We've gotten a number of complaints recently about the changes to how we evaluate coach success.  The changes was made based on lots of feedback that indicated most coaches wanted more of a resume incorporated instead of just the past 4 seasons.  That's the change that was made, to go back much further, and put less weight on the most recent season. 

There's nothing wrong with how that is working.  As a result, it will be tougher to move up if you've had some bad seasons mixed into your history.  It may become necessary to adjust the requirements of schools to compensate for these changes, but I'm not going to rush into doing that.  I'd like to monitor the results for a little while first.

If you're frustrated that you can't move up, I sympathize.  Please just be patient and if a change needs to be made, I'll make it.

IMO, there should be a lesser requirement to move to low D1.  If someone's goal is to move to D1, let's make it so they can move there as long as they demonstrate they know what they're doing.  For example, the guy who just got to a D2 championship game, had A+ loyalty and rep should absolutely be able to move up.  He knows what he's doing and he demonstrated that by having success with players he recruited.  He should be in D1.  This change should be about competition for jobs between coaches, not penalizing coaches for not having a long track record.  

seble - i really, really like the intention of your change. i do think you need to lower the requirements of getting into schools, however.

what is fantastic about the change is that when two coaches want the same program - especially a kentucky or north carolina - the system is much more fair. it was always ridiculous that a coach who won 3 championships in the last decade - 2, 5, and 9 years ago - was at a disadvantage to a coach who was fresh off a championship. so, for that reason, this change is great.

however, when a coach has something like 4 straight NT appearances, with a sweet 16 or two, that should still be good enough to move up to d1. i obviously have no personal gripe here, but i think it is a very important and sensitive issue. i believe that if you keep the formula the same (haven't had enough time to really study it), to compare apps for competitive jobs, and simply lower the requirements to get to different levels of play, that would be good enough (if not ideal).

another reason this change is great is because a coach can win a NT, decide he wants to stay and go for 2 in a row, without totally screwing himself over. or, he can have a couple good seasons, stick around, and a few seasons later decide to move up. but the change only works if that is the case - if its too hard to move up, people will jump ASAP in fear of not getting another shot. another common case is that a team has a great season, has their core graduate/get drafted early, and then they have a much lesser season - and then a very desirable job opens up. all of those reasons justify the change you made. but i think the unintended consequence of making it much more difficult to move up is one that will rub a lot of coaches the wrong way.

and finally, thank you for coming right out and responding to this up front. that is tremendously valuable in so many ways. so thanks. glad to see you back on the project!

I must have missed the conversations about people complaining about it being too easy to get to D1, because whoever was arguing for it got their wish.

Posted by tkimble on 12/13/2011 12:07:00 PM (view original):
IMO, there should be a lesser requirement to move to low D1.  If someone's goal is to move to D1, let's make it so they can move there as long as they demonstrate they know what they're doing.  For example, the guy who just got to a D2 championship game, had A+ loyalty and rep should absolutely be able to move up.  He knows what he's doing and he demonstrated that by having success with players he recruited.  He should be in D1.  This change should be about competition for jobs between coaches, not penalizing coaches for not having a long track record.  

THIS.

seble, you are going to run off a lot of human coaches and make the game even more of a ghost town than it currently is in some worlds, especially in lower D1 conferences, if you don't IMMEDIATELY fix this problem.  A guy who just made it to the D2 national championship game should ALWAYS be able to move to a low D1 school if he wants to do it.  I'm glad you changed the logic to include more history, but there still needs to be significant weight on the most recent season so a coach who is coming off of a very successful season (as long as it wasn't his only successful season) can have the option of moving up.  Your change was well intentioned and should be kept at its core; however, making D1 is now too difficult.  Most people play this game because they want to get to D1 eventually, and your most recent change is going to make it take so long to get there that you may end up seeing a lot of coaches give up on HD before they ever make it.  That's not good for business or for your customers who stick around in D1 and watch is waste away.  PLEASE fix the jobs logic now, not after watching it for a while.

Thanks

The point of the change in the last release was to put less pressure on coaches to perfectly time their move.  Now it should be possible to have a really good few seasons, and not have to immediately capitalize on it by moving up.  You can stick around a few more seasons without wasting those good ones. 

The result of the change is that coaches who have had poor seasons mixed into their resume will find it harder to expunge those from consideration.

Shouldn't the point of the change be to improve the game?

It's obvious that there's unintended consequences in which DII teams are finding it ridiculously tough to move up. I find it hard to believe anyone was wanting that, or that this issue is good for the game.

It's not an issue of them having bad seasons, it is the issue of them simply not having enough seasons despite the evidence that they have enough experience.  

Posted by tkimble on 12/13/2011 4:08:00 PM (view original):
It's not an issue of them having bad seasons, it is the issue of them simply not having enough seasons despite the evidence that they have enough experience.  

You must buy X many seasons before getting to the good schools.

I think it should be very hard to get to a big 6 school, but relatively easy to get to a lower level division 1 school. I have just started my first try at Division 1 at Mercer, and am enjoying it a lot. It is almost like a whole new game in some ways, especially with recruiting. So I was looking forward to moving up in some other worlds. I like the intent of the changes, but it should not be too hard to get a low level Division 1 job if you have a number of decent seasons at Division 2 under your belt. I think it should be a little harder to go from Division 3 to Division 2 though - should take at least a couple of years, in my opinion.

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

People asked for more than the last 4 seasons to count ... and for the last season not to mean so much.

They do EXACTLY what was asked ... now it is the end of the world as we know it?

Do we want more seasons to count or not?

yes more seasons should count, but they went overboard.  look at my Naismith resume, its the 3 years at Kean 30 seasons ago that's stopping me from getting ANY D1 jobs.  if you can honestly say I don't deserve even a D- d1 job, you are crazy

Posted by hughesjr on 12/13/2011 7:03:00 PM (view original):
People asked for more than the last 4 seasons to count ... and for the last season not to mean so much.

They do EXACTLY what was asked ... now it is the end of the world as we know it?

Do we want more seasons to count or not?

yes, but only in the right way.  mduncan and chapelhillne make excellent points.  If this process stays like it is now and successful/reasonably successful coaches can jump to bottom D1 schools, many coaches will move on from HD b/c clearly the process is worse than before imo.  You win a NT in D2 with all of your kids and you can' t move up at all?  That has to be a bad joke that will make some people feel like you haven't given WIS enough money yet to deserve to move up to D1.  

And chapel's example about rebuilding D2 schools is a valid one.  There should be some consideration given for how wretched a program may have been before a coach takes over.  Turning such a bad program and making them consistently successful should be more deserving, but in the current process, it's really a penalty.   This shouldn't be the case. 

10 seasons in HD time is about a year and a half...I wonder what % of new coaches in the last 10 seasons in each world have stuck around and played for 10 continuous seasons?  I have to think it's easily under 20%.  

Do we know if 10 seasons is now the minimum needed to get to D1?  I sure hope this isn't the case.

Also, does the process take into account skipped seasons properly or is a coach penalized in some fashion for not having 10 consecutive seasons?

Posted by milkamania on 12/13/2011 7:47:00 PM (view original):
yes more seasons should count, but they went overboard.  look at my Naismith resume, its the 3 years at Kean 30 seasons ago that's stopping me from getting ANY D1 jobs.  if you can honestly say I don't deserve even a D- d1 job, you are crazy

If it's just the last 10 seasons that count, then it would just be your last season at Kean (11-17) that are factored in, right?  It's situations like this that make me wonder if your time away from the game in Naismith is penalizing you in some way.  You should be qualified for something in D1 imo.