Job Process - Page 2 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 450 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 323 4 7

Prospect

Posted by oldresorter on 12/6/2010 6:08:00 PM (view original):
MM - one last thing, then I will give you your thread back, no one cares anymore, about my point or yours ... d1 is a ghost town, not just in terms of open teams, there is almost no coaches corner activity in the average conference.

You have an issue that I wrongly flamed, we have what, 3 or 4 other coaches who bothered to chime in, in the old days a battle of wills like ours would attrack hundreds of other posts.

In fairness to your first issue, the no one cares has been going on for a long time too, IMO ever since potential was introduced and the first big batch of coaches quit the game, the interest level in the game has never recovered.

Now, I will give you your thread back, sorry for hi jacking it.

For every coach that doesnt like the new recruits there is another who has no problem with them. If your only point, as you made in another thread is that its gotten more difficult for a midmajor to compete than I dont see the issue it shouldnt be easy for a D- school to be competing for National Titles within 5 seasons. Not saying it shouldnt happen but it should be the exception not the norm.

Also, you seem to miss the general point I was making or simply are so entrenched in your position that you dont want to see anything outside its view. Is the point I made something thats been around longer than the recruit generation? Absolutely. However, sometimes when things change (in this case recruit generation) another problem can become more magnified (in this case job hiring process). The reason its more magnified is keeping those teams human coached once theyve become built up has become that much more important to competitive balance, because as youve pointed out its harder for midmajors to compete. I cannot understate the importance of that last point.

In any case, I wont be able to engage in the back and forth all day, as Im swamped today, but I think the last thing you said (less DI activity generally) is certainly the biggest issue, which has been going on for some time and needs fixing.

Please dont take our disagreement out on my Nova team when we play in a couple of days!!

12/7/2010 6:59 AM

coach_billyg

Posts: 2072 (0)

Hall of Famer

92

Pro

i initially was a big supporter of seble's proposed changes to recruit generation. the idea of creating players that were actually significantly better than others is quite an attractive (and realistic) one to me.

but at this point, there is 0 doubt in my mind recruit generation is in fact the #1 problem in this game. you say its because mid majors don't know how to recruit, that there aren't enough good coaches there. fill those spots with good coaches. now what. there aren't enough players to keep anywhere close to everybody happy. i think it is no more complicated than that. that is why we have seen so many of the mid major and low half big 6 jobs open up at alarming rates.

every season - without exception - a handful of my top targets, at my d2 school, go to big 6 schools. this is a severe problem. for this game to function correctly, you absolutely can not have low end (and often medium to medium high) end big 6 schools competing in the same space at d2 schools. there used to be degrees of separation -
top big6 schools competed with each other and other strong programs
the next tier down of schools, mostly big 6 and good mid majors, had the next level of recruits.
lower end d1 schools and d2 school would fight for the next tier down.

in reality the conflict between d1 and d2 schools was much much less at the time. so there might even have been 4 tiers. but there were clearly 3 - people recruited up or down a tier but there were ample recruits at each level to satisfy people. today, the breakdown is simple.
elite players only the top schools have a chance at
good players that mostly go to top schools because there aren't many
the rest of the players, everyone from a prestige big 6 schools to d2 schools fills their roster from this pool.

to me the fix is simple. leave the elite players alone. increase the quantity of solid d1 players. players who are not going to d2 schools, but who will fill the rosters of quality mid majors and big 6 schools without people being ****** off they had to sign such a ****** player.

rail's problem, so to speak, about recruit generation disparity by region, serves to amplify the affect of the above problem. one year, there are 8 great players near by. the next year, 3. variance hits you a lot harder with a smaller sample size. alleviating this issue would be a good idea IMO, but we all lived with it for years - and i think we could continue to do so, if recruit generation was fixed.

one final point. MMT, you say a big the problem is coaches not knowing how to recruit. i see some merit in that. but at kentucky, i have signed multiple players i would seriously consider passing on or would pass on outright at my d2 school. this is in the last few seasons - the same period backing the recruiting for my team that just won the tournament. if there are years where recruits are so thin that an a+ program like that is digging in the d2 barrel, i seriously doubt quality coaching is going to eliminate this situation for lower big 6 schools and mid majors. in truth, i am not a great d1 recruiter, nor that experienced in the new engine with just 1 d1 team - but you also can't expect the average mid major to be a heck of a lot better.

i do think jobs needs to be fixed, but that is like,. allowing the coaches who still like d1 to get the better jobs. it does not alleviate the issue where people feel d1 sucks.

12/7/2010 10:52 AM

gillispie

Posts: 1766 (0)

Hall of Famer

116

Rookie

Posted by mmt0315 on 12/6/2010 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Something for Seble to consider before making dramatic changes to recruit generation and the job hiring process:

Ill say this over and over and over until Im blue in the face; WIS need's to change part of the hiring logic to include only a schools baseline prestige. Current prestige should be meaningless in terms of jobs hirings. Meaning if a UNC is currently a B prestige school it should still be considered an A+ in terms of hiring since there will never be a shortage of coaches trying to get UNC. Once the job is filled the current prestige would still be used for recruiting since the school is on hard times.

By the same token, a midmajor who has seen their current prestige rise to the upper levels should still have their baseline prestige used when the coach leaves and the job becomes open. We this this occur over and over again where a coach builds a program, leaves to a bigger school and a Sim takes over destroying the team and hurting the conference generally. (As a recent example see what happened to Cal Riverside and Pacific when their coaches both bolted to the Big 12 in Naismith this season). No one is going to leave a Big 6 powerhouse to take over one of those schools; However, if baseline prestiges were used for job process more DI coaches would be eligible as would top tier DII coaches; this would allow the jobs to remain filled and would not have the impact of destroying the conference which is really the biggest disadvantage midmajors have - vacancies -

Many worlds have midmajor conferences that have consistently competed with the big boys and its no anything beyond getting coaches to stick around for a long enough time where prestiges rise and more money comes in. People want to look at recruit generation, but I contend the biggest problem is keeping the midmajors full.

the part about a d+ baseline mid major who is down and has a terrible team and d- current prestige being equal from a hiring perspective to a d+ baseline mid major who is up to a b prestige with very solid players is a bit over the top, don't you think? i doubt you will ever get people to buy in to that one. i agree that baseline needs to count more than it does, and current prestige less than it does, but there is definitely a happy medium, not an all and nothing...

12/7/2010 12:55 PM

shqipta

Posts: 122 (0)

Hall of Famer

275

Prospect

I don't really have any big problems with the job change process or with current recruiting. I'm not the greatest coach but I have been around for a while both under shqipta and godmaker. I will have to say that I enjoy taking over low bix-six schools and mid-majors and seeing if I can do anything with them. But there are a few things I would like to see implemented in the Job Process. Maybe they would help, maybe they wouldn't:

1. Some degree of drop down for coaching positions. I don't believe this should be a big amount, but if at the start of the job process I am qualified for D- and D schools, I think that by the end of the job process, D+ schools that are still sitting sim should drop down. How I envision it working would be that I would apply to a longshot school. Instead of just rejecting me, they could tell me that I am a backup for them. I then either decide to apply for some other school, or wait it out. If by the end of recruiting no one else has applied for that school, I have a ~70% of landing the job and a 30% chance of getting a "We've decided to move in another direction," email.

2. I think that the higher the baseline pretige, the more focus should be on experience, while the higher the current prestige focuses more on success. For example a D baseline crappy school with a current prestige of B would prefer a coach who has siginificant recent success (like Final Four at DII), but only six years of experience over a coach that has had moderate success (three NT appearances and three PI appearances in the last ten seasons), but has twenty five years of experience. On the other hand a B baseline (bix-six or high mid-major) with a current pretige of C-, would prefer Coach 2 over Coach 1. If the school had a B baseline with a B current prestige, it wouldn't hire either coach because it would require both success and experience.

Under this scenario the B+ Montanas of the world would be and attainable (and appealling because of their ability to immediately compete) for a top notch coach from DII who is moving quickly up, as opposed to now where those schools simply languish for several seasons until their prestige drops back to the D range before someone picks them up and starts completely over. Also those who are not top notch coaches (either because of time commitments outside the game, bad luck, or lack of intelligence) can still make it to low Big Six schools based on the length of their experience.

12/7/2010 3:01 PM

jetwildcat

Posts: 1204 (0)

Hall of Famer

198 3

Prospect

I firmly believe that ANY large changes that have some negative side effects will cause a sort of "exodus" from the game. people value what they lose more than what they gain, its human nature.

I agree that the hiring logic needs to be changed (like billyg says, i think there's a happy medium between mmt's proposal and the current setup) and i agree that there are not enough d1-level recruits.

But let's flip it around for a second. let's say that the pre-potential era never happened and recruit generation has always been like this. if you changed the recruit generation to where it was before, you'd have a lot of unhappy campers. the lot of coaches who do not like having hundreds of players with maxed out core ratings would leave the game, causing a mass exodus. the players who liked the change would...keep playing the game. outside of maybe a few extra teams picked up, nothing would cancel out the mass exodus. then if you removed potential, MORE people would leave who thought the potentials system was better than the work ethic system.

Just because people leave the game does not mean that the game is getting worse.

the vacancies issue i almost completely blame on the fact that nobody knows this game exists. even with a perfect simulation engine, it would take quite a while for us to fill the current worlds without the help of somewhat serious advertising. without advertising, a mass exodus will always take years to recover from.

if the worlds were full, more d1 recruits would definitely be necessary...i wonder, tho, if the lack of recruits is a conscious decision by seble based on the fact that most worlds are about half-full. who knows, really? would have been a good question for a developer's chat.

12/7/2010 3:12 PM (edited)

FW_Kekionga

Posts: 279 (0)

Hall of Famer

5 1 272 1 146 11

Rookie

Posted by jetwildcat on 12/7/2010 3:12:00 PM (view original):
I firmly believe that ANY large changes that have some negative side effects will cause a sort of "exodus" from the game. people value what they lose more than what they gain, its human nature.

I agree that the hiring logic needs to be changed (like billyg says, i think there's a happy medium between mmt's proposal and the current setup) and i agree that there are not enough d1-level recruits.

But let's flip it around for a second. let's say that the pre-potential era never happened and recruit generation has always been like this. if you changed the recruit generation to where it was before, you'd have a lot of unhappy campers. the lot of coaches who do not like having hundreds of players with maxed out core ratings would leave the game, causing a mass exodus. the players who liked the change would...keep playing the game. outside of maybe a few extra teams picked up, nothing would cancel out the mass exodus. then if you removed potential, MORE people would leave who thought the potentials system was better than the work ethic system.

Just because people leave the game does not mean that the game is getting worse.

the vacancies issue i almost completely blame on the fact that nobody knows this game exists. even with a perfect simulation engine, it would take quite a while for us to fill the current worlds without the help of somewhat serious advertising. without advertising, a mass exodus will always take years to recover from.

if the worlds were full, more d1 recruits would definitely be necessary...i wonder, tho, if the lack of recruits is a conscious decision by seble based on the fact that most worlds are about half-full. who knows, really? would have been a good question for a developer's chat.

+1, if this game got any advertising at all outside of word of mouth it would be a good thing. It's by and large a very good product. Just be glad you aren't playing FC Dynasty, at least this game gets updates and is actively taken care of. And chalk me up as one who likes the potential based recruit system, it makes recruiting much more exciting and gives teams a chance to catch up where they might not otherwise have the opportunity. A few tweaks to lessen the impact of immediate coaching history and give some more weight to historical success and the coach hiring process should be 90% better I would think.

12/7/2010 4:16 PM

kmasonbx1

Posts: 353 (0)

All Star

39

Prospect

Posted by oldresorter on 12/6/2010 6:08:00 PM (view original):
MM - one last thing, then I will give you your thread back, no one cares anymore, about my point or yours ... d1 is a ghost town, not just in terms of open teams, there is almost no coaches corner activity in the average conference.

You have an issue that I wrongly flamed, we have what, 3 or 4 other coaches who bothered to chime in, in the old days a battle of wills like ours would attrack hundreds of other posts.

In fairness to your first issue, the no one cares has been going on for a long time too, IMO ever since potential was introduced and the first big batch of coaches quit the game, the interest level in the game has never recovered.

Now, I will give you your thread back, sorry for hi jacking it.

This speaks to what I've said for so long, people simply hate change. It seems like whenever a change is made there is huge turnover in the game. Potential was a great change to the game, it adds an element of unpredictability to the game. For example you recruit a guy with 30LP and just figure he's going to be a role player and never get over 55LP but by his senior year he's at 90LP and is a great all around player. Or you recruit a lockdown defender at SG with 22per with high potential and he ends up in the 80s. Or on the flip side at D1 you recruit a PG with 73pass and average and you assume he'll get to at least 85 but he caps at 79 so your forced to recruit over him. Pre potential recruiting over a player didn't happen because everybody improved in a linear and predictable fashion. Ath/Sp went up 4 or 5 in a season other categories would go up 8-10. Right now 6 games into the season with West Virginia I have a guy who has already gone up 8 in LP.

As far as the recruit generation me and you along with a few other coaches have always disagreed on this. I feel like if people took the time and looked through the best D2 teams and saw the kind of players are on those teams you'd understand why I say it's insane that people act like there aren't good mid major recruits. Last season on my Bryant team I had an 806 rated PG, he was high 90s in speed and per and was at least 30 in every category. There is no reason why a player like that wouldn't do well on a mid major D1. There are also two players I signed with WVU that were considering D2 schools before I signed them while putting little money into them, now why didn't mid majors go after those guys?

I know seeing at the highest level a lot of guys being low potential in areas is offputting but there are still studs and the fact that the big schools have to battle for these studs means they have less money to go after their 2nd and 3rd options if they lose out which in turn means mid majors have a better chance of winning battles for these type of players.

As far as the job process I agree with MMT's suggestion would definitely prevent low D1s from falling into obscurity.

12/7/2010 4:54 PM

mmt0315

Posts: 450 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 323 4 7

Prospect

This is going to have to be short because I just finished drafting a 20 page document and frankly my head is spinning.

1) I think something that is being overlooked is Billy's and ORs position rests on a flawed foundation. Namely, youre assuming that DI is F*^%ed up when that is nothing more than your opinion. Respectfully, the fact you guys have won a combined bazillion games and a gazillion titles doesnt make your opinion fact. For every person that thinks DI is somehow F%$^ED up as a result of the new recruit generation there is another who likes the new recruiting process. For every person who thinks DI is F(*&ED up there is a person like me who wont go near DII or DIII because of precisely the same reasons surrounding recruiting (IE recruiting at those levels is non competitive, the talent sucks and I cant get my head onto the idea of rosters composed of what seems like walk ons)...And trust me I tried joining a DIII conference recently and despite it being one of the most active conferences around I couldnt stand what a joke (how easy) recruiting was and the overall gameplay experience...there are others that feel the same way, Sully712 who I speak to daily comes to mind.

2) When Billy talks about recruits and the challenges faced in recruiting certain players there is an inherent incorrectness to his analysis. Namely, he is still viewing recruiting under the old system. For one, and based on his success in this game, Im assuming that for the most part the majority of his recruiting at DII was based on pull downs or drop downs. Meaning at DII he was recruiting DI talent. Well, based on people's complaints this type of recruiting might no longer be possible. An ajdustment has to be made in terms of what expectations a DII coach can and should expect in regard to what talent it brings in and from where that talent is coming from.

3) People are still looking at DI players in terms of ratings used under the old recruit generation. Granted that superstars still exist but they are fewer and dar between. That being said, previously where a backup player may have had an average overall rating of 680-700; now with the new system back up players will be rated much lower, this is accounted for by finding high potential guys AND more importantly, the fact that the lower ratings are consistent across the board.

4) The numbers (I believe last time Mully pulled them this was the case) suggests that the jobs in DI have remained pretty consistent for a while now with either no or minimal drop off. The reason is that while veterans left others have joined OR people like me who dropped several teams are slowly reaquiring them. As far as the lack of activity on the forums and CC, I think as OR candidly admitted this was a preexisting problem not related to recruiting and seem across the various divisions. Frankly, I am active on all my CCs but tend to shy away from the forums because I no longer feel they are a place for open and civil discourse as they used to be. Certain users think the louder and more insulting they can be, somehow validates what they are saying.

5) Jet made a valid point wherein he said with any change people are going to be unhappy and will leave the game. Every major change has seen it and will continue to see it.

6) One last thing I'd like to point out. The difficulty at DI, is where I think a big difference of opinions has developed regarding DI being Fed up. I will happily concede that the changes in recruit generation have made the game more difficult for midmajors (although I stand by the position that the game has always been more difficult for midmajors) and even that much more difficult for rebuilds in Big 6 conferences (although that was never an easy task either). However, here is where the difference presents itself, people like me think this difficulty is good for the game. I love seeing the blood shed in recruiting and knowing that conference mates must battle as do schools in other regions, I like that smaller schools cant be greedy and think a bigger school wont jump in on their recruits if spread to thin (there are never ending fights on CCs regarding in conference battles and "poaching" which is great, I love the fact a midmajor needs to put in work to be relevant on the national scence (although I hate that the hard work can be so easily torn down simply as a result of a coach leaving), I like that I have the ability to recruit different skill sets and needs and can now expose other schools weaknessed because there arent 200 Cs who have maxed out skills at every position, I also like that schools that continously bring in the best players can almost certainly expect that few of those players will stay over the course of 4 seasons (although I wish it would be a bit more predictable). The bottom line is if given the choice between the old system where all players looked the same, recruiting was more like a draft and this system, Ill take this one everytime.

That doesn't make me right, because after all its just my opinion, but my point is it doesnt make the others right either, atleast until Im shown something other than I said it before and Ive been proven right. There is another thread regarding midmajors in the tournament and it seems theyve remained pretty much consistent since October.

EDIT --- Evidently it wasnt as short as I initially anticipated!! :)

12/7/2010 4:58 PM

lmschwarz

Posts: 162 (0)

Hall of Famer

115

Prospect

I am apparently an oddity because in general I like the new recruit generation. I like that there are now more two and three-team battles for the best recruits.

And I think its better for the game-to-game strategy if teams have a weakness to exploit. Sure we all had some fun looking at our starting lineups with a PG and SG who were 99 ath, 99 spd, 99 de, 99 pe, 99 bh, 99 pa, 99 st but if every BCS team has the same thing, then there really isn't much game strategy.

My Providence Knight team made a good run in this week's NT and it was more fun because there were weaknesses to exploit, boxscores to analyize and player ratings to evaluate. Even my team which was 32-0 at one point had weaknesses that in the end led to our demise. The right team had the right combination of players and the right strategy to beat us. If we all have perfect players, where is the fun?

I will agree however, that its very hard for a non-BCS school to get much further than the Sweet 16, but how many times does that happen in RL?

And I am in complete agreement with most that the job process needs an overhaul.

12/7/2010 5:59 PM

moy23

Posts: 13754 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 57 251 112

Prospect

I like the new recruit generation as well. Recruiting to me has been harder at an A prestige since the change. In the past everyone stayed away when U of I was on a recruit.... now I damn near lost to B prestige Indiana to get a local guy. Still not sure how I landed the player.

Jobs is messed up when a coach goes S16, E8, F4, No NT in the last 4 ---> and then can't land a decent job because of that last No NT season....
.... or when a team like Delaware can get to an A prestige and no one is qualified to coach there when that coach moves on.

12/7/2010 6:23 PM

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.

Show

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.

Show

kmasonbx

Posts: 847 (0)

Hall of Famer

210

Prospect

OR simply because you were proven right that a lot of people would leave the game due to the new recruit generation doesn't mean the game is worse because of the new recruits, it simply means people in general are closed minded and want things to stay the same no matter what they say. There is no doubt in my mind the game is better now then it was before the engine change as well as the recruit generation change. Under the old players how many guards in BCS conferences were 99ath/99sp? It seemed like every A/A+ team had at least 2 guys like this. Currently in our conference which is one of the best D1 conferences in all of HD and we have ONE player that is 99ath/99sp, in fact he's the only 99/99 player in all of Tark (glad I have him

). In total there are only 5 players with 90+ath/90+sp and 1 more that is 99ath/89sp.

My question to you OR is do you prefer the old recruits where every guard was Michael Jordan reincarnated and every big was Hakeem Olajuwon or do you prefer it now where even at the BCS schools there are a clear tier of players? Or is your unhappiness with the game just based on the fact that there are less people playing now.

The cause for the game being less popular is shortsightedness by WIS and Fox. There is just no advertisement for the game, and with many engine changes, not just HD, it's silly to not expect many people who hate change to leave the game and not try to replace them by advertising. It doesn't even need to be big advertising, you just promote each game hard during key periods. During the beginning of seasons and during the playoffs/tournaments, that's when attention is the highest for all sports.

12/7/2010 8:08 PM (edited)

moy23

Posts: 13754 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 57 251 112

Prospect

Posted by oldresorter on 12/7/2010 7:46:00 PM (view original):
the saddest part of this whole mess, there are only about a dozen coaches who even give a crap left, in the old days there would be hundreds of posts over such an issue, in some ways, all 8 or 10 of us posting here are indeed a dying breed... hence my comment, I really don't care.

I like some of the new sorts we have gotten, I hope we get more of that 'sort' (couoldn't resist the pun) of thing

concur... I truly don't care as much as I used to. As long as the game is fun for me I will play... when its not fun I will stop. bottom line - no rant, no rave - silent exit. It's nice to see more of the newer coaches post with some fresh POVs. I think too many of us vets cling to the 'old ways' too much.

12/7/2010 8:08 PM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

km - i find your ? funny - since I totally refuted the job process vs d1 demise issue, hit me up on the how great the change is vs d1's demise.

If the game were better, why are so many people leaving it? That is a ? - your comment that there is not doubt that the game is better - well - yes - there is doubt - my gosh - there is no doubt 2 + 2 is 4, but no doubt the game which is failing is better, yes there is doubt.

I felt the old game with the higher ratings, required a d1 skill that d2/d3 did not require. Now all three division sim pretty much the same.

But, that is irrelevant. The fail is other than the top 20 or so players at each position, there is very little differentiation between the next 200-250 players by position, hence the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

By the way, there are some fixes for the game, that would give you the d2/d3 game in d1, without totally ruining the game for all d1 coaches other than a handful, many of whom by the way are posting here - LOL. But I doubt seble is smart enough to figure it out, and I would never volunteer to tell him.

12/7/2010 8:09 PM

Forums

Job Process Topic

Search Criteria