Sliding scale for jobs? Topic

bigdave48
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
I want to throw this out there. I admit, the idea is only half-baked (thus, it might be terrible), but I'm curious what others think:

What if the "qualifications" for jobs operated on a sliding scale? That is, the longer a job was vacant during the application process the lower the quals to get the job become.

We already know the job app process is a mess. Moving up, firings, etc. are a crap shoot as it is.

Specifically, in DI, many of the top 'non-Big 6' conferences are ghost towns. It is impossible for moderately successful lower DI coaches to move to mid-level jobs. Then, when they finally can, it is likely they are also qualified for Big 6 jobs. So, on one level, why not make the move from low to mid-level DI easier?

Or, perhaps, the longer a job stays available the lower the qualifications become to get the job. For example, Job A requires a coach to have x, y, z. For coaches who have x, y, z, Job A is a lateral/step backwards move. For coaches with x, y, (but no z) Job A is a longshot. The longer Job A stays vacant, the qualifications are lowered to only x, y to entice/open the job to more coaches.

Again, I admit, this idea is only half-thought out and I'm sure someone will point out it's flaws. But, maybe it could work?
4/30/2010 4:15 PM
tarheel441
Posts: 2 (0)
Rookie
6
Prospect
I think it's a pretty good idea and makes sense in real life terms...
4/30/2010 4:24 PM
shqipta
Posts: 122 (0)
Hall of Famer
275
Prospect
I think its a great idea. Essentially like dropdowns in recruiting.
4/30/2010 5:16 PM
shqipta
Posts: 122 (0)
Hall of Famer
275
Prospect
In the real world it is a frequent occurrence when a school says that they would like to higher a certain coach (or certain quality of coach), but then when the coach says he's not interested, they lower their standards a bit.
4/30/2010 5:18 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
I think they should do this too. Using my old D1 team Hampton for example. I got them to a B prestige when I , and as many of you know it's really hard to get a B prestige job straight out of D2. On top of that the coaches who would be qualified would also be qualified for B- jobs in BCS schools and maybe some B prestiges so why would they take a job in a weak conference. So of course nobody took over Hampton despite them having a team talented enough to not only get into the NT but maybe win a game or 2 with the right draw. I would be surprised if anybody even applied for the job because I doubt any D2 coach who was looking to move up was even qualified for the job. Now Hampton is 2-8, signed a mediocore class aside from 1 stud recruit and will likely fall back into obscurity when a good coach could've kept them at a high level.
4/30/2010 6:02 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
against, i'd rather a team be sim coached than upper d1 jobs filled by less qualified coaches
4/30/2010 7:38 PM
tmacfan12
Posts: 336 (0)
Hall of Famer
355 4 2
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by vandydave on 4/30/2010against, i'd rather a team be sim coached than upper d1 jobs filled by less qualified coaches

agreed
4/30/2010 8:32 PM
hitman1979
Posts: 449 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 166 148 31
Prospect
This is great for those mid majors who get built up and then to rot because no one is qualified for them.

Would also be good for the Low D1s that have been under Sim AI for 20+ seasons. Get a decent D2 coach in there.

No one ever said (that I saw) that "upper D1" jobs should be filled by less qualified coaches. Not too many upper D1 jobs stay under Sim AI for more than a season, if that, anyway. At least in my experience.
4/30/2010 8:38 PM
jweb1510
Posts: 460 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 215 13
Prospect
If this is implemented, they should call it "The Oregon Rule."
4/30/2010 9:13 PM
bigdave48
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
65
Prospect
I think a couple of you have hit the issue on the head. This would be a rule for those mid to high "mid-majors," not Big 6 schools.

It's the mid to high mid-majors who get built up (C+/B- above prestige), and then no one can take them over when the coach moves to a higher program.

The coaches who may be longshots can't get the jobs, and by the time they are qualified, they are also qualified for even higher jobs. So, why go to the mid-major?

I think this would allow the mid to high mid-majors to be more competitive, and allow the successful D2 coaches an opportunity to cut their teeth on low D1 schools.
4/30/2010 9:20 PM
tmacfan12
Posts: 336 (0)
Hall of Famer
355 4 2
Prospect
But why would D2 coaches just be able to luck into great mid major jobs. They should have to build up the program.
4/30/2010 11:23 PM
vandydave
Posts: 2124 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 1 1 843 273
Prospect
if you make mid-majors easier to attain then you inherently make the upper level jobs easier to attain.
4/30/2010 11:24 PM
fatchance
Posts: 183 (0)
Hall of Famer
138
Prospect
I wrote customer support about a month ago offering this very same suggestion. I love it.
4/30/2010 11:29 PM
pajamainc
Posts: 232 (0)
Hall of Famer
362 6 4 1 9
Rookie
Quote: Originally Posted By bigdave48 on 4/30/2010I want to throw this out there. I admit, the idea is only half-baked (thus, it might be terrible), but I'm curious what others think:

What if the "qualifications" for jobs operated on a sliding scale? That is, the longer a job was vacant during the application process the lower the quals to get the job become.

We already know the job app process is a mess. Moving up, firings, etc. are a crap shoot as it is.

Specifically, in DI, many of the top 'non-Big 6' conferences are ghost towns. It is impossible for moderately successful lower DI coaches to move to mid-level jobs. Then, when they finally can, it is likely they are also qualified for Big 6 jobs. So, on one level, why not make the move from low to mid-level DI easier?

Or, perhaps, the longer a job stays available the lower the qualifications become to get the job. For example, Job A requires a coach to have x, y, z. For coaches who have x, y, z, Job A is a lateral/step backwards move. For coaches with x, y, (but no z) Job A is a longshot. The longer Job A stays vacant, the qualifications are lowered to only x, y to entice/open the job to more coaches.

Again, I admit, this idea is only half-thought out and I'm sure someone will point out it's flaws. But, maybe it could work


Does this not already happen on some level. Think about it. If a coach raises a mid major to a B and the leaves, and no coach takes over it goes Sim. If the job continues to stay SIM, it is well documented in the forums that the SIM runs the team into the ground, and the prestige does drop, and when that prestige drops the job becomes available to more coaches.

I agree with Vandy that you don't want coaches at big 6 schools or even top mid-majors that are not truly qualified to be there. I know it sucks, but in reality if you were a good enough coach to be able to get some of those jobs, or were able to build up a low level DI program to a B, then I don't think this discussion would even be taking place.

I know that might sound harsh, and I still stuck floundering in DII with no hope in sight of making even a low level DI program. But if I am not going to be able to compete when I get there I don't want the job.

Just my two, or three, or four cents.
5/1/2010 12:17 AM
glen87
Posts: 554 (0)
Hall of Famer
23 1 289 48 110 2 5
Prospect
agree with tmac and vandydave - this could essentially kill of the "entry" level DI conferences if coaches could bypass them, or not have to stay there more than one season after getting to DI.
5/1/2010 12:23 AM
12 Next ▸
Sliding scale for jobs? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.