I think the comparisions you guys are making are a bit ridiculous... Comparing a recruiting gift that is returned to shooting at someone and not hitting them? Oh yeah, thats the same thing.

What if the kid ordered a t-shirt from the school book store, but a store clerk mistakenly packed a throwback jersey instead of the t-shirt. The recruit gets the jersey and returns it... Is it still a recruting violation?

Quote: Originally Posted By mrpolo09 on 9/20/2009

Quote: Originally posted by coach_ms on 9/20/2009 is it "really" cheating if the player doesnt accept the gift?

is it really a crime if you shoot at someone but (due to bad aim) dont hit them

That's why there is a law called "Attempted Murder". :-)
Maybe WIS needs to come up with Attempted Cheating.

Quote: Originally Posted By westcoast22 on 9/21/2009That's why there is a law called "Attempted Murder". :-)
Maybe WIS needs to come up with Attempted Cheating.

Sounds about right!

Quote: Originally Posted By westcoast22 on 9/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By mrpolo09 on 9/20/2009

Quote: Originally posted by coach_ms on 9/20/2009
is it "really" cheating if the player doesnt accept the gift?

is it really a crime if you shoot at someone but (due to bad aim) dont hit them?

That's why there is a law called "Attempted Murder". :-)
Maybe WIS needs to come up with Attempted Cheating.

This misses the point...Whether you are charged with murder, attempted murder, negligent discharge of a firearm, assault, or whatever all of the aforemention are still crimes and are "illegal"...the punishment will vary based on the severity of the act.

Offering gifts is "illegal"...based on what/how many gifts you offer the punishment will vary...has nothing to do with the player the gift is offered to as if he accepts his scholarship can potentially be revoked as he is being punished for his crime which is accepting the gift...

exactly

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 9/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By westcoast22 on 9/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By mrpolo09 on 9/20/2009

Quote: Originally posted by coach_ms on 9/20/2009
is it "really" cheating if the player doesnt accept the gift?

is it really a crime if you shoot at someone but (due to bad aim) dont hit them?

That's why there is a law called "Attempted Murder". :-)
Maybe WIS needs to come up with Attempted Cheating.

This misses the point...Whether you are charged with murder, attempted murder, negligent discharge of a firearm, assault, or whatever all of the aforemention are still crimes and are "illegal"...the punishment will vary based on the severity of the act.

Offering gifts is "illegal"...based on what/how many gifts you offer the punishment will vary...has nothing to do with the player the gift is offered to as if he accepts his scholarship can potentially be revoked as he is being punished for his crime which is accepting the gift...

Only if we know that WiS condsiders it "illegal," which we apparently do, but it would be nice if WiS would make that into an actual rule that we could read.

Isack24, why should it be necessary to put into writing something that is basically a priori knowledge? Anyone who knows anything about college basketball knows that booster gifts are illegal. They also know that not every school that uses them gets caught.

So the first issue to overcome is to try to design a rule that may or may not be applied. Some schools don't even get investigated. Some schools get investigated but are not charged. Most schools that use booster gifts are investigated and penalties are applied. That leads to the second issue - how are penalties applied?

The issue gets very complex at this point. There are multiple variables to consider such as the number of gifts offered. The number of players offered gifts. The number of players who accepted gifts. The number of players who accepted gifts and signed with the school that offered them. There are so many possible combinations of variables that listing them all and expecting users to wade through it all would be nonsense. Then you throw in all the various combinations of penalties and it gets rediculous. I think this is one area that doesn't need to be spelled out to be understood.

Quote: Originally Posted By Weena on 9/21/2009Isack24, why should it be necessary to put into writing something that is basically a priori knowledge? Anyone who knows anything about college basketball knows that booster gifts are illegal. They also know that not every school that uses them gets caught.

So the first issue to overcome is to try to design a rule that may or may not be applied. Some schools don't even get investigated. Some schools get investigated but are not charged. Most schools that use booster gifts are investigated and penalties are applied. That leads to the second issue - how are penalties applied?

The issue gets very complex at this point. There are multiple variables to consider such as the number of gifts offered. The number of players offered gifts. The number of players who accepted gifts. The number of players who accepted gifts and signed with the school that offered them. There are so many possible combinations of variables that listing them all and expecting users to wade through it all would be nonsense. Then you throw in all the various combinations of penalties and it gets rediculous. I think this is one area that doesn't need to be spelled out to be understood.

Because it's a rule. A regulation, any regulation, is simply artificial in nature. Without express prohibition, it's not something that should be prohibited.

Second, because this isn't real life, and not everyone does know a lot about college basketball (or at least recruiting violations), it would seem necessary to place potential violators on notice, even if it is simply constructive notice. For WiS to simply say, "you should have known" is crap. I agree that most people know, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

I'm not sure that your second and third paragraphs necessarily follow from your original question, but they do raise a good question: whether WiS actually has a rule that the engine actually applies, or whether it is mostly random?

Why is there an option to cheat? Wouldn't that be like hanging a piece of cheese in front of a rat and not expecting it to eat it? That's not right and only hurts those who want to play by the rules of the game. It's not right to offer a booster gift in this game but WIS has it on the recruiting page to say "go ahead we'll turn the other way". Cheating is cheating and it only hurts those who play by the rules. A cheat is cheat no matter how you look at it.

I'd much rather have an option to convince my recruit from entering the draft or transferring then having a booster option.

I like booster gift they are used "a ton" irl so why not the game?

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 9/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By Weena on 9/21/2009
Isack24, why should it be necessary to put into writing something that is basically a priori knowledge? Anyone who knows anything about college basketball knows that booster gifts are illegal. They also know that not every school that uses them gets caught.

So the first issue to overcome is to try to design a rule that may or may not be applied. Some schools don't even get investigated. Some schools get investigated but are not charged. Most schools that use booster gifts are investigated and penalties are applied. That leads to the second issue - how are penalties applied?

The issue gets very complex at this point. There are multiple variables to consider such as the number of gifts offered. The number of players offered gifts. The number of players who accepted gifts. The number of players who accepted gifts and signed with the school that offered them. There are so many possible combinations of variables that listing them all and expecting users to wade through it all would be nonsense. Then you throw in all the various combinations of penalties and it gets rediculous. I think this is one area that doesn't need to be spelled out to be understood.

Because it's a rule. A regulation, any regulation, is simply artificial in nature. Without express prohibition, it's not something that should be prohibited.

Second, because this isn't real life, and not everyone does know a lot about college basketball (or at least recruiting violations), it would seem necessary to place potential violators on notice, even if it is simply constructive notice. For WiS to simply say, "you should have known" is crap. I agree that most people know, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

I'm not sure that your second and third paragraphs necessarily follow from your original question, but they do raise a good question: whether WiS actually has a rule that the engine actually applies, or whether it is mostly random?

A couple of things:

1) There is a certain level of implied understanding when you sign for a game of this nature...just like anyone who plays this game knows a basket is worth 2 points from a certain area and 3 points from another...I'd venture to guess that 100% of users are aware that in college athletics it is illegal to offer any type of gift to a potential recruit.

2) With that said it is implied in the F & Q that there are recruiting violations. Anyone that recruits can probably quickly figure out that the only option which seems shaky would be giving a recruit a bag of cash or any of those other gifts without it being spelled out.

3) Since not all violations are the same it would be silly for WIS to spell out the punishment just as the NCAA does not.

Don't you guys know that it is only cheating if you get caught? Then, if you do get caught, you get your PR person to write out an apology, you go in front of a camera and read the apology...and pray you speak better English than Miguel Tejada.

you forgot a part. even when you get caught you must vigorously DENY, DENY, DENY, DENY for weeks on end until someone comes out with concrete proof. THEN, apologize.

At what game do you find out your investigated? It wasnt me