Admin Notes
The request to allow Tier 2/3 coaches to offer next-year PT promises was implemented some time ago but not announced. As noted by my inability to find limitations in the code, and Stephen's identifying coaches doing this already, the request is being canceled.

In addition to CBEL Jacksonville State, CCEL N Iowa and Montana used this extensively during the last offseason, while CCEL Charlotte and CBEL UC Irvine picked up 1-2 players this way.

Comments
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.

Keith Copeland (Sep 13 21:50:57 2025 )
Anything to help Tier 2/Tier3 Coaches with recruiting.

Stephen Thompson (Oct 4 21:32:50 2025 )
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?

UPDATE ... I checked the DD teams in CBEL and found this;
583/7 E.Rodriguez (C ) goes to Jacksnvlle St on scholarship, PT promised next year