tooslim, this is not personal, but why do you or anyone have the right to decide what is fair or not fair.  I have been through all the guidelines and posted rules of the game and release notes in the 31 seasons I have been playing and have yet to find the words "poaching" or "jumping" anywhere.  Unwritten rules is an oxymoron, because if they are not part of the program they are not rules.  Unwritten rules like you are suggesting could only work if 100% of the players agreed and adhered to them (not to mention what are the actual unwritten rules, no jumping at 2pm but 11 am is ok, or should we clear those decisions with you before we make them)otherwise all the ranting in the world makes no difference.  Also, why does anyone have an inalienable right to sign a player just because they are being considered first.  If I get considered for 1000 dollars I should be able to assume that guy is mine 3 days later.  What about coaches that have, god forbid, jobs and other parts of their lives that prevent them from recruiting during every cycle.  I guess they are out of luck if most of the players they like are already condidering other schools.
Also do you realize what the word considering means, it means I'm thinking about it, only the word signed means I'm definately coming to your school.  Sorry. but the only system of rules that is uniform and fair is the actual rules of the sim engine and that is any coach with money can make a legal recruiting effort towards a player until that player is signed. 
 

Posted by emy1013 on 4/3/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):
By the way, just read your little rant in Iba and I've got to say Tooslim, you came across as quite the tool.  Dogging another coach about his lack of tournament success when you haven't done anything in the tourney yourself seemed just a bit...hypocritical.

Wow. That was some rant. So let me get this straight tooslim.... it's not cool to "poach" another player if some coach in your conference has been on him for a few cycles? But, in a conference where the teams are in MI, OH, and 1 in PA, a school from OH goes into MI to recruit???? The state where most of your conference is???? But you don't want to battle in conference???? Any OH team has the geographic advantage over a MI team because of Canada. And, as the rant goes, if you should battle other conferences, then why didn't you go after a SG from, oh, I don't know....WV, KY, IN, or OH? Or even PA? Unless, of course, a team in Erie gets dibs on the whole state, then scratch PA. If you're really "all about the conference," then there's no reason to go to MI. Unless, of course, a coach should go after the best players they can get for their team, regardless of where that player is or who else may be after them. And since that seems to be the path that you actually took, there's no reason to be upset that you lost unless you want to be upset at yourself for not budgeting enough to win.

I think people get caught up too much in conference unity, which is why we see so many threads like this pop up. The goal should be for each individual coach to strive for the best success for their own team, but the system is designed for you to want your conference mates to do great as well, as your prestige is effected (in D1) and your recruiting money is reliant on others.

I agree with most of the posters.  If you want a player, battle for him, doesnt matter who else he's considering.  But again like everyone else, with that said, if a conference mate gets on a recruit before me and I me jumping on him will cause a real battle, I try to find other options.  
But in some situations it's not possible.  In the CCAA in DII Allen, there are a bunch of good teams and we basically control the west coast recruits.  So if there is a great recruit there, it would be ridiculous for us not to battle each other for him.
Basically, it seems like a large majority of veteran coaches agree that there are no rules with this.  And yes less experienced coaches get frustrated when they think they deserve a recruit, but it's all part of the game.

I know I get caught up on the bonus cash and often forget that, even if your conference is kicking ***, the bonus cash is a relatively small piece of your recruiting budget. 

The ideal is a conference that's filled to the brim with great coaches but that is also geographically spread out enough that they can use their bonus cash to only battle other conferences and not their own conference. But there aren't many places where you can do this. The NAAA in D2 might be the best place, but even there, you can't have it completely full without the two Alaska coaches being at each other's throats. The way the conferences are set up, you'll have to occasionally battle conference mates in the vast majority of cases. If you're at Case Western, Chicago, or Washington in a strong Upstate, or Maryville or Fisk in a strong Ohio, or Colorado or Texas, Tyler in a strong SoCal. . . good for you, but you're in the minority. 

Poaching aside. There is (almost) no reason to fight against conference mates ever. My opinion.  Sometimes its unavoidable.  Mostly its a huge waste of money that weakens the conference overall so you get one player likely marginally better than another player for 3-4 years.  Big whup. Meanwhile you weaken the conference overall and strengthen the other conferences.  (almost) No player is worth that.

Posted by paleriders on 4/3/2014 4:48:00 PM (view original):
Poaching aside. There is (almost) no reason to fight against conference mates ever. My opinion.  Sometimes its unavoidable.  Mostly its a huge waste of money that weakens the conference overall so you get one player likely marginally better than another player for 3-4 years.  Big whup. Meanwhile you weaken the conference overall and strengthen the other conferences.  (almost) No player is worth that.

I would say that at D2 and D3, it's rarely ever helpful to battle to the finish. If you go all the way to zeros, you're draining both your own and your conference mate's resources, for a player only one of you can get, when there's a good chance there's a similar player to find elsewhere if you spent an equivalent amount in scouting. 

But if you're in geographically tight conferences like the CVAC, it's almost impossible to never pursue players that conference mates are pursuing. It's just in everyone's best interests if the person who is going to lose the battle doesn't put everything they have into it in an attempt to win when they know they're not going to win. The only time (IMO) it really makes sense to do so is for a transcendent player in a case where it's unclear who has the strategic advantage. And those cases don't happen all that often. But having three conference mates show up on one player on the same cycle or within a couple cycles happens all the time, and is really unavoidable if you're recruiting to the best of your abilities (unless you have secrets I don't know)

These types of threads never turn out how the OP plans

I get it Tarv.  Your experience is not my experience.  I can't speak to D2 or D3, been too long.  But, I know I never had to fight a conf mate for a recruit. Ever.  I've never actually seen 3 conf mates on one recruit.  I do follow my D1 recruiting obsessively and coaches in the better conferences do not fight each other.  It happens, but It's rare.  Which is the opposite of what I'm reading in this thread.  

People can do whatever they want to do within the rules.

Haha, I had three conference mates on one recruit just three days ago (we all jumped on in the same cycle, and it wasn't the first cycle). The Southeast in D2 Iba is a bloodbath. 

I almost never pick a fight with a conference mate, and if I do, I know for damn sure I can win it. But I've certainly defended myself against conference mates who've picked fights with me, and I've had a number of fights where a conference mate and I jumped on at the same time. I'm not sure that I've ever unloaded everything I had fighting a conference mate and lost though. I don't really see the point of battling unless you have good reason to believe you can win. 

Posted by headpirate on 4/3/2014 5:10:00 PM (view original):
These types of threads never turn out how the OP plans

not too long ago i was poached by a conference mate (i.e., conf mate waited until 2 cycles before signing to get on a recruit that was considering me but open to other offers) and after signings i mentioned that i had never been poached by a conference mate before in the coaches' corner (not questioning whether it was ethical or even complaining or anything like that...just mentioned i had never been poached by a conference mate). most of the conference chimed in (i'm a nobody amongst some big WIS names in the conference at issue - its the lone star in d2 knight) and we had a discussion of more than 5 pages about it and tangental subjects as well. for example, i brought up that the substitute player that i found was a diamond in the rough, with high-highs in his core categories (he's now the highest rated player on my team as a junior: whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx - still has 6 black ratings and one blue; i brought and bring this up as a counter to anyone who thinks that at d2 or d3 getting a late jump on recruiting really makes a difference. imho, there's so much comparable talent at those levels and so many sims in most worlds, there's always talent available until the end of the recruiting period). anyways, back to the comment i was initially responding to, i think if you can have a civil discussion like the OP tried here the responses, like tarv's, above, are very helpful, even if the majority of coaches are going to disagree that you have a legitimate gripe.

If you are not pursuing the best players for your team at any time in the recruiting process regardless of those players' status, you are short changing yourself to the benefit of others, leading to underperformance in games and potential decline in prestige. That will make recruiting harder for you in the future and reduce your contribution to the generation of tournament money, adding a smaller budget to your prestige decline. The weaker you are, the larger the number of teams that can pick and choose from your considering list.

I've probably been in far too many battles, but I don't remember any with conference mates. Not because I won't battle conference mates but because I have too much information about them. If the other team has more open scholies than me I usually back of and if I have more open scholies the other coach would usually back off. But this is not being courteous, it's just common sense. If you know you're going to lose it's not a battle, it's just a waste of money.

Posted by paleriders on 4/3/2014 5:11:00 PM (view original):
I get it Tarv.  Your experience is not my experience.  I can't speak to D2 or D3, been too long.  But, I know I never had to fight a conf mate for a recruit. Ever.  I've never actually seen 3 conf mates on one recruit.  I do follow my D1 recruiting obsessively and coaches in the better conferences do not fight each other.  It happens, but It's rare.  Which is the opposite of what I'm reading in this thread.  

People can do whatever they want to do within the rules.

These statements regarding D1 recruiting are false, false, false. If you are never in battles in high D1 with conference mates, it's because you're short changing yourself and just taking their scraps.

ive allways been on the record that all fair in love and recruiting.  it burns me up when coaches think it should be some kind of unwritten code that first in has "dibs".   burns me up. 

that being said, i do try to avoid battles when i can,  but not for the interest of the conference.  i tend to avoid too many battles because they can be expensive and unpredicable,  and because its generally a good idea not to make any more enemys than you have to.  not because your trying to be nice,  but because when you have enemies they may try to enter into recruiting battles with you more than they ordinarily would out of spite. 

as for conference unity or whatever.,. ive got mixed emotions. i do enjoy the comradarie, but i am not convinced that it is as essential to build up your conference mates (and generate a few extra recruiting dollars for yourself) as is generally accepted.  i definitely dont like the idea that somehow i should sacrifice getting the best possible players for myself in the interest of the conference unity and a few recruiting dollars.

I guess there are alot of fun little goals to have within HD,  but in the end, in the long term,  its all about the rings.   at least thats how i see it.  and,  to that end, the other 383 coaches are really only obstacles in my path to said rings.

conference-schmonference.