Development Blog - November 8th Topic

acn24
Posts: 1020 (0)
Hall of Famer
260 357 172
Rookie
From Seble:

Good news to report today.  I finally found the issue that was periodically causing game simulation cycles to be delayed.  It took a lot more time and effort than I expected, but I'm very happy to finally know what was going on.  I'll have a fix for it in the next day or two.  Other than the night owls who stay up to see the results from 2-3 AM, you guys won't see much difference, but now I'll be able to move on to more important things.

I have a few minor engine things I want to look into next, but after that I'll be focusing on two things for the near future.  One is taking a look at all the engine numbers and making sure those are reasonably in line with real life. 

The second item is making some improvements to the job process.  My initial thinking is to 1) lessen the penalty on loyalty for changing jobs, 2) incorporate more of a coach's history into "success" and making it less dependent on the past couple of seasons, and 3) possibly tweaking some of the school minimums.  Feel free to discuss what you'd like to see in this area and I'll try to read as much as I can before any decisions are made.
 
11/8/2010 2:27 PM
brip87
Posts: 421 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1
Prospect
I wanted a big 6 job in wooden  2 or 3 seasons ago and with this id.  I got nothing. I was a long shot.  My resume is and was better then the guys who got the jobs (ie maryland).  Fwi I cut back alot of teams due to the crappy hiring process.
11/8/2010 2:39 PM
acn24
Posts: 1020 (0)
Hall of Famer
260 357 172
Rookie
As far as the improvements to the job process, I like parts 1 & 2, provided that the adjustment to loyalty doesn't make it possible to jump between jobs, perhaps lessen the impact on loyalty for the first job change, but really hit hard a 2nd move in a short period of time.

I have always thought the 4 year window was too brief - and it was simply made worse by the fact that the success seemed to be valued as 75% the most recent season, 15% the next most recent, and 5% for years 3-4.  I could see adding a bonus for significant historical success, and/or extending the window to 6-8 years and less significant weighting of the most recent season.  My only concern is that by widening the window it may make it tougher for people to move up from low DI to a mid-major, or a lower end A-10/BCS school, if those schools would want to see DI success for the entire new longer window.

I'm not totally sold on tweaking school minimums, I'm not sure there is really a need for that.
11/8/2010 2:41 PM
brip87
Posts: 421 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1
Prospect
I dont know what the fix is but currently it sucks.  My d1 resume was pretty good also and i didnt qualify.  I got frustrated and let that school go by the wayside for a few seasons.  D1 as a whole needs to be fixed.  if your not at a big program you cannot win anymore period.
11/8/2010 2:52 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 836 2
Pro
I would widen the 4 year window some - and maybe add a factor for really big accomplishments outside the 4 year window - like a National Championship 6 or 7 or 8 years out should have some value in the process....maybe any NT Final Four in the relevant division.
11/8/2010 3:16 PM
pablo_ohio
Posts: 60 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 10 1
Prospect
I really hope the "4 season window" gets adjusted.

In Smith I had a three season run with BC that was pretty good - National Champ, Elite 8, Championship Game. I jumped to UNC for a MAJOR rebuild (2 scholarship players), went 3-24, had three NT seasons and one 11-16 season during which I had to drop the team when I got deployed. I came home over a year later and figured I'd at least get a decent DI gig with my resume but all I was eligible for were crappy D- prestige schools. Settled for a DIII team, hoping I can somehow climb back to a Big Six program but the stories I hear make me wonder if it is even worth the effort.

My point is, when you have major success with a school like BC and some decent success with UNC and then come back 20+ seasons later why should the top programs you're eligible for be the very lowest in DI?
11/8/2010 3:19 PM (edited)
Rails
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 193 13
Prospect
Discussion points:
  • Lane Kiffen jumping to USC from Tenn after one season
  • Will an impressive  resume supersede the minimum requirements of a school?
  • Should minimum requirements be based on prestige or not on baseline.  (i.e. should a UCLA that has been in the crapper have lower standards than USC that has been to the Sweet 16 8 years in a row and who has two final fours?)
  • Evaluating only basketball success (not age or discipline issues since those are not part of HD), would Bob Knight get hired at most any BCS job after taking 5 seasons off after leaving Texas Tech?  Would his basketball success at Indiana prevail and be very influential (again not taking into account age/behavior issues) in his getting a BCS job at a big time program? 
  • Again, I'll encourage a look at the baseline prestige and prestige formula in general because I think it relates to the job process.  In the above example, USC is the more prestigious school based on HD "on the floor" results, not what John Wooden did in real life.  I get that there are differences between a BCS team and Quinnipiac, but for the most part with the right basketball focused boosters and administration, resources and coach, in theory any BCS school could become just as prestigious as another BCS school.  In other words, in HD Penn State should have the same baseline potential as they do in FB because, after all, they are recruiting kids to the same school as they would in FB (climate, location, education).  If the Penn State backers and boosters would say "to heck with football, let's throw a ton of resources at a top coach to get its BB program to the highest level,"  I believe it would have the potential to get there and stay there--that's what baseline is, isn't it?  I absolutely hate the baseline idea because that isn't "What If."  It is "as is."  As a compromise I'd settle for all BCS Big 6 schools to initially have the same baseline and the rest of the field to have another, but have the "on the floor" results determine their prestige.  In DII and DIII some schools have more prestige irl, but in HD all are the same because it's more fun that way.
11/8/2010 3:57 PM (edited)
oldresorter
Posts: 646 (0)
Hall of Famer
1110 1
Prospect
I understand why many of the facts behind how the engine works remain cryptic, but however you change the job hiring process, I would spell the process out in as much detail as possible.  Most of the hard feelings regarding job issues, are related to lack of understanding of the system

I think you generally are on the right track with the things you plan on looking at for hiring, a longer time frame would sure ease some of the tension, but again, a clear, concise spelling out of the process will help.
11/8/2010 3:59 PM
fd343ny
Posts: 2254 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 635 36
Veteran
and it would be fine if that clear concise spelling out of the process at some points said that there then is a random factor or a factor in which the peculiar (undisclosed) priorities of a school apply
11/8/2010 4:28 PM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
I'm OK with considering more than just the 4-year window for the hiring process, but by the same token, I think recent success should still play a large factor. If you boil it down to simply "best career resume", I think that makes it too easy for long-term elite coaches to jump between A+ teams at will, and makes it more difficult for newer coaches to ever land at the elite schools.

Also, I think it adds to the game when changing schools is a difficult decision, not taken lightly. I like the fact that right now, after your mid-major or low BCS team makes an Elite 8, and you return 10 players for next season, you have to think long and hard about whether to move up now while you're hot, or roll the dice and return for another season. I think much of that layer of the game would be lost if you minimize the importance of recent success too greatly.
11/8/2010 8:52 PM
daalter
Posts: 326 (0)
Hall of Famer
40
Prospect
I think #2 (weighing more than just the last few seasons) is the one that's screaming for a fix.

I'm not really for lessening the loyalty hit. It was lessened before and it allowed coaches to jump into a pre-made team, win without recruiting their own players and move up to the next job. That should never be possible.

As far as the minimum thresholds for qualifiying goes ... I'm torn. I don't think they should lower the baseline miminums. I DO think that, partcicularly as the jobs process goes on, the minimum for low/mid DI schools whose prestige is above their baseline should slowly returned their standards to the normal level.

I would be very much against lowering of standards for BCS programs, or lowering any DI below their current baseline. I feel if they fixed the issue I mentioned in the above paragraph, that would do wonders in that area.
11/8/2010 9:28 PM
fd343ny
Posts: 2254 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 635 36
Veteran
Posted by professor17 on 11/8/2010 8:52:00 PM (view original):
I'm OK with considering more than just the 4-year window for the hiring process, but by the same token, I think recent success should still play a large factor. If you boil it down to simply "best career resume", I think that makes it too easy for long-term elite coaches to jump between A+ teams at will, and makes it more difficult for newer coaches to ever land at the elite schools.

Also, I think it adds to the game when changing schools is a difficult decision, not taken lightly. I like the fact that right now, after your mid-major or low BCS team makes an Elite 8, and you return 10 players for next season, you have to think long and hard about whether to move up now while you're hot, or roll the dice and return for another season. I think much of that layer of the game would be lost if you minimize the importance of recent success too greatly.
the right balance might be something like - consider years 5 and 6 a little AND also consider any Final Four or title at that Division as an added factor - even if it is outside that window?
11/8/2010 11:33 PM
reinsel
Posts: 927 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 130
Rookie
I like considering the last 8 years.  25%/20%/15%/10%/10%/10%/5%/5%.  Most of the value is upfront, but some consideration for years 5-8 would help smooth out the process.  Now it seems like its 60/25/10/5 or something.
11/9/2010 12:40 AM
emy1013
Posts: 2731 (0)
Hall of Famer
899
Prospect
I kind of like this idea.  Maybe the numbers could be tweaked a little if necessary, but it looks pretty good to me.
11/9/2010 2:53 AM
trobone
Posts: 615 (0)
Hall of Famer
73 12 10
Rookie
how about letting me get to DI without spending 200 bucks on seasons?
All I want to do is coach my alma...
11/9/2010 4:00 AM
123 Next ▸
Development Blog - November 8th 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.