Posted by hughesjr on 10/6/2016 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/6/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):
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.

The problem is.. Life is not 120 seasons for Coach K. In a simulation where you simulate 10 years in one calendar year, a coach has a 'real career' in 2 or 3 calendar years. Guys camping out somewhere for 100 seasons is not good for business.

It is good for business if the coach is a good coach and your paying or having success. People love the game your suggestion hurts WIS and the coach who is successful and is a paying customer. I should not have to give up my school just because I've been playing the game for s certain amount of years work my way up to a BCS Div 1 just to lose my job. It takes good coaches too long and to hard just to give up a school that way.

Personally I think the only schools that should qualify for firings are the big six.

It's not really that bad, make it a little easier.

1) Make it so it takes a little less time.
2) Make winning in NT, not in a conf full of SIMS, worth more.
3) Longshots should go to teams that have applied on the last day.
4) If you have achieved b-, well you qualify for b- teams even b- teams bcs, if you have been playing three or more seasons.

Posted by Arfy on 10/8/2016 12:14:00 AM (view original):
Personally I think the only schools that should qualify for firings are the big six.

What about high-baseline schools like Utah, Memphis, Gonzaga?

I'd say firings for any school with baseline prestige of B-/C+ or better.

Posted by tarvolon on 10/8/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Arfy on 10/8/2016 12:14:00 AM (view original):
Personally I think the only schools that should qualify for firings are the big six.

What about high-baseline schools like Utah, Memphis, Gonzaga?

I'd say firings for any school with baseline prestige of B-/C+ or better.

Agreed.

Posted by zorzii on 10/8/2016 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/8/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Arfy on 10/8/2016 12:14:00 AM (view original):
Personally I think the only schools that should qualify for firings are the big six.

What about high-baseline schools like Utah, Memphis, Gonzaga?

I'd say firings for any school with baseline prestige of B-/C+ or better.

Agreed.

So lower prestige schools should be content with being perennial losers? How is that good for the game?

Courtesy bump for anyone who missed this last week.

Posted by kcsundevil on 10/8/2016 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 10/8/2016 11:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 10/8/2016 11:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Arfy on 10/8/2016 12:14:00 AM (view original):
Personally I think the only schools that should qualify for firings are the big six.

What about high-baseline schools like Utah, Memphis, Gonzaga?

I'd say firings for any school with baseline prestige of B-/C+ or better.

Agreed.

So lower prestige schools should be content with being perennial losers? How is that good for the game?

Sure, lower prestige schools don't expect to do more than be at or better than their baseline. You can't go below D- .. so baseline D or D+ teams can use the CURRENT logic (hardly ever get fired). I mean, sure, if you are at D- for 8 years, you get fired (I guess)

And firing should be based on the diff between your performance (not corrected for baseline) vs. the baseline. It should be easier to get canned at a A+ school than a C- school (because the expectations are different).

When you take over a team, there obviously needs to be a 3 or 4 season period before it gets really hot. Even a high baseline team should be OK for a few years if the team is getting better. But after 4 seasons, they expect at or better than baseline performance.

Posted by npb7768 on 10/6/2016 12:07:00 PM (view original):
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.

I really like #2. Have SIMS attempt to recruit coaches during the season. These would be qualified or longshot schools.This would let a coach know what level schools are available to him and what he might need to do to move up.

A lot of good thoughts and ideas being thrown around in here - so I'll just boil down a few of the points I think are most important to add some volume to them.

1) Firings for consistent performance below baseline prestige levels should definitely be turned up. However, the current process is really harsh on Big 6 rebuilds. Improvement, as far as I can tell, is given no consideration whatsoever.

2) I love the idea that the longer the openings exist, the lower their application requirements should be. I also believe that the drop should be very significant. It should be considered a highly unfavorable scenario that any team has a SIMAI coach if a human coach wanted it. At some point, any school looking to hire a coach must come to grips with the fact that they are looking in a limited talent pool and they have to take the best that they can get and must back down from whatever arbitrary standards they set at the beginning of the process.

Posted by noleaniml on 10/11/2016 12:08:00 PM (view original):
A lot of good thoughts and ideas being thrown around in here - so I'll just boil down a few of the points I think are most important to add some volume to them.

1) Firings for consistent performance below baseline prestige levels should definitely be turned up. However, the current process is really harsh on Big 6 rebuilds. Improvement, as far as I can tell, is given no consideration whatsoever.

2) I love the idea that the longer the openings exist, the lower their application requirements should be. I also believe that the drop should be very significant. It should be considered a highly unfavorable scenario that any team has a SIMAI coach if a human coach wanted it. At some point, any school looking to hire a coach must come to grips with the fact that they are looking in a limited talent pool and they have to take the best that they can get and must back down from whatever arbitrary standards they set at the beginning of the process.

2) I would agree with very slight lowering of the school's standards, but not the "very significant" lowering you suggest. Until we see otherwise, we have to take WIS at their word and believe that the number of human coaches is going to increase. It doesn't help the game if jobs become a free-for-all every season. Not only that, but any RL school will feel it has a "tradition of excellence" to uphold, and wouldn't take just any Joe Schmoe.

It will be interesting to see what WIS comes up with, as this is the area where their next upgrade will be.

SIMAI is, by definition, any Joe Schmoe. So yes, that's exactly what they end up with. Nearly any human coach is a better option.

Edit: Congrats on the first round NT win in Phelan.

Posted by noleaniml on 10/11/2016 12:40:00 PM (view original):
SIMAI is, by definition, any Joe Schmoe. So yes, that's exactly what they end up with. Nearly any human coach is a better option.

Edit: Congrats on the first round NT win in Phelan.

I agree. Almost any human coach qualified for any Div-1 is better than a SIMAI.

I would say open the SIM coached teams to anyone qualified for Div-1 .. and pick the best coach based on prestige, etc.