One way to look at it are how many people are quitting the game because of the current firing mechanics vs. how many may quit the game with new firing mechanics?

Business model = don't **** off your user base. We all know the resumes which should be fired.

Someone else mention this below and I feel its a good idea.
Forget the WHOLE concept on basing firings solely on NT luck..errr I mean wins.
Instead = Tie firings into Prestige for the Big 6 programs.

You have a certain # of seasons to get the team to their "baseline prestige -2". Then you cannot go under that for 4 consecutive seasons. This is truly not difficult but will also get rid of the coaches who are not trying. Even with this I know of decent coaches who would get canned.

Baseline prestige -2 means
A+ = A-
A = B+
A- = B
B+ = B-
B = C+
B- = C

Id love for Benis (haha) to run his data through this concept to see what the results look like. Then eye test the coaches who get fired to see if its fair and look at borderline coaches who did not get fired to see if this is too lenient.

Yeah, this is much better. But it will produce far fewer firings. And I believe the thinking is that they want a certain number of firings, and are using certain analytics to try to hit that number. A rotation, so to speak. It’s a really, really terrible approach. Like, I can’t stress enough how bad this approach is, and I really hope they can be talked out of it before it goes live, because it will be an absolute disaster.

I agree with you shoe. And I am TOTALLY against the whole participation trophy thing. So if I think the idea of mass firings sucks .......

Posted by mullycj on 5/28/2021 2:05:00 PM (view original):
One way to look at it are how many people are quitting the game because of the current firing mechanics vs. how many may quit the game with new firing mechanics?

Business model = don't **** off your user base. We all know the resumes which should be fired.

Someone else mention this below and I feel its a good idea.
Forget the WHOLE concept on basing firings solely on NT luck..errr I mean wins.
Instead = Tie firings into Prestige for the Big 6 programs.

You have a certain # of seasons to get the team to their "baseline prestige -2". Then you cannot go under that for 4 consecutive seasons. This is truly not difficult but will also get rid of the coaches who are not trying. Even with this I know of decent coaches who would get canned.

Baseline prestige -2 means
A+ = A-
A = B+
A- = B
B+ = B-
B = C+
B- = C

Id love for Benis (haha) to run his data through this concept to see what the results look like. Then eye test the coaches who get fired to see if its fair and look at borderline coaches who did not get fired to see if this is too lenient.

Yeah this is a much better idea

Great idea. Like 100x better than what was originally proposed.

Pair this with baseline prestige being re-calculated on some sort of regular schedule and I'm in.

Baseline prestige never changing is silly.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/28/2021 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, this is much better. But it will produce far fewer firings. And I believe the thinking is that they want a certain number of firings, and are using certain analytics to try to hit that number. A rotation, so to speak. It’s a really, really terrible approach. Like, I can’t stress enough how bad this approach is, and I really hope they can be talked out of it before it goes live, because it will be an absolute disaster.

I'm not 100% sure they are using any sort of analytics to achieve a certain # of firings - because I can't imagine that their end goal is 60-70% of all major schools fire their coaches in 4 seasons.

I think the announcement was made a bit wrong. Adam is fantastic for HD and the team is trying really hard to make this game great. They're learning on the fly. And if y'all haven't realized, our voice is EXTREMELY powerful. We've pushed for a lot of change and they've made changes. They also listen to their community. As long as we present threads like this the right way, they read it and consider it.

Everyone complained about not giving a heads up on changes being made. We just got like a 6 month heads up on this. They're weighing everything we say here. We should all give this thread a thumbs up rating and cheer on the team. They'll get it right. I'm telling you.

Shout out to crazy *** mully for the well thought idea.

Posted by topdogggbm on 5/29/2021 9:19:00 PM (view original):
I think the announcement was made a bit wrong. Adam is fantastic for HD and the team is trying really hard to make this game great. They're learning on the fly. And if y'all haven't realized, our voice is EXTREMELY powerful. We've pushed for a lot of change and they've made changes. They also listen to their community. As long as we present threads like this the right way, they read it and consider it.

Everyone complained about not giving a heads up on changes being made. We just got like a 6 month heads up on this. They're weighing everything we say here. We should all give this thread a thumbs up rating and cheer on the team. They'll get it right. I'm telling you.

Shout out to crazy *** mully for the well thought idea.

+1, here here!

I do like this better because sometimes you can have a good team going into the tournament and either have a bad game, or more likely you play a team that had to honor a bunch of promises all year and had a low seeding, but has a totally different lineup in the NT. I have had teams where I have promised starts to 4-5 freshmen.

I do like the idea of firings though as well for the top schools.

I just took Georgia Tech in one world with the idea of trying to win a title with Zone, which for some reason I suck at, and I do believe it is the hardest defense to win with. I am rethinking that strategy now a bit. We are at C+ now and going to miss the NT for the third straight year and probably stay at C+. It was B- when I started. In the current proposal I would have a lot of pressure to get to the second round next year. With this new proposal by Mully, if it was 4 years, there would probably not be a way to get to B+ if I did not win a title next year. Maybe the number of years you have to reach that target depends on how far from the target you are when you take it over. But maybe perhaps if you are showing no progress of approaching that target you could be fired sooner. In my case, I really should be in the hotseat with this team.

100% This. Prestige should be the way to go with firings.

Posted by chapelhillne on 5/30/2021 7:09:00 AM (view original):
I do like this better because sometimes you can have a good team going into the tournament and either have a bad game, or more likely you play a team that had to honor a bunch of promises all year and had a low seeding, but has a totally different lineup in the NT. I have had teams where I have promised starts to 4-5 freshmen.

I do like the idea of firings though as well for the top schools.

I just took Georgia Tech in one world with the idea of trying to win a title with Zone, which for some reason I suck at, and I do believe it is the hardest defense to win with. I am rethinking that strategy now a bit. We are at C+ now and going to miss the NT for the third straight year and probably stay at C+. It was B- when I started. In the current proposal I would have a lot of pressure to get to the second round next year. With this new proposal by Mully, if it was 4 years, there would probably not be a way to get to B+ if I did not win a title next year. Maybe the number of years you have to reach that target depends on how far from the target you are when you take it over. But maybe perhaps if you are showing no progress of approaching that target you could be fired sooner. In my case, I really should be in the hotseat with this team.

IMO, as folks like shoe and others have mentioned, its not only the rebuild that is relevant, but also the potential for the coach to want to institute their own system, perhaps changing offense and defense both. perhaps to ones they still need to figure out. real life coaches can just come and change schemes, the IQ system in HD is grossly unrealistic, there aren't a plethora of upperclassmen running around in real life (or underclassmen) with A m2m iq and F zone iq. that makes no sense at all. and i think everyone would agree its crazy to demand the new coach run the same scheme as the last guy.

seems to me you have to give the new coach 4 years to put a floor on the thing, or to rip up the floor that is already there and put the new one down - before you can even start counting - no matter which proposal we are talking about. i would be moderately mollified if coaches had 6 seasons to reach objectives instead of 4, but i really think the magic number is 8. 4 just to get your arms around the thing, then 4 real ones. putting in a real grace period would definitely eliminate most of the disaster-inducing aspects of the plan. although i still think something has to be done about the cases like bathtubhippos where he'd have been immediately fired after winning 4 titles in 9 seasons... (immediately after meaning in the immediate 4 season window after). its just too heinous, too far from anything resembling a gray area. but at least those really egregious cases are going to be spread out where the lack of a grace period is egregious in perhaps the majority of cases.

I like this idea, but I would expand on it and say that the power of baseline prestige has on a team's prestige should be reduced and instead of using the last 4 years to determine a team's prestige they should use the last 50 or 100 years with each year further away being less important than the one after it.