Posted by a_in_the_b on 2/25/2013 12:20:00 AM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 2/24/2013 11:19:00 PM (view original):But colonels, not taking a position here other than playing devil's advocate(in other words, I can see both gillespie's position and its opposition)... Why is there a sharp line delineator between d2 and d1? If failing at higher d1 means you should no longer be eligible for higher d1, why shouldn't failing at low level d1 mean ... You are no longer eligible for low level d1? Are you saying that once you have taken any division one job, no further level of ineptitude, ever, should make you unqualified for low level d1 ever again, however lenient you might want that standard to be?
I'm simply saying, if you've coached D1 before, you should be eligible for D1 jobs, and I'm talking D- jobs...no way in hell should you get an A or B prestige job at D1 after just getting fired...no way.
When I say level, I mean division, I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear previously
when i said someone who made d1 should be let back in d1, forever - that went too far. really, i think someone who made d1 should not be disqualified from 1 bad stint, and maybe 2. after many failings, i dont really see a problem bumping them back down. but i still would like to see d1 take a bit more success to reach.
to address the issue of why should low d1 schools not suffer from bad seasons when good d1 schools do, i wouldnt actually just limit this to being able to make d1 or not. simply being able to grab a d- school and nothing else, isnt really a great solution, either (im not for just drawing a line). i think a similar type of consideration (but with a different magnitude of impact) should be given to ALL coaches at ALL levels. id even give this consideration to A+ prestige d1 coaches, not to say they should be able to tank and return to an A+, but instead that if they were burnt out, crashed, and then dropped the team 3-4 seasons later, i wouldnt want them to have to pick up a d+ d1 school - i think something in between, like a b- bcs school, would be appropriate. i think my opinion rests primarily on 3 factors:
1) coaches often get burnt out and as a result, have a few bad seasons before dropping that world completely. these seasons are usually uncharacteristically bad. coaches are more likely to return, and to stick around a while, if they can pick up near where they left off (opinion, but i believe it strongly)
2) the game does not do anything close to a satisfactory job of incorporating the quality of the situation in the success equation. picking up a massive d prestige rebuild, and having a couple bad seasons, is effectively par for the course - but its treated similarly to someone taking over a good program, and completely tanking. this is unreasonable, and results in undo penalization of coaches who take over rebuilds - both those who rebuild successfully, and those who do not. at least successful rebuilders are just a little behind after a couple good seasons, because the "bad" (par for the course) ones early on are weighted less, being a couple seasons in the past. unsuccessful rebuilders are screwed, with their last few seasons being bad and weighted very heavily.
3) long term success is undervalued. this was mitigated to some degree with the recent change to d1 prestige/jobs. however, it is still true that a long, long string of success, followed by a couple bad seasons, results in a severe hit - which i believe in some cases, is overly severe (another opinion, and it varies wildly, case by case - but i think most of us would agree, the hit is too severe at least in the 10% or so of most severe cases)
in reality, if i could fix this problem any way, i would do so by fixing #2. i guess id fix #3 as well, but i think #2 would have a much bigger impact. if a coach could take over a crap program, and do crappy, and have that treated like par for the course (at least for the first couple seasons - the expectations should obviously raise over time - and eventually continuing to do poorly should count against you) - then i don't think there would be a need for the kind of change we are talking about (letting d1 coaches who dont do well, return, despite not being qualified by the current standards). this would resolve most of the situations like those encountered by the OP and colonels, or the many coaches who pick up a BCS total rebuild and fail, and then cannot get even a halfway decent d1 job. it wouldnt help coaches of high end, long term programs, who inevitably get burnt out, but fixing #3 would (by giving them more credit for long term success). i know cushioning a+ prestige d1 coaches will be controversial at the least, but i feel like getting burnt out is an inevitable part of the HD lifecycle, and as its hard to let go, some leniency should be applied. the focus should be on making it more likely those coaches will return, hopefully to a suitable situation that gives them a better chance of enjoying it, and staying.
however, outside of fixing those issues (suppose its too much work), i think it would be reasonable to hack in a stop-gap for everybody, similar to what colonels mentions, that allows new d1 coaches who struggle, minimally, a second chance at d1. but beyond that, as i mentioned up front, id also have a similar mechanism (less impact) for all coaches at all levels. maybe a coach at a new program can minimally get a job a little under his qualifications when he arrived (say, they can get a job 1 partial grade lower, per prestige grade - so D prestige only drops 1, C drops 2, etc). coaches at programs for longer periods of time, say over 5 seasons, could get a job at a similar reduction, from their resume from 5 seasons ago (or something). for example, a guy at an a+, qualified for an a+ for a long time, who has a couple mediocre seasons and then totally tanks for a couple more, would be capped at minimally qualified for a b prestige job - instead of being in the d+ type situations.