8/26/2013 9:07 AM
i remain torn too. my first post was going to be a simple "agree" with kmason's pussification post. but i always fall down on the grey area and how different people might perceive what that means. anyway i think a lot of coaches say "who will believe X Y Z" - i just have a comment on that, not really necessarily to support either side of the debate. it seems to me, for the statement to be OK, it has to be ok under 2 paradigms - 1) you dont know to believe the coach, and 2) you believe the coach. the reality is if you allow these kinds of comments a lot of coaches just make them honestly, i mean if you study game theory at all, or just think about it a little bit, its very common in these kinds of situations, the best long term strategy for players in many situations is to always tell the truth. now, the other player having better info ALWAYS gives them an as good or better solution - but that says nothing about how their solution effects you - you can very well benefit from telling the truth in those situations. so to me, the argument that well, you dont know if they are lying - that should be discounted, because its not a valid assumption in all cases.

where i really struggle is when player 1 goes "im going all in on the local PF", which i cant differentiate from, "im going all on on player X", then school 2 goes "im going all in on player Y", then school 3 goes "im going all in on player z", and now the 3 schools going all in, who used to have a great chance of screwing each other over royally, now, are off scott free. this kind of encounter is CLEARLY beneficial to all 3 schools in the long run, assuming thats a common strategy for them - and thus, is unfair/cheating/whatever.


8/26/2013 9:14 AM
Posted by ike1024 on 8/25/2013 11:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by girt25 on 8/25/2013 10:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by fd343ny on 8/25/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):
now and then one sees postings in the coaches corner where someone will - right before recruiting - post something like "i'm going all in on that PF who lives right near campus" - allowed or now allowed?  A statement of recruiting plans runs into many of the same issues discussed above.
And yet, despite my comments above, that strikes me as not being OK.

gillispie is right -- tough to find your way around the gray area here ...

Why?

I don't see anything wrong with someone giving away information on their own team. What's the problem if I post, "I have $78,354 in recruiting money" on my coaches corner?

Yes, it's information others didn't have before. But I'm only posting about myself and posting it publicly. I understand that the purpose of doing it is to scare people into avoiding battles, but either one of two things is going to happen: (1) I'm saving someone else a bunch of money; or (2) someone else knows they can beat me. Or maybe I'm not telling the truth. But I still don't understand the problem.
there are lots of times when a group of coaches truthfully giving away info on their teams makes it easy for them, as a group, to avoid internal conflict - and that, really, is no different that sitemailing hints on your plans, which we all agree is not OK. sort of like i said in the post above. its only natural for people to move to the strategy that provides less conflict, and this is really where i think the issue gets tough.

it seems like a lot of people have said its ok to give info on your team, not others teams - but i think this is a major issue with giving away info on your own team. and if you cant give away info on your own team, or other teams, whats left to say, except, good luck recruiting guys! i agree its boring, which is why i am so conflicted - i just worry that if this moved from random comments from individual coaches to group work, no clear line is being crossed. you cant take intent into account when you look at a message posted on a message board and decide if its cheating, except on the side of leniency.
8/26/2013 9:17 AM
Posted by kmasonbx1 on 8/25/2013 5:59:00 PM (view original):
By dull I meant as far as the CC, nobody says a word.

It's very simple, as long as what you're saying doesn't give away real information or isn't colluding nobody should have a problem with it. Once you step over that line, then you've gone too far. There is an enormous difference from saying "why are you battling me, there's no way you can win this," and saying "instead of battling me for X you can't win, you should focus on Y recruit." Also saying something like "from my calculations you have roughly 15k left, I have 30k, and I'm willing to put everything into X recruit," would clearly be over the line. This falls under the real information that I was talking about, the first thing is straight up collusion. Obviously there are gray areas, but that's with a lot of things.

This game is played by humans, humans communicate, advocating for the removal of that aspect during recruiting is absurd, especially when it's not against the rules. Comments do have an impact on recruiting and that's the point. Every game you play in life there are people talking smack and those that don't, so why should this be any different? I always talk during recruiting, sometimes I flat out lie about my intent (I remember one time saying I wasn't going to put any $ into recruits during the last cycle just so I can protect my guys, when I had already dumped like 50k into a recruit, lol), some times I'll even throw things out during the season about a recruit. Gamesmenship adds some fun to the game, all that respectful and playing nice stuff is fine and well but conflict is awesome. Just look whenever there is a tiff on a CC you'll see guys from other conferences randomly chime in and you'll have guys commenting on their CCs telling the other coaches to check out the CC where there is conflict. 
you are back to my first point here.. its awesome for you, but what about the guys who dont enjoy that kind of communication being part of the game? to take colonels ****** example, in lots of card games, there are players who like to allow mild to moderate to outright flagrant table talk. there are others who see that as a defiling of the game. generally, the table has to have a common agreement on table talk or people get ****** off. i see this as being no different - i simply dont think all coaches agree that conflict is awesome. thats why i could see worlds that work one way and worlds that work another, to allow people to select themselves what they think is appropriate (which, i recognize, is not a realistic solution in the case of HD). but i think you alienate a lot of coaches if you just allow this everywhere.
8/26/2013 10:01 AM
Problem with "why are you battling me" is that a anyone reading the CC knows both teams are in a battle. I have jumped on players in D1 where I learnt a team was in a battle from CC chat and looked weak, and should nothing be posted on this specific CC, I would have missed that the team was in a battle and vulnerable. 
8/26/2013 10:14 AM (edited)
Posted by grissom97 on 8/25/2013 7:32:00 PM (view original):
After a player lists both teams as schools he's interested in I don't see the problem unless there is collusion going on.  If I was the coach with the C prest I would then find out about the number of open schollies, depth at that position and decide if I could win a battle against a higher prest school.  While it was a douchy way to do it, it still might have actually helped wake up the C prest coach to realize he needed to  pass before wasting more recruiting dollars.  
agree with tianyi's post above. also, this is wrong - just because a player lists both schools doesnt mean he will list both schools for the rest of recruiting. say we are in a battle... i knock you off. now, people have no idea, unless they caught that first cycle or whatever, that you spent any money, and that i had to spend a lot of money. based on the CC post, now they know both - which is a big difference.

a big part of the "say nothing" argument is how different people see these things, especially early in their thinking about this issue vs late. i think most veterans of this issue would see the fact that the guys shows on both teams at one point does not make it meaningless to post about it, later in recruiting (and often at the time of post) this gives people info about what THE OTHER COACH is doing/has done, which is generally accepted as being a problem, even by people advocating for this.

for the proponents of open communication, think about how hard and messy it is to get ALL the users on the same page with respect to this stuff. its absolutely not trivial to decide what is OK and what is not, even the longest time coaches who have participated in this argument a dozen times in the past, are sitting here unable to decide if a single statement is OK or not. kmason, your brief little statement makes it sound simple, but the devil is in the details. i bet if you make 5-10 substantially different comments you tihnk are OK for coaches to make, there would be a good deal of disagreement - but i could be wrong - would be interested to hear them if you are up for the challenge! have to make real comments though, no "good luck" and "have fun"s =)
8/26/2013 11:00 AM
Now a related - and rather clearly not allowed communication - is the site message that comments on battles - such as this message received in a recent recruiting cycle

"You know, I'm barely in on the guy [other school] and me are battling over, right?   Can't blame you for making the try for the guy we are fighting over"
8/26/2013 11:38 AM
this is, at the same time, both interesting and tedious. Somehow. There can never (in HD, as constructed) be a policy that allows for all the variables gillispie elucidates to be covered. Therefore, kmason cannot ever really get what he's looking for. I agree that pointing out battles on the CC is foul play for the reason tianyi gives. I think I am coming to a conclusion that anything that doesn't specifically draw attention to an ongoing battle (or prior while recruiting is still happening and coaches are vulnerable) is probably ok, but that is largely a product of my own tendency to post things at the end of recruiting like, "got my guys, all pretty cheaply and will carry over a ton into next season", which is really me trying to slyly tell my conference mates not to bother ******* with me next time around coz I'm stacked. Is that ok? It is obviously an attempt to influence the recruiting actions of others...

As with most things HD related, I think a case by case evaluation is probably the best solution. FWIW I love when I get a comment like that and then win the battle. Conversely, there is this thread here, where I was on the other side... (and the follow up thread where I try to learn from my mistake)
8/26/2013 1:09 PM
I think 99.9% of cross conference arguments get started because somone decided to say something during recruiting - before you know it, whole conferences are being accused of colluding and bringing attention to different recruiting situations that would have been left in the dark.

If people could handle speaking about recruiting then maybe it would be possible to talk. Individually we are fine but collectively there is always someone looking to start trouble - especially if they are having a bad recruiting season. If you know how recruiting works then someone talking **** trying to run you away from a player will either make sense or just be bluffing in which you take the appropriate action. What bothers me a bit is when other coaches initiate comments on battles they aren't even involved in - which does suck for the other coaches actually involved depending on their situations.

I've also seen recruiting talk during recruiting encourage other coaches to talk and say things that can be taken as collusion as well - even though the statements are made with the best of intentions. 
8/26/2013 2:04 PM
I do agree that coaches shouldn't comment on a battle that they aren't in, unless it's one of those things where it has no impact, like both the guys in the battle aren't on any other recruit. 

If a battle lasts literally 1 cycle, then the school that gets knocked off likely didn't put much effort in. But I can see how acknowledging somebody is battling you gives away information about that school that another coach may not have been aware of. I never really thought about that simply because I'm aware of essentially every battle that is going on that could impact me, and didn't consider that probably the majority of coaches aren't nearly as aware. But I still don't think it's that big of a deal to say "why are you battling me, you can't win" simply because that's very easy information to obtain. It's not like making an estimation on what another coach has to recruit with in the middle of recruiting, because that's something that comes with experience and studying what the coach has done to that point, so it's not nearly as easily attainable. 
8/26/2013 2:36 PM
Posted by kmasonbx1 on 8/26/2013 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I do agree that coaches shouldn't comment on a battle that they aren't in, unless it's one of those things where it has no impact, like both the guys in the battle aren't on any other recruit. 

If a battle lasts literally 1 cycle, then the school that gets knocked off likely didn't put much effort in. But I can see how acknowledging somebody is battling you gives away information about that school that another coach may not have been aware of. I never really thought about that simply because I'm aware of essentially every battle that is going on that could impact me, and didn't consider that probably the majority of coaches aren't nearly as aware. But I still don't think it's that big of a deal to say "why are you battling me, you can't win" simply because that's very easy information to obtain. It's not like making an estimation on what another coach has to recruit with in the middle of recruiting, because that's something that comes with experience and studying what the coach has done to that point, so it's not nearly as easily attainable. 
the school that knocked them off could easily be out an additional 10-15k over what it takes to get tight - in high d1 battles, thats ALL the difference in the world, as you know. perception is reality - the 15k doesnt really matter until people know about it - and you definitely are correct that you cant assume everyone is aware of all these battles - its simply not the case. the fact that you didnt think of this issue for that case illustrates how hard this would be to deal with - you probably have thought about this significantly more than the average coach, just in this single thread, plus, you are more intelligent than the average coach, too. if all kinds of smart coaches miss things that could give away information harmful to another party, how can you expect the whole community to make this comments without screwing people over and ******* people off? some degree of ******* people off can be justified because of the increased amusement that comes from a more open level of communication during recruiting, but that only goes so far, and im just not sure its enough...

anyway i would be interested to hear some comments you think are OK so we could have a discussion on them. maybe ill come up with a list of comments i dont think are OK, and we can both get a better understanding. still, i dont expect every member of the community to go through this lengthy and tedious exercise, nor do i expect even the two of us to end in agreement, not to mention the couple thousand coaches playing HD. its really a rats nest - which is precisely why so many people take the easy way out - "just say nothing".
8/26/2013 2:40 PM
I think this whole debate really boils down to what's fun for one may infuriate another. I'm not against some type of communication during recruiting but when you mention details the situation can get messy. I remember specifically the sweatpeapapa ordeal which ultimately lead to the destruction of Louisville in Phelan. I guess speaking may be fun in the moment but ultimately there's a high probability that it's not so much fun in the long run.  
8/26/2013 3:25 PM (edited)
What happened with sweetpeapapa from what I recall was him having sand in his vagina, and he initiated the entire conflict. I jumped on a recruit he was on at 2pm before signings, and he started crying about how he had never been poached that late in recruiting and it was scumbag move, or something like that. So I responded, and then we went back and forth.

He was the one who brought attention to the fact that he was in a battle, not me. I'm sure I pointed out some things about his recruiting that period, but the likelihood is if he lost a recruit because of that episode, the recruit was lost the moment he opened his mouth about being "poached." That whole thing was silly, he made it a way bigger deal than it was, and the majority of the Big East acted as if I did something wrong, lol. And to be honest, I have no idea who the recruit was I took from him, lol. 
8/26/2013 4:19 PM
interesting summary there... :) i have no familiarity with that one, however, im surprised a coach who played as long as he wasn't poached in the cycle before signings. i feel like that happens to me 1 in 5 seasons or so
8/26/2013 4:38 PM

I don't agree with everything here, but I do agree that whining about last cycle recruiting is a ***** move. I've had a 5 star center "poached" by my closest mentor. Its part of the game. Its not personal. People need to understand that. 

(ETA: I'm also prolific enough and been around long enough that someone could probably find examples of me doing it too. That doesn't change my opinion, it just means that at that moment I was acting the *****...)

8/26/2013 5:33 PM
This brings me to another point. Some coaches act like you did something to their children when you poach them on the last cycle, others don't care. I've had at least 2 coaches leave a conference because a conference mate jumped on a recruit at the last minute, that partially made Sweetpea quit the game (I think he quit at least). So this is another thing that some coaches hate and others don't, just like the banter during recruiting, which is why I say it's something that coaches need to deal with better. There are always going to be aspects of any game that some people hate and others don't. As long as you don't break rules, it should be fine. 

As far as coming up with comments, there are honestly many more comments that are NOT OK than are OK, which is part of the reason why I think it's not too difficult to police it. I really don't see the big deal with anybody saying how much money they have, because they are giving everybody else information, while not getting information from anybody else. 
of 9

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.