woodcock...hehe

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/25/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 8/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
This should be simple.  colonels, provide evidence to support your assertion.

it is simple... its colonels were talking about here. 'nuff said

Sure... I'd just like to know what it is that folks are calling bullshit on.

Posted by llamanunts on 8/25/2014 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/25/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 8/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
This should be simple.  colonels, provide evidence to support your assertion.

it is simple... its colonels were talking about here. 'nuff said

Sure... I'd just like to know what it is that folks are calling bullshit on.

i know, i was just messing around. i didn't expect people to take colonels seriously, its... well, strange, i suppose. besides, once he reported crazy, that was strike 3 in my book (strike 2 being complaining of collusion with 0 evidence or information, and strike 1 being, being colonels).

Posted by llamanunts on 8/25/2014 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/25/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by llamanunts on 8/25/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
This should be simple.  colonels, provide evidence to support your assertion.

it is simple... its colonels were talking about here. 'nuff said

Sure... I'd just like to know what it is that folks are calling bullshit on.

IMHO, there'd have to be strong evidence provided to the contrary of what ixolabrat has stated.   If you want to complain about "poaching" or "sniping" or whatever, then fine.   The reality is that it is fair game at D1 and to be expected.  In fact, since "it" rolls downhill, it happens to D2 teams as well (and even D3 teams that think they are going to sign a stud-senior x'fer).  

On the other hand, I don't blame colonels for being ****** off that 2 schools went after 2 different recruits at the signing cycle.   He'd be laughing if they both made a late move on the the same recruit, but it's understandable that he's furious about it.  IMO, if it went one at 5 pm and one at 8pm, then it's definitely simply bizness, but would suck all the more. 

Mine was a day earlier than signing. I didn't poach, I just battled it out over the two day period. I don't have a clue as to the other issue.

Posted by ixolabrat on 8/25/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Mine was a day earlier than signing. I didn't poach, I just battled it out over the two day period. I don't have a clue as to the other issue.

Oh!  If he were battling you for a couple days and someone else noticed and decided that he couldn't possibly defend a separate recruit at the same time, then that's called "reading comprehension", not "collusion".   

Ok, so I was just going to continue to dick around about this, but no more.  I will not use usernames, but do your own research.


I was battling a user A who had 3 open ships, and between 8-10 considering at any one given time.

I had 3 open ships, 3 guys considering from cycle 1, 2 I was the only team on.  I had the mf (user A) beat on the guy we were battling for until...

On the 8PM cycle on signing day, I sign one guy, still battling with user A, and a guy jumps on the other guy that was considering only me up until that point, who happens to be in the same DIVISION of the conference of the guy I'm already battling.  User A had 3 or 4 others (aside from the one we were fighting over) considering at that the time after signing 2 guys at 8PM, but he's only chasing the guy that him and I are after.  I end up not getting either guy, and bottom line is, ******* talked.

Posted by rogelio on 8/25/2014 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ixolabrat on 8/25/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Mine was a day earlier than signing. I didn't poach, I just battled it out over the two day period. I don't have a clue as to the other issue.

Oh!  If he were battling you for a couple days and someone else noticed and decided that he couldn't possibly defend a separate recruit at the same time, then that's called "reading comprehension", not "collusion".   

yeah... reading comprehension indeed :) 

ixola just hope you know you never even needed to defend yourself... even if colonels named you by name in the beginning. just don't want you to feel like, i don't know, pressured to defend yourself or anything - i know people can take accusations of collusion pretty hard. i refer back to my obvious disbelief in the 2nd post of the thread - hope you know nobody thinks anything less of you or anything remotely along those lines.

Posted by colonels19 on 8/25/2014 6:59:00 PM (view original):
ixola, your "Woodcock or bust" comment is total bullshit.

I'll take bust over woodcock.

seriously? you report the one where i help you out by explaining the situation? i was busting your balls in like 5 other posts, and you are mad about the helpful one? you are so off the mark here colonels, you really need to take the opportunity to learn from this situation (see the post you reported), because it literally could not be more obvious that this is not collusion, and that you just aren't used to d1 recruiting yet. im not just saying that because im annoyed at you... but because its simply the truth. really, you've known me to give you a hard time, certainly - but do i give you bad information on HD as part of that? no.

I wouldn't expect you to have any other response...if I simply stuck to Woodcock, I would have won him, but again, ******* want to talk and hatch a plan so ixola gets who he wants, that's fine too.  The fact that he doesn't admit to recruiting other guys/having other guys considering says about all that needs to be said.

i edited that since you read it (you already posted when i edited)... just saying, even when im ****** off at you, i don't mislead you (or anyone else) with respect to HD. ill give you a hard time, be a *****, but i don't mislead on the game. i think you know this to be true, i mean, you have a pretty good body of work to reflect on where that is concerned :)

Again, I don't expect any other response out of you other than "colonels is wrong"