What's your loyalty/rep?

A- reputation, A+ loyalty

another example of the logic being off. when i took morris brown, i could've also chose utah. i was listed as qualified for utah, but i didn't take the job. since then utah has been run by a sim for those two seasons, and their prestige has not improved. but today if i looked at the utah job opening i'm listed as not qualified. but in that same time span i've gotten 2 years of d1 experience, which customer supports says is a good thing for my resume, and i made the nt this season which we all know is a good thing for ones resume. but by the computers logic i've actually hurt my resume. 

Based off of what I've heard before, it's not surprising. Doesn't mean I agree with it.

not on the same scale as skunk since i havent had his success but i noticed the same thing when i made the jump to D1 in Phelan.

was at a very successful D3 where i went 175-19 in 6 seasons (2 second rds, 1 S16, 2 E8, and 1 F4)

left and took the D1 job at Valparaiso where we went 21-9 with i think 128 rpi...no NT, but not a bad season all the same. 

wasn't really looking to leave but checked it out anyway and i wasnt qualified for many of the jobs i had been qualified for prior to taking the job at Valpo. 

Yeah, that really doesn't make any sense, I've had similar scenarios trying to jump to a better D1 team, nothing is listed as qualified, just longshots and step backwards...

Posted by bow2dacowz on 4/16/2011 2:59:00 PM (view original):
not on the same scale as skunk since i havent had his success but i noticed the same thing when i made the jump to D1 in Phelan.

was at a very successful D3 where i went 175-19 in 6 seasons (2 second rds, 1 S16, 2 E8, and 1 F4)

left and took the D1 job at Valparaiso where we went 21-9 with i think 128 rpi...no NT, but not a bad season all the same. 

wasn't really looking to leave but checked it out anyway and i wasnt qualified for many of the jobs i had been qualified for prior to taking the job at Valpo. 

If you have a season where you don't make the postseason, that will cause you to take a step back. I think that makes sense. Also, what you do in DI is going to matter a lot more than what you do in D3.

no, i completely disagree girt.  

i dont think it does make any sense.  when you help create a very strong program at one level and take over a reclamation project 2 levels higher, you don't suddenly become a worse coach in 1 season just because you don't make the national tournament (the season we had was Valpos best season in 9 years). 

im not suggesting i should be able to go coach at duke, but i shouldnt be unqualified for jobs i was qualified for just a season before. 

well said bow

Posted by bow2dacowz on 4/16/2011 4:48:00 PM (view original):
no, i completely disagree girt.  

i dont think it does make any sense.  when you help create a very strong program at one level and take over a reclamation project 2 levels higher, you don't suddenly become a worse coach in 1 season just because you don't make the national tournament (the season we had was Valpos best season in 9 years). 

im not suggesting i should be able to go coach at duke, but i shouldnt be unqualified for jobs i was qualified for just a season before. 

I do think that's a flaw in the current process -- it looks too heavily at the most recent season, and not enough at your entire body of work. We're on the same page there.

But I will say that what you did at D3 does and should count for a lot less at DI. A lot less.

(The other thing to point out is that it's a slippery slope, because if they change it to start focusing more on the whole body of work, it'll be tough for newer coaches.)

Posted by bow2dacowz on 4/16/2011 4:48:00 PM (view original):
no, i completely disagree girt.  

i dont think it does make any sense.  when you help create a very strong program at one level and take over a reclamation project 2 levels higher, you don't suddenly become a worse coach in 1 season just because you don't make the national tournament (the season we had was Valpos best season in 9 years). 

im not suggesting i should be able to go coach at duke, but i shouldnt be unqualified for jobs i was qualified for just a season before. 

When the process is a mathematical formula how can not making the tournament (which one must assume adds points to the formula) not hurt your resume? 

Posted by girt25 on 4/16/2011 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bow2dacowz on 4/16/2011 4:48:00 PM (view original):
no, i completely disagree girt.  

i dont think it does make any sense.  when you help create a very strong program at one level and take over a reclamation project 2 levels higher, you don't suddenly become a worse coach in 1 season just because you don't make the national tournament (the season we had was Valpos best season in 9 years). 

im not suggesting i should be able to go coach at duke, but i shouldnt be unqualified for jobs i was qualified for just a season before. 

I do think that's a flaw in the current process -- it looks too heavily at the most recent season, and not enough at your entire body of work. We're on the same page there.

But I will say that what you did at D3 does and should count for a lot less at DI. A lot less.

(The other thing to point out is that it's a slippery slope, because if they change it to start focusing more on the whole body of work, it'll be tough for newer coaches.)

i feel like youre trying to counter an argument i never made.

i'm not arguing for what i did at d3 to count for more than it does currently.  i never said that based on anything i did at D3 i should be qualified for more jobs now...only that whatever my D3 history qualified me for at D1 initially i should still be qualified for after a season at D1 even though i didn't make the NT.  on that point we do seem to agree.

dac, wis should be able to develop a formula that, as you state, gives extra points for making the NT without forcing people to take a step backwards after 1 or 2 seasons just because they took over a weak team.  like i said before you don't suddenly become a dumber coach just because took on a bigger challenge and there should be some insulation there where you are still qualified to coach teams that are on a similar level to where you are currently.

and i feel like that is especially true when a coach moves to D1 and doesn't really have the same opportunity to make the NT or have a high RPI in the first season or two as they might potentially at another level because of the conference and baseline prestige issues.

Posted by bow2dacowz on 4/16/2011 4:48:00 PM (view original):
no, i completely disagree girt.  

i dont think it does make any sense.  when you help create a very strong program at one level and take over a reclamation project 2 levels higher, you don't suddenly become a worse coach in 1 season just because you don't make the national tournament (the season we had was Valpos best season in 9 years). 

im not suggesting i should be able to go coach at duke, but i shouldnt be unqualified for jobs i was qualified for just a season before. 

I'm not saying I agree with the whole way hiring logic works, but I think part of the logic is intended to simulate how a coach becomes "hot" after an especially good season... media hype, becoming the "it" coach, the next greatest thing, the glamorous hire, etc. I think that's why there's such a focus on recent seasons. It's not that you've become a worse coach in 1 season; it's that you're not "hot" anymore, since you've faded out of the media spotlight, and off the radar with your NT miss.  You're not the glamorous, can't miss coach of the moment.

skunk-I think the only thing holding you back is the A- reputation. I'm guessing you cut some deadwood when you got to Morris Brown and that dropped your reputation. I think that most of the DI schools require an A+ in reputation and loyalty.

-actually I think you had a guy go inelligible last season. That would drop your reputation as well and block jobs you would otherwise be qualified for.