Really? I've never seen a coach banned for anything. At least not that I would know I guess unless the news is made public. All I have ever seen are warnings.

Posted by reddyred on 9/10/2013 1:19:00 PM (view original):
Really? I've never seen a coach banned for anything. At least not that I would know I guess unless the news is made public. All I have ever seen are warnings.

Well, of course, most companies (including Blizzard and others) never make bannings public unless they're trying to send a message. 

So ultimately what the rest of us hear are usually little more than rumors.

I'm not sure what good the prohibition against collusion is if there are no consequences.
 

ive never heard of a banning of a player completely. people have had to move teams and have had other lesser penalties.

Posted by reddyred on 9/10/2013 1:19:00 PM (view original):
Really? I've never seen a coach banned for anything. At least not that I would know I guess unless the news is made public. All I have ever seen are warnings.

There have been players banned for  reasons other than collusion.  There was one coach who guessed another coach's password and posted about the porn site that he'd visited.  He was banned.  That was  in the early days when these boards were more like Facebook.  Some coaches would post very personal information

Another coach, upset after a loss,  wrote a racist, homophobic, profanity-laden post and was banned from the game.  He came back with a different name and was banned again

gillespie, minutes are definitely rejected if you are being considered but behind. 

I think this discussion is interesting, because at D2/D3 I feel like the gentlemen's rule to not poach conference mates disproportionately helps those on the geographic edge of a mostly full conference. If you're in the middle of it all, I swear every recruit around you has been claimed by the time you figure out how much cash you have and how many guys you need to spend it on. If you're on the edge, provided you're not bordering another conference that's just as full, there are still tons of guys that you can get without a fight. 

Of course, at D2/D3 the dynamic is very different because you don't have the cash to battle left and right. It's just interesting how it affects things differently at different levels. 

There are various interesting geographic effects.  Being in the middle of a conference, the edge.  being on the edge of the map, being in a place where there is lots of water around - where there cant be recruits.....In worlds where there are one or two dominant conferences, there are "gravitational" effects on nearby conferences....bad effects....

Posted by tarvolon on 9/10/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):
gillespie, minutes are definitely rejected if you are being considered but behind. 

I think this discussion is interesting, because at D2/D3 I feel like the gentlemen's rule to not poach conference mates disproportionately helps those on the geographic edge of a mostly full conference. If you're in the middle of it all, I swear every recruit around you has been claimed by the time you figure out how much cash you have and how many guys you need to spend it on. If you're on the edge, provided you're not bordering another conference that's just as full, there are still tons of guys that you can get without a fight. 

Of course, at D2/D3 the dynamic is very different because you don't have the cash to battle left and right. It's just interesting how it affects things differently at different levels. 

I think tarvolon's D2/D3 observation makes sense if you are among the lower prestiges in your conference.  If you are the highest prestige in your conference, then every good recruit has probably not been claimed, because you will have access to recruits, and sooner, than your conference mates.  

Regarding poaching, it only bothers me when some tries and fails.  That means they were sloppy and miscalculated and it messes up my plans with the rest of my money, and they didn't even get anything out of it.  If someone does it and clearly has me crushed, I can't really complain.  

Good point gerkin. My immediate thought was recruiting the SoCal where five of us had some level of A prestige, so that did get pretty crowded though. 

And I totally agree on trying and failing. If you have me beat, fair play to you. If you're just running me and yourself out of money to no end? That drives me nuts. 

Posted by rgerkin on 9/10/2013 10:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 9/10/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):
gillespie, minutes are definitely rejected if you are being considered but behind. 

I think this discussion is interesting, because at D2/D3 I feel like the gentlemen's rule to not poach conference mates disproportionately helps those on the geographic edge of a mostly full conference. If you're in the middle of it all, I swear every recruit around you has been claimed by the time you figure out how much cash you have and how many guys you need to spend it on. If you're on the edge, provided you're not bordering another conference that's just as full, there are still tons of guys that you can get without a fight. 

Of course, at D2/D3 the dynamic is very different because you don't have the cash to battle left and right. It's just interesting how it affects things differently at different levels. 

I think tarvolon's D2/D3 observation makes sense if you are among the lower prestiges in your conference.  If you are the highest prestige in your conference, then every good recruit has probably not been claimed, because you will have access to recruits, and sooner, than your conference mates.  

Regarding poaching, it only bothers me when some tries and fails.  That means they were sloppy and miscalculated and it messes up my plans with the rest of my money, and they didn't even get anything out of it.  If someone does it and clearly has me crushed, I can't really complain.  

+1 especially the last part here. I've seen coaches ruin other coaches recruiting trying late poaches on the other side of the country (If you coach in the midwest why attempt to poach someone late in Cali?- with a prestige disadvantage on top of the distance) ... It just leaves you wondering what the hell the other coach was trying to do - almost seems like sabotage sometimes. But I have to say when someone tries and fails I do feel better about the whole system - hooray for small victories.

you cant empathize with that TJ? never had a school with less money, prestige, and a distance disadvantage foolishly try to take a guy they could never win? its like any game - when you play at a higher level, rookie mistakes can be annoying. just like how poker players get ****** when idiot rookies call an all-in with a gutshot straight draw and then hit it. it definitely can be frustrating, fighting battles when you think it should be obvious to the other guy how stupid this battle really is. thats all these guys are saying, i feel like you are over emphasizing things here, a couple simple comments were made, its not like people are carrying on ******* and moaning about this.

I guess that reads a little angrier than I wanted.

But seriously, I don't empathize with someone because they don't get everything they wanted.   When you sit down to play cards you don't choose your opponents.  You just play the table.

And I should note, I am incredibly empathic man.  I vote for the green party, have a pony tail, and knew about BPA before the Canadians did.

I should also note, there is a magical ZERO under the championships column in my profile.

i really have no idea what any of those things (including the 0 championships) has to do with being empathetic... and nobody is saying they should get everything they wanted. they are just pointing out a source of frustration. they even said they dont mind so much when someone attacks their guy and they end up losing the guy over it. if they wanted everything they would complain about that, too. but that is simply not the case. people are simply pointing out a source of frustration, im really not sure where you are coming from with the whole people are complaining because they dont get everything they wanted thing. 

Enjoying this thread, a lot of good discussion.

I'd like to see more internecine warfare among conference mates.  As has been pointed out in other threads, Roy Williams doesn't stop chasing a recruit because the kid already has Duke on his "Considering" list.  The gambling analogy listed above is apt, except that if you're recruiting against someone in a Big 6 conference observing gentlemanly behavior with members of his conference, then you're really playing cards against 12 players who all have more chips than you and who won't bet into each other.  Which sucks.

With the current prestige formulas and post-season cash allocation, coaches are motivated to avoid conference mates in battles where reasonably possible.  So I'd like to get rid of conference impact on prestige.  I'd also like to get rid of post-season money going to all the schools in a conference just because one or two coaches had a long run in the dance.  This would take away the incentives for playing nice with conference mates during recruiting.  If anything, you'd be MORE interested in giving a bloody nose to a team that you're going to face two or three times a year.

This is America, damn it.  Stand or fall on your own, don't be a weenie and count on your conference mates to prop you up.

Posted by davis on 9/11/2013 2:57:00 PM (view original):
Enjoying this thread, a lot of good discussion.

I'd like to see more internecine warfare among conference mates.  As has been pointed out in other threads, Roy Williams doesn't stop chasing a recruit because the kid already has Duke on his "Considering" list.  The gambling analogy listed above is apt, except that if you're recruiting against someone in a Big 6 conference observing gentlemanly behavior with members of his conference, then you're really playing cards against 12 players who all have more chips than you and who won't bet into each other.  Which sucks.

With the current prestige formulas and post-season cash allocation, coaches are motivated to avoid conference mates in battles where reasonably possible.  So I'd like to get rid of conference impact on prestige.  I'd also like to get rid of post-season money going to all the schools in a conference just because one or two coaches had a long run in the dance.  This would take away the incentives for playing nice with conference mates during recruiting.  If anything, you'd be MORE interested in giving a bloody nose to a team that you're going to face two or three times a year.

This is America, damn it.  Stand or fall on your own, don't be a weenie and count on your conference mates to prop you up.

I have to say that I've never "counted on my conference mates to prop me up".  Sure, do I enjoy the prestige they bring and the extra recruiting cash?  Youbetcha, why would I turn it down?   After that, it's all up to me.  I've seen dozens of conference mates struggle along with D+ or C prestige, recruiting crappy players every year, and nobody offered them advice unless they asked for it.

But at the same time I have to agree with davis that it doesn't make a lot of sense that one or two coaches' success should benefit everyone in the conference as much as it does.  Some, yes, as it's only fair to mimick real revenue sharing contracts, but I have a hard time believing Michigan or Louisville's run last year made all that much difference to Nebraska or Seton Hall.  Maybe it did as it's a matter of scale.  And I realize a game has to make allowances for balance.  But somewhere in this calculation lies the current problem with Big 6 power schools in HD D1.