Based on the community's feedback we have made some adjustments to the firing logic, to make the process more dynamic and fair.

But the objectives still remain the same:

1. Create some natural (but fair) movement and turnover to prevent world stagnancy
2. Prevent coaches who underperform from hoarding elite and sought after jobs.
3. Create “potential” for users to eventually attain top dream jobs (reason many of us start playing to begin with)

As previously discussed, there are 3 specific tiers of schools that will face job scrutiny. The top tier are the most elite schools that will demand the highest level of continued success, a secondary tier that will be a little less scrutinized, and a third tier that is scrutinized the least, but still face job review. These tiers were determined solely on Baseline prestige. We have also received feedback and considered creating secondary logic to apply to all schools outside of top 3 tiers, but are leaving that off the table for now, until this logic is tried and true and objectives are met.

Before diving into logic, I want to say:
I am not against removing the last (third) tier, or toning down firings more(if possible), or removing the notion altogether. I think this was my best crack at something that would be easy to understand and attainable for *most coaches, once expectations are set. We are using the NT as a measuring stick as it is the most consistent measuring stick for success. There were many great thoughts and ideas about using conference tournament records, awards, players drafted, etc, but I think it would be very confusing and complex and if you look at the outlined teams, none would really be saved. Again, appreciate everyone’s opinion. Please look at the teams outlined in the statistics section before commenting, and if you believe many still deserve a chance to coach at those schools, help identify why and how evaluation can be tweaked. Many suggestions previously were different but would have arrived at a similar conclusion. It's easy to spook at numbers but feel like this is close to bare minimum as we can get for evaluations. Next step would be to eliminate tiers or table the desire for firings as of now. This desire for a firing process was really driven by the community, and I think would add a real interesting component to the game and keep things from getting stale. But if there isn’t an easy and understandable solution that tackles our objectives, I think it is best to table it for now.

The new proposed logic firing logic is now timeline based, where meritocracy will dictate the timeline/slack an AD will give you before evaluating your job.

Top Tier Logic:
Seasons 1-6 (no potential firing for NEW HIRED coaches)
Seasons 7+ (You will be evaluated)
Job Is Safe If Any Of Conditions Are Met:
3 NT Appearances in last 6 Seasons
2 Round 32 appearances in last 6 Seasons (2 NT Wins)
1 Round 32 Win in last 6 Seasons
1 Sweet 16 Win in last 7 Seasons
1 Elite 8 Win in last 8 Seasons
1 Final 4 Win in last 9 Seasons
1 NT CC Win in last 10 Seasons

Tier 2 Logic:
Seasons 1-6 (no potential firing for NEW HIRED coaches)
Seasons 7+ (You will be evaluated)
Job Is Safe If Any Of Conditions Are Met:
1 NT appearances in last 6 Seasons
1 Round 32 appearance in last 7 Seasons (1 NT Win)
1 Round 32 Win in last 8 Seasons
1 Sweet 16 Win in last 9 Seasons
1 Elite 8 Win in last 10 Seasons
1 Final 4 Win in last 11 Seasons
1 NT CC Win in last 12 Seasons

Tier 3 Logic:
Seasons 1-6 (no potential firing for NEW HIRED coaches)
Seasons 7+ (You will be evaluated)
Job Is Safe If Any Of Conditions Are Met:
1 NT appearances in last 7 Seasons
1 Round 32 Appearance in last 9 Seasons (1 NT Win)
1 Round 32 Win in last 10 Seasons
1 Sweet 16 Win in last 11 Seasons
1 Elite 8 Win in last 12 Seasons
1 Final 4 Win in last 13 Seasons
1 NT CC Win in last 14 Seasons


Proposed Wrinkle:
I also wanted community feedback on a thought I had about prestige adjustment on job change. That it may be somewhat realistic (for all jobs) that prestige is adjusted towards baseline when a job change happens. This could be a change upwards or downwards depending on where a team sits relative to prestige. It is the idea that a new coach coming into a struggling program might draw some excitement, or alternatively, a new coach taking on what was a dynasty might have fans and prospects tepid on the future. So a new coach taking over a A+ prestige, that is now down to a B, might see the program go to a B+. Alternatively, might see a B baseline program playing at A level go to a A- or B+ when a new coach takes over. It will factor into recruiting, but obviously current roster makeup will likely still be bad/good depending on how far above/below a team is off baseline. But the thought is a coach shouldnt suffer or benefit greatly from a previous coach's success or lack of.

Evaluation/Statistics On The Above Logic:

If logic was implemented today firings would look like:

Tier 1:
Jobs: 120, Fired:10
Teams in question:
TeamID SchoolName Name
3357 University of Kansas Wooden
3420 University of North Carolina Wooden
5350 University of Maryland Smith
5359 Michigan State University Smith
5463 Syracuse University Smith
6955 University of Kentucky Allen
7176 Syracuse University Allen
8122 Syracuse University Crum
13869 University of Illinois Phelan
13882 University of Kansas Phelan

Tier 2:
Jobs: 180, Fired:21
Teams in question:
TeamID SchoolName Name
2343 Georgia Tech Naismith
2542 University of Virginia Naismith
3252 Boston College Wooden
3500 University of Tennessee Wooden
4402 North Carolina State University Rupp
5208 University of Arkansas Smith
5293 Georgetown University Smith
5468 University of Tennessee Smith
7132 Purdue University Allen
7181 University of Tennessee Allen
7906 Georgia Tech Crum
7955 North Carolina State University Crum
8055 University of Arkansas Crum
8095 Purdue University Crum
8127 University of Tennessee Crum
11797 University of Arkansas Tarkanian
11882 Georgetown University Tarkanian
12082 Villanova University Tarkanian
12083 University of Virginia Tarkanian
13041 University of Tennessee Knight
14051 University of Virginia Phelan

Tier 3:
Jobs: 420, Fired: 30
Teams in question:
TeamID SchoolName Name
2493 University of Southern California Naismith
3243 Auburn University Wooden
3299 DePaul University Wooden
3395 Mississippi State University Wooden
4222 Arizona State University Rupp
4420 Oklahoma State University Rupp
5440 University of South Carolina Smith
5497 Virginia Tech Smith
5501 Washington State University Smith
6092 University of Oregon Iba
6125 University of South Carolina Iba
6130 University of Southern California Iba
7150 Seton Hall University Allen
7177 Temple University Allen
7204 Vanderbilt University Allen
7968 University of Notre Dame Crum
11852 University of Dayton Tarkanian
11876 Florida State University Tarkanian
12086 Virginia Tech Tarkanian
12106 Xavier University Tarkanian
12936 Mississippi State University Knight
13070 Virginia Tech Knight
13073 University of Washington Knight
13791 University of California at Berkeley Phelan
13851 University of Georgia Phelan
13904 Marquette University Phelan
13915 University of Michigan Phelan
13919 University of Mississippi Phelan
13975 Providence College Phelan
14057 University of Washington Phelan

Wrap Up: As you can see this is still quite a few firings. But outside of the numbers, I really encourage users to look at the state of some of these teams. Some teams have had the same coach for 15+ seasons and never made a NT or won a conference tournament game. There will definitely be an initial firing surge, but there are not many fringe teams (as of now). I think some of the numbers are inflated by coaches that have been there for a long time and struggled (no offense). I am always open to ideas and feedback that is why I post this here (again).

Again,
(copied from above)
I am not against removing the last (third) tier, or toning down firings more(if possible), or removing the notion altogether. I think this was my best crack at something that would be easy to understand and attainable for *most coaches, once expectations are set. We are using the NT as a measuring stick as it is the most consistent measuring stick for success. There were many great thoughts and ideas about using conference tournament records, awards, players drafted, etc, but I think it would be very confusing and complex and if you look at the outlined teams, none would really be saved. Again, appreciate everyone’s opinion. Please look at the teams outlined in the statistics section before commenting, and if you believe many still deserve a chance to coach at those schools, help identify why and how evaluation can be tweaked. Many suggestions previously were different but would have arrived at a similar conclusion. It's easy to spook at numbers but feel like this is close to bare minimum as we can get for evaluations. Next step would be to eliminate tiers or table the desire for firings as of now. This desire for a firing process was really driven by the community, and I think would add a real interesting component to the game and keep things from getting stale. But if there isn’t a easy and understandable solution that tackles our objectives, I think it is best to table it for now. Please let me know what you think, and please remember to be courteous to others.

Regards,
-Chris
WIS

--EDITED TO INCLUDE TEAMS BY TIER, THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO FIRING LOGIC--

Tier 1:
University of Arizona
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Connecticut
Duke University
University of Illinois
University of Kansas
University of Kentucky
Michigan State University
University of North Carolina
Syracuse University
University of Maryland

Tier 2:
University of Louisville
North Carolina State University
University of Oklahoma
Stanford University
Indiana University
University of Florida
Georgetown University
Georgia Tech
University of Cincinnati
Boston College
Wake Forest University
University of Wisconsin
Villanova University
University of Virginia
University of Arkansas
University of Tennessee
University of Pittsburgh
Purdue University
The Ohio State University

Tier 3:
University of Oregon
Oregon State University
Oklahoma State University
University of Notre Dame
University of Nevada-Las Vegas
Marquette University
University of Memphis
University of Miami
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Mississippi
Mississippi State University
University of Missouri
Providence College
Seton Hall University
University of South Carolina
University of Southern California
Texas A&M University
Texas Tech University
University of Texas
Temple University
St. John's University
St. Joseph's University
Arizona State University
Auburn University
University of Alabama
University of Dayton
DePaul University
University of California at Berkeley
Clemson University
Gonzaga University
University of Georgia
Florida State University
University of Iowa
Iowa State University
Louisiana State University
University of Utah
University of Washington
Washington State University
Vanderbilt University
Virginia Tech
West Virginia University
Xavier University

wow, it looks like you guys really took the time to think this one out and made some significant improvements to the plan. thanks!!

This seems much better. In my opinion, this is a bit too lenient but I am aware that I seem to be in the minority of the userbase when it comes to thinking that -- so all in all I am thrilled to see this and think this is very close to being right on the money.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time to grab some popcorn and watch users still somehow find a way to be irrationally angry about this!

Much better

Great - I support this. Not needed immediately but I think it would be helpful if you add some time of countdown to the Home pages so people know when they are at risk of being fired.

Great - I support this. Not needed immediately but I think it would be helpful if you add some time of countdown to the Home pages so people know when they are at risk of being fired.

Posted by A_B_G on 7/12/2021 2:06:00 PM (view original):
This seems much better. In my opinion, this is a bit too lenient but I am aware that I seem to be in the minority of the userbase when it comes to thinking that -- so all in all I am thrilled to see this and think this is very close to being right on the money.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time to grab some popcorn and watch users still somehow find a way to be irrationally angry about this!

My initial thoughts exactly until I saw the teams in immediate risk. That’s 10 elite programs opening up. I think that’s a really good amount TBH. People are going to be upset about being fired from a top job that took a while to get to but they really had plenty of time to prove they couldn’t cut it right now. No big deal at all - fall back to another D1 job and use it as an opportunity to learn how the division works.

Awesome adjustment, great job of listening and understanding, and I personally appreciate the response of this new admin team.

Love it! Thanks for listening!

One question tho..... it says Kansas in Wooden is a concern. I know I'm terrible there, but it's only been two seasons of terrible Haha.

I'm assuming the examples were typed up before I arrived at the school maybe?

Posted by upsetcity on 7/12/2021 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by A_B_G on 7/12/2021 2:06:00 PM (view original):
This seems much better. In my opinion, this is a bit too lenient but I am aware that I seem to be in the minority of the userbase when it comes to thinking that -- so all in all I am thrilled to see this and think this is very close to being right on the money.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time to grab some popcorn and watch users still somehow find a way to be irrationally angry about this!

My initial thoughts exactly until I saw the teams in immediate risk. That’s 10 elite programs opening up. I think that’s a really good amount TBH. People are going to be upset about being fired from a top job that took a while to get to but they really had plenty of time to prove they couldn’t cut it right now. No big deal at all - fall back to another D1 job and use it as an opportunity to learn how the division works.

Awesome adjustment, great job of listening and understanding, and I personally appreciate the response of this new admin team.

It won't be 10 elite programs every season though. Like Chris said, many of those would have been fired long ago if this system had already been in place. The first season of firings will be much larger due to needing to fire people who haven't met the criteria in the past and the ones would be normally be fired now.

Overall I love the reworked criteria. The first iteration was a bit too harsh. This version seems maybe a little too easy, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. Someone is going to complain no matter what numbers you use, but this feels like a really solid middle ground. You can always ramp up (or down) the numbers later if the goals aren't being achieved.

Just to clarify, if this ends up being the final iteration, you will be evaluated at the end of year 7 to meet one of your objectives? So new coaches basically have 7 seasons?

Posted by mlitney on 7/12/2021 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Just to clarify, if this ends up being the final iteration, you will be evaluated at the end of year 7 to meet one of your objectives? So new coaches basically have 7 seasons?

Yes, I have the same question. I think the criteria are still pretty reasonable for a coach's first 7 seasons, but could be a tad challenging if you're trying to take over a truly horrible Tier 1 school.

I also love that this removes the possibility of lame duck coaches that have no chance to stay employed. Basically, if you make the Sweet 16, no matter what tier you're in you have a job for six more seasons. Very fair.

Posted by mlitney on 7/12/2021 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Just to clarify, if this ends up being the final iteration, you will be evaluated at the end of year 7 to meet one of your objectives? So new coaches basically have 7 seasons?

That's how I am reading it.

Upon the initial read, this is much better. And it looks like most of the concerns in the thread were addressed. Awesome.

Also, since it wasn't posted in the initial message, here's a reminder of the initial tiers that had been presented. I assume no changes were made to the tiering:

Tier 1:
Arizona
UCLA
UConn
Duke
Illinois
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan State
UNC
Syracuse
Maryland

Tier 2:
NC State
Oklahoma
Stanford
Indiana
Florida
Georgetown
Georgia Tech
Cincinnati
Boston College
Wake Forest
Wisconsin
Villanova
Virginia
Arkansas
Tennessee
Pittsburgh
Purdue
Ohio State University

Tier 3:
Oregon
Oregon State
Oklahoma State
Notre Dame
UNLV
Marquette
Memphis
Miami
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Missouri
Providence
Seton Hall
South Carolina
University of Southern California (USC)
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Texas
Temple
St. John’s
St. Joseph’s
Arizona State University
Auburn
Alabama
Dayton
Depaul
Cal
Clemson
Gonzaga
Georgia
Florida State
Iowa
Iowa State
LSU
Utah
Washington
Washington State
Vanderbilt
Virginia Tech
West Virginia
Xavier

Another suggestion, if it's not too late. Could you count a PIT championship as an NT appearance (1st round exit)? That would give teams another way to meet their goals while making the PIT somewhat exciting. It gives all those PIT teams something to play for. Isn't the PIT championship worth about the same as an NT 1st round exit for prestige calculation?