I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on the new job logic. It seems like almost anyone can get almost any job currently. While its nice to see people taking over recently-open jobs before the sim ruins them, I also have some concerns.

The job change period just began in Crum, and there is a ton of activity. The P6 conferences are filling up. A D2 coach took over Iowa (A prestige). A coach from a lower D1 school (D prestige) took over Washington (A- prestige) with only 1 trip to the NT in the past 10 seasons. Is it too easy now? And no offense to either of these coaches. Both are excellent veterans and I would do the exact same in their position.

My worry is what is to stop coaches from D1 team hopping now? Take over a new school every 2-3 seasons and getting a new budget. Jumping back and forth between divisions to farm credits? Is it even worth pursuing late recruits anymore? Am I over exaggerating the ripple effects? There's no reason to ever need to rebuild a low D1 program anymore. Does this hurt the newer coaches who are still learning the game? Will they be overwhelmed by the EE process?

These are just some of the questions that I have. Some might be valid, some might not. I'm just trying to start a discussion so we can work on the best system for everyone. Ultimately, I think the job logic went from 0 to 11 when it should probably be around a 5 or 6. I like the fact that coaches can move to D1 quickly, but I still think you should have some time in lower D1 (with at least a few seasons of success) before grabbing one of the A- or better programs.

Thoughts?

The dramatic shift is a little concerning to me. I'm fine with it becoming easier, but it appears too easy for my taste. But it may be hard to figure out the long term implications right now. We may have to wait it out a few seasons.

It's working as designed guys, I am not going to gate keep people from applying for jobs when our worlds are 1/3 full. If other D1 coaches applied for either of those jobs and the coaches had some level of success, they would've gotten the job over the low D1 & new D2 coaches. Why am I going to force some guy to sit at Morgan State or Francis Marion when no one else is going to apply to Washington or Iowa and its going to be run by a Sim?

The goal of this change was to make it so coaches don't have to spend 10 seasons to get to D1, there are still success and experience thresholds for all jobs and if you switch too much you might not be qualified for anything beside D3. We've already had multiple users experience this.

Change is different and some people think its scary but if you think we are going to keep new users by making them wait 10-20 seasons before they can sniff a Big 6 job, that's not the way. The counter to this is working on a real tangible firing logic so that if coaches cannot sustain at those schools we find a factually and objectively open the job back up.

-Adam

Posted by adlorenz on 3/17/2021 10:27:00 AM (view original):
It's working as designed guys, I am not going to gate keep people from applying for jobs when our worlds are 1/3 full. If other D1 coaches applied for either of those jobs and the coaches had some level of success, they would've gotten the job over the low D1 & new D2 coaches. Why am I going to force some guy to sit at Morgan State or Francis Marion when no one else is going to apply to Washington or Iowa and its going to be run by a Sim?

The goal of this change was to make it so coaches don't have to spend 10 seasons to get to D1, there are still success and experience thresholds for all jobs and if you switch too much you might not be qualified for anything beside D3. We've already had multiple users experience this.

Change is different and some people think its scary but if you think we are going to keep new users by making them wait 10-20 seasons before they can sniff a Big 6 job, that's not the way. The counter to this is working on a real tangible firing logic so that if coaches cannot sustain at those schools we find a factually and objectively open the job back up.

-Adam

I'm not saying the decision won't work out. I hope it does. I'm going to enjoy the game no matter what. However, the change is a fairly dramatic one so it is not surprising that there are concerns.

Good thoughts Mlitney and I understand your concerns.

My biggest concern/problem is the ability of coaches at A prestige schools (whether the coach is experienced or not) having the ability in/during Recruiting to offer up a scholarship on say the 2nd/3rd cycle of day 1 and only get to Moderate on the recruits Considering List, do absolutely fckn nothing for 3 whole days after that, and than come in at the Final cycle before Signings start (11AM cycle the day of signings) Drop the House with 10 Home Visits, a Campus Visit and maybe playing time, and automatically jump up to Very High on the recruits Considering List and completely knock one or two schools down to Moderate or Low who have been battling for 3 whole days, have put in the work, the time, the effort, and the visits, and whom for 3 days were sitting at Very High or High on the recruits Considering List. It's TOTAL BULLSCHITT!!

I understand the A prestige team/s have an advantage over a B prestige team and A prestige carries a lot of clout, but to totally flip upside-down the Considering List in one cycle is not right. I think all teams should go to High and than you have a 3 team race instead of a 2 team race. The work and effort the original 2 teams put in over the course of 3 days should count for something. IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.

Fellow Veterans and Hall of Famers, share your opinions.

Posted by adlorenz on 3/17/2021 10:27:00 AM (view original):
It's working as designed guys, I am not going to gate keep people from applying for jobs when our worlds are 1/3 full. If other D1 coaches applied for either of those jobs and the coaches had some level of success, they would've gotten the job over the low D1 & new D2 coaches. Why am I going to force some guy to sit at Morgan State or Francis Marion when no one else is going to apply to Washington or Iowa and its going to be run by a Sim?

The goal of this change was to make it so coaches don't have to spend 10 seasons to get to D1, there are still success and experience thresholds for all jobs and if you switch too much you might not be qualified for anything beside D3. We've already had multiple users experience this.

Change is different and some people think its scary but if you think we are going to keep new users by making them wait 10-20 seasons before they can sniff a Big 6 job, that's not the way. The counter to this is working on a real tangible firing logic so that if coaches cannot sustain at those schools we find a factually and objectively open the job back up.

-Adam

While I agree with this approach overall, I think the community's main concern is with the lack of transparency in how dramatic the job application process was shifting and in the failure to accurately represent what jobs a coach is qualified for with "Not Qualified" and "Longshot" labels still applied to roles that are actually accessible.

If certain coaches had known it was easier to get A- Washington or A- Iowa they may have applied and beaten out those middle-tier D2 coaches. But the question of fairness comes into play if those D1 coaches didn't realize how significant the change in job application process was and only missed out on the opportunity because the game misrepresented the opportunity to them as a "longshot" that they actually could have landed.

I def see quite a bit of that in Knight where I think certain coaches at high prestige D2 schools or middle-to-high prestige D1 schools may have made moves if they realized just how significant the shift in job application process was but instead their dream schools were possibly taken by lower prestige coaches who just took a chance & applied despite the role being listed as "longshot" or "not qualified".

- sol

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 3/17/2021 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by adlorenz on 3/17/2021 10:27:00 AM (view original):
It's working as designed guys, I am not going to gate keep people from applying for jobs when our worlds are 1/3 full. If other D1 coaches applied for either of those jobs and the coaches had some level of success, they would've gotten the job over the low D1 & new D2 coaches. Why am I going to force some guy to sit at Morgan State or Francis Marion when no one else is going to apply to Washington or Iowa and its going to be run by a Sim?

The goal of this change was to make it so coaches don't have to spend 10 seasons to get to D1, there are still success and experience thresholds for all jobs and if you switch too much you might not be qualified for anything beside D3. We've already had multiple users experience this.

Change is different and some people think its scary but if you think we are going to keep new users by making them wait 10-20 seasons before they can sniff a Big 6 job, that's not the way. The counter to this is working on a real tangible firing logic so that if coaches cannot sustain at those schools we find a factually and objectively open the job back up.

-Adam

While I agree with this approach overall, I think the community's main concern is with the lack of transparency in how dramatic the job application process was shifting and in the failure to accurately represent what jobs a coach is qualified for with "Not Qualified" and "Longshot" labels still applied to roles that are actually accessible.

If certain coaches had known it was easier to get A- Washington or A- Iowa they may have applied and beaten out those middle-tier D2 coaches. But the question of fairness comes into play if those D1 coaches didn't realize how significant the change in job application process was and only missed out on the opportunity because the game misrepresented the opportunity to them as a "longshot" that they actually could have landed.

I def see quite a bit of that in Knight where I think certain coaches at high prestige D2 schools or middle-to-high prestige D1 schools may have made moves if they realized just how significant the shift in job application process was but instead their dream schools were possibly taken by lower prestige coaches who just took a chance & applied despite the role being listed as "longshot" or "not qualified".

- sol

Adam has said that there are UI issues at this stage, but they will be worked out soon enough.

Posted by adlorenz on 3/17/2021 10:27:00 AM (view original):
It's working as designed guys, I am not going to gate keep people from applying for jobs when our worlds are 1/3 full. If other D1 coaches applied for either of those jobs and the coaches had some level of success, they would've gotten the job over the low D1 & new D2 coaches. Why am I going to force some guy to sit at Morgan State or Francis Marion when no one else is going to apply to Washington or Iowa and its going to be run by a Sim?

The goal of this change was to make it so coaches don't have to spend 10 seasons to get to D1, there are still success and experience thresholds for all jobs and if you switch too much you might not be qualified for anything beside D3. We've already had multiple users experience this.

Change is different and some people think its scary but if you think we are going to keep new users by making them wait 10-20 seasons before they can sniff a Big 6 job, that's not the way. The counter to this is working on a real tangible firing logic so that if coaches cannot sustain at those schools we find a factually and objectively open the job back up.

-Adam

It's working as designed guys, I am not going to gate keep people from applying for jobs when our worlds are 1/3 full. If other D1 coaches applied for either of those jobs and the coaches had some level of success, they would've gotten the job over the low D1 & new D2 coaches. Why am I going to force some guy to sit at Morgan State or Francis Marion when no one else is going to apply to Washington or Iowa and its going to be run by a Sim?

I totally understand the logic behind this, but I applied for the Iowa job with moderate D1 success. I lost to a D2 coach, albeit a successful one. I'm wondering why I bothered spending 10+ seasons rebuilding a school when I can just go take over a D2 school that's already built, maybe make a few S16's and then beat a D1 coach who is actually spending the time on a rebuild.

I'm down for coaches getting to D1 as quickly as possible. I wouldn't even be against coaches starting at whatever division they preferred. I also agree that having a human coach is better than a sim, and that some type of firing logic may be required. My concern is that when coaches can take over any school at any time, it can lead to coaches who take the lazy approach of constantly taking over programs built by another coach, building a solid resume, and then what happens when the Duke job opens? A coach who has never learned how to build a successful program is going to win over a coach who has gone through the struggles of a rebuild.

This is the new meta: You jump around D2 jobs making the NT every season until a really good D1 job opens up. Maybe you don't win that job so you keep jumping around D2 until another one opens up. Eventually you get it over the coach who spent 8 seasons building Morgan State and maybe made 1 NT and a few PIT appearances. Rebuilding a team is for suckers now. Whenever you strike out in recruiting, you can just go somewhere else and use someone else's players until you strike out again. Continually getting a brand new RS2 budget.

Make it so coaches can get to D1 faster. Make jobs easier to get, especially when no other humans have applied. But don't allow any coach to get any job any time they want. This can be abused. Can we at least think about adding a penalty to coaches who have just changed jobs? Maybe give more weight to D1 experience? 2 seasons or less at a program means you don't get new resources for RS2 if you take another job?

This is just my opinion, but I feel like there's some merit in what I'm saying. I realize that rebuilds aren't fun and 98% of coaches don't like them, but they're also a necessary part of learning this game. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Posted by doublecub on 3/17/2021 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 3/17/2021 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by adlorenz on 3/17/2021 10:27:00 AM (view original):
It's working as designed guys, I am not going to gate keep people from applying for jobs when our worlds are 1/3 full. If other D1 coaches applied for either of those jobs and the coaches had some level of success, they would've gotten the job over the low D1 & new D2 coaches. Why am I going to force some guy to sit at Morgan State or Francis Marion when no one else is going to apply to Washington or Iowa and its going to be run by a Sim?

The goal of this change was to make it so coaches don't have to spend 10 seasons to get to D1, there are still success and experience thresholds for all jobs and if you switch too much you might not be qualified for anything beside D3. We've already had multiple users experience this.

Change is different and some people think its scary but if you think we are going to keep new users by making them wait 10-20 seasons before they can sniff a Big 6 job, that's not the way. The counter to this is working on a real tangible firing logic so that if coaches cannot sustain at those schools we find a factually and objectively open the job back up.

-Adam

While I agree with this approach overall, I think the community's main concern is with the lack of transparency in how dramatic the job application process was shifting and in the failure to accurately represent what jobs a coach is qualified for with "Not Qualified" and "Longshot" labels still applied to roles that are actually accessible.

If certain coaches had known it was easier to get A- Washington or A- Iowa they may have applied and beaten out those middle-tier D2 coaches. But the question of fairness comes into play if those D1 coaches didn't realize how significant the change in job application process was and only missed out on the opportunity because the game misrepresented the opportunity to them as a "longshot" that they actually could have landed.

I def see quite a bit of that in Knight where I think certain coaches at high prestige D2 schools or middle-to-high prestige D1 schools may have made moves if they realized just how significant the shift in job application process was but instead their dream schools were possibly taken by lower prestige coaches who just took a chance & applied despite the role being listed as "longshot" or "not qualified".

- sol

Adam has said that there are UI issues at this stage, but they will be worked out soon enough.

8.6.1

This is true, we thought we got them all on the last patch, but it appears it is not the case. I would say right now apply for the jobs you want. If you have 10+ experience and moderate success you more than likely qualify for most everything.

A quick explanation of this is occurring is because instead of reusing processes in the code and calling other functions and process, they copy and pasted the code meaning, every spot where the code exists has to be updated in those specific spots, or we have this situation. It's probably why the previous teams never did small progressive releases and just updated the games every 3-10 years.

there are still success and experience thresholds for all jobs and if you switch too much you might not be qualified for anything beside D3. We've already had multiple users experience this.

Sorry, I missed this when I originally read your post so that does ease some of my concern. Although the D2 coach that got the Iowa job only had 6(?) seasons at his previous school. The new Washington coach had 2 seasons at his previous school.

Thanks as always for helping out and participating on these forums with us.

I am really not concerned. I am also unconcerned by the way folks like ab90 change jobs, and I don’t understand why people care - if WIS doesn’t mind, why should we?

You can have some valid discussion about balance in terms of what qualifications look like when the system is comparing a resume, but previously it was *heavily* weighted toward “experience” ie number of seasons put in. What this change has done, in reality, is bring us closer to balance - we are simply in the adjustment phase. It will normalize after a few seasons in each world, as we get used to it, I think. The important part is that we know we can apply for the jobs we want. As long as there are consequences to the choices we make, and there are, then there is no problem with a game that presents us with plenty of rational choices and paths.

Is it too easy? I've been pretty successful at the D1 level and have a B rating with DePaul but was NQ for Northwestern and Clemson. Not saying I should easily be qualified for either but seems like a Longshot would be logical given back to back CoY in conference, 20+ wins 4 of last 6 seasons, a conference Title, 2 NCAA berths and a couple post season wins. I did NOT apply, though as I don't want to leave DePaul. It's a project and I enjoy the fact that the success/failure is on my shoulders, not some other coaches. My point though, if it was too easy, I wouldn't have been NQ.

I've seen coaches job hop and honestly, that's fine. Real NCAA has coaches that are long term (K, Izzo, etc) and coaches that change frequently (Pitino, Tubby Smith, etc.) Reality is coaches move and move quite frequently during their careers. Usually in real life it's less about coaches desire vs being fired/forced out but we don't have that in HD. So if folks move cause of boredom or desire not to recruit, that's fine. It gives the 'feel' of firings.

"And what of the coaches who lose out on their dream job because they spent some seasons in lower D1 and learned the hard lessons about roster management and recruiting? It doesn't make sense to do that anymore."

This has been the case even prior to these changes. Maybe it's more obvious now, but it's not new. I learned pretty quickly that I should have stayed in D2 1 or 2 more seasons instead of jumping to Jax state where I was forced to stay for five seasons before barely getting out of Jax st and into Depaul. Teams with single digit wins, AI coaches and in lesser conferences than the OV refused to even consider me with the job change. Way more frustrating to me than missing out on a job to a 'lesser' coach. I didn't even have the option to apply...

I just received notice that my old man card is 5-10 business days away from me in the mail, so I'll weigh in. So, back in my day...

In all seriousness, yes, I'm a little sour that it is now easier for coaches to rise up and get certain jobs. Some of that is sour grapes because Duke was open in Crum and I could have applied, however, I agree with Adam I wouldn't have gotten the job because lots of other people would have also been qualified and I would have been rejected and so be it. In fact, I wouldn't have had to spend so many years in D2 accumulating NT appearances to qualify for a D1 job, and then I could have risen more quickly, again as Adam's intended vision has been laid out. Here comes the but...

The allure of WIS is that it is a realistic simulation. I'm all for people/customers being able to climb the ladder and populate the worlds, but to keep the fantasy that this is actually mirroring real-life one of two things (imo) need to happen. A) I've always looked at when simmy keeps the job during the coaching carousel as the interim head coach kept the job. This happens from time to time in real life. A coach leaves and the school names an interim, but makes a public statement that it is welcoming applications, yada yada yada. If nobody applies that is better than what they have then the interim head coach loses that interim title (at least for the time being). I sincerely mean no disrespect, but that is what should have happened (again, imo) at Washinton at Crum. Garmansouth had a great stretch at Lincoln in D2 where he went to 2 S16s 1 E8 and a PIT Championship. If he had applied for Washington directly from Lincoln I'd have nothing to say on the matter, he would be a hot coach from a D2 that had a history of winning and if nobody more qualified from D1 applied from the job, he'd most certainly get the job and it would make sense in real life too. The news cycle might be more about why no other D1 coaches wanted that job, but many people would defend the decision by saying things like they hired a winner who'd bring a winning culture to the school (blah, blah, blah). However, in the last 10 seasons, there is 1 NT appearance because of a CTC and a prompt round 1 exit.

If this is the direction WIS wants to go in, I can accept that, BUT imho Washington needs to be immediately downgraded from an A- prestige to meet the school he is transferring from. Just because there is nobody better to take the job should not mean that a coach inherits the prestige of the school that another coach built. Again, to give a real world example, when Jeff Capel took over Pitt that school got some real buzz and more recruits became interested in that school (there are some shady reasons for that too, but lets not go down that road for the moment), I believe the inverse needs to also be true. If a coach takes over a program and everybody is left scratching their heads that school should not move forward exactly as it had been. When Mike Krzyzewki finally retires, whoever takes over from him will inherit an empire that will still be formidable, but there will be questions "can he continue the success, can anybody fill those shoes?" There should be a small downgrade. This seems to already be in place perhaps. Zedonk took the Northwestern job and Northwestern has decreased in prestige. I hope that was intentional and I think that is a fair way to handle it.

I am really excited to hear that one of the potential upgrades in a future patch might be some improved logic for job firings. If it is easier to get these jobs it should be easier to lose them as well. This would personally be my dream scenario

Coaches are offered a contract, 3 to 7 years in length, with specific job goals over that 3-7 year period. Not meeting multiple of the job goals could result in early termination, not meeting all of the job goals MIGHT lead to not being asked to return depending on how important that specific school feels about the goal you didn't reach. This is already sort of built into the fabric of the game (not the contract length, but the goals) because we have the note in the job section telling us whether we are meeting or exceeding the school's expectations. The expectations don't need to be drastically different for each school. P6 conference schools would have a blanket set of expectations with slightly higher expectations for the "blue blood" schools in line with the ultra controversial baseline prestige. The higher the baseline prestige the greater the expectations. Again, this is in line with real-life, Archie Miller was just fired at Indiana after 4 seasons. If you don't get it done at a big school, they get impatient and want to find the next person who will. Maybe as the school's prestige gets below its baseline the first contract has lower expectations than it normally would for the duration of the first contract and then reverts to the normal expectations when it is time to renew the contract. Another wrinkle would be when coaches leave jobs early they could see a decrease in their coaching loyalty (already shown in-game). For instance, if I had tried to leave Georgia for Northwestern in let's say year 2 of a 5-year contract and got the job I would lose a certain amount of coaching loyalty and maybe even reputation. This would impact the promises that I give to recruits for the first few years and I would have to weigh that into my decision for whether or not I want to leave the job I'm currently at. Even if I did NOT get the job there would be some small % probability that it leaks to the press and I incur some small penalty to coaching loyalty because the perception is that I've got 1 foot out the door, again recruits would slightly factor this into their decision when I promise playing time/start because if a new coach comes into the program they don't have to keep that promise that I made to the recruit.

I'm no programmer, but I'd assume what I'm suggesting is not something that could be whipped up next week and don't expect them to. I do think that something needs to be done though because I've already talked to a few coaches off-site and people are starting to realize that this is sort of the equivalent of the NBA salary cap spike in terms of 1-year changes to the fabric of their world. I agree with Adam that making it easier to climb the ladder is good for business for WIS as well as the community overall, but the base of our community is current and past professionals. I know many coaches are retired and play this game as a hobby and many more are people like me in their 30s and 40s who love hoops and enjoy fantasizing about what it would be like to lead a college basketball team into the national tournament. We all recognize that it takes time and commitment to reap the benefits. Sometimes good things do come easy, but then it takes quite a bit of hard work to keep them or they leave just as quickly as they came. That is at least what I am asking for. If coaches can't get it done at the top tier programs, paying $13 should not entitle them to continue coaching at THAT school, they should have to prove that they deserve it.