Dont like any metric in this game that ties your entire seasons success to NT games which can be as random as recruit signings.

Posted by mlitney on 6/2/2021 9:41:00 AM (view original):
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.

Really like this as well.

Posted by mullycj on 6/2/2021 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Dont like any metric in this game that ties your entire seasons success to NT games which can be as random as recruit signings.

Its true that NT games are random, but its really the only success that matters (in both real life and HD). There's really no other metric that comes close.

Posted by mlitney on 6/2/2021 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 6/2/2021 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Dont like any metric in this game that ties your entire seasons success to NT games which can be as random as recruit signings.

Its true that NT games are random, but its really the only success that matters (in both real life and HD). There's really no other metric that comes close.

Think about slayterhill in Phelan’s Illinois again for a minute. Let’s say hypothetically they miraculously get to the point where, upon the eve of the first reckoning, Illinois has a #1 ranked team going in to the tournament 4-5 seasons from now (whenever it starts). They have a deep team of 6 seniors, have some good juniors who have been fully developed, are looking very good for a deep run. And then a #8 seed dials the slowdown/negative/doubleteam magic trick upset special, and now they’re out in the second round, and slayterhill is out of a job (and ~$50, and ~6 months).

Saying that NT result is “really the only success that matters” is just absurd. In real life, Illinois fans would be rioting if the AD fired the coach in that situation, *especially* if their response to criticism was something along the lines of “we know this process isn’t perfect, but we feel there must be some accountability.” Real life fans aren’t that stupid, they would know exactly who to hold “accountable”. So should we.

Posted by pallas on 6/2/2021 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/2/2021 9:41:00 AM (view original):
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.

Really like this as well.

Adding a +1 to this as well. I feel like this would be a healthy number of firings.

Posted by shoe3 on 6/2/2021 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/2/2021 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 6/2/2021 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Dont like any metric in this game that ties your entire seasons success to NT games which can be as random as recruit signings.

Its true that NT games are random, but its really the only success that matters (in both real life and HD). There's really no other metric that comes close.

Think about slayterhill in Phelan’s Illinois again for a minute. Let’s say hypothetically they miraculously get to the point where, upon the eve of the first reckoning, Illinois has a #1 ranked team going in to the tournament 4-5 seasons from now (whenever it starts). They have a deep team of 6 seniors, have some good juniors who have been fully developed, are looking very good for a deep run. And then a #8 seed dials the slowdown/negative/doubleteam magic trick upset special, and now they’re out in the second round, and slayterhill is out of a job (and ~$50, and ~6 months).

Saying that NT result is “really the only success that matters” is just absurd. In real life, Illinois fans would be rioting if the AD fired the coach in that situation, *especially* if their response to criticism was something along the lines of “we know this process isn’t perfect, but we feel there must be some accountability.” Real life fans aren’t that stupid, they would know exactly who to hold “accountable”. So should we.

Having the #1 team in the regular season doesn't mean anything. There isn't a pinned thread for career #1 regular season teams. You can't compare HD Illinois to real life Illinois anyways. HD Illinois is a top program while real life Illinois has had little success recently (coming from an Illinois fan).

I didn't like the new job logic and presented several examples of things that could go wrong while you kept this laissez faire attitude. Now that you don't like the update, the sky is falling and HD is going to implode. I just thought that was kinda funny.

The dev team will figure it out and make the necessary adjustments. The world isn't going to end. Some small subset of coaches will get fired and opportunities will open up for other coaches. The cream will rise to the top. Better coaches will stay at the better jobs more consistently. Firings will do far more to balance the game than the ruin it.

I also am not a fan of the new jobs logic. Good idea but went too far in application letting too many unqualified coaches get top tier jobs.
Firing logic plan is the same. Tone back both a bit.

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 would really like it if Admin took the above construct on things that can extend the "firing window" and then switched to number of NT games as the metric as suggested by others.

Posted by mlitney on 6/2/2021 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/2/2021 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/2/2021 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 6/2/2021 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Dont like any metric in this game that ties your entire seasons success to NT games which can be as random as recruit signings.

Its true that NT games are random, but its really the only success that matters (in both real life and HD). There's really no other metric that comes close.

Think about slayterhill in Phelan’s Illinois again for a minute. Let’s say hypothetically they miraculously get to the point where, upon the eve of the first reckoning, Illinois has a #1 ranked team going in to the tournament 4-5 seasons from now (whenever it starts). They have a deep team of 6 seniors, have some good juniors who have been fully developed, are looking very good for a deep run. And then a #8 seed dials the slowdown/negative/doubleteam magic trick upset special, and now they’re out in the second round, and slayterhill is out of a job (and ~$50, and ~6 months).

Saying that NT result is “really the only success that matters” is just absurd. In real life, Illinois fans would be rioting if the AD fired the coach in that situation, *especially* if their response to criticism was something along the lines of “we know this process isn’t perfect, but we feel there must be some accountability.” Real life fans aren’t that stupid, they would know exactly who to hold “accountable”. So should we.

Having the #1 team in the regular season doesn't mean anything. There isn't a pinned thread for career #1 regular season teams. You can't compare HD Illinois to real life Illinois anyways. HD Illinois is a top program while real life Illinois has had little success recently (coming from an Illinois fan).

I didn't like the new job logic and presented several examples of things that could go wrong while you kept this laissez faire attitude. Now that you don't like the update, the sky is falling and HD is going to implode. I just thought that was kinda funny.

The dev team will figure it out and make the necessary adjustments. The world isn't going to end. Some small subset of coaches will get fired and opportunities will open up for other coaches. The cream will rise to the top. Better coaches will stay at the better jobs more consistently. Firings will do far more to balance the game than the ruin it.

You won't have a game to ruin if there isn't a subscriber base. I know I sure as hell wouldn't pay to re-subscribe if I got fired from a tier 1 program due to the randomness of Tourney games and EE's. People pay to play this game. That is why there is a game. If we start firing the people who have paid in at the highest levels (to get to tier 1) you will be whittling down your subscriber base pretty steadily. Doesn't matter if new people are coming into tier 1 schools if there is nobody to replace them and come up through the ranks. This firing logic will lose subscribers.

Posted by mlitney on 6/2/2021 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 6/2/2021 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mlitney on 6/2/2021 12:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 6/2/2021 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Dont like any metric in this game that ties your entire seasons success to NT games which can be as random as recruit signings.

Its true that NT games are random, but its really the only success that matters (in both real life and HD). There's really no other metric that comes close.

Think about slayterhill in Phelan’s Illinois again for a minute. Let’s say hypothetically they miraculously get to the point where, upon the eve of the first reckoning, Illinois has a #1 ranked team going in to the tournament 4-5 seasons from now (whenever it starts). They have a deep team of 6 seniors, have some good juniors who have been fully developed, are looking very good for a deep run. And then a #8 seed dials the slowdown/negative/doubleteam magic trick upset special, and now they’re out in the second round, and slayterhill is out of a job (and ~$50, and ~6 months).

Saying that NT result is “really the only success that matters” is just absurd. In real life, Illinois fans would be rioting if the AD fired the coach in that situation, *especially* if their response to criticism was something along the lines of “we know this process isn’t perfect, but we feel there must be some accountability.” Real life fans aren’t that stupid, they would know exactly who to hold “accountable”. So should we.

Having the #1 team in the regular season doesn't mean anything. There isn't a pinned thread for career #1 regular season teams. You can't compare HD Illinois to real life Illinois anyways. HD Illinois is a top program while real life Illinois has had little success recently (coming from an Illinois fan).

I didn't like the new job logic and presented several examples of things that could go wrong while you kept this laissez faire attitude. Now that you don't like the update, the sky is falling and HD is going to implode. I just thought that was kinda funny.

The dev team will figure it out and make the necessary adjustments. The world isn't going to end. Some small subset of coaches will get fired and opportunities will open up for other coaches. The cream will rise to the top. Better coaches will stay at the better jobs more consistently. Firings will do far more to balance the game than the ruin it.

Wow this is really stupid.

1. You’re the one who made the comparison between real life teams and HD teams.

2. LOL. Nothing has “gone wrong” with the new job logic. There was absolutely no harm in letting coaches get to higher levels faster. Your “sky is falling” reaction may have been part of the reason this ridiculous overreaction has been put in place. It is “kind of funny” that you’re drawing a false equivalence between the injustice of people not having to wait years and paying hundreds of dollars to qualify for teams and people who have um.... waited years and paid hundreds of dollars losing their teams. Same thing, right? Direct causation, right? Yeah. Do better.

3. The dev team better figure it out. They have yet to give any indication that they have.

ETA - you’re right about one thing, the world won’t end with regards to what happens in HD. That was true when 3.0 rolled out, and it’s true now. But another big dip in the user base could very well mean HD ends, at least as we know it. And as I said on the first page, it will be an enormous unforced error. Opening up the D1 jobs has increased D1 population, and in time will likely continue to drive populations of all divisions up - something I’ve been saying for 5 years now. We either want fuller worlds, or we don’t. Freaking out over D1 starting to fill in a short term rush, especially after such a positive change, is just myopic thinking. Coming from you, well I guess it’s understandable, but from game developers, it’s extremely disappointing.

You guys realize that nearly every coach is going to miss a s16 for 4 years in a row at some point right?

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/2/2021 9:28:00 PM (view original):
You guys realize that nearly every coach is going to miss a s16 for 4 years in a row at some point right?

That’s why I’m in favor of basing it on NT wins over a period of time, not making it to a certain round

Posted by mullycj on 6/2/2021 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Dont like any metric in this game that ties your entire seasons success to NT games which can be as random as recruit signings.

I agree with this - one metric is too few metrics for a firing. I know in healthcare, or at least my field, many commonly say “one test is no test” when ruling in/out a diagnosis. I guess I’m looking at this in a similar fashion. The system needs to rule in/out a firing and should have a few layers to do so.

As it stands, plenty of factors play into prestige including postseason success, end of season ranking and RPI, drafted players, conference success, etc. I assume there’s already an equation in place that the programmers could utilize for this firing process with modifications made to it.

The problem with that, as well as many of the suggestions in this thread, is the difficulty in implementation. It’s hard to make it programmer-friendly and user-friendly. The perfect equation would be the absolute most fair option BUT it would be incredibly difficult on users for determining where they are in relationship to the threshold.

I hate to fall back to NCAA Football, as I often do with the whole promise-conversation, but you used to sign “contracts” where you hit a couple metrics and your renewal was based on how you did hitting those. Curious what people would think of that - a tier 1 school can be told “make the S16, place in the top 25 rankings 2x, win CT 1x, etc.” and you need to hit a certain percentage of those benchmarks for continuation (those above examples are just examples - nothing more).

Posted by upsetcity on 6/3/2021 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mullycj on 6/2/2021 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Dont like any metric in this game that ties your entire seasons success to NT games which can be as random as recruit signings.

I agree with this - one metric is too few metrics for a firing. I know in healthcare, or at least my field, many commonly say “one test is no test” when ruling in/out a diagnosis. I guess I’m looking at this in a similar fashion. The system needs to rule in/out a firing and should have a few layers to do so.

As it stands, plenty of factors play into prestige including postseason success, end of season ranking and RPI, drafted players, conference success, etc. I assume there’s already an equation in place that the programmers could utilize for this firing process with modifications made to it.

The problem with that, as well as many of the suggestions in this thread, is the difficulty in implementation. It’s hard to make it programmer-friendly and user-friendly. The perfect equation would be the absolute most fair option BUT it would be incredibly difficult on users for determining where they are in relationship to the threshold.

I hate to fall back to NCAA Football, as I often do with the whole promise-conversation, but you used to sign “contracts” where you hit a couple metrics and your renewal was based on how you did hitting those. Curious what people would think of that - a tier 1 school can be told “make the S16, place in the top 25 rankings 2x, win CT 1x, etc.” and you need to hit a certain percentage of those benchmarks for continuation (those above examples are just examples - nothing more).

This is an excellent point - finding a simple solution that can be programmed in is difficult. But this proposal on basing everything on *just* NT runs in 4 years is too simple as 14 pages have already said.

To your last point, contracts are probably the most robust and fun way to have job security. And it can be variable, i.e. if you hit 2/5 variables, then you only get a one year extension. If you hit 4/5, then you get 5 year extension. But now, is that too hard to program? Maybe?

Example:
4 year contract
A. Win 4 NT games
B. Win 1 CT
C. Win 1 Regular Season Title
D. Have 3 players drafted
E. Finish ranked in the Top 25 - 2 times

Just spitballin'

I like the idea of contracts, but I assume the lift would be heavier from a LOE stand point from the developers since there would be more variables.