Posted by wronoj on 3/17/2011 11:46:00 AM (view original):
on the first part of your OP, I'm not so sure it's a great idea to punish people for leaving a world. If RL calls and I have to leave A+ NCSU but decide to return in a few seasons, I would be pretty peeved if all I could get was a D- or D D1 school.

Make me start again at a decent mid-major or low-level Big 6 school, maybe, but don't knock me all the way down to "low level job in [my] current division"

wronoj, that's not how I read it ... but if that's indeed how it was meant (i.e. leaving an A+ schools and only being eligible for low-level DI upon your return), that would be horribly bad. Seble, can you confirm?

Also, the big thing that you need to be mindful of is not to set up the new system so that it makes it possible for coaches to continue hopping up the ladder without having to win with their own players. Any semi-competent coach can take over a good team and end up in the NT. I think it's crucially important that whatever system is in place requires coaches to win with their own players before they can move up. Can't stress this enough.

But most of all -- seble, greatly appreciate you taking the time to solicit feedback on this. You'll never be able to please everyone, but to me this is a really positive step in the right direction.

I think the main issue I have with loyalty is that in reality, it is not very important.  That is, even a congenital job-hopper in real life can get great jobs no matter what people think of his loyalty (or his character in general) as long as he consistently produces top teams.  Think about guys like Calipari and Pitino.  No one would describe these guys as loyal or high-character, yet every AD in the country would jump at the chance to hire them because they win.

So in my opinion, the decision of who gets a coveted job should be about 98% performance and about 2% loyalty.  (I say "about" because I am willing to concede that maybe the split should be 99/1 instead of 98/2.)  The only time loyalty should come into play in a major way is if you have someone like a D3 coach who changes jobs every single year just to cherry-pick his way into consistent rewards points by grabbing schools that are poised to make the WCAA.  And for identifying and penalizing that kind of behavior, it should be easy to write an algorithm.  Otherwise, loyalty should strictly be a tie-breaker when job candidates are so close that there is no other way to distinguish them from each other.

Posted by davis on 3/17/2011 1:47:00 PM (view original):
I think the main issue I have with loyalty is that in reality, it is not very important.  That is, even a congenital job-hopper in real life can get great jobs no matter what people think of his loyalty (or his character in general) as long as he consistently produces top teams.  Think about guys like Calipari and Pitino.  No one would describe these guys as loyal or high-character, yet every AD in the country would jump at the chance to hire them because they win.

So in my opinion, the decision of who gets a coveted job should be about 98% performance and about 2% loyalty.  (I say "about" because I am willing to concede that maybe the split should be 99/1 instead of 98/2.)  The only time loyalty should come into play in a major way is if you have someone like a D3 coach who changes jobs every single year just to cherry-pick his way into consistent rewards points by grabbing schools that are poised to make the WCAA.  And for identifying and penalizing that kind of behavior, it should be easy to write an algorithm.  Otherwise, loyalty should strictly be a tie-breaker when job candidates are so close that there is no other way to distinguish them from each other.

Davis- thought I agree with your perception of Pitino and Calipari- look at what their loyalty would be in WIS- Pitino has been at UL 10 seasons, the Celtics for 4, UK for 8, 2 with the Knicks, 2 with Providence, 6 with Boston.  So he only had a small stretch of 'jumping', and all those were up in prestige (yes, I'm saying that UK was a better job than the Knicks then :))

Calipari- 2nd season at UK, 8 at Memphis, 3 with the Nets (fired), 9 with UMass

I believe in the current system Pitino may have been the only one (and just during the Knicks jump) who may have had loyalty issues within the current system.

Larry Brown.

Just to clarify:

- This change would not in any way punish anyone more than the current system.  It's equal to or more lenient in every way.  Currently if a coach leaves a world there is no special consideration for loyalty, so if you had just taken a job your loyalty would be too low to get back into that division.  I'm proposing to put a lower cap on it so that you can at least return to the same division.  

- The loyalty requirements are currently higher for low level schools than the elites.  So setting the lower limit on loyalty to a low-level school requirement would cover any DI school.

- I understand concern about letting coaches cherry-pick good jobs to move up, but I think the more appropriate solution to that is to factor in whether you're winning with your own players into your valuation of success. So if two coaches had the exact same game results, but one was doing it with players he signed, that coach would have a higher success rating.  

- Number of seasons you spent at a previous job is already an important factor in the loyalty adjustment.

Posted by seble on 3/17/2011 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Just to clarify:

- This change would not in any way punish anyone more than the current system.  It's equal to or more lenient in every way.  Currently if a coach leaves a world there is no special consideration for loyalty, so if you had just taken a job your loyalty would be too low to get back into that division.  I'm proposing to put a lower cap on it so that you can at least return to the same division.  

- The loyalty requirements are currently higher for low level schools than the elites.  So setting the lower limit on loyalty to a low-level school requirement would cover any DI school.

- I understand concern about letting coaches cherry-pick good jobs to move up, but I think the more appropriate solution to that is to factor in whether you're winning with your own players into your valuation of success. So if two coaches had the exact same game results, but one was doing it with players he signed, that coach would have a higher success rating.  

- Number of seasons you spent at a previous job is already an important factor in the loyalty adjustment.

Yes, if this change heavily factored in having to win with your own players, it would be OK. Otherwise we'd be going back to square one -- the change to make the loyalty requirements more stringent was made a few years ago specifically because people were just cherrypicking their way up the ladder.

And davis, the reason that real-life comparison just isn't applicable is exactly because of this issue.

seems to be on the right path seble - I just scanned thru very quickly, one old idea many liked, was a longer time frame to evaluate excellence at d1, instead of 4 years, say like 6 or 8 or even 12. 

I pretty much am not moving much anymore, so I don't care for me, but as I was moving up, that was probably the one issue that caught my eye. 

Someone in this thread mentioned, you won't get it right for everyone, but this is a great area to fix, plus, I agree with whoever said the job process should be transparent, the rules or formula's maybe even given to us, unlike the game sim engine, which has to be super secret, promo logic can be clear cut, that is unless you want some random factor in it, which I don't think is the case.

There's no random factor in the job process, but it's also not easy to make it transparent.  The evaluation of success is complex and will never be spelled out completely.  The process is also very fluid, because resumes changes so much season to season and of course jobs are filled and come open throughout the job period.  I am planning on revising the logic that determines a coach's success too.

if similar prestige schools weigh attributes of coaches differently, any chance that THOSE preferences could be made more transparent?

Posted by seble on 3/17/2011 4:18:00 PM (view original):
There's no random factor in the job process, but it's also not easy to make it transparent.  The evaluation of success is complex and will never be spelled out completely.  The process is also very fluid, because resumes changes so much season to season and of course jobs are filled and come open throughout the job period.  I am planning on revising the logic that determines a coach's success too.

There's no random in the job process? I got denied by a 'Keep Looking' instantly before the midnight-accepting started and the job never got picked up and is still SIM now.

I lost out on a job that I was 'Step Backwards' for and the other guy was 'Keep Looking'. He hadn't made the NT, I had just come off a 2nd round NT.

The job processes is one of the more broken parts of this game and I'm glad you're trying to fix it a bit.

Could we possibly change the part of the p[rocess that sometimes, coming from division one, will make all teams in division three a 'lateral move' but half the teams in division two "A step backwards"?

Have had that one happen before, and its just weird.
 

Right now I'm focusing just on the loyalty aspect.  I know there are other issues, and I'll tackle those.

if you are still taking feedback, many of the users I know of personally come into the game hoping to take over a certain school, a fav, an alma mater, etc,

would be nice if a coach could designate a destination school and have a slightly inflated resume if and only if applying to that one school.  I can speak first hand that it is enormously frustrating to miss on a destination with reasonable high / close qualifications.  Getting to ones dream school has been used in the past as a marketing tool to get new users interested, so this idea would play straight into it.

I'm thinking the bump in qualifications for a dream school might be equiv to an extra final 4 on ones resume, plus or minus - if that makes any sense.

Posted by oldresorter on 3/19/2011 8:14:00 AM (view original):

if you are still taking feedback, many of the users I know of personally come into the game hoping to take over a certain school, a fav, an alma mater, etc,

would be nice if a coach could designate a destination school and have a slightly inflated resume if and only if applying to that one school.  I can speak first hand that it is enormously frustrating to miss on a destination with reasonable high / close qualifications.  Getting to ones dream school has been used in the past as a marketing tool to get new users interested, so this idea would play straight into it.

I'm thinking the bump in qualifications for a dream school might be equiv to an extra final 4 on ones resume, plus or minus - if that makes any sense.

+1