trobone, you're right on track with a "normal" run to D1. Great season this year and you'd likely be eligible for low-end jobs, otherwise after next season. By my count you're about $60 in right now...

Posted by metsmax on 11/8/2010 3:16:00 PM (view original):
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.

Four year window (which I think, all in all, in the best approach) with less emphasis on the most recent season, and 'bonus points' for previous big-time achievements like Final Fours or better, drafted players, and CCOY/NCOY awards. The bonus points should be capped though - if you had a great run 20 seasons ago but haven't broken .500 in the last four, you still shouldn't be able to land at Duke.

I don't think people should be rewarded simply for longevity, but I absolutely do think they should be rewarded for consistent success.

Under the current system, you can be at a school 10/15/20 seasons going to the NT every time ... and if you miss the postseason in your most recent year, it's practically like the rest of your resume doesn't matter.

I'm not trying to make things overly advantageous for coaches who've been doing it longer, but stuff like that definitely needs to be addressed.

Posted by antonsirius on 11/9/2010 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 11/8/2010 3:16:00 PM (view original):
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.

Four year window (which I think, all in all, in the best approach) with less emphasis on the most recent season, and 'bonus points' for previous big-time achievements like Final Fours or better, drafted players, and CCOY/NCOY awards. The bonus points should be capped though - if you had a great run 20 seasons ago but haven't broken .500 in the last four, you still shouldn't be able to land at Duke.

I'd generally agree, but modify what you say...rather than capping the bonus points for accomplishments outside the 4 year or 6 year window if it gets stretched - it is more that over time the bonus points degrade - that national title 20 seasons ago losses value - but not on the quick basis that the 4 season window works - but if Gene Hackman won the NCAA tourney when he was young, but goes to jail in subsequent scandal, coaches at Hickory and then coaches in ignominy at a low DI school, that national title has a lot less weight.....onthe flip side, a national title or a final four or a NCOY five or eight years ago should mattersome

Posted by wronoj on 11/9/2010 8:44:00 AM (view original):
trobone, you're right on track with a "normal" run to D1. Great season this year and you'd likely be eligible for low-end jobs, otherwise after next season. By my count you're about $60 in right now...

now if your alma mater is Kentucky that could be a bit hard.....and I dont want to coach my alma mater - we sucked at hoops

Posted by daalter on 11/8/2010 9:28:00 PM (view original):
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.

Re not recruiting their own players, maybe that could be introduced as a factor in the hiring process.  That is, the school looks at the track record of the players you have recruited over the last x seasons (regardless of which school you were at).  If you have recruited too few, or they are not producing, then that counts against you.  Could be a way to lessen the loyalty hit without allowing cherry pickers to thrive.  Then if you want to job hop, you need to pick schools with openings and make sure your recruits are thriving.

I feel like the best way to determine hiring logic would be by creating a survey. The survey would include questions where you either

choose the better coaching resume out of two choices 
AND/OR
rank a few resumes in order of how good they are

If the survey is done well, the designers could theoretically extrapolate a formula that meets the general consensus for how hiring logic should work.

Posted by daalter on 11/9/2010 9:44:00 AM (view original):
I don't think people should be rewarded simply for longevity, but I absolutely do think they should be rewarded for consistent success.

Under the current system, you can be at a school 10/15/20 seasons going to the NT every time ... and if you miss the postseason in your most recent year, it's practically like the rest of your resume doesn't matter.

I'm not trying to make things overly advantageous for coaches who've been doing it longer, but stuff like that definitely needs to be addressed.

That is the bigest problem is the current season.  If a job you like isnt available and you get robbed with 4 ee's and 4 graduating of course you will have a hard to make the nt unless you win the ct. 

It should have a low level basic qualification.  Then if that is met then chose the best from those.  If A team is sim for more then one season the minimum is to high a sim shouldnt be coaching a good school

Posted by metsmax on 11/9/2010 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 11/9/2010 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 11/8/2010 3:16:00 PM (view original):
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.

Four year window (which I think, all in all, in the best approach) with less emphasis on the most recent season, and 'bonus points' for previous big-time achievements like Final Fours or better, drafted players, and CCOY/NCOY awards. The bonus points should be capped though - if you had a great run 20 seasons ago but haven't broken .500 in the last four, you still shouldn't be able to land at Duke.

I'd generally agree, but modify what you say...rather than capping the bonus points for accomplishments outside the 4 year or 6 year window if it gets stretched - it is more that over time the bonus points degrade - that national title 20 seasons ago losses value - but not on the quick basis that the 4 season window works - but if Gene Hackman won the NCAA tourney when he was young, but goes to jail in subsequent scandal, coaches at Hickory and then coaches in ignominy at a low DI school, that national title has a lot less weight.....onthe flip side, a national title or a final four or a NCOY five or eight years ago should mattersome

That'd work too.

Posted by brip87 on 11/9/2010 1:45:00 PM (view original):
It should have a low level basic qualification.  Then if that is met then chose the best from those.  If A team is sim for more then one season the minimum is to high a sim shouldnt be coaching a good school

Totally disagree. Some jobs you should have to earn, not just be the least-worst candidate.

There needs to be something about winning with your players, not someone else's.

I have only touched DI a couple of times, so if you dismiss my opinions based on that, here's your out.

I think that improvement should also be a factor.  Say you take over a 1-25 non-BCS team.  If every year you get better, and get up to an NT team in four years, that should count for more than being an NT team the fourth year from a team that was PT worthy when you got there.  Loyalty should only be impacted if making later/frequent moves.  If your career goes- DIII 1 season, DII 2 seasons (same team), DI, you should still have a high loyalty.  But if you jump schools at the same level within 4 years, you should get hit hard.  (see above about winning with your own players).

My second half wouldn't post (not sure why), but I also think that team's standards should be a combo of recent success and baseline.  If Indiana goes 1-25 for 10 years, they shouldn't have the same standards as the top of the BCS.   I would also like to see varied AD 'personalities'- some don't care if you cheat every day, while others only want clean cut.  Some will not take a DII coach period to a mid-major, others will take a chance.  Add some variety to the paths to get to the top, instead of one-school fits all.

i like the ideas here. success window definitely needs to be expanded, but not too far so that the best coach in the world over a reasonable period (say 8 seasons) can't get the job because another coach started 20 seasons earlier. i think something like, an 8 season window, with a caveat that gives a coach a small amount of permanent credit for final fours and up would make sense.

ideally this permanent credit would be % based. this way, if a guy wins a few titles while the world is weak, he doesn't get such a permanent bonus that he can always win with a much weaker resume. more like, if you won 2 titles outside the last 10 years and made 4 final fours, you get a 10-15% bonus on your resume in comparison to a coach with no titles/final 4s outside the last 10 years. this way a terrible coaching job doesn't equal a strong resume just because you won a couple in the past.

anyway, i also agree that how well the school was doing would ideally be a factor. if you take over a kentucky or north carolina while they are top 5 in the country, and then go on to have 10 straight NT appearances with a final four and a couple elite 8s, but nothing better, this should be a lot less valuable than a guy who takes over texas el paso as one of the worst in the country and then builds them into a powerhouse. but, i think this adds a lot of complexity. so i would be fine if CS left it out. that way, resume beyond the last 6 or 8 or 10 season does matter, because you should have started the current resume window with a better team than a guy with a worse "old" resume.

finally, i just wanted to touch on winning with your own players. i totally relate to why this is important, if you take over the best team in the country and then happen to win with them, its obviously less impressive than if you build the whole thing yourself. but, there are also cases where IMO, its MORE impressive that you won with someone else's players. in my experience, i had 2 teams that i took over and won with that by most algorithms would quality as mostly or all someone elses players. these players were significantly worse than i would have ever recruited myself. one of them i had only been there 2 years, so all the upperclassmen were not mine, but it is the title i am proudest of, because it was easily the best coaching job i have ever pulled off (the team was in d1 with borderline top 25 talent, and a 34-1 record). the team had missed the NT the last 4 years when i got there (and the first two i was there, even) and were mis managed but there is 0 chance any coach in the game would have considered the team close to top 10 talent wise.

so, i really struggle to support a factor that relies on you winning with your own players. even though in most cases of really good teams with new coaches, it is a reasonable thing to do. the problem is any coach who takes over a mediocre school and does a fantastic job gets screwed. so maybe the idea to factor in how well the school did before you came is a good idea, although with sims and stuff, as i mentioned, i feel that adds a lot of complexity.

also, a lot of coaches who go to top schools go from school who were more talented. its not that often that a guy goes from a school to one with a lot more talent. so maybe we could just use win with your own players for coaches who jump down the ladder? this would eliminate those who poach schools down a division for a 1 stop shot at a title.

there is winning with your own players - and relatedly there is what happens to prestige on your watch - maintaining a school at a given prestige level should matter less than does boosting prestige

arrive at a BCS school that is A- and keep it there - cool

arrive at a BCS school that has sunk to C+ and get it up to A-, better

Posted by antonsirius on 11/9/2010 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by brip87 on 11/9/2010 1:45:00 PM (view original):
It should have a low level basic qualification.  Then if that is met then chose the best from those.  If A team is sim for more then one season the minimum is to high a sim shouldnt be coaching a good school

Totally disagree. Some jobs you should have to earn, not just be the least-worst candidate.

Agreed, anton. 100%.