This makes no sense...

Posted by grantduck on 2/12/2011 12:10:00 AM (view original):
This makes no sense...

Your school's current prestige has nothing to do with what jobs you qualify for.

Example: The same season I take over an A+ program, you take over a D- program. Over the next four seasons, I make the NT once and am .500 the other three. You make two NT's and two NIT's. My prestige at the end is a B. Yours is a C+.

Who should be eligible for better jobs? You should, of course. Should the fact that my school now has B prestige help me get a job over you? Of course not.

The jobs you're qualified for are based on your resume, not your school's prestige -- and the two can indeed be quite different.

Posted by girt25 on 2/12/2011 12:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grantduck on 2/12/2011 12:10:00 AM (view original):
This makes no sense...

Your school's current prestige has nothing to do with what jobs you qualify for.

Example: The same season I take over an A+ program, you take over a D- program. Over the next four seasons, I make the NT once and am .500 the other three. You make two NT's and two NIT's. My prestige at the end is a B. Yours is a C+.

Who should be eligible for better jobs? You should, of course. Should the fact that my school now has B prestige help me get a job over you? Of course not.

The jobs you're qualified for are based on your resume, not your school's prestige -- and the two can indeed be quite different.

I find it odd looking through the coaching positions, I'm "not qualified" for anything c+ or above, but anything below that is "lateral move", "step backwards" or "keep looking".   If a school's prestige has "nothing to do with" if you are qualified, that would not be the case. 


I'm literally "qualified" for zero positions.   I apparently couldn't even apply for my current school, even though they were D- when I got there.

grant, you are right, it is ridiculous that you are qualified for 0 positions. the job process is really ****** and seble seems to agree. i think he is working on it for the next release though :)

Grant, I completely agree. After a pretty good year, and 10 seasons at the same school in D1,  I am "qualified" for nothing. After my rant about baseline prestige (check out other recent forum posts) I thought I would check out other jobs. Everything is a step backwards, or  for  any big6 school, or anything decent,  Simmy tells me they are looking for someone with a better reputation than mine, which, by the way is only A-. What a load of crap, Kentucky looking for intregrity? They want wins, and not just Kentucky any big school. I am not even qualified for any Ivy school, which comes with a D prestige. I guess they want someone with stronger character. My "great" reputation just doesn't seem to cut it.

I didn't feel it was a problem at the lower divisions, but in D-1 it appears it's completely wonky.  Hopefully seble can fix it up along with the lack of variety among recruits.

DI jobs have always been a little wonky - as long as I've been playing, I think I've only ever been 'qualified' for jobs when moving from DII.

...lack of variety among recruits?  What?  Huh?

Current recruits are way more varied than they ever were before the updates.
 

Posted by gillispie on 2/12/2011 5:20:00 AM (view original):
grant, you are right, it is ridiculous that you are qualified for 0 positions. the job process is really ****** and seble seems to agree. i think he is working on it for the next release though :)

Agreed, and this is a different issue that has been around for years -- that not enough schools are listed as "qualified" by Simmy.

But that's also because we're getting caught up in the word "qualified". Very often if a coach does well at a low/mid DI school, other schools in better conferences and/or w. better baseline (and thus a higher ceiling) are listed as step backwards, etc. The bottom line is if you think that one of these is a good move, just make it, it doesn't matter what Simmy says.

Posted by girt25 on 2/12/2011 8:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 2/12/2011 5:20:00 AM (view original):
grant, you are right, it is ridiculous that you are qualified for 0 positions. the job process is really ****** and seble seems to agree. i think he is working on it for the next release though :)

Agreed, and this is a different issue that has been around for years -- that not enough schools are listed as "qualified" by Simmy.

But that's also because we're getting caught up in the word "qualified". Very often if a coach does well at a low/mid DI school, other schools in better conferences and/or w. better baseline (and thus a higher ceiling) are listed as step backwards, etc. The bottom line is if you think that one of these is a good move, just make it, it doesn't matter what Simmy says.

Just be prepared to get smacked with a loyalty hit

Yea, a couple of times when I've forgotten to renew, I've been listed as "not qualified" for the school that I'm at.  Pretty amusing.

Posted by girt25 on 2/12/2011 8:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 2/12/2011 5:20:00 AM (view original):
grant, you are right, it is ridiculous that you are qualified for 0 positions. the job process is really ****** and seble seems to agree. i think he is working on it for the next release though :)

Agreed, and this is a different issue that has been around for years -- that not enough schools are listed as "qualified" by Simmy.

But that's also because we're getting caught up in the word "qualified". Very often if a coach does well at a low/mid DI school, other schools in better conferences and/or w. better baseline (and thus a higher ceiling) are listed as step backwards, etc. The bottom line is if you think that one of these is a good move, just make it, it doesn't matter what Simmy says.

Absolutely agreed, but they should get rid of the loyalty hit when you do.  It is ridiculous to see coaches go from a non-BCS conference to a BCS conference and take a hit to their loyalty because it is perceived as a "step down"  Hopefully, that is fixed in the next release.  

Posted by 4green2 on 2/12/2011 7:50:00 AM (view original):

...lack of variety among recruits?  What?  Huh?

Current recruits are way more varied than they ever were before the updates.
 

You are correct, but there's still some key variance issues they miss.

I've been through it in depth in another thread posting specific ratings etc...but there's a big time lack of spd in bigs as compared to before and there are very few guards who can rebound, wheras in real  life, the spd ratio is much closer in a lot of cases and there are guards that lead a game in  rebounding(which u never seein HD).

Posted by girt25 on 2/12/2011 8:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 2/12/2011 5:20:00 AM (view original):
grant, you are right, it is ridiculous that you are qualified for 0 positions. the job process is really ****** and seble seems to agree. i think he is working on it for the next release though :)

Agreed, and this is a different issue that has been around for years -- that not enough schools are listed as "qualified" by Simmy.

But that's also because we're getting caught up in the word "qualified". Very often if a coach does well at a low/mid DI school, other schools in better conferences and/or w. better baseline (and thus a higher ceiling) are listed as step backwards, etc. The bottom line is if you think that one of these is a good move, just make it, it doesn't matter what Simmy says.

The question remains though, why am I "not qualified" at any schools with equal prestige or higher?  I wouldn't be able t o be qualified at my own school.

Posted by grantduck on 2/12/2011 8:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 2/12/2011 8:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 2/12/2011 5:20:00 AM (view original):
grant, you are right, it is ridiculous that you are qualified for 0 positions. the job process is really ****** and seble seems to agree. i think he is working on it for the next release though :)

Agreed, and this is a different issue that has been around for years -- that not enough schools are listed as "qualified" by Simmy.

But that's also because we're getting caught up in the word "qualified". Very often if a coach does well at a low/mid DI school, other schools in better conferences and/or w. better baseline (and thus a higher ceiling) are listed as step backwards, etc. The bottom line is if you think that one of these is a good move, just make it, it doesn't matter what Simmy says.

The question remains though, why am I "not qualified" at any schools with equal prestige or higher?  I wouldn't be able t o be qualified at my own school.

The reason you're not eligible for better jobs is that they primarily use a four-season window, and you only have one good season in your last four. (I understand that you took over for a sim, etc, but that's the honest answer to your question.)