From CS

For success it's a combination of the things you'd expect, like record, ranking, RPI, postseason results, etc. Those are combined into one success value and compared against a minimum for the given school. So I can't say that you need X wins and Y ranking and Z postseason wins.

I agree its a complete joke.  And  feel that any human is better then a sim so take the best applicant.

a coach at a C+ prestige school has a real hard time getting a B prestige job - one of your problems is the conference in which you play.  Take a job at a school in a higher prestige conference, win for a few years and no problem getting Tech

The fact of the matter is, you have yet to sustain any kind of success at UMBC. The past two seasons are the first time since your first two seasons at the school that you've managed to even make the NT twice in a row. If you can make it three in a row this coming season you might have a real shot, but right now looking at that resume, I don't see any point at which I think you should have been qualified for a mid-tier Big Six job. Sorry.

I agree with fd.  You should have upgraded jobs after your Sweet 16 or Final Four appearance.  It also looks like you are penalized for UMBC's prestige cap.  The CS answer is a canned response to job complaints.  You need to move jobs now and find a school with a better baseline prestige, so that you can get TX Tech the next time.  The job process is a problem though.  There should be some accounting for more than just your last four years.  At least you are an alum at non-destination school. 

Posted by brip87 on 10/21/2010 3:30:00 PM (view original):
I agree its a complete joke.  And  feel that any human is better then a sim so take the best applicant.

This last part is just false. I 100% agree that their needs to be a minimum success threshold for BCS jobs.

Now, I'm not saying that the current system is great, but the notion that they should disregard a basic threshold is, I believe, totally misguided.

Posted by fd343ny on 10/21/2010 3:36:00 PM (view original):
a coach at a C+ prestige school has a real hard time getting a B prestige job - one of your problems is the conference in which you play.  Take a job at a school in a higher prestige conference, win for a few years and no problem getting Tech

fd, that's not really correct.

There is no link in the jobs process between the current prestige of your school vs. the prestige of the school you're applying to. None.

You could have a coach at a C+ school who's made the postseason three or four seasons in a row applying against the coach of a B or B- school that hasn't made the postseason in the last four season ... the C+ guy gets the job every time. It's only about your resume, not the prestige of the school or the conference that you're in.

Posted by daalter on 10/21/2010 11:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 10/21/2010 3:36:00 PM (view original):
a coach at a C+ prestige school has a real hard time getting a B prestige job - one of your problems is the conference in which you play.  Take a job at a school in a higher prestige conference, win for a few years and no problem getting Tech

fd, that's not really correct.

There is no link in the jobs process between the current prestige of your school vs. the prestige of the school you're applying to. None.

You could have a coach at a C+ school who's made the postseason three or four seasons in a row applying against the coach of a B or B- school that hasn't made the postseason in the last four season ... the C+ guy gets the job every time. It's only about your resume, not the prestige of the school or the conference that you're in.

+1

Posted by daalter on 10/21/2010 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by brip87 on 10/21/2010 3:30:00 PM (view original):
I agree its a complete joke.  And  feel that any human is better then a sim so take the best applicant.

This last part is just false. I 100% agree that their needs to be a minimum success threshold for BCS jobs.

Now, I'm not saying that the current system is great, but the notion that they should disregard a basic threshold is, I believe, totally misguided.

Which part are you saying is false Dalt, the "take the best applicant" part or the whole sentence?  I agree that taking the best applicant is probably not the best idea, but you can't be saying the whole sentence is false because I think we would all agree that a human coach is better than a Sim coach any day of the week.  Am I reading too much into it?

Posted by emy1013 on 10/22/2010 1:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 10/21/2010 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by brip87 on 10/21/2010 3:30:00 PM (view original):
I agree its a complete joke.  And  feel that any human is better then a sim so take the best applicant.

This last part is just false. I 100% agree that their needs to be a minimum success threshold for BCS jobs.

Now, I'm not saying that the current system is great, but the notion that they should disregard a basic threshold is, I believe, totally misguided.

Which part are you saying is false Dalt, the "take the best applicant" part or the whole sentence?  I agree that taking the best applicant is probably not the best idea, but you can't be saying the whole sentence is false because I think we would all agree that a human coach is better than a Sim coach any day of the week.  Am I reading too much into it?

Whether a SIM or a Human coach gets the job is not relevant at all.

A SIM is the default if no one gets the job.

Sure, a human is better than a SIM.

But, you should not lower your "Minimum Requirements" to get rid of a SIM coach.

Maybe they SHOULD look at more than just the last 4 years, maybe they should CHANGE some of the decision making, but I don't think that they should make exceptions to the calculated minimums once they have them set.  So, sure, lets change the process if it needs changing ... everything can be made better.  But lets not give someone a job because anyone is better than a SIM.  Each applicant needs to stand on their own, and if no one is qualified then the job goes to SIMMY.

Did you even read what I posted?  I said in the first part of my post that just giving it to the best applicant is probably not the best idea.  Or did you just breeze right over that part?  All I said was that a human coach was better than a Sim coach, not that a human should automatically get it over a Sim.

But thanks anyway for your nice, detailed explanation.  Were it not for that I may have never figured out the job process and how it works.......

Posted by emy1013 on 10/22/2010 2:50:00 AM (view original):
Did you even read what I posted?  I said in the first part of my post that just giving it to the best applicant is probably not the best idea.  Or did you just breeze right over that part?  All I said was that a human coach was better than a Sim coach, not that a human should automatically get it over a Sim.

But thanks anyway for your nice, detailed explanation.  Were it not for that I may have never figured out the job process and how it works.......

OK ... I was quoting you "For Context" and stating my opinion.

Did I somehow personally attack you?

What did I post where you somehow feel you need to personally attack me?

Posted by emy1013 on 10/22/2010 1:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 10/21/2010 11:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by brip87 on 10/21/2010 3:30:00 PM (view original):
I agree its a complete joke.  And  feel that any human is better then a sim so take the best applicant.

This last part is just false. I 100% agree that their needs to be a minimum success threshold for BCS jobs.

Now, I'm not saying that the current system is great, but the notion that they should disregard a basic threshold is, I believe, totally misguided.

Which part are you saying is false Dalt, the "take the best applicant" part or the whole sentence?  I agree that taking the best applicant is probably not the best idea, but you can't be saying the whole sentence is false because I think we would all agree that a human coach is better than a Sim coach any day of the week.  Am I reading too much into it?

Right -- I just meant that artificially lowering standards to take the best applicant is a bad idea. Sure, all else being equal a human coach is better than a sim, but all else isn't equal here.

I guess i should have worded it differently.  You dont want to take a d3 coach with no success or something similar.  But at the same time letting a sim run a big time program into the ground is not good either.  There needs to be a better way.  Im quiting d1 due to the crappy hiring process.  Its left me so bitter that I havent even really looked at my team.  Im not a great coach but I have got to be better then a sim.  Or a coach that just went to the final four but has never been to the nt before that.  sorry for the rant guys.