Player rating and stats archives will be quite nice. A little nervous about a major update to recruiting, but I guess we'll see what it is. 

I see no mention of job logic. Would like to see that overhauled. 

Tarv - why update firings/job logic when only 87% of the users beleive it is broken?

You don't want to risk ******* off the remaining 13%.

A player +/- in the box score would be awesome. Or average? I know I'd enjoy having it.

yeah,  firings really needs fixing.... especially at the elite d1 schools.

i know that admins logic has always been fear that being fired would make someone quit... but... really?
if you took the 20 or 30 highest baseline prestige schools in D1 and just made it known:  "look fellas,  i know most of you aspire to these jobs,  but realize that the administrations at these schools will not put up with mediocrity. period.  so,  if you miss the NT two years in a row... bam... youre gone.  youre still qualified for the mid majors or weaker power conference teams,  and youll soon get another chnace at the elite because someone else gets fired.   i just have a hard time understanding the mentality that a user is going to quit because they got fired for doing poorly.

probably preaching to the choir here... just venting... thanks

I am excited that that seble is working on the game and i really like the archiving of ratings and stats.   a little nervous about recruiting, but well see.

Very nervous about Recruiting changes. I am very comfortable with recruiting process generally. The only change I would like to see is either the first cycle start an hour earlier so it is 3 hrs long or allow us to setup our initial recruiting efforts in advance of the the 2 hr first cycle so they become active as soon as the cycle starts.

Firings need to be addressed. Every player starts this game understanding that they have to perform at the D1 level or be fired. Understanding that up front, it's unlikely they will quit. They can still get lower D1 jobs or high D2 jobs. My D2 teams have played a number of D2 coaches in have D1 jobs on their resume and have voluntarily moved back down on their own.

Yeah, it discourages me seeing some coaches with such bad records hanging onto elite D1 jobs.  Only two years to turn around a program might be a little fast if they criteria is making the NT.  But within 4-5 years and getting your guys and systems into play should be enough time.  If no postseason play in that time frame, it is time for someone else to get a chance!

Ive been saying this for years but they need to change how prestige works as related to job hiring process. A schools current prestige should have no relevance only the baseline. This was if someone has built up a midmajor and leaves an aspiring DII coach or another DI coach could take over that program (if qualified) without the team going Sim and being ruined, thereby negatively impacting a smaller conference. Its terrible when someone gets a midmajor to a B+ or even an A- and leaves and the only people qualified are coaching at elites.

Posted by mmt0315 on 4/17/2014 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Ive been saying this for years but they need to change how prestige works as related to job hiring process. A schools current prestige should have no relevance only the baseline. This was if someone has built up a midmajor and leaves an aspiring DII coach or another DI coach could take over that program (if qualified) without the team going Sim and being ruined, thereby negatively impacting a smaller conference. Its terrible when someone gets a midmajor to a B+ or even an A- and leaves and the only people qualified are coaching at elites.

I agree with the problem but not the solution. I think current prestige should matter - that A- mid-major ought to still be a plum job, but they do need to make is so that up and coming coaches can qualify for the job. 

If firings are ramped up I'd like to see something like a diminishing requirement over the course of jobs maybe even so that a job someone might not qualify for on day 1 they do on the last day to encourage more human coaches. If said new humans wind up being no better than simai, fire them with the new firing metric and start again...

Posted by dacj501 on 4/17/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mmt0315 on 4/17/2014 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Ive been saying this for years but they need to change how prestige works as related to job hiring process. A schools current prestige should have no relevance only the baseline. This was if someone has built up a midmajor and leaves an aspiring DII coach or another DI coach could take over that program (if qualified) without the team going Sim and being ruined, thereby negatively impacting a smaller conference. Its terrible when someone gets a midmajor to a B+ or even an A- and leaves and the only people qualified are coaching at elites.

I agree with the problem but not the solution. I think current prestige should matter - that A- mid-major ought to still be a plum job, but they do need to make is so that up and coming coaches can qualify for the job. 

If firings are ramped up I'd like to see something like a diminishing requirement over the course of jobs maybe even so that a job someone might not qualify for on day 1 they do on the last day to encourage more human coaches. If said new humans wind up being no better than simai, fire them with the new firing metric and start again...

I would say that current prestige does make it a better job, but I agree with mmt0315 that baseline prestige should be used for the jobs process.

If the team has a higher current prestige than normal, then better coaches will apply and the decision engine can pick the best candidate.

But it still lets up and coming coaches apply to the job as well.

In most cases, just about any experienced Div2 coach is better than a SIM for a div-1 job .. why does  the team have to die as a SIM coached team for 3 years before a normal coach can apply?

I've been pointing this out as a major problem for years. That said, I don't subscribe to the "we should have any human coach rather than a sim" line of thinking.

It needs to be meaningful to get a good job. If there is no one with strong enough qualifications, I'm more than fine for it to go sim. But the issue here is that they have to be smarter about what qualifications are needed for a non-BCS job -- an A- job at Rice should not be nearly as difficult to get as an A- job at Texas. But right now they're extremely similar.

I also might think of having the minimum qualifications for a non-BCS go down a bit as the jobs process goes on.

I have a small change that is easily made:   Correct the names of some of the schools to match RL.

1) Philadelphia Biblical is now Cairn.
2) Mesa St. is now Colorado Mesa
2) Wisconsin-Green Bay and Wisconsin-Milwaukee haven't changed their school names. But, for athletics, they are now branded as just Green Bay and Milwaukee.

Posted by coachvegas44 on 4/17/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Very nervous about Recruiting changes. I am very comfortable with recruiting process generally. The only change I would like to see is either the first cycle start an hour earlier so it is 3 hrs long or allow us to setup our initial recruiting efforts in advance of the the 2 hr first cycle so they become active as soon as the cycle starts.

Firings need to be addressed. Every player starts this game understanding that they have to perform at the D1 level or be fired. Understanding that up front, it's unlikely they will quit. They can still get lower D1 jobs or high D2 jobs. My D2 teams have played a number of D2 coaches in have D1 jobs on their resume and have voluntarily moved back down on their own.

++

it remains weird that the first cycle is just two hours - let folks load their moves during a longer prior period - nothing happens but you can load them so they happen during that cycle

and yes, you would not see what SIMs have done....I'd take that risk....and you could check back between 6-8 ET to adjust for SIMs, if you can get on line then

I worry about "major recruiting change" - wonder what they are fixing?  there are some issues but I hope they fix something that is broken.

Maybe they could hire girt as a consultant?

I'm just glad that HD updates are still on the WIS agenda.  I had long thought that the game was past the point where management considered updates to be cost effective.

I like updates....but I think people are for the most part pretty happy with recruiting. They have other issues with the game (especially baseline prestige and firing logic in D1). Some people have called for more gameplanning options as well.

 I would hope that the "major" recruiting change won't negatively effect the strongest part of the game. I would assume that if HD users were polled, they would say that recruiting was one of the strongest parts of this game.