Posted by jcfreder on 3/5/2017 8:52:00 AM (view original):
I've always wondered why admin forces new owners to start in D3. I can only assume many to most people who join do so with an eye toward coaching a "name brand" school. Perhaps new coach retention is weak because people find it a slog to get to play as or against schools they've heard of. I understand the concept of "paying your dues" but why not let people start at a D division 1 school?

It would really kill D3.

But if D3 is really that great, why does it need to be propped up by forcing new coaches to play in it? Seems like a way to turn off new coaches. I think we all agree we need more coaches, not fewer.

I agree with you both zorzii and jcfreder. I think a compromise would be to let people move from D3 to D1 after just 1 season.

It's a backwards system really. D3 recruiting and scouting is more complicated and difficult than D1 but that's where new folks start. Doesn't really make much sense.

I agree with the fact that D3 is more difficult than D2 in terms of recruiting, but I think compared to D1 it is easier and harder. Easier because you can recruit players from D1 to D3 and in general the caliber of coaches you compete against is not as strong because that's where everyone starts. Harder because you get very limited resources.

I'd like to see a world where coaches could apply to and get hired at any school, D1 to D3, but where firings in D1 would be turned way up. So, if you got a D1 job at a bBig 6 school and were not successful, you would be fired after 3-4 seasons.

Lots of good ideas in this thread about killing D3. Not so sure what good that does, though, in the big picture.

Not a DIII issue, but add the coaches corner back to the Standings page.

Posted by poncho0091 on 3/5/2017 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 3/5/2017 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Lots of good ideas in this thread about killing D3. Not so sure what good that does, though, in the big picture.

You are the only one who is advocating killing DIII with tenure limits.

Gee, poncho, you really elevated the conversation there, as usual.

wow, someone was quick on the trigger with the report button... what could spud have said that was so bad?

Damn, it's not often something gets reported. I want to know what was said.

Well, you did it in the "Arguing ahead" thread too. Maybe you just had a "moment".

Haha yeah. I'm sure we were all heartbroken that we couldn't read what he had written.

Benis for forum moderator!

I'm about to start my 5th season of HD, 4th in D2. I began playing this game with the clear intention of getting to D1 as quickly as possible. While that's still the ultimate goal, I now find myself really enjoying D2. To the point where even if I'm eligible to apply for a D1 job after this season, I still think I may stick around at D2 for a few more seasons. It's true that at D3 I really didn't feel any connection to my team because I didn't recruit any of the guys and knowing I could bolt after 1 season made it very easy to do so. So I would suggest maybe not letting a coach leave D3 for D2 as easily as it was. Granted, I was 23-7, won COY, conference title, conference tourney, and made the NT so it's not like I had an awful season and didn't "deserve" to advance....but maybe even just making it so you have to spend at least 2 seasons at D3 would help the retention. Trust me, I never even heard of Washburn before let alone thought I'd feel an attachment to them. Now I find myself struggling to want to part with them. Just my two cents.