I don't understand how you can compare suggesting easy noncon scheduling to telling conference mates to avoid battling each other for recruits. They are just in two completely different spectrums. 

honestly, i can see how you ask the question. i seriously asked myself, before suggesting to my conf mates we try such a strategy, "is this collusion"? i mean, we are all making an agreement to do something to our mutual benefit. the reality is, it may not be in every single person's best interest to schedule that way (although it is in most cases, in a conference as hard as ours, where you get battle tested pretty damn well already). and even if it is, some people might not do it independently for fun reasons. any time you have agreements leading to benefits of the group, i can see where the question comes from. we are, after all, sort of gaming the system, if you will. however, the goal of scheduling has been to game the system for as long as i can remember. so i conclude it must be ok... and also, that collusion was never suggested by CS in any context outside recruiting and throwing games. 

but, i can see where the question comes from... especially as those who make the leap to game the system as a group can out perform those who don't. it took me a good two months to be confident enough to even makes the proposal (maybe that is extreme, but as a multi-team coach, i have always taken these issues extremely seriously. i couldnt stand to feel my own titles were tarnished by some artificial advantage i gave myself. and anyway, i generally run out of things in this game to over analyze, so i have to find something :)

i pretty much agree with you. but in the last paragraph, when you say its a new topic - it really isnt. WIS has treated attempted or implicit collusion (implicit as in someone may have implicitly agreed, and you never know) as collusion for years. it just carries softer penalties - namely, a warning. ive yet to see a coach fail to wise up after a warning, so we could see the penalty for repeated offenders, but i suspect repeated transgressions would result in the same penalty as straight up collusion. but as seble/CS has demonstrated, repeatedly, attempted collusion is crossing the line.

in the sitemail example, that coach would absolutely get a warning and maybe more, theres no question that is not allowed. again, i would agree the fair play guidelines are not clear on that, but it doesn't really matter, CS would consider it an infraction regardless, and i think there is very very little doubt there. the HD community would probably call for the guy's head, CS probably wouldn't give it to them, but it is what it is.


+1, you know  more of the history than I do, I have not encountered that.  Perhaps in wanting to distinguish between the two (attempt to collude vs. collusion) I was being needlessly semantic, though I do think it would be useful for the fair play guidelines to cover attempt if that is the way they enforce it.

Posted by ll316 on 9/13/2012 5:31:00 PM (view original):
Not even remotely collusion. But - I'll never schedule that way.  Having teams you play year after year is a big part of the fun of staying at a school long term.

I agree completely. So many people try to manipulate their schedules. I say play the same teams each year (obviously make sure those schools are around the same level as your own with maybe one or two that might be over your head), and develop rivalries, its part of what makes this game so fun. Also, if you win your SOS and RPI will take care of itself.

Posted by point_piper on 9/14/2012 3:58:00 PM (view original):
i pretty much agree with you. but in the last paragraph, when you say its a new topic - it really isnt. WIS has treated attempted or implicit collusion (implicit as in someone may have implicitly agreed, and you never know) as collusion for years. it just carries softer penalties - namely, a warning. ive yet to see a coach fail to wise up after a warning, so we could see the penalty for repeated offenders, but i suspect repeated transgressions would result in the same penalty as straight up collusion. but as seble/CS has demonstrated, repeatedly, attempted collusion is crossing the line.

in the sitemail example, that coach would absolutely get a warning and maybe more, theres no question that is not allowed. again, i would agree the fair play guidelines are not clear on that, but it doesn't really matter, CS would consider it an infraction regardless, and i think there is very very little doubt there. the HD community would probably call for the guy's head, CS probably wouldn't give it to them, but it is what it is.


+1, you know  more of the history than I do, I have not encountered that.  Perhaps in wanting to distinguish between the two (attempt to collude vs. collusion) I was being needlessly semantic, though I do think it would be useful for the fair play guidelines to cover attempt if that is the way they enforce it.

oh god yes. i am 100% with you on that one. i think the reality of the situation is just that WIS is a small company (well, small division of the giant fox, which is worse - it means there is no founder or founders there who really care like only a founder can, which is what usually corrects these situations in the absence of proper structure - which is obviously the case at WIS, and almost every other small internet company on this planet. and im not faulting anyone there, just the way it is). i doubt they have a legal department, so my guess is someone in CS or a programmer/admin or product manager drafted this, and that is the wrong person - but they probably dont have the authority to hire a lawyer and pay them a few grand to clean it up. and to even try to get approval probably involves so much bureaucratic bullshit, they just dont bother. so, i think they just make due. if WIS was five or ten times bigger, i think they'd have to fix this stuff, but they are just under that line somewhere where a company is small enough to get away with this crap.

i worked at a family start up for most of my life, and i can tell you for sure, when we were as little as WIS, we let **** like that slide left and right. the difference was, we were really focusing on what mattered, and i think WIS is sadly just plodding through the forest, trying to find a tree. i know that if our little company (up to 175 people, but still little) got bought out by one of the giants in the industry, it would crush morale, and all the people who really cared would find themselves either out of a job, or seeking a new job themselves, in short order. so i can definitely relate to the situation over there. well, i mean not EVERYONE, but those left would most likely have no power to effect change, and then would fall into a funk so to speak... a shadow of their former effectiveness. its a sad world, the business world is.

So now thor is basically insinuating that he'll use his A+ prestige to go after A10's recruits.  Classy.

9/14 6:46 PM	pepwaves007		Yep. I read thor's words that way too. Certainly sounded like threats. That would not be smart on his part to do anything stupid during recruiting...
9/14 6:34 PM	mjwilson		All of this racket over a game strategy that is not even 100% endorsed? I do not care to compare, but I doubt A10 plays many mores sims than the Big 12 does. If someone uses a different strategy to make it to the NT , what is the big problem? ...
9/14 6:34 PM	mjwilson		...Sounds like a big case of sour grapes from just one member of a great conference.
9/14 6:30 PM	mjwilson		Dang, sounds like threats to sabotage some ones' recruiting efforts. I know I read that that type of action violates fair play guidelines. Just sayin'
9/14 2:55 PM	pepwaves007		It'll be nice to receive the results of that ticket, so we can put this silly argument to rest.
9/14 2:53 PM	pepwaves007		Wow. Talk about hypocrisy. Thor is saying, "I tried being nice" when the first thing he did to start all this was make an unprovoked, serious accusation of collusion (secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy) on the part of 12 coaches. ...
9/14 2:53 PM	pepwaves007		...Then he proceeded to make unnecessary comments like "obtuse thinking, wow!" and "anyone that can read..." But, now he wants to play the victim role and then flex his A+ prestige muscles. ::rolls eyes::
9/14 2:11 PM	mm_harmon		0 and no, thanks
9/14 1:59 PM	thorknight	Kansas (Big 12)	ticket had already been submitted by both me and chappel yesterday. The only respect I have at this point for is for chapel. Oh and mm harmon how many champs do you guys have in this world at D1 and are you a commmie? Didn't know I couldn't voice ...
9/14 1:59 PM	thorknight	Kansas (Big 12)	...my opinion. Just STFU all of you. I have tried being nice. And I said there is nothing wrong with recruiting other coaches but chapel understood what rubbed me wrong and that is squashed, so a lot of people are making this into a bigger deal ...

9/14 1:59 PM	thorknight	Kansas (Big 12)	...then it is by throwing insults at me and really grasping at straws. Not smart. And when you insult an A+ team make sure you have the prestige to back it up and not accuse me of poor coaching like the D2 duplicate account retard did. Have any of ...
9/14 1:59 PM	thorknight	Kansas (Big 12)	...you made the tourney 30 seasons? I took over a **** poor B- KU and turned in into a powerhouse and never looked back. I've earned my say in this game. And I hadn't submitted a ticket until after you guys started to throw insults at me. I'm not ...
9/14 1:59 PM	thorknight	Kansas (Big 12)	...that type of person, and tried to bring to your attention. Take it for whatever you like but making me angry accomplishes nothing for you guys. Way to try to make your conference better. Lets **** off some A+ prestige teams. Next time learn to ...
9/14 1:59 PM	thorknight	Kansas (Big 12)	...be decent and smart about it or STFU. I was trying to be considerate of this game and other teams in other conferences that could feel the way I do. And people don't get generalizations. Never said anything about KU being hurt by this. I have ...
9/14 1:59 PM	thorknight	Kansas (Big 12)	...made the NT 30 years straight. BUT I am considerate of other teams that may be hurt by this including in my conference. You guys are not and that is the root of this.
9/14 1:44 PM	mm_harmon		feels good to have it out in the open now
9/14 1:42 PM	mm_harmon		don't know about y'all but I'm colluding my *** off
9/14 1:37 PM	a_in_the_b	Drury (Heartland)	Nt slot, btw, could also = "seeding"
9/14 11:37 AM	joefuskojr		wow we are quite the popular coaches corner. I do agree with thor that it is not just those 4 examples. It says, "here are a few examples" which leaves the door open for other possibilities. However, I don't see how it is collusion. ...
9/14 11:37 AM	joefuskojr		...Collusion is defined as "any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users." We are trying to better our conference by encouraging each other to schedule to win. This does not seem to fall under ...

Bad thing is, my team, St. Louis is the only A-10 team that is very close geographically to the Big 12. I don't think that will happen though.

i dont know thor, maybe he is a great guy, but those comments about prestige are pretty lame. i didnt see how he may or may not have been provoked, but seriously... i mean come on. does he expect anyone to believe he is going to steal recruits off a b- teams and such to "hurt" them? i think that would be hurting him more, i doubt (and no offense to the a10, sounds like a strong a10) there are more than a few schools signing the players he wants - and most likely, they have enough prestige to more than make up for his distance. its one thing to make a dick threat. its another thing to make an idle dick threat. thats just lame. " And when you insult an A+ team make sure you have the prestige to back it up". i mean really, who says **** like that.

Not out of thors character. I posted on this collusion topic recently afer several coaches in the ACC proposed a let' not battle each other and look "west" (which I took to mean the SEC, the weakest BCS conf in Phelan, with LSU signing 3x 5 stars this cycle):


I posted the following, directed at another coach who said public information on the CC cannot be considered as collusion (remember, this is not directed at thor):

9/09 12:44 PM	tianyi7886		For what it's worth, talks like this (explicitly stating things like coaches shouldn't battle in conf, or look at certain regions) has been labeled as collusive actions by WIS in the past 2 years. When it comes to recruiting, the less people talk ...
9/09 12:44 PM	tianyi7886		...about it the better. Talks like avoiding battles among certain parties or look at certain regions (which has been the talk here) is crossing the line. What happens when the SEC purposely looks east, Big East purposely looks south, while ...
9/09 12:44 PM	tianyi7886		...PAC10/B12/B10 all purposely look far far east/southeast? Hey it's just all talk right? This was the kind of talk that happened in D1 Allen a few seasons back.

9/09 11:25 AM	tianyi7886		Or put yourself on the other end. How would you feel should the Big East teams openly discuss recruiting South while SEC teams openly discuss recruiting East simultaneously?
9/09 11:17 AM	tianyi7886		I disagree that only sitemails can be collusion while public CC posts cannot be. Under this criteria, would my posting of "let's all go for LSU's 5 stars, I take player #1, you take #2, he takes #3" in the CC not be collusion? This is ...
9/09 11:17 AM	tianyi7886		...effectively what you are trying to do. You are trying to decrease inter-conference battles while increasing battles against SEC teams by specifically suggesting to coaches that they should be going west. If two coaches had a meeting of the mind ...
9/09 11:17 AM	tianyi7886		...without discussing this topic and simply avoided battles, great, it's all legitimate. But this is not the case here.

Thor's response:

9/10 5:43 PM

thorknight

This is addressed to tiannyi. Now I'm done posting here. Have a nice day.

9/10 5:42 PM	thorknight		When did I say it? Seriously? Why the heck do you tug the tiger's tail? You are new to BCS schools politics I can see that. Didn't you say that? And there is no collusion on my part. Stop and think before you post **** that I never said and ...
9/10 5:42 PM	thorknight		...make a good and decent coach angry. The thing I hate the most is people taking my words out of context or embellishing them which you clearly did. I never alluded to that and I won't apologize for trying to rally the conference, yet you accuse me ...

9/10 5:42 PM	thorknight		...of collusion when I said clearly to recruit nationally not suggest what you suggested. God forbid I try to rally the conference. F*** this. What a noob to D1. I'll look for myself and I will keep recruiting smartly but I'll widen my search a ...
9/10 5:42 PM	thorknight		...state or two now. You guys do what you want I'm really done posting in these forums when a noob to handling a D1 BCS schools says this crap about me. My actions will be the only thing that will speak. And you can all thank him for that. You ...
9/10 5:42 PM	thorknight		...want me to recruit for myself ONLY and not take anything in conference for consideration you got it.

Apparently, unless you have coached D1 for 40+ seasons, you cannot speak to thor...

And funny thing is, I simply voiced my opinion on an established form of collusion when thor brought his allmighty wrath on me in Phelan. Yet when he accuses the A-10 of collusion and the A-10 responded, he calls them a commie for squashing his right to free speech...hypocrisy anyone?

'tug at the tiger's tail'? someone is full of themselves.

hmm, sounds like an A rate jackass. i hate people who think they are too good to consider the opinion of others. you may be a d1 noobie (and i have no idea if thats true) but you are still a respected coach in the community. and even if you weren't, it still doesnt matter, if someone makes a statement in a reasonable fashion, it should be addressed respectfully. a few other coaches have come around with that same mentality (wont name names), and it drives me crazy. i will listen to anyone, and i have about 50 times the resume he does, same goes for the other coaches who act that way. doesn't matter if you won a d1 title in 30 seasons at kansas, or picked up a few titles at a little d3 school in an abandoned world, or even if you are OR with three dozen or so titles... that doesn't make you better than anyone else... and the funny thing is, he cops the attitude to you, who 9 out of 10 coaches would peg as the better coach. the coach i allude to with the couple d3 titles talked the same way towards myself and daalter... its like really, you think having ONE good program in an abandoned world gives you the right to talk down to anybody, least of all coaches with 10 times your success?

and you would think even the type of person who feels having a good resume gives you the right to talk down to people, at least would not talk down to their superiors. if winning makes you better than someone, and you expect them to suck your dick at every turn, wouldn't you at least treat those who have much better resumes with respect? i mean, at least then you'd be somewhat consistent, albeit still a dick. but i guess some people are just pompous ********.

thorknight is behaving like a jackass. A colluding jackass, actually.

not to alter the direction, but what if someone wrote a thread in which he outlined his view on the smart ways to live with others in your conference, like (and I'm not sure these are correct, just an example) - is writing a set of opinions about this at all troublesome?  lets assume it is written on a generic forum and not posted on a coaches corner and not written during pending recruiting....

1. a conference can maximize its rpi if every member of the conference aims for 8-10 out of conference wins against teams that are the best opponents each member can find against which he is pretty confident of a win

2. avoid battles with other conference members unless there is no realistic alternative for you

3.  avoid signing cycle pounces on conference mates 

4. watch who outside your conference is battling your conference mates for players and look their for opportunities to find recruits who are not well protected

i would have no problem with that, fd. #1 is fine in conference or anywhere in my book. #2 i dont even think it a problem stated as a personal preference on the CC but no other schools or conferences should be named.  #3 can definitely be mentioned as a personal preference on the CC too, as long as you aren't seemingly trying to prompt everyone else to agree with you. i think most coaches try to give conference mates this courtesy anyway. #4 i feel the same way, its just smart play, although really smart play is to look for anyone you can find who is in battles to see if you can poach off of, not just people battling conf mates. i personally feel like intentionally DEFENDING the teams in your conf is a little too far for my tastes, i mean i do try to follow the gentleman's rule in conference (meaning, if you have options, lean away from screwing over someone in conf), but to intentionally dissuade people from battling anyone in your conf by ganging up on them... i don't now, it rubs me the wrong way, if thats how its spun. but i dont think that makes just stating it as your preference cheating.

i maybe see where you are going... where do you draw the line? its really a tough thing, which is why (i think) seble just issues a warning to make sure people are careful, and so those who feel something was wrong can take some solace, without anything really coming of it. when does it not become ok to just state any of these things as a preference (#1 is always ok i think, but 2-4)? well, as soon as any other team or conference is mentioned, i think its over the line, and i feel that would be generally accepted as an attempt to attack a specific person or conference. 

the real trouble is that if one person can state this as their preference, what happens if a second guy decides its a good time to state the same? and a third? ive had people in my conference mention that they generally try to avoid battles with conf mates, and a bunch of people agreed. im not sure theres really any issue yet, most of those people did battle a conf mate in the next half dozen seasons, and nobody was clamoring "i will never battle a conf mate and neither should you" or anything like that. but if it started to seem like a group agreement, or definitely if it becomes a pact where somebody would be treated differently for some transgression, i guess then it is suddenly an issue? im not sure, curious what others think. 

Posted by girt25 on 9/14/2012 11:27:00 PM (view original):
thorknight is behaving like a jackass. A colluding jackass, actually.

well, at least you cant fault him for going for the gold.