Haha, I made 6 Final Fours and won 4 titles at Arizona in Smith over a 9 year span but would have been fired 4 seasons after the last title under this scheme.

I’m sure this kind of thing has been pointed out a bunch, didn’t have time to read double digit pages.

it has but the more the better... there's only so many resumes where it is objectively heinous to fire that coach, definitely helpful to show there's a healthy number of those. and this is a great one! looks like you'd have been fired twice, both up front despite a quick quality turnaround, and immediately after the 4 titles in 9 seasons...

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=5205

4 seasons is just too short, not only for the initial window but subsequently...

If it’s actually about revenue, there’s probably a better way to look at this altogether, rather than focused on what happens to “deserving” coaches. Anecdotally, consider my position in Smith.

After a few dozen good seasons in Oregon, and still under the previous stringent requirements, when Kentucky opened up 2 seasons ago, there were only maybe 3 coaches with a better resume, and they didn’t apply, so I got the job. It was an A+ job, and I was an A+ coach, so it stayed very high, despite turning over a large portion of the roster (I had to try to fill a lot of spots in the second session, and the team lost a freshman EE before I even got there, then a player after his first season of eligibility upon my first season). So it was a deceptive A+ position. I decided pretty early on to completely remake the team, and do it quickly, during this period of transition that was going to happen anyway. I’m taking some chances, I’m doing a rebuild, giving up a couple seasons (2 and 3) where I probably could have gotten at least NT bids with a shot at S16s, in order to get the team I really wanted in seasons 4 and beyond. This costs me some credits, and now, as it turns out, if this really terrible new firing plan ends up holding, might cost me the team I’ve spent 7 real life years working towards.

Think about how this plan changes what I would have done from a revenue standpoint. I have chosen to spend more on the game to rebuild a team I didn’t have to rebuild, something I’ve done many times in HD; as I’ve said a number of times, I’m not one of those players who measures success by titles, I don’t even really care about that stuff. I play this game for fun. If I am having fun, I am happy to pay for the game. Probably not full price, as that’s a little high (another conversation, probably), but pretty close. If firings go into effect, in any iteration really, but especially in the current format, even if I do decide to keep playing, it will certainly change the way I play. By necessity. Not because I can’t afford to play without credits, or even because I don’t value the game mechanics, but because I don’t want to risk losing teams I have invested so much real life time and money in. So instead of rebuilding Kentucky, I would have have taken a few walkons the first season like everybody else, maintained boring old triangle/man like everybody else, shot for only 4-5 star players like everybody else in my position this year, and likely maintained this team at basically the same level it’s been. Which is to say a boring perennial S16 caliber team. I wouldn’t be having much fun, but at least I wouldn’t be at risk of having it all ripped away at the whim of someone who doesn’t even really seem to understand what they’re doing. So I’ll likely be both dropping teams, AND paying less for the teams I keep. That’s one example of what this change will do, revenue wise. I really don’t think I’m the only one who will be making this kind of calculation.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/31/2021 2:36:00 PM (view original):
If it’s actually about revenue, there’s probably a better way to look at this altogether, rather than focused on what happens to “deserving” coaches. Anecdotally, consider my position in Smith.

After a few dozen good seasons in Oregon, and still under the previous stringent requirements, when Kentucky opened up 2 seasons ago, there were only maybe 3 coaches with a better resume, and they didn’t apply, so I got the job. It was an A+ job, and I was an A+ coach, so it stayed very high, despite turning over a large portion of the roster (I had to try to fill a lot of spots in the second session, and the team lost a freshman EE before I even got there, then a player after his first season of eligibility upon my first season). So it was a deceptive A+ position. I decided pretty early on to completely remake the team, and do it quickly, during this period of transition that was going to happen anyway. I’m taking some chances, I’m doing a rebuild, giving up a couple seasons (2 and 3) where I probably could have gotten at least NT bids with a shot at S16s, in order to get the team I really wanted in seasons 4 and beyond. This costs me some credits, and now, as it turns out, if this really terrible new firing plan ends up holding, might cost me the team I’ve spent 7 real life years working towards.

Think about how this plan changes what I would have done from a revenue standpoint. I have chosen to spend more on the game to rebuild a team I didn’t have to rebuild, something I’ve done many times in HD; as I’ve said a number of times, I’m not one of those players who measures success by titles, I don’t even really care about that stuff. I play this game for fun. If I am having fun, I am happy to pay for the game. Probably not full price, as that’s a little high (another conversation, probably), but pretty close. If firings go into effect, in any iteration really, but especially in the current format, even if I do decide to keep playing, it will certainly change the way I play. By necessity. Not because I can’t afford to play without credits, or even because I don’t value the game mechanics, but because I don’t want to risk losing teams I have invested so much real life time and money in. So instead of rebuilding Kentucky, I would have have taken a few walkons the first season like everybody else, maintained boring old triangle/man like everybody else, shot for only 4-5 star players like everybody else in my position this year, and likely maintained this team at basically the same level it’s been. Which is to say a boring perennial S16 caliber team. I wouldn’t be having much fun, but at least I wouldn’t be at risk of having it all ripped away at the whim of someone who doesn’t even really seem to understand what they’re doing. So I’ll likely be both dropping teams, AND paying less for the teams I keep. That’s one example of what this change will do, revenue wise. I really don’t think I’m the only one who will be making this kind of calculation.

this is a good post. New coaches deserve a grace period, no matter the position they take the team in

Posted by bathtubhippo on 5/31/2021 12:18:00 PM (view original):
Haha, I made 6 Final Fours and won 4 titles at Arizona in Smith over a 9 year span but would have been fired 4 seasons after the last title under this scheme.

I’m sure this kind of thing has been pointed out a bunch, didn’t have time to read double digit pages.

Another good HD example

Posted by shoe3 on 5/31/2021 2:36:00 PM (view original):
If it’s actually about revenue, there’s probably a better way to look at this altogether, rather than focused on what happens to “deserving” coaches. Anecdotally, consider my position in Smith.

After a few dozen good seasons in Oregon, and still under the previous stringent requirements, when Kentucky opened up 2 seasons ago, there were only maybe 3 coaches with a better resume, and they didn’t apply, so I got the job. It was an A+ job, and I was an A+ coach, so it stayed very high, despite turning over a large portion of the roster (I had to try to fill a lot of spots in the second session, and the team lost a freshman EE before I even got there, then a player after his first season of eligibility upon my first season). So it was a deceptive A+ position. I decided pretty early on to completely remake the team, and do it quickly, during this period of transition that was going to happen anyway. I’m taking some chances, I’m doing a rebuild, giving up a couple seasons (2 and 3) where I probably could have gotten at least NT bids with a shot at S16s, in order to get the team I really wanted in seasons 4 and beyond. This costs me some credits, and now, as it turns out, if this really terrible new firing plan ends up holding, might cost me the team I’ve spent 7 real life years working towards.

Think about how this plan changes what I would have done from a revenue standpoint. I have chosen to spend more on the game to rebuild a team I didn’t have to rebuild, something I’ve done many times in HD; as I’ve said a number of times, I’m not one of those players who measures success by titles, I don’t even really care about that stuff. I play this game for fun. If I am having fun, I am happy to pay for the game. Probably not full price, as that’s a little high (another conversation, probably), but pretty close. If firings go into effect, in any iteration really, but especially in the current format, even if I do decide to keep playing, it will certainly change the way I play. By necessity. Not because I can’t afford to play without credits, or even because I don’t value the game mechanics, but because I don’t want to risk losing teams I have invested so much real life time and money in. So instead of rebuilding Kentucky, I would have have taken a few walkons the first season like everybody else, maintained boring old triangle/man like everybody else, shot for only 4-5 star players like everybody else in my position this year, and likely maintained this team at basically the same level it’s been. Which is to say a boring perennial S16 caliber team. I wouldn’t be having much fun, but at least I wouldn’t be at risk of having it all ripped away at the whim of someone who doesn’t even really seem to understand what they’re doing. So I’ll likely be both dropping teams, AND paying less for the teams I keep. That’s one example of what this change will do, revenue wise. I really don’t think I’m the only one who will be making this kind of calculation.

Its hard for me to believe the 4 and done plan will work. I don't think the problem is so much for good coaches with established programs, the problem is mainly for coaches who take over new programs. The standards are too high for coaches taking over new programs.

I didn't even consider about changing formations. That will likely become a factor in deciding about either changing a current teams formation or taking over another team with a formation I don't want to play. I usually figure the first 2 seasons are wasted when changing formations and now changing formations can be a major contribution to being fired.

No one is going to take over a tier 1 team that is in shambles and take them to the sweet 16 in 4 seasons or unlikely take a tier 2 team to the 2nd round in 4 seasons. Take into consideration its really 3 seasons of recruits as you don't even get to recruit your first seasons players.

I am personally not going to pay to take over any teams that are dumpster fires only to be fired in 4 seasons. Why would I pay $50 dollars to start the rebuild for the next coach? Lucky for me I have been satisfied playing with a tier 2 team, and I have to go back 60 seasons where I went 4 straight seasons without a 2nd round visit. However during that span I would of been on the hot seat 2 times.

It's pretty simple, if I ever get fired I am not taking over any team that I think I can't meet these requirements in 4 seasons. If it comes down to it I will sit and wait it out or quit HD.

one thing that hasn't been touched on much is the conference dynamic... conferences have been one of the bastions of comradery in this game forever, and a key backbone of the overall HD community. nobody wants to see their conference mates getting fired without good reason.

its also really tricky to turn around the bottom teams in tough conferences. this is an almost universally held opinion by folks who have been in those circumstances. it would be a shame to make that even more difficult. its probably inevitable to some extent but the extent still matters.

its a beneficial thing having a mixing of high end coaches and up and coming coaches in these fuller d1 conferences, a lot of that is lessened if most of the new guys are shortly heading out the door. i just hate to see a version of firings go in to place that make it real tough to have cohesion in the conferences. conferences are always in flux but its always been slow enough to allow little communities to grow. anything that could damage the conference communities, it really needs to be done delicately, IMO

Posted by gillispie on 5/31/2021 6:28:00 PM (view original):
one thing that hasn't been touched on much is the conference dynamic... conferences have been one of the bastions of comradery in this game forever, and a key backbone of the overall HD community. nobody wants to see their conference mates getting fired without good reason.

its also really tricky to turn around the bottom teams in tough conferences. this is an almost universally held opinion by folks who have been in those circumstances. it would be a shame to make that even more difficult. its probably inevitable to some extent but the extent still matters.

its a beneficial thing having a mixing of high end coaches and up and coming coaches in these fuller d1 conferences, a lot of that is lessened if most of the new guys are shortly heading out the door. i just hate to see a version of firings go in to place that make it real tough to have cohesion in the conferences. conferences are always in flux but its always been slow enough to allow little communities to grow. anything that could damage the conference communities, it really needs to be done delicately, IMO

I've also thought of this in the last couple days.

I really hope this whole system as written isn't set in stone. At the risk of hyperbole, I think it would be a disaster and maybe the death blow to an already weary and increasingly frustrated fan base. Yes, we want firings, but there needs to be a logic that underpins the system. During the last few days, and in the last thirteen pages of this thread, we've pointed out numerous spots where there is no logic and no common sense.

Admins, it's not that complicated.

I was curious and I looked at my conference which is the big east. I am not including Rutgers. All 11 teams are human owned. 10 of the teams have 4 plus years from the same owner. Only 3 of the owners would of survived past the first 4 seasons. 7 of the 10 would of been fired after their 4th season.

The one coach who is currently in his 3rd season is 8-13. He isn't going to make the tournament this season. Next season he will be in the hot seat with likely 1 player over 800 and 4 others over 700, plus whatever he gets in recruiting this season with his B- prestige.

very cool. I like the idea that it seems fluid, that there could be changes to it. Excited to see it, though. And glad for the notice for 4 seasons. There were a lot of posts here to skim through but I like the idea (seemed like pallas) of a title adding 4 seasons and a F4 adding 2 seasons to create a longer leash. Seems fun nonetheless

Posted by gillispie on 5/31/2021 6:28:00 PM (view original):
one thing that hasn't been touched on much is the conference dynamic... conferences have been one of the bastions of comradery in this game forever, and a key backbone of the overall HD community. nobody wants to see their conference mates getting fired without good reason.

its also really tricky to turn around the bottom teams in tough conferences. this is an almost universally held opinion by folks who have been in those circumstances. it would be a shame to make that even more difficult. its probably inevitable to some extent but the extent still matters.

its a beneficial thing having a mixing of high end coaches and up and coming coaches in these fuller d1 conferences, a lot of that is lessened if most of the new guys are shortly heading out the door. i just hate to see a version of firings go in to place that make it real tough to have cohesion in the conferences. conferences are always in flux but its always been slow enough to allow little communities to grow. anything that could damage the conference communities, it really needs to be done delicately, IMO

Very true, biggest potential flaw to me

lots of good notes and ideas in this thread - hope admin reads it.

AND also hope that folks posting here will post in discord - where admin reportedly looks more often

Posted by gillispie on 5/31/2021 12:11:00 PM (view original):
it has but the more the better... there's only so many resumes where it is objectively heinous to fire that coach, definitely helpful to show there's a healthy number of those. and this is a great one! looks like you'd have been fired twice, both up front despite a quick quality turnaround, and immediately after the 4 titles in 9 seasons...

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=5205

4 seasons is just too short, not only for the initial window but subsequently...

I think it has been mention before, but my Mich St team in Wooden is also a good example. Back to back championship games, including a title. Then a S16 run, then ravaged by EE's several seasons in a row, and a couple bad dice rolls, and I'd have been fired last season, even though I have them back on track this season and in the top 5.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=3391

This proposed change seems antithetical to generating revenue and keeping WIS profitable. I have spent a lot of money over the years and patiently waited to finally get an opportunity to coach at my grail school. I coach UConn in two worlds - one of which I took over a great program from a string of world class coaches (Tark) and one of which I took over a C prestige dumpster fire that had been beat of up on for decades (Wooden). Both are dream jobs - in Tark I usually make the sweet 16 every other year or so, but in Wooden it has been an insanely uphill battle nursing the program back to health. Terrible recruiting beats (70/30 types) and bad luck with EE's seem to stack up resulting in significant sways with success. I would have been fired twice since taking over under the proposed rules as I try to fix what other coaches and SimAi did to the program. I have been paying to do this rebuild the whole time. If I got fired so another coach could take over what I have been trying to fix, I simply wouldn't play anymore.