The next set of changes are coming to HD, and these set of changes will be focused on the job process.

Before we get started we would like to hear your thoughts or concerns on the current issues that you see exist, so that we can get a better feel on what needs extra look at. This can be anything from the firing logic, to the logic to determine if you are qualified or not for a job, or anything else that is related to the job process.

Please keep this thread strictly on these concerns only.
Thank you.

I think both hiring and firing could be more dynamic. Relative to baseline prestige (which I assume is still operating), teams should have varying degrees of patience for losing. Maybe a minimum 5 year grace period to get on track; perhaps a bit longer based on how low actual prestige is when you take the job. Related, high baseline teams shouldn't just slide into terribleness because no one is "qualified" for them, or no one who is qualified wants to change teams.

The idea I thought would be fun is for coaches, at the end of a season, to be able to take a small (maybe half letter grade) loyalty hit to put their name in the hat, to test the waters. Then the sim evaluates the coach record of everyone who submits (the "coaching carousel"), and you are pooled into sub-groups relative to who is testing the waters. So if you're coming off a D2 championship, or making the Sweet 16 with a mid-major, you could find yourself in that top pool of candidates for the vacant high prestige jobs. Maybe enforce minimum season requirements (5 seasons for a D1 job, for example, maybe 10 for a Big 6 job) because you maybe don't want 2nd year coaches taking over Duke just because no one else is testing the waters.

Also, how about a "Hall of Fame"? With the stipulation that you have to "retire" to qualify, of course being able to start over again at D3.

Simple fixes first. Make laterals within low D1 easier. Make it easier to move from D2 to D1, few coaches sign up dreaming of a long D2 career. Turn up firings at every level.

Do not use the RNG for any facet of this process.

I urge that firings be ramped up. Mitigate fallout by giving any fired coach a free season usable ONLY in the world in which he was fired.

Hiring logic should relax the criteria for hires especially at BCS schools if a school doesnt get a qualified application early in the jobs cycle. As closing time approaches, the criteria should get a notch or two lower.

1. Firing needs to happen waaaaaay more often, especially at high baseline schools. The firing logic is definitely a lot worse than the hiring logic (although both could be improved).

2. The current hiring logic significantly overrates longevity/consistency and underrates top-level performance. I've been keeping track of the hiring logic for a little while now (just marking what I'm qualified for after every season and marking down the resume that earned it). I've seen someone get a B- BCS job with a four-season resume consisting of three NT first round exits and a ten season resume of four NT 1sts and five PITs (two second round PITs, three first round exits). On the other hand, I've had teams that weren't qualified for B- jobs coming off a D1 top ten finish and Sweet Sixteen run (four season resume: S16, NT 1st, nothing, PIT 1st; nine season D1 resume: one S16, one NT 2nd, one NT 1st, one PIT 1st). Clearly, the latter resume has more top-end power and a better four-season resume, but lack of longevity is holding it back. This, I think, is unrealistic. You build a mid-major into a top ten/Sweet Sixteen team in real life, you're getting good job openings, even if you don't have a track record of making the NT year in and year out for multiple seasons.

3. Related to #2, the current system doesn't really give any grace for taking on rebuilds. The second resume I listed had only been at D1 for nine seasons. The first three seasons were spent trying to build a terrible team into a decent team. This was followed by six seasons that involved four postseason appearances and three NT wins. That's a pretty good run at low D1, but those three rebuild seasons in the ten-season window really drug the resume down. Similarly, as most everyone who's taken over a BCS rebuild can tell you, your resume absolutely tanks in your first season or two of a rebuild. It would be nice to have something where the first couple seasons at a new job are significant de-weighted.

4. We need to revamp how "longshot" jobs are treated. The concept of having longshot jobs is wonderful. But right now, applying to a longshot job basically means hoping the RNG comes out in your favor. If it doesn't, you're rejected within a couple hours. How it should work, is that if you apply to a longshot job, they keep your resume on file until the end of the jobs process (at which point, they start getting more desperate) and then give you the job if no one more qualified applies. Their standards should relax slightly (only slightly, mind you--from "qualified" to "longshot," not "qualified" to "not qualified") as they go longer without a successful application. This is a pretty simple change that makes it less likely for good jobs to be tanked by sims before a human has a chance to take them over. As long as the firing logic is changed, so that subpar humans can't keep good jobs indefinitely, this would be a massively beneficial change.

5. Make it easier to make lateral moves at low baseline schools. A D baseline school that has gotten up to B- after four straight first round exits isn't in a position to be THAT picky about who they hire. Should they demand a coach with some success? Absolutely. Should they turn up their nose at a guy with only a couple NT berths in the last four seasons? Probably not.

1. Be more transparent as far as how owners qualify for certain schools. Instead of being rejected with a "we're looking for more consistent success at this level", actually spell out what is required. "Qualify for 3 NT's, or 2 NT's and 1 PT, and maintain a school prestige at least equal to the school that you're interested in"... or something like that.

2. Add a feature where some schools recruit coaches. Maybe from school geographically close to you. You'd get an email from a half-dozen schools during the season, and maybe they'd tell you what their minimum success expectations are if hired.

3. This might be tough... allow schools to accept or reject owners based on factors like GPA for the Ivy League and the Patriot or whatever.

At mid-upper D1 - Make prestige more fluid based upon coaching success or lack thereof, which will then impact a coach's ability to recruit and thus impact future results rather than allowing to be mired in a "just enough success to not get fired" mentality, and then ramp up firings.

+1 on first seasons of rebuild being deweighted. Especially now that you can't even recruit your own guys until season 2, rebuilds are going to be longer and harder.

Take out reputation loss for rescinding Sim players OR players
recruited in the first two years of a coach being at a specific school.

The largest issue is the low-D1 trap. Coaches could get caught in a conference for multiple seasons unable to be considered for other jobs. That might be a combination of the "loyalty" preference or "success" requirements not being scaled to a coaches' outperforming the schools recent history. The net effect being that moving DII to, say Campbell, could lead to a 10 season trap before a coach could move up again. That is discouraging and excessive.

Second, although it doesn't matter at the moment, Top tier jobs used to be unavailable. Coaches join the game at D3, play for 1 to 2 years with good success and their dream job at BCS level never comes open...even when a coach is wildly under-performing (e.g. UNC failing to make the NT several seasons in a row). Those positions will need to have firings somewhat more frequently for poor performance.

Moreover -- Stop firing the coach at Campbell (or whatever low-D1 school!) Tie the likelihood of firings to baseline prestige/conference prestige! That brings up the other issue...update baseline prestige.

"The next set of changes are coming to HD, and these set of changes will be focused on the job process."

First of all thank you for this. Thank you for both undertaking this area of change and for letting us know and seeking input.

The main problem with the current job process is how constipated it is, for momentary lack of a better descriptor. So, the objective is to create more circulation of coaches through the ranks without creating changes that make it too easy to entrench at the top (that was a severe problem in HD 2.0) while creating a logical path for qualified coaches to advance somewhat more readily. That is a balance that you might want to approach in small steps, since it will obviously involve both hiring and firing.

Some specifics worth consideration:
(1) There is nothing wrong with a small number of openings at every level and in every conference; to fail to maintain some openings simply recreates problem constipation of jobs. If you are to maintain circulation then there have to be openings into which a coach can move. Even the big 6 conferences need not be full, though obviously the openings should be few at that level.
(2) Communication, communication, communication! Putting this out for public comment as you have is a great first step. Communication is a plus throughout the process. And once changes are implemented, there should be prompts built in to the firing and hiring processes giving a clear idea of where a coach stands, perhaps even near-specifics about what it will take to qualify for a job and what it will take to avoid being fired. It should always be clear that these decisions are not set in stone, either, but happen according to some carefully defined probabilities. Simmie's tips and emails from the AD are likely media for this.
(3) shoe3's suggestion above about a "Coaching Hall of Fame" is a great idea. I would go so far as to consider enforced retirements after careers of 40 to 50 seasons or so, again with clear communication over a period of time leading up to the grand day.
(4) Another great suggestion above is tarvolon's suggestion of "grace for taking on rebuilds." If you create a greater circulation of coaches you don't want to force some of them into a painful process.

Is there any downside to creating more circulation of coaches? You bet there is, especially with greater long distance recruiting that we have in HD 3.0. It is time to strictly enforce a one-team-per-world rule. Moving around in jobs more quickly and easily must not become an easier path to outright cheating. Your current (rarely enforced) guideline of 1000 miles has become meaningless in HD 3.0.

Thanks again for the opportunity to comment, and best of luck with this enterprise.

My 2 cents:

I have long been in the camp of firing needs to be ramped up, but sort of want to see recruiting 3.0 play out before such a change is made. With the added randomness of recruiting ramped up firing logic might not be the best solution. Not saying it isn't, I just think we need to see how things play out.

I really dislike the idea of forced retirement. Just like Coach K or Jimmy B, you coach for as long as you like. It's your job for life if you're performance is up to snuff.

Posted by fd343ny on 10/6/2016 11:24:00 AM (view original):
I urge that firings be ramped up. Mitigate fallout by giving any fired coach a free season usable ONLY in the world in which he was fired.

Hiring logic should relax the criteria for hires especially at BCS schools if a school doesnt get a qualified application early in the jobs cycle. As closing time approaches, the criteria should get a notch or two lower.

Completely agree with all of these recommendations. Almost any human coach is much better than a SIM AI WRT not killing a team.

Also, not all schools should have the same short fuse for firing, but all the very high baseline programs should certainly require more than they do now.