I'm working on some changes to the job process currently.  I've already come up with new logic for adjusting loyalty when a coach takes a new job.  In general, once this is released, the loyalty hit from moving will be less as long as you're moving to a better job.  Lateral moves won't be quite so damaging.  They will still negatively affect loyalty somewhat, but not as much as currently.

In addition to that I'm considering a few other loyalty-related changes. 

First, when a coach leaves a world, I'd like to set loyalty to the minimum required for a low level job at their current division. That would allow a coach to return to the same division that they left (assuming they meet success/experience/reputation requirements). 

Second, I'm thinking it makes sense to lower the minimum loyalty for lower level DI jobs from A to A-. 

Thoughts?

I like the changes.. Especially the minimum loyalty for lower level DI jobs.  It will help on the rise human coaches take more jobs away from simmy..

Is "better job" and "lower level DI" defined by baseline prestige, current prestige, or a combination of both?  

When changing jobs, the comparison is current prestige.  Minimum loyalty requirement is based on baseline prestige.

While I think these are steps in the right direction, what concerns me would be a situation like sportsguy's move from Colorado to UNC in Knight. He jumped from A+ Colorado (baseline of B-) to A UNC (baseline A+). I think about everyone would say that he moved to a "better job" because of the baseline prestige, but it appears that he lose loyalty either as a lateral move or as a move down. I could see the same for someone who has coached a low level DI team for twenty years (say Montana)  and moved its current prestige to a B+ through multiple sweet 16s, then he decides to move to a Big 6 program (say USC) who is sitting at a C prestige. I don't think anyone would see the Montana job as being a "better job" than USC.

At the same time, any improvement to loyalty at this point is a good move in my mind. Keep up the good work .

I am all for this change. Every aspect of it sounds like an improvement over the current system.

the job process needs a huge overhaul. you need to have transparency first and foremost. it would be nice to have an email at the start of the season that describes the types of jobs that could be available to you if you hit certain milestones. the milestones should be a mix of season to season accomplishments while also having accumulative milestones that take many seasons to reach.

Posted by shqipta on 3/17/2011 11:26:00 AM (view original):
While I think these are steps in the right direction, what concerns me would be a situation like sportsguy's move from Colorado to UNC in Knight. He jumped from A+ Colorado (baseline of B-) to A UNC (baseline A+). I think about everyone would say that he moved to a "better job" because of the baseline prestige, but it appears that he lose loyalty either as a lateral move or as a move down. I could see the same for someone who has coached a low level DI team for twenty years (say Montana)  and moved its current prestige to a B+ through multiple sweet 16s, then he decides to move to a Big 6 program (say USC) who is sitting at a C prestige. I don't think anyone would see the Montana job as being a "better job" than USC.

At the same time, any improvement to loyalty at this point is a good move in my mind. Keep up the good work .

That's a very good point.  I'll think about some ways to improve the logic that decides whether a job is "better" beyond just current prestige.  Maybe a mix of current and baseline.

on the first part of your OP, I'm not so sure it's a great idea to punish people for leaving a world. If RL calls and I have to leave A+ NCSU but decide to return in a few seasons, I would be pretty peeved if all I could get was a D- or D D1 school.

Make me start again at a decent mid-major or low-level Big 6 school, maybe, but don't knock me all the way down to "low level job in [my] current division"

Does conference prestige come into consideration when deciding if it's a better job? If not I think it should. When I moved from Hampton to West Virginia, both schools had B prestige but WVU was considered a step backwards because I was coming off a Final 4 appearance with Hampton while I beleive WVU had missed the NT the previous season. However the MEAC conference prestige was either C- or D+ at the time and the Big East was at B+ shouldn't that more than make up for the actual school prestige being slightly worse if the conference is much better? 

Maybe a loyalty hit should not be related to prestige at all. WhatIf the loyalty hit was based on the time you've been at your current program and the program before that. For example-moving after 1 year at a school is a severe (A to D) loyalty hit. Moving after 2 years is major (A to C), but not as bad, and once you've been at a school for five or more years, there is no loyalty hit at all for moving. Plus if you've moved twice in a short time, like 2 times in three years you get the worst possible loyalty hit (A-F).

This rewards coaches for staying at a school for longer, while allowing them some flexibility.

Posted by kmasonbx on 3/17/2011 11:46:00 AM (view original):
Does conference prestige come into consideration when deciding if it's a better job? If not I think it should. When I moved from Hampton to West Virginia, both schools had B prestige but WVU was considered a step backwards because I was coming off a Final 4 appearance with Hampton while I beleive WVU had missed the NT the previous season. However the MEAC conference prestige was either C- or D+ at the time and the Big East was at B+ shouldn't that more than make up for the actual school prestige being slightly worse if the conference is much better? 

I think that could be addressed by using a combination of current and baseline prestige.

In general, I like the changes.  I would also like the Longshot tweaked.  I know that I've never seen a difference between longshot and not qualified - I've always been shot down on the next cycle.  I'd like to see there be a greater possibility of getting a longshot job, maybe up to a 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 chance, but longshots will only be accepted/rejected on say the 2 pm est cycle on the last day of the jobs process.  That puts more strategy into moving too - does a coach want to wait that long on a job he prefers, at the risk of losing another job that he is qualified for.

i like the loyalty adjustments. i think that extreme success in recent seasons should weigh more heavily in your resume than they do right now, but that's a different discussion i guess.

is there any chance that schools' job applicant preferences will be diversified a bit? as in, amongst schools of similar prestige, some find loyalty more important (perhaps teams that have recently gotten burned by 1-3 season coaches), some need a high reputation, some just want recent success, etc? these would be things that your agent describes to you in the jobs window.

For example if I coach (1) the Raiders; (2) Tennessee; and (3) USC, jumping each after one year, even though each is arguably a step up in prestige, no one is going to believe me if I claim to be loyal.

Whereas, if I coach at a high Big 6 program for 20 years, then decide to coach a low level DI school because it was my alma mater, no one is going to be questioning my loyalty, despite the fact that I've moved to a lower prestige job.

I'd like to see some softening of the loyalty rules, too.  I used a free season back in 2005 to take a D3 team in Naismith for one season, but had too many other things on my schedule and quit.  I added a different D3 team in late 2010, 5 years later, and although I understand that it was a lateral move it was also 5 years later.  My loyalty dropped to a B- on Naismith.

I would think that loyalty would regen itself slowly over time, so that in a situation like mine, 5 years would impose a very minor penalty instead of almost 2 full letters.