I've had some time to review data and get a better picture of the effects of the 12/7 change to success related to job movement. 

I'm using Rupp as the focus of my analysis. 

To give a quick background, success is calculated on an approximately 100 point scale.  Of coaches currently at DII schools, the average success rating dropped two points, which is somewhat significant, but not that big.  38 coaches had a higher rating under the new logic as compared to the old.  74 coaches went down in the new logic.  The rest stayed the same.

I'm planning two changes.  First I'm going to tweak the new success logic a bit, to include a max of 10 seasons instead of 14.  Second, I'm going to lower the school minimum success requirements across the board (DI only). 

I thought about lowering just a few points to coincide with the change in average success ratings, but I'd like to go even a little further down to encourage more advancement.  The general feeling I get from feedback is that coaches would rather lose out on a job to another human coach than to get immediately rejected because of an arbitrary minimum requirement.   With that said, I don't want to go too far to where unworthy coaches are moving up too easily.  It's a tricky balance, but I think I've settled on a pretty good change. 

These changes will affect worlds as they finish their postseason.  The first one to see these changes will be Knight, which finishes next week.

 I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused for coaches expecting to move up.  In the end though, hopefully this will be a better system all around.

Thanks for listening seble.     

Thanks, seble.

Thanks seble.

Yeah thanks seble. Very much appreciated.

Thanks Seble. You might consider posting this on the board that everyone is talking about it on as well. Hopefully this one will be a much better fix.

its redundant at this point, but thanks. definitely appreciated

Thank you for fixing this seble!

This is great news and all for those with job process coming up...

..and for the people (it seems there are many) who built their teams over 4 or 5 seasons in such a manner so as to hit a peak this past season with the purpose of moving up, who now have no recourse because they already went through the jobs process?   Too bad for them?  Suck it up and endure a bad season that even with this fix will have a negative impact on their future ability to get a job for the next 10 seasons?  That doesn't seem cool.

Not cool at all, but what can we do about it?

at least give a free season, hahaha like thats gonna happen!

The damage is done, so now we need a long term fix. That's what this is supposed to be.

I sympathize with those coaches who unexpectedly had to stay at their school for an extra season, but this change is going to open up even more opportunities than they would have had in the old system.  If I could go back in time I would have included this change in the original release, but sometimes I can't predict all of the consequences of a change.

As for giving away a free season, that's not something we can get away with financially right now.  We already give out a large number of credits and reward points.  There will also be a mass email coming your way soon with an additional credit.

Are there any plans to make changes outside of D1 jobs. I am becoming very frustrated seeing coaches who poach good jobs and bounce around get a job over long term coaches who have deeper resumes. It seems that rebuilding within the last 10 years will cost you a job every time to a coach who just took over a NT ready team, got the 2nd round and then applied for another good job the next season.  

Is there a way to include things like overall wins, total seasons or change in prestige over your time at the school? I would think a school would rather hire a coach that took his team from a C- to an A- but had a few rough seasons during that time over a coach who went A- to B+ in one season but made the NT.

You definitely have a good point there, I'm just not sure how I can reasonably determine that without the logic becoming overly complex.  It's definitely something I'll consider though.