The heart of the issue here is that people are feeling cheated because they’ve put money into a game where the rules of engagement just changed and they were following a previous path and now new paths (that might seem easier depending on perspective) just opened up. Change is rough for some involved, “if you want to make an omelet you’ve gotta crack a few eggs” is I believe how the saying goes. We might lose a few people to this, but I think this was a calculated decision that ultimately will lead to a deeper and broader user base, which is a good thing.

Quite frankly nobody is talking about it so I will, this really wouldn’t be a problem if there was no such thing as baseline prestige. I don’t think anybody would care that a D3 coach took over Clemson instead of having to take over Jax St if Clemson wasn’t inherently more valuable because they have a higher baseline prestige. If taking over Clemson meant starting at the conference prestige found in the “RPI by conference” tab in the game’s UI then who cares, go nuts. However, when somebody like Mlitney, who has been battling it out in the best conference in our world, is now at a recruiting disadvantage to a coach who is coming from D3 because Clemson was built by somebody else (Zedonk) just feels inherently wrong and a bit silly. If that D3 coach has been waiting forever for Clemson to become available because he grew up in South Carolina or is an alumnus, I’ve got no problem with him becoming the Clemson coach. I’ve got a problem with him inheriting prestige he didn’t earn.

There seems to be a super simple solution here:

If you are taking over a school and moving up a division to do so, that school immediately changes (up or down) in prestige to reflect ? of a letter grade below the conference average prestige. This allows you to be competitive without gaining an immediate advantage over the players you are going to be competing with most often. It seems the goal here is to get more players to play at D1 and that means creating a fair environment, but also giving players a leg up when they start D1 so that they don’t have to take over a D- prestige team. Nobody really enjoys rebuilds, they suck. Yea, sure, it feels super gratifying when you finally break through that glass ceiling after 3-5 years and make the NT for the first time, but apparently, Adam feels like removing that obstacle or at least lessening it, is what is best in the short term for this game.

If you are taking over a school and staying in the same division then you just average the prestige of your current school with the current prestige of the school you are moving to. This could end up being a net positive or net negative change. If you’re like me and you’ve built a school up to an A prestige, but don’t have any real love for the school you are currently at and your alma mater is open (Long Beach St). It might be worth it to make a jump to a school like that if I got to keep some of my prestige as I went over.

Adam, I know we are whining, I just want to be clear, everybody I’ve talked to thinks you are killing it as our new leader and we appreciate how transparent you’ve been with us and the fact that you are willing to at least take swings. It is a breath of fresh air to actually have some change happening and I will speak solely for myself and say thank you even for this patch. It is my least favorite, but at least it is causing us to have a conversation and get the community to discuss what matters to us. You’re the man.

"The SEC is now full with 11 veteran coaches and 1 completely new guy."

Doubt he's a new guy with a sweet 16, final four and National Coach of the year award. D3 sure, but doubt many 'new' guys do that in season 3/4 of their career.

Edit: You can look at his profile. He's got 5 teams in HD. Puerto Rico, Bayamon (29-2) in Tarkanian, Marquette (24-2) in Wooden and over 5600 wins all time. Guessing he knows what to expect at Auburn.

Seems to me like another player that decided to jump back into another team because he wouldn't be stuck in D2/D3 forever.

The best answer is that you have baseline prestige limits when jumping division. D2s cant qualify for anything better than C baseline. D3s can't do better than D baseline.

Boom there ya go. Problem solved. You're all welcome

Posted by mlitney on 3/18/2021 3:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Stormfury on 3/18/2021 3:24:00 PM (view original):
"The SEC is now full with 11 veteran coaches and 1 completely new guy."

Doubt he's a new guy with a sweet 16, final four and National Coach of the year award. D3 sure, but doubt many 'new' guys do that in season 3/4 of their career.

Edit: You can look at his profile. He's got 5 teams in HD. Puerto Rico, Bayamon (29-2) in Tarkanian, Marquette (24-2) in Wooden and over 5600 wins all time. Guessing he knows what to expect at Auburn.

Seems to me like another player that decided to jump back into another team because he wouldn't be stuck in D2/D3 forever.

You're missing the forest for the trees, my friend. Ok, this guy knows what he's doing. My point is that new coaches will not. And the intention of this change is to bring in and retain new users.

I don't know if allowing a new coach to get a few seasons of D2/D3 and then shoot straight to a full P6 conference is going to be better for long-term retention than letting them learn the basics of D1 in a lower conference. At least if they spend a few seasons in the Ivy League, they can make mistakes in recruiting, learn some lessons, and still get some wins. Maybe even make the NT or PIT a few times.

A brand new coach taking over a rebuild in the ACC? God speed new coach. We hardly knew thee.

When this change was announced, it was proposed as a way to get coaches to D1 faster, and I think we all agreed with that. But I'm sure most of us assumed it would change from taking 6 seasons to taking 3-4 seasons. The actual update that we received is a massive change, and I don't think anyone is actually thinking about the consequences and if they're actually good for the long-term health of the game.

Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

Its going to take true new coaches with no experience in the world, 4-8 years to qualify for D1 jobs, with a luck and quick learning maybe 3 (also could be an indication of an alt). This is not a new coach problem.

Posted by Stormfury on 3/18/2021 3:24:00 PM (view original):
"The SEC is now full with 11 veteran coaches and 1 completely new guy."

Doubt he's a new guy with a sweet 16, final four and National Coach of the year award. D3 sure, but doubt many 'new' guys do that in season 3/4 of their career.

Edit: You can look at his profile. He's got 5 teams in HD. Puerto Rico, Bayamon (29-2) in Tarkanian, Marquette (24-2) in Wooden and over 5600 wins all time. Guessing he knows what to expect at Auburn.

Seems to me like another player that decided to jump back into another team because he wouldn't be stuck in D2/D3 forever.

Since I am the one you;re talking about - I'll add this. If you want to say I am a newbie simply because of my Crum record - then take a look at all the worlds. I've been a coach since season 3 of phelan. I take time off here and there. I've coached in every world. Including all of the big 6 here and there. I simply read what was going on during the job process and wanted to see if it would work. I work in technology and thats what I do..

Yes - I am not "one of the boys" in Crum or any other world but I have played enough of this game to understand what it is to coach a school. I may not be Bobby Knight but at least deserve some credit. I usually keep quiet on chats but I felt the need to say something,

"You're missing the forest for the trees, my friend. Ok, this guy knows what he's doing. My point is that new coaches will not. And the intention of this change is to bring in and retain new users."

I think your so fixated on the tree your missing the forest. MOST new coaches aren't going to sweet 16s and getting national coach of the year. Will there be exceptions, sure. Will tons of new players jump to the ACC, fail miserably and bail the game, hardly... Your acting like 100s of players are jumping into the power 6 and doomed to eternal failure. Give these coaches the benefit of the doubt and let's see how they do in 3-4 seasons. This mole hill isn't the mountain your making it out to be!

a change had to be made. could this one have went too far? perhaps, but i don't think they actually changed it that much, most of the cases i saw were about 1 prestige grade higher opening up for folks, which sounds about right (but that maybe be an overly simple analysis, and also, i have seen pretty little i suppose). but i also think that will be clearer in time.

i think it is worth noting that this sort of change was always going to be messy at change time. its not just that y'all are comparing the new way to the old, its also that there's lots of jobs in d1 that people want that they couldn't get - a huge pent up demand existed. unwinding that is going to be a bit of a messy transition.

IMO this change can only really be evaluated in a half year when all the desirable d1 jobs are taken and most of the movement has happened. im really curious personally to see how the d1 vs d2/d3 population shifts, if its a lot, i think the overall 1 d1 per d2 per d3 concept should be challenged, and that is a big one. but i think we'll also see if there is really a problem or not. primarily, what should stop a medium success d2 coach from taking an A prestige BCS school is the fact that someone else is already there, or someone else is applying with a better resume - not that A prestige BCS jobs are just sitting around.

i do, however, think the evaluation of 'success' (resume evaluation after multiple job applications to 1 school) will probably need to be shifted in the end, to value low d1 success more - that has always been out of whack - and the problem will be exacerbated by the recent change. you don't want medium success d2 schools (s16s and stuff) consistently beating out reasonably successful d1 coaches (some NT appearances but very few wins). right now, they do - its always been that way - but i think folks will get annoyed when d2->mid d1 pathway is dominant over low d1->mid d1 pathway and that almost seems inevitable. i don't think an adjustment of that nature has to wait 6 months, i think that is an existing problem folks have seen clearly for about for 15 years.

IMO, what we'll see is a bunch of complaints about this change that really relate to the imbalance around evaluating lower d1 success, the imbalance that has been around for 10+ years since the last meaningful jobs change (and actually longer). this whole thread serves as example IMO. also the other thing where a d2 guy beat a d1 guy in somewhat dubious circumstances and some folks were shaking their head. the biggest discontent is going to come from now-low d1 folks who are gonna get passed over, and that really is less about the job the d2 can get and less about the resume penalty they have experienced and continue to experience. but anyway, i think the other issues will go away in time, when folks adjust to the new normal.

' 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?'

- that bit does stand out as nuts though. i wonder if adam already took a crack at beefing up low d1 resumes against d2. i assume not based on that other d2 who beat that d1 but... 1 NT trip in 10 seasons going to a- sounds like a much larger than 1 prestige grade shift!

Posted by gillispie1 on 3/18/2021 5:26:00 PM (view original):
' 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?'

- that bit does stand out as nuts though. i wonder if adam already took a crack at beefing up low d1 resumes against d2. i assume not based on that other d2 who beat that d1 but... 1 NT trip in 10 seasons going to a- sounds like a much larger than 1 prestige grade shift!

I might also be oversimplifying but if you have 8+ seasons and no other humans apply, you automatically get the job.

Posted by Stormfury on 3/18/2021 4:34:00 PM (view original):
"You're missing the forest for the trees, my friend. Ok, this guy knows what he's doing. My point is that new coaches will not. And the intention of this change is to bring in and retain new users."

I think your so fixated on the tree your missing the forest. MOST new coaches aren't going to sweet 16s and getting national coach of the year. Will there be exceptions, sure. Will tons of new players jump to the ACC, fail miserably and bail the game, hardly... Your acting like 100s of players are jumping into the power 6 and doomed to eternal failure. Give these coaches the benefit of the doubt and let's see how they do in 3-4 seasons. This mole hill isn't the mountain your making it out to be!

Well apparently I've awoken the storm and fury. I don't think you understand the purpose of this thread. There was a recent update that changed the way that jobs work in this game, which is a fairly big deal.

What I'm trying to do is looking for potential issues so we can discuss them. If there is a consensus and it makes sense, lets find a way to nip it in the bud. If it's not a valid concern, then lets move on the next. But apparently I'm the only one that cares enough to actively look for potential issues. Most other people seem fine with a wait and see approach. Maybe it will be successful, maybe it won't. We'll know in 6 months when the user population has either grown or not.

I'd rather take an active approach with the help of the community, but it seems I'm in the minority so I'll just leave it alone then.

By the way... "You're missing the forest for the trees" means the same thing as "your so fixated on the tree your missing the forest".

Posted by pnedwek on 3/18/2021 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Stormfury on 3/18/2021 3:24:00 PM (view original):
"The SEC is now full with 11 veteran coaches and 1 completely new guy."

Doubt he's a new guy with a sweet 16, final four and National Coach of the year award. D3 sure, but doubt many 'new' guys do that in season 3/4 of their career.

Edit: You can look at his profile. He's got 5 teams in HD. Puerto Rico, Bayamon (29-2) in Tarkanian, Marquette (24-2) in Wooden and over 5600 wins all time. Guessing he knows what to expect at Auburn.

Seems to me like another player that decided to jump back into another team because he wouldn't be stuck in D2/D3 forever.

Since I am the one you;re talking about - I'll add this. If you want to say I am a newbie simply because of my Crum record - then take a look at all the worlds. I've been a coach since season 3 of phelan. I take time off here and there. I've coached in every world. Including all of the big 6 here and there. I simply read what was going on during the job process and wanted to see if it would work. I work in technology and thats what I do..

Yes - I am not "one of the boys" in Crum or any other world but I have played enough of this game to understand what it is to coach a school. I may not be Bobby Knight but at least deserve some credit. I usually keep quiet on chats but I felt the need to say something,

Sorry bud, that wasn't supposed to be a personal attack. No one is calling you a newbie, although I'm not sure why that would be so offensive. No one is doubting your coaching skills, but your Crum record was a good example of what could happen to a new player. So I used it to illustrate a point. Nothing more than that.

The protestations just don’t make any sense. These are all reaches, I think.

1. People will farm credits. If it’s a problem (and it’s WIS’s problem, if it’s a problem), it’s a problem now. It’s only really accessible to folks who have been around for a long time in a world though. This at least opens it up. I don’t really understand the fun of playing that way, and the reward is not nearly enough (IMO) to justify the work involved, but whatever. As has already been explained, jumping around like that comes with a hit to reputation, so those players aren’t necessarily getting the big jump on coaches devoted to “doing it the right way”, whatever that means, when it comes to who is eligible for UCLA when it comes open. This is a big ball of who cares. Let folks play where they want to play.

2. The idea that it needs to be a long, slow slog in order to protect new players is misguided. First, all players are different, and there is no set number of seasons it takes to get it. Some players know what they’re doing after a couple of seasons. I did. Sportsbulls did. Lots of folks do. We’re ready to move up, if that’s what we want to do. We might take hits as we adjust, but that will be true whenever we adjust. Second, players are only new once. As pnedwek illustrates, a player can be a vet to the game, and new to a world. In fact, that is more often the case, likely as not, given that the user base is smallish but rather devoted at present. Really, as with a lot of changes, the opposition to this change is grounded in resentment. I get it, but I encourage us all to get beyond it. I wish this was available to me 5 years ago, too, or at least coming out of 3.0 rollout. That was my biggest criticism of 3.0. But better late than never. We either want the user base to grow, or we want to keep it insulated because we had to suffer through an absurd process, can’t have it both ways. Anyway, now, as before, let folks play where they want to play.

3. “The changes were necessary, but went too far.” Ok if the game was mine, I probably would have kept the parameters where they were for the P6 conferences, at least roughly speaking. But I’m not a programmer, and of course the game is not mine, so that’s easy for me to say. Really, my only concern is for the higher baseline teams, like the teams at B+ and above. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Washington or Auburn are in that category. For the most part, I think it’s fine that they’re available to coaches who have been around and have had some success for a handful of seasons. The plum spots can be reserved for coaches with longer track records, but honestly I don’t really see the harm of opening those up, either, if that’s what WIS wants to do. Generally speaking, any human coach is likely better than a sim. A customer paying full or near full price to get beat at Duke is more valuable to WIS than vets with dozens of championships racking up credits there; and if the only problem you have with it is that it just *looks wrong*, well again, this is “What If Sports” and we answer that question every day, right? Let folks play where they want to play.

4. This may have unintended consequences on D2 and D3. Gil kind of hints at this, and frankly this is the one (small) concern I have, because it’s just an unknown at this point. I expect D1 will have some influx, D2 will drop a bit for a while, but I think folks looking to “farm credits” will start to realize the lower levels are a much more productive field to plow; and related, I think folks are overstating the long term success of that approach anyway. Well built, long term dynasties will always be the favorites in the long run, year over year.

As for D3, If current and future marketing efforts are successful, hopefully they can continue to attract new and former users; and a shorter wait time and smaller paywall to get to D1 is undeniably less daunting, and therefore should help retention. But that will take time. It’s not going to be like let’s look at where we are in a month or 3 months or even 6 months and compare. Ultimately, the real gameplay advantage of this move is going to be in how it affects how we recruit. A big reason why lower level recruiting is dysfunctional is because so many good D1 pool recruits are getting ignored by D1 human teams, and are going to lower levels, when most of the top D2 players could absolutely be useful in D1. Getting D1 population up closer to, and hopefully above 50% will go a long way toward making recruiting gameplay work better at all levels. So yeah, once again: Let folks play where they want to play.

I take it back, my biggest concern is actually that the job qualifications match what is actually true. It’s a bit unclear to me if that’s the case, or if that’s what is meant by the UI issue or what, but if jobs are coming up as “not qualified” but a coach can actually get the job, that is a problem. It is ok that longshots get jobs a bit more often now, if that is true, but if those parameters have changed, it should be intentional, and clear to everyone.

There, I think that’s all from me now.

Excellent post shoe3. That's very much the kind of discussion that I was hoping for when I started this thread. I'll leave some comments for each of your points.

1. People farm credits, yes. But it was almost entirely at the D2 and D3 levels. Now people have the option to jump from D3 to D1, then back D3, then to D2. I'm just saying that if this is a problem, the new job logic might exacerbate the problem. I don't think the reputation hit was that bad, as evidenced by some coaches. But if that was corrected, maybe this won't be an potential issue any longer.

2. Absolutely no one is saying that anything needs to be a long, slow slog. I'm certain that the vast majority of users, myself included, would agree that it took too long to reach D1 and too long to qualify for most P6 schools. My issue is that this went from having very stringent rules to having very little rules at all. Maybe there is a middle ground. You said that the opposition is grounded in resentment. I understand the need to attract new customers, but why would you alienate the current user base (the ones who kept the HD lights on for all these years) in the process. Let's try to meet somewhere in the middle. I think your suggestion about parameters around P6 schools makes a lot of sense. Benis also had a good suggestion. Why not talk about it, and see if we can work something out, instead of waving your hand and proclaiming that coaches should play where they want to play.

3. I couldn't agree more, although it does hurt that I've been rebuilding Cal for 12 seasons and someone with 1 NT appearance in the past 10 seasons can suddenly take a school with a higher prestige than me. But it is what it is. If that's the new system that works for everyone, then I'm on board. P.S. I'll always be secretly salty. =)

4. I would add lower D1 to this list. The lower D1 conferences were already sparsely populated much like D2 and D3. Now there is even less incentive to take over a D1 rebuild. Why not just stay at D2 for a few more seasons with 50+ less humans and no rebuilding year woes on your resume.

From what I've heard, the job UI issue will be fixed so I wouldn't worry about that in the long term.

Edit: There are many of us that have hundreds of seasons under our belts. We know the game, and we usually have a good idea of how changes will affect the game. If we truly want to help Adam build something great, then let's help guide the discussion to potential issues and how they could be fixed. I agree that most of these are probably "reaches", but it doesn't hurt to look at them and see if there is an easy fix that makes sense for everyone.