a 14-year lookback really boggles the mind.  Where did this number even come from?  I thought the original modification was to go from 4 to 10 years, now all of a sudden it's 14 years?  This whole process has been a cluster#### and the fact they waited so long to modify it and aren't compensating coaches who were deserving is a real fiasco and a shame.  Not to mention it's unclear if the new tweak will really work as intended. 

I thought it was 10 as well, which was why I was dumbfounded to see the jobs I qualify for drop from a pretty strong B- to a weak C (alot of longshots at C), when the only supposed change was from 4 to 10. Now it's 14, which is a little absurd. That means you need 14 months, well over a years worth of time in order to get a full resume...

Posted by tianyi7886 on 12/23/2011 12:35:00 AM (view original):
I bet you reducing the 14 season window to 10 will greatly increase the jobs I, along with numerous other D2 coaches, qualify for next season. I only have 10 seasons in Rupp so with a 14 season window, I might be getting a value of 0 assigned to the missing seasons, which explains the huge drop in the jobs I qualify for despite seasons 5-10 just as strong as 1-4. 

do we have any indication it is 14?

Posted by jdno on 12/23/2011 12:41:00 AM (view original):
a 14-year lookback really boggles the mind.  Where did this number even come from?  I thought the original modification was to go from 4 to 10 years, now all of a sudden it's 14 years?  This whole process has been a cluster#### and the fact they waited so long to modify it and aren't compensating coaches who were deserving is a real fiasco and a shame.  Not to mention it's unclear if the new tweak will really work as intended. 

jd, mind boggling is the right phrase. How many times can they role out a significant change without properly testing it and have it be a complete fiasco? It remidns me of the old Simpsons bit with Homer sticking his finger in a light socket, getting shocked ... and then doing it again and again.

How friggin' hard is it to make sure that something is reasonably tested before rolling it out? I'm not looking for perfection here ... but even basic due diligence and logic isn't present. Mind boggling.

After a final four in D1 last season at St. Louis in Rupp A10, and 2 s16s in the past 5 years, and building a midmajor up from a c- to an a-,  I am not even qualified for 3 different teams in my own conference. I have a B+ rep, but regardless of no problems this year, it did not improve. Still, in RL, would any crap team turn down a coach who who had just gone to a ff from a mmajor?

Looking at the hiring decision that I referenced at the start of this thread, it does seem credible that the problem - if you think it is a problem - is that they are giving too much weight to very distant years.

So happens I have been at maryland for 15 seasons.

Last Seven - in reverse order - NT Title Game, NT-1, 16, 16, NT-1, Final 4, Final 4 - a strong 7 seasons

Prior Seven - in reverse order - NT-1, PI-1, NT-1, NT-1, PI-1, none, NT-1

So, if the jobs decision program is giving a lot of weight to seasons 8-14 back then the "keep looking" result makes sense.  I would have thought that two final fours, two sweet 16s and just coming off a narrow loss in the title game (and 34 wins) would open any door - but guess that is outweighed - for now - by first round exits in the out years

Posted by fd343ny on 12/23/2011 4:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 12/23/2011 12:35:00 AM (view original):
I bet you reducing the 14 season window to 10 will greatly increase the jobs I, along with numerous other D2 coaches, qualify for next season. I only have 10 seasons in Rupp so with a 14 season window, I might be getting a value of 0 assigned to the missing seasons, which explains the huge drop in the jobs I qualify for despite seasons 5-10 just as strong as 1-4. 

do we have any indication it is 14?

"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).  "

http://whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=448982&TopicsTimeframe=30

my response from seble (maybe?) was to see that thread. I responded that it doesn't help much for tianyi and CUSA to which they agreed...so, see ya next season tianyi?

After reading this thread, I'm glad I'm at the two schools where I intend to stay (with all my teams actually).  I'm also in total agreement with Daalter (Girt) on this issue.  Is it THAT hard to properly test something before incorporating it into the game?  I had twelve teams spread across three ID's not more than a couple months ago.  I've cut those teams down to six and am seriously considering getting rid of another one.  Why you ask?  BECAUSE I'M SICK AND TIRED OF PLAYING BETA TESTER FOR THE LAST SIX AND A HALF YEARS.  WIS/Seble, get it fixed post haste or lose a long time customer.  This is simply ridiculous.  EVERY change that's more than a minor tweak ends up screwing up the game.  Pitiful.  I really used to love this game, but all the screw ups with the implementations are getting to be too much to take.  Either get it right or compensate us for beta testing.  That is all.  Have a nice day. 

Posted by emy1013 on 12/23/2011 9:13:00 PM (view original):
After reading this thread, I'm glad I'm at the two schools where I intend to stay (with all my teams actually).  I'm also in total agreement with Daalter (Girt) on this issue.  Is it THAT hard to properly test something before incorporating it into the game?  I had twelve teams spread across three ID's not more than a couple months ago.  I've cut those teams down to six and am seriously considering getting rid of another one.  Why you ask?  BECAUSE I'M SICK AND TIRED OF PLAYING BETA TESTER FOR THE LAST SIX AND A HALF YEARS.  WIS/Seble, get it fixed post haste or lose a long time customer.  This is simply ridiculous.  EVERY change that's more than a minor tweak ends up screwing up the game.  Pitiful.  I really used to love this game, but all the screw ups with the implementations are getting to be too much to take.  Either get it right or compensate us for beta testing.  That is all.  Have a nice day. 

You are being compensated ... the original intent was to charge $100.00 a season ... but since you are beta testing, they knocked it down to $14.95.

seble's response re: compensating for beta testing is very telling. He says they "can't afford that economically right now." Thinking as a businessman, it mystifies me how HD thinks NOT trying to appease disgruntled customers (of teams who were messed up in job-move timing) is a good move, even in the short term. Many of these teams will lose their coaches NOW, and these coaches may drop more teams out of frustration, even if not directly affected by the problem. If HD started giving out free seasons, specifically to those who complain about this issue in a ticket, they could recover some loyalty. Maybe they are doing this unofficially. I hope so. I do know that I dropped a team recently (DI Ok St in Phelan) over EE frustration, and if any of my teams suffer like others over newly-created job movement issues, I'll drop those, too. If seble et al don't nail the "fix" to the fix, this will begin to affect 3 of my 4 remaining teams beginning this season. And I suspect a lot of customers feel the same. He may not think WIS can handle compensating beta testers. If that's the case, and if the new "fix" remains wrongly coded, then this corporate mentality may lose a lot of longterm revenue for WIS. I really do wish them well in nailing the new fix.

seble's response actually said 

""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. ""

let's not go crazy that he isn't compensating people until we see what this additional credit is.   . 

That's a good point, milk. And I glossed over it in my reading. If he IS giving credits, etc. that's the right thing to do and will build loyalty. :)

I don't think it's up to seble to decide whether to give away free seasons or not. At least when the new GD rolled out, the reward system was completely revamped by someone higher up than the game programmer. 

Didn't mean to imply seble's a one-man decision maker. When I mention "seble" I mean all collective decision makers for HD. No worries. :)