In 3.0, I have come to the realization that the only way to consistently win battle without having to get lucky in a random dice roll is a start and 25 minutes (mainly for DI). At Weber State, I have signed 17 recruits and I offered 12 of them a start. Many of them, I started for 1 year and never again. What do you think about the proposal that offering a player a start means 80% the freshmen year and 50% all years after?

P.S
In writing this, I thought, I don't want this removed, why am I writing this. Well the reason k don't want it removed is its a game flaw I exploit. Please share your thoughts below, thanks.

P.P.S
This is a hell of a lot less important than jobs. I know that. You guys don't need to tell me. ;)

Logically it should mean 100% for all four years. If the kid turns out to suck, TS, either cut him or keep your promise.

I'm happy people are saying no. It would ruin my strat. I don't think it's a good idea either. We,ll see what others say.

It's not really your strategy. Pretty sure a LOT of people do it. And it probably dead on accurate with how recruiting works. "You're the best we have coming in. You'll be a 4 year starter!!" Then, next year, "Sorry, son, Billy Bob has outplayed you. You're gonna be a back-up this year. We'll get you some PT though. Don't worry about it."

Half the people I know do it.

Posted by cubcub113 on 8/25/2017 8:15:00 PM (view original):
Half the people I know do it.

I'm pretty sure everyone with experience in the game does it. It's one of those non intuitive things that shouldn't work but does in a big way.

its a feature that comes with a downside - starting a freshman can be exploited by the opponent

I don't really have a strong opinion on your proposal specifically, but I do think recruits and players both should make their decisions intelligently. Players who 1) want to play as part of their recruit preferences, and/or 2) get promised minutes shouldn't accept anything more than a negligible decrease in minutes year over year. If you promise 25, it's reasonable for those players to start complaining, lose work ethic, and eventually transfer if those minutes go down later on.

I also think % of offense should be a preference (maybe replacing "wants success") and available promise.

Posted by metsmax on 8/26/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
its a feature that comes with a downside - starting a freshman can be exploited by the opponent

Yes. However, many teams couldn't care less that they are a 4 seed instead of a 2 seed. Freshmen don't have to start or play in the NT...

It does seem like if you promise a start or PT, that the player would expect that the Start and PT would continue into the tournament.And I agree that if you guarantee someone 25 minutes as a freshman, then they play 10 minutes as a sophomore, they would complain and possibly leave. That would be a realistic change, and would definitely mess up the strategy of promising lost of minutes as a freshman. Maybe there could be more promises as possibilities - seems like in GD you could promise someone they would start as a sophomore. Might be difficult to keep track of from a coaching point of view if you could promise things for the Junior and senior years as well.

Or you could reduce the value of a promised start. A lot easier.

A promise to to start at Portland State is less valuable than a scholar at Oregon.

Unless you are Mike T Douchebag.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/25/2017 8:05:00 PM (view original):
It's not really your strategy. Pretty sure a LOT of people do it. And it probably dead on accurate with how recruiting works. "You're the best we have coming in. You'll be a 4 year starter!!" Then, next year, "Sorry, son, Billy Bob has outplayed you. You're gonna be a back-up this year. We'll get you some PT though. Don't worry about it."

Yes this is realistic. You gotta perform well to keep your spot. If not, you're gunna be riding the pine. Having promises extend more than the initial season is silly.

Posted by lakevin on 8/26/2017 5:44:00 PM (view original):
Or you could reduce the value of a promised start. A lot easier.

A promise to to start at Portland State is less valuable than a scholar at Oregon.

Unless you are Mike T Douchebag.

Nah. The value of the promises is about right, reflects real life priorities for top recruits, and produces good, competitive recruiting. If you want the best recruits, you should have to be willing and able to play them from the start. Don't lessen the value of promises; if anything, increase the risk associated with breaking them, and maybe extend them farther into their careers.

Posted by lakevin on 8/26/2017 5:44:00 PM (view original):
Or you could reduce the value of a promised start. A lot easier.

A promise to to start at Portland State is less valuable than a scholar at Oregon.

Unless you are Mike T Douchebag.

That's how prestige works.