And the February timeframe might not work out as well.

It would be really cool if the devs created some sort of roadmap with a vague idea of what they're working on and the associated timelines. Nothing promised or written in stone, but just an idea of what's going on behind the scenes.

We've haven't had nearly the amount of interaction after Adam left. I enjoyed him participating in the forums and discord.

Posted by mlitney on 2/22/2022 4:25:00 PM (view original):
And the February timeframe might not work out as well.

It would be really cool if the devs created some sort of roadmap with a vague idea of what they're working on and the associated timelines. Nothing promised or written in stone, but just an idea of what's going on behind the scenes.

We've haven't had nearly the amount of interaction after Adam left. I enjoyed him participating in the forums and discord.

Like this:

Roadmap Questions - Critical News | WhatIfSports.com

Or this:

Roadmap and Future Developments - Critical News | WhatIfSports.com

Check the dates. They actually posted the roadmap the day after I asked for one. Now that's what I call customer service!

update?

Posted by cubcub113 on 5/6/2022 3:37:00 PM (view original):
update?

Yeah, it's almost 1.5 months after their rough estimate for completion. I wonder if they weren't seeing the numbers that they wanted. Maybe make some small tweaks and let it play out over another season?

Posted by Ccobb12 on 8/20/2021 12:38:00 PM (view original):

HD Firing Expectations (Take 2) *NOT FINAL

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

University of Louisville not a tier 1 — are you freaking kidding me. Maryland a tier 1, Illinois a tier 1. Illinois has o titles , a couple final fours. Marylands been garbage for 22 years and 1 title. Louisville has 3 titles, 9 final fours. Nova not a tier 1. I’m wondering now if are admins are really college basketball fans. Nova has been the best team the last decade decade and a half w exception of Duke. Louisville 1 title and 2 final fours in ten years and were ranked 1 during the year COVID called off.. Florida has more success in 2000s than Arizona. I’ll take Miami U over Maryland in the next 20 years.

min the history of college basketball you have
UCLA, UK, DUKE, UNC, Kansas

next you have
Louisville, Indiana ( not any great success for 25 years though, Syracuse, UCONN,, MSU, maybe Florida based just on Donovan years, Villanova, Syracuse,Georgetown, probably Gozaga with recent suckers albeit not totes. Probably UVA, ARIZONA, Arkansas.A cincy deserves here more the Maryland.


Maryland is tier 3
Illinois behind IN, MSU, UM , and Wisky in there own conference and Maryland is behind them and not better than OSU, Purdue

you tier one needs to lose IL, Maryland -/ add Louisville, Indiana, and Villinove

tier two drops wake, Pitt, Stanford, BC, Georgia tech none of these are even close.

tier two add
Michigan, Gonzaga LSU, ILlinois, Memphis

tier 3 get Maryland, I guess the rest of power 5 goes here

I know that’s kinda all over the place

but bump up Louisville, , Nova Florida, UM, Nova, Memphis,Gonzaga, LSU

but down Maryland -2, IL, Stanford, Pitt,BC(Seriously BC?), Georgia Tech, Wake

Osu has argument for bump up

many tier 3s are a stretch imo- WSU,

I’ll clean this up but thes isn’t close to accurate for either history or recent history

Posted by Kapperthecub on 6/5/2022 1:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Ccobb12 on 8/20/2021 12:38:00 PM (view original):

HD Firing Expectations (Take 2) *NOT FINAL

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

University of Louisville not a tier 1 — are you freaking kidding me. Maryland a tier 1, Illinois a tier 1. Illinois has o titles , a couple final fours. Marylands been garbage for 22 years and 1 title. Louisville has 3 titles, 9 final fours. Nova not a tier 1. I’m wondering now if are admins are really college basketball fans. Nova has been the best team the last decade decade and a half w exception of Duke. Louisville 1 title and 2 final fours in ten years and were ranked 1 during the year COVID called off.. Florida has more success in 2000s than Arizona. I’ll take Miami U over Maryland in the next 20 years.

min the history of college basketball you have
UCLA, UK, DUKE, UNC, Kansas

next you have
Louisville, Indiana ( not any great success for 25 years though, Syracuse, UCONN,, MSU, maybe Florida based just on Donovan years, Villanova, Syracuse,Georgetown, probably Gozaga with recent suckers albeit not totes. Probably UVA, ARIZONA, Arkansas.A cincy deserves here more the Maryland.


Maryland is tier 3
Illinois behind IN, MSU, UM , and Wisky in there own conference and Maryland is behind them and not better than OSU, Purdue

you tier one needs to lose IL, Maryland -/ add Louisville, Indiana, and Villinove

tier two drops wake, Pitt, Stanford, BC, Georgia tech none of these are even close.

tier two add
Michigan, Gonzaga LSU, ILlinois, Memphis

tier 3 get Maryland, I guess the rest of power 5 goes here

I know that’s kinda all over the place

but bump up Louisville, , Nova Florida, UM, Nova, Memphis,Gonzaga, LSU

but down Maryland -2, IL, Stanford, Pitt,BC(Seriously BC?), Georgia Tech, Wake

Osu has argument for bump up

many tier 3s are a stretch imo- WSU,

I’ll clean this up but thes isn’t close to accurate for either history or recent history

The tiers are based on baseline prestige. Here is the list linked.

Tier one is A/A+ prestige. Tier two is B+/A-. Tier three is B. I hope this helps!

Kapperthecub, this isn't a popularity contest list. As cub shared, it involves the mechanics of the game. Not everyone will agree on how strong each team should be, and that's likely the reason baseline doesn't get updated, because no matter what, no one would ever agree on all the teams. Sure there are a few outliers. But as is, the average person can look at the setup and see that it "resembles" college basketball. It's not perfect, and whether or not it gets updated at some point is another story! But geographically, it works pretty well for the game as is. It's based off the early 2000s and late 90s roughly, and it's really not as far off as we make it seem sometimes. (We've all had this discussion many times as a community. So you aren't the only one that feels the way you do!)

Are we to assume that this isn't happening at this point? I hate to single people out, but whoever is coaching Michigan in Phelan has won 2 conference games in 6 seasons. As someone who took over Duquesne at the complete bottom of D1 in the Ivy League and have built them into a Top 25 program, it's only fair that they open up some of these power programs. Something like this isn't a wish list item, they either fix it or the game is structurally broken.

Ok now I'm looking deeper into this more and it's a bit upsetting. Nebraska has won 17 conference games in 14 seasons under their current coach (not that I want any part of that job). I understand that they have to keep their customers happy, but you're also upsetting people putting real time and effort into the game and not getting a fair shake at all.

I believe it is still going to happen, but they had to put it on the backburner while they finish more important code updates.

I get that, and I'm sure they are stretched thin with man power as well. There has to be a way where they can spend 15 minutes manually scanning the power conferences of each world at the end of each season and manually fire the worst offenders. Even if it just cleans up a handful of the worst cases and opens up some opportunities for people. Short handed or not, there has to be some expectation of baseline quality and operation for the game.

I find this interesting, and just thought I'd share my experience. I'm coaching the Arkansas team in Smith. According to this, I would've been fired. It was my first real D1 experience in a major/full conference. It took me a while to figure some things out, and I've been more competitive since. Making the NT 4 of the last five season. The other thing with conferences like this, it's easy to backslide a bit if you miss in recruiting with mid-tier. I supposed that the safeguards are built in though, since they aren't expecting NT every year. I don't feel like I've gotten this Arkansas team over the hump, but maybe my expectations are too high for a program like this in a major conference. I don't know.

I had the same experience with my first power conference team at Virginia Tech in a full ACC. I have no qualms about a situation like that. I think it’s important to be able to program build a have plenty of time to get your feet under you, but I think there’s a large gap between that and having 5 0-16 conference seasons. As many people have stated time and time again on here, the recruiting badly needs overhauled to include more mid level talent, but I digress.

Posted by hoffdaddy on 6/15/2022 9:33:00 AM (view original):
I find this interesting, and just thought I'd share my experience. I'm coaching the Arkansas team in Smith. According to this, I would've been fired. It was my first real D1 experience in a major/full conference. It took me a while to figure some things out, and I've been more competitive since. Making the NT 4 of the last five season. The other thing with conferences like this, it's easy to backslide a bit if you miss in recruiting with mid-tier. I supposed that the safeguards are built in though, since they aren't expecting NT every year. I don't feel like I've gotten this Arkansas team over the hump, but maybe my expectations are too high for a program like this in a major conference. I don't know.

That's actually really solid for your first P6 team. It takes time and a lot of coaches don't have the patience, but you'll get there. Just keep chipping away and you'll build your success and long-term coach preferences.

I didn't check your profile, but in the olden days, you would have had to spend many seasons at a mid-major before jumping to a P6 conference. Usually that's when you learn the tricks to D1, but I think a lot of coaches forego that now because the quicker path is available.

Either way, it sounds like you're doing well now and luckily didn't lose your program. Nice work and keep it up!