You play to win the game. Period.

Obviously there's some self-interest in the league not fighting among itself, but that's secondary to my needs for my team as its coach. If the player is exceptional enough at the level (and this is the key distinction), I'll go after that player against anyone provided I feel I have a tactical advantage (another key!). Inside 70 miles...that's the State of Rednu and I defend my home state vigorously against anyone.

Where I think a lot of people go wrong in intraconference battles is grabbing people who are not exceptional -- there's no reason to be battling mates for run-of-the-mill players that can be found all over the country. I also get irked when league folks come in on battles that they have zero chance of actually winning, forcing someone else in the league to burn assets(and potentially leaving the player vulnerable to challenges from outside the league, which really CAN harm the conference...). Those are the sorts of plays that can negatively impact the strength of the league in the grander scheme.

As for the act of moving in on someone though, there are lots of reasons it can occur. Coaches might be late to the party for whatever reason (I've been on the road with my team and unable to recruit for the frst 4-5 cycles a couple of times and had to come in late...I treat MY first cycle pretty much the same as I would had I gotten in right at the beginning, and that means aggressively going after local studs, even if a conference person is on the same player). Geography also plays a role...I have D2 team in California in one world and we're always tripping over each other for in-state talent. Same thing happened when I had a team in the ASC in D3 in Texas. When you get a lot of recruits and a lot of teams clustered in a tight geographic area, there's going to be encounters (ideally you'd like them to be early rather than on Day 2, but if someone's Plan A gets snatched by a higher division and you're sitting on Plan B...it's going to happen. The same effect can also occur from time to time due to the randomness of recruit distribution...I've had seasons at midwest schools where, due to the fickle nature of random number generating, very few recruits in a 3-4 state area were of sufficient quality to be worth an effort. If you have multiple human schools in the region, those few kids are going to get clashed over simply because the cupboard is bare in the local radius.

Like I said though, the key for me is the exceptional nature of the recruit  when I make my decision. A player that projects to be "great" will get battled on regardless of foe, but "very good" players are scattered all over the place...in those cases if someone's in before me it's often cheaper to avoid the battle, find one of the many comparable players that are elsewhere in the country and sign that player uncontested...that's win-win for the league as both teams get a strong player and nobody spent needless funds.

Just my two cents.

A few thoughts:

• You mean "Intra-conference";
• An express agreement to not compete for recruits would be collusive and violate fairplay guidelines of the game;
• That said, there is a good reason to avoid intra-conference battles, if there is a reasonably similar recruit available; BUT
• Just because you jump early on a recruit, does not mean you are entitled to expect to sign a stud.

Basically, if your team appears to have over-extended its budget to get the best local recruits considering, then that vulnerability may legitimately override the desire to avoid such battles.  The difference between the levels is that, ordinarily, at D3 there are very similar recruits available, at D2 there are somewhat fewer very strong recruits available (so battles may be called for), and, at D1, there is almost no way to avoid a few intra-conference battles.  

Absent collusion, it's just part of the game.

I presume that we're all playing this game based on some combination of having fun and trying to win a championship. Competition can be fun. You need the best possible players to win. And that's why coaches recruit vs. their conference. It's hard to win your conf if the other coach has the better players!

Every coach here has an idea on the best way to recruit for their team. Sometimes that means you spend your $ early on recruits, sometimes it is later. If you go early and then somebody comes later, then shame on you if you don't have enough $ in reserve to keep the player. You can't expect to call "dibs" and then have everybody abide, regardless of what conference they play. And based on geography, sometimes you have no choice but to battle your conf because you're stuck in the middle.

I was in a D2 conf that had plenty of battles and, over most of those seasons, it was the #1 or #2 RPI conf in D2 and had 10-12 active coaches per season. Even though there were battles, the coaches knew other ways to strengthen the conference. One of those is scheduling based on the strength of your team. If you have a top-25 program, then go ahead and play some non-conf games vs. top-25s. If you're a borderline NT team, don't play 10 road games vs. the top 25. And for the love of everything holy, don't play home games vs. Sims.

Bottom line, if you feel like you're getting poached, then you over extended your $ and were probably trying to be greedy. I know anytime that has happened to me, it was really my fault. As an example, I remember one D1 season where I easily could've had 2 5-star recruits while recruiting with a B+, tried to get 3 instead, then wound up with 1, and he was my #3 choice. And yes, guys in my conference took the other two and one of them became the all-time D1 scorer. But I've let that go...

Agree with the first two responses. both of you beat me to the "intra" point. 

I'm not sure if I've ever fought a conference mate who was on somebody first, but I don't have any opposition in principle, it just only happens in the rare case where (1) the guy is good enough to battle for, (2) I have a tactical advantage, and (3) despite him being good enough to battle for and my tactically strong position, I wasn't on him in the first cycle. 

I will say that there are very few things in recruiting more frustrating than a conference mate battling you for a recruit he cannot win. The only result is the weakening of both sides. 

Another thing to keep in mind: some coaches "shotgun" recruit and get 7 players considering for 3 open slots after their first cycle. There's no reason a coach in that conference should stay away from any of those guys, all other things ($, distance, prestige, etc) being equal.

I battle conference mates all the time.     If the player is good enough to battle for, I battle for him.

I am playing this game for all its elements. Recruting  strategy is fun, challenging and critical. I will recruit the best player for my team, period. Stud or potential redshirt, I am building my team. And I'll do it it at 2 in the afternoon or 2 in the morning. There is no such thing as poaching or "jumping on my guy". A player isn't yours until he signs. One of the most exciting and strategic battles I ever had was with a conference mate that went to the last day, back and forth. He won and he deserved the prize.
If you don't compete with conference teams, you are handcuffing yourself and capping your potential to grow. Remember, conference mates are your COMPETITORS. You want to be better than them. Ceding them players will kill your growth. In IBA, the ACC guys are on each other all the time. In the Big East we battle often.
1. I think that's part of the fun   2. It requires you to have a strategy and make decisions  3. It's not against the rules.
And for those who have beaten me out for players I really, really, really thought I had: good for you!

Most of the leagues I am in--especially the D3 leagues--there is no inter-conference jumping\poaching of recruits.
It has either been spoken or assumed that there isn't enough money in recruiting in D3 to be able to afford to battle
fellow conference members and it seriously hurts the conference when it happens.

Not only are you wrong in your overall point, as has been generally agreed upon by the previous posters, but you need to be EXTREMELY careful with stuff like this.  "It has ... been spoken ... that there isn't enough money in recruiting in D3 to be able to aford to battle fellow conference members" has gotten people in a lot of trouble.  If you aren't, again, extremely careful with the wording, this quickly falls into many coaches' definition of collusion.  A few bans have, historically, been handed down for very little more than that.

I will say this: sometimes people can't recruit the first few cycles, and if the recruit is worth it *and* they believe they can win, all is fair in love in war.

That being said, it doesn't make sense to enter any battle you don't plan to win, especially if it's a conference mate.

And: what's going to help you more in the end: the stud recruiting class at your school or your conference mate's school.  Both help you, but obviously, giving up every decent recruit to your conference mates won't help you that much.

You gotta know when to fold them as well.   I recently passed on this d2 SF who I would have needed to battle a conference mate for.  He was local but I wasn't 100% sure I was going to win.   It also would have handcuffed me in trying to sign 2 other guys, so I passed.   

I never jump on a recruit that a conference mate is on unless it's very early in the process. I just think it's shady to do otherwise. But I have absolutely no problem battling a conference mate if I've been spending money on the player and the recruit just happens to list the other team before me. Or if I'm late to recruiting, I'll usually post something in the CC saying that I'm late, so people are generally less butthurt if they have a guy I want.

Battling in D3 in general is a bad idea, but if there are certainly instances where it's advisable to spend to get a player regardless of who it's against.

It has to do with geography as well. .....conferences in places that are  spread out (like the west), might have more inter-conference battles because they're all going after the same few guys. In the MWC in DI, it's sometimes unavoidable. 

Generally, I try to avoid it, but a recruit isn't "yours" until he is signed.  There is no such thing as "poaching" a recruit.

By the way, just read your little rant in Iba and I've got to say Tooslim, you came across as quite the tool.  Dogging another coach about his lack of tournament success when you haven't done anything in the tourney yourself seemed just a bit...hypocritical.

I can only control how my team helps the conference, I can't try and make sure everyone else is getting good recruits, and that my needs don't overlap theirs. If you wanna help your conference; win in recruiting, win in out of conference, win in conference, win in the postseason. Let the other coaches worry about how they're going to help the conference, because losing (or just allowing) a recruit to a conference member definitely does not help YOU win games. The only reason not to go for a conference mates recruit is if you're doing it simply to make them spend more money, like has been mentioned.

Other than that it's all fair game, and quite frankly I would rather take a player from a team in my conference (sim or user) because that way I'm not playing them for the next 4 years. If I lose a potential All-American to a team outside of my conference (incidentally happened this season) then at least I never have to see the guy. If I lose him to a user in conference now I have to deal with facing the guy for four seasons. Furthermore you have a better idea (in my opinion) of how much money they have, possibly even their past recruiting patterns, which could give you some idea of the effort they put in on a player, so you can make a better judgement on what it will take to get the guy.

This hypothetical is really similar to a post awhile back about losing the CT to give a different (lesser) team the automatic qualifier, getting more money for the conference. In my opinion the latter is definitely collusion, and this situation is bordering on it, but I know there is an element to it that is "strategy".</p>