Actually, I think it should be based on 8 years, but double the requirements...

Kentucky gets 8 years to make two Sweet-Sixteens.

Or keep the same requirements, but base it on 6 years.

Either of those two options.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2021 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by A_B_G on 5/27/2021 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I like the changes a lot, like others have said I may have minor quibbles with the exact criteria but I think the overall spirit of it is great.

The minor edit I'd make: I think the windows should be pushed to 5 seasons, personally. That gives you one rebuilding year to clear out the garbage Sim AI or inactive coach left behind and then that next season in Recruiting Period 1 you'll recruit your first full Freshman class. If you can't get that class/team to where it needs to be by the time they are Seniors, then I think firing is totally justified.

All in all I love this change though. Also I've noticed while skimming this thread that nobody has said "if these rules were in place now I'd be fired from my school" just a lot of hypothetical "Oh I took over this school and now I'm worried" which is a fine, rational complaint and worry but I truly wonder how many people are going to lose jobs over this. I think the number will be quite low.

I would have been fired at UConn, twice, before it got to the sweet 16 after taking over a team in shambles. New England recruiting had been totally dominated by some no-named yahoo coach in Vermont (just kidding joey) and the Big East was mostly full, with UConn at or near the bottom at the time, had undergone a bunch of coaching changes after the 3.0 release and was sim run. Rebuilds in full power conferences are *very hard* and you’d have to be insane to try it under these conditions, knowing you’ll probably just be wasting 4 seasons and all the money you’ve spent on them just to get your #1 ranked, #1 seed slowdown-negative5-doubleteamed out of the second round in season 4 (even if everything else goes perfectly). So in the end, you’re basically just building the team for the next guy (probably ab90, let’s be honest).

This is going to be such a fun, collegial atmosphere, once live.

Yeah, this is the most glaring issue with the setup as presented. I'm sure (hope, really) Adam will make some changes after reading this thread. It doesn't need to be so static.

Years ago, maybe 2015, firings were being talked about. Here were a couple ideas I had that I think are applicable here:
1. 4 year contracts. If your prestige goes up from when you take over the job, you keep the job. So taking over B Duke and getting them to a B+ or above and you keep your job and get a new 4 year contract.
2. If you are at your baseline prestige or above at the end of the contract, you keep your job. This could be implemented with what is being proposed (coming no matter what we say???) here. If you are at A+ Duke and drop to an A you keep your job if you've been to the Sweet 16 or further in the previous 4 seasons. That helps protect the coach who did well for many seasons but was slammed with EEs or poor recruiting results and dropped one season.
3. Basing this only off of National Tournament success is silly due to the randomness in single games. So something where if Tier 2 finishes in the top 25 they are okay and if Tier 1 finishes in the top 15 any of the previous 4 seasons they are okay (just spit balling numbers)

So I guess in the new proposal it would look like this. You take over a job in tier 1 that is a mess (by the way, there should be less of these because with the excellent job change there should be less of Sims running teams into the ground and humans should have recruited some competent players). You get 4 years to simply increase their prestige (or make the Sweet 16). If you don't, you're fired. If you can't make B Duke a B+ in 4 years you really should be fired IMHO. Now it is a rolling 4 year window (by the proposal, I still prefer a new 4 year contract). So in year 5, you have to either increase prestige by a 1/3 of a letter grade, or make the Sweet 16. If you don't, you're fired. Hypothetically seasons go by and you make it and become established, A+ Duke. If you stay at A+ you're okay. If you drop to an A or below you look at the previous 4 seasons. If there are any Sweet 16s you're okay. If you were top 15 any of the previous 4 seasons you are okay. If not you're fired. Anyway, just my 2 cents. I don't usually post hypotheticals like this but the new admin seems to be listening, which is fantastic.

Here are my thoughts:

1. Make it over a longer time span to allow rebuilds to occur (maybe previous 10 seasons).
2. Make the requirement NT victories (ex. N in the previous 10 seasons). That way, win a title == S16 appearances for 3 seasons.
3. With such a small window, EEs will have a huge impact on future success. Lose 5 EEs with only a single scholarship in R1 to open openings and you will likely fail the requirements as stated.
4. If this change goes live, I'd recommend giving the first season you switch jobs as a grace period at minimum and remove RS2 entirely (and have EEs declare immediately upon rollover). Your post-season performance now is tied to your job security so being successfully should not also penalize you as well.

Posted by buddhagamer on 5/27/2021 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Here are my thoughts:

1. Make it over a longer time span to allow rebuilds to occur (maybe previous 10 seasons).
2. Make the requirement NT victories (ex. N in the previous 10 seasons). That way, win a title == S16 appearances for 3 seasons.
3. With such a small window, EEs will have a huge impact on future success. Lose 5 EEs with only a single scholarship in R1 to open openings and you will likely fail the requirements as stated.
4. If this change goes live, I'd recommend giving the first season you switch jobs as a grace period at minimum and remove RS2 entirely (and have EEs declare immediately upon rollover). Your post-season performance now is tied to your job security so being successfully should not also penalize you as well.

The thought of potential changes to EEs just made my pants a little tight

Posted by buddhagamer on 5/27/2021 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Here are my thoughts:

1. Make it over a longer time span to allow rebuilds to occur (maybe previous 10 seasons).
2. Make the requirement NT victories (ex. N in the previous 10 seasons). That way, win a title == S16 appearances for 3 seasons.
3. With such a small window, EEs will have a huge impact on future success. Lose 5 EEs with only a single scholarship in R1 to open openings and you will likely fail the requirements as stated.
4. If this change goes live, I'd recommend giving the first season you switch jobs as a grace period at minimum and remove RS2 entirely (and have EEs declare immediately upon rollover). Your post-season performance now is tied to your job security so being successfully should not also penalize you as well.

#2 - EXCELLENT idea to have it be cumulative NT victories over the given timeframe. I think that's a great alternative.

Posted by Benis on 5/27/2021 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 5/27/2021 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Here are my thoughts:

1. Make it over a longer time span to allow rebuilds to occur (maybe previous 10 seasons).
2. Make the requirement NT victories (ex. N in the previous 10 seasons). That way, win a title == S16 appearances for 3 seasons.
3. With such a small window, EEs will have a huge impact on future success. Lose 5 EEs with only a single scholarship in R1 to open openings and you will likely fail the requirements as stated.
4. If this change goes live, I'd recommend giving the first season you switch jobs as a grace period at minimum and remove RS2 entirely (and have EEs declare immediately upon rollover). Your post-season performance now is tied to your job security so being successfully should not also penalize you as well.

The thought of potential changes to EEs just made my pants a little tight

Can you imagine if Egan/Willis/Crandall all went EE on your Syracuse squad after you lost 3 x H/VH rolls trying to fill your 3 walk on spots?

You'd like just leave a season early as there would be no way in hell to get to S16 with 6 openings and your team decimated.

Yeah, like I’ve said all along, raising the stakes like this is really going to act like a poison pill for 3.0. The cries for capping divisions, making EEs unambiguous, cutting back on “dice rolls” in recruiting, etc are going to get really loud in the seasons leading up to season 0. And it’s no longer going to be about just winning and losing games, but now about losing *teams*...

Posted by buddhagamer on 5/27/2021 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 5/27/2021 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 5/27/2021 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Here are my thoughts:

1. Make it over a longer time span to allow rebuilds to occur (maybe previous 10 seasons).
2. Make the requirement NT victories (ex. N in the previous 10 seasons). That way, win a title == S16 appearances for 3 seasons.
3. With such a small window, EEs will have a huge impact on future success. Lose 5 EEs with only a single scholarship in R1 to open openings and you will likely fail the requirements as stated.
4. If this change goes live, I'd recommend giving the first season you switch jobs as a grace period at minimum and remove RS2 entirely (and have EEs declare immediately upon rollover). Your post-season performance now is tied to your job security so being successfully should not also penalize you as well.

The thought of potential changes to EEs just made my pants a little tight

Can you imagine if Egan/Willis/Crandall all went EE on your Syracuse squad after you lost 3 x H/VH rolls trying to fill your 3 walk on spots?

You'd like just leave a season early as there would be no way in hell to get to S16 with 6 openings and your team decimated.

I've said many times that I would prefer a more deterministic approach to EEs like we have with the projection report. Just take the guys listed first on the big board until slots are filled.

Or get us some tools to use to help influence EE decision (like promises or something).

But yeah, back to firings. EEs during a rebuild can really set you back a couple seasons which is another reason to increase the time period from 4 seasons.

I've just posted a link to this thread in lots of conference chats in Crum and Naismith. Urge others to post in other words

you all asked for it and now you have it and already bit ching and trying to change things.

In comparison to the new GD requirements (essentially elites only have to make a easy Tier 4 bowl... not even Tier 5... every 4 seasons), the HD ones is insanely more difficult.

GD No random rolls. Losing out a recruit isn't as impactful (50 rosters spots vs. 12).
GD No EEs what so ever.
GD is *all* about the regular season and scheduling. It just the bowl *appearance* (you don't have to win it).

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2021 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by A_B_G on 5/27/2021 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I like the changes a lot, like others have said I may have minor quibbles with the exact criteria but I think the overall spirit of it is great.

The minor edit I'd make: I think the windows should be pushed to 5 seasons, personally. That gives you one rebuilding year to clear out the garbage Sim AI or inactive coach left behind and then that next season in Recruiting Period 1 you'll recruit your first full Freshman class. If you can't get that class/team to where it needs to be by the time they are Seniors, then I think firing is totally justified.

All in all I love this change though. Also I've noticed while skimming this thread that nobody has said "if these rules were in place now I'd be fired from my school" just a lot of hypothetical "Oh I took over this school and now I'm worried" which is a fine, rational complaint and worry but I truly wonder how many people are going to lose jobs over this. I think the number will be quite low.

I would have been fired at UConn, twice, before it got to the sweet 16 after taking over a team in shambles. New England recruiting had been totally dominated by some no-named yahoo coach in Vermont (just kidding joey) and the Big East was mostly full, with UConn at or near the bottom at the time, had undergone a bunch of coaching changes after the 3.0 release and was sim run. Rebuilds in full power conferences are *very hard* and you’d have to be insane to try it under these conditions, knowing you’ll probably just be wasting 4 seasons and all the money you’ve spent on them just to get your #1 ranked, #1 seed slowdown-negative5-doubleteamed out of the second round in season 4 (even if everything else goes perfectly). So in the end, you’re basically just building the team for the next guy (probably ab90, let’s be honest).

This is going to be such a fun, collegial atmosphere, once live.

Do you think in real life that an AD at a school that has Top Tier prestige would wait around 8 years for a team to get to a S16? I don't.

And I'm not saying you're a bad coach, you're a great coach. It is a challenge to be sure, but baseline prestige exists to help those big-name schools. So basically to me, it seems like a handful of coaches are suggesting they want to reap the benefits of baseline prestige but not have to deal with any consequences or expectations that baseline prestige may bring.

Posted by A_B_G on 5/27/2021 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2021 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by A_B_G on 5/27/2021 12:44:00 PM (view original):
I like the changes a lot, like others have said I may have minor quibbles with the exact criteria but I think the overall spirit of it is great.

The minor edit I'd make: I think the windows should be pushed to 5 seasons, personally. That gives you one rebuilding year to clear out the garbage Sim AI or inactive coach left behind and then that next season in Recruiting Period 1 you'll recruit your first full Freshman class. If you can't get that class/team to where it needs to be by the time they are Seniors, then I think firing is totally justified.

All in all I love this change though. Also I've noticed while skimming this thread that nobody has said "if these rules were in place now I'd be fired from my school" just a lot of hypothetical "Oh I took over this school and now I'm worried" which is a fine, rational complaint and worry but I truly wonder how many people are going to lose jobs over this. I think the number will be quite low.

I would have been fired at UConn, twice, before it got to the sweet 16 after taking over a team in shambles. New England recruiting had been totally dominated by some no-named yahoo coach in Vermont (just kidding joey) and the Big East was mostly full, with UConn at or near the bottom at the time, had undergone a bunch of coaching changes after the 3.0 release and was sim run. Rebuilds in full power conferences are *very hard* and you’d have to be insane to try it under these conditions, knowing you’ll probably just be wasting 4 seasons and all the money you’ve spent on them just to get your #1 ranked, #1 seed slowdown-negative5-doubleteamed out of the second round in season 4 (even if everything else goes perfectly). So in the end, you’re basically just building the team for the next guy (probably ab90, let’s be honest).

This is going to be such a fun, collegial atmosphere, once live.

Do you think in real life that an AD at a school that has Top Tier prestige would wait around 8 years for a team to get to a S16? I don't.

And I'm not saying you're a bad coach, you're a great coach. It is a challenge to be sure, but baseline prestige exists to help those big-name schools. So basically to me, it seems like a handful of coaches are suggesting they want to reap the benefits of baseline prestige but not have to deal with any consequences or expectations that baseline prestige may bring.

Difference is IRL, they are paying the coach a LOT of money for results. We're actually paying WIS money for the honor of playing at a virtual facsimile of a RL school.

I think they should have a "initial" 4 year coaching contract (that the AD extends or not depending on success). Win a NT title in S2 of your contract, he offers to extend you for another 6+ years and you can accept or not). Consequences to your loyalty/reputation if you break that contract early.

I do think it's a great idea to be totally transparent about requirements to keep your job. That is really key.