Posted by CoachSpud on 12/29/2016 12:37:00 PM (view original):
They don't want a coaching carousel on steroids, for obvious reasons.

So far I have managed to change jobs just fine. I don't believe it is as difficult as the whiners make it out to be.

Join or watch a BCS conference and see what happens to elite schools and excellent programs when the coach leaves. Please then come back with views on whether hirings are set at the right levels based on knowledge.

No one would urge coaching carousel on steroids. Non whiners like me have thought it was broken for years. I have - over the seasons and worlds - had my choice of DI jobs. The game would - in my opinion, based on lots of experience - be better with a lower hiring bar.

Mike - I think we're talking about two different things here. One is the larger "Progression" of moving upwards. D3>2> low D1, that in 4-5 seasons for a new coach is fine, it gives them time to learn some of the game and not be totally overwhelemed while feeling like they are progressing.

Second is the higher level D1 hiring process.

Both related, but it's long been a discussion of how that works and how difficult it is, especially coming back to the game, to get back in at D1... I mean we can use my Phelen resume as an example... when I came back no D1 would hire me? not even D-? ... There's likely a happier medium.

Posted by metsmax on 12/29/2016 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/29/2016 12:37:00 PM (view original):
They don't want a coaching carousel on steroids, for obvious reasons.

So far I have managed to change jobs just fine. I don't believe it is as difficult as the whiners make it out to be.

Join or watch a BCS conference and see what happens to elite schools and excellent programs when the coach leaves. Please then come back with views on whether hirings are set at the right levels based on knowledge.

No one would urge coaching carousel on steroids. Non whiners like me have thought it was broken for years. I have - over the seasons and worlds - had my choice of DI jobs. The game would - in my opinion, based on lots of experience - be better with a lower hiring bar.

And I'll take that one step further, when a good coach leaves a solid mid-major they have gotten to a C+/B- or better... NOBODY is EVER eligible for those jobs that would ever consider it a good move. They could do a better job of getting coaches into there IMO.

Also - I'd like to think I'm in that Non-whiners club too mets ;)

I will confess that there are things that I whine about, but not the hiring process. Nor does Z

I agree with Z. Some changes would make it user friendly.

Posted by zhawks on 12/29/2016 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 12/29/2016 10:52:00 AM (view original):
fixing the hiring process at DI would help with this issue at that level

now, when a coach leaves a power school, often no one qualifies to take over - until the team is awful for a few seasons. Thats not helpful - you get an awful SIM roster

I dont mean go overboard with this, but lowering the bar even a little would help

I was thinking of this the other day and discussing with a buddy I've gotten to know through WIS... I think they really could benefit from doing something similar to the "Big Board" they did with Early Entries.

Such a rough idea, but if they had a Hot Seat board, where they showed the coaches closer ot getting fired (I know this is a touchy subject, but this is one point where a tad more realism probably makes some sense) and something of a "Hot Prospects" Board where coaches are ranked, heck even have some fun with it and put some created simmy text "Rumors, Metsmax talking with Florida"

This is similar to the "coach carousel" idea I brought up in the thread where they solicited ideas. I think it'd add some realism AND fun to the process. Coaches would make a decision, likely the day before the job change period starts, the day after the championship games play, on whether they want to jump on the carousel. You take a slight loyalty hit, just to keep guys from doing it every year, maybe 1/3 to 2/3 of a grade, depending on the current level. All coaches who get on the carousel are ranked (the ranking should be hidden). Then those coaches who are looking for a new job can get recruited by schools with vacancies. You could get a message soliciting your application. Doesn't guarantee you get the spot, they could also be courting higher level guys, too.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/29/2016 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zhawks on 12/29/2016 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 12/29/2016 10:52:00 AM (view original):
fixing the hiring process at DI would help with this issue at that level

now, when a coach leaves a power school, often no one qualifies to take over - until the team is awful for a few seasons. Thats not helpful - you get an awful SIM roster

I dont mean go overboard with this, but lowering the bar even a little would help

I was thinking of this the other day and discussing with a buddy I've gotten to know through WIS... I think they really could benefit from doing something similar to the "Big Board" they did with Early Entries.

Such a rough idea, but if they had a Hot Seat board, where they showed the coaches closer ot getting fired (I know this is a touchy subject, but this is one point where a tad more realism probably makes some sense) and something of a "Hot Prospects" Board where coaches are ranked, heck even have some fun with it and put some created simmy text "Rumors, Metsmax talking with Florida"

This is similar to the "coach carousel" idea I brought up in the thread where they solicited ideas. I think it'd add some realism AND fun to the process. Coaches would make a decision, likely the day before the job change period starts, the day after the championship games play, on whether they want to jump on the carousel. You take a slight loyalty hit, just to keep guys from doing it every year, maybe 1/3 to 2/3 of a grade, depending on the current level. All coaches who get on the carousel are ranked (the ranking should be hidden). Then those coaches who are looking for a new job can get recruited by schools with vacancies. You could get a message soliciting your application. Doesn't guarantee you get the spot, they could also be courting higher level guys, too.

That could work, it's a large change tho. From a purely development standpoint I'd rather have them spend time fixing how coaches are valued and who is eligible for better mid majors than add fancy bells and whistles.

So, when you take over a school, you get them in period 2 in what i will call year 0.
However, some recruits are signed in period 1 year 0 that are then labelled as being signed by you. Lets call a player in this situation John Doe.
One good thing ive found is, come year 1 period 2, if you rescind John Doe's scholarship, you get all of the recruiting cash immediately, even though he is listed as being signed by you

So thats one redeeming quality - at least you arent stuck with that sim-signed player for all 4 years.

You should be able to cut ANY player when you take over a team. Not being able to cut players just signed by simmy is dumb.

Posted by rednu on 12/29/2016 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/29/2016 12:37:00 PM (view original):
They don't want a coaching carousel on steroids, for obvious reasons.

So far I have managed to change jobs just fine. I don't believe it is as difficult as the whiners make it out to be.

Of course you've managed to change jobs just fine, Spud. You only have nine seasons in the game! Your "job changes" history is progressing from D3 to D2, which is an automatic hire, and then from D2 to a low-tier D1 job at Jackson State, which is also pretty much an auto-hire if the baseline number of D2 seasons is hit, which you did. You have zero experience with the "job change" issues that people on the forum talk about.

1. Title of the thread: Please Give New Coaches SOME Power! Not "top-of-D1-coaches." Even though top-of-D1 is where most of the whining comes from.

2. I wasn't clear on this, sorry. Much of the whining is about the roster the coach assumes. Hey, you make your choice and live with it. You can see who was already recruited. I have never had a problem with the roster I inherited, nor have I had a problem with recruiting just in recruiting period 2 at a new team. If you don't like the choice you make, don't blame the game.

I simply don't believe it is remotely as difficult as the whiners make it seem.

Posted by benrudy on 12/29/2016 2:53:00 PM (view original):
So, when you take over a school, you get them in period 2 in what i will call year 0.
However, some recruits are signed in period 1 year 0 that are then labelled as being signed by you. Lets call a player in this situation John Doe.
One good thing ive found is, come year 1 period 2, if you rescind John Doe's scholarship, you get all of the recruiting cash immediately, even though he is listed as being signed by you

So thats one redeeming quality - at least you arent stuck with that sim-signed player for all 4 years.

BUT you miss out on the Scouting Money and the AP for the WHOLE YEAR of recruiting, the point that "really" matters. So that "year 0" really hurts your team all through year 0 (you don't have any chance to sign anyone with that spot, even if unlikely), year 1 (you miss out on the AP and $$ thorough the biggest portion of recruiting) and into year 2 because, now you finally get the AP back for that guy. It's basically a two year penalty unless you get lucky.

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/29/2016 5:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 12/29/2016 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 12/29/2016 12:37:00 PM (view original):
They don't want a coaching carousel on steroids, for obvious reasons.

So far I have managed to change jobs just fine. I don't believe it is as difficult as the whiners make it out to be.

Of course you've managed to change jobs just fine, Spud. You only have nine seasons in the game! Your "job changes" history is progressing from D3 to D2, which is an automatic hire, and then from D2 to a low-tier D1 job at Jackson State, which is also pretty much an auto-hire if the baseline number of D2 seasons is hit, which you did. You have zero experience with the "job change" issues that people on the forum talk about.

1. Title of the thread: Please Give New Coaches SOME Power! Not "top-of-D1-coaches." Even though top-of-D1 is where most of the whining comes from.

2. I wasn't clear on this, sorry. Much of the whining is about the roster the coach assumes. Hey, you make your choice and live with it. You can see who was already recruited. I have never had a problem with the roster I inherited, nor have I had a problem with recruiting just in recruiting period 2 at a new team. If you don't like the choice you make, don't blame the game.

I simply don't believe it is remotely as difficult as the whiners make it seem.

Not helping yourself.

You're in your third season at Jackson St. in Wooden, so none of the "rosters you've inherited" were inherited under current game conditions.

You can BELIEVE what you want. Trying to pass it off as something you've directly EXPERIENCED is something altogether different.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/29/2016 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Not being an *** but isn't the situations he stepped into the exact same as the ones being discussed?

I know it's "cool" to dismiss spud but a job change is a job change, right?

Only if you think a job change under 2.0 = a job change under 3.0.

And I think just because you say "you can see who is recruited, you know what you're getting into" is true... It doesn't solve anything... Likely you don't know the potential (which is the most important thing in recruiting). And secondly, who cares if you can see it? Just because you know doesn't mean things should be questioned and the game made better.