.....in 3.0 is the Longtime Coach or not preference. I just picked a team back up in Iba and although I have more than 50 seasons coaching in that world (and 4 NC's to boot) because it's my first season at that school, I'm not considered as a long time coach. I understand that it's obviously calculated as being at the school where you currently coach but doesn't that really penalize anyone who changes jobs, even promotions. I've yet to come across a player who had a positive preference for a "short time" coach. Seems like it almost encourages users to stay put where they're at, doesn't it?

So when Bob Knight left Indiana and went to Texas Tech, he was no longer a long time coach according to Wis standards? Perhaps there should be two standards to qualify as long time. One, time at a particular school. Two, time in a particular world. I'm wondering, was this brought up in the beta testing and if so, what Seble's response was?

Just curious.

Posted by emy1013 on 4/4/2017 1:06:00 PM (view original):
.....in 3.0 is the Longtime Coach or not preference. I just picked a team back up in Iba and although I have more than 50 seasons coaching in that world (and 4 NC's to boot) because it's my first season at that school, I'm not considered as a long time coach. I understand that it's obviously calculated as being at the school where you currently coach but doesn't that really penalize anyone who changes jobs, even promotions. I've yet to come across a player who had a positive preference for a "short time" coach. Seems like it almost encourages users to stay put where they're at, doesn't it?

So when Bob Knight left Indiana and went to Texas Tech, he was no longer a long time coach according to Wis standards? Perhaps there should be two standards to qualify as long time. One, time at a particular school. Two, time in a particular world. I'm wondering, was this brought up in the beta testing and if so, what Seble's response was?

Just curious.

Yep. Changing jobs is painful!

Posted by emy1013 on 4/4/2017 1:06:00 PM (view original):
.....in 3.0 is the Longtime Coach or not preference. I just picked a team back up in Iba and although I have more than 50 seasons coaching in that world (and 4 NC's to boot) because it's my first season at that school, I'm not considered as a long time coach. I understand that it's obviously calculated as being at the school where you currently coach but doesn't that really penalize anyone who changes jobs, even promotions. I've yet to come across a player who had a positive preference for a "short time" coach. Seems like it almost encourages users to stay put where they're at, doesn't it?

So when Bob Knight left Indiana and went to Texas Tech, he was no longer a long time coach according to Wis standards? Perhaps there should be two standards to qualify as long time. One, time at a particular school. Two, time in a particular world. I'm wondering, was this brought up in the beta testing and if so, what Seble's response was?

Just curious.

I don't remember it coming up in beta. There were far more serious issues being debated...many of which were never resolved. If someone did mention longevity, it was lost in the noise.

To me, it's a wording thing. They should have called the preference "coaching stability". It's a valid preference, and while I don't think it's one of the more important preferences, I'm glad it's there.

Preferences is the area 3.0 needs the most work. In order of personal priorities, I would: 1) adjust for more late preferences among OVR ranked recruits; 2) add an academic vs pro/athletic preference, and; 3) I think getting to the OP, add a coach prestige preference that would follow the coach, rather than the school.

Posted by pkoopman on 4/4/2017 1:27:00 PM (view original):
To me, it's a wording thing. They should have called the preference "coaching stability". It's a valid preference, and while I don't think it's one of the more important preferences, I'm glad it's there.

Preferences is the area 3.0 needs the most work. In order of personal priorities, I would: 1) adjust for more late preferences among OVR ranked recruits; 2) add an academic vs pro/athletic preference, and; 3) I think getting to the OP, add a coach prestige preference that would follow the coach, rather than the school.

+1 on coach prestige. That was suggested a lot. No traction during beta.

and agree with what gomiami said. Lost in the intolerable noise.

Posted by Benis on 4/4/2017 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 4/4/2017 1:27:00 PM (view original):
To me, it's a wording thing. They should have called the preference "coaching stability". It's a valid preference, and while I don't think it's one of the more important preferences, I'm glad it's there.

Preferences is the area 3.0 needs the most work. In order of personal priorities, I would: 1) adjust for more late preferences among OVR ranked recruits; 2) add an academic vs pro/athletic preference, and; 3) I think getting to the OP, add a coach prestige preference that would follow the coach, rather than the school.

+1 on coach prestige. That was suggested a lot. No traction during beta.

and agree with what gomiami said. Lost in the intolerable noise.

Yes, coach prestige in place of longevity would be a plus. Actually I like all three suggestions.

Oh well, anyone know the minimum amount of time before a coach is considered "long time"?

I think as a potential recruit I would have been enthusiastic of Bobby Knight first being at TT but skeptical of him staying there for my four years. Some sort of coaching success formula to go along with the longevity would indeed be nice.

One thing that doesn't translate to HD is coach's age. You would be skeptical of a real 70-year-old coach staying 4 years. Although maybe at a one-and-done program you wouldn't care if coach K, Boeheim or Calipari might not be there in 3. If a school has a lot of EEs, maybe longevity doesn't matter as much.

Yet another interesting factor would be in what condition a coach leaves his team after he takes another job.

Losing the longevity plus is yet another factor for the prospective coach to consider before moving.

Edit to partially answer your longevity question: I was rated very bad my first year, bad for the next two and now I'm at neutral with 4 seasons.

add preferences like

coach prestige

warm climate

cold climate

party school

not party school

academics

ample access to phoney classes

hot women

Posted by metsmax on 4/4/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):
add preferences like

coach prestige

warm climate

cold climate

party school

not party school

academics

ample access to phoney classes

hot women

I like the idea of coach prestige and academics. Party school makes sense in a realistic world but you would never see that on an ESPN board so I guess in retrospect its hard to implement. Also how does a coach effect his "party school" rating.

However warm and cold climate becomes interested if you have a candidate in Canada with a near home preference with a warm climate preference. It basically cancels each other out. I like the idea of weather / location coming into effect but overall I think one at a time will work best.

Academics is easy as you can take a class average of the 12 players on roster and make that the academic average. You could also give a bonus to the IVY league.

I think preferences are overrated, and one different preference is not important at all. I have never felt I lost a recruit because of one preference.

Posted by CoachSpud on 4/4/2017 5:23:00 PM (view original):
"I think getting to the OP, add a coach prestige preference that would follow the coach, rather than the school."

Part of the value of 3.0 over 2.0 was removing the factors that allowed coaches to remain entrenched at the top as sort of a birthright. I thought you were good with that. Now you want to start putting other factors in place to tend toward the same thing? I can understand the guys whose sense of entitlement caused them to like being entrenched at the top, but I thought you saw the game more clearly than that.

And for other guys, yeah, we can all dream up a zillion preferences that are not influenced by a coach (climate, academics, party, etc.). Once you start advocating for them here you cannot subsequently complain about randomness without being inconsistent (a polite word for hypocritical).

To me, thinking clearly about the game means thinking globally about the game. I don't think about who benefits from changes, I think about whether it makes a more fun and a more competitive game. Two primary questions I ask when I think about a change proposal - 1) is it realistic and intuitive? And 2) does it encourage or discourage competitiveness? For the idea of coach prestige, the first answer is a resounding yes. It makes all sorts of sense, it correlates with real life, it's definitely a valid thing that real life kids think about, and it is something that should translate well to HD coaches changing jobs.

As for 2, I think it's neutral. The thing about preferences is that on their own, they're all pretty small. No preference is going to swing the pendulum much in either direction. Right now, there are lots of mechanisms for lower prestige teams and new coaches to use to battle for recruits that can help them improve their condition. Changing jobs is one area where most users agree (including me) the transition is unduly harsh. There are ways to get leftover replacement level players in the second session, but that's about it as a coach changing jobs. I don't necessarily go back to a system that incentivized jumping from roster to roster, but neither does it make sense to discourage job fluidity to the degree that mid-major coaches eligible for big 6 jobs are routinely saying "nah". That's not realistic *OR* competitive.

Thank you, koopman. I think your word "globally" and my phrase "top to bottom" are used pretty much the same. And your answer causes me to revisit the matter.

I don't find much to quibble with in your post. I would probably switch your number one and number two in order of importance, but that is a small matter. As for your number two, I think it is slightly negative of neutral, but as you say, not of big impact. I think it impedes competitiveness in the same way that a multitude of stronger factors did in 2.0, so I evaluate it as a negative, but not a strong negative As for your number one, I look at it this way -- it is organic in a way that Seble's red light is not, for example. It allows recruiting outcome to be influenced chiefly by coaching merit, and I favor that. I also think that if it is an organic factor that favors job advancement, that is a good thing.

Not in favor of adding a coach prestige preference. It could hurt the newer coaches in recruiting.They already have to battle being less experienced than some of us. No need to add an artificial barrier to keep the best on top.

I like that the Ivy, C-USA, Mountain West, etc. could be the top conference in any given world. I like that some of the best coaches are no longer all grouped together like survivors of the Titanic. I hope that with the change some of them moved to other conferences to mentor, help, and develop the next group of great coaches that will take this game forward.

Welcome back Emy. I like the idea of coach prestige. In concept, this lines up nicely with real life. A coach's track record is developed over time. New coaches at a disadvantage in a world endure the same challenge a new coach has beginning a career. Only results gain prestige.