5/28/2013 1:55 PM (edited)
Just as recruits lower their standards if the top schools don't go after them in the early days of recruiting, teams should do the same when hiring coaches. A- Stanford opens up? They should be very picky, only considering top coaches from top conferences at first. If they can't land anyone by day 3, coaches from lower conferences should be considered. Give more opportunity for advancement and keep good teams from getting ruined by Simmy. Might even make the hiring period somewhat exciting. Seems like an easy fix to me.
5/23/2013 5:52 PM
Posted by creilmann on 5/23/2013 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Just as recruits lower their standards if the top schools don't go after them in the early days of recruiting, teams should do the same when hiring coaches. A- Stanford opens up? They should be very picky, only considering top coaches from top conferences at first. If they can't land anyone by day 3, coaches from lower conferences should be considered. Give more opportunity for advancement and keep good teams from getting ruined by Simmy. Might even make the hiting period somewhat exciting. Seems like an easy fix to me.

+1

5/23/2013 6:02 PM
Superb idea.
5/23/2013 6:13 PM
I also really like this idea.
5/23/2013 6:29 PM
This would get my vote, if it were a democracy.

Has there been any talk of an update to any aspect of HD lately?
5/23/2013 6:40 PM
Not sure I'd be on board with this idea.......but if it were to happen I think the firing logic would have to be improved first.
5/23/2013 7:04 PM
Posted by joeykw18 on 5/23/2013 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Not sure I'd be on board with this idea.......but if it were to happen I think the firing logic would have to be improved first.
I don't have a team at DI and don't really plan on moving up, but I have to ask why wouldn't you be on board with this.  Being that firing is a completely separate issue, what is the down side to the proposal?

Some of the best ideas are the ones that just seem logical.  Good idea

5/23/2013 7:15 PM
Haven't completely thought it trought, but at first thoughts.  Coaches moving up too fast without gaining the proper experience to have success at higher levels.  If jobs are filled with less qualified coaches (but they got there because they were the best available that were interested, as how I read this idea) and these coaches struggle because they don't have the proper experience, they continue to stay in those higher levels jobs with little success because it seems it's very difficult to get fired from a job.  Sorry that was a long run-on sentence.  So IMO I do think they're somewhat of a related issue.

Again, just my 2 cents since you asked.  Also, I didn't say I was totally against it, just think the idea has to be completely thought through.
5/23/2013 7:24 PM
Posted by milwood on 5/23/2013 7:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by joeykw18 on 5/23/2013 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Not sure I'd be on board with this idea.......but if it were to happen I think the firing logic would have to be improved first.
I don't have a team at DI and don't really plan on moving up, but I have to ask why wouldn't you be on board with this.  Being that firing is a completely separate issue, what is the down side to the proposal?

Some of the best ideas are the ones that just seem logical.  Good idea

I don't have a D1 team either, but they seem extremely related. Suppose we implement this idea, and all the BCS conference jobs get filled up, some with slightly underqualified candidates who would not have gotten it under the current logic. Also suppose that, as now, it's nearly impossible it get fired. Then instead of a couple good jobs being run into the ground by Sims, waiting for a good person to take them over, the same jobs are filled, and when a good person finally gets qualified, there are no jobs open. 

I think this is a fabulous idea, but I think any change in the hiring or firing logic needs to be accompanied by a change in the other. They're linked too closely
5/23/2013 7:27 PM
Posted by tarvolon on 5/23/2013 7:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by milwood on 5/23/2013 7:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by joeykw18 on 5/23/2013 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Not sure I'd be on board with this idea.......but if it were to happen I think the firing logic would have to be improved first.
I don't have a team at DI and don't really plan on moving up, but I have to ask why wouldn't you be on board with this.  Being that firing is a completely separate issue, what is the down side to the proposal?

Some of the best ideas are the ones that just seem logical.  Good idea

I don't have a D1 team either, but they seem extremely related. Suppose we implement this idea, and all the BCS conference jobs get filled up, some with slightly underqualified candidates who would not have gotten it under the current logic. Also suppose that, as now, it's nearly impossible it get fired. Then instead of a couple good jobs being run into the ground by Sims, waiting for a good person to take them over, the same jobs are filled, and when a good person finally gets qualified, there are no jobs open. 

I think this is a fabulous idea, but I think any change in the hiring or firing logic needs to be accompanied by a change in the other. They're linked too closely
Tarvolon said that in much better words than I did......exactly what I was trying to say.
5/23/2013 7:37 PM
Posted by tarvolon on 5/23/2013 7:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by milwood on 5/23/2013 7:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by joeykw18 on 5/23/2013 6:40:00 PM (view original):
Not sure I'd be on board with this idea.......but if it were to happen I think the firing logic would have to be improved first.
I don't have a team at DI and don't really plan on moving up, but I have to ask why wouldn't you be on board with this.  Being that firing is a completely separate issue, what is the down side to the proposal?

Some of the best ideas are the ones that just seem logical.  Good idea

I don't have a D1 team either, but they seem extremely related. Suppose we implement this idea, and all the BCS conference jobs get filled up, some with slightly underqualified candidates who would not have gotten it under the current logic. Also suppose that, as now, it's nearly impossible it get fired. Then instead of a couple good jobs being run into the ground by Sims, waiting for a good person to take them over, the same jobs are filled, and when a good person finally gets qualified, there are no jobs open. 

I think this is a fabulous idea, but I think any change in the hiring or firing logic needs to be accompanied by a change in the other. They're linked too closely
tarvolon nails my sentiment pretty close here. 

In my book an under-qualified human coach is better for the game than a Sim. That doesn't mean the under-qualified human is the best option LONG TERM, however. 

The firing logic would need to be upgraded so that poorly performing coaches get shown the door much faster, freeing up jobs for potentially stronger coaches to step in and create that element of competition for positions. 

I'll even go a step further. A coach getting a job based on a school "relaxing" its hiring standards should be held on a tighter leash and be more susceptible to being fired from the position than a coach who met a school's primary criteria (at least until they do something at the school, at which point they should be graded on the same standard as any other coach would be at the school...what that "something" is can be debated and I'll make no suggestion here). 

I like the OP's idea in general concept, but I do think it needs tied into a firing logic that doesn't essentially grant squatter's rights to anyone making the post-season once in 'x' number of years. 

5/23/2013 9:16 PM
Okay,  your explanation (with tarvalon's help) makes a lot of sense to me too.  I guess it would be too much to expect that there would be regulations put in effect in the hiring logic change.  On first thought I didn't think that the job would go to just anybody that applied if the job sat around for a while.  Like dropdowns/pulldowns the higher your prestige the more likely a recruit would be a backup option.  In other words, the best open jobs would only be available to the higher prestige coaches (not the DI noobs) if they were left open for a couple of days.

I also see the correlation between the hiring and firing logic more clearly now, too.  Thanks for the explanations.  DI just seems so odd to me, like it is a completely different game.  At this point it just doesn't seem very appealing.  Maybe sometime in the future

5/24/2013 10:51 PM (edited)
First, thanks for the feedback and let me say this, I'm in complete agreement that the firing logic needs to be more aggressive than it currently is.  That being said, I don't think that the two (firings and my idea) need to go hand in hand.  I understand the concern with bad coaches getting these jobs and sitting on them forever with no real progress being made, but let's face it, that already happens now and I'm not so sure that my suggestion will promote more of it.

Let's be clear on what I mean by opening up the job to lower conference coaches.  By no means should the coach at D- Furman (no offense to the fine coaches of Furman) get a shot at the open A+ UCLA job at any time during the hiring process.  However, the guy who took TCU to the Sweet 16 should probably get a serious look from top schools in the Big 6 conferences, especially if the top coaches in that world are going to pass on the job.  This is simply a reflection of real life.  We could go through a long list of real life mid-major coaches that had a good tourney run and got offers from big time programs a few weeks later.  


5/24/2013 6:31 PM
Not stating this as either agreeing or disagreeing with the OP's idea, just making note of a strategic result if implemented: Coaches who are looking to move up may have to make a tough choice when it comes to applying for jobs. Do you apply for the lower-end BCS job that you are qualified for on Day 1? Or do you pass on that job, running the risk someone else applies and snatches it up, while you wait to see if anything better drops down to you on Day 3? That'd be a tough choice!
5/24/2013 6:36 PM
Apparently WIS is interested in changing up the hiring process...

That is a great idea you posted in the HD Forum about the Jobs Fix regarding DI schools from a "Big 6" conference.....Would you mind submitting that idea in a Customer Support Ticket so we can save it as a suggestion for our future HD updates?

Thank you!

WIS

Flattering, but I hope they don't take my suggestion to mean that just the Big 6 schools need to use this logic.  I happen to think that this will be even more important for mid-major schools than it will the Big 6.  How many times have you seen a Mid Major school built up only to see it fall apart when that coach leaves because no other coach steps in.  

Perfect example in Rupp.  A coach did a hell of a job with Wyoming (real pain in my a** because I have Colorado).  Took the team to a Final Four, had the occasional A- prestige, consistent in getting to the post-season (same could be said for the Utah coach at the same time, which was also a big pain for me).  Anyway, the Wyoming coach leaves for a big 6 school and nobody fills the Wyoming spot.  Eight season later, it sits unfilled at a D+ prestige (he left at a B+).  The reason it didn't get filled is because no Big 6 coach wants to leave their job for the half-full Mountain West and no lower conference coach can qualify for a B+/A- job, even in a mid major conference like MWC.  If WYO would've opened up their search after the top coaches passed then maybe somebody could've filled it and continued it's success.  Their's no reason for WYO standards to be so high in this circumstance.  This happens all the time.
of 2

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.