I know this game has alot of things being worked on already but I'm curious if anyone else would think this is cool.

The idea is introducing contracts into the game, ONLY at the D1 level. These could be a certain amount of seasons in length and the coach doesn't have to pay in advance but if they do not have the next season paid for they are automatically cut at the end of season.

What would be cool is then a coach could be weighed and visually shown if they are on the "hot seat" and this could give coaches at other teams a timeframe at when a job may become available. This could also introduce lifetime contracts if a coach does an amazing job while he is in the office. As of right now I do not understand how some coaches keep their jobs at a consistent Mediocre performance. When in this game does a school demand some success?

Feedback would be cool, just a random idea and wondering if anyone else would find this a positive addition.

I think many of the Bigger schools already have Lifetime contracts

This is true as some coaches deserve the lifetime contract but for many others, it really does feel like none of the primetime jobs will ever open until a coach leaves, no matter how bad the team does or doesn't perform

Well as the other Thread notified: when a school can go 8-19 and make the PI. They will never be fired.

I don't care tough conference or not. They have the prestige benefit, they have the money benefit, now they need an 8-19 record to get the PI benefit to stay in a job?

I think there should be enough of us that suggest a change to make a change happen.

I coach in D2 so it's not a major issue there. But in D1 something needs to be done to even the playing field in regards to the postseason. 8-19 should not be playing in the postseason. If you take the suggestion of every conference champ automatically qualifying for the PI if they don't win their CT... That could give lesser conferences at least 2 teams in the PI. Both conference division champs. Then the PI is filled with other high RPI teams from the major conferences... but there should be a minimum number of wins required. If you don't want to make the cut off at .500... then make it close to it.

It's a small step. But more schools from the lesser conferences playing in the PI can at least begin to even it out in D1.

As for coaches never leaving jobs... If you pick up an A Prestige job there should be a minimum number of wins you have to meet over several seasons... and if not, you're forced out. This should go for every new job you take B Prestige and higher. So, it's like your contract idea... It's a good one!

I just feel if we had a visual contract indicator it would overall help the idea of being a real coach. Honestly I see coaches top out best at .500 at D-1 holding a job, I have no idea how, meanwhile at D-2 and D-3 you have coaches rebuilding programs and being successful post-season with no chance or desire because the mediocre coaches are going to sit and never move despite poor performance.

I definitely dont think it should be easy to make D-1 but right now it does feel like once your in, you dont ever have to leave, no matter how bad you perform. Make a coach go back to D-2 and earn his program back. Make these schools breath and have demands. Demand success or get fired.

After I posted that, I had another idea, why not have a "hot seat" page where coaches performing badly are on the hot seat or even succeeding their schools goals. We have the projection report telling us if we have an NT chance. Why not use the same idea with D-1 Coaching jobs. Who is struggling and needs to perform this season and who is performing and a role-model dynasty coach.

Suggest it... definitely. I can see Seble resisting, though. Because the argument is likely that they don't want to drive players away from the site. Firing a coach could very well **** him off and he won't play HD anymore.

my argument is if a game that is a simulation doesn't want to be realistic, then it shouldn't be in business or its just a game and isn't taking itself seriously.

Posted by bagger288 on 5/13/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):
my argument is if a game that is a simulation doesn't want to be realistic, then it shouldn't be in business or its just a game and isn't taking itself seriously.

That's quite the false dichotomy there.  It's not all or nothing.  They've made lots of changes over the years that attempted to match something to real life.  It doesn't make the game ridiculous if they think some detail would work better in a different way in their game.

Frankly I don't get why people sometimes get hung up on the word "simulation".  This is clearly just an internet game for fun.  sim = game in this context

Posted by killbatman on 5/13/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bagger288 on 5/13/2014 2:14:00 PM (view original):
my argument is if a game that is a simulation doesn't want to be realistic, then it shouldn't be in business or its just a game and isn't taking itself seriously.

That's quite the false dichotomy there.  It's not all or nothing.  They've made lots of changes over the years that attempted to match something to real life.  It doesn't make the game ridiculous if they think some detail would work better in a different way in their game.

Frankly I don't get why people sometimes get hung up on the word "simulation".  This is clearly just an internet game for fun.  sim = game in this context

Agreed 100%.  There's an intersection between realism and gameplay and simulation games need to live on the corner.

Also agree. If we really want realism, then we'd all be removed after X years.  How realistic is it to be going into your 70th season?