All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Inter-conference Recruiting Battles?
4/28/2013 11:04 PM
Posted by fd343ny on 4/28/2013 10:30:00 PM (view original):
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
#PLUSONE
4/28/2013 11:15 PM
I don't mean to sling mud or call anyone underhanded but I think it's a reasonably common practice to give conference mates special consideration.   I also think that goes against the spirit of competition.     Some times the agreement is outright spoken, many times it's just a kinda wink wink, nod nod situation.

I don't battle some people because I don't think I can win.   I don't not go after a recruit because the school is in my conference.  The I want "St. Rose to be good but St. Thomas to be bad so  get more recruiting cash" seems sorta silly and against the idea of a fair playing field.

Again, I may be the only one who thinks this.  I don't want to start another vitriolic thread.  I apologize if my thoughts insult anyone, it isn't my intention.  
4/28/2013 11:22 PM
I think you're mis-equating what people are saying, and suggesting that they're on some kind of Mason handshake, and that's not the case at all.  I get what these guys mean...I like my conference mates, but I'm also the class of my conference (not to toot my own horn).  There's a guy that's close but he doesn't recruit pulldowns like/as much as I do, so we don't cross paths often...not because we're trying to not battle, but because we have different strategies to begin with, different team quality, etc.  I'll gladly battle anyone if I think I can win the recruit, I just don't go out of my way to do so, and I think that's what a lot of guys here are saying as well.
4/28/2013 11:59 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/28/2013 11:15:00 PM (view original):
I don't mean to sling mud or call anyone underhanded but I think it's a reasonably common practice to give conference mates special consideration.   I also think that goes against the spirit of competition.     Some times the agreement is outright spoken, many times it's just a kinda wink wink, nod nod situation.

I don't battle some people because I don't think I can win.   I don't not go after a recruit because the school is in my conference.  The I want "St. Rose to be good but St. Thomas to be bad so  get more recruiting cash" seems sorta silly and against the idea of a fair playing field.

Again, I may be the only one who thinks this.  I don't want to start another vitriolic thread.  I apologize if my thoughts insult anyone, it isn't my intention.  
collusion is, by definition, cooperation. hence, if you're acting completely on your own accord, it's not collusive in the least.

the game just happens to be set up where there are benefits to starting an interconference battle rather than an intraconference battle (how's that for grammar, sublightd?!? haha) if all else is equal.

it is what it is, and its perfectly legal. IF you're acting 100% by yourself.
4/29/2013 12:47 AM
Ironic that in my intra*-conference thread, my grammar is corrected by someone in the conference I'm referring to. :P Not that sublight is recruiting against me - his guys are in a whole different league, and his team will probably be the main reason our conference gets any post-season cash next recruiting period. 

I just assumed that anyone staying in their conference would want that conference to be as strong as possible, for pride as well as strength-of-schedule advantage.
4/29/2013 7:15 AM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 4/28/2013 11:15:00 PM (view original):
I don't mean to sling mud or call anyone underhanded but I think it's a reasonably common practice to give conference mates special consideration.   I also think that goes against the spirit of competition.     Some times the agreement is outright spoken, many times it's just a kinda wink wink, nod nod situation.

I don't battle some people because I don't think I can win.   I don't not go after a recruit because the school is in my conference.  The I want "St. Rose to be good but St. Thomas to be bad so  get more recruiting cash" seems sorta silly and against the idea of a fair playing field.

Again, I may be the only one who thinks this.  I don't want to start another vitriolic thread.  I apologize if my thoughts insult anyone, it isn't my intention.  
I often avoid fighting conference mates because a: I'm in a good full conference, b: most of my conference mates are relatively close to me geographically and therefore I have no distance based cost leveraging advantage for recruiting, c: since it IS a successful conference I know that my conference mates also have a good cash reserve of postseason money and therefore its less advantageous to battle them then someone who doesn't have that advantage. By definition, almost, your conference mates in a really strong conference don't make the best people to battle with for recruits, unless its someone REALLY special.
4/29/2013 11:25 AM
+1 ars. I agree with everything you say. The one exception I have is if I am on a guy I really want first and a conference mate comes on later, I definitely will battle and defend to the extreme. I usually win those battles.
4/29/2013 12:13 PM
Posted by coachvegas44 on 4/29/2013 11:25:00 AM (view original):
+1 ars. I agree with everything you say. The one exception I have is if I am on a guy I really want first and a conference mate comes on later, I definitely will battle and defend to the extreme. I usually win those battles.
Just saying what looks like a "tacit unspoken agreement" is often a whole bunch of teams acting selfishly in their own best interests in concert. Its just that often what is in their best interest is avoiding picking recruiting battles with teams which are typified by the type that are in their conference: close by teams with strong cash reserves. Not necessarily all cases, but probably much more than you think.
4/29/2013 12:29 PM
"tacit unspoken agreement" was the term I couldn't find last night...thanks.

I didn't mean to imply that anyone in particular was doing that OR it happens all the time but I do believe that it happenes.  And when it does, it's wrong.
4/29/2013 1:23 PM
I usually only enter battles with those in my conference under the following conditions:

1. The player is close to me in location.

This is necessary so that not only do I stand a chance to win the battle, but if I am closer to him, the distance essentially stakes my claim to the player.

2. I value the player's skills and there are no similar players I think I can get in an easier method.

If I can get another similar guy, then I won't start a battle with a conference mate for the same guy. It's wise sometimes with other people too - why battle and waste cash on guys when there is another guy just like him.

I recently entered a battle with a conference mate who was on a recruit 10 miles from me (it was 280 miles for him) and the next best player after the guy was significantly less talented.  Once the battle was over (I won) I immediately let the conference mate know that I would have told him to back off so he could save his cash since I'd rather the conference be stronger if it wasn't against the rules. I had done the math and between the distance and the cash I had and the actions I'd seen him take, I knew he couldn't beat me unless I gave up. He told me he had no hard feelings.

4/29/2013 1:27 PM (edited)
I am a new coach (2nd season) but I love my conference a lot!  Everyone is really kind and helpful, and some very skilled coaches there.  I don't think I would ever want to take recruits from them.  In this game, the ultimate goal is to win the championships.  Various strategies are employed- I think this is a great and ethical strategy.  Avoiding in-conference battling will potentially help my entire conference, and in turn also help me :)  But also, I would not feel good to take a recruit from a conference mate, even if the recruit was really good.  I am in DIII and to me so far it seems battling in-conference mates for players is not a necessity, unless they engage you first.  The cool thing is everyone has this opportunity, so no one conference necessarily has an advantage over another one, in that sense.  

All this said, I really have a fond attachment to my conference, and seeing them do well is almost as important to me as doing well myself.  That may sway my opinion a little.  Also, I had a recruit taken from me last minute by a conference mate this last recruiting period... so even if some players feel avoiding conference battles is a good tactic (like me), the conference really won't have much of an advantage unless ALL players in the conference do not battle each other.  I think it is very kind to your conference, and it promotes a friendly atmosphere :D  
4/29/2013 1:30 PM
That was my first post ever on the forum... be gentle ;)
4/29/2013 2:25 PM
Posted by ezekialstarr on 4/29/2013 1:27:00 PM (view original):
I am a new coach (2nd season) but I love my conference a lot!  Everyone is really kind and helpful, and some very skilled coaches there.  I don't think I would ever want to take recruits from them.  In this game, the ultimate goal is to win the championships.  Various strategies are employed- I think this is a great and ethical strategy.  Avoiding in-conference battling will potentially help my entire conference, and in turn also help me :)  But also, I would not feel good to take a recruit from a conference mate, even if the recruit was really good.  I am in DIII and to me so far it seems battling in-conference mates for players is not a necessity, unless they engage you first.  The cool thing is everyone has this opportunity, so no one conference necessarily has an advantage over another one, in that sense.  

All this said, I really have a fond attachment to my conference, and seeing them do well is almost as important to me as doing well myself.  That may sway my opinion a little.  Also, I had a recruit taken from me last minute by a conference mate this last recruiting period... so even if some players feel avoiding conference battles is a good tactic (like me), the conference really won't have much of an advantage unless ALL players in the conference do not battle each other.  I think it is very kind to your conference, and it promotes a friendly atmosphere :D  
First, welcome to the forums. Second, I respectfully disagree. :) The problem is that while you may feel you're promoting a friendly atmosphere by not battling, your conf mates aren't likely to feel the same way. And if they have no hesitation in battling you, you're going to lose players you want if you refuse to engage when you feel it's necessary. That's just going to weaken your team and foster resentment. Plus, if you decide to verbally share your nice strategy with your mates to get their buy-in, you've now crossed over from "friendliness" to "collusion".

However, I do agree with your statement in the middle there - at D3, battles are usually unnecessary, because so many players are of approx equal quality.
4/29/2013 2:37 PM
join D3 Wooden.  You'll see some epic D3 battles over there.
4/29/2013 3:16 PM
Unrelated to battling other conference coaches.... But as for D3 battling in general:

I get that avoiding battles can be a good policy. Yes, there are many players of equal value if you look hard enough. However, I find it funny that so many coaches who have been around for a long time are advising new coaches to avoid battles. That is convenient advice when your recruiting strategy is to mark your territory early with your high prestige so that nobody dares touch your recruit.

A lot of times coaches might have a prestige advantage and maybe even a slight proximity advantage... a conference advantage, more money.... it doesn't matter. If a bunch of really good players are considering that school early on and you watch other schools pop up on those recruits' lists of schools being considered, that coach is spread too thin.

Just my opinion here, but it's so important in recruiting to target specific players to meet the exact need of your team. That means finding a player that is the right class with the right skills, etc. And no, sometimes there is not another player out there who fits as well as the one guy you've marked that you need. My point is you CAN win that battle. Not always. But if the other coach is spread too thin and you can budget spending less money on a few other recruits to drop your bank on that one guy you need... do it. And don't listen to advice of every other coach telling you not to battle "especially at D3".
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.