Posted by lilspike0738 on 5/26/2021 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pallas on 5/26/2021 7:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pallas on 5/26/2021 7:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 5/26/2021 6:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by adlorenz on 5/26/2021 3:03:00 PM (view original):
So with the D1 jobs process opening up, we would like to create some accountability for the top jobs and baseline prestige schools to ensure these jobs aren’t just camped. The goal of this change is to start with what might seem like easy requirements, but we used average data of the tiers to generate these initial requirements, so while these should be attainable there will inevitably be folks that don’t hit the objective. If this doesn’t create the desired result we then can ramp the requirements up or down based on how it goes. Because there is no smooth way to integrate this, teams will have the full 4 seasons from today to attain these goals and the patch will go live which may result in some firings in either the November or December patch.

Teams in 2 games a day worlds will get a little bit of a longer leash since the code cannot be versioned between worlds which means the coaches in these worlds will have to ensure the goals are hit in their last 4 seasons, until the November/December timeline to attain the goal as well.

The requirements will be postseason tournament based, RPI & rank will have no impact on this, (meaning yes you could be at Syracuse be ranked #1 and lose in the 2nd round, 4 straight years and get fired. At the end of the day the ranking systems can be manipulated so we would rather focus on postseason performance and this will create some additional pressure in the tournament.

The tiers are based on baseline prestige and even in some of the dire rebuild projects are attainable.We my eventually add some smarter logic and adjust some school's baseline prestige, but I wanted these to be as black and white as possible so there is no confusion or debate, and so we can continue to gather more information.

Requirements:

Highest Tier: For the following teams, they will be expected to make the Sweet Sixteen once every four seasons.

Arizona
UCLA
UConn
Duke
Illinois
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan State
UNC
Syracuse
Maryland

Next Tier: For the following teams, they will be expected to make the Round of 32 once every four seasons.

NC State
Oklahoma
Stanford
Indiana
Florida
Georgetown
Georgia Tech
Cincinnati
Boston College
Wake Forest
Wisconsin
Villanova
Virginia
Arkansas
Tennessee
Pittsburgh
Purdue
Ohio State University

Last Tier: For the following teams, they will be expected to make the National Tournament once every four seasons

Oregon
Oregon State
Oklahoma State
Notre Dame
UNLV
Marquette
Memphis
Miami
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Missouri
Providence
Seton Hall
South Carolina
University of Southern California (USC)
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Texas
Temple
St. John’s
St. Joseph’s
Arizona State University
Auburn
Alabama
Dayton
Depaul
Cal
Clemson
Gonzaga
Georgia
Florida State
Iowa
Iowa State
LSU
Utah
Washington
Washington State
Vanderbilt
Virginia Tech
West Virginia
Xavier

Looks great, I love it:

1) do you get 4 free years, or so, before any of this kicks in? so 8 years to get a S16 at Arizona?
2) Do fired coaches get credits to help them get going at their new job?
3) I'm guessing "Nebraska" is missing from last tier? (SOLVED: All of the B- baseline jobs are missing)
4) Is it every 4 year period, or just an average of 4 years. If a coach wins 3 titles in 10 years and then misses the S16 4 years in a row they would be fired at Illinois, which seems tough in the current EE and Dice Roll environment. Goodtymes, for example, would have been fired in both Season 116 and 125 which seems crazy given his school has never dropped below A prestige, and he has made 6 title games and 11 final fours in 41 seasons, a pretty great feat. It's hard to imagine anyone in real life coming close to firing a coach with a 25% final four rate in his career just because of a single rough patch.

10.1.1

Also #4.

There ought to be some sort of "success credit." Winning the title, for example, should buy you a longer leash; at a top tier school, winning the title and making the Sweet Sixteen should not be viewed as equal with regards to meeting the requirement.

What if each season you exceed the requirement for your tier adds another season to your window? Almost like contract extensions.

Win the title, you now have a 5-year window to make the Sweet Sixteen. Win the title again, you have a 6-year window to make the Sweet Sixteen. This way, the 4-year windows aren't completely independent, and exceeding expectations buys you time, like in real life.

From how I read this... You only need to make the S16 once every 4 years, so if you win a NT in yr 2, you have 2 more years of that 4 yr contract, and then the next 4 years you need to get there again.

Ie: If you make a S16 in year 1, you get 7 years to make it back again... That seems incredibly generous.

True, if that's what Adam means, which it might be. The way I read the original post, you can't go four years in a row without a Sweet Sixteen.

Posted by gillispie on 5/26/2021 8:05:00 PM (view original):
i read it as, these things have to be achieved in the previous 4 seasons to avoid getting fired - a condition that will be checked every season - but i could be totally off base there

If that's the case, wouldn't any Sim owned team have to be won in year 1 of being taken over?

There has to be some sort of check/balance for taking over a rebuild, or what have you.

Posted by lilspike0738 on 5/26/2021 8:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 5/26/2021 8:05:00 PM (view original):
i read it as, these things have to be achieved in the previous 4 seasons to avoid getting fired - a condition that will be checked every season - but i could be totally off base there

If that's the case, wouldn't any Sim owned team have to be won in year 1 of being taken over?

There has to be some sort of check/balance for taking over a rebuild, or what have you.

well, yeah sorry - i assume you have to be there for 4 seasons or longer, AND not have met the criteria in the last 4 seasons. so the check would only start after you have 4 under your belt.

but again just my interpretation, not sure if that is really what adam is saying or not.

Yeah, I don't interpret this as all 4-year windows are static. If you make the Sweet Sixteen at a top tier school, then your 4-year window clock resets. Again, if you don't make the Sweet Sixteen for four consecutive years, then you will be fired. Same idea for the requirements at the lower tiers.

That said, I definitely think coaches taking over a bad team, even if they are top tier, should have more than four years. I didn't make the second round of the NT at Indiana until year nine. Some Power 6 rebuilds are really tough.

My only legit concern, is this will create more AB90s and create scenarios where people have to leave in RS2 prior to getting fired, and moving to an open school.

Is there going to be hits to Loyalty....etc that is implemented eventually for just bouncing around?

UUhmm, good discussion people, surprised no one has asked about the criteria and the rather suspect tier placement of some universities. To begin with no way Texas and Oregon have less expectation for success than Pitt and Purdue. Absolutely no way Illinois should be a tier higher than Ohio State, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Maryland should also not be in the top tier. There are several other questionable choices, but those stand out at me right away. What was the criteria?

I applaud HD admin for stepping up and considering changes. With that being said I don't think this was well thought out.

I have a hard time looking at my overall track record at Duke and seeing one bad period (where EEs, recruiting dice rolls, and bad NT sims just didn't go my way) where I would have been fired. It also seems that injuries have been re-introduced to the game (I think i went 6 calendar years without an injury and just lost a guy for 6 games).

Even the same criteria, but over a 5-6 year window would be far better....this should be a reasonable solution the re-build teams as well.

To site admins: Prior to the rollout of 3.0 there were a lot of Poll questions put out to coaches. What are you thoughts on getting a pulse on different opinions on changes to the game?

As the new coach at UNC in Crum I'm very scared. I'm taking over a program that returned 5 scholarship players. 2 are graduating, 1 is absolutely going to EE, the other 2 will most likely EE as Jr's. 4 years to reach a S16 is nearly a death sentence. I've coached for 34 seasons and just got to a blue blood . . . Yes, I'm whining, but please, some sort of rebuild clause. The 4 year window doesn't start until year 8 (first 4 years are about getting your own kids in). IQs also are a factor. Changing offense/defense becomes impossible if you're moving to a top tier school.

Both Joey and zl33 make excellent points.

I suggest that the criteria add definitions of major rebuild and minor rebuild.

Major rebuild is a school that is 2 or more grades below its base prestige before the coach arrives - A baseline at C.

Minor rebuild is a school that is 1 or more grades below its baseline prestige - A baseline at B

Then define extra window for major and minor rebuilds. Four more seasons for major and two more seasons for minor rebuild?

In the opposite direction, I suggest that the four year window to achieve the specified level of success also expands

NCAA champ - four more years - so you get eight seasons to hit the required accomplishment

Final Four - two more years - six seasons to hit the level after a Final Four

combined with above rebuild proposal, this extends the window for the downside case and the upside case, but in narrow ways

Posted by fd343ny on 5/26/2021 9:39:00 PM (view original):
I suggest that the criteria add definitions of major rebuild and minor rebuild.

Major rebuild is a school that is 2 or more grades below its base prestige before the coach arrives - A baseline at C.

Minor rebuild is a school that is 1 or more grades below its baseline prestige - A baseline at B

Then define extra window for major and minor rebuilds. Four more seasons for major and two more seasons for minor rebuild?

my understanding is your major rebuild definition should be impossible or very near it, that A baseline bottoms out at C+. i like the idea though! i do think the admins are looking to keep it simple, and just giving all new coaches a couple extra seasons would be perfectly acceptable in my opinion. i think it gets the job done.

IMO its better to give coaches a bit longer up front than too little, i'd be happy anywhere 6-8 probably... i'd obviously be good with a more nuanced scheme to measure magnitude of rebuild but given the intentional simplicity of the proposal, i just feel like its not the place to get fancy.

Posted by fd343ny on 5/26/2021 9:41:00 PM (view original):
In the opposite direction, I suggest that the four year window to achieve the specified level of success also expands

NCAA champ - four more years - so you get eight seasons to hit the required accomplishment

Final Four - two more years - six seasons to hit the level after a Final Four

combined with above rebuild proposal, this extends the window for the downside case and the upside case, but in narrow ways

i like something like this - maybe tie it to the tiers somehow - you get 4 seasons minimum, but if you have a performance 2 NT wins above the tier requirement in the past 6 seasons, that covers you, and if you have a performance 4 NT wins above the tier requirement in the past 8, it also covers you (translation - same thing you said for the highest tier - 1-2 games softer for 1-2 tiers down)

I’d like to suggest that for every team in scope of firings that they get an email in their inbox at the beginning of each season reminding the coach of the expectations for their team, and where they currently stand with respect to those expectations, i.e. “you’ve fallen short the last two seasons, and you need to make the S16 in one of the next two seasons or you’ll be looking for a new job”.

Posted by cal_bears on 5/26/2021 9:03:00 PM (view original):
UUhmm, good discussion people, surprised no one has asked about the criteria and the rather suspect tier placement of some universities. To begin with no way Texas and Oregon have less expectation for success than Pitt and Purdue. Absolutely no way Illinois should be a tier higher than Ohio State, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Maryland should also not be in the top tier. There are several other questionable choices, but those stand out at me right away. What was the criteria?

the criteria is completely based upon the baseline prestige of the school