Posted by gillispie on 5/31/2021 6:28:00 PM (view original):
one thing that hasn't been touched on much is the conference dynamic... conferences have been one of the bastions of comradery in this game forever, and a key backbone of the overall HD community. nobody wants to see their conference mates getting fired without good reason.

its also really tricky to turn around the bottom teams in tough conferences. this is an almost universally held opinion by folks who have been in those circumstances. it would be a shame to make that even more difficult. its probably inevitable to some extent but the extent still matters.

its a beneficial thing having a mixing of high end coaches and up and coming coaches in these fuller d1 conferences, a lot of that is lessened if most of the new guys are shortly heading out the door. i just hate to see a version of firings go in to place that make it real tough to have cohesion in the conferences. conferences are always in flux but its always been slow enough to allow little communities to grow. anything that could damage the conference communities, it really needs to be done delicately, IMO

also an important concern!

Also, it's really stupid to completely focus on postseason success...think about how happy the Illinois fanbase was this season with Underwood, even after the second round exit.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/History.aspx?tid=6988

This is a great example of a team that is thriving (National title-none-2r-1r-2r-2r), except two second round exits had #4 and #2 RPIs but still didn't make the s16. No surprise they went back to back after the second exit.

My opinion almost certainly doesn't hold as much water as those of others. I've gotten to high-D1 a few times but just don't find it as much fun as other levels. My one active team is low-D1, and I don't see that changing unless one particular job becomes available.

Having said that, I think this is a non-terrible idea rolled out in a terrible way. Say, for instance, a coach comes to Kentucky or a tippy-top program, has several awful seasons, and someone else takes over. They're expected to compete immediately, even though the reason they got that job is because the roster hasn't been competitive for several seasons? I think that's flawed logic.

My two cents: Everyone should get a two-season grace period before the clock starts running. Give a new coach some time to get new players into the program, start teaching new systems, or figure out the best ways to compete. That way, a coach is winning or losing with their players/recruits, not holdovers from prior coaches. This just seems way too strict, and like something that has the potential to do more harm than good.

This is a long thread..I've read/skimmed a lot of it. I think someone mentioned and I agree the simple solution to this would be to work on or revamp the job 'rating'. I am currently in my 6th season at Arkansas in Iba of a total rebuild (D+ prestige when I took over the sim coached team) against almost all human coached, established teams. According to the 'job' rating I am exceeding expectations but have not made the NT yet. I should this season but could easily get beat round one and go into another season without meeting the current criteria they plan to roll out. How could I be exceeding expectations and get fired?

I hope those in the discord are laying all this out for Adam. I'm sure he's seen this thread, but I know he's really active in the discord.

Why this monumental change hasn't been a giant notification akin to the annoying "JOIN THE DISCORD" one we dealt with for awhile is a real head scratcher.

I like the idea of coaching contracts.

Take over a new school, get a 4-season contract. If the school is currently below the baseline prestige, then no expectations during the first contract (or possibly just blanket no expectations for the first contract to account for possibility of any combo of rebuild status, EEs, walk-ons, changing off or def, etc.).

Certain accomplishments earn a contract extension (i.e. win 20 reg. season games = 1 yr extension; win conf. tourney = 2 yr extension; make elite 8 = 3 yr extension; F4 = 4 yr extension; NT champs = 5 yr extension). Once your initial contract expires, you automatically get an additional, 4-yr contract that comes with the expectations Adam laid out in the forum post that was like a tornado hitting a hornets' nest lol!

I haven't read the entire thread, so I apologize if this has already been stated, but just think how much it is going to hurt to lose a 70/30 recruiting battle or when you lose that NBA EE on a player that was 100+ on the draft board and "likely staying" when your program needs a NT run in order for you to keep your job. Those things already drove me crazy, now they are going to add significant pressure.

I think this is going to have a significant impact on recruiting. I could be wrong, but I think there are going to be much more cut throat recruiting moves happening. I expect signing cycle sneak attacks (on the list but "very low" with no offer the entire time) to increase significantly. I know many people have no problem with that strategy, but man it hurts when it happens to you.

Posted by snewell12 on 6/1/2021 2:06:00 PM (view original):
This is a long thread..I've read/skimmed a lot of it. I think someone mentioned and I agree the simple solution to this would be to work on or revamp the job 'rating'. I am currently in my 6th season at Arkansas in Iba of a total rebuild (D+ prestige when I took over the sim coached team) against almost all human coached, established teams. According to the 'job' rating I am exceeding expectations but have not made the NT yet. I should this season but could easily get beat round one and go into another season without meeting the current criteria they plan to roll out. How could I be exceeding expectations and get fired?

Yeah, this gets to the heart of what really should have been the approach all along, as some of us have been pointing out for literally months. There has always been a mechanism within the game to nudge firings in egregious cases, if necessary, it just needs to be reactivated. Why would it be necessary? Well I suppose it’s possible that all the Power Conference jobs would fill and just never become available. It’s very unlikely, because as I’ve been saying (again, for literally months now) attrition will be quite natural in power conferences. They’re not all going to make the NT every season, or every other season, or even every 4th season. And it does get expensive and frustrating if you get stuck at the bottom of a power conference (which is why, from a revenue standpoint, it makes zero sense to remove someone willing to pay full price for that experience).

I have seen lots of folks say things like “I like firings, but not like this...” etc. I really think folks need to ask themselves *why* they want firings. If you just want to see bad things happen to people, **** you. If it’s an issue of wanting jobs to open up, be patient, plenty will. If it’s a matter of *specific* jobs, well... there will never be any guarantee that you’ll get a shot at any specific job in any given world, and WIS shouldn’t be encouraging that thought. If it’s about competitive balance and fairness, well... The whole point of 3.0 was opening up competitive balance so that teams from mid majors and small conferences could legitimately compete with power conference teams, and we’re seeing that all over. If firings really need to happen - and the only good reason to do it is if D1 population looks like it’s getting so top heavy, and it’s sustaining itself that way, and it’s really harming D2 and D3 populations and the recruiting mechanics of the game - just use the tools already in place, gently bump them up *a little* if necessary.

This headhunting approach is just completely ridiculous.

my package of fixes if one wants to keep the basic approach

1. Start a new job - your window is 6 years rather than 4 years for the first possible firing (the new job case)

2. Start a new job where the prestige is one grade or more below that school's baseline, you get 8 years before the first possible firing (the rebuild case)

3. Get to a final four and get 2 more years to hit the goal that avoids firing. Every time you get to FF, you 2 more years on the "firing window"

4. Win a National Championship, get 4 years added to your "firing window"

Now, I would prefer to get away from NT results as the metric, BUT if it has to be NT results this sort of package would increase firings while making the effects more fair and reasonable - while preserving a realistic chance of a rebuild.

So, does this work for you?

Posted by mamxet on 6/1/2021 8:18:00 PM (view original):
my package of fixes if one wants to keep the basic approach

1. Start a new job - your window is 6 years rather than 4 years for the first possible firing (the new job case)

2. Start a new job where the prestige is one grade or more below that school's baseline, you get 8 years before the first possible firing (the rebuild case)

3. Get to a final four and get 2 more years to hit the goal that avoids firing. Every time you get to FF, you 2 more years on the "firing window"

4. Win a National Championship, get 4 years added to your "firing window"

Now, I would prefer to get away from NT results as the metric, BUT if it has to be NT results this sort of package would increase firings while making the effects more fair and reasonable - while preserving a realistic chance of a rebuild.

So, does this work for you?

I like that solution mamxet. It addresses issue with taking over and rebuilding previously neglected programs. It also addresses issue with making a deep run in the NT but then losing half the team to EE's and having an unlucky recruiting roll or two. It would at least give another season or two to recover.

I think if firing was just an absolute must have for whatever reason, and it had to be tiered based on baseline prestige, and focused on NT performance, this is the way I would do it:

1. When you take over a tiered D1 job, any job, the first 5 seasons are free of expectation. This is considered the first “contract”.

2. At the end of that term, you get an evaluation email, and an offer of another contract, laying out terms. Depending on how the first 5 seasons have gone, you might get anywhere from 3-5 seasons. Teams hitting the traditional “exceeding expectation” marks will get the longer offers, meeting expectations 4 seasons, falling behind will get only 3 seasons.

3. Moving forward, performance can be evaluated roughly based on the original NT expectations, with some adjustments.

4. Rather than strict NT performance, which is what causes most of the problems, allowing alternate benchmarks (especially for the tier 1 programs) will be important for avoiding some baths!t crazy results. I would say for sure getting a 1 or 2 seed, or a top 10 ranking should satisfy the AD to at least keep your job, even if it gets you a shorter deal.

For me firings really only need to be instituted in more severe cases. For instance when coolman was at Indiana for Season 56-88 in Smith. 6 seasons he made the national tournament at a high prestige school. That’s just holding a school hostage basically. Don’t know what’s going on with Gregdoc at Mich St but its been 5 seasons now since a tourney.

Yes they’re paying customers, but there’s a ton of paying customers waiting and wanting these big time jobs. I’ve wanted Illinois FOREVER and don’t believe it’s ever going to happen.

It’s too harsh the way it’s set currently, but I think the framework is there. Just needs pulled back a little.

I really like the idea of NT games as a measurement.
Tier 1: 6 NT games in 4 seasons.
Tier 2: 3 NT games in 4 seasons.
Tier 3: 1 NT game in 4 seasons.

Add an extra 2 seasons as a grace period for new jobs.

I think that accomplishes the goal of putting some pressure on the top teams while allowing deep NT runs to give coaches some leeway over the next few seasons. It also keeps it simple and should be fairly easy to implement.

Agree - aggregate number of NT games in whatever window is selected is better metric