Fixing Progression via Coaching Prestige

[okstate123]

So, one of the biggest problems out of the box this year is obvious: coaching prestige progression. Coaches progress very easily and it can lead to an incredible amount of A+ coaches. On its own, it wouldn’t be a big issue, but since it is tied to player progression, the talent inflation from the default roster becomes problem.


In hopes to solve this issue, I’ve rerated every coach’s prestige. I subtracted 25 from all head coach’s prestige, and 50 from all coordinator’s prestige (the best HC started at 74, best coordinator started at 49).


So far I’ve simmed 4 years (first year of all generated players) and recorded both HC prestige, and team overalls to compare to the base roster to see if there is a significant increase.


I’ve saved each season as a separate dynasty, so if a lot of people want to see more data, I can look at each season retroactively to collect it.

[okstate123]

HC Prestige:

Base:
9 A+
8 A
21 B+
16 B
10 C+
9 C
16 D+
31 D

After Year 1:
3 A+
2 A
8 B+
1 B
6 C+
13 C
25 D+
62 D

After Year 2:
6 A+
1 A
6 B+
6 B
6 C+
11 C
18 D+
66 D

After Year 3:
12 A+
3 A
11 B+
5 B
4 C+
14 C
13 D+
58 D

After Year 4:
20 A+
9 A
5 B+
5 B
4 C+
7 C
19 D+
51 D


Now obviously it’s getting to the point where there are way too many elite coaches, but I still think this is a lot better than what you’ll get without adjusting prestiges. Hopefully, by the time we start reaching this point in our dynasty, EA will come out with a patch to fix coach progression, especially for coordinators.

[okstate123]

Team Overall:

Base:
2 A+
8 A
8 A-
31 B+
14 B
19 B-
6 C+
12 C
7 C-
9 D+
3 D
1 D-

After Year 1:
2 A+
13 A
8 A-
22 B+
17 B
20 B-
6 C+
13 C
11 C-
7 D+
1 D

After Year 2:
2 A+
9 A
7 A-
24 B+
6 C+
19 C
9 C-
6 D+
2 D

After Year 3:
1 A+
5 A
10 A-
15 B+
6 B
27 B-
13 C+
19 C
16 C-
7 D+
1 D

After Year 4:
3 A+
13 A
5 A-
11 B+
12 B
24 B-
10 C+
18 C
6 C-
12 D+
6 D

So even though coaching prestige is beginning to get out of control, it’s very nice in my opinion to see that team overalls are staying fairly similar to the base roster.

[NEOPARADIGM]

Good stuff dude. Thanks.

[khaliib]

Quote: Originally Posted by okstate123

So, one of the biggest problems out of the box this year is obvious: coaching prestige progression. Coaches progress very easily and it can lead to an incredible amount of A+ coaches. On its own, it wouldn’t be a big issue, but since it is tied to player progression, the talent inflation from the default roster becomes problem. In hopes to solve this issue, I’ve rerated every coach’s prestige. I subtracted 25 from all head coach’s prestige, and 50 from all coordinator’s prestige (the best HC started at 74, best coordinator started at 49).

I was just testing out the same thing.

I'm probably going to go lower as I re-rated Alabama's #10 QB to 83 OVR w/70 AWR and 80 Accuracy.

HC Saban was 88 OVR, while OC was 75.

After simming one year, #10 was a 94 OVR w/95 AWR and 96 Accuracy.
Too big of a jump!!!

In reality, player's physical attributes change very little.
It's their AWR/understanding that increases.

I'm going to re-rate coach's so that they have only a slight effect on player progression.
It will be much easier to adjust a couple of guys vs 100's every year.

[tinman]

Curious of the effect this is having on the top 25 each year and who is winning national championships. Under the base set, Navy, Temple, and Boise seem to be stock piling BCS championships while usual top teams are falling out of the top 25. What are you finding?

[okstate123]

Quote: Originally Posted by tinman

Curious of the effect this is having on the top 25 each year and who is winning national championships. Under the base set, Navy, Temple, and Boise seem to be stock piling BCS championships while usual top teams are falling out of the top 25. What are you finding?

Unfortunately my saves are at the preseason of each year, so I can't see the final top 25 rankings at the end of each season. I'll give you the notes I can find from viewing each coach to hopefully answer your question.

Year 1:
Oklahoma won the NC.
Boise went 12-1 and won a BCS game.
Temple went 11-3 and won a bowl game.
Navy went 5-7.

Year 2:
Georgia won the NC.
Boise went 10-3 and won a bowl game.
Temple fell back to earth and went 4-8.
Navy went 9-4 and won a bowl game.

Year 3:
Wisconsin won the NC.
Boise went 11-2 and won a bowl game.
Temple went 3-9.
Navy went 8-5 and won a bowl game.

Year 4:
Oklahoma won another NC.
Boise went 11-2 and won a bowl game.
Temple went 4-8 and their HC got fired and became an OC at Tulane.
Navy went 4-8.

Year 5:
Wisconsin won another NC.
Boise went 9-4 and won yet another bowl game.
Temple with their new HC went 4-8.
Navy went 5-7.

Sorry I couldn't be more detailed, but I think these results are pretty realistic (surprising that 2 teams won multiple NCs though). If there are any other teams you want me to follow through the seasons let me know.

[northface28]

This is encouraging, while not quite perfect, I can live with these numbers.