Posted by MonsterTurtl on 11/26/2018 10:42:00 PM (view original):
I think that getting to D1 is too long, but I also think that PT win should not get you a promotion. I think if you win a NT tournament game you should be able to move up instead of having to wait 3 more seasons no matter what. There should be a better sense of a "good player" which should speed up promotion for those players.

If we were playing by that model, I technically would have qualified for D1 A+ prestige many seasons ago. I have had 11 NT births in Knight and 8 wins. None in D1, but I would have been eligible for D1 after 5 seasons instead of 20.

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fluff_nasty on 11/27/2018 12:47:00 AM (view original):
Question for zagsrulez.

Lets say Mark Few retires at the end of this season. They decide to hire Pat Chambers.

As a Zags fan, does Pat Chambers check all the boxes for the job?

He doesn't check any boxes to be coaching at the #1 school in the NCAA. Not sure why you think a losing coach would be qualified for that job?

Mmk fair enough.

Either way, Pat Chambers is a solid comparison for you.

Stop blaming the game and start winning

Posted by fluff_nasty on 11/27/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fluff_nasty on 11/27/2018 12:47:00 AM (view original):
Question for zagsrulez.

Lets say Mark Few retires at the end of this season. They decide to hire Pat Chambers.

As a Zags fan, does Pat Chambers check all the boxes for the job?

He doesn't check any boxes to be coaching at the #1 school in the NCAA. Not sure why you think a losing coach would be qualified for that job?

Mmk fair enough.

Either way, Pat Chambers is a solid comparison for you.

Pat Chambers has a losing record and is not a Conference Champion year after year. The only thing we have in common is that we both slaughtered PI competition and that's where it ends. Nice try though.

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 11/26/2018 10:42:00 PM (view original):
I think that getting to D1 is too long, but I also think that PT win should not get you a promotion. I think if you win a NT tournament game you should be able to move up instead of having to wait 3 more seasons no matter what. There should be a better sense of a "good player" which should speed up promotion for those players.

If we were playing by that model, I technically would have qualified for D1 A+ prestige many seasons ago. I have had 11 NT births in Knight and 8 wins. None in D1, but I would have been eligible for D1 after 5 seasons instead of 20.

Community question here, not a question for Zags specifically (but feel free to chime in too zags)......

Do we, as coaches, consider 8 wins in 11 NT births to be worthy of good jobs? I personally don't. And I can throw my name in the hat. My first 7 seasons at Slippery Rock I went 5-5 in the NT. Less seasons, but a higher win percentage in the NT than Zags' example at that point. I had 3 1st round exits followed up by a S16 and an E8. At that point I didn't think I should qualify for any big D1 school. I only had 2 "decent" seasons.

Fast forward a little bit, and my NT record in the 4 seasons since then (when I was 5-5), is 11-4. That's a big difference. I think this is when you should be able to start making jumps to big schools. Even if my recent seasons were 6-4 instead of 11-4, this is where I think it's time to be considered for better jobs.

8 wins in 11 appearances doesn't average out to even a 2nd round appearance every season. Am I wrong for feeling like your total wins needs to be higher than your appearance total (we'll say in the most recent 5-8 seasons) to get consideration for high D1 jobs? I know it's a game but it's odd to me to think that coaches can't make it out of a S16 matchup at D2, but "expect" D1 jobs. It falls in line with the participation trophy style of game that's been mentioned.

I feel coaches should have to win at a very high level to get the big jobs. If not, those jobs aren't very big to begin with. Just because someone invested time, doesn't entitle them to better things. We have to get better at what we're doing to earn better things. At home, at work, and yes, in this silly game too.

Posted by fluff_nasty on 11/27/2018 2:19:00 PM (view original):
Stop blaming the game and start winning

I agree with fluff_nasty...I have always wanted to say that.

Does it take to long to get to good schools for some (most) people? Probably

Is your resume impressive? No. Not even a little bit. Conference championships and PT championships are essentially worthless. The game doesn't value them much nor does the successful user base.

"I feel coaches should have to win at a very high level to get the big jobs. If not, those jobs aren't very big to begin with. Just because someone invested time, doesn't entitle them to better things. We have to get better at what we're doing to earn better things. At home, at work, and yes, in this silly game too."

Very good point!

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 5:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fluff_nasty on 11/27/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fluff_nasty on 11/27/2018 12:47:00 AM (view original):
Question for zagsrulez.

Lets say Mark Few retires at the end of this season. They decide to hire Pat Chambers.

As a Zags fan, does Pat Chambers check all the boxes for the job?

He doesn't check any boxes to be coaching at the #1 school in the NCAA. Not sure why you think a losing coach would be qualified for that job?

Mmk fair enough.

Either way, Pat Chambers is a solid comparison for you.

Pat Chambers has a losing record and is not a Conference Champion year after year. The only thing we have in common is that we both slaughtered PI competition and that's where it ends. Nice try though.

Year after year makes it sound like a hell of a lot more than... 2 years. Which is how many back-to-back D1 conference championships I see on your resume. In a division with 1 other human coach.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 11/28/2018 9:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fluff_nasty on 11/27/2018 2:19:00 PM (view original):
Stop blaming the game and start winning

I agree with fluff_nasty...I have always wanted to say that.

Does it take to long to get to good schools for some (most) people? Probably

Is your resume impressive? No. Not even a little bit. Conference championships and PT championships are essentially worthless. The game doesn't value them much nor does the successful user base.

Not sure I'd go that far.

In Tark I am 0-10 in the NT, including 0-4 at D1. Most recent season had been a 3rd round exit from the PI. But in the most recent jobs cycle I was eligible for a bunch of big 6 jobs, including Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Iowa, Seton Hall, Rutgers, and I think Vandy. (I chose Pepperdine instead because I don't like the B6 Jobs.)

Y'all are talking like the game should require E8-caliber success to even get a B baseline school. I think that goes too far, and it doesn't line up with what the game actually requires. It isn't that tough.

Posted by topdogggbm on 11/28/2018 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 11/26/2018 10:42:00 PM (view original):
I think that getting to D1 is too long, but I also think that PT win should not get you a promotion. I think if you win a NT tournament game you should be able to move up instead of having to wait 3 more seasons no matter what. There should be a better sense of a "good player" which should speed up promotion for those players.

If we were playing by that model, I technically would have qualified for D1 A+ prestige many seasons ago. I have had 11 NT births in Knight and 8 wins. None in D1, but I would have been eligible for D1 after 5 seasons instead of 20.

Community question here, not a question for Zags specifically (but feel free to chime in too zags)......

Do we, as coaches, consider 8 wins in 11 NT births to be worthy of good jobs? I personally don't. And I can throw my name in the hat. My first 7 seasons at Slippery Rock I went 5-5 in the NT. Less seasons, but a higher win percentage in the NT than Zags' example at that point. I had 3 1st round exits followed up by a S16 and an E8. At that point I didn't think I should qualify for any big D1 school. I only had 2 "decent" seasons.

Fast forward a little bit, and my NT record in the 4 seasons since then (when I was 5-5), is 11-4. That's a big difference. I think this is when you should be able to start making jumps to big schools. Even if my recent seasons were 6-4 instead of 11-4, this is where I think it's time to be considered for better jobs.

8 wins in 11 appearances doesn't average out to even a 2nd round appearance every season. Am I wrong for feeling like your total wins needs to be higher than your appearance total (we'll say in the most recent 5-8 seasons) to get consideration for high D1 jobs? I know it's a game but it's odd to me to think that coaches can't make it out of a S16 matchup at D2, but "expect" D1 jobs. It falls in line with the participation trophy style of game that's been mentioned.

I feel coaches should have to win at a very high level to get the big jobs. If not, those jobs aren't very big to begin with. Just because someone invested time, doesn't entitle them to better things. We have to get better at what we're doing to earn better things. At home, at work, and yes, in this silly game too.

Well no, this isn’t home or work. We aren’t producing anything of value for anyone here. So “earning” and “deserving” are not very meaningful to whether or not a consumer should have access to a particular advertised product at a particular advertised price. Your car salesman isn’t going to say “I see you have your eyes on that Mustang, and that’s cool; but you haven’t really earned the right to drive that car yet. Here, drive this Focus around for a few more years, and we’ll see if that Mustang is still available.”

Is it entirely realistic that a player with 8 lower division NT wins in 11 seasons will be eligible for a B level D1 job? No. But neither is it realistic for that B level AD to coach the team himself, or just leave the job vacant.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/28/2018 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 11/28/2018 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 11/26/2018 10:42:00 PM (view original):
I think that getting to D1 is too long, but I also think that PT win should not get you a promotion. I think if you win a NT tournament game you should be able to move up instead of having to wait 3 more seasons no matter what. There should be a better sense of a "good player" which should speed up promotion for those players.

If we were playing by that model, I technically would have qualified for D1 A+ prestige many seasons ago. I have had 11 NT births in Knight and 8 wins. None in D1, but I would have been eligible for D1 after 5 seasons instead of 20.

Community question here, not a question for Zags specifically (but feel free to chime in too zags)......

Do we, as coaches, consider 8 wins in 11 NT births to be worthy of good jobs? I personally don't. And I can throw my name in the hat. My first 7 seasons at Slippery Rock I went 5-5 in the NT. Less seasons, but a higher win percentage in the NT than Zags' example at that point. I had 3 1st round exits followed up by a S16 and an E8. At that point I didn't think I should qualify for any big D1 school. I only had 2 "decent" seasons.

Fast forward a little bit, and my NT record in the 4 seasons since then (when I was 5-5), is 11-4. That's a big difference. I think this is when you should be able to start making jumps to big schools. Even if my recent seasons were 6-4 instead of 11-4, this is where I think it's time to be considered for better jobs.

8 wins in 11 appearances doesn't average out to even a 2nd round appearance every season. Am I wrong for feeling like your total wins needs to be higher than your appearance total (we'll say in the most recent 5-8 seasons) to get consideration for high D1 jobs? I know it's a game but it's odd to me to think that coaches can't make it out of a S16 matchup at D2, but "expect" D1 jobs. It falls in line with the participation trophy style of game that's been mentioned.

I feel coaches should have to win at a very high level to get the big jobs. If not, those jobs aren't very big to begin with. Just because someone invested time, doesn't entitle them to better things. We have to get better at what we're doing to earn better things. At home, at work, and yes, in this silly game too.

Well no, this isn’t home or work. We aren’t producing anything of value for anyone here. So “earning” and “deserving” are not very meaningful to whether or not a consumer should have access to a particular advertised product at a particular advertised price. Your car salesman isn’t going to say “I see you have your eyes on that Mustang, and that’s cool; but you haven’t really earned the right to drive that car yet. Here, drive this Focus around for a few more years, and we’ll see if that Mustang is still available.”

Is it entirely realistic that a player with 8 lower division NT wins in 11 seasons will be eligible for a B level D1 job? No. But neither is it realistic for that B level AD to coach the team himself, or just leave the job vacant.

Well, the jobs aren't entirely vacant. "SimAI" is symbolic. Seble could alternatively plug in randomly generated names to show the teams are being coached... albeit by a gomer who will be fired the second someone better shows interest.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/28/2018 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 11/28/2018 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 11/26/2018 10:42:00 PM (view original):
I think that getting to D1 is too long, but I also think that PT win should not get you a promotion. I think if you win a NT tournament game you should be able to move up instead of having to wait 3 more seasons no matter what. There should be a better sense of a "good player" which should speed up promotion for those players.

If we were playing by that model, I technically would have qualified for D1 A+ prestige many seasons ago. I have had 11 NT births in Knight and 8 wins. None in D1, but I would have been eligible for D1 after 5 seasons instead of 20.

Community question here, not a question for Zags specifically (but feel free to chime in too zags)......

Do we, as coaches, consider 8 wins in 11 NT births to be worthy of good jobs? I personally don't. And I can throw my name in the hat. My first 7 seasons at Slippery Rock I went 5-5 in the NT. Less seasons, but a higher win percentage in the NT than Zags' example at that point. I had 3 1st round exits followed up by a S16 and an E8. At that point I didn't think I should qualify for any big D1 school. I only had 2 "decent" seasons.

Fast forward a little bit, and my NT record in the 4 seasons since then (when I was 5-5), is 11-4. That's a big difference. I think this is when you should be able to start making jumps to big schools. Even if my recent seasons were 6-4 instead of 11-4, this is where I think it's time to be considered for better jobs.

8 wins in 11 appearances doesn't average out to even a 2nd round appearance every season. Am I wrong for feeling like your total wins needs to be higher than your appearance total (we'll say in the most recent 5-8 seasons) to get consideration for high D1 jobs? I know it's a game but it's odd to me to think that coaches can't make it out of a S16 matchup at D2, but "expect" D1 jobs. It falls in line with the participation trophy style of game that's been mentioned.

I feel coaches should have to win at a very high level to get the big jobs. If not, those jobs aren't very big to begin with. Just because someone invested time, doesn't entitle them to better things. We have to get better at what we're doing to earn better things. At home, at work, and yes, in this silly game too.

Well no, this isn’t home or work. We aren’t producing anything of value for anyone here. So “earning” and “deserving” are not very meaningful to whether or not a consumer should have access to a particular advertised product at a particular advertised price. Your car salesman isn’t going to say “I see you have your eyes on that Mustang, and that’s cool; but you haven’t really earned the right to drive that car yet. Here, drive this Focus around for a few more years, and we’ll see if that Mustang is still available.”

Is it entirely realistic that a player with 8 lower division NT wins in 11 seasons will be eligible for a B level D1 job? No. But neither is it realistic for that B level AD to coach the team himself, or just leave the job vacant.

Your point isn't in the same area of mine. Any person can drive any car they want. But they get there by saving money, which to me, is "getting better". Something you earn and work for in life. The 35 year old man in fast food business isn't getting a Ferrari most likely, but the 30 year old scientist might be. Same thing for teams. I think you should have to earn your Big 6 coaching opportunity. Why would Kansas hire a coach that can't get out of the second round more than a season or two at a lower division? That just doesn't seem right to me.

Am I a little more stern than some of you about this? Probably. But i just feel like the criteria for landing those jobs should be more difficult to reach than a lot of you do apparently. Also if you noticed that you compared a Mustang and a Focus. That's more like the difference between an A prestige D2 team and a B prestige D2 team. The Ferrari/Focus comparison is different because the Ferrari is the Big 6 schools. The pinnacle of our game. I do feel they should be held for more elite coaching profiles

Posted by topdogggbm on 11/28/2018 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 11/26/2018 10:42:00 PM (view original):
I think that getting to D1 is too long, but I also think that PT win should not get you a promotion. I think if you win a NT tournament game you should be able to move up instead of having to wait 3 more seasons no matter what. There should be a better sense of a "good player" which should speed up promotion for those players.

If we were playing by that model, I technically would have qualified for D1 A+ prestige many seasons ago. I have had 11 NT births in Knight and 8 wins. None in D1, but I would have been eligible for D1 after 5 seasons instead of 20.

Community question here, not a question for Zags specifically (but feel free to chime in too zags)......

Do we, as coaches, consider 8 wins in 11 NT births to be worthy of good jobs? I personally don't. And I can throw my name in the hat. My first 7 seasons at Slippery Rock I went 5-5 in the NT. Less seasons, but a higher win percentage in the NT than Zags' example at that point. I had 3 1st round exits followed up by a S16 and an E8. At that point I didn't think I should qualify for any big D1 school. I only had 2 "decent" seasons.

Fast forward a little bit, and my NT record in the 4 seasons since then (when I was 5-5), is 11-4. That's a big difference. I think this is when you should be able to start making jumps to big schools. Even if my recent seasons were 6-4 instead of 11-4, this is where I think it's time to be considered for better jobs.

8 wins in 11 appearances doesn't average out to even a 2nd round appearance every season. Am I wrong for feeling like your total wins needs to be higher than your appearance total (we'll say in the most recent 5-8 seasons) to get consideration for high D1 jobs? I know it's a game but it's odd to me to think that coaches can't make it out of a S16 matchup at D2, but "expect" D1 jobs. It falls in line with the participation trophy style of game that's been mentioned.

I feel coaches should have to win at a very high level to get the big jobs. If not, those jobs aren't very big to begin with. Just because someone invested time, doesn't entitle them to better things. We have to get better at what we're doing to earn better things. At home, at work, and yes, in this silly game too.

Average out NT appearances is doing great disservice. I had an E8 and a couple S16 runs thank you very much. I feel like you are very wrong to hold a standard that 'someone needs to have a winning record in the NT to be eligible for higher jobs'. Why? Because that would be discrediting the success that they potentially could have had. That person could won the NT along combined with a string of 1st round and 2nd round exits, would that person be unable to move up because of the losing record?

Not even trying to say that my record is great or fantastic but that I would have qualified for any D1 school with MonsterTurtl's proposed job standard.

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/28/2018 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 5:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fluff_nasty on 11/27/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fluff_nasty on 11/27/2018 12:47:00 AM (view original):
Question for zagsrulez.

Lets say Mark Few retires at the end of this season. They decide to hire Pat Chambers.

As a Zags fan, does Pat Chambers check all the boxes for the job?

He doesn't check any boxes to be coaching at the #1 school in the NCAA. Not sure why you think a losing coach would be qualified for that job?

Mmk fair enough.

Either way, Pat Chambers is a solid comparison for you.

Pat Chambers has a losing record and is not a Conference Champion year after year. The only thing we have in common is that we both slaughtered PI competition and that's where it ends. Nice try though.

Year after year makes it sound like a hell of a lot more than... 2 years. Which is how many back-to-back D1 conference championships I see on your resume. In a division with 1 other human coach.

Look at my complete resume. 12 Conference championships. Pat has 0.

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/28/2018 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 11/28/2018 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 5:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fluff_nasty on 11/27/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zagsrulez on 11/27/2018 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fluff_nasty on 11/27/2018 12:47:00 AM (view original):
Question for zagsrulez.

Lets say Mark Few retires at the end of this season. They decide to hire Pat Chambers.

As a Zags fan, does Pat Chambers check all the boxes for the job?

He doesn't check any boxes to be coaching at the #1 school in the NCAA. Not sure why you think a losing coach would be qualified for that job?

Mmk fair enough.

Either way, Pat Chambers is a solid comparison for you.

Pat Chambers has a losing record and is not a Conference Champion year after year. The only thing we have in common is that we both slaughtered PI competition and that's where it ends. Nice try though.

Year after year makes it sound like a hell of a lot more than... 2 years. Which is how many back-to-back D1 conference championships I see on your resume. In a division with 1 other human coach.

Look at my complete resume. 12 Conference championships. Pat has 0.

Haha idk man, as far as D1 goes, I'm still really seeing Pat Chambers.

Agree to disagree I guess.

Edit: Actually your right, Pat Chambers has a D1 NT appearance. If anything, you're getting a pretty generous comparison. ;)