definitely need to fix this issue - but it remains a fair question whether the planned scouting/recruiting changes are the smart way to do that

smaller steps

1.  ramp up firings - and give a free season usable only in that world to any fired coach to keep him in the game
2. dont redo all of recruiting - just first do the steps to add more texture to recruits - add and enhance preferences so that non elites can get players who prefer a warm or cold school, a party school, an academic school, etcetc
3. create pipelines from high schools and towns as another preference - again non elites can focus on building pipelines
4. fix hiring process to make it more feasible to step into a job that loses its human coah before the team goes totally to suckdom
5. make starts and promised time worth more - and make broken promises a bigger negative.

these steps should be rather simple - not big risk of screwing up the game.  They dont preclude the bigger changes later, but do these - soon - and I bet it would help a lot.  Have wished for these for ages.

Right after you do this and mid majors start to progress and jobs start to open, launch a marketing effort......maybe even some adverts on fox websites....

Posted by metsmax on 10/3/2015 1:35:00 PM (view original):
definitely need to fix this issue - but it remains a fair question whether the planned scouting/recruiting changes are the smart way to do that

smaller steps

1.  ramp up firings - and give a free season usable only in that world to any fired coach to keep him in the game
2. dont redo all of recruiting - just first do the steps to add more texture to recruits - add and enhance preferences so that non elites can get players who prefer a warm or cold school, a party school, an academic school, etcetc
3. create pipelines from high schools and towns as another preference - again non elites can focus on building pipelines
4. fix hiring process to make it more feasible to step into a job that loses its human coah before the team goes totally to suckdom
5. make starts and promised time worth more - and make broken promises a bigger negative.

these steps should be rather simple - not big risk of screwing up the game.  They dont preclude the bigger changes later, but do these - soon - and I bet it would help a lot.  Have wished for these for ages.

Right after you do this and mid majors start to progress and jobs start to open, launch a marketing effort......maybe even some adverts on fox websites....

+1000

Dear metsmax:

Would you please go apply for a job at WIS HD.

Sincerely,

tooslim and the rest of the HD coaches that care about this game.


AND a second letter:

Dear seble,

PLEASE, please, a thousand times please--read the post metsmax just made and take it to heart. It is nothing personal at all--just a lot of us feel this way,

Sincerely,

tooslim and the rest of the coaches that care about HD.

Posted by zorzii on 10/3/2015 12:56:00 PM (view original):
La Salle AD: Hello, you have applied for a job at La Salle college. We would like to know when you expect to turn this program around?

The new coach : Well, it will take me four years before I can hope to battle for a one and done spot in the NT, not sure I will be getting there, but I am hopeful I will do so.

La Salle AD : What do you mean? How long before you get a winning records?

The new coach : 2 to 3 seasons, but don't expect anything else by the third season than a low PIT seed. And I need other coaches in my division to be dumbasses.

La Salle AD : And once you reach the NT, four years from now, well if you do, then what is next?

The new coach : Well, it probably will take me four more years to raise my reputation so kids start looking up La Salle, and then maybe I am getting a second round exit in the NT.

La Salle AD: So you need eight years to get a NT win?

The new coach : Well, that is if everything goes well and I don't jinx our recruiting and no other teams battle on hidden gems like me.

La Salle AD: You truly do not want this job right? Penn State called you?

The new coach : No, it's just that I am just being realistic.

La Salle AD : You don't believe in yourself coach, how can the university trust you to turn this program around...

The new coach : At least, I am honest.

La Salle AD: Sorry, but will go in another direction. We prefer to get a SIM AI. No pressure, no nothing.

Hilarious and very true zorzii. I sent you a sitemail.

Ok, I've seen this come up a few times in the last few posts here and I'm really just curious why so many think that firings are such a strong priority to fixing this game.  I don't disagree that hiring and firing are broken and need to be fixed, but why should this be such a high priority?

I guess for me to understand this argument I'm wondering who exactly anyone thinks is going to be fired if we ramp up the process?  Increasing the firings isn't suddenly going to open up the high prestige jobs where coaches win every year.  Those users aren't in jeopardy so what gets accomplished?  The Big 6 Iowa job in Crum has been a SIM for going on seven seasons now because no one wants it. Should we really start firing more of the under performing Big 6 coaches and open up more of these jobs that few people want if we don't first address the imbalances that cause these schools to perpetually under perform?  

I think there are many ideas floating about as to how we can reduce the existing imbalances - fix recruit gen, add texture, overhaul the game - my point here isn't to debate how the game gets fixed, there are pluses and minuses to all of them and some more than others. But until the imbalances are addressed - and coaches have a fair chance to impact their teams it seems premature to talk about ramping up the firings.

yeah, the game is totally skewed towards the top tier of d1. its been that way for a long time, ever since the recruit gen changes. when i started this game, it was pre-potential, but potential came out while i was just barely getting started in d1. i can't imagine today, trying my hardest, being able to move up nearly as quickly as i did then. my d1 path went like this: first 4 seasons, at c- steven f austin: 4 NT1 losses (2 low end at large bigs, 2 CT only bids), grew to c+/b-. made a total mess of recruiting like everyone else. moved to C colorado. missed the post season, made the PIT, then, went 34-1 winning the national championship, having recruited exactly 1 elite player in my career (who was a soph backup on the team). the guys i won with were mediocre enough that the last coach probably would have missed the NT with them, but good enough to compete with the big boys (we were probably slightly outside of the top 25 by talent).

back then, the difference between the good and great teams in terms of talent wasn't a giant chasm. at the time, d1 was coined "coin flip dynasty" because so many teams were so good, evidenced by the fact that a C prestige team with players i didn't even recruit, was talented enough to have a dominant season, yet could still be easily coached out of the NT. i feel bad because i was one of the folks who said elite players would be a good idea - but i didn't mean 15 teams full - and always asked for national recruiting on said elite players. the idea was to lower the talent pool and leave some really good players that would be so good people would have to fight over them, which necessarily required nationalized recruiting or something similar. but having 50 teams who were talented enough win a title (albeit probably not built for it, team composition wise, that was the thing people really sucked at then because practice planning was reduced and potential meant you had to plan ahead, nobody was ready for that), anyway having 50 teams like that in a given season, that probably was taking it too far. i loved it, i was a great coach, a **** recruiter, so that version of the game fit me like a glove. but i think a happy medium between then and now is necessary.

by the way, because prestige, bonus money, etc, meant so little back then, in terms of how it impacted low BCS and mid major's ability to compete, thats why i don't support totally abolishing those things, and why i don't agree they are the root problem. recruit gen was extremely generous to the mid majors then, too much so, probably moving recruit gen to favor the big boys moderately while moderately pushing back the advantages of prestige and bonus money, would be the nice happy medium.

edit: that is moving from then. from here, recruit gen would obviously have to be slid back to be more equitable...

Posted by possumfiend on 10/3/2015 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Ok, I've seen this come up a few times in the last few posts here and I'm really just curious why so many think that firings are such a strong priority to fixing this game.  I don't disagree that hiring and firing are broken and need to be fixed, but why should this be such a high priority?

I guess for me to understand this argument I'm wondering who exactly anyone thinks is going to be fired if we ramp up the process?  Increasing the firings isn't suddenly going to open up the high prestige jobs where coaches win every year.  Those users aren't in jeopardy so what gets accomplished?  The Big 6 Iowa job in Crum has been a SIM for going on seven seasons now because no one wants it. Should we really start firing more of the under performing Big 6 coaches and open up more of these jobs that few people want if we don't first address the imbalances that cause these schools to perpetually under perform?  

I think there are many ideas floating about as to how we can reduce the existing imbalances - fix recruit gen, add texture, overhaul the game - my point here isn't to debate how the game gets fixed, there are pluses and minuses to all of them and some more than others. But until the imbalances are addressed - and coaches have a fair chance to impact their teams it seems premature to talk about ramping up the firings.

Because their a bunch of coaches in Big 6 jobs who don't really seem to know what they are doing.  This makes it harder for upcoming D1 coaches to even attempt big 6 jobs.

I'm not moving up to Big 6 yet in Knight but expect to move to a big 6 job within 4 seasons, but looking at the outlook their are so few jobs currently open(minus anyone leaving or miraculously fired).

Increasing firings opens up big 6 jobs not high prestige ones(although sometimes) so that upcoming coaches can make the move to big 6 jobs and not just land the undesirable jobs that no one wants.

I'll just post some team histories(no names) and say how they "deserve" to keep their job:

Team A: Last NT bid 12 seasons ago(2 in last 20), Last PI bid 6 seasons ago, (5 current seasons of no post season) 7 seasons since last winning season.  3 players over 80 ath, 3 players over 80 def.  Maintain a C+ prestige

Team B: Last NT bid 26 seasons ago, Last PI bid 1 season ago, 4 players over 80 ath 6 players over 80 def. Maintaining a B- prestige

Team C: Last NT bid 8 seasons ago(3 in the last 20), Last PI bid 4 seasons ago, 5 players over 80 ath 4 players over 80 def, maintaining a C+ prestige

Team D: last NT bid 7 seasons ago(3 in last 20), last PI this season, 0 players over 80 ath 4 players over 80 def, maintaing B- prestige

Team E: last NT bid this season(1 in last 20), last PI 1 season ago(9 seasons in a row of no post season) 3 players over 80 ath 4 players over 80 def. B- prestige

There's some more questionable teams but the are the biggest.

Baselines of those schools(random order to prevent identification)

B+(somewhat difficult location), B(somewhat difficult location), A-(above average location), A-(decent location), B(good location)

Now I'm not saying anything about what I deserve or my talent level, just from an observationary point, do any of those coaches really seem to be worthy of keeping their jobs let alone having their prestige so laughably high.

Now the fact there are currently 8 open Big 6 jobs(again before what little firing happens, and teams being dropped)

From there we have
Miami(B baseline currently B) good location surprised it's been open for a few seasons
Michigan B baseline currently B+ average location, not to suprising with Michigan St, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana all being very very good around them.
Purdue B+ baseline currently C not surprising Purdue is seems to not be desirable with Indiana being so powerful next door
Missouri B baseline B- currently not a great spot to recruit from it seems like especially with a tough Iowa St and Oklahoma nearby too making midwest hard
Kansas St B baseline B- currently not surprising probably one of the worst Big 6 jobs in all of HD with its location and surrounding schools
Washington St B baseline B- currently not the greatest spot but doable,
Oregon St B baseline A- currently not the greatest but again doable location and surrounding
Mississippi B baseline B- currently not ideal again but somewhat doable.

So really anyone looking to move and having a reasonable chance of having success is looking at Miami as the best open job currently.  otherwise all the other schools are generally some of the weakest Big 6 jobs in HD overall for their location and surronding schools.

Again I'm not saying I deserve better jobs open and these people should be fired I'm just putting a point of view from a coach hoping to move to Big 6 in ~4 seasons.


I also think another thing that can be done is to limit PI bids to Big 6 programs, a lot of schools mentioned as well as in general seem to stay there and keep a solid prestige on just PI bids.  I missed the PI this season(101 on PR) with a 19-9 at the time 68 rpi 98 sos (now 75 107 from the change of post season results)  But it was hilarious the programs making it in the PI, Big 6 schools with 90-100 rpi and 60-80 rpi and barely winning records 13-14 15-12 etc.  It's clearly skewed when I had a much better resume.  And while I probably drop to a C- from no post season these schools move up a bit do to their bs PI bid.

theonly... you are leaving off one of the most important metrics, which is not surprising, because its almost definitely was sunk your season. what was your and their records vs the top 25, 50, 75, 100? those are huge factors and should be. i suspect your team has crap numbers there and is being punished for it, which i would support.

generally, if you are going to argue that the projection report is broken, i think you are going to find a tough crowd. its extremely hard to make something like the projection report excellent, and when seble redid it, he greatly improved the system over the old one, and brought it up to a level of quality that i was genuinely surprised by. there are a plethora of problems in this game, but i think the projection report is fairly well liked and is easily the best construction of a ranking system in all of HD history. so you are probably being blinded by your personal experience there.

i totally agree with you on the jobs stuff though. to answer the original question, the reason firings are important is because a big limitation on upward mobility is the lack of quality jobs that open. regular BCS jobs should fire people more than once every dozen seasons per world, but even more importantly, top tier jobs should require people to actually put forth moderate success. if you are not even averaging a 2nd round at a UK, UNC, etc, you should not be there. people can keep those jobs forever on way less, and its disheartening to coaches who want to move up, to know the only way a **** coach who has their dream job will lose that job, is voluntarily. 

Posted by gillispie1 on 10/3/2015 3:12:00 PM (view original):
theonly... you are leaving off one of the most important metrics, which is not surprising, because its almost definitely was sunk your season. what was your and their records vs the top 25, 50, 75, 100? those are huge factors and should be. i suspect your team has crap numbers there and is being punished for it, which i would support.

generally, if you are going to argue that the projection report is broken, i think you are going to find a tough crowd. its extremely hard to make something like the projection report excellent, and when seble redid it, he greatly improved the system over the old one, and brought it up to a level of quality that i was genuinely surprised by. there are a plethora of problems in this game, but i think the projection report is fairly well liked and is easily the best construction of a ranking system in all of HD history. so you are probably being blinded by your personal experience there.

i totally agree with you on the jobs stuff though. to answer the original question, the reason firings are important is because a big limitation on upward mobility is the lack of quality jobs that open. regular BCS jobs should fire people more than once every dozen seasons per world, but even more importantly, top tier jobs should require people to actually put forth moderate success. if you are not even averaging a 2nd round at a UK, UNC, etc, you should not be there. people can keep those jobs forever on way less, and its disheartening to coaches who want to move up, to know the only way a **** coach who has their dream job will lose that job, is voluntarily. 

Ya I know where that hurts me since I did only play 2 Top 50 rpi team and lost both and 3-5 verse 50-100 teams.  But when I'm 20-30 spots behind teams with 1/2 top 50 wins is it that much more valuable than my better rpi/sos and w-l record?  I had this happen last season when I didn't win my CT but got a 3 seed in the PI and the teams ahead of me grabbing 15/16 seeds that didn't win their ct were schools with just better records and worse rpi/sos than I had last season.

That was just kinda a rant at the end about the PI since I understand why I didn't make it this season and why I didn't make the NT last season.  Just was pointing out another thing since I was already in rant mode that these bad big 6 teams shouldnt be rewarded with PI bids or if they are PI bids should severly hurt and not allow them to keep their undeserved jobs and a decent prestige.

My main thing was the schools with horrible track records and keeping those jobs.  Limiting the upward mobility of future Big 6 coaches 

yup, i got ya. in ****** conferences, you really have to tailor your scheduling accordingly. i guess thats always true. scheduling is up to 20% of the success of your team/program, kind of ridiculous, that 10 games can make all that difference, but it can! 

when you play a **** conference (which i assume you are from your figures), you need to be playing as many top 100 rpi teams in non conf as you can - teams you can beat. losing to a bunch of top 25 teams is roughly useless, this isn't the old game anymore where that BS worked. now you have to actually win! so play a bunch of 50-100 teams. you should win most of those, if you are really a NT caliber team. PIT teams should basically split, but if you choose your opponents carefully you can pick guys who are really worse than a 50-100 team but will happen to have a 50-100 rpi anyway.

Posted by gillispie1 on 10/3/2015 3:40:00 PM (view original):
yup, i got ya. in ****** conferences, you really have to tailor your scheduling accordingly. i guess thats always true. scheduling is up to 20% of the success of your team/program, kind of ridiculous, that 10 games can make all that difference, but it can! 

when you play a **** conference (which i assume you are from your figures), you need to be playing as many top 100 rpi teams in non conf as you can - teams you can beat. losing to a bunch of top 25 teams is roughly useless, this isn't the old game anymore where that BS worked. now you have to actually win! so play a bunch of 50-100 teams. you should win most of those, if you are really a NT caliber team. PIT teams should basically split, but if you choose your opponents carefully you can pick guys who are really worse than a 50-100 team but will happen to have a 50-100 rpi anyway.

Probably been the hardest adjustment I've had at D1 is scheduling tbh.  Can't just focus on W-L record like you can at D2/D3 since these top 50/100 wins are super important for the projection report. which has what has hurt me the most in the PR the past 2 seasons since I've not been a clear NT caliber team but a fringe NT last season and  fringe PI this time.

sorry for kinda derailing but I just wanted to put out the teams I posted even though i guess that wa kinda off topic in the first place

BINGO on your study tooslim!  I advocate more drastic change than you do, but your study clearly solidifies how broken the game is.

Its also why I advocating having each world reset after 100 seasons or so and start it over.  I think most coaches would admit that starting a new world is a very fun time. All coaches have hope of working their way up to top D1 Schools and everyone starts on even footing and races to get there.

Posted by weirdrash on 10/3/2015 4:27:00 PM (view original):
BINGO on your study tooslim!  I advocate more drastic change than you do, but your study clearly solidifies how broken the game is.

Its also why I advocating having each world reset after 100 seasons or so and start it over.  I think most coaches would admit that starting a new world is a very fun time. All coaches have hope of working their way up to top D1 Schools and everyone starts on even footing and races to get there.

And the best coaches would still end up at the elite schools and then the ********, griping, and moaning would be repeated all over again.  Not meant to be directed at you personally WR, we go way back as you know and I consider you a friend in this game.  But in this game, like many others, the cream rises to the top and with a new world it still would.  I think anyone honest with themselves knows how that movie ends.

Posted by possumfiend on 10/3/2015 2:25:00 PM (view original):
Ok, I've seen this come up a few times in the last few posts here and I'm really just curious why so many think that firings are such a strong priority to fixing this game.  I don't disagree that hiring and firing are broken and need to be fixed, but why should this be such a high priority?

I guess for me to understand this argument I'm wondering who exactly anyone thinks is going to be fired if we ramp up the process?  Increasing the firings isn't suddenly going to open up the high prestige jobs where coaches win every year.  Those users aren't in jeopardy so what gets accomplished?  The Big 6 Iowa job in Crum has been a SIM for going on seven seasons now because no one wants it. Should we really start firing more of the under performing Big 6 coaches and open up more of these jobs that few people want if we don't first address the imbalances that cause these schools to perpetually under perform?  

I think there are many ideas floating about as to how we can reduce the existing imbalances - fix recruit gen, add texture, overhaul the game - my point here isn't to debate how the game gets fixed, there are pluses and minuses to all of them and some more than others. But until the imbalances are addressed - and coaches have a fair chance to impact their teams it seems premature to talk about ramping up the firings.

Good thoughts possumfiend.

I think the firing needs to be fixed hand in hand with the hirings. Once a mid-level or upper level power 6 team gets let loose to turn into a sim if it is a B+ or above prestige--it sits empty until it decays down to a C or C- and a mid major coach can qualify for it. If it was a B+ team that can be 6 seasons or so. From my new experience in D1 if a coach  has been at a mid major school for 5 or 6 seasons and has had 2 NT seasons out of those--hestill has to have a full grade higher than a power 6 sim team to qualify for it. If a mid major coach has gotten his team to a B- level--he should qualify for most power 6 C+ teams not just C- schools.

The firings should be on a sliding scale basis in the power conferences based on baseline prestige for the team and conference. I put out on here the case of an ACC team that if I remember right had gone 8 seasons without even a PI appearance, 20 seasons without an NT appearance, hadn't won a game in conference in 4 seasons and had a winning % in conference play of 13% for the last 10 seasons and was not fired. I'm sorry but that is a broken system.

GD used to have a very harsh firing system--much tougher than I would advocate in HD. On the forums nobody seemed to complain about it. It was known going in what the general guidelines were to keep a D1 job per the level of the conference a coach was in and it was not a big deal. They also made it easy for a fired coach to get another D1 job--though not quite at the level the coach was at. IF a coach didn't want to be a part of the firing process he could play at the d1 mid major level or the D1AA level.

I don't think hiring\firing is the biggest or most crucial problem at all with the game but one that needs addressed and it seems to me that it would be a fairly easy fix for a computer programmer---though I am not a computer programmer--but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

gillispie1 makes some great points as usual--this time on the hiring\firing situation above.

theonly - I think you missed my point, which was that addressing firings before you address in the imbalance at D1 is putting the cart before the horse. I'm not arguing that firing/hiring doesn't need to be addressed and I agree there needs to be a path for coaches to rise up the ranks but I am asking why you would bother making it a priority over fixing the imbalance that exists at D1? 

"Because their a bunch of coaches in Big 6 jobs who don't really seem to know what they are doing."
I don't think this is true.  Maybe it is in some cases but I think it has more to do with other metrics in play.  I would further argue that you are just dooming the "up and coming coaches" to lackluster performances if you don't FIRST address the imbalance.  Here is the track record for the recently departed coach at A- Prestige Indiana in the Crum Big 10 (he left on his own volition this past off season after 19 seasons):

77		13-14	8-8	5-5	0-1	5-11		129	85	C+
76		17-11	11-6	5-4	1-1	6-10		119	116	B-
75		12-15	9-6	3-8	0-1	2-14		126	59	B-
74		11-17	4-6	6-10	1-1	5-11		107	58	B
73		19-9	6-3	13-5	0-1	10-6		56	84	B	PI (1st Round)
72		20-10	11-4	7-4	2-2	8-8		61	65	B+	NT At-large Bid
											NT (2nd Round)
71		12-15	9-6	3-8	0-1	4-12		122	52	B
70		14-14	3-9	11-4	0-1	7-9		84	57	B+	PI (1st Round)
69		20-10	5-5	13-3	2-2	10-6		29	29	B+	NT At-large Bid
											NT (2nd Round)
68		20-12	15-3	4-7	1-2	8-8		66	60	B+	PI (Final Four)
67		14-14	2-7	12-6	0-1	6-10		75	56	B+	PI (1st Round)
66		20-11	6-7	13-3	1-1	8-8		43	48	B+	PI (3rd Round)
65		23-6	14-2	8-2	1-2	13-3		41	73	B+	NT At-large Bid
											NT (1st Round)
64		7-20	5-9	2-10	0-1	5-11		165	35	B+
63		19-11	9-3	8-6	2-2	8-8		31	25	A-	NT At-large Bid
											NT (2nd Round)
62		16-13	6-5	9-6	1-2	9-7		39	20	B+	NT At-large Bid
											NT (1st Round)
61		21-8	9-1	11-5	1-2	11-5		32	77	B	NT At-large Bid
											NT (1st Round)
60		10-17	10-7	0-9	0-1	3-13		160	55	B
59		8-19	2-8	6-10	0-1	2-14		100	24	B+

Should he have been fired?  Maybe some would make a case for that, but I don't think you would convince many people it was because he didn't know what he was doing.  This is a guy who was interviewed in the WIS "User Interview" section within the last two years so it clearly wasn't because he didn't know what he was doing and I don't think these circumstances are unique to him.

I'm not asking for a summary of some marginal Big 6 coaching records out there, I want to understand why anyone thinks firing should be a priority over fixing the imbalances.