Jobs opened up today in Allen and while I'm not looking to leave my Campbell team I was looking around and came across something that didn't make any sense.  Northwestern (C prestige), Providence (C-), Georgetown (C-), and Villanova (C) are all "step backwards."  However, I'm "not qualified" for Harvard (C), Yale (D), Brown (C+), Penn (D), or Dartmouth (D+).  As for the other mid major conferences everything that's currently C+ prestige or worse is a step backwards while B- and better I'm not qualified for (which makes sense).  

Can anyone explain how I'm not qualified for those Ivy League schools?  Do they think I'm too stupid or maybe my Campbell GPA's aren't high enough for them?  

Maybe it's because your rowing skills aren't up to their standards.  What's your personal best time in the single scull?

Take a look at conference prestige ratings in your world. Is the Ivy a highly rated conference?

You need an A+ reputation for Ivy League schools.  Looking at your resume I can see that you only have a "great reputation".  It needs to be spotless for Ivy League schools.

^That sounds like an answer. 

Posted by clouseb on 8/14/2014 1:22:00 PM (view original):
You need an A+ reputation for Ivy League schools.  Looking at your resume I can see that you only have a "great reputation".  It needs to be spotless for Ivy League schools.

This has to be it, but I'm sure a close 2nd is the fact that I can't row worth a damn.  Summit League is B- and Ivy is C-, so it's not conf prestige.  My reputation is only A, which seems odd since I changed jobs 5 seasons ago, never cut a guy, never had someone go ineligible, and haven't broken any promises.  Stranger yet was in Crum I was qualified for multiple Ivy League schools last season and I had just cut a guy the season before.  

But good to know there's an explanation and it's not a totally random thing with no explanation.

The jobs logic, for the most part, is pretty screwed up anyway.  Firings are almost non-existant.  If a coach gets to a Big Six school before youo, good luck ever getting that job.  Only way it opens is if that coach moves or leaves the world because he ain't getting the axe.

It's one of the biggest problems HD has and they refuse to fix it in the name of not wanting to alienate and **** off long time customers.  I can see their point.  It's also wrong.  Any coach that has made it to D1 should know that if they don't perform, they risk getting fired.  A coach should at least be that experienced in the game.  If that coach feels that he's capable of coaching a D1 team, then he should also know that he assumes the risk of getting **** canned.  If said coach does get fired and does get ******, it's on him, he knew going in that losing his job was a possibility. 

The question is, what should be the standards that need to be met in order to keep a D1 job?  Obviously, it wouldn't be the same for every school, that's silly.  The standards also need to be lenient enough so that they aren't impossible to meet.  Saying that an A+ prestige school should have to make it to the Final Four at least once every four seasons (which I HAVE seen proposed) is just ridiculous.  I'm willing to bet that the people proposing that have never coached a D1 school, let alone an A+ prestige school.

This discussion gets brought up from time to time and I've seen some decent standards suggested, but still haven't seen one that everyone agreed with.  It's tough, but it REALLY needs to be done.  It's too stagnant, there needs to be more turnover in the top jobs.

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/14/2014 3:57:00 PM (view original):
The jobs logic, for the most part, is pretty screwed up anyway.  Firings are almost non-existant.  If a coach gets to a Big Six school before youo, good luck ever getting that job.  Only way it opens is if that coach moves or leaves the world because he ain't getting the axe.

It's one of the biggest problems HD has and they refuse to fix it in the name of not wanting to alienate and **** off long time customers.  I can see their point.  It's also wrong.  Any coach that has made it to D1 should know that if they don't perform, they risk getting fired.  A coach should at least be that experienced in the game.  If that coach feels that he's capable of coaching a D1 team, then he should also know that he assumes the risk of getting **** canned.  If said coach does get fired and does get ******, it's on him, he knew going in that losing his job was a possibility. 

The question is, what should be the standards that need to be met in order to keep a D1 job?  Obviously, it wouldn't be the same for every school, that's silly.  The standards also need to be lenient enough so that they aren't impossible to meet.  Saying that an A+ prestige school should have to make it to the Final Four at least once every four seasons (which I HAVE seen proposed) is just ridiculous.  I'm willing to bet that the people proposing that have never coached a D1 school, let alone an A+ prestige school.

This discussion gets brought up from time to time and I've seen some decent standards suggested, but still haven't seen one that everyone agreed with.  It's tough, but it REALLY needs to be done.  It's too stagnant, there needs to be more turnover in the top jobs.

Yep, yep. 

You know, I just thought of something that I don't think I've seen before (it's probably been posted before, but I haven't seen it or don't remember it): why are we trying to talk about getting postseason performance standards for keeping jobs? We already have something that tracks your performance: prestige. Why not tie employment to prestige. If you fall below your baseline prestige too far and/or for too long, you get fired. If you stay at or above your baseline, you keep your job. Obviously, you'd need to work out the specifics, but does this not seem like a reasonable place to start? 

Posted by tarvolon on 8/14/2014 4:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/14/2014 3:57:00 PM (view original):
The jobs logic, for the most part, is pretty screwed up anyway.  Firings are almost non-existant.  If a coach gets to a Big Six school before youo, good luck ever getting that job.  Only way it opens is if that coach moves or leaves the world because he ain't getting the axe.

It's one of the biggest problems HD has and they refuse to fix it in the name of not wanting to alienate and **** off long time customers.  I can see their point.  It's also wrong.  Any coach that has made it to D1 should know that if they don't perform, they risk getting fired.  A coach should at least be that experienced in the game.  If that coach feels that he's capable of coaching a D1 team, then he should also know that he assumes the risk of getting **** canned.  If said coach does get fired and does get ******, it's on him, he knew going in that losing his job was a possibility. 

The question is, what should be the standards that need to be met in order to keep a D1 job?  Obviously, it wouldn't be the same for every school, that's silly.  The standards also need to be lenient enough so that they aren't impossible to meet.  Saying that an A+ prestige school should have to make it to the Final Four at least once every four seasons (which I HAVE seen proposed) is just ridiculous.  I'm willing to bet that the people proposing that have never coached a D1 school, let alone an A+ prestige school.

This discussion gets brought up from time to time and I've seen some decent standards suggested, but still haven't seen one that everyone agreed with.  It's tough, but it REALLY needs to be done.  It's too stagnant, there needs to be more turnover in the top jobs.

Yep, yep. 

You know, I just thought of something that I don't think I've seen before (it's probably been posted before, but I haven't seen it or don't remember it): why are we trying to talk about getting postseason performance standards for keeping jobs? We already have something that tracks your performance: prestige. Why not tie employment to prestige. If you fall below your baseline prestige too far and/or for too long, you get fired. If you stay at or above your baseline, you keep your job. Obviously, you'd need to work out the specifics, but does this not seem like a reasonable place to start? 

What about the conference tournament? I find it far easier to take a team to the conference finals once every 4 years than the Final four.

Also why does it have to be 1 standard. Why not 2 or 3 or even say 4 and you must reach at least 2 of the standards in 4 years to keep your job FOR EXAMPLE

A+ Prestige school
1- Make the post-season all 4 years
2- Win on average 10 Conference game per season
3- Win or make it to the conference tournament final
4- Make it to the Elite 8

I proposed a long time ago some where on the forums to give D1 coaches "contracts" and with those "contracts" they have goals to meet. These "contract" terms can also be publicly displayed and then a coach will literally have a public expectation that can allow other coaches to see if a job or a coach is on the "hot seat" FOR EXAMPLE

Coach of Mich State (I'm a spartan fan) is entering the last year of his contract and has yet to make the conference tournament final and is averaging only 9 conference wins a season and hasn't made the elite 8, He has to either make it to the elite 8 or have a superb conference showing in order to keep his job and get an extension this season.

So now coaches can prepare for openings and the expectations will be signed and laid out before a coach even takes his job. So its not on HD for a "Why did I get fired scenario."

Extensions can also changed based off of goal performance. If a coach reaches all goals he can get a 6 season extension. If he makes only 2 they can expect a 1 or 2 season extension offer.

Then if a coach signs for 4 seasons and doesn't renew and basically "quits" his job then he takes a reputation AND loyalty hit.

I love the idea of coach contracts and I have brought it up before but didn't seem like there was much support. 

Posted by gvsujulius on 8/14/2014 4:39:00 PM (view original):
I love the idea of coach contracts and I have brought it up before but didn't seem like there was much support. 

I really like the idea of tieing the contract to visible goals. This makes more transparency for when a coach may get fired

I think laying out what a coach's minimum expectations that he needs to meet in order to keep his job would be an interesting twist.  Maybe they don't need to be made public, but in exchange maybe an e-mail is sent out to all the other coaches in that world saying something to the effect that coach so-and-so is on the hot seat and that his job could "potentially" (yep, used that word on purpose) be opening up the following season.

If something like this were in effect, and firings actually had some teeth to them, I also wouldn't be opposed to changing the open coaching positions to get more human coaches into higher level teams by having that school's requirements start to ease up the longer the jobs process went.  So when it came to the last day, if you had a Sim team and you had a human D1 coach who was interested in that team and he was the only applicant, on the last cycle of the process he would get the job.  Can't tell me that having an active human coach would be worse than having a Sim coach.  If he can't hack it and doesn't meet the requirements, then he gets fired.  If it turns out that he can meet the minimum requirements, then good on him.  Yep, I'm suggesting that if no one else is interested in the job or applies for it, that a first year D1 coach from Maine should be able to move to Duke.  That's exactly what I'm saying.  I wouldn't allow a D2 coach to make that jump, I think there would still have to be a ceiling there, but a D1 coach?  Sure, why not?  And let's be realistic here, that first year coach is NOT going to be the only guy applying to those badass A+ prestige schools.  But in the event that he is, give him the damn job.  Just make sure that firings have teeth and are actually being utilized when appropriate and you'll separate the wheat from the chaff in the long run anyway.

Posted by emy1013 on 8/15/2014 12:18:00 AM (view original):
I think laying out what a coach's minimum expectations that he needs to meet in order to keep his job would be an interesting twist.  Maybe they don't need to be made public, but in exchange maybe an e-mail is sent out to all the other coaches in that world saying something to the effect that coach so-and-so is on the hot seat and that his job could "potentially" (yep, used that word on purpose) be opening up the following season.

If something like this were in effect, and firings actually had some teeth to them, I also wouldn't be opposed to changing the open coaching positions to get more human coaches into higher level teams by having that school's requirements start to ease up the longer the jobs process went.  So when it came to the last day, if you had a Sim team and you had a human D1 coach who was interested in that team and he was the only applicant, on the last cycle of the process he would get the job.  Can't tell me that having an active human coach would be worse than having a Sim coach.  If he can't hack it and doesn't meet the requirements, then he gets fired.  If it turns out that he can meet the minimum requirements, then good on him.  Yep, I'm suggesting that if no one else is interested in the job or applies for it, that a first year D1 coach from Maine should be able to move to Duke.  That's exactly what I'm saying.  I wouldn't allow a D2 coach to make that jump, I think there would still have to be a ceiling there, but a D1 coach?  Sure, why not?  And let's be realistic here, that first year coach is NOT going to be the only guy applying to those badass A+ prestige schools.  But in the event that he is, give him the damn job.  Just make sure that firings have teeth and are actually being utilized when appropriate and you'll separate the wheat from the chaff in the long run anyway.

I like what your saying about the email but I think we can take it another step forward to an even better spot. We have the big draft board? Why not a coaches board? Can we also have a national coaches corner?

Put ALL human D1 coaches on a coach board, with a job "outlook" like the draft board. Also put the contract length on it as well. If a coach is scouting a job for  instance Mich state (again spartan fan) and I see Oh, the coach is in the last year of contact and it lists him as EXAMPLES

Bad/under performing - "Hot Seat" or "Likely Out"
On the edge/Average- "On the bubble" or "Under Review"
Good/Exceeding Expectations- "Secure" or "In contract talks"

+1