Based off of baseline prestige they should have a certain gradual scale of intensity.

D- to D+ Baseline Prestige - Similar to D2/D3 however you can actually lose your job, I would say no post season appearances in 10 seasons and you lose your job. This allows people to get into D1 and give it a shot however if you don't have success you will make an exit, these jobs are not difficult to come by so we don't need to be to crazy here.
C- to C+ Baseline Prestige - Much more tough with improvement somewhat expected, implementing expectations of maintaining prestige within 4 seasons or improving it. If Prestige drops in 4 seasons from the start firing will happen, further adding expectation of postseason appearance every 10 seasons. This is not hard by any means as you should be improving teams with your own recruits anyways if you make it to this level.
B- to B+ Baseline Prestige - NT Appearance required every 4 or 5 seasons and improvement on prestige within 5 seasons. I push the prestige improvement to 5 seasons as by they 4-5 season it should be your recruits. If you takeover this team with a C prestige (remember baseline is for example a B+) you should be able to improve it by the 4-5 season and make the NT at some point.
A- to A+ Baseline Prestige - Maintain at least an A- Prestige every season or make the post season every other season. These do not kick in until the team reaches A- Prestige just in case someone takes over a tragedy like UCONN. However it is expected by the 5th season that the post season is made every other season. This give the coach time to build but then once there recruits are in they should be consistently competing, if they aren't they will be out.

This is a rough draft I threw together, allows people to get into D1 and learn or leave.

A couple of years ago, I took about a 4-6 week break from WIS dealing with some real life issues. My teams looked pretty bad when I returned. These things happen, and it would be difficult for WIS to initiate a firing program for something like this.

But this could also be just retribution for the UCONN women cheating their way to championships.

Posted by skinndogg on 3/13/2017 3:27:00 PM (view original):
A couple of years ago, I took about a 4-6 week break from WIS dealing with some real life issues. My teams looked pretty bad when I returned. These things happen, and it would be difficult for WIS to initiate a firing program for something like this.

But this could also be just retribution for the UCONN women cheating their way to championships.

That makes sense but either way I don't think anyone should be able to sit on a team with a baseline prestige of B or higher. Especially if it is a A- or higher. It would be cool if there was a function called "leave" where a coach can drop out of a job and not lose his credentials and have to start over. So if a coach took a "leave" he could apply for A+ schools again when he returns. He left on life reasons and not because he went AFK.

Once high D1 is close to full again, firings will have a place. As it stands, it makes zero business sense to increase firings of paying customers. There is no set timetable on how long it takes to be competitive, threading the needle as a C team in an A conference requires a whole lot of recruiting luck, and until you get it, you won't compete. Giving those guys a free season isn't going to cut it. Fire them, they're gone. And the team will just sit there as simAI until the next sucker comes along. Taking over a doormat in a Big 6 conference is as hard as it's ever been, with no conference cash to help anymore. Firing guys willing to put up with (and PAY FOR) the inevitable losing seasons that will follow would be a disaster for the game.

In this case he needs to be fired/removed. He is not playing at all, its obvious and is sitting on 2 A+ baseline teams. SIM AI is even better than the MIA zooeydog.

All players on both teams are signed by SIM. He's not playing. He might be dead. It's the auto-renewal process. Depending on how many credits he has, he'll be gone soon enough.

If either team was SIM AI they would actually put effort into recruiting the entire time and could potentially get some solid players. Because there is technically a user there, although not playing that is not the case.

And yes I know it is auto renewal.

Any way you shake it, firings should be more strict. Even if its at the top echelon, we can't assume the people in these roles are new players. It takes 1 season D3 and potentially 4 seasons D2 and then a few seasons D1 to get to that level. That is also counting a fast track cherry picker record. So we are talking 7-8 seasons to have a fast track for A baseline team (realistically is near impossible pace). You cannot assume that the coach was new and won't come back, he played, and competed that long to get to that position. A firing at that level won't hurt his ego or whatever we are suggesting it will hurt. 8 seasons in whatif at 1.5 months per season (1 game a day) equals to 12 months. That is 1 year of playing to get to that position, if they don't perform at that level, they should expect to be fired.

I can assume it. I already detailed why. When a user misses a minimum win rule in my HBD worlds, they don't just grab another team. They play with one less team.

It's nothing about ego. It's about building a team and having that team taken away from you. It's similar to losing EE and being unable to recover. Except you're losing your team not the ability to compete for a title next season..

Firings are the worst idea ever. Last resort. It should be so difficult to be fired that you almost have to try. But, if it has to be done, there should be buzzers, whistles and bells BEFORE a user takes a team where he could be fired. That way, he absolutely knows it's possible.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/13/2017 4:39:00 PM (view original):
I can assume it. I already detailed why. When a user misses a minimum win rule in my HBD worlds, they don't just grab another team. They play with one less team.

It's nothing about ego. It's about building a team and having that team taken away from you. It's similar to losing EE and being unable to recover. Except you're losing your team not the ability to compete for a title next season..

Firings are the worst idea ever. Last resort. It should be so difficult to be fired that you almost have to try. But, if it has to be done, there should be buzzers, whistles and bells BEFORE a user takes a team where he could be fired. That way, he absolutely knows it's possible.

So firings in HD are the worst things ever, but a MWR in HBD is not?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/13/2017 4:39:00 PM (view original):
I can assume it. I already detailed why. When a user misses a minimum win rule in my HBD worlds, they don't just grab another team. They play with one less team.

It's nothing about ego. It's about building a team and having that team taken away from you. It's similar to losing EE and being unable to recover. Except you're losing your team not the ability to compete for a title next season..

Firings are the worst idea ever. Last resort. It should be so difficult to be fired that you almost have to try. But, if it has to be done, there should be buzzers, whistles and bells BEFORE a user takes a team where he could be fired. That way, he absolutely knows it's possible.

Yes of course there should be bells and whistles. I think a coaches hot seat board like the draft big board should be made. Detailing likelihood of firing happening, it happens in the real world and it can give other coaches a heads up. I know I watch too see what coaches may be on the outs. It would also be nice if we could highlight that we are leaving, I know ahead of time if I'm looking to make a move. This could be put on a coaches board, so you can see moves happening before they do.

I can agree somewhat that we don't need to get harsh on firing but its amazing how far some coaches drive teams down. The firing system for D1 is way to easy going. You have to admit that...

MWR is to prevent teams from tanking to have better access to more elite commodities, and is a consensual arrangement in a league that employs it. In this case, petition WIS to look into it, if it's affecting the conference. No reason to put paying customers at risk to address ghost-shipping.

Posted by pkoopman on 3/13/2017 4:51:00 PM (view original):
MWR is to prevent teams from tanking to have better access to more elite commodities, and is a consensual arrangement in a league that employs it. In this case, petition WIS to look into it, if it's affecting the conference. No reason to put paying customers at risk to address ghost-shipping.

excuse my ignorance, what is MWR

Minimum Win Requirement

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/13/2017 4:39:00 PM (view original):
I can assume it. I already detailed why. When a user misses a minimum win rule in my HBD worlds, they don't just grab another team. They play with one less team.

It's nothing about ego. It's about building a team and having that team taken away from you. It's similar to losing EE and being unable to recover. Except you're losing your team not the ability to compete for a title next season..

Firings are the worst idea ever. Last resort. It should be so difficult to be fired that you almost have to try. But, if it has to be done, there should be buzzers, whistles and bells BEFORE a user takes a team where he could be fired. That way, he absolutely knows it's possible.

"firings are the worst idea ever"

I feel the same way about term limits.