All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Inter-conference Recruiting Battles?
4/28/2013 2:14 PM
I lean toward options other than fighting with a conference team - but that's just a lean.  All things being equal or close, I'll go in another direction.  But, if it is the clearly right play thats the path.

 There are benefits from being friendly within a conference - not agreeing not to battle, but just ending up not battling intra conference saves resources.
4/28/2013 6:19 PM
Posted by fd343ny on 4/28/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):
I lean toward options other than fighting with a conference team - but that's just a lean.  All things being equal or close, I'll go in another direction.  But, if it is the clearly right play thats the path.

 There are benefits from being friendly within a conference - not agreeing not to battle, but just ending up not battling intra conference saves resources.
this.

and i'd say at D1 I battled conference mates probably every other season, but at lower levels it's much less common.      

4/28/2013 6:43 PM
Posted by fd343ny on 4/28/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):
I lean toward options other than fighting with a conference team - but that's just a lean.  All things being equal or close, I'll go in another direction.  But, if it is the clearly right play thats the path.

 There are benefits from being friendly within a conference - not agreeing not to battle, but just ending up not battling intra conference saves resources.
I know I am in the minority but that last statement sounds like collusion and against the spirit of fair play.
4/28/2013 7:33 PM
I definitely prefer to avoid conference battles, all things considered.  But I don't shy away from them either.  Basically, if I like 2 guys the same and a conf mate gets on 1 and someone from another conf gets on the other, I'll battle the other conf (assuming $ seems to be about equal).   

And as wronoj said, the lower you go, the less reason there is to battle anyone, much less a conf mate.
4/28/2013 7:59 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/28/2013 6:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by fd343ny on 4/28/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):
I lean toward options other than fighting with a conference team - but that's just a lean.  All things being equal or close, I'll go in another direction.  But, if it is the clearly right play thats the path.

 There are benefits from being friendly within a conference - not agreeing not to battle, but just ending up not battling intra conference saves resources.
I know I am in the minority but that last statement sounds like collusion and against the spirit of fair play.
Can you explain what you mean a little more tj- I'm curious.  
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
4/28/2013 8:57 PM
If you make some sort of agreement to not battle as a conference,  it gives teams a competitive advantage.   That's collusion.


4/28/2013 9:09 PM
He wasn't expressing an agreement not to battle, he was expressing a desire to not waste his own resources on a battle that happens to be inter-conference. The side effect of that being that the conference as a whole has more resources.
4/28/2013 9:28 PM
If a bunch of people choose to not battle each other, that's a secret agreement design to benefit the members.
4/28/2013 9:37 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/28/2013 9:28:00 PM (view original):
If a bunch of people choose to not battle each other, that's a secret agreement design to benefit the members.
Even if that's true (and I don't really think it is), no one said anything close to that.
4/28/2013 9:44 PM
TJ- I think you may have read fdny's post wrong.  His words were "not agree not to battle"- which means there is no agreement not to battle ie. there is no collusion.  FD would just rather allocate his resources outside the conf because he feels that it is beneficial to his team to not battle conf mates.  Battling conf mates can be bad- you reduce the strength of your conference (which some people think is bad for your team) and you potentially invite retaliation from conf mates who are in the same geographical region as you (which is definitely bad).  If there are many coaches in a conference who think this way, you're not going to see a lot of battles between conf mates.  Coaches strategizing in the same way is definitely not collusion.  
4/28/2013 10:15 PM
Inter should mean outside of conference...like interstate = between states. Intra is inside. Grammar lesson over!

In D1, when battling your conference mate could mean costing yourself in post season cash, lower prestige, no shot at the best players, its always a decision to be made to battle a conference mate. As others have said, there is no rule, but  for obvious reasons, you should consider if screwing over a conference mate is worth it.

In D2, and D3, there's no such distinction.  There is zero conference loyalty in the lower divisions.
4/28/2013 10:28 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/28/2013 9:28:00 PM (view original):
If a bunch of people choose to not battle each other, that's a secret agreement design to benefit the members.
Wrong.

First of all, he said not agreeing not to battle. Poorly structured but essentially meaning no agreement.

Second, people choosing not to battle each other is in no way an agreement not to battle. It's called a choice for a reason. An agreement is called an agreement for a reason.

4/28/2013 10:30 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/28/2013 6:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by fd343ny on 4/28/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):
I lean toward options other than fighting with a conference team - but that's just a lean.  All things being equal or close, I'll go in another direction.  But, if it is the clearly right play thats the path.

 There are benefits from being friendly within a conference - not agreeing not to battle, but just ending up not battling intra conference saves resources.
I know I am in the minority but that last statement sounds like collusion and against the spirit of fair play.
to be more clear, I did not mean and would not ever agree not to battle

I do mean, that if a number of members of a conference each separately find it wise in their independent judgment to try to avoid battles in conference, that can help each member of the conference.

it cannot be collusion each to decide yourself what to do, without agreement, without communication other than looking carefully at actions taken
4/28/2013 11:03 PM
I don't prefer to battle humans in recruiting, I will if I have to though.  I'd say there's extra consideration for my conference mates, but I'll still hammer you home for the guy.  I had a Center considering only me up until the second to last cycle before signings began, and then a guy from my conf jumped on him, but I was able to make a promise, do a couple more home visits and put him away.
of 5
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Inter-conference Recruiting Battles?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.