Posted by jibe on 7/2/2012 8:46:00 AM (view original):
Thanks caesari for taking my thread off topic.

I'm almost tempted to flag your posts.

Now I understand better when you squeal like a pig

Posted by caesari on 7/2/2012 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe on 7/2/2012 8:46:00 AM (view original):
Thanks caesari for taking my thread off topic.

I'm almost tempted to flag your posts.

Now I understand better when you squeal like a pig

I didn't do this. I actually posted a thought out response, then nauds comes in and ruins the whole thing. I am still waitin to hear responses to my post.

Posted by caesari on 7/1/2012 10:57:00 PM (view original):
As you said, I'm for a sliding scale. Any school can be elite, whether you are in the MAC or the SEC. If Penn State goes 8-5, 10-3, 9-4, 7-6 should they still be a top team? NO.

I'm also for logic in firing pertaining to where the program is at the beginning of each coach's tenure. For the sake of argument, lets say there are five levels of schools:

Elites
Contenders
Pack
Easy Wins
Cellar Dwellers

If a coach takes over a team in the "pack," where the majority of average teams are, then they should have a certain winning % and rankings expectation to maintain their job. If they drop below that for 3ish seasons, they are relegated to "Easy Wins." If a team drops to the level below the one they were at when the coach took over, then that should result in firing.

Put another way: The wonderful, masterful, all knowing jibe takes over an "Easy Win" team. They were 5-8 the season before he arrived, and had dwelled in the 5-7 win range for the past 10 seasons. Well, jibe kicks butt in recruiting, and his first season they go 8-5. Then, they follow that up with 9-4 and 11-2 seasons, with Level 3 bowls. At this point, jibe and his team would be bumped up to Pack status. Then, a season later, he has a great run, finishes the Regular season at 12-1, and makes the Orange Bowl. He's bumped up to a contender.

Well, now that he's a contender, he's ready to roll, but, he can't devote as much time to the team. They begin slipping, going 9-4, 8-5, then 5-8. They drop back to pack status. The next season is disastorous, resulting in a mere 2 wins. They go back to Easy Win status.

This is where my idea kind of breaks up; now that he's back to Easy win, he should be a) fired, for not improving the team, or b) he should remain until they drop into cellar dweller. I haven't thought through that part yet.

Anyhoo, This would allow for leniency for coaches who built their teams out of nothing, and be rigid for those who take over elites. One slipup, you're done.

Posted by bhouska on 7/2/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I have an idea, leave it as is.

The Elites in GD are arguably the elites in real life. To me it makes recruiting even that much more interesting.

Posted by ebbets55 on 7/2/2012 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhouska on 7/2/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I have an idea, leave it as is.

The Elites in GD are arguably the elites in real life. To me it makes recruiting even that much more interesting.

That's not necessarily the whole issue though.  I agree that there should be some next level beyond just "BCS school" to aspire to get to, but the current job requirements to keep an elite once you have it are a little soft.

I think OP's idea of firing an elite coach after one bad season might be a little too tough, but it should be a little harder than it is now.  Perhaps put elite coaches on a 3 year plan not 4 (in other words, elite coaches can never be "very secure," the best would be "secure")?  Plus, anything less than a level 4 win should probably be considered a disappointing season.

Posted by jas_illini on 7/2/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ebbets55 on 7/2/2012 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhouska on 7/2/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I have an idea, leave it as is.

The Elites in GD are arguably the elites in real life. To me it makes recruiting even that much more interesting.

That's not necessarily the whole issue though.  I agree that there should be some next level beyond just "BCS school" to aspire to get to, but the current job requirements to keep an elite once you have it are a little soft.

I think OP's idea of firing an elite coach after one bad season might be a little too tough, but it should be a little harder than it is now.  Perhaps put elite coaches on a 3 year plan not 4 (in other words, elite coaches can never be "very secure," the best would be "secure")?  Plus, anything less than a level 4 win should probably be considered a disappointing season.

I agree with this, i just wish there was a way to implement a check for whether the team was abandoned or not.  bc taking over an abandoned elite and not getting fired in that 3 year span would be quite tough.

Posted by potter444 on 7/2/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Sigh.  Then don't take over an abandoned elite if it is too difficult.  That's really your concern?  Abandoned elites?  Didn't realize this is a widespread problem.

I am too lazy to search for the post but I always thought the elite system---if you are going to have a fixed elite system---was implemented in a silly, noncreative way.  The Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, etc., etc.  of the worlds will ALWAYS have takers.  Even if the're "abandoned."  I never understood from a business standpoint why you would essentially have customers claim those teams and keep them with even minimal success.  And usually play for free off the reward points.  $HIT, they could probably charge double for each season at an elite and there would always be takers.

Here's some things that they could do:
(1) Substantially increase the firing standards.  If you can't be elite, at an elite, then you shouldn't be coaching an elite.  Top 15 every year or you drop.  A level five bowl appearance every year or you drop.  A level five bowl win every two years or you drop.  Whatever those metrics may be.  Increased firings will stir the pot and can give some incentive for guys to stick around DIA if they think there is a reasonable chance in the near future to have an elite open up;
(2) Change reward points at elites.  Taking ND to a level 3 and taking Kent State a level 3 is not the same thing.
(3) Increase reward points at non-elites.  Fill the worlds.  Give guys an incentive to coach Montana, Middle Tennesse State
(4) Increase reward points for "rebuilds."  Turning around schools adds to the quality of the world.  And then someone can come in and cherry pick.
(5) Make offers to successful coaches to switch schools with deals.  A coach has a nice run at Georgia and he gets an email offer at the end of the season to take over some dormat or underachiever.  E.g., Come take over Purdue and turn this program around.  Then give him metrics with reward points tied in.  Bowl win in year 2 = x reward points, etc.  This, I believe, would increase populations because some coaches would move and others would cherrypick a successful program left behind.
(6) Possibly tweak the firing formula based on the quality of available candidates.  In a vacuum, a coach's performance might not be be that bad to get fired.  But, if the coach at Boston College ranks #1, wins an NC, and the ND coach loses a level 3 twice in a row in the same season...ND makes the switch.  "Sorry coach, a decent run but we have a commitment from a championship-level coach."  Coaches, before each season, could list a top three schools that they would commit to switching if an offer was made.
    

Im not worried about a job being too difficult.  I was just saying itd be a little more fair if you got 4 years if a team was abandoned the final year of a coaches tenure.

Anyways, I really like #5 on your list.  That would def infuse some more interest into this game.

Posted by ebbets55 on 7/2/2012 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhouska on 7/2/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I have an idea, leave it as is.

The Elites in GD are arguably the elites in real life. To me it makes recruiting even that much more interesting.

That's not necessarily the whole issue though.  I agree that there should be some next level beyond just "BCS school" to aspire to get to, but the current job requirements to keep an elite once you have it are a little soft.

I think OP's idea of firing an elite coach after one bad season might be a little too tough, but it should be a little harder than it is now.  Perhaps put elite coaches on a 3 year plan not 4 (in other words, elite coaches can never be "very secure," the best would be "secure")?  Plus, anything less than a level 4 win should probably be considered a disappointing season.

Posted by jibe on 7/2/2012 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ebbets55 on 7/2/2012 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bhouska on 7/2/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I have an idea, leave it as is.

The Elites in GD are arguably the elites in real life. To me it makes recruiting even that much more interesting.

That's not necessarily the whole issue though.  I agree that there should be some next level beyond just "BCS school" to aspire to get to, but the current job requirements to keep an elite once you have it are a little soft.

I think OP's idea of firing an elite coach after one bad season might be a little too tough, but it should be a little harder than it is now.  Perhaps put elite coaches on a 3 year plan not 4 (in other words, elite coaches can never be "very secure," the best would be "secure")?  Plus, anything less than a level 4 win should probably be considered a disappointing season.

I did state in my original post that the coach would be fired for a bad season outside of his 3rd season.  imo when you've had 3 seasons and your dogging it you should be fired. I've seen elites going to level 2 and 3's for four, five seasons and still maintaining high status. Why? b/c they are elite and win these crappy bowls against mediocre teams.

I agree, anything less than a level 4 win or appearance and around a top15 final ranking and you be on the hot seat.

Posted by potter444 on 7/2/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Sigh.  Then don't take over an abandoned elite if it is too difficult.  That's really your concern?  Abandoned elites?  Didn't realize this is a widespread problem.

I am too lazy to search for the post but I always thought the elite system---if you are going to have a fixed elite system---was implemented in a silly, noncreative way.  The Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, etc., etc.  of the worlds will ALWAYS have takers.  Even if the're "abandoned."  I never understood from a business standpoint why you would essentially have customers claim those teams and keep them with even minimal success.  And usually play for free off the reward points.  $HIT, they could probably charge double for each season at an elite and there would always be takers.

Here's some things that they could do:
(1) Substantially increase the firing standards.  If you can't be elite, at an elite, then you shouldn't be coaching an elite.  Top 15 every year or you drop.  A level five bowl appearance every year or you drop.  A level five bowl win every two years or you drop.  Whatever those metrics may be.  Increased firings will stir the pot and can give some incentive for guys to stick around DIA if they think there is a reasonable chance in the near future to have an elite open up;
(2) Change reward points at elites.  Taking ND to a level 3 and taking Kent State a level 3 is not the same thing.
(3) Increase reward points at non-elites.  Fill the worlds.  Give guys an incentive to coach Montana, Middle Tennesse State
(4) Increase reward points for "rebuilds."  Turning around schools adds to the quality of the world.  And then someone can come in and cherry pick.
(5) Make offers to successful coaches to switch schools with deals.  A coach has a nice run at Georgia and he gets an email offer at the end of the season to take over some dormat or underachiever.  E.g., Come take over Purdue and turn this program around.  Then give him metrics with reward points tied in.  Bowl win in year 2 = x reward points, etc.  This, I believe, would increase populations because some coaches would move and others would cherrypick a successful program left behind.
(6) Possibly tweak the firing formula based on the quality of available candidates.  In a vacuum, a coach's performance might not be be that bad to get fired.  But, if the coach at Boston College ranks #1, wins an NC, and the ND coach loses a level 3 twice in a row in the same season...ND makes the switch.  "Sorry coach, a decent run but we have a commitment from a championship-level coach."  Coaches, before each season, could list a top three schools that they would commit to switching if an offer was made.
    

Posted by potter444 on 7/2/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Sigh.  Then don't take over an abandoned elite if it is too difficult.  That's really your concern?  Abandoned elites?  Didn't realize this is a widespread problem.

I am too lazy to search for the post but I always thought the elite system---if you are going to have a fixed elite system---was implemented in a silly, noncreative way.  The Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, etc., etc.  of the worlds will ALWAYS have takers.  Even if the're "abandoned."  I never understood from a business standpoint why you would essentially have customers claim those teams and keep them with even minimal success.  And usually play for free off the reward points.  $HIT, they could probably charge double for each season at an elite and there would always be takers.

Here's some things that they could do:
(1) Substantially increase the firing standards.  If you can't be elite, at an elite, then you shouldn't be coaching an elite.  Top 15 every year or you drop.  A level five bowl appearance every year or you drop.  A level five bowl win every two years or you drop.  Whatever those metrics may be.  Increased firings will stir the pot and can give some incentive for guys to stick around DIA if they think there is a reasonable chance in the near future to have an elite open up;
(2) Change reward points at elites.  Taking ND to a level 3 and taking Kent State a level 3 is not the same thing.
(3) Increase reward points at non-elites.  Fill the worlds.  Give guys an incentive to coach Montana, Middle Tennesse State
(4) Increase reward points for "rebuilds."  Turning around schools adds to the quality of the world.  And then someone can come in and cherry pick.
(5) Make offers to successful coaches to switch schools with deals.  A coach has a nice run at Georgia and he gets an email offer at the end of the season to take over some dormat or underachiever.  E.g., Come take over Purdue and turn this program around.  Then give him metrics with reward points tied in.  Bowl win in year 2 = x reward points, etc.  This, I believe, would increase populations because some coaches would move and others would cherrypick a successful program left behind.
(6) Possibly tweak the firing formula based on the quality of available candidates.  In a vacuum, a coach's performance might not be be that bad to get fired.  But, if the coach at Boston College ranks #1, wins an NC, and the ND coach loses a level 3 twice in a row in the same season...ND makes the switch.  "Sorry coach, a decent run but we have a commitment from a championship-level coach."  Coaches, before each season, could list a top three schools that they would commit to switching if an offer was made.