that is definitely natchamp's whole resume. he was at Nebraska in season 72
1/27/2015 1:25 PM
wow, thats crazy. people have been saying 7 year minimum for ever. i =guess those 0-27 and 1-26 years at the end make it a pretty bad 6 season run, but still :O 
1/27/2015 2:02 PM
I think the funny thing about Natchamp is to think about a real-life AD and fan base looking at the 0-27 season and retaining the coach.  "Hmm, maybe it was a fluke, let's not be too hasty!"

Plus, he went from 0 wins to 1 win in his final season.  The program showed infinite improvement on a proportional scale in his last season, and STILL he got canned.  What does a coach have to do to keep a job?  LOL.

1/27/2015 4:37 PM
Yea, that was the whole resume at the school, I was a bit surprised as I'd never seen a guy fired after 6 seasons.

FWIW I think almost everyone is on board with some sort of increased firing structure, but under the current regime it's never going to happen. I have a slew of ideas on how to improve the process, as do others, but it's not worth the keystrokes to discuss at this point, with the WIS people so adamant against changing it.
1/27/2015 4:53 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 1/27/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Yea, that was the whole resume at the school, I was a bit surprised as I'd never seen a guy fired after 6 seasons.

FWIW I think almost everyone is on board with some sort of increased firing structure, but under the current regime it's never going to happen. I have a slew of ideas on how to improve the process, as do others, but it's not worth the keystrokes to discuss at this point, with the WIS people so adamant against changing it.
I know we don't tend to agree or see eye to eye on much, but the second part of your post is just about as spot on as it gets. Waste of keystrokes, that sums it up nicely.
1/27/2015 5:05 PM
So, there was a firing in Tark this morning -- the long-time coach at Tulsa.  Here was his resume:

101 drewholst 6-21 4-9 2-11 0-1 1-15   244 112 D  
100 drewholst 6-21 2-11 4-9 0-1 3-13   224 84 D  
99 drewholst 15-13 6-7 8-5 1-1 6-10   153 165 D  
98 drewholst 6-21 4-7 2-13 0-1 3-13   284 234 D  
97 drewholst 9-18 6-6 3-11 0-1 2-14   260 257 D  
96 drewholst 11-16 6-6 5-9 0-1 6-10   220 219 D+  
95 drewholst 16-11 7-4 9-6 0-1 9-7   174 296 D+  
94 drewholst 19-10 7-5 10-4 2-1 10-6   143 243 D+  
93 drewholst 6-21 3-9 3-11 0-1 1-15   277 195 D+  
92 drewholst 18-10 8-4 9-5 1-1 8-8   113 179 C-  
91 drewholst 15-13 7-6 7-6 1-1 9-7   161 207 D+  
90 drewholst 11-16 5-6 6-9 0-1 6-10   222 246 D  
89 drewholst 10-17 6-6 4-10 0-1 3-13   201 130 D+  
88 drewholst 5-22 3-9 2-12 0-1 2-14   264 133 D+  
87 drewholst 13-14 10-3 3-10 0-1 6-10   155 127 C-  
86 drewholst 14-14 5-6 8-7 1-1 5-11   112 88 C-  
85 drewholst 7-21 4-9 2-11 1-1 3-13   165 37 C-  
84 drewholst 7-20 3-8 4-11 0-1 3-13   191 77 C-  
83 drewholst 15-12 7-4 8-7 0-1 8-8   107 101 C-  
82 drewholst 11-16 7-4 4-11 0-1 6-10   149 84 C-  
81 drewholst 8-19 4-7 4-11 0-1 2-14   238 181 C-  
80 drewholst 10-17 3-9 7-7 0-1 3-13   186 137 C  
79 drewholst 23-7 10-1 10-5 3-1 11-5   61 152 C CT Champion
NT (1st Round)
78 drewholst 15-14 7-4 6-9 2-1 7-9   129 140 C-  
77 drewholst 11-18 6-8 3-9 2-1 6-10   181 106 C-  
76 drewholst 13-15 6-7 6-7 1-1 9-7   173 153 C-  
75 drewholst 22-7 11-3 10-3 1-1 14-2   83 186 C PI (1st Round)
74 drewholst 20-9 9-2 9-6 2-1 10-6   109 235 C-  
73 drewholst 16-13 9-3 5-9 2-1 10-6   140 193 C-  
72 drewholst 18-10 7-5 10-4 1-1 11-5   165 300 C  
71 drewholst 23-7 10-4 11-2 2-1 14-2   88 173 C PI (1st Round)
70 drewholst 24-6 9-2 14-3 1-1 13-3   85 236 C PI (2nd Round)
69 drewholst 15-13 6-5 8-7 1-1 8-8   183 280 C-  
68 drewholst 17-12 8-4 7-7 2-1 9-7   161 250 C  
67 drewholst 21-9 11-2 9-6 1-1 12-4   74 148 C Conf Champion
PI (2nd Round)
66 drewholst 20-9 10-2 8-6 2-1 9-7   76 136 C-  
65 drewholst 15-13 9-4 5-8 1-1 8-8   188 243 C-  
64 drewholst 18-9 8-4 10-4 0-1 12-4   127 240 C Conf Champion
63 drewholst 23-8 8-2 13-5 2-1 11-5   72 162 C Conf Champion
PI (2nd Round)
62 drewholst 15-13 8-3 6-9 1-1 9-7   167 258 C-  
61 drewholst 17-10 7-3 10-6 0-1 12-4   119 237 C- Conf Champion
60 drewholst 23-6 10-1 11-4 2-1 14-2   117 318 C- Conf Champion
59 drewholst 19-10 9-3 8-6 2-1 11-5   130 269 C- Conf Champion
58 drewholst 15-13 8-3 6-9 1-1 10-6   138 159 C- Conf Champion
57 drewholst 20-8 12-2 7-5 1-1 11-5   122 285 D+  
56 drewholst 16-12 6-6 9-5 1-1 11-5   200 310 D+  
55 drewholst 15-12 8-3 7-8 0-1 12-4   177 304 C- Conf Champion
54 drewholst 16-11 6-5 10-5 0-1 8-8   153 287 C-  
53 drewholst 18-11 8-3 8-7 2-1 11-5   104 154 C-  
52 drewholst 18-10 8-4 9-5 1-1 11-5   113 214 D+  
51 drewholst 15-12 9-3 6-8 0-1 13-3   156 205 D Conf Champion
50 drewholst 2-25 1-9 1-15 0-1 2-14   319 230 D  
49 drewholst 13-14 5-8 8-5 0-1 9-7   190 219 D+  
48 drewholst 15-14 8-4 5-9 2-1 8-8   130 124 D  
47 drewholst 10-18 5-7 4-10 1-1 4-12   250 248 D-  

I can't say I'm necessarily shocked given the 20+ season absence from the postseason, but still, is there really a pressing need to fire mid-major coaches?  It just doesn't seem that there's any different level of expectations for Big 6 schools, and there probably should be.

Anyway, good luck, drew.  Enjoyed having you in C-USA.
4/14/2015 11:32 AM
It's D1, you should be fired from anywhere if you can't hack it. Are you advocating that resume should be able to stay at a school forever as long as they keep paying? Do you work for WIS? Because that is their philosophy.
4/16/2015 11:58 AM

I think his point was kinda just there isn't a lack of vacancies at the midmajor level so having someone stay forever doesn't really block anyone.

4/16/2015 12:07 PM
i agree with hippo and shafty. stine, you say, "its d1, you should be fired from anywhere if you can't hack it". my question is, why? what makes d1 different from d2/d3? without saying "because its d1" or something that specifically (and therefore arbitrarily) refers to a specific set of schools by name, what sort of method would you use to determine where firings should take place, and where they shouldn't?

personally, the method i use, is that highly coveted jobs should have firing standards - incrementally higher the more coveted the job, and where there are plenty of openings, there is no reason to have firings. in d2/d3, all schools are on relatively even footing, and conference prestige is not a factor (bonus money is, but there is nothing built in making those jobs better, except maybe location, but that isn't strong enough to fire someone, IMO). so d2/d3 are out for firings, by my standard.

in d1, there are hundreds of openings per world, far more openings than full schools, in many cases. however, in high prestige d1 conferences (you could say BCS, but that isn't my personal preference - its a close enough approximation though I suppose), that is not the case. i would support firings in any high prestige d1 conferences - this would almost certainly include all BCS conferences in all worlds, but would also include the A10 or any other non-BCS conference that gets relatively full and has some significant success. you could have firings only if conference prestige is (for example) a B- or higher. but, i absolutely do not support firing people from one of the 150 or so D+ baseline programs in the crap conferences, when well over 100 of these programs are run by SIMs. 


4/16/2015 4:37 PM
Gillespie1 I think your view is right. If it's the case, that makes it more fun for people waiting in the wing. I play in Tarkanian, almost all good jobs are filled. There are openings, but just a few. I would not fire someone who plays .500 though. I'd fire someone who has three losing season... No BCS jobs should aloud that. I'd fire four losing seasons in a row for A-10 and B to B- base prestige, and five on C. Heck, you could also be fired for D and D+ jobs, cause in reality, coaches do get fired.
4/16/2015 5:03 PM
Posted by zorzii on 4/16/2015 5:03:00 PM (view original):
Gillespie1 I think your view is right. If it's the case, that makes it more fun for people waiting in the wing. I play in Tarkanian, almost all good jobs are filled. There are openings, but just a few. I would not fire someone who plays .500 though. I'd fire someone who has three losing season... No BCS jobs should aloud that. I'd fire four losing seasons in a row for A-10 and B to B- base prestige, and five on C. Heck, you could also be fired for D and D+ jobs, cause in reality, coaches do get fired.
well, you are correct that you could get fired from d/d+ jobs in real life - but this is also true for d2 and d3 jobs! so, i don't think it is particularly relevant. i think most of us agree d2/d3 should have no firings - there are no jobs that are really inherently way above others. in d1, this is not always the case, but the low d1 jobs are more like d2/d3 jobs - its a place to learn, and there is no shortage of equal-footing jobs. 

if realism is the reason to have firings, then people should advocate firings at least in d2, but i don't think anybody is making that case, so i think its unfair to use realism in the d1 argument. i think the reason we all want firings is so the coveted jobs don't get jammed up with coaches who are doing nothing with those jobs. someone else should get a chance. if that is the core of one's argument, then i think the low d1 case is obvious - there should be no firings - as there is no shortage of those jobs. there is no value to user X to have user Y fired from a job unless user X wants that job and an equivalent job isn't already available. the only crack i see in my initial argument is that if d1 fills up, the top several mid major conferences may all be full and be coveted. if that is a concern, fine, we could make the rule that only conferences with 10+ humans in d1 can have firings, or something along those lines. or we could have firings based on baseline prestige, or some combination of factors between baseline and conference prestige, and fullness of conference - or something else! i just think there needs to be underlying reasoning for why firings should be in place, to make sure we aren't sweeping in firings in places they aren't needed, for methods like "any d1 job should have firings", which is based on a label, not attributes of those jobs. that is fine as a conclusion - if the method and logic is laid out for why that is the conclusion - using the label to simply summarize that conclusion. but it doesn't fly as a line of reasoning. thats really what im getting at.
4/16/2015 5:14 PM
◂ Prev 123456

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.