"As soon as possible" is the key term.  S omeone maybe having to wait an extra season to move up while something is fixed is not a 'disaster' >  Its potentially a problem.  WHich can be fixed.  But kneejerk NOWNOWNOW!! fixes tend to be BAD fixes.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying the issue, but would a 10 year window with one or two excluded seasons help fix the issue? So your 8 best seasons out of the last 10 count? Bad years at the beginning of a rebuilding project wouldn't kill your resume, and neither would staying for a rebuilding year after a monster season, but you still evaluate a long enough window that you get the benefits of the recent update. The only downside is in close competitions for big jobs you'd fail to reward consistency, but that's a tiny percentage of applications where someone's 8 best seasons would qualify them and the other two wouldn't.

was a longshot for the low DI jobs after last season...Made it to the 2nd round of NT this year and now not even a longshot for anything. This is just rediculous I had planned on moving up after this season with a big senior class graduating. Playing these seasons out and then I am done with this game.

Next time don't act like complete morons HD and actually listen to your paying customers when something isn't working properly.

***To make matters worse I am now stuck in my DII conference with only 1 other human, since 3 of the coaches decided to stop playing. Good work WIS***

they did listen, which is why the change was made in the 1st place.  unfortunately, they overcorrected the problems and created all new ones.  let's not all jump to conclusions and threaten to quit.  the fact that this thread exists means seble is monitoring the situation, so give them a chance to correct it before we jump off a bridge. 

I am at NW Nazarene in D2 in Wooden. I have been there 6 years. Last year, during recruiting I tried Booster Gifts for the first time and got caught. Maybe this has something to do with it, but not only do I not qualify for any D1 jobs, I am not qualified for any D2 jobs. I took over a rebuild project there 6 seasons ago, so my first 3 seasons were not very good. I can understand why I can't qualify for D1, but I think it's a bit unrealistic that no Division 2 team would hire me, especially a team like Washington Adventist, which has gone 1-53 in the last 2 years.

Here's my resume while at NW Nazarene, and it shows what the team was like before I arrived. My lifetime record is 221-160 with 4 NT Bids.

55	chapelhillne	20-11	9-6	10-4	1-1	11-5		62	C-	PI (3rd Round)
54	chapelhillne	15-15	7-5	7-9	1-1	10-6		89	B-	PI (2nd Round)
53	chapelhillne	19-11	9-6	8-3	2-2	13-3		59	B-	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (1st Round)
52	chapelhillne	18-10	8-4	9-5	1-1	9-7		99	C
51	chapelhillne	2-25	1-12	1-12	0-1	2-14		246	D
50	chapelhillne	11-17	4-10	6-6	1-1	6-10		219	D+
49	Sim AI	7-20	5-8	2-11	0-1	5-11		266	D
48	Sim AI	7-20	3-8	4-11	0-1	3-13		239	D
47	Sim AI	2-25	2-9	0-15	0-1	1-15		271	D

chapel, no question that is related to booster gifts.

What's perhaps even more disappointing is that the part of the change that is supposed to be positive -- de-emphasizing last season or two to get a more big picture look at success and the entire resume -- doesn't seem to be working, either.

I just heard from a coach who had been at high DI. He had a run at two schools of 22 straight postseason appearances, 21 of those in the NT, won a title, etc. He then coached for one season at another BCS school and went 5-22 -- took over for a sim, tough sked, tough conference.

And now he is only eligible for D+ jobs or lower.

This is exactly the type of resume this change was supposed to benefit. He's got a bad rebuilding season, and an entire resume of very strong BCS success behind it. And he's barely eligible for entry level DI jobs.

C'mon, seble -- this is not good. And it needs to be fixed soon.

I am really concerned that a lot of coaches will leave because of this. I have a good bit of patience, but one of my friends emailed me and said he may not renew any more teams. I have "recruited" a lot of friends to play the game because I really like it. My son and I were also hoping to move from D2 to D1 at the same time next year, but the chances of both of us qualifying are probably about 0, whereas before we could plan on moving up at the same time.

I am disappointed that they have not realized that this particular aspect of the update is not beneficial. There comes a point where it is a good idea to actually listen to your customers. I have not really seen any posts by anyone that actually really likes this change. I loved all of the other things that were improved in the update, but I hope they might consider just going back to the old system or tweaking it again to make it a lot better. Otherwise, they may lose a lot of the coaches that I enjoy competing against, and it seems silly to lose great players and customers because of stubbornness of realizing that this particular implementation is not good for the game.

To make the problem even worse: 3 of the human coaches in my DII conference decided to stop playing, so I am now stuck in a conference that only has 1 other human coached team. Good job WIS!!!!!!!!!!!

So I am basically stuck there, because if I move to a different DII school I will get the loyalty hit and it will then most likely take even longer to get to DI based on this new, pathetic system.

chapel, all of this is coming out in the last few days. You have to give them a little time to investigate and come up with a fix.

I will say, as poor as they are in implementation and rolling out things with problems, seble has proved himself adept at listening to the complaints and putting in an appropriate fix. So in that respect, I agree with a_b ... let's cool the "sky is falling" stuff for the moment.

Posted by chapelhillne on 12/13/2011 8:47:00 PM (view original):
Also, I would be really afraid to try to rebuild a D2 program now, because it would take a really long time to offset those first 2-4 years if the program is really bad. I was thinking about taking over a D2 team that has gone 1-53 in the last 2 years, but I am not sure if I'd want to do that now. I do appreciate your dedication Seble, and your desire to make this a better game.

Maybe some consideration could be given to the status of the program when it was taken over.  For example, here is what Delta State was like before and after I took over. They had only one winning season in the 17 years before I took over. It took 4 years to make the NTbut I had a winning record in 2 of those 4 years. Since then I have made the NT every year, and made the final 4 two of the past 3 years. I was hoping that if I can make the final four or at least the Elite 8 this year that I would qualify for a Big 6 school other than Rutgers, which I qualified for last year. But if you go back 10 years, those first four years will all be counted, so I may not even qualify. Here is the history of the program:

55	chapelhillne	7-3	4-0	3-3	0-0	0-0	15	8	-
54	chapelhillne	25-9	11-2	8-5	6-2	13-3	6	16	A+	NT At-large Bid NT (Final Four)
53	chapelhillne	24-6	10-0	12-4	2-2	15-1	24	19	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (1st Round)
52	chapelhillne	28-6	9-3	13-1	6-2	14-2	2	3	A+	Conf Champion NT At-large Bid NT (Championship Game)
51	chapelhillne	22-8	12-2	8-4	2-2	13-3		23	B+	NT At-large Bid NT (1st Round)
50	chapelhillne	19-10	8-5	10-3	1-2	13-3		62	B-	NT At-large Bid NT (1st Round)
49	chapelhillne	12-16	6-6	5-9	1-1	8-8		132	C
48	chapelhillne	15-14	8-4	6-9	1-1	7-9		94	C+	PI (1st Round)
47	chapelhillne	19-10	9-3	9-6	1-1	14-2		89	C	Conf Champion PI (1st Round)
46	chapelhillne	6-22	3-10	2-11	1-1	4-12		234	D+
45	Sim AI	4-23	2-10	2-12	0-1	2-14		260	D
44	Sim AI	3-24	1-12	2-11	0-1	2-14		242	D+
43	Sim AI	13-15	7-6	5-8	1-1	6-10		117	C-
42	Sim AI	10-17	7-7	3-9	0-1	7-9		240	D+
41	Sim AI	1-26	1-11	0-14	0-1	1-15		274	D
40	Sim AI	3-24	2-11	1-12	0-1	1-15		229	D+
39	Sim AI	16-12	8-5	7-6	1-1	9-7		109	C
38	Sim AI	12-16	7-5	4-10	1-1	8-8		187	C-
37	Sim AI	3-24	0-12	3-11	0-1	3-13		240	D+
36	Sim AI	10-17	4-9	6-7	0-1	4-12		176	C-
35	Sim AI	10-18	5-8	4-9	1-1	4-12		212	C-
34	Sim AI	10-17	6-5	4-11	0-1	5-11		193	D+
33	Sim AI	8-19	3-10	5-8	0-1	6-10		222	D+
32	Sim AI	4-23	2-11	2-11	0-1	1-15		254	D+
31	Sim AI	3-24	1-14	2-9	0-1	2-14		251	D+
30	Sim AI	13-14	7-6	6-7	0-1	7-9		184	C
29	gabby123	11-16	4-9	7-6	0-1	4-12		176	C
28	plug_4	4-23	4-9	0-13	0-1	2-14		273	C

One idea might be to "throw out" the first two years at a program. This way, someone is not penalized for taking on a rebuild. Plus, I have seen a couple of coaches who take over a really good program, and have a good record for the first couple of years, but then the program goes down, and they move on to another good program. Maybe there could also be some factoring in of the RPI in the 3rd and 4th year compared to the RPI of the school during the two years prior to that coach taking over. If it's much better, that coach could have some type of "bonus" in their job search, and if it's worse than when they took over, it would be more difficult. In the above example, it really took me 5 years to build Delta State into a powerhouse because they were so bad when I took them over, so maybe 2 years is not enough to throw out.

Here is another instance of how the new system is not working properly, and I offer it up not because I wanted the job, I didn't, but because how ludicrous it is that I CAN'T get the job.  I took over a very mediocre Minnesota sim in Tark and had them in the NT in 3 seasons, have been in the PI twice, once to the Championship game, the NT five times including a FInal Four in the season that just ended this week. I have raised Minn from a C program to an A- program. I cannot get the NORTHWESTERN job (among almost any other Big 6 jobs). NW finished last in the Big 10, is a B- program and will be entering its 4th straight year as a SimAI and I am not eligible to coach them.

Here's the point: currently, according to the promotion logic, I am not even qualified to coach the team I actually have who wouldn't be at the level they are without me.

Here's something for the programmers to consider. As a rule of thumb, if a coach takes over a poor program and clearly improves them over time with his own players, he ought to be eligible to take over a team at least at the level he has his current team. To make him unqualified to take over a similar team makes no sense. Actually, I think the program logic should allow him to take over a slightly better program if he is to rise through the ranks. No coach can prove he can win at the elite level until he can get an elite team, and now that is almost impossible if not fully impossible. When coaches at top schools (Tark) like Mich St. with measurable success cannot take over a   Fla. St., a very good, but not champion ACC program, there is something haywire.

May I suggest going back to the old way of doing things and then testing new ways of job selection and posting the results for feedback?

Makes people happy in the short-term and will have a fix battle-tested-ready for when it is implemented into the game?

I think that's a great idea. Maybe Beta test it with some experienced coaches who want to volunteer and give feedback., and just zip through the seasons to get to the job selection place, and keep doing that until there is one that is more lifelike. You could just SIM the entire season all at once, and have a much speeded up recuiting time. You could probably get good test results and input in just a few days, instead of each world having trouble and reporting it every few days. I'd volunteer.

These cases that axeme and girt brought up are just jaw-dropping.  Absolutely atrocious implementation.  Wow.

Posted by axeme on 12/17/2011 12:06:00 PM (view original):
Here is another instance of how the new system is not working properly, and I offer it up not because I wanted the job, I didn't, but because how ludicrous it is that I CAN'T get the job.  I took over a very mediocre Minnesota sim in Tark and had them in the NT in 3 seasons, have been in the PI twice, once to the Championship game, the NT five times including a FInal Four in the season that just ended this week. I have raised Minn from a C program to an A- program. I cannot get the NORTHWESTERN job (among almost any other Big 6 jobs). NW finished last in the Big 10, is a B- program and will be entering its 4th straight year as a SimAI and I am not eligible to coach them.

Here's the point: currently, according to the promotion logic, I am not even qualified to coach the team I actually have who wouldn't be at the level they are without me.

Here's something for the programmers to consider. As a rule of thumb, if a coach takes over a poor program and clearly improves them over time with his own players, he ought to be eligible to take over a team at least at the level he has his current team. To make him unqualified to take over a similar team makes no sense. Actually, I think the program logic should allow him to take over a slightly better program if he is to rise through the ranks. No coach can prove he can win at the elite level until he can get an elite team, and now that is almost impossible if not fully impossible. When coaches at top schools (Tark) like Mich St. with measurable success cannot take over a   Fla. St., a very good, but not champion ACC program, there is something haywire.

Wow, this is bad.

Seble, would love to hear you weigh in on these examples, because they're indefensible. It would be very valuable to know that you agree.