Got a site-mail from WIS. (below in quotes)

I'm baffled as to how this is considered against the rules.

I have never attempted to skirt the rules in any way. It is merely a conversation about information that is completely public.

I'm simply noting to a coach (I won't bring in his name here) in another conference that the PG that was considering him was similar to one that considering me and that I had thought about going after him when recruiting started, but went with "B" instead. Neither is a world-beater, either. I never recruited "A" after an initial call/materials that I sent to about 10 recruits ($25) and never followed up after. It was several cycles later when Coach-X got him to consider.

Then I comment on a battle he was having with a D-I team (we are D-II). I only had one opening and had my only recruit considering me on day 2. I neither gave, asked for, or received any unfair information and neither did the other coach.

Anyone have an explanation for why I would receive a warning?


(Names changed)
"Fair Play Guidelines Warning
Message:
Communication like the following is against our Fair Play Guidelines. Please refrain from this kind of activity as future violations will result in appropriate consequences.

For more info please refer to the Fair Play Guidelines:
http://www.whatifsports.com/locker/fairplay.shtm

From:
axeme
To:
(xxxxxxx)
Received:
5/26/2010 1:32:00 PM
Subject:
recruiting pg's
Message:
I was considering (PG-A) last night (first day of recruiting) after the ones I wanted were going to D-I sims or wouldn't consider me at all. I finally decided on (PG-B). Very similar players in some ways.

(PG-B) is only 20 mi. from me, so that helps, too. I want to bank some cash to hit FSS thoroughly when the new recruits are generated. I need 5 next season.

Good luck with your other recruits, too. Think you can knock off the D_I?

axe"


It just bugs me because I'm pretty sure there is a lot of actual collusion or other kinds of cheating going on. I have no interest in playing the game unfairly (rendering it pointless).

In over a 100 seasons, I've never even tried a booster gift.

Just grumbling...

If both you and the guy you sent the mail to were recruiting PG-B, you shouldn't have sent this.

If they other guy was not recruiting PG-B, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

But, one coach telling someone who they are going after (or providing a list of who they might go after) could mean you are trying to make sure the other coach stays off your recruits.

If you were not providing a list to other people to stay off your recruits, then you likely did nothing wrong. (IMHO)

This is why I hardly ever initiate any sitemails to people while I am recruiting against them. If I have several guys tied up "considering me" and someone asks me if I am trying to sign them or if they are backups, I will reply to them with the truth ... but I never send anyone a list of who I am going to sign.

That's just it. I had already had PG-B considering me alone. The other guy had PG-A considering him alone. (And both were D-I pulldowns to D-II.) Both had strengths and were flawed in similar ways, which was the point of the mail--that we had coincidentally recruited similar players.

Why does WIS want to **** off good customers without an even cursory examination of the timeline of events which would have shown that the sitemail came AFTER the recruiting had occurred?

Accusing players who don't cheat of cheating is a good way to alienate an already unstable customer base.

Quote: Originally posted by axeme on 5/29/2010That's just it. I had already had PG-A considering me alone. The other guy had PG-B considering him alone. (And both were D-I pulldowns to D-II.) Both had strengths and were flawed in similar ways, which was the point of the mail--that we had coincidentally recruited similar players.

Why does WIS want to **** off good customers without an even cursory examination of the timeline of events which would have shown that the sitemail came AFTER the recruiting had occurred?

Accusing players who don't cheat of cheating is a good way to alienate an already unstable customer base.

I would think that WIS would only do something like that if one or the other coaches brought it to their attention ... not out of the blue. Maybe I am wrong as I have never had them contact me about anything like that.

I have no problem if other coaches want to accuse someone of collusion and they contact CS about it. There might be some foundation to the accusation.

But then for WIS to not examine the evidence and just accuse me of cheating ****** me off.

sharing recruiting info is simply wrong during recruiting, regardless of intent.

I didn't share any info not openly and freely available. It's not like I shared FSS info. I was simply commenting on actions already taken, something done in the Forums and CC's all the time.

What about all the threads in which people ask and give advice on recruiting while it is going on with the intent to help other coaches do better? Why is that not wrong under the same idea? (And I don't think it is wrong, btw.)

There was none of that in my sitemail. It was just a conversation about what had already transpired.

I understand how giving people FSS or other scouting info, or agreeing to not recruit against another coach is clear cheating. I think it should be distinguished from communication that is not giving anyone any advantage.

Don't sweat it axeme, I'd just suggest that, in the future, you wait till recruiting is over and then have that conversation. WIS is pretty strict about the talk between coaches during recruiting regardless of intent.

i agree with tyber.

or, post the same thing in the CC, if it's open knowledge anyhow...

i really don't think this warranted a warning, but i think i would rather see WIS be over-cautious against collusion than whatever the alternative is.

yeah that's going over the top. you didn't do anything wrong or give away any helpful information. don't let the man bring you down!

I would suggest not discussing recruiting during recruiting, it takes a little effort at first, then gets really easy

if I were to reply to seble, I would simply ask for a clarification of what communication is or is not allowed during recruiting. Technically, I would guess any sitemail about recruiting can be grounds for a warning.

If you really want to get him and others going, ask about when a coach has two teams in the same division, d1 for example, he by definition passes information from team to team about intentions and also has entered into an implicit non-compete agreement.

I say this only to stir the pot, as I really don't think there is anything wrong with having 2 d1 teams, but certainly the level of your communication is not near the level of a coach having two teams.

In d2/d3, I often FSS near half the country by the time I am done if I need a big class, having 2 d2/d3 teams for the same coach is probably even trickier in terms of fair play

In the old days (tarek days), I used to recruit for conference mates when they couldn't make it, not bragging or anything, but it helped the conference - the game was quite a bit easier then, I used to see 15-20 recruits I would glady take when looking, now I am lucky to find 1.

But then again, in the old days, from what I understand a couple of elite conferences used to draft. I was just starting in d3 at the time, I am pretty sure one conference pretty much communicated on the CC who was taking who. There was a little BS going on, a little anger, and lots of humor from what I recall. I used to read their CC frequently, it was full of interesting tips.

anyhow, what you did was no big deal, but if you want to be safe, don't communicate any recruiting info, via sitemail or CC.

I think the game is less fun because we cant talk about recruiting during recruiting - banter was really fun

BUT, after the "draft" stuff that OR mentioned, admin came out against collusion - and it is VERY hard to know where banter ends and collusion begins. Is a message a subtle signal, an allocation of recruits, an invitation to someone else to go after a third coach's reqcruits....gets real complex

alas

Quote: Originally posted by fd343ny on 5/29/2010I think the game is less fun because we cant talk about recruiting during recruiting - banter was really funBUT, after the "draft" stuff that OR mentioned, admin came out against collusion - and it is VERY hard to know where banter ends and collusion begins.  Is a message a subtle signal, an allocation of recruits, an invitation to someone else to go after a third coach's reqcruits....gets real complexalas

one thing, back when drafting was going on, one reason it was not THAT big a deal, is because all the recruits were pretty equal and could be molded. If duke got #1, often #20 was just as good, hence most coaches were OK with the team they recruited and felt they had a chance.

Also, a 700 frosh was about as high as they got - but they improved more - although not near to the level 900 plus level of the modern game. I won a national title with a 12 man roster that had a team total of 675, that hardly would win d2 these days.

In today's game, duke and unc probably couldn't agree which one gets the 885 frosh in their market anyhow - LOL?

It makes the game much uglier, cut-throat, competitive, much less of a community, might be real life, but has been very bad for the game.

Quote: Originally posted by vandydave on 5/29/2010sharing recruiting info is simply wrong during recruiting, regardless of intent.

Even though it's very realistic, every college coach at every level shares info, DVDs, etc. Again, if you want more realism then you're illogical to take this stance. The OP is talking about publicly available info about players. I sit next to coaches all the time that talk to other coaches about injuries player has suffered in past, that his mother is a "real piece of work," etc. They trade because it benefits both parties and helps insure that the kid goes to the best-fitting school.

Quote: Originally Posted By cthomas22255 on 5/29/2010

Quote: Originally posted by vandydave on 5/29/2010sharing recruiting info is simply wrong during recruiting, regardless of intent.

Even though it's very realistic, every college coach at every level shares info, DVDs, etc. Again, if you want more realism then you're illogical to take this stance. The OP is talking about publicly available info about players. I sit next to coaches all the time that talk to other coaches about injuries player has suffered in past, that his mother is a "real piece of work," etc. They trade because it benefits both parties and helps insure that the kid goes to the best-fitting school.

and in this game, the only genuine content to be shared is money spent (either actively or passively), which is clearly not fair practice to discuss. the real life example you try to mention fails miserably as an analogy.

the more you post the less you seem to understand, its discouraging.