i write this because i am curious how the community feels on the issue of information exchange in d1 recruiting, before recruiting is over. i am not talking about the fair play guidelines, i am well aware of them and would like to leave them out of this discussion. what i want to know is, fundamentally, what do coaches think is "right"?

one thing i have long believed about "cheating", such as trading FFS data between your own teams, is that most strategic, competitive coaches don't do it, because i can't see how a strategic competitive person could feel good about winning if they cheated to get there. i am not naive enough to say it doesn't happen, but i think the guys doing it are rarely those competing at a fairly high level (making the NT with some regularity or whatever).

however, in d1 recruiting, i have gotten numerous sitemails requesting information exchange. often, by coaches who i am very surprised to see asking for it, coaches who are successful guys. usually, the more successful the coach, the more benevolent the request. for example, the most successful coach who approached me asked me to confirm if a guy who appeared to be a backup option was, about a day into recruiting. in the ideal world where some information exchange was allowed to simulate reality, and we could communicate perfectly what was allowed and what isn't (which is sadly impossible in our world), i would think this type of request would be allowed. in the ideal world. who agrees?

the reason i am considering this in the ideal world standpoint is, i think most coaches don't cheat, and that many don't consider some information exchange cheating. in the interest of fairness, it seems we could all agree conceptually that whatever information exchange is allowed, regardless to the extent, the only way it can be perfectly "fair" is if everyone knows what is allowed and what is not. however, it is fairly impossible to actually communicate what that is, so if any information exchange goes on, its never going to be perfectly fair. because a lot does go on, i am curious what people think would be the best way to do it if some information was allowed, and it could be communicated perfectly.

another sitemail request i've gotten was (and this is about the worst), it is before recruiting, and the coach says, i am going for players X Y and Z can you tell me every player you are going for so i can avoid them completely? in the ideal world, would anybody think this should be allowed? i feel a big part of what makes d1 recruiting fun is, there is so much strategy because there are so many scenarios. a big reason there are so many scenarios is because after your actions in cycle 1, there are so many possible outcomes just in that cycle. i don't like the idea of people changing information before recruiting, because it can really change that dynamic.

anyways, i am just hoping some people will share their perspective. i don't want people to start a witch hunt for people changing information before recruiting or anything like that. i choose not to talk about anything until recruiting is over, as in the real world, i consider that the only truly "fair" option. but, i don't think it is necessarily the most fun. nor do i fault those who trade information on a small scale in limited situations. it is definitely more realistic than the silent approach.

interesting stuff, Doc.

let me ask you this....

if it were okay for coaches to ask about stuff like "is jimmy jones a backup for you?"

would it be "wrong" for me to say "no, he is one of my main targets", when that, in fact, jones is a backup?

im not sure what the answers are, seems like total silence is probably the "most fair" policy, but i would agree that would be a bit less fun and might eliminate some intresting aspects of the game.

i guess thats a longwinded way of saying that im not sure what i think about discussions during recruiting.

I don't respond to those emails when I get them, I don't feel like losing scholarships. But I do wish that coach interaction was more incorugaged then looked down upon.

ole d - anything said on the cc is fair game. WIS and I have went over it many times, it can be part of your recruiting stratagey (that is lying about who you want) as long as it is public.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

I think the asking about backup is ok but more then that is not. And yes you can lie if you wish and put whatever you want in the cc to throw some one off. in fact im all for that.

to be safe, I feel all sitemail communication during recruiting about recruiting should be considered a fair play violation, otherwise shades of grey emerge, I would guess tiger woods only started off 'flirting', how is that working out for him these days?

many coaches think they know how to manipulate coaches corner postings to purposefully help their cause during recruiting (gamesmanship), I would say well over half of these do as much harm to the poster as good, since they often bring as much attention to the poster as to the intended purpose .... but since everyone gets the same chance to read CC postings, I would be much more liberal in my allowing CC postings - some may be unethical, but not fair play issues

I had a long series of ticket exchanges with tarek about implicit collusion, examples are if I have a d1 team in new york and another in florida, what are the limits as to what I can do (the implied collusion is I will never compete with myself will I)? I told him, that just by subbing for other coaches during recruiting, I felt it had a tremendous advantage for me in my main school, even when not in the same markets (i.e. I knew what was going on in another market) I feel guys carrying 2 or 3 teams in the same world, same division have a decent advantage over the competition, even without cheating at all (hence the term implied collusion) - tarek did not agree at all

Quote: Originally Posted By mtngoats on 12/08/2009 <SCRIPT language="javascript>"
bluecoat_old_onload = window.onload
window.onload = function()
if (bluecoat_old_onload != null)
try
bluecoat_old_onload()
} catch (e)


bluecoat_fixpopups()
}
//-->i am not sure if i can agree that multiple teams in multilple divisions in same world don not equal FFS info advantage. i personally have 1 team in 3 worlds, but i would not feel that someone was cheating if they had 3 teams in my worlds and used div 1 money for their recruiting service info for all 3 teams in a world...

im not sure i follow you, goat,

multiple teams in same world = info advantage (i dont think anyone would deny this)

but then you say it is not cheating if they stretch this advantage to the limit?

if i read that right... i say it is cheating. to be honest, i am not a fan of a coach having multiple teams in the same world. i know why they do it... they get attached to their D3 team and dont want to leave it but they want to move up. i know that they would prolly never be able to police it, but i, for one, think that a user should not be able to have two teams in one world. or, to stretch that further, they shoudlnt even have access to another team in thier world, at any time. of course, the other problem with that is the backlash form the longtime userbase, not to mention the loss of revenues, so, clearly, its not going to happen, but thats what i think.

shy of that, i think that at a minimum, it should be made clear that using one team to game advantage of any kind for another team in that world is cheating. i just think it is hard enough out there without having to give my opponents these kidns of advantages.

grrrr.

oldave, why does multiple teams in the same world equal an info advantage? i had 2 teams in the same state for a while, d3 and d1, and not once did a single piece of info from either help me with the other. knowing the d1 recruits in texas was meaningless for my d3 team, same with knowing the d2/d3 recruits in texas/ok/etc.

i agree sharing the FFS data between teams is cheating. im pretty surprised somebody would disagree. do others? it seemed open and shut to me that is why i used it as the example :O

Quote: Originally posted by oldave on 12/08/2009interesting stuff, Doc.let me ask you this....if it were okay for coaches to ask about stuff like "is jimmy jones a backup for you?"would it be "wrong" for me to say "no, he is one of my main targets", when that, in fact, jones is a backup?im not sure what the answers are,  seems like total silence is probably the "most fair" policy,  but i would agree that would be a bit less fun and might eliminate some intresting aspects of the game.i guess thats a longwinded way of saying that im not sure what i think about discussions during recruiting. 

i personally don't have a problem with lying in response. but what about asking people if they are going for your target, player X, if you aren't planning on going for them? you could definitely glean information this way. it would make for interesting strategy, the lying and such. but my problem is, in the long term game, the most obvious (nash) equilibrium is for a set of coaches to tell the truth within the group. and i don't really see much value in allowing people only to lie. like at a poker table, there are times when you aren't allowed to say your hand, but you can lie about it. what is the point of that? it doesn't make a damn bit of sense if you ask me.

wait a minute, Doc...

are you saying that poker players should tell the truth about what they have in their hand?

as to my original question about giving a dishonest answer....

i guess what i was getting at is that i cant imagine why i would tell someone that a player was a backup for me, unless i was just trying to be a good guy. it would seem that if i say " he is a main target" then the implication is the other dude prolly backs off and i still have this kid as an option, which i clearly wanted even if he is just a backup.

if , on the other hand, i say, yeah he is just a backup, i would guess that the other coach would then go after him, which would reduce my options, even if he is "just" a backup. I mean, you have backups for a reason ... dont you?

then the converstation seemed to take a turn and there were discussions of lying on the CC and stuff... thats not what i was getting at.

i was basically saying: what good is it for someone to ask if a guy is a backup? wont most coaches lie and say he is a main target? maybe its just me, maybe i am just too cutthroat, but like i say, if the kid was a backup, he was a backup for a reason. i dont want to invite trouble if i can help it.

i guess tahts a roundabout way of saying i think we should prolly all keep quiet during recruiting.

although, in the interest of full disclosure, i have to admit that once or twice i did have conversations during recruiting that were in this gray area. i felt bad about it later. havent done it in a while. for waht its worth.

Quote: Originally Posted By mtngoats on 12/08/2009
....i would not feel that someone was cheating if they had 3 teams in my worlds and used div 1 money for their recruiting service info for all 3 teams in a world....

it sounds to me like the goat-dude does not think it is cheating to use D1 money to help gain info for your d3 team (not that he would do it himself, but that it doesnt bother him for others to do it)

Quote: Originally Posted By gillispie on 12/08/2009oldave, why does multiple teams in the same world equal an info advantage? i had 2 teams in the same state for a while, d3 and d1, and not once did a single piece of info from either help me with the other. knowing the d1 recruits in texas was meaningless for my d3 team, same with knowing the d2/d3 recruits in texas/ok/etc.

i might have jumped the gun, Doc. i guess it is possible to have multiple team and not gain advantage, but it would seem like some instances could occur where info would fall into your lap. maybe not. i havent had 2 teams in one world, so im really talking out of school.

if you say it doesnt help you, Doc, thats good enough for me,... ill buy that.

I generally just try not to comment specifically on any recruit until after I have signed him. I figure that once he is actually signed, I can't really be accused of 'gaming the system' for chatting about him or another player that is already signed.

I have multiple teams in 3 worlds. I never recruit a player without purchasing FFS. In many cases, that means both of my teams purchase the same state.

I'm so concerned about being accused of cheating that I print out my recruiting list for each team. In the event that I'm questioned, I can prove that I purchased FFS for both teams.