Admin Notes
Based on comments, I'll add this one to my long-term list of updates as it isn't immediately clear how this will be accomplished. Either will need the commissioners to maintain a list of teams that can give next-year promises, or have some flag to note coaches who were eligible for promotion but remained at their current school.
I still haven't seen any practical suggestions on how to confirm that a coach is "locked" into their current school and thus eligible to offer a next-year PT offer. Here are a few:
- Only coaches with "DD" at the end of their coach username are eligible (could be a pain, but usernames can be modified)
- Only coaches at the school for 2+ seasons can offer a next-year PT offer. (No guarantee the coach would be back, however. Also, if a coach's team name is changed during the offseason, such as Utah Tech/Dixie State, the coach would not be allowed to offer a PT promise.)
- Coaches with next-year PT promises on the roster are omitted from promotion eligibility. (Not a sure-fire solution, as it would need to be recorded before season end as next-year becomes this-year at the end of the season. Also, if a next-year promise was offered but the player went elsewhere, this record would be lost.)
- Add a report indicating what teams / coaches offered next-year PTP during all rounds of recruiting, and it would be up to the commissioner to hand-check any promotions were not from that list.
I'm not sure any of these ideas are great, but I'll leave this ticket open a bit longer to see if there are good ones.

Comments
Stephen Thompson: I think the game should be a little less restrictive in basketball in which PT promises a player is willing to believe. I think that would help address Gunn's concern. I think it's also worth thinking through what this looks like for a minor program. Would a typical stud player in RL prefer to go to Longwood with a commitment to start in his second season, or go to Duke and have to fight for playing time? Most high school students are confident enough (overestimate?) in their skills they would still choose to go to Duke. So maybe this is only available for players who are explicitly seeking playing time?
Johnny Gunn: Next year playing time promises for a recruit to believe in Tier 1 is nearly impossible, even when you are in serious need to fill that position. The last thing I want to see is these scrub Tier 2 and Tier 3 schools stealing recruits from Tier 1 schools. It will be way easier for these schools to get the recruits to believe there next year playing time promise because the lack of talent on these teams. It's probably not that big of a deal and I'm being a drama queen, but someone needs to have an opposing opinion. :0
Arkimedes Z: Tier 2/3 are already at big disadvantages in recruiting. Any slim help to balance things slightly would be helpful. Tier 1 already gets higher prestige, more points, and top flight walkons. Few things worse than struggling to sign some D C prospects at tier 3 while A A players on tier 1 teams happily sit on the bench for 4 seasons, rarely play, and never transfer.
Robert Redmond: My mistake on the duplicate votes. Please ignore my second vote. I was unaware I was on my second account and thought the votes had reset.
Jeff Blevins (Dec 28 15:09:59 2021 ): Old topic but I think it is still valid. Would like to see something like this happen.
Rob Larocque (Dec 28 15:57:09 2021 ): As a Coach who is actually a triple dipper, I voted in favor of allowing for a next year PT promise change for coaches who are locked into their T2 and T3 programs. I would prefer just Tier 2 programs, but that’s my thought. This change might sway a decent mid level player or 2, who are riding the pine for 4 seasons in Division 1 to actually play in a game.
Gregor Ellis (Jan 10 11:37:08 2024 ): I think that this would distort things if some human coaches can offer promises and not others. I do agree with the basic idea of allowing next year promises. If a coach leaves, the player will enter the transfer pool anyway if the promise isn't met. To expand on my comments: I think all human run teams should be able to make ptps and possibly even Bob. When a human coach leaves any team, I think all ptps should either void or, in the case of a T1 team with a new human coach, should be re-confirmed at the same time the coach decides if they want to give scholarships to players demanding one.