I think the players should 100% of the time should complain and drop big WE points when they dont get at least the exact amount of promised minutes regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. You don't have to promise 25 minutes to get guys in battles/rolls.

Normally I can get away with promising 25 minutes, because I mostly play slow down and zone. This season we're pretty deep, but if you have an 8 man roster, that player is more than likely going to play 25 minutes anyways. I want to be able to gain every advantage I can in getting a recruit, even if it's just 2-3% between 20 and 25 minutes.

Posted by indiansrck27 on 6/21/2018 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I think the players should 100% of the time should complain and drop big WE points when they dont get at least the exact amount of promised minutes regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. You don't have to promise 25 minutes to get guys in battles/rolls.

I don't have a problem with that stance. Again, just saying give the coaches more control over the player's PT if it's going to be that stringent. Sometimes, a player's minutes is dictated by the other team's tempo. In real life, you would be able to control a player's PT, even if it were to just get him an extra minute or two.

Posted by indiansrck27 on 6/21/2018 9:28:00 PM (view original):
I think the players should 100% of the time should complain and drop big WE points when they dont get at least the exact amount of promised minutes regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. You don't have to promise 25 minutes to get guys in battles/rolls.

If we had a DEF aggression setting, I may agree with this. If I could tell my team to pretend they were playing against the Harlem Globetrotters AND I still don't hit my minute quota, then shame on me. Right now, the program is not sophisticated enough to be that strict, IMHO.

I do agree with both of you on that, my main thought on it really relates to recruiting. It MIGHT (but more than likely not) change some peoples strategy when recruiting if there were more of a risk in not meeting the promise.

I'm torn on this. Sophistication of the game is the issue. I think if a player is promised 25 and gets 24.9, but fouled out of 10 games, how's that the coaches fault?

Also, the promised minutes should/could be set up in two increments instead of four. Like a recruit would really choose a school that offers him 25 min, over a school that offers him 20? Is that even a discussion recruits/coaches have? That's too narrow.

It could be something like "promised playing time" which could relate to 10 min. And then "full rotation player" at 20+ min. That general idea. Not those numbers precisely.

A 25 minute promise is crazy, and I have never promised that many. You are correct, and something has changed! I go 15 minutes on a regular basis and they used to complain somewhere around game eight, and they now start complaining at game five. For a FR with bad IQ a five game window is hard to maintain playing time, where as at the eight game mark they have progessed somewhat and I feel better at giving them minutes.

Promising minutes is a choice. You don't want the risk? Don't promise the minutes.

I personally have not seen any change in the logic and considering they took a year to update the champions page I seriously doubt they actually did anything to it.

Now I will patiently wait for shoe to come on here and agree with me.

Out of curiosity, are you really getting that much of a benefit in recruiting by promising 25 minutes instead of 20 or 15?

Posted by mullycj on 6/22/2018 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Promising minutes is a choice. You don't want the risk? Don't promise the minutes.

I personally have not seen any change in the logic and considering they took a year to update the champions page I seriously doubt they actually did anything to it.

Now I will patiently wait for shoe to come on here and agree with me.

I doubt it changed. But if it did, then it was obviously unintentional.

Posted by masonwr on 6/22/2018 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Out of curiosity, are you really getting that much of a benefit in recruiting by promising 25 minutes instead of 20 or 15?

This. I don't see ANY advantage. Promising minutes only makes sense on guys that have a "wants to play" preference in 3.0. You are trying to promise those minutes as early as possible to get that preference to very good so it multiplies the efforts of your attention points. 15 minutes gets all players to very good, so what is the point in ever promising 20 or 25??? I've won many battles (in d2) over d1 schools and human d2 coaches where I only promised 15. In the battles that I didn't win it was because I lost the dice roll when heavily favored.

Posted by pdxblazerfan on 6/22/2018 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by masonwr on 6/22/2018 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Out of curiosity, are you really getting that much of a benefit in recruiting by promising 25 minutes instead of 20 or 15?

This. I don't see ANY advantage. Promising minutes only makes sense on guys that have a "wants to play" preference in 3.0. You are trying to promise those minutes as early as possible to get that preference to very good so it multiplies the efforts of your attention points. 15 minutes gets all players to very good, so what is the point in ever promising 20 or 25??? I've won many battles (in d2) over d1 schools and human d2 coaches where I only promised 15. In the battles that I didn't win it was because I lost the dice roll when heavily favored.

It's probably not huge. but I don't think it's NONE. Maybe it's the equivalent of 1 HV per 5 minutes promised.

Posted by mullycj on 6/22/2018 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Promising minutes is a choice. You don't want the risk? Don't promise the minutes.

I personally have not seen any change in the logic and considering they took a year to update the champions page I seriously doubt they actually did anything to it.

Now I will patiently wait for shoe to come on here and agree with me.

Point of order, since I’ve already said all this in slightly different language, mully is agreeing with me.

Posted by pdxblazerfan on 6/22/2018 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by masonwr on 6/22/2018 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Out of curiosity, are you really getting that much of a benefit in recruiting by promising 25 minutes instead of 20 or 15?

This. I don't see ANY advantage. Promising minutes only makes sense on guys that have a "wants to play" preference in 3.0. You are trying to promise those minutes as early as possible to get that preference to very good so it multiplies the efforts of your attention points. 15 minutes gets all players to very good, so what is the point in ever promising 20 or 25??? I've won many battles (in d2) over d1 schools and human d2 coaches where I only promised 15. In the battles that I didn't win it was because I lost the dice roll when heavily favored.

There is definitely an advantage. It’s bigger if the player wants to play, because then it’s applied to all the other effort as well. But even if the player doesn’t care about PT, promises have stand alone value, and 25 minutes is 25% more than 20. It’s noticeable. At ACU, because I run FB/press, I have never promised 25, and I have lost and even been locked out of battles I am pretty sure I would have otherwise won/gotten in on.

As mully says, it’s a tool. There is risk and reward, and as a coach you need to navigate that.

"As mully says, it’s a tool. "

Ha.....see.....you agree with me!!!