Posted by cydrych on 11/8/2011 4:45:00 PM (view original):
Wait.  What?  You guys are insane.  Dmurphy is right on.  This is a clear attempt by pnedwek to collude with Jeff.  He is declaring the player he is interested in and trying to pry information from Jeff that would give him inside information on whether or not to spend any additional money.   Whether he explicitly states the formal agreement or not, he's trying to avoid a battle, presumably so that he will have more money to acquire another player at another coach's expense.  It's not being social, clever, or resourceful, it's cheating. 

Had Jeff responded with "this dude is mine, bugger off" or "I looked at him early but I found someone better, he's all yours," it absolutely would have been collusion.  He could have just ignored the sitemail but Jeff's response to report the attempt was the best thing to do.

Posted by potter444 on 11/8/2011 6:17:00 PM (view original):

Quote post by cydrych on 11/8/2011 4:45:00 PM:

Wait.  What?  You guys are insane.  Dmurphy is right on.  This is a clear attempt by pnedwek to collude with Jeff.  He is declaring the player he is interested in and trying to pry information from Jeff that would give him inside information on whether or not to spend any additional money.   Whether he explicitly states the formal agreement or not, he's trying to avoid a battle, presumably so that he will have more money to acquire another player at another coach's expense.  It's not being social, clever, or resourceful, it's cheating. 

Had Jeff responded with "this dude is mine, bugger off" or "I looked at him early but I found someone better, he's all yours," it absolutely would have been collusion.  He could have just ignored the sitemail but Jeff's response to report the attempt was the best thing to do.

_______________________________________________________________________

If I only had a dollar everytime I heard Jeff slur those words at happy hour....
 

Posted by livemike on 11/8/2011 5:52:00 PM (view original):
It's funny how many people in these threads think collusion is not collusion. 

Posted by jeffkahleb on 11/8/2011 7:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by livemike on 11/8/2011 5:52:00 PM (view original):
It's funny how many people in these threads think collusion is not collusion. 

Posted by livemike on 11/8/2011 5:52:00 PM (view original):
It's funny how many people in these threads think collusion is not collusion. 

Posted by bdesio on 11/8/2011 7:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by livemike on 11/8/2011 5:52:00 PM (view original):
It's funny how many people in these threads think collusion is not collusion. 

Collusion defined:
Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.

Potentially "attempted collusion", but not collusion until there is an agreement.  This could very well have been an innocent statement... I just don't want to vilify him just yet.

Posted by jeffkahleb on 11/8/2011 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bdesio on 11/8/2011 7:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by livemike on 11/8/2011 5:52:00 PM (view original):
It's funny how many people in these threads think collusion is not collusion. 

Collusion defined:
Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.

Potentially "attempted collusion", but not collusion until there is an agreement.  This could very well have been an innocent statement... I just don't want to vilify him just yet.

You reflect your alma mater's administration perfectly.  "That could very well have been an innocent shower, we just don't want to vilify Sandusky".

I think you need the agreement.  KInd of like you can offer to sell your son to Mississippi State, but if he signs with Auburn and he "doesn't know about it", it's OK.

Posted by quietman on 11/8/2011 5:57:00 PM (view original):
I'm taken back by the amount of collusion thats going on. Something needs to be done so this sort of behavior will never happen.

REMOVE THE SITEMAIL FEATURE,

or I'll tell mom.

Posted by edw1225 on 11/8/2011 8:55:00 PM (view original):

I think you need the agreement.  KInd of like you can offer to sell your son to Mississippi State, but if he signs with Auburn and he "doesn't know about it", it's OK.

Posted by cydrych on 11/8/2011 4:45:00 PM (view original):
Wait.  What?  You guys are insane.  Dmurphy is right on.  This is a clear attempt by pnedwek to collude with Jeff.  He is declaring the player he is interested in and trying to pry information from Jeff that would give him inside information on whether or not to spend any additional money.   Whether he explicitly states the formal agreement or not, he's trying to avoid a battle, presumably so that he will have more money to acquire another player at another coach's expense.  It's not being social, clever, or resourceful, it's cheating. 

Had Jeff responded with "this dude is mine, bugger off" or "I looked at him early but I found someone better, he's all yours," it absolutely would have been collusion.  He could have just ignored the sitemail but Jeff's response to report the attempt was the best thing to do.

Posted by kentaurus on 11/8/2011 9:17:00 PM (view original):
The easiest way to deal with this is to get rid of the anti-collusion rules... make it legal, and there is no more problems with this. Most of these offenses will go unnoticed and the players most hurt by these rules are those who are actually following them. Let coaches talk amongst themselves about every aspect of the game, including recruiting. (Since this happens in real life).