Posted by reinsel on 12/12/2011 11:20:00 AM (view original):
Correct.

Let us know what you hear. 

The whole point of going to a 10 season window was supposed to make it EASIER to move up, not HARDER.

i don't know i agree that was the whole point. IMO, a big part of it was to make it fair when multiple coaches were eligible for a job. the old way, a coach hot off a championship had an advantage over a guy who won 3 over the last 10 - 2, 5, and 9 years ago. to me, that is pretty messed up. im not sure how seble painted this picture with the change here, but i know the complaint i mention was made many, many times, so i have to figure that had something to do with it.

another point, that i know seble made, was to create a system where a coach wasn't forced (strongly encouraged?) to move up after a good season, when the next wasn't looking so good. he wants coaches who have an abnormally good season to be able to continue coaching without screwing their resume over too bad, so that the attrition rate of coaches who would prefer to stay longer goes down.

Posted by dskadoris on 12/11/2011 11:07:00 PM (view original):
I did.  Told them the critera is too hard to get back to D1 if you have to have 7 or 8 great seasons.  I have had 8 D1 NT appearances in th\is world. If it is because of the changes in the Sim you can be considered a "dead" coach if you ever get sent back to D2. Why continue......told them if it is so I am out of this sim.  Not realistic.

this is a pretty fresh change, give seble a chance to fix things. i think there is a lot of merit in his intentions, but the implementation is not perfect. so, as he sees more of these examples, he will probably make a change.

Posted by coach_billyg on 12/12/2011 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by reinsel on 12/12/2011 11:20:00 AM (view original):
Correct.

Let us know what you hear. 

The whole point of going to a 10 season window was supposed to make it EASIER to move up, not HARDER.

i don't know i agree that was the whole point. IMO, a big part of it was to make it fair when multiple coaches were eligible for a job. the old way, a coach hot off a championship had an advantage over a guy who won 3 over the last 10 - 2, 5, and 9 years ago. to me, that is pretty messed up. im not sure how seble painted this picture with the change here, but i know the complaint i mention was made many, many times, so i have to figure that had something to do with it.

another point, that i know seble made, was to create a system where a coach wasn't forced (strongly encouraged?) to move up after a good season, when the next wasn't looking so good. he wants coaches who have an abnormally good season to be able to continue coaching without screwing their resume over too bad, so that the attrition rate of coaches who would prefer to stay longer goes down.

I think that's correct. The point of the change wasn't to make it easier (or harder) to move up, the point of the change was to make that jobs process more accurate, realistic and fair (i.e. less reliant on just a couple recent seasons).

It seems to me like they just didn't do enough testing to make sure they weren't changing the difficulty of moving up.  I just ran through the news feed for Naismith and I didn't recognize any of the job changes as being DII to DI.  I might have missed one or two because I'm not familiar with the names of all DI and DII schools but it sure seemed like they were all DI laterals or DI big6 to mid major with a sprinkling of DII laterals and DIII to DII moves.  It sure seems like the threshold for DI is what seems to be a little too high.

How could they possibly do that much testing?  The number of possible scenarios is endless.  No matter what selection criterion is used, there are going to be people that have arguments - even valid arguments - that the cut off line should include them.

I guess what I meant was that it was supposed to prevent one bad season from being able to stop you from moving.

(Stull in Oregon not being able to move after going 0-27 (he was a NT coach the previous 6 years)  is a good example).  So in fixing this it should be easier to move. 

It was not supposed to make it a lot harder to move up.  If you need to have 10 D2 NT seasons before you can move to D1, that's not good.  You should be able to get a Big 6 school (a C- beat down one, maybe) after 10 D2 NT seasons.

Posted by ryandaniel on 12/12/2011 1:44:00 PM (view original):
How could they possibly do that much testing?  The number of possible scenarios is endless.  No matter what selection criterion is used, there are going to be people that have arguments - even valid arguments - that the cut off line should include them.

True the number of scenarios is endless, but I don't think it's possible for anyone to move from DII to DI right now.  If that's the case, there is indisputably a problem that needs to get fixed quickly.  

If I just don't have a good enough resume for DI right now in Naismith, I've said I'm fine with that, but from some of the other posts in this thread it seems like people are having trouble making it into the lowest ranks of DI with very successful DII resumes and some people with strong DI resumes.

It seems to me like they just didn't do enough testing

What do you think we're doing now?

I am sure they will fix this problem. I really like the game a lot. I am planning on moving up in Smith next year. I made the final 4 in 2 of the last 3 years, and was a longshot for Penn State, so I was hoping I could land it this year if I have one more really strong season. I have confidence that they will address this, since it is such a glaring , obvious problem.

Yeah me too.  I am hoping to move up in Crum, and was a longshot for the school I wanted (Gonzaga) and was hoping one more NT season with maybe a Sweet 16 appearance would get me there, combined with a cruddy Sim season for the Bulldogs.

This is the response I got from Customer Service and my follow up regarding my Florida Southern team in Naismith.

12/13/2011 10:48 AM	Customer Support
The success evaluation for jobs now includes a much bigger picture of a coach's history. Check out Knowledge Base article 782 (http://www.whatifsports.com/knowledgebase/KB_Article_Details.aspx?kbid=782) for more info. You've had several average to bad seasons early in your career that are holding you back somewhat.
12/13/2011 11:13 AM	milkamania
That can't be the intent of the new jobs process. I can understand not being eligible for big 6 jobs, even mid majors like the A10, but are you seriously telling me that my resume doesn't qualify me for a D- job in a conference like the Sun Belt or Southland?? That is ridiculous. A response directly from Seble would be appreciated. So, 7 out of 8 years in the postseason, 6 nat'l tourney appearances, 1 final four 2 years ago are all irrelevant because 20 seasons ago, before I knew how to play this game, I had a few bad years.  I'll post again when they respond

Posted by milkamania on 12/13/2011 11:24:00 AM (view original):
This is the response I got from Customer Service and my follow up regarding my Florida Southern team in Naismith.

12/13/2011 10:48 AM	Customer Support
The success evaluation for jobs now includes a much bigger picture of a coach's history. Check out Knowledge Base article 782 (http://www.whatifsports.com/knowledgebase/KB_Article_Details.aspx?kbid=782) for more info. You've had several average to bad seasons early in your career that are holding you back somewhat.
12/13/2011 11:13 AM	milkamania
That can't be the intent of the new jobs process. I can understand not being eligible for big 6 jobs, even mid majors like the A10, but are you seriously telling me that my resume doesn't qualify me for a D- job in a conference like the Sun Belt or Southland?? That is ridiculous. A response directly from Seble would be appreciated. So, 7 out of 8 years in the postseason, 6 nat'l tourney appearances, 1 final four 2 years ago are all irrelevant because 20 seasons ago, before I knew how to play this game, I had a few bad years.  I'll post again when they respond

I'm having the same problem with moving up.  It is becoming a chore to move to the lowest D1 schools (D-) and if this is what the sim wants then I will be playing mu seasons out and moving on.  As muc as I like this sim I find this unrealistic and the game has missed the boat.  The number of D1 coaches will dwindle. 

12/13/2011 11:31 AM	Customer Support
Thanks for the feedback. We're monitoring the results of the new logic and may have to adjust job requirements to compensate for lower success values. I don't want to rush into that kind of change though without more information.

The response from CS, which mirrors the new thread Seble made at the top

man, this sucks I was really hoping to move to DI in Wooden this offseason. Last season I was a longshot for a bunch and figured another good season would qualify me for the low level jobs of DI. My team made it to the 2nd round of the NT, but now based on this I doubt I will have any chance. Especially since it doesn't look like they are fixing it anytime soon.