Posted by ike1024 on 8/25/2013 10:05:00 AM (view original):
How is this even a grey area?

This

I don't get why some of you think this isn't wrong at all.  Recruiting is all about information.  A post like this draws unnecessary attention to a coach that shouldn't occur in the first place.  This could leave the coach open for getting jumped on for different recruits just based on the perception that a coach might be in too deep of a battle.  I'm not saying that it is 100% wrong and that the offending user should be punished, but don't try and pretend that it isn't at least a grey area.

I think for the most part people are giant pussholes when it comes to talking during recruiting. If a guy says what this guy said, it's up to you to figure it if he's telling the truth or not. I like posturing during recruiting, I even start posturing before recruiting begins a lot of times. A lot of guys that play this game tend to have sand in their vaginas during recruiting, and it's annoying. 

Moreover, the guy talking **** has an A- prestige and the guy in my conf has a C-...insecure much?  You want to talk about a *****, a guy 2 full letter grades above a first year coach at a school, trying to get him to stop recruiting "his guy"...

You ever think that maybe he's helping that guy out? There's nothing worse than having to spend needless money for a recruit which costs you getting another recruit and costs the guy fighting a hopeless battle from getting another player or 2. So the conference gets hurt, because two schools are worse off because of 1 guy taking on a hopeless battle. 

He's helping him out by telling him not to battle with him...lofl...GTFO...he's being a chooch, and the guy in my conference didn't ask for help.  I didn't say he was a first year coach at D2, I said he was a first year coach AT THE SCHOOL.

Do you not get that entering into a hopeless battle is about the worst thing you can do in recruiting? Like I said it hurts both schools. Is it really hard for you to comprehend that? On top of that it's posturing, you dudes who thinks this is some awful thing need to get off the rag. 

You know what I say to that...mind your own ******* recruiting.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that as long as you don't give away real information about somebody else and don't collude then say whatever you want. This may in fact be a hopeless battle for the C- team, and he could learn a lesson and get better at recruiting because the A- school said something; however, if he took your stance and said nothing, the C- team could just chalk it up to a loss battle and not think anything of it and not get better at recruiting. 

in my opinion, there SHOULD be a specific exemption that allows you to say just about anything (within the bounds of decency) in a coaches corner - so long as there is no agreement or suggestion of joint action.  Lets say you are recruiting a guy and someone enters the battle - no reason you should not be able to say "xxx you are pond scum, looks like we have a battle and you have not done the math to win" or "xxx starting a battle with me, while you also have battles with yyy and qqq - no way you can succeed"

all that would be fun

BUT, I think all that would currently be frowned upon

People shouldn't post about recruiting until recruiting is over/all battles have resolved. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 8/25/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
People shouldn't post about recruiting until recruiting is over/all battles have resolved. 

This is good advice.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 8/25/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
People shouldn't post about recruiting until recruiting is over/all battles have resolved. 

Uhhh, THIS.

But why?? I feel like these are like these stupid unwritten rules in baseball that everybody just follows and has no idea why, and can't even articulate why these rules are. 

Recruiting is the most important part of the game, so it should be the most fun, but because of people's fear and blind adherence to this unspoken rule recruiting is the most dull time, because everybody goes out of their way to be quiet. 

recruiting is the most dull time? now, thats the first ive heard that argument! d1 recruiting remains one of the key attractions of the game, so i don't think your comment there is typical of the community at large. that said, i do agree to some extent that its the time people are most engaged in the game, and thus, the time most natural to talk. and further, that the "no talking" (unspoken) rule does put a damper on things - just not to the extent you are suggesting.

i also disagree that everybody follows it and has no idea why. i think most of us understand why, irrespective of our individual abilities to articulate those reasons. the reason is generally, in my opinion, two fold - the first is to protect the normal players, "casual players" if you will, as well as semi serious and even "hardcore" users who dont want recruiting strategy to be predicated on communication between users. the reality is a lot of people, like yourself, would like this kind of communication to be a part of recruiting strategy, to banter, make real threats, bluffs, etc... however, a lot of coaches do not want to do those things to be part of it. these kinds comments made, even when innocent in intent, do have a material impact on the recruiting session of others. if everybody was doing it, its fair to everyone, generally speaking, in the long run at least. but if only some people do it, and others are not comfortable (not everyone will say, to use fd's example, "xxx starting a battle with me, while you also have battles with yyy and qqq - no way you can succeed" - knowing the impact on the other coach) - then its simply not fair. a lot of users are casual and want to just do their own thing, not have all this aggression in recruiting on the communication side. given that this would be unfair, those users, in the long run, would most likely not really be a significant part of the equation - but they are too important of a part of the HD base to exclude. i have *nothing* against a hardcore recruiting world where this kind of behavior is allowed, but i am strongly against it in normal worlds, partly for this reason.

the second reason has to do with the slipperiness of the slope. how do you draw the line between  "xxx starting a battle with me, while you also have battles with yyy and qqq - no way you can succeed", and "xxx starting a battle with me, im going to spend a **** ton, other people should take advantage", and "hey zzz lets both battle xxx, no way he can beat us both". it seems to me, you quickly descend into chaos. kmason, its possible there is a set of CLEAR AND CONCISE guidelines that could govern this communication. but, i personally dont see it. id be more than interested to hear your argument for why 1) it wont descend into chaos, 2) it doesnt matter if it does, or 3) that there is a set of guidelines we could use. i think any argument among those lines would be an interesting read :)