I am putting out a counter proposal to what adlorenz recently put out. This would keep the same tiers and criteria that adlorenz put out but changing the time frame. Coaches would get 5 seasons instead of 4 to achieve their performance criteria. Coaches who take over another program will get 2 seasons to get settled in before the firing clock starts. So a new coach would have 7 seasons to achieve their performance criteria before they go to the every past 5 seasons clock.

I looked at Wooden world that I am playing in.

This is if the rules had been in place and the possible firings were after the last completed season in Wooden. These are just the current hypothetical firings. I did not go back 40 seasons if a coach had been there that long to see if they would have been fired at any time in their career. This is just currently after the end of the last season:

Of the 11 schools in the highest tier: Only the coach at North Carolina would have been fired. UNC has not had a NT bid in the last 9 seasons. Enough said.

Of the 18 schools in the second tier: 4 coaches would have been fired: Tennessee--15 seasons there for that coach with 0 NT appearances. Virginia--last 13 seasons only 2 NT bids and lost in 1st round both times. Boston College: the coach has been there for 7 seasons with only 1 NT bid (first season) and lost that first round game. Stanford--the closest of all the above to meeting the criteria. The last 5 seasons had 3 NT bids but never advanced to second round. Had 3 2nd round appearances in the 3 seasons preceding the last 5 but hey--you have to draw the line somewhere.

Of the 42 schools in the third tier: 2 coaches would have been fired. Oklahoma St. and Mississippi St.

I think the proposal I am putting out there will achieve the desired affect of holding coaches to a standard of having to win a little to hold a desirable job. 7 out of 71 coaches would have been fired which is about 10%. That is not the crazy number of coaches that would be fired under the proposal that adlorenz put out.

Ah you SOB. Now you made me want to do a comparison with my data using your rules.

But yeah I like this much more. I still think rules might be bit too harsh and it should account for deep tourney runs somehow but this is better.

Sorry Benis--didn't mean for you to spend more time on this. I do appreciate the effort you put in that shows that the proposal they put out is way over the top as to what they are trying to accomplish. I think adlorenz really needed to see the stats you put out. And on a side note--my three ex-wives call me much worse than that lol. I just hope they re-consider the harshness of what they just laid out.

Posted by dunkonyou on 5/28/2021 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Sorry Benis--didn't mean for you to spend more time on this. I do appreciate the effort you put in that shows that the proposal they put out is way over the top as to what they are trying to accomplish. I think adlorenz really needed to see the stats you put out. And on a side note--my three ex-wives call me much worse than that lol. I just hope they re-consider the harshness of what they just laid out.

Should have been 8 out of 71. I missed UConn in Tier 1 in Wooden.

Firing everyone feels like the wrong answer to me. I continue to think the logical answer is:

1) give coaches 5-8 year grace period when they take over
2) look at NT wins over a longer window. Would suggest and 8 year window with 7-8 wins for tier 1, 4 for tier 2, and 2 for the third tier. Continued success or deep runs protect your job. We don’t want to fire everyone but I think some level of firings is good.

Posted by dunkonyou on 5/28/2021 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Sorry Benis--didn't mean for you to spend more time on this. I do appreciate the effort you put in that shows that the proposal they put out is way over the top as to what they are trying to accomplish. I think adlorenz really needed to see the stats you put out. And on a side note--my three ex-wives call me much worse than that lol. I just hope they re-consider the harshness of what they just laid out.

Hahaha no worries man, I like your idea.

I'm just the kind of person when I get something in my head, I can't let it go until I answer it. Curious nature of mine.

Also, I was pretty high last night when I did this so might wanna double check my work

Posted by Benis on 5/28/2021 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dunkonyou on 5/28/2021 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Sorry Benis--didn't mean for you to spend more time on this. I do appreciate the effort you put in that shows that the proposal they put out is way over the top as to what they are trying to accomplish. I think adlorenz really needed to see the stats you put out. And on a side note--my three ex-wives call me much worse than that lol. I just hope they re-consider the harshness of what they just laid out.

Hahaha no worries man, I like your idea.

I'm just the kind of person when I get something in my head, I can't let it go until I answer it. Curious nature of mine.

Also, I was pretty high last night when I did this so might wanna double check my work

In Allen world there would have been 5 total coaches fired from the list of 71 going back currently from this season that is two days from being done.
This is using my proposal of 5 seasons instead of the 4 for the achievement parameters set out by adlorenz. Also giving a coach two seasons to get settled before the firing clock starts up in his 3rd season--so 7 seasons for new coaches to achieve the performance parameters.

Tier 1: Kentucky
Tier 2: Tennessee, Purdue, NC State.
Tier 3: Vanderbilt

Posted by dunkonyou on 5/28/2021 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 5/28/2021 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dunkonyou on 5/28/2021 10:55:00 AM (view original):
Sorry Benis--didn't mean for you to spend more time on this. I do appreciate the effort you put in that shows that the proposal they put out is way over the top as to what they are trying to accomplish. I think adlorenz really needed to see the stats you put out. And on a side note--my three ex-wives call me much worse than that lol. I just hope they re-consider the harshness of what they just laid out.

Hahaha no worries man, I like your idea.

I'm just the kind of person when I get something in my head, I can't let it go until I answer it. Curious nature of mine.

Also, I was pretty high last night when I did this so might wanna double check my work

In Allen world there would have been 5 total coaches fired from the list of 71 going back currently from this season that is two days from being done.
This is using my proposal of 5 seasons instead of the 4 for the achievement parameters set out by adlorenz. Also giving a coach two seasons to get settled before the firing clock starts up in his 3rd season--so 7 seasons for new coaches to achieve the performance parameters.

Tier 1: Kentucky
Tier 2: Tennessee, Purdue, NC State.
Tier 3: Vanderbilt

Ah so the way I did it, I looked at the current coaches entire history to see if they would have been fired at any point using the proposed changes.

Here is the data using the idea of first 7 seasons and then later 5 seasons

Firings
Proposal	Revised
37	24
Tier 1
Proposal	Revised
9	4
Tier 2
Proposal	Revised
11	9
Tier 3
Proposal	Revised
17	11

Still pretty high but much better - especially in Tier 1.

I agree a longer period is better, but it’s still a bad approach to be setting a target number of firings, and then trying to hit it. Like... do we want fuller worlds or not?

Seems like people don't like folks camping at elites, but when they see they might get fired, they like the idea a lot less...

I think that two relatively easy fixes deal with the issues people are identifying:

1. If you pick up a rebuild, your 4-year clock doesn't start until the team is 1 letter grade (or 2/3 letter grade, not sure which is fairer) below its baseline prestige.
2. If you win an NT, you have a 2 or 3 season "grace period," before the 4-year clock starts again. Maybe if you lose in the finals, you get a 1-year grace period before the clock starts again.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/28/2021 2:17:00 PM (view original):
I agree a longer period is better, but it’s still a bad approach to be setting a target number of firings, and then trying to hit it. Like... do we want fuller worlds or not?

I don't think anybody is trying to set a target number of firings--I certainly am not. Simply trying to set some basic level of achievement so coaches don't get to a power conference then stay for 10 or more seasons without having any success---especially now when it is much easier for non-experienced coaches to get jobs in power conferences. By putting up the numbers of the coaches who would have been fired if the powers that be go through with their over the top proposal--Benis did them a tremendous service by pointing out just how many firings that would be. And that number of firings is way too many.

Thanks for all the stats, Benis and drunkonyou!

Posted by rds_lsu on 5/27/2021 10:21:00 PM (view original):
So are we going to end up with SIM coached Elite teams after all the qualified coaches get fired and there are no qualified replacements? Seems like a good business model...

This just doesn't seem like a desirable outcome. How many coaches will just leave the game after getting randomly fired? I'm not opposed to firings but they should be reserved for the outliers and abandoned ships.

I just made this comment in my conference standings. Its not that I think the new rules are bad, I just like looking at the history of my team and I really have no desire to start over at another school.

With these rules I can't picture ever taking on a rebuild. These rules might be realistic, but in real life as a head coach you are getting a salary and finding a coach for any program would not be a problem. However are you as a coach willing to pay for 4 seasons if you are very likely to get fired after those 4 seasons? No way would I take on a tier 1 school if that school was in full rebuild mode.