Curious if anyone knows the criteria for moving to Division one. I'm presently 106-45 at a Division two school, have been to two NCAA Tournaments and am not eligible for a better job. 

I dont know it as well as some others but I would guess another NT or 2. Have you won games in those last two tourneys?

I have been to a pair of NCAA Tourneys, this season we won our first game. Not really much fun to play the game at the division two level with no chance to move up.

I needed 3 NT's in Div-2 to qualify for moving up.
It was thought that 2 NT's and 1 PI might be enough, but you have 2 NT's and 2 PI's in 5 years.
You also have an NT win and 2 PI wins.
Plus in these 5 years, you took D+ prestige Central Missouri and brought it to B+.
In my opinion, you should be qualified already without question.

My 3 NT's with no postseason wins qualified me for 23 Div-1 jobs. This was in Crum.

The jobs available included a little less than half the amount of D- prestige teams only (23 of the maybe 50 D- prestige teams).
There were 23 "qualified" teams.
There were also 20 "longshot" teams.
From a recent forum discussion, it was said that longshot teams are impossible to get. 0% chance.

Plus, it was only D- schools in weak conferences that were available.

FYI:
The 23 qualified D- teams (and 8 of the 20 longshot teams) came from 8 different conferences:
Big Sky (2 qualified - Montana State, Northern Arizona),
Big South (4 qualified, 2 longshot, 1 nada),
Ivy (2 qualified - Dartmouth, Cornell, 1 longshot - Brown, 3 nada - Boston U, Columbia, Fordham),
MEAC (1 qualified - Morris Brown, 1 longshot - Delaware State),
Northeast (2 qualified - FDU, Long Island, 3 longshot),
Patriot (4 qualified - Holy Cross, Army, Navy, Vermont),
Summit (3 qualified - IUPUI, Oral Roberts, Stetson), and
Southland (5 qualified, 1 longshot).

in addition, there were 3 conferences with a total of 13 D- teams that offered 12 longshots:
Metro-Atlantic (4 longshot).
Ohio Valley (5 longshot, 1 nada).
Southern (3 longshot).

The other 16 conferences offered nothing, even for bad D- teams.

Weird thing was that in the Big South (Birmingham Southern), Ivy League (Boston U, Columbia, Fordham) and Ohio Valley (Samford), these D- teams said I was "not qualified".

EDIT:
I looked at your resume (in Rupp). You qualified for Div-1 previously with fewer accomplishments... 1 NT in Season 53 at Central Missouri. HD has apparently made it much tougher to qualify since then.

I am pretty sure you need four years, even if you go to the NT. They like owners who remain at the same spot during a certain time. And to top it off, you need at least three NT or PIT appearances, maybe 4, not sure. I had to go 4 seasons, 4 appearances (3 NT, 1 PIT) to get job offers and it was not good ones. I had a sweet sixteen in this. Honestly ELL, the job you get, even if it's D- or D or whatever is not important, what is important is the base prestige of the team you choose. CUSA teams are a nice start.

Posted by zorzii on 5/25/2015 7:28:00 AM (view original):
I am pretty sure you need four years, even if you go to the NT. They like owners who remain at the same spot during a certain time. And to top it off, you need at least three NT or PIT appearances, maybe 4, not sure. I had to go 4 seasons, 4 appearances (3 NT, 1 PIT) to get job offers and it was not good ones. I had a sweet sixteen in this. Honestly ELL, the job you get, even if it's D- or D or whatever is not important, what is important is the base prestige of the team you choose. CUSA teams are a nice start.

Hi Zorzii,
My experience was that 3 years making the NT got me to Division-1.
My 3 NT's were the result of 3 at-large bids, and 0 postseason wins.
Twice my team was among the Last-4 in.
A 3rd NT for ell3 should get him to Div-1.
npb.

hm, in tark, i only spent 2 seasons in D2 before taking a low-major D+ prestige job at D1. NT appearances in both but still.

What is your loyalty, I believe A+ is what you need.  Maybe A?

I think somewhere down the line, they increased the requirements (perhaps secretly) to get to D1. 

Look at my Tark resume.  I made it to D1 back around this time in 2010 after 2 CT wins and 2 consequent NT appearances (both epic losses).

I made the tourney back-to-back with Virginia Union in season 58 and 59, or 59 and 60 (I'm not looking at the resume, I just know this by heart lol) and was NOT immediately eligible for a D1 job, however magically come season 65, I was eligible, as referenced by me taking the Jacksonville job.

I was not able to get back to D1 again until season 103, as I was not qualified for any D1 job until then (though you can argue that my resume was somewhat...SOMEWHAT in tatters from season 67 to 102).  My rep and loyalty were at A+ always throughout the duration.

I feel like the guidelines/rules/benchmarks for getting to D1 are at best, inconsistent, and have always felt that once you make D1 in a world, that you should always be eligible for at least 1 D1 job FOREVER in that world (I would argue all open D- positions in only the shittiest/lowest prestiged conferences).

At some point, I feel like someone said something to seble to silently change the criteria, and feel that there are more than a handful of D1 coaches (you know who you are) that like to get all high-horsed and look down your noses at the peons that aren't yet eligible for your "covenant"

Posted by colonels19 on 5/25/2015 11:53:00 AM (view original):
I think somewhere down the line, they increased the requirements (perhaps secretly) to get to D1. 

Look at my Tark resume.  I made it to D1 back around this time in 2010 after 2 CT wins and 2 consequent NT appearances (both epic losses).

I made the tourney back-to-back with Virginia Union in season 58 and 59, or 59 and 60 (I'm not looking at the resume, I just know this by heart lol) and was NOT immediately eligible for a D1 job, however magically come season 65, I was eligible, as referenced by me taking the Jacksonville job.

I was not able to get back to D1 again until season 103, as I was not qualified for any D1 job until then (though you can argue that my resume was somewhat...SOMEWHAT in tatters from season 67 to 102).  My rep and loyalty were at A+ always throughout the duration.

I feel like the guidelines/rules/benchmarks for getting to D1 are at best, inconsistent, and have always felt that once you make D1 in a world, that you should always be eligible for at least 1 D1 job FOREVER in that world (I would argue all open D- positions in only the shittiest/lowest prestiged conferences).

At some point, I feel like someone said something to seble to silently change the criteria, and feel that there are more than a handful of D1 coaches (you know who you are) that like to get all high-horsed and look down your noses at the peons that aren't yet eligible for your "covenant"

i happen to agree with you on your idea of d1 coaches staying eligible once they make it. i'd be good with that, although i think an organic improvement to the system would beat an artificial one, in that regard.

also i think the d1 requirements you mention, a couple back to back NT performances (with either a good # of wins or some NT wins in there) is about right. i think typically you have to have to have something like 3 straight NT1s or a couple NT2s, to make the cut for d1. although for new-to-d1 coaches, i would definitely recommend waiting until you are eligible for more like a d+/c- job, before moving up, rather than taking an extremely difficult d- opening.

the part about it silently changing to get harder, however, i disagree with. the incident where you went from ineligible to eligible from season 60 to 65 with virginia union is a direct result of a publicly acknowledged bug (or maybe it was a feature in its time) where after 5 seasons of being inactive, a coach suddenly became eligible for significantly better jobs. i suspect this was old admin's way of getting coaches back into the swing of things, and experienced it myself, it was a pretty big swing, and also, after exactly 5 seasons for me (as new admin has acknowledged). it just sounds too deliberate to be a bug. but that is what seble calls it? 

anyway, the only time the d1 eligibility changed in the last 7+ years is when seble redid the job logic a while back, to take into account more seasons. this change only affected d1 jobs and im not sure how it may have impacted going from d2/d3 to d1 in terms of difficulty. however, this change is well known and widely discussed, and certainly doesn't qualify as "silent". 

otherwise i pretty much agree with the rest. including about the folks who look down on the guys who aren't eligible. i don't get why there should be that much of a requirement on getting jobs that there is no competition for. if there is competition, fine - but a requirement is still only half worth something there - as natural competition for a competitive job would generally eliminate the ridiculous cases where folks are clearly unqualified but still get the job. i wouldn't advocate for no requirements for any jobs, just let the best man win for them all, but i'm not terribly against it either (after a warm up period for new worlds). all in all i think it is stupid that resumes penalize folks so hard for struggling with a d1 rebuild, which is genuinely something that can challenge experienced and very capable coaches.

personally i would vote for making job requirements being based on the ceiling of your accomplishments - whatever the highest "score" your resume got, you keep that, in terms of simple qualification. thereafter, if multiple people qualified and applied, it would depend on recent accomplishments (although obviously a better algorithm than is in place today would be preferable).

edit: i think the 5 year "bug" is no longer in place today. not positive about that though - but it definitely was in the time colonel's is talking about.

Thanks for the input guys, only have another season remaining on the current renewal thing, likely will call it a What If career and spend my $$$$$ on APBA stuff. Good luck to everyone!
John 

The fact that I've seen a guy with 35 NT appearances and 30 some odd tourney wins not be eligible for d1 pretty much says it all...The process is so inconsistent

Posted by colonels19 on 5/25/2015 1:52:00 PM (view original):
The fact that I've seen a guy with 35 NT appearances and 30 some odd tourney wins not be eligible for d1 pretty much says it all...The process is so inconsistent

rep/loyalty?  those seem to be super important in the game, which kind of sucks a bit.

To me, there's no excuse for that resume to not be d1 eligible regardless

Posted by colonels19 on 5/25/2015 2:20:00 PM (view original):
To me, there's no excuse for that resume to not be d1 eligible regardless

I fully agree with your point of view, just saying I would assume in that case whoever it was probably didn't have rep/loyalty, which in real life it wouldn't be such an enormous factor with coaching success.