Admin Notes

Comments
Ryan Ciaccio II (May 24 04:03:04 2026 )
The only alteration I might suggest would be that it wouldn’t be a guarantee that the player would stay if promised PT, it would just make it much more likely. Some players would still leave regardless. Otherwise I like it!

Daniel Hilsgen (May 25 09:46:03 2026 )
I like that the initial change was made. Here are my suggestions on how to tweak it:

1. If a player accepts a next year playing time offer then that player should not demand playing time their first year.

2. The original (1) suggestion to allow in-season PT promises (for the next season) that makes the player demanding PT this season "happy" I am in support of.

3. Personally I think the Sim should operate as follows: Players promised or demanding PT need to average at least 20 MPG to be "happy". Players averaging 15 to 19 MPG with PT promise or demand are "boarderline". All others are "unhappy". I would make it so each player at end of season that's "boarderline" is a 50/50 coin flip on if becomes unhappy and leaves or not.
(MPG based off of CBEL).

Pythagoras A (May 26 18:18:13 2026 )
I do not know how do-able this would be, but maybe those demanding time could be made happy with less time if younger, and demand more time later. Right now, it seems everyone that demands time needs a lot of time to get to happy. But, maybe a sophomore player can get to happy with a little less playing time, while a junior needs the level of playing time currently needed to make a player happy.

Last season, I had 5 or 6 WRs demanding time, and the offshoot was that the senior was relegated to the bottom of the depth chart because he was leaving anyway. At a certain point, it is impossible to make all of them happy. I worry that at a certain point, if this all becomes extra complicated, you will drive coaches out of leagues, so that a small handful of coaches can get their way and have an overcomplicated feature.

John Henry (May 29 06:21:35 2026 )
I like this request and also advocate towards the below for an absolute. I had a Sr punter with a PT, actively recruited his replacement with a NY promise and he left anyway despite getting more than 50% of the starts. Brutal outcome.

1. If a player accepts a next year playing time offer then that player should not demand playing time their first year.

Andy Dolphin (May 31 18:56:07 2026 )
I don't understand the suggestion at all. What is meant by an "in-season PT promise" to a player demanding playing time? A promise to give playing time next year? The player's demand is to get playing time this year, not next year. The solution to meet his playing time demand is to give him playing time, not to promise to give him playing time

Gregor Ellis (Jun 2 15:15:12 2026 )
I would also add

3) Players recruited with a next year PTP should not demand playing time their first year. They already accepted the next year promise when they could have rejected that offer so I think it is reasonable to assume they agree to defer demanding.

As regards Ryan's comment on suggestion (1) , I agree it makes sense and may be more aligned with how the PT Demands are determined - so it becomes a probability modifier and not an absolute.
===

Re the in-season pt promise promise: If a player can't get playtime in the season he is demanding it, the earliest he will get to play is next season anyway. That could even be the season after based on the numer of transferees who believed my next season pt promises during the initial inviting round just past. Any coach who had planned on starting a player next season could offer that promise. Seems better for the players and addresses What several coaches got frustrated about this past season where a clearly inferior player or someone sitting behind a senior with an existing ptp was demanding.