Or is it simply fair game to go for who you want, when you want.

Please consider the following questions:

Is it wrong to take a recruit from a lower prestige school when both are in the same area (no locale advantage)?

It is wrong to take a recruit from a lower prestige school when you have the location advantage?

Is it wrong to begin recruiting stealthily and/or right before the signing cycle or at the signing cycle?

Is it wrong to use the above recruiting tactics against someone in your own conference?

Should you ever battle someone in your conference?

I believe that it would be wrong to enter a battle against a lower level school for more than one recruit, would you agree?

And the last overall question, What is out of bounds?

There are no rules.

The only thing out of bounds is collusion.  Everything you've listed is just part of the deal.  I have successfully poached recruits and have also lost them to others who were, in your words, recruiting "stealthily" and/or late in the process.  And I've never had hard feelings about it because it is within the rules and there can be solid tactical reasons for doing it.

Is it wrong to take a recruit from a lower prestige school when both are in the same area (no locale advantage)?
No.  It may annoy them endlessly, but it's perfectly acceptable.  A coach should do what's in the best interest of their team.

It is wrong to take a recruit from a lower prestige school when you have the location advantage?
No.  Why does it matter where the school or the recruit is located?  If a coach wants a player and the player has not been signed - he's free game.

Is it wrong to begin recruiting stealthily and/or right before the signing cycle or at the signing cycle?
No.  I would say there is no such thing as stealthily recruiting.  It all becomes rather obvious in just over 3 hours like clockwork. 

Is it wrong to use the above recruiting tactics against someone in your own conference?
Absolutely not a problem.  Again, many coaches, I think to their disadvantage avoid conference battles.  But I want my team to be the best team, period.  Many conferences have schools nearby one another, so to avoid in conference battles is really rather foolish.  I know real life doesn't always apply in this game, but certainly coaches in the same conference battle all the time. 

Should you ever battle someone in your conference?
Only if you want to have the best team.

I believe that it would be wrong to enter a battle against a lower level school for more than one recruit, would you agree?
No, I would not agree.  Again, it may make them angry.  But what is the goal?  Spread out all the good recruits?  Or to win your conference, go to the NT, win the NT?  Typically if a school at a disadvantage of some type has a few good recruits they will be targeted by someone.  If they happen to have several recruits that are the best and most winnable battles, why not go after them?  Just because they called "first dibs"? and jumped on them the first cycle?  I have never understood this logic.

That said, if the makers of the game wanted to somehow provide greater weight to players considering schools longer or some other method to make high effort blasts just before signing less effective, I can totally understand that.  It is a less enjoyable part of the game when you are on the receiving end of a 30-40 home visit bomb when you feel so close to the finish line.  But, most coaches know that this can be avoided often with pre-emptive effort to make the recruit "tight" with the disadvantaged school.  That still may no help, but it often mitigates quite a bit of late effort bombs.  For the record, I have dropped the bomb and been bombed, so to speak, many times.  Clearly this is a D1 complaint mostly. 


And the last overall question, What is out of bounds?
Nothing is out of bounds.

good point davis.  Collusion with another coach is definitely out of bounds. 

collusion is out

some people think that one should TRY to avoid battles inside a conference - to preserve good relations and enhance the success of the conferences.  Others disagree.  Useful to figure out what the tone of any particular conference is and then decide - for yourself - how to handle that.

Personally, I usually look for options that don't involve any battle or if there is a battle a nonconf battle. BUT, if the best tactical option is an in-conference battle, so it goes.  I give some meaningful weight to the long term benefit - for me - of preserving peace within a conference.

I tend to look for places where I can get equivalent recruits without a battle before I'll go into a battle. But I'll defend the guys I'm on. So it's not 'never battle conference mates' but ... Conference mates have the best handle on how much money you are likely to have, what your resources are, etcetera. So they are often tougher battles to win.

Of course it's this guy again...how about you learn how to recruit dshook instead of begging WIS for recruits that you stop chasing.

Awesome thoughts and I agree with most. I just wanted to ask because some dude is killing me for "stealing" his recruits on our league forum. Thanks guys.

Posted by dshook30 on 12/8/2014 3:43:00 PM (view original):
Or is it simply fair game to go for who you want, when you want.

Please consider the following questions:

Is it wrong to take a recruit from a lower prestige school when both are in the same area (no locale advantage)?

It is wrong to take a recruit from a lower prestige school when you have the location advantage?

Is it wrong to begin recruiting stealthily and/or right before the signing cycle or at the signing cycle?

Is it wrong to use the above recruiting tactics against someone in your own conference?

Should you ever battle someone in your conference?

I believe that it would be wrong to enter a battle against a lower level school for more than one recruit, would you agree?

And the last overall question, What is out of bounds?

that next to last bullet point is interesting 

i dont like the use of the word "steal" there.

as to the whole sentence....hmmm...  to me it depends on motivation (which of course is usually impossible to prove)   if im in a battle(s) with a guy,  of course i want him to overspend somewhere and give me an edge.   

i DO think it is wrong to target another coach for any reason other than making your own team as good as it can be.   so spite, revenge, etc....  if that is why you are in multiple battles with same guy,  then i think that is wrong.   i think it might be hard to prove that  the "offending" coach was targeting another coaches recruits for unethical reasons... to me if he publicly states he's just trying to make his own team better... i gotta side with him at least until there is a mountain of evidence such as 3 or 4 seasons of being on same recruits when it doesnt appear to help the team... also,   ending up on multiple recruits vs another coach in different worlds on a routine basis.

Posted by oldave on 12/9/2014 11:05:00 AM (view original):
that next to last bullet point is interesting 

i dont like the use of the word "steal" there.

as to the whole sentence....hmmm...  to me it depends on motivation (which of course is usually impossible to prove)   if im in a battle(s) with a guy,  of course i want him to overspend somewhere and give me an edge.   

i DO think it is wrong to target another coach for any reason other than making your own team as good as it can be.   so spite, revenge, etc....  if that is why you are in multiple battles with same guy,  then i think that is wrong.   i think it might be hard to prove that  the "offending" coach was targeting another coaches recruits for unethical reasons... to me if he publicly states he's just trying to make his own team better... i gotta side with him at least until there is a mountain of evidence such as 3 or 4 seasons of being on same recruits when it doesnt appear to help the team... also,   ending up on multiple recruits vs another coach in different worlds on a routine basis.

Yeah, I don't know the coach at all and to my knowledge have never even played any of his teams. I liked the player and went after him. He said there was another player but it looked like to me it was only a sim team that I was battling with there. I never saw his team name pop up on the second player.

It took me a few teams before I finally came around to the idea that "poaching" and "stealing" were misnomers.  Just because a player is considering you doesn't mean he belongs to you - not until he signs a LOI.

Disconnect HD from real life.  In real life, you meet the player and his family.  You get to know him personally, perhaps strike up a friendship.  In HD, you gain consideration through effort, which can be quantified by dollars spent + prestige.  It's a numbers game, nothing more.  So why should I feel "ownership" of a player simply because I've been the only school on his list for several cycles?  If I spent too much of my budget and can't defend him from another school (which has happened a number of times, despite swearing to myself that it wouldn't), that's a lesson for me to learn.  Not a reason to get angry and yell about poaching.

It would only be poaching if other schools were allowed to send agents onto your campus and lure your existing players away, but the rules don't permit that.

Recruiting too often becomes an emotional issue.  I know, because I've done it.  It should not be emotional.  It's a numbers game, a math exercise.  If you lose a player you thought was yours, blame the math instead of another coach.

I will give you an example where I would have issues. Coach A and B are in the same area with about the same prestige. Coach A recruits normally and paying for FSS. Coach B simply waits and targets coach A's players without ever using FSS. This gives him a monetary advantage over coach A. I know this is an extreme hypothetical ( a less advance version would be 'if he's good enough for Coach A he's good enough for me') but I would have a problem with it,

Posted by bowen_brian on 12/9/2014 2:10:00 PM (view original):
I will give you an example where I would have issues. Coach A and B are in the same area with about the same prestige. Coach A recruits normally and paying for FSS. Coach B simply waits and targets coach A's players without ever using FSS. This gives him a monetary advantage over coach A. I know this is an extreme hypothetical ( a less advance version would be 'if he's good enough for Coach A he's good enough for me') but I would have a problem with it,

Everyone would agree that the coach in this situation is a jerk, and that's the nicest thing to say about him.  And we would all have no respect for someone who does that.  But the bottom line is, it's not against the rules, and there is no reason why it should be.  
Same would be true if a coach had a grudge against another coach and coach A decides his goal is to spend all his money trying to mess over coach B, even though it will mess him over as well.  Coach A is an idiot, but even that is not against any rules.