What's ethical, what isn't when it comes to recruiting?

Should we show our intention before last cycle before signing starts?

Should we never battle a conference mate?

When is it not ethical to grab a player?

In this context, as long as you're not cheating in any way then it's ethical. The real question is what are the norms embraced by the larger community and how those influence whether behaviors are viewed as right or wrong.

Generally, I won't battle a conference mate.   EXCEPTIONS: 1) We both show up on the recruit in the same cycle.   2) I have considerably more money and the recruit is nearer my school

you should do what the best strategy is for your team

(that said, if i have to choose between a basically equal situation battling a conference mate and someone else, i'll choose someone else)

1. Is it possible to go from completely off a recruit's list to signing him immediately at the start of signings if said player was already considering another program going into that cycle (honest question, I'm not sure if it is)? If two or more programs are being considered by a player though, in my eyes that's already a declaration of intent and those players need to recognize the chance that a big push might be made. 

2. I try to not battle in conference, but if we both land on the same recruit at the same time, it's game on. If I have to move onto a recruit because I got knocked off my first choice or if I missed the early cycles (because they start at noon my time) and I think I have a strategic advantage, I'll do it. Generally though there's not a player of high enough quality (D2 and D3) where the good of battling for the player overcomes the weakness caused by forcing 2 members of your conference (you and the other guy) to expend their resources to get the player. Very rarely do I see players that I don't think I can find a comparable counterpart for that I won't have to battle for if I look hard enough or show some patience for drops. That said though, my goal is to beat my conference mates in the season and postseason, so if I need to, I see nothing wrong with trying to beat them in the signing season as well. 

3. I don't think there's an unethical TIME to grab a recruit (unless you hack the server and sign them before anyone else has a crack...). There are unethical WAYS to get a recruit (colluding, using information you didn't pay for with that team, etc.), but as far as the when question, any time during signings is a "good" time to grab a kid if you're able to. 

For me as long as you don't receive info from another player or another team you own and don't pay for it with the team recruiting then any recruit is open.

As far as conference mates I don't usually battle them if they are already on a recruit. If I'm on the recruit first like this past recruiting I weight the options of money and open scholly's to decide if to fight or not. Most of the time if i'm on first I fight for the recruit.

I was on a player from the start, sent a coach call. He got considered right after the first cycle (had been pulled by two teams). I checked the teams, I had money advantage on both and distance on one. I said, ok, let's pull him now. I pull him, I am not considered. I send a HV, it is rejected. I am saying, let's wait on the WOS the next day and concentrate on getting other players in. Next day, WOS said he is not completly sold. I checked the team he considers, it's a conf-mate. But he was one of my top 2 choices right from the start.... What to do? I stratigically went for it and signed him after the signing period.

I wasn't sure it was ethical because my team's name only showed (he kept rejecting HVS and CVS), on 5, last cycle before the signings.

I still am not sure I will do that again. I was on the receiving end of this at least three times already.

sounds to me you didn't do anything wrong. Might have made you conference mate a little sore but like you said if you have played this game for 10 min that same thing has happened to all of us. I personally if it was my top choice would probably done the same thing if I couldn't find another recruit of the same caliber. Its part of the game. Me and a conf mate just battled for a recruit and if you add what we both spent its close to 19k in D2 for a recruit. He signed with the other guy but I choose to go after him so its on me as much as him. Your conf mate or anyone for that matter should be prepaid for someone to come it on that 5pm cycle happens all the time.

I think the mistake is players thinking that they have some right to a recruit when it NEAR the signing cycle.  In zorzil's example, there was no wrong doing.  Does it stink to be on the other end of it?  Yes.  But, coaches need to account for this factor and save enough money to battle for the player.  At D1, coaches prepare for this all the time.  Or if they are far away from the player, they have to realize things could go awry at any time by a school closer to the recruit

Typically players get raided late  and near signings at D2 or D3 when a coach spots a geographical advantage or the coach has a big advantage due to budget (i.e. more open scholarships)… or perhaps the player drops to their school and they decide to make a go for it.  WOTS is rarely going to say a D2 or D3 player is tight with those schools because schools simply can't lock up several players with that many HVs due to budget constraints.

As far as conference battles, I think that should also be fair game.  Practically speaking, schools in the same conference are often nearby to each other.  It's simply impossible to avoid battles.  And I don't think it's fair to say that the FIRST person who got the recruit considering their school should have any more right to them.  Why does it matter who got there first?  People act as though the kid made a verbal commitment - there are no verbal commits in HD!!!

I suppose there is something polite about passing on those guys, but it's often not in the best interest of your team. Coaches can play however they decide, but I think adding extra "gentleman's agreements" isn't necessary.  The bigger questions in my mind are:  are their ways to change the way the game so schools with only 1-2 scholarships open aren't at such a disadvantage in recruiting?  Should geography play such a big role in recruiting?  

D3 and D2 recruiting is essentially a somewhat complicated auction.  Good coaches learn what battles to pick and know when they can win the auction.  At D1 it is still an auction, but the player field is very uneven due to the additional element of prestige and increased amount of conference recruiting dollars.

Posted by zorzii on 8/16/2015 7:12:00 PM (view original):
I was on a player from the start, sent a coach call. He got considered right after the first cycle (had been pulled by two teams). I checked the teams, I had money advantage on both and distance on one. I said, ok, let's pull him now. I pull him, I am not considered. I send a HV, it is rejected. I am saying, let's wait on the WOS the next day and concentrate on getting other players in. Next day, WOS said he is not completly sold. I checked the team he considers, it's a conf-mate. But he was one of my top 2 choices right from the start.... What to do? I stratigically went for it and signed him after the signing period.

I wasn't sure it was ethical because my team's name only showed (he kept rejecting HVS and CVS), on 5, last cycle before the signings.

I still am not sure I will do that again. I was on the receiving end of this at least three times already.

You did nothing wrong, just strategic recruiting.

All is fair in love, war and recruiting, as long as the fair play guidelines are followed. I got knocked off a recruit during my last cycle a few seasons back. It happens, it was good recruiting strategy on his part. The not battling a conference mate aka "gentelman's agreement" seems silly to me. Let's be honest here, when it comes down to it, sure you want to build for a strong conference, but you could also give a rats *** about that other in-conference team in comparison to your teams needs and goals.

+1000

Posted by rednu on 8/16/2015 6:17:00 PM (view original):
1. Is it possible to go from completely off a recruit's list to signing him immediately at the start of signings if said player was already considering another program going into that cycle (honest question, I'm not sure if it is)? If two or more programs are being considered by a player though, in my eyes that's already a declaration of intent and those players need to recognize the chance that a big push might be made. 

2. I try to not battle in conference, but if we both land on the same recruit at the same time, it's game on. If I have to move onto a recruit because I got knocked off my first choice or if I missed the early cycles (because they start at noon my time) and I think I have a strategic advantage, I'll do it. Generally though there's not a player of high enough quality (D2 and D3) where the good of battling for the player overcomes the weakness caused by forcing 2 members of your conference (you and the other guy) to expend their resources to get the player. Very rarely do I see players that I don't think I can find a comparable counterpart for that I won't have to battle for if I look hard enough or show some patience for drops. That said though, my goal is to beat my conference mates in the season and postseason, so if I need to, I see nothing wrong with trying to beat them in the signing season as well. 

3. I don't think there's an unethical TIME to grab a recruit (unless you hack the server and sign them before anyone else has a crack...). There are unethical WAYS to get a recruit (colluding, using information you didn't pay for with that team, etc.), but as far as the when question, any time during signings is a "good" time to grab a kid if you're able to. 

Totally agree with rednu. This approach keeps both your team, and the conference, performing optimally. Plus, the extra recruiting $$$ from having several conference teams make a run is very valuable.

I don't like to battle with conference mate's either, unless we show up on the same recruiting cycle.  It is an equal playing field in that case.   There is a rare case that you have a conference mate from another state target a guy in your school's state that seems to be a better fit with your program.  I think in that case it is your conference peers choice to venture into your "territory".  You have to own the kids in your "backyard", after all.  Go ahead and take that recruit and let your conference peer blow their money.  When it is all said and done at the end of recruit signings and your full team is reported, everything is going to be forgotten.  I would hope that everyone has a backup recruit to fill that hole if the battle turns into a loss.  If not, they just don't know how to recruit and you win again.  

I think the real answer to this question lies in the "Team Prestige" rating.  The better team is going to have an obvious advantage.  The lower prestige is taking a small risk.  Quick answer is to recruit who you want with all risks considered.  You win some, you lose some.

I don't like to battle conference mates, especially at D3, but it's happened.  Overall I think it's a waste of resources when trying to build a strong overall conference since I do tend to agree that there are always similar enough guys out there that you can get without battling.  

I've been pushed off guys very late by a much higher team in D1, which happens from time to time.

For the most part all is fair in recruiting, but there are certainly things that happen that induce minor rage moments.