https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RAlrzcdfRY

Posted by salag on 6/3/2021 1:52:00 PM (view original):

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 feel like the best i've heard in terms of a simple solution that is not too hard to program, and is also relatively straight forward to understand, is to base it on NT appearances + NT wins over the period, aka number of NT games played in over the period (the two differ in terms of the national champion, whether they get an extra point for winning that game, but seems like either way is fine).

i don't exactly like basing everything on the NT either, but i think by having a total required over 5-6 seasons has vastly less luck that basing entirely on your best NT performance in your best season. its not like making the NT is based on a ton of luck, and if you get screwed and get upset in the 2nd round as a tier 1 with a 1 seed, you still have all those other seasons to accumulate NT appearances/wins over. it feels to me like a happy medium.

Prestige weighted value in recruiting needs to be increased if tier 1 firings are going to be this stringent.

I haven't weighed in on this because I wanted time to let things sit in. There needs to be multiple factors weighted into the equation.

1) Baseline Prestige - Basically this is obvious. The schools with higher baseline prestige needs to be a strong factor in the firing decision. I honestly don't know how low the prestige can get for a top tier team, but if we are going to have firings, schools like UNC/Kentucky/Kansas/Duke and others have to drop no lower than B prestige for the system to work properly. 2nd tier Power 6 schools should drop no lower than C+ and the remaining Power 6 schools need to drop no lower than C.

2)Starting Point - When you take over a school, your starting point should be the expectation for the AD to retain or fire you. If you take over a team that is in the A+ to A- range, then a sweet 16 should be required at least once in 4 seasons. If you're in the B+ to B- range then a 2nd round should be required at least once every 4 seasons. If you start as a C+ then a NT bid should be required every 4 seasons. If you fall from the A range to the B range, expectations should remain the same as the highest level you've been for 8 seasons. If you meet those requirements but don't get the prestige back, then you fall into the expectations of your new prestige level.

3) Grace period - When you take over a new school the expectations shouldn't kick in until you've been there for 2 seasons. Then the third season, the timer starts. By this point you will have at least 3 seasons where your roster has all your own recruits. You should be able to justify whether or not you deserve to keep that job after 6 seasons.

4) Ghost coaches - If your team doesn't recruit for 2 consecutive seasons, you're fired. That will keep teams from falling too deep in a hole that it is tough for a new coach to climb out of.

Also, when does this four-year window start? For example, Wooden was around game 3 when this note was posted. So is that year one? Or is the first full season year one? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Honestly, the more I think about this and read over this thread, the more holes I see in the proposal as written. This feels not at all planned out and, like recruiting, going from one extreme to the other--absolutely no firings to "I hope you don't lose rolls or have EEs in this tiny window of time."

And for those thinking that Adam is posting in the Discord chat about this, he's not. I haven't seen a single post from him about this. In fact the only reason I knew about this forum was a conference mate posting the thread link in the conference chat. I usually am all over discord and Adam hasn't posted at all, or hardly at all about this topic there.

Posted by pallas on 6/3/2021 7:46:00 PM (view original):
Also, when does this four-year window start? For example, Wooden was around game 3 when this note was posted. So is that year one? Or is the first full season year one? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

whenever they go live, it would be 4 seasons back from that point in time. probably would take effect at the end of the season or something, so really the current season plus 3 prior? and that is going to vary for every world, in terms of what is year one.

(i think)

Posted by gillispie on 6/3/2021 10:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pallas on 6/3/2021 7:46:00 PM (view original):
Also, when does this four-year window start? For example, Wooden was around game 3 when this note was posted. So is that year one? Or is the first full season year one? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

whenever they go live, it would be 4 seasons back from that point in time. probably would take effect at the end of the season or something, so really the current season plus 3 prior? and that is going to vary for every world, in terms of what is year one.

(i think)

I hope that's right, I was thinking that the end of the current season would essentially be season one of four.

Posted by kcwizards on 6/3/2021 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Prestige weighted value in recruiting needs to be increased if tier 1 firings are going to be this stringent.

^^ oh, for sure. And I don't think that's good for the game. Just because you have to make S16s at Kentucky to keep your job doesn't mean it should be impossible to reach an E8 at Weber State...

Posted by mattstarks on 6/3/2021 11:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 6/3/2021 10:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pallas on 6/3/2021 7:46:00 PM (view original):
Also, when does this four-year window start? For example, Wooden was around game 3 when this note was posted. So is that year one? Or is the first full season year one? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

whenever they go live, it would be 4 seasons back from that point in time. probably would take effect at the end of the season or something, so really the current season plus 3 prior? and that is going to vary for every world, in terms of what is year one.

(i think)

I hope that's right, I was thinking that the end of the current season would essentially be season one of four.

I reread Adam's post.

"Because there is no smooth way to integrate this, teams will have the full 4 seasons from today to attain these goals and the patch will go live which may result in some firings in either the November or December patch."

So four full seasons from May 26.

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/3/2021 11:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcwizards on 6/3/2021 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Prestige weighted value in recruiting needs to be increased if tier 1 firings are going to be this stringent.

^^ oh, for sure. And I don't think that's good for the game. Just because you have to make S16s at Kentucky to keep your job doesn't mean it should be impossible to reach an E8 at Weber State...

10.1.1

Right this is what I mean about the proposal/plan being a poison pill for 3.0, which was aimed at increasing competitiveness outside of the power conferences. While some folks still grumble about “bad beats” (in recruiting and EEs), for the most part folks who have stuck around have adapted, and with increasing D1 population we finally had a chance to see the game operate closer to the way it was intended. Those changes will be far less palatable when people are losing jobs, not just players, over these “bad beats.”

Posted by shoe3 on 6/4/2021 3:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 6/3/2021 11:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcwizards on 6/3/2021 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Prestige weighted value in recruiting needs to be increased if tier 1 firings are going to be this stringent.

^^ oh, for sure. And I don't think that's good for the game. Just because you have to make S16s at Kentucky to keep your job doesn't mean it should be impossible to reach an E8 at Weber State...

10.1.1

Right this is what I mean about the proposal/plan being a poison pill for 3.0, which was aimed at increasing competitiveness outside of the power conferences. While some folks still grumble about “bad beats” (in recruiting and EEs), for the most part folks who have stuck around have adapted, and with increasing D1 population we finally had a chance to see the game operate closer to the way it was intended. Those changes will be far less palatable when people are losing jobs, not just players, over these “bad beats.”

Agreed on all points.

Is coach camping really that big of an issue right now? Can we ride the wave of new users, and increased competition a bit before we throw a new wrench in it and drive away a bunch of long time coaches again?

1) Baseline Prestige - Basically this is obvious. The schools with higher baseline prestige needs to be a strong factor in the firing decision. I honestly don't know how low the prestige can get for a top tier team, but if we are going to have firings, schools like UNC/Kentucky/Kansas/Duke and others have to drop no lower than B prestige for the system to work properly. 2nd tier Power 6 schools should drop no lower than C+ and the remaining Power 6 schools need to drop no lower than C.

So what you are basically proposing is screwing up another part of the game to make up for a change that will screw up another part of the game.

Anyone else concerned that we haven't heard a peep from admin since this was announced?