I'm currently failing at a rebuild of Hawaii-Manoa.  It's DI-power conference, and the school had pretty much bottomed out when I got there.  If current trends hold - that is, if I keep turning in losing seasons where I miss the postseason entirely - after which season do I get canned?

98	cornfused	0-0	0-0	0-0	0-0	0-0		0	0	-
97	cornfused	11-16	4-8	7-7	0-1	4-12		129	63	C
96	cornfused	12-15	3-6	9-8	0-1	2-14		83	41	C-
95	cornfused	10-17	2-8	8-8	0-1	3-13		153	96	D+
94	cornfused	8-19	3-9	5-9	0-1	1-15		161	58	C-
93	cornfused	3-24	2-14	1-9	0-1	0-16		257	67	C-
92	Sim AI	9-18	6-10	3-7	0-1	2-14		227	147	C

about 30.

Perhaps this is a separate discussion, but I think the #1 issue I have with HD is that firings aren't more aggressive at higher levels.  At a school with A+ baseline, I'd like to see consecutive seasons out of the postseason (or 3 without an NT appearance) result in a firing.  Four no-postseason seasons in a row, unless they're your first four at the school, should get you canned anywhere in the power conferences and maybe even at the midmajors.  PIT appearances every other year should keep you employed for life at Austin Peay or Vermont.

When is the last time anyone remembers a coach getting fired in any world?  I can't remember the last time anyone has been fired in Crum, it's been at least five seasons, probably ten at a minimum.  Is this true in the other worlds? 

I've been wondering if WIS just quietly ceased firing coaches altogether.

I keep track in a thread. It doesn't get updated very often because they pretty much took firings out of the game. www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx

Firings = lost revenue. If someone wants to keep paying for eternity to win 10 games a season, WIS will gladly take your money.

A death certificate! And like some of the old hall of fames, you have to be dead for five years

---

.

Maybe the guy who programs the firings got fired!

Way........................................too.........................................long.

Posted by cornfused on 12/14/2014 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps this is a separate discussion, but I think the #1 issue I have with HD is that firings aren't more aggressive at higher levels.  At a school with A+ baseline, I'd like to see consecutive seasons out of the postseason (or 3 without an NT appearance) result in a firing.  Four no-postseason seasons in a row, unless they're your first four at the school, should get you canned anywhere in the power conferences and maybe even at the midmajors.  PIT appearances every other year should keep you employed for life at Austin Peay or Vermont.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I'd give everyone four years at a minimum though, to let them cycle one full set of their OWN recruits through. After that, all bets are off. I think the standards you've laid out are just about right, maybe just a small bit more tolerant at the mid-major level, but not much. BCS schools should be VERY aggressive with firings.


Everyone who has made it to the level of being hired by a BCS school "should" know by then what they're getting into. If they can't cut it, tough ****, move out and let somebody else try. Back to the end of the line and cycle back through like everyone else. As it is now, the very moment a coach is hired at a BCS school, he can plan on staying there for as long as he or she pleases and it's just not fair OR right. Lose, lose, lose, and lose some more, doesn't matter they already got the job. Nothing to worry about now. This has probably been my biggest pet peeve with the game since the minute I made it to D1. Too stagnant, not enough movement at the top of the line schools. Oh sure, every season there's a BCS school or three open for a coach to apply, but there should be lots more than there are.

And of course, the elephant in the middle of the room is that a lot of the big boy schools are coached by some of the longest tenured, most loyal coaches/customers and does WiS/HD "really" want to fire those guys and **** them off to the point that they leave and take their money somewhere else. It shouldn't matter in a fair world, but it does here.


My guess is that it was talked about in a department meeting and the conclusion was "Nope, we don't want the headache of having to listen to these coaches who may have paid hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars for our game. Sure, it's not fair to the up-and-comers, but they'll get their chance eventually".

"Okay, is that it? That all we've got for HD and any updates to the game for the next 15-18 months"? "Okay good, Blake don't forget to feed the hampsters running the sim engines tonight before you go home. You know what kind of mess we get into when they don't get fed. Ends up stalling every world and then I actually have to PHYSICALLY show up to the office, ON TIME, to fix the probelm, when you know I'd rather be on the course drinking my latte from Starbucks". "Do NOT forget Blake!!"

"Okay then, meeting adjourned, everyone take the next 6-8 months off but make the occasional forum post in your respective areas to trick all those people into thinking that we're actually here and that we actually, try not to laugh too loudly, care. Ha ha ha ha ha, suuuuucccckkkkeeeerrrsss!"

Or something like that.

And if you're curious, I'll tell you what I REALLY think.

I don't think there's much argument in the community that firings aren't aggressive enough but two other issues need to be addressed simultaneously.  First, the hiring process also needs to be fixed.  There's no sense in firing anyone if there's no one qualified to take the program over when they're ushered out.  Second, something needs to be done to address the lack of fluidity in the standings on a season by season basis. 

I get that emy's post was meant to be a little tongue and cheek but the truth is this was never discussed in any meeting:

"And of course, the elephant in the middle of the room is that a lot of the big boy schools are coached by some of the longest tenured, most loyal coaches/customers and does WiS/HD "really" want to fire those guys and **** them off to the point that they leave and take their money somewhere else. It shouldn't matter in a fair world, but it does here. "

The reason it was never discussed is that most of these "long tenured, loyal customers" finish on top of the standings season in season out and are in no danger of being fired.  They always make the the NT and some probably haven't paid for HD in years.

As it is structured right now one of the most glaring issues with this game along with the lack of firings is the disparity amongst the haves and have nots in this game.  Success begets success in HD and I will continue to suggest this game makes it TOO easy to stay on top once one (if one) gets there and very difficult for those not on top to break through.  Compare RL Tournament appearances; seeding; and in conference W/L records with those of HD and you will see HD has far too many dominant programs who have consecutive tournament appearances, HD has too many teams with historical conference records that are unprecedented and the opposite is true as well.  There are far too many doormats and there is just not enough middle ground.  RL has a much more delineated ebb and flow of program success than HD and this is largely the product of the "simplistic regional auction style recruiting model" (to quote billyg from another post) which makes it too easy for the elite and long tenured coaches to simply replace the departed top talent on their rosters season in and season out.  It's a shame that for too many teams in HD a down season is getting a six or seven seed.

I'm all in favor or ramping up the firings if these other issues are addressed as well.  Until then the game seems to be a perfect imperfection on both the winning and losing sides of the spectrum.

Some good points and one of the main reasons why I prefer D2 so much more than D1. In D2, any program CAN rise to the top and can do it quickly. Sure, it's pretty easy to stay at the top then, but you always have to be on the lookout for that next up and coming team who is getting ready to knock you out of the fabeled "catbird seat".

And yes, I realize that hirings/firings, etc. are a D1 problem and a high level D1 problem at that, so please don't crucify me for throwing a little D2 action in there.

I also think that it is far, far too easy to attain and keep an A+ home court advantage in D1. Way too easy. In RL, how many venues are "famous" enough that they TRULY hold a significant HCA? Not many I'd guess.

Add to that my opinion that there are far too many high, high level prestiges in upper D1 as well. An A+ prestige should be very difficult to attain. Like no more than a handful of teams reaching that mark. A few more A prestiges, maybe 6-8, a few more A-, maybe 8-10, etc. and so on. But these teams that have these high prestiges should have to EARN them ON THE COURT, not by riding a couple of conference members coat tails. Final Four teams, National Champions, runners up, those should be your A+ prestige teams, but only if they have established that high level of performance fairly consistently over a period of time. An A+ prestige team's resume should scream out "LOOK AT THE BADASS HISTORY OF THIS PROGRAM!!" Instead, it's meh, yeah okay, that's pretty good but I've seen much better.


Not even really sure why there has to be ANY A+ prestige teams if it hasn't been earned on the court and earned over a period of time, not the once-in-a-blue-moon type, flash in the pan teams that make one good run and then disappear. Yet another reason why have instituted a self banishment on coaching at a BCS-type school for the foreseeable future. Maybe when things get fixed (ha, so much for THAT), but until then I'll continue to toil away up at little old Maine in the backwoods and with my "more fun than D1 anyway" D2 schools. Thank you and drive safely.