I only battle other human coaches at D1 in 99.9 percent of situations.  D2 and D3 really tons of talent and no real need and that normally will include battles with Sim.  I also have only battled a few times at D1.  Usually from the start, and try to stay away from conference mates unless we hit on the same cycle.  Then it's a game of Chicken.

Same level sim battles are fairly easy to win and battling a sim one division above you is certainly doable, even when that player is already tight with a team. If you won't even consider going into one of these battles you are often rejecting high quality recruits. A couple of the best players I've ever recruited have been guys I've taken from a SimAi team.

I kind of understand the same cycle thing, but only when it makes sense. Conference mate or not (and I had a conference mate sign a guy I was on early in recruiting this past cycle) if it makes sense to get the player then go get that player. I intentionally did not say battle because that is silly. If you have 4 open scholarships and the other team only has 1, is that really a battle? No, you just take the guy and if the other guy pushes back its just silly on his part.

Especially in a circumstance where you're pulling a guy down slowly and another team shows up on that recruit you wouldn't be doing your program justice to just walk away if you were in a position to get that guy.

There is no calling dibs in recruiting. But it sure does suck when you lose out on a player that you've projected to being very helpful for your squad.

The only unethical action is colluding with another team (if you use multiple logins in a world) or coach to gain information that you do not pay for. For example, colluding with another coach "You pay to scout New York & Ohio, I'll pay to scout Pennsylvania and Illinois and then we'll share information" is unethical.

But deciding which players to recruit or whether to engage in fight or flight when it comes to recruiting battles -- that's all about personal preferences and the situation at hand (budget remaining v. schollies available v. prestige of different schools v. similar players available). If I can get a similar player without a recruiting fight, I generally will. In my experience, a nasty recruiting battle will go right down to the end and if you lose, it will be too late in the cycle to recover and find a player of similar quality. But if I can afford it, I'll keep throwing a few phone calls/letters in to the original player in case that school backs off or just to eat into the other school's budget.

Collusion and things like collusion are of course not allowed.  Around the edges, some cases are hard to decide.  Best course, is no communication during recruiting - although that is a sad thing.  Would like to be able to heckle, but the line between heckling and signalling is hard

There are lots of old threads on this.

In terms of battles, I think battles are always ethical - absent collusive etc behavior.  A battle initiated in your team's interest is ethical.  No question.

On the other hand, not all battles are smart.  Only battle when there isnt a guy just about as good available without a battle.  I try hard to lean against in-conference battles.  Does not mean that I never do - I do now and then.  but, if I can get another guy without battling in conference or if I have a roughly equal choice between battling in and out of conference, I will go out.

Growing the conference $ and getting along within conference in the interest of avoiding future payback battles is a good thing.

Posted by metsmax on 8/20/2015 9:07:00 AM (view original):
Collusion and things like collusion are of course not allowed.  Around the edges, some cases are hard to decide.  Best course, is no communication during recruiting - although that is a sad thing.  Would like to be able to heckle, but the line between heckling and signalling is hard

There are lots of old threads on this.

In terms of battles, I think battles are always ethical - absent collusive etc behavior.  A battle initiated in your team's interest is ethical.  No question.

On the other hand, not all battles are smart.  Only battle when there isnt a guy just about as good available without a battle.  I try hard to lean against in-conference battles.  Does not mean that I never do - I do now and then.  but, if I can get another guy without battling in conference or if I have a roughly equal choice between battling in and out of conference, I will go out.

Growing the conference $ and getting along within conference in the interest of avoiding future payback battles is a good thing.

The last sentence is the biggie for me.  Granted, some recruits are good and will be battled over regardless, but in many cases it's better to build a strong conference.  Of course that would depend on being in a good conference with mostly human coaches anyway.