Posted by bathtubhippo on 10/6/2016 5:02:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't do anything too crazy at first. after the reaction to the extreme change to scouting/recruiting, i think most would agree a measure of restraint is in order for the next changes--make adjustments, then tweak/increase them as we see how they work. that said, I agree with some of the suggestions already posted:

• make firing a little more common at the very top jobs. i wouldn't tie it to a specific # of NT wins or make it super challenging (especially since there is not a shortage of good jobs right now)...but surely we can make it a little tougher than it is currently. coaches in big six leagues shouldn't be able to make one PI in 10 seasons and keep their job. we should have no firings at baseline D jobs in D1 or at D2/D3.
• make hiring easier with each subsequent job cycle. if no one applies, the school's standards should drop a little each cycle until they get a coach or reach a set lower limit that would allow for an approprsiately experienced coach to get the job (ie, an A+ prestige job might start with A+ job standards but drop to A, then B+ B, etc, down to, say, C+ job standards if no one takes the job as we reach the end of the jobs process). a 2-level job eligibility decrease (so to speak) should open access to most jobs substantially without going overboard and getting really inexperienced coaches at top jobs.

When you said "two-level," I thought I was going to totally agree with you. Then I realized you meant two letter grades and not two-thirds of a letter grade. An A+ job should keep all A- level applications or better on file until the end of the job period. They should throw C+ applications in the garbage.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 10/6/2016 5:02:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't do anything too crazy at first. after the reaction to the extreme change to scouting/recruiting, i think most would agree a measure of restraint is in order for the next changes--make adjustments, then tweak/increase them as we see how they work. that said, I agree with some of the suggestions already posted:

• make firing a little more common at the very top jobs. i wouldn't tie it to a specific # of NT wins or make it super challenging (especially since there is not a shortage of good jobs right now)...but surely we can make it a little tougher than it is currently. coaches in big six leagues shouldn't be able to make one PI in 10 seasons and keep their job. we should have no firings at baseline D jobs in D1 or at D2/D3.
• make hiring easier with each subsequent job cycle. if no one applies, the school's standards should drop a little each cycle until they get a coach or reach a set lower limit that would allow for an approprsiately experienced coach to get the job (ie, an A+ prestige job might start with A+ job standards but drop to A, then B+ B, etc, down to, say, C+ job standards if no one takes the job as we reach the end of the jobs process). a 2-level job eligibility decrease (so to speak) should open access to most jobs substantially without going overboard and getting really inexperienced coaches at top jobs.

I'm good with this direction - but please give fired coach a free season usable only in that world to encourage continued play

I say this only because I think it is wise. I'm dropping down to one team and dont know whether that will continue.

I thought the problem was that it is too difficult to change jobs. Seven years of assured tenure at a school, or "ALL" BCS schools being human coached, these suggestions seem to be against progress.

Posted by bofreedom on 10/6/2016 3:57:00 PM (view original):
I agree with everything tarvolon posted. Well thought out and well researched as usual.

I also like what piman posted. In his 3c part where he put out starting points I do think they would need to add categories for each Baseline Prestige category based on what the actual prestige was when the new coach took over.

For instance looking at the B+ Baseline Prestige. If someone took over Purdue in the Big 10 and the prestige was down to C+, that should have a different set of expectations than if someone took over Purdue and the prestige was currently at B+. Like shoe3 stated about Virginia--good luck getting 4 NT wins with Purdue in your first 5 seasons if you take them over starting at C+.

I like piman's contract idea but would probably want that first contract to be longer--7 seasons instead of 5 to take into account the first season being mostly all not your recruits. Then maybe 4 season contracts after that with certain criteria to be met. IF they do set out concrete achievements you have to have to keep your job at certain schools--it will make it MUCH easier to digest for someone who gets fired. If it is just a grey area and WIS won't tell you what the firing criteria is--it will lead to more disgruntled customers. Also if you are fired at a B+ baseline prestige school--you should automatically be qualified for any job at B baseline prestige or lower. As much as GD sucks right now--at least they have the firing and re-hiring in D1 in reasonable shape.

Thanks to the current guys at WIS for taking a look at fixing this problem that should have been fixed a LONG time ago.

About the Purdue point I agree, but again you only need to achieve one of the three criteria. So someone taking over c plus Purdue wouldn't need any national tournament wins, they would only need to get Purdue to a b minus by the end of the five years. I think five years would be enough for this but if others say seven then who am I to argue.

Posted by tarvolon on 10/6/2016 6:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bathtubhippo on 10/6/2016 5:02:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't do anything too crazy at first. after the reaction to the extreme change to scouting/recruiting, i think most would agree a measure of restraint is in order for the next changes--make adjustments, then tweak/increase them as we see how they work. that said, I agree with some of the suggestions already posted:

• make firing a little more common at the very top jobs. i wouldn't tie it to a specific # of NT wins or make it super challenging (especially since there is not a shortage of good jobs right now)...but surely we can make it a little tougher than it is currently. coaches in big six leagues shouldn't be able to make one PI in 10 seasons and keep their job. we should have no firings at baseline D jobs in D1 or at D2/D3.
• make hiring easier with each subsequent job cycle. if no one applies, the school's standards should drop a little each cycle until they get a coach or reach a set lower limit that would allow for an approprsiately experienced coach to get the job (ie, an A+ prestige job might start with A+ job standards but drop to A, then B+ B, etc, down to, say, C+ job standards if no one takes the job as we reach the end of the jobs process). a 2-level job eligibility decrease (so to speak) should open access to most jobs substantially without going overboard and getting really inexperienced coaches at top jobs.

When you said "two-level," I thought I was going to totally agree with you. Then I realized you meant two letter grades and not two-thirds of a letter grade. An A+ job should keep all A- level applications or better on file until the end of the job period. They should throw C+ applications in the garbage.

so you'd rather have an "A+ job" go sim than go to a "C+ application" in the last job cycle? I would assume a great job wouldn't go that far, but it might right now since there are a decent number of vacancies. I just think it's sad to see well-built programs have to decline with terrible sim-signed recruits before anyone qualifies.

@mets: totally agree about the free season.

Posted by bathtubhippo on 10/6/2016 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/6/2016 6:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bathtubhippo on 10/6/2016 5:02:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't do anything too crazy at first. after the reaction to the extreme change to scouting/recruiting, i think most would agree a measure of restraint is in order for the next changes--make adjustments, then tweak/increase them as we see how they work. that said, I agree with some of the suggestions already posted:

• make firing a little more common at the very top jobs. i wouldn't tie it to a specific # of NT wins or make it super challenging (especially since there is not a shortage of good jobs right now)...but surely we can make it a little tougher than it is currently. coaches in big six leagues shouldn't be able to make one PI in 10 seasons and keep their job. we should have no firings at baseline D jobs in D1 or at D2/D3.
• make hiring easier with each subsequent job cycle. if no one applies, the school's standards should drop a little each cycle until they get a coach or reach a set lower limit that would allow for an approprsiately experienced coach to get the job (ie, an A+ prestige job might start with A+ job standards but drop to A, then B+ B, etc, down to, say, C+ job standards if no one takes the job as we reach the end of the jobs process). a 2-level job eligibility decrease (so to speak) should open access to most jobs substantially without going overboard and getting really inexperienced coaches at top jobs.

When you said "two-level," I thought I was going to totally agree with you. Then I realized you meant two letter grades and not two-thirds of a letter grade. An A+ job should keep all A- level applications or better on file until the end of the job period. They should throw C+ applications in the garbage.

so you'd rather have an "A+ job" go sim than go to a "C+ application" in the last job cycle? I would assume a great job wouldn't go that far, but it might right now since there are a decent number of vacancies. I just think it's sad to see well-built programs have to decline with terrible sim-signed recruits before anyone qualifies.

@mets: totally agree about the free season.

I hate seeing them go sim too, but you've gotta have a balance between making the requirements low enough that somebody qualifies and making the requirements so low that somebody massively underqualified can get the job. Holding applications that are within two-thirds of a letter grade (or even a full letter grade) until the end of the jobs process is a decent balance. Two letter grades is too much--you don't want people who have never won an NT game landing the A+ jobs.

I think a full letter grade is about right. That would have made the coach of Oral Roberts eligible to possibly coach an A+ team following the Elite 8 run a few seasons back, right?

I could be wrong, but just thinking of my own experience, I really don't think "C+" level D1 jobs ever really open to people who have never won an NT game. I could definitely be wrong about that though. At the same time, I think there are lots of coaches that take on rebuild situations and get a couple dud seasons on their resume turning it around, and the stink of those seasons lasts a long, long time before you can qualify for "A+" jobs.

Still, one letter grade might be appropriate, simply because "B" level jobs would drop to "D" under my idea. But I would still want an unqualified human over a sim at any job except the most elite jobs (that someone might want next season), so I don't know....

As a guy that likes to coach mid majors more than in a Big 6 conference, I can say that the thing that needs to go is baseline prestige. This is supposed to be "whatif", so let us really create those "whatif" moments in the game. I'm not suggesting that San Francisco should be an A+ prestige, but allow them the opportunity to raise their prestige if they go on a run of consecutive NT appearances. Let them create a little buzz for the program. Miss the post season, the buzz dies down. Let the prestige move as the program does, but get rid of the restriction of the baseline. And that can be reversed for some of the Big 6 schools too. Not all Big 6 schools are powerhouses, so they shouldn't all be sitting at B+ or better.

For coaching changes, I agree with pretty much everything Tarvolon has posted. He's studied it a lot and has made some great suggestions.

I used to play NCAA Football on console a lot and one of the best aspects of that was the contracts that you signed. Some might be 3 years, some might be 6. You might have to make a bowl game or raise the offense, or finish in the top half of the league. It was all based on the team you were taking over.

Posted by shoe3 on 10/6/2016 11:21:00 PM (view original):
I think a full letter grade is about right. That would have made the coach of Oral Roberts eligible to possibly coach an A+ team following the Elite 8 run a few seasons back, right?

That was me, and sadly, I don't remember what I was qualified for at that time. However, I was qualified for A- jobs after three straight second round exits and the Elite Eight run lurking back in my ten-season window. So 2/3 letter grade would've gotten me up to A+ jobs in that case

Posted by bathtubhippo on 10/7/2016 6:38:00 AM (view original):
I could be wrong, but just thinking of my own experience, I really don't think "C+" level D1 jobs ever really open to people who have never won an NT game. I could definitely be wrong about that though. At the same time, I think there are lots of coaches that take on rebuild situations and get a couple dud seasons on their resume turning it around, and the stink of those seasons lasts a long, long time before you can qualify for "A+" jobs.

Still, one letter grade might be appropriate, simply because "B" level jobs would drop to "D" under my idea. But I would still want an unqualified human over a sim at any job except the most elite jobs (that someone might want next season), so I don't know....

I've been keeping track, and I've seen B- jobs go to coaches that have never won an NT game (on multiple occasions). I don't remember what the worst resume I've seen get a B job is--I'll have to look

For me, I agree with the transparency being provided of what it will take to get a job and to keep a job.

I think each of us would say when we decided to give this game a try our goal would be to coach our favorite D1 level team. My son introduced me to the game and explained the deatails of starting at d3 and working up. Ok, I'm good with that. A challenge! However, when signing up I didn't put much consideration into the different worlds and whether the job was already filled,etc. Of course in the original world I signed up to play with my son the job was filled and still is. No big deal I enjoy the game so I sign up for other worlds. However, the requirements aren't available so no one really knows what it takes to earn a job - personal case, just happened to me in Wooden. Been in that world for nine seasons total, four now at low D1. Took a D- school to B- with the last two years being a NT berth and PI championship game trip (lost). My resume has NT trips, COY awards, conference and CT championships, etc. I applied for my dream big 6 school also B- and was rejected for lack of success. I opened a support ticket to see why. The response was not only lack of success but also lack of experience. I really thought the success should have been plenty; however my recent focus has been on the answer that I lacked experience. 9 seasons of HD isn't enough? If I have the math right that is well over a year of playing in real time. I realize it's a process and challenge and shouldn't just be handed to anyone but how many seasons are required? 10? 11? At least a year, 1 1/2, 2 years of playing before I qualify? If I had known that I may have never started! Shouldn't the results of your teams be the MAIN criteria? Some real life coaches do move up the ranks rather quickly based on their results. So, yes, I understand this is a business making money so by requiring more years of experience they can make more money but it's now a very, very frustrating situation for me so I'm cutting teams and considering how much longer I'll play. My goal is to coach my favorite team. It was open and I was rejected. Why? It may not be open by the time I have enough experience or 'success' (measured how exactly?). Obviously there are going to be some tough years taking over a D- D1 team.

SO I think instead of just measuring success based on NT trips, wins, etc a HUGE portion of the 'success' equation should be improvement from prior years.

If you do get selected, possibly too quickly in some people's opinion, your first contract should be on the shorter side -say 3 seasons to meet some goals required by that school. If you cant handle it then you lose the job...

Anyway, I guess I just needed to vent after just having this happen and then seeing this post was a perfect storm.

Improve the process with transparent goals and requirements and don't require a thousand years experience 'just because we want your money'. Let my success be the main criteria!

Posted by vandydave on 10/6/2016 4:42:00 PM (view original):
contracts with minimum win/appearance numbers in the NT seem like a disincentive to take a low level big 6 program, regardless of any other factors. especially because you are no longer getting conference money from NT success, it's like all the challenges of a big conference with few of the rewards.

Contracts for worse teams would not be based on wins, but building the program.

1. Concur with most of the suggestions and think piman had great concepts. Firing is critical as is allowing the best applicant in to Big 6 jobs.

2. Do nothing here until you fix the interface between job changes and 3.0. That is a massive incentive to stay out.

3. Same goes for EEs. A big EE group will cripple a program now for multiple seasons. Will make it hard to maintain an A+ program.

4. Fire Spud and restrict him to the world that has no Forum access. PLEASE.

Yeah, because he isn't afraid to voice disagreement with ideas he considers bad for the game. Who wants to hear that?