Posted by reinsel on 1/10/2011 9:07:00 PM (view original):
i think u should be limited to 1 team per world.  period.

This is what I think as well. With this many worlds, you can have many teams without ever needing to have multiple teams in one world. The only reason I can think of is to have an unfair recruiting edge, which totally unbalances the field.

I disagree with you guys; I think a coach should be able to have 2 teams in the same world, but the teams should not be in the same division, they should be spread out geographically and one of the schools should go no where near the other for recruits.  I would agree 5 teams in the same world is a bit much.  Also, I have never had two schools in the same world.

however, i think plenty of coaches have multiple teams in a world (myself included), who don't share FSS data. as long as you are careful about it, i don't see a problem with it. for example, i have a d1 and d2 team in a close geographical region. i have a lot of rival d2 schools in the area. i would never take a player off them with my d1 school, because it just isn't fair - i obviously wouldn't use my d1 school to take a guy off my d2 school, so that would be an unfair advantage. plus it just feels dirty (the other guy could feel it was intentional to screw their d2 school, on my d2 schools behalf, and then be afraid to battle me, or something).

i don't see how having one of those schools benefits the other at all - in fact, i feel it is a slight disadvantage to myself, because there are things i won't do to make sure i am playing fair, that could potentially be beneficial. so i personally don't see what is wrong with it.

I have two teams in Wooden.  One in D2 in Pennsylvania, one in D3 Minnesota.  I've never recruited a played from a state that I FSSed with the other.  It's a verifiable fact if WIS really wants to look into it.

I don't see what's wrong with that.  I understand the potential for cheating is there, but if I never cross paths with either FSS, and I can prove that, then I dont' see what the problem is.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 1/10/2011 11:06:00 PM (view original):
And there are two easy solutions which easily allows multiple teams, and prevent/or at least weaken the effect FSS sharing:

1) Make it so that the only way to recruit a player is to have scouted the player, either via a scouting report or via FSS scouting of the state. You cannot sign a player without scouting. This means even if a coach FSS shares, he still has to spend money to scout the state. Sure, a coach can still get a better idea of which state to scout by knowing who he wants, but at least let him spend the money for the state as well.

2) After recruiting is over, show which state each team has scouted via FSS. Just add an additional column to the recruiting tab. This way, we can tell which coach is recruiting his team and signing players w/o ever scouting the state. And if those unscouted players are consistently good and growing in key areas, it becomes obvious he's FSS sharing. Again, this runs into the problem of the coach avoiding detection just by scouting the state (after having shared FSS) but still, let him at least pay the scouting fee.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 1/10/2011 11:06:00 PM (view original):
And there are two easy solutions which easily allows multiple teams, and prevent/or at least weaken the effect FSS sharing:

1) Make it so that the only way to recruit a player is to have scouted the player, either via a scouting report or via FSS scouting of the state. You cannot sign a player without scouting. This means even if a coach FSS shares, he still has to spend money to scout the state. Sure, a coach can still get a better idea of which state to scout by knowing who he wants, but at least let him spend the money for the state as well.

2) After recruiting is over, show which state each team has scouted via FSS. Just add an additional column to the recruiting tab. This way, we can tell which coach is recruiting his team and signing players w/o ever scouting the state. And if those unscouted players are consistently good and growing in key areas, it becomes obvious he's FSS sharing. Again, this runs into the problem of the coach avoiding detection just by scouting the state (after having shared FSS) but still, let him at least pay the scouting fee.

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 1/11/2011 12:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 1/10/2011 11:06:00 PM (view original):
And there are two easy solutions which easily allows multiple teams, and prevent/or at least weaken the effect FSS sharing:

1) Make it so that the only way to recruit a player is to have scouted the player, either via a scouting report or via FSS scouting of the state. You cannot sign a player without scouting. This means even if a coach FSS shares, he still has to spend money to scout the state. Sure, a coach can still get a better idea of which state to scout by knowing who he wants, but at least let him spend the money for the state as well.

2) After recruiting is over, show which state each team has scouted via FSS. Just add an additional column to the recruiting tab. This way, we can tell which coach is recruiting his team and signing players w/o ever scouting the state. And if those unscouted players are consistently good and growing in key areas, it becomes obvious he's FSS sharing. Again, this runs into the problem of the coach avoiding detection just by scouting the state (after having shared FSS) but still, let him at least pay the scouting fee.

I think #2 is good theory but it really doesn't prove much. Last season on my Fitchburg St. D3 team I scouted an insane amount of states including Hawaii (my school is in Mass), Minnesota and Arkansas so by looking at it if I did have another team in that world one could think I was scouting for another team when that definitely wasn't the case.