow promises to an inel, until he becomes eligible

Posted by topdogggbm on 4/27/2021 10:05:00 PM (view original):
Ok sorry I used the word loophole. Maybe not the right term. But it was definitely a goofy *** "something". Promising a player something to gain effort, and never having to honor that promise is ridiculous!

I'll repeat, the best fix could've been to not even allow promises to an inel, until he becomes eligible

Right, the “intelligent” system I’ve always talked about is one where effort, attention, and promises can all have neutral or even negative effects, under certain circumstances. Like a team with a bad overall preference match, you keep calling a recruit and showing up at his place, you should be ****ing him off, you shouldn’t be making headway. The only way to win a recruit like that is if better matches pass on him. Outspending for a bad match would not be an option in an intelligent *recruiting* game. Likewise, I think, ideally with ineligibles, a promise made to a player who wasn’t going to be able to play just shouldn’t matter. Like it shouldn’t have factored in at all, completely neutral UNTIL the player becomes eligible, at which point it kicks in. But if the player has signed and showed up knowing he’s not going to play, a promise for time or starts shouldn’t affect his decision at all. No effort credit should be accumulated.

In hindsight, probably a better fix for the situation would be more ineligibles choosing juco instead of showing up on campus to sit a year, especially to lower division teams.

I may have missed this in the thread or the update but the question I have is this. Suppose Coach A signs an ineligible player during RS1. Coach A leaves and Coach B promotes up (or even laterally, doesn't really matter in this case). Is Coach B still on the hook for Coach A's promises to the recruit, even though Coach B had zero to do with those promises being made? If so, that seems like Coach B is getting kind of a raw deal, no?

Posted by emy1013 on 4/29/2021 1:11:00 AM (view original):
I may have missed this in the thread or the update but the question I have is this. Suppose Coach A signs an ineligible player during RS1. Coach A leaves and Coach B promotes up (or even laterally, doesn't really matter in this case). Is Coach B still on the hook for Coach A's promises to the recruit, even though Coach B had zero to do with those promises being made? If so, that seems like Coach B is getting kind of a raw deal, no?

Since an incoming coach is not currently responsible for fulfilling promises made by a previous coach in any other situation, I suspect the answer is no, Coach B is not on the hook in this case, either.

This is part of why I favor that more intelligent system where players retain their playing time preferences throughout their career. It doesn’t make any sense to me that a player stops caring about PT just because a different coach comes along. Instead of having these hard, rigid lines which are kind of arbitrary, and easy to stay on the correct side of for basically one season, players who want to play should always want to be on the court, and should be a headache to keep a full roster with. On the contrary, a new category of players with a “team player” preference should be created for balance who should bug you (and sometimes leave) if you take walkons and start too many freshmen who aren’t obviously the best players at their position.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/29/2021 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 4/29/2021 1:11:00 AM (view original):
I may have missed this in the thread or the update but the question I have is this. Suppose Coach A signs an ineligible player during RS1. Coach A leaves and Coach B promotes up (or even laterally, doesn't really matter in this case). Is Coach B still on the hook for Coach A's promises to the recruit, even though Coach B had zero to do with those promises being made? If so, that seems like Coach B is getting kind of a raw deal, no?

Since an incoming coach is not currently responsible for fulfilling promises made by a previous coach in any other situation, I suspect the answer is no, Coach B is not on the hook in this case, either.

This is part of why I favor that more intelligent system where players retain their playing time preferences throughout their career. It doesn’t make any sense to me that a player stops caring about PT just because a different coach comes along. Instead of having these hard, rigid lines which are kind of arbitrary, and easy to stay on the correct side of for basically one season, players who want to play should always want to be on the court, and should be a headache to keep a full roster with. On the contrary, a new category of players with a “team player” preference should be created for balance who should bug you (and sometimes leave) if you take walkons and start too many freshmen who aren’t obviously the best players at their position.

i suspect you are right on the ineligible question but i think someone will have to see it and confirm it for us to really know. interesting question.

i would be ok with playing time preferences being a feature of a recruit over the long haul, it sounds better than a complex promises scheme, not that i am a big fan of any of that particularly (beefing up promises and transfer systems). if folks are gonna push for something like that, i hope they'll wait another year or so to give these guys time to make changes in less critically sensitive areas. but anyway, a category of players who ******* about and perhaps quits over taking walkons... that sounds like a nightmare from this end.

Man I was just made aware of this change after realizing a guy I recruited a month ago has promises that carried over. It would have been REALLY nice for this to have been posted to the league message boards. I never read the forums and I don't even know what a discord is so the only way I know of major changes like this is when an announcement is made across all conferences. At the end of the day I'll bite the bullet on the other recruits of mine this affects but it's kind of annoying that this change was made with absolutely no notification.

Where is the official update on this? I don't see it. I think too many good points have been made here for it to be accepted. Leave as is, not broken.

Posted by cal_bears on 5/3/2021 8:53:00 PM (view original):
Where is the official update on this? I don't see it. I think too many good points have been made here for it to be accepted. Leave as is, not broken.

There hasn't been an update, but here is the official patch notes post:
https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=526754


Anyways, I believe I remember Adam mentioning that it needed to be done eventually, and it would negatively affect people regardless of when it was done. In my opinion, it is little more than a small inconvenience for a few people. Shouldn't ruin any seasons.

The change in the rule doesn't make logical sense. Such fallacies in the reasoning have been pointed out well above. Why would we be supportive of something that doesn't make sense?

Depends on perspective. I see the other view. Why does it make sense to be able to offer 25 min and a start to a player that can't even play one minute?

Making promises to nonqualifiers and have them expire during a season when the guy could not play was

1. For years clearly how the game worked
2. Not very logical

I find it disappointing that new admin changed it instantly with just a patch note - far better to announce that in 2 or 3 months it would change, so a season could cycle in all worlds

But, I do think it is a logical change.

Lots of interesting ideas for deeper changes in this thread - but they would not be near the top of my list for things to address in the game

It's a dependent on qualifying promise. That's why it's consistently logical with the present system. Promises do not count past the next year for every other player.

Promises only apply to the upcoming season. If you want to argue that promises could be modified to include promised start for 2 seasons, and/or promised start every season you are here, that would be a welcome addition and an extra level of recruiting strategy. But that is not the case. Coaches generally do not want to commit promises for so long in the future. The ineligible promise is based on the recruit becoming eligible and theoretically could be seen as extra incentive to get off your derriere and get eligible. This is the logic of the present system, and changing ineligible promises to apply to their sophomore year, but not changing them to apply to other recruits is inconsistently illogical.

Probably the “fix” I would have gone for is that promises do not give any recruiting bonus until the player becomes eligible. No standalone, no preference modifier. I mean it’s too late now I guess, but I think that makes a lot more sense for the reasons cal_bears brings up.

So, I hate to be ignorant but what update? I haven’t noticed any announcements recently.