Posted by dacj501 on 3/10/2013 12:42:00 AM (view original):
although the directness of his argument leaves me feeling kind of dirty, I agree with colonels in general. I'm not sure if it was ever addressed here, but the possible exception I would say is if the resumes are clearly extremely similar. The issue this time isn't just that he forgot to renew, its that he thinks his resume should have landed him the job, maybe with some consideration for having been the coach already. That's like 2 issues really -
1. should coaches who forget to renew have some artificial advantage to get their job back.
2. is the hiring process fubar when comparing coaches resumes
I think 2 is probably the case and could use some work. I don't think 1 should be true. There are lots of reminders telling you to renew. Maybe you are waiting for postseason credits to roll in from other worlds before buying a new package - I've done that a bunch of times, and cut it close on occasion. But that's on the user. If they don't renew and someone else applies (remember if no one has applied yet they automatically get it back as if they never left, so there is an advantage already) and is more qualified, the job should go to the better resume. Like I mentioned upthread, if they start firing coaches that underperform (not the case here, just a general point) and made it easier for the high prestige jobs to become available to others waiting for their shot I might reconsider my stance, but as it is, this is another (relatively rare) opportunity for someone else to get their shot.
i think this is a very reasonable stance.
you mention that if someone else is more qualified and applies, the job should go to the better resume. i think thats a valid point, and i definitely agree to some extent.
fundamentally, if you are on board with a coach getting the job before anyone else applies, then i think we have a fairly similar viewpoint, with a slightly different final result. the reason i support a coach getting his job back before anyone else renews, well, its two reasons:
1) it makes sense to try to keep a coach who is at a school and wants to stay there, at that school
2) if nobody else has renewed, nobody can be unfairly impacted
in assessing any proposed change to the job system, in the arena of dealing with people who forget to renew, i think its the same two factors that play in. now, it might not be black and white - i think black and white situations are easiest. if the original coach can get the job back, without anyone else being impacted, then its a no brainer (well, you might not make the change because the dev team doesnt have time, but thats not what im talking about here - just what is ideal).
however, it may not always be black and white. its a fundamental opinion, where i dont think there is any right or wrong - is there any case where its worth risking some small chance that a coach is slightly negatively impacted, to help the original coach? you could also factor in, how much does that coach deserve to keep his job, based on how long he was there (or something), if you wanted - but that still really falls into factor #1. i think its perfectly reasonable to say, as you seem to be - the original coach got plenty of warnings, and deserves nothing, so we should only help him if nobody else is negatively impacted. however, others might think, man, this really sucks for the original coach, so if there is an acceptably small impact on another coach, its worth it.
dac, what do you think of my framing of this issue? is that a fair way to frame things? if so, under that framing, where do you stand?
i actually am totally with you on your opinion on #1 (#1 in your post) - i am against giving coaches who forget to renew, some artificial advantage in the comparison of resumes, at decision time. my opinion on the subject, in the framing i described, is that the original coach basically got enough warnings and should not be helped if that help has a good chance of significantly hurting another coach. however, if there is a very minor impact, or a very small chance of material negative impact, im for helping the original coach.
anyway, in the issue of waiting until resumes would get compared, and giving the original coach an advantage - i think the potential to negatively impact another coach is too great. what if there were only 2 similar job openings, and the applicant has a strong resume, and could win either job. suspecting this, that coach could very reasonably only apply to 1 of the 2. if the artificial advantage comes into play, and the applicant loses, the other job likely filled at the same time, and thus, the artificial advantage cost him a quality job. i think that is too significant of a negative, that is too likely to occur.
now, one could say even the recent change could cost someone a job - if aramano had applied first, hed have gotten it, and that change thus would prevent kimball from getting aramano's old job (miami FL), as was ultimately the case. but i think most of us are in agreement, the baseline is, what is the situation for the other coach (kimball in this case) if the original coach (aramano) had renewed on time? in that case, he couldnt have gotten the job, he would have gotten the 2nd good job (if the situation in the above example applied), and that is the same outcome that would happen if aramano forgot to renew, but applied first and was re-instated.
anyway, in the current situation, i believe that coaches often are checking in as soon as they can on the day jobs open up - a lot happens. you can see if you lost a player early, you can see if your conference mate won the NT (if applicable), and you can see what jobs may have opened up. i actually forgot to renew south carolina once, but because i checked quickly, and because it wasnt the kind of job people would jump at, i was able to grab it back, no harm done. my thinking is this - if the original coach and applicant are both logging on in this period, and they both are going to apply within say 5 minutes of the job opening up, is it really a material difference if the original coach applies first or second? also, should the attractiveness of the job play such a high role in his odds that someone else applies right away? i can see either answer here - but my opinion is that no, which coach applies first if they both apply in the first 5 minutes, is not a material difference. there is a VERY small chance the applicant would not check back for the remainder of the day, especially if he knows the original coach might have reclaimed the job, and as long as the applicant is able to check back in and get another job app in, i see no harm done - and would support the original coach getting the job back (immediately upon application).
now, i dont really think 5 minutes buys you much, and many people may say, i dont think the original coach should get that privilege (what would you say, dac?). but if you think that there is no negative to other coaches (as compared to the baseline situation - where the original coach renewed on time), and think that 5 minute window after jobs open up would be fine, then the question becomes, where do you draw the line? some coaches dont stay up late, some are up early instead. but still, you could catch most late night coaches if you give the original coach 1 hour after jobs open up. is that a sufficiently small negative? i think so. what about 9am, or noon? it seems one of those would likely catch the morning coaches, but theres definitely a greater chance the other coach cant check back in. i would think that if coaches new they might lose the job to the original coach, it would be safe to assume they would make sure to check back - you only have to check back if you applied right away, anyway, and those coaches who are checking stuff ASAP are usually pretty attentive. so i could get behind giving the original coach until 9am, or noon, to reclaim their job. i think if you get much later, you really start to box the applicant in, not giving him enough time to apply elsewhere before jobs start filling - and maybe noon is already too late.
anyway, i know this rambled on forever, but to me its an interesting philosophical question, how do you deal with the 2 factors (the advantage of letting an original coach get his job back, vs the negative impact on other coaches), and if you dont take a black and white stance (never allow another coach to be negatively impacted), how do you balance those 2 factors? what the tipping point? those sort of questions always interest me. so anyway, im curious if you (or anyone else) would be on board with a shades-of-grey approach, where you'd be fine with a mechanism that helps the original coach but carries some small negative? and if so, how much negative is ok? also, to people behind the coach advantage suggestion, how do you feel about the potential negative impact on applicant coaches?