Lets say you are in a battle with someone and all his other recruits are lightly held.  Is one free to make that known on a coaches corner or otherwise?  Just a statement of that fact - no suggestion of any agreement.

On the one hand it is just a fact.  On the other, only folks with FSS access for the relevant state would know.

Allowed?

I think that's dirty pool, but not sure if CS would take issue with it.

No.

Posted by ryrun on 9/26/2012 12:25:00 PM (view original):
I think that's dirty pool, but not sure if CS would take issue with it.

I don't think CS's wildly inconsistent stances should really be our governing standard.  I don't think anyone knows the actual rules at this point.

It's sharing FSS info and it's bringing attention to a team you want someone to go after.  I personally think that's crap. 

Someone actually did this recently in D1 and CS came out said it's cheating. 

My instinct was no, but this is equivalent to sharing FSS info, and that's not technically legal.  At the same time, if you said, "Wow, FSU's getting a stud - he's high in ATH/SPD/PASS and that's great with that WE", you would almost certainly not get punished.  Hell, I don't even know if they'd crack if you said "high-high".

Posted by mamxet on 9/26/2012 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Lets say you are in a battle with someone and all his other recruits are lightly held.  Is one free to make that known on a coaches corner or otherwise?  Just a statement of that fact - no suggestion of any agreement.

On the one hand it is just a fact.  On the other, only folks with FSS access for the relevant state would know.

Allowed?

It may be "just a fact", but to me it's an implied suggestion for other coaches to target his recruits, hopefully causing him to shift some of his resources to protecting the lightly held recruits and allowing the coach who posted the "fact" to win a close battle he otherwise would have lost.  It stinks.

Posted by cornfused on 9/26/2012 12:46:00 PM (view original):
My instinct was no, but this is equivalent to sharing FSS info, and that's not technically legal.  At the same time, if you said, "Wow, FSU's getting a stud - he's high in ATH/SPD/PASS and that's great with that WE", you would almost certainly not get punished.  Hell, I don't even know if they'd crack if you said "high-high".

Well if a coach didn't FSS the state that a player is in and he learns of the Word on the Street for that player from another coach that would actually be against the rules. 

Posted by isack24 on 9/26/2012 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryrun on 9/26/2012 12:25:00 PM (view original):
I think that's dirty pool, but not sure if CS would take issue with it.

I don't think CS's wildly inconsistent stances should really be our governing standard.  I don't think anyone knows the actual rules at this point.

It's sharing FSS info and it's bringing attention to a team you want someone to go after.  I personally think that's crap. 

As a matter of doing what's right, I totally agree with you that CS's responses shouldn't be the standard.  

However, as a matter of receiving an actual punishment, CS's response is all that matters (outside of teams banding together and stealing the offending school's future recruits in more of a street justice kind of way).

Posted by ryrun on 9/26/2012 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 9/26/2012 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ryrun on 9/26/2012 12:25:00 PM (view original):
I think that's dirty pool, but not sure if CS would take issue with it.

I don't think CS's wildly inconsistent stances should really be our governing standard.  I don't think anyone knows the actual rules at this point.

It's sharing FSS info and it's bringing attention to a team you want someone to go after.  I personally think that's crap. 

As a matter of doing what's right, I totally agree with you that CS's responses shouldn't be the standard.  

However, as a matter of receiving an actual punishment, CS's response is all that matters (outside of teams banding together and stealing the offending school's future recruits in more of a street justice kind of way).

Absolutely.  I'm rooting for a post-apocolyptic-feeling, gang-style recruit-napping.

I think it would be wrong, because as someone said, it could cause the coach in question to try to protect the lightly held recruits more and thereby (potentially) lose a battle he wouldn't have otherwise lost.

It undermines the idea of FSS at its core, because if it is allowed, I could tell everyone in my conference "let's spend an equal amount on FSS on different states and then share info" in the same way so that we could work together. That's the SAME thing, just taken to another level.

It's wrong and shouldn't be done. You want the info, you purchase it from FSS yourself.

It'd be different if someone asked you what a WOTS meant (as happens in the forums sometimes) or what a player or coach or scouting trip meant. It's another thing entire to provide them with the info itself.

It'd be different if someone asked you what a WOTS meant (as happens in the forums sometimes)

This, too, would be wrong to do while a battle was going on, though.  After the player signed, and for future clarification,  that would be fine, IMO

I'm convinced.  Just taking the temperature of a broader group to check that I was not being too conservative on this.  Thanks

I don't think it's wrong at all to ask what a WOTS means, even in the midst of a battle. My reason is if you already knew what that particular phrasing of a WOTS meant, you'd already be ahead, so there is no harm in clarifying what some wording means.

Now if  your reason for saying it's wrong in the midst of a battle is that by asking on the forums in a public place you could let people - including potentially your opponent - know what was going on and that could influence things, then I guess I have to concede that point and say it would be best to wait.

Now if  your reason for saying it's wrong in the midst of a battle is that by asking on the forums in a public place you could let people - including potentially your opponent - know what was going on and that could influence things, then I guess I have to concede that point and say it would be best to wait.

Yes, this is what I meant.