I know that Duke wasn't really "DUKE" yet but given these standards Coach K would have been fired after his fourth season there. Even having it be a five year timeframe would have resulted in him being fired.

I'm all for firings but I think the standards need to be loosened up just a bit.

So the site admin have decided that we should go from no firings ever to an avalanche of firings...there will be constant firings at tier one. 4 years is too narrow a window considering how a team can be gutted by ee's and coin-flip recruiting. I don't think any coach should make it to the 2nd round in four consecutive years and be fired. If that window was broadened a bit, say making it 6 years, that would be more reasonable. As others have said, an NC or a Final Four appearance or some other strong showing should not be erased by 4 consecutive decent years. That is not reasonable.

If they want to play with the game, they should look at the well-documented issues related to early entries. The firings should be approached more cautiously. It would be preferable to implement changes which fire too few at first and adjust them stricter rather than making the criteria far too strict and have out of control firings. I do think the intention is good but the changes as they stand now are going to backfire like so many of the ill-advised changes made in the past.

How many coaches have quit this game due to recruiting issues and EE issues as opposed to lack of firings?

There isn't any hard data on it since WIS doesn't solicit opinions (as far as I know) from those that have stopped renewing. I would make a guess from seeing posts that recruiting/EE is causing more of an exodus over the game right now. Why add a potentially another reason for people to quit and stop paying?

Like I said earlier, there have been enough good suggestions and feedback over the past few days in the forums, that I await the Admin response.

Posted by emy1013 on 5/29/2021 3:02:00 AM (view original):
I know that Duke wasn't really "DUKE" yet but given these standards Coach K would have been fired after his fourth season there. Even having it be a five year timeframe would have resulted in him being fired.

I'm all for firings but I think the standards need to be loosened up just a bit.

Duke fans never wanted Coach K to get a Season 4. After back to back losing seasons in years 2 and 3, the Iron Dukes were demanding he be fired.

As a Wake Forest alumnus, I have quite a bit of experience on this high major coaching carosel over the last decade... This is our basic mentality.

Year 1 is free.
Year 2 is a better record than year 1
Year 3 is a .500 season
Year 4 is a postseason appearance
Year 5 is a trip to the big dance

That gets you a 5 yr extension.

In the second 5 yr contract you're expected to make the postseason every season. You're expected to make the NT at least 3 of the 5 seasons and you should advance past the 1st rd at least once. As long as you fulfill those expectations, you're good forever.

A losing season gets you in hot water. Back to back losing seasons YOU'RE FIRED! Miss the postseason 3 years in a row FIRED.

The expectations at NC State are a bit higher and at UNC and Duke much higher.

The game should also recruit coaches for the high level vacancies. Fired coaches should also be compensated (a high major coach has a serious buyout clause). Perhaps 3 seasons?

Lots of good feedback on this thread. Hopefully Admin is open to suggestions. I know Seble had some good ideas for 3.0 but dug in his heels over some items that should not have been implemented.

Posted by mullycj on 5/29/2021 9:59:00 AM (view original):
Lots of good feedback on this thread. Hopefully Admin is open to suggestions. I know Seble had some good ideas for 3.0 but dug in his heels over some items that should not have been implemented.

You know it needs to be changed when you have near unanimous stance on something in HD. Maybe spud will pop out of the woodworks and disagree.

Getting compensation for getting fired only makes sense in a world where you’re getting paid to coach, not the other way around, IMO.

A great correction in theory, but also a severe overcorrection. I agree with most in this thread. I want to look at data from the 7 one-a-day worlds that i am a part of and hopefully there cam be a discussion on what a fair firing stratrgy is. Some good ideas on this thread already.

My gut feeling is this won't get corrected until a tier 1 school becomes a long term sim school. I can't imagine with these standards that any experienced coach will pay for 4 months only to be fired. I doubt even the best coach in a human filled world can take a sim filled team and make the elite 16 in four seasons, especially considering the first season you coach is a season you don't even get to fully recruit.

When considering making a game like real life you have to consider that coaches in real life are paid a salary and In HD we pay to coach. For that reason you can never truly have a game fully based on reality.

If you are going to do this I have 1 suggestion. Somewhere on each team page have a section of notes that list items like this school is a tier 1 school and the requirements of a tier 1 school. I don't think coaches should have to come to the forum and search for what will one day be a buried thread to find the standards for the school they are applying, especially when schools like Maryland are considered tier 1 in HD and are not tier 1 in real life. Your average coach should know what they are getting into when bidding on a school.

I don't think you guys get it. WIS is not soliciting your opinions. This is all part of the WIS HD business plan. This change goes hand in hand with the change to make it easier to move up to D1. Instead of having a limited number of users continue to coach the most desired schools, make it easier for new users to move up to those schools, but maintain only a tenuous grip on them so other users can continue the cycle.

The current business plan is obviously not bringing in enough revenue, and the thinking is that more new users can be attracted (and kept) if they have an easier path to a school they know. WIS is betting that revenue losses incurred from current customers (and their HD addiction) dropping teams will be exceeded by revenue from new customers with an easier path to a good D1 team.

Look for rewards to also be reduced in the future, encouraging highly successful coaches who continually meet expectations to either give up their teams or pay for the privilege of continuing to coach them.

Posted by cbriese on 5/29/2021 12:00:00 PM (view original):
I don't think you guys get it. This is all part of the WIS HD business plan. This change goes hand in hand with the change to make it easier to move up to D1. Instead of having a limited number of users continue to coach the most desired schools, make it easier for new users to move up to those schools, but maintain only a tenuous grip on them so other users can continue the cycle.

The current business plan is obviously not bringing in enough revenue, and the thinking is that more new users can be attracted (and kept) if they have an easier path to a school they know. WIS is betting that revenue losses incurred from current customers (and their HD addiction) dropping teams will be exceeded by revenue from new customers with an easier path to a good D1 team.

Look for rewards to also be reduced in the future, encouraging highly successful coaches who continually meet expectations to either give up their teams or pay for the privilege of continuing to coach them.

I don't think there is a market for continually having such high turnover in customers of a simulation, text based online game.

If it's about revenue, change (or even eliminate) the credit structure.

Posted by cbriese on 5/29/2021 12:50:00 PM (view original):
I don't think you guys get it. WIS is not soliciting your opinions. This is all part of the WIS HD business plan. This change goes hand in hand with the change to make it easier to move up to D1. Instead of having a limited number of users continue to coach the most desired schools, make it easier for new users to move up to those schools, but maintain only a tenuous grip on them so other users can continue the cycle.

The current business plan is obviously not bringing in enough revenue, and the thinking is that more new users can be attracted (and kept) if they have an easier path to a school they know. WIS is betting that revenue losses incurred from current customers (and their HD addiction) dropping teams will be exceeded by revenue from new customers with an easier path to a good D1 team.

Look for rewards to also be reduced in the future, encouraging highly successful coaches who continually meet expectations to either give up their teams or pay for the privilege of continuing to coach them.

No I think we get it. It’s clear they’re not soliciting opinions. But the point here is that they’re making a serious miscalculation, if they believe that long term revenue will increase by forcibly severing folks connections to the “dynasties” they build. This is not an experience folks are going to pay *more* money for.

I agree with Shoe. This is the most united I have seen the HD community against something. The hope is Adam sees that while everyone is agreeing the firing process needs something but this is not the way to do. Part of the HD business plan should being able to build a good consumer/supplier relationship. It's pretty clear that this plan will end up costing them then helping grow it.

This is how I see this. WIS made huge and very unpopular changes to recruiting and then abandoned the game for years. This lost them a significant number of customers. Now after years of total neglect, they announce that they are going to implement changes which will make it difficult (almost impossible with a rebuild of a tier 1 team) to avoid being fired. So they are now creating a far less enjoyable game for the customers who stuck it out through the last debacle related to recruiting and early entries. And they think that this is going to attract more new customers than it will lose existing customers?

If they want to attract more business, deal with the recruiting issues which are several years old rather than impementing a Draconian job firing system. Fix those recruiting problems and old coaches will come back and current coches will purchase more teams. How will turning the tier 1 schools into revolving doors and ultimately can't win rebuilds attract more customers? How will implementing a system of firing coaches without giving them a reasonable amount of time to build a winning program attract customers? They are truly hoping to douse the Hoops Dynasty fire with gasoline.