Two coaches wanted to take over 0-27 Georgetown. One was a longshot, one got the job. (for ease of reading, listed only the relevant info)

RPI Rank Prestige

43 goosegoslin 121 B+
42 goosegoslin 163 A
41 goosegoslin 5 2 A+ NT (2nd Round)
40 goosegoslin 5 2 A+ NT (Sweet 16)
39 goosegoslin 3 5 A+ NT (Final Four)
38 goosegoslin 23 29 A+ NT (2nd Round)
37 goosegoslin 22 25 A+
36 goosegoslin 9 6 A NT (Sweet 16)
35 goosegoslin 18 14 A NT (2nd Round)
34 goosegoslin 30 A+ NT (Sweet 16)
33 goosegoslin 17 23 A+ NT (2nd Round)
32 goosegoslin 78 A+
31 goosegoslin 1 1 A+ **National Champion**
30 goosegoslin 10 5 A NT (Elite 8)
29 goosegoslin 23 18 A NT (2nd Round)
28 goosegoslin 3 2 A NT (Final Four)
27 goosegoslin 3 1 A- **National Champion**
26 goosegoslin 32 B- NT (1st Round)
25 goosegoslin 65 B-
24 goosegoslin 59 B-
23 goosegoslin 57 C+ NT (1st Round)
22 goosegoslin 40 NT (2nd Round)
21 goosegoslin 108
20 goosegoslin 23 10 NT (2nd Round)
19 goosegoslin 165
18 goosegoslin 49 NT (1st Round)
17 goosegoslin 67 NT (2nd Round)
16 goosegoslin 187

43 gregdoc6 22 B- NT (2nd Round)
42 gregdoc6 61 C
41 gregdoc6 90 C
40 gregdoc6 166 C
39 gregdoc6 86 C
38 gregdoc6 89 C+
37 gregdoc6 118 C+
36 gregdoc6 98 B-
35 gregdoc6 19 12 B- NT (Sweet 16)
34 gregdoc6 101 C-
33 gregdoc6 73 C-
32 gregdoc6 169 D+
31 gregdoc6 166 D+
30 gregdoc6 173 D+

Obviously, you know the story -- resume 2 got the job. No offense against him -- good coach, etc. But goose is one of the top 2 all-time coaches in Smith DI, who just happened to have a rough recruiting season 2 seasons ago and was unfortunate enough to have his only two down years in two decades when his dream job opened up. Now, you can make arguments like, "The AD wanted a younger up-and-comer rather than a guy who might be past his prime," etc. But the computer doesn't think like that. Pure and simple, resume 2 is valued more than resume 1. Hope this was fixed in the new version...

Thats ridiculous. Sad.

i don't think this is addressed in the new engine - yet

i wrote a ticket up 5 or 6 years ago, that d1 jobs in real life consider more than a 4 year timespan, that something like 8 should be looked at in d2 and 12 in d1 - this would incentive-tize coaches staying longer in the game waiting for their dream job to open.

never wrote such a ticket to seble, maybe he would see the logic - feel free to modify or borrow this idea and write one up?

I tend to not write ideas up any longer to CS, have given up.

that makes zero sense, even in a four year span, resume 1 still wins...sometimes I wonder why I pay for this. I hate soccer in real life but have a decent time playing the FREE fc dynasty....

I don't understand why drayer felt the need to ignore the gregdoc had been to 2 PITs in the previous 2 seasons.

If you look at the last 4 years (which the engine does) its

NT, PIT, PIT 12-15

vs

17-13, 9-19, 2nd round NT, sweet 16

One coach has been getting worse, the other has been improving.

One coach is unable to make it to a NT or PIT in back to back years at an A+ prestige school. Whereas the other is at a midmajor (D+ to start, C the last 4 years) and manages to leave it after bumping it up to a B- with his appearance in the NT.

I'd rather see this than just watch every job period be the veteran coaches taking the teams they want then the guys who are moving up have to wait to get a BCS job.

Yeah who do you want taking over your GTown school?

Bob Knight who WAS great, but his best days MAY be behind him?

Or an up and coming young guy?

Ouch...goose has been compared to Bobby Knight. LOL

Maybe goose can get a job speaking monotone on ESPN, too.

Most "up and coming" young guys don't have 13 seasons of head coaching experience under their belt in the real world.

Tanner's right, I out the PITs, though I don't think they matter much. But again, the sim isn't looking for who's an "up-and-comer" and will bring youthful energy to the program -- just who's better. In this case, it's valuing the guy with 3 NT wins and 1 draft pick over the guy with 2 National Championships and 41 draft picks. Anyone who's arguing this is the correct valuation for skill at being an HD coach is wrong.

OR -- I'll put a ticket together and post when I hear back.

Quote: Originally Posted By jslotman on 5/12/2010
Most "up and coming" young guys don't have 13 seasons of head coaching experience under their belt in the real world.

Real world can't be compared to HD in this sense considering 13 seasons can be done in 18-20 months in 1 a day worlds and 14/15 months in 2 a day worlds.

Also don't understand why PI appearances would be deemed irrelevant.

It's a crazy result, and the culprit is the last four year stinkathon that pervades the current logic.

Tanner, the point isn't which coach had a better last few years, it's that taking the last four years in a relative bubble is simply a ridiculous way to measure things.

OR, I too tried to sway TK on this issue. As usual ... deaf ears. I think seble realizes that this is not a good or realistic system, and my guess is that he'd be open to changing it.

One aspect of using only the last 4 years that I actually like is that it makes changing jobs a more difficult decision for a coach. It basically requires that if you change jobs, you're doing so while you're having pretty decent success at your current school. Sometimes that makes for an agonizing decision... stay, and continue to reap the rewards of that successful program, or leave and start over. Do I cash in on my Elite 8 run now, or try to do it again with my team that returns 4 starters? Agonizing decisions like that add another layer of interest and strategy to the game.

If hirings are going to be based on a 10 or 12 year window as some have proposed, then that element of the game pretty much goes away. Experienced coaches with a history of success will be able to leave for better pastures at any time, regardless of how they've done recently. They can wait until they have a down period in their current program, and then just switch off to another A-prestige school, and pick up without missing a beat. I'm not convinced that's necessarily a good thing.

That's a very interesting point that I hadn't thought of before. I don't think that negative nearly trumps the negative that exists with the current system, but definitely something consider.

In a 5- or 10-year window, the most recent seasons would be weighted most heavily, and that would take a lot of the bite out of what you're referring to. But they would have to be careful not to make it too easy for long-time coaches, that I agree with.

Quote: Originally posted by alblack56 on 5/12/2010Maybe goose can get a job speaking monotone on ESPN, too.

Color me biased, but I think Coach Knight (monotonous as he may be) is the most intelligent, insightful color commentator across all basketball. But then again, I also like Clark Kellogg, so I might be slightly delusional.

Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 5/12/2010Tanner, the point isn't which coach had a better last few years, it's that taking the last four years in a relative bubble is simply a ridiculous way to measure things.

I would agree in this case.