^^^
As long as coaches don't share the amount they are spending and what they are promising

You are, essentially, sharing that you plan on spending $0 the rest of the way.

And the way this hurts people who are not involved is that they are now faced with 2 coaches with more information and more money than they should have if nothing had been communicated.

Quote: Originally posted by ellisonatg on 5/29/2010I understand the arguments and have read the fair play guidelines. I guess I didn't frame my question well enough:

How does an agreement not to compete hurt other teams? There's no means of enforcing that agreement. Teams can break the gentleman's agreement.

Fundamentally, how is this any different than seeing that a recruit is considering a team and therefore backing off?

As long as coaches don't share the amount they are spending and what they are promising, there is nothing collusive about it. The reality is that if I tell a coach I will yield to him in a recruiting battle, that is information ultimately revealed by FSS and by the considering statuses. All the coaches do is reach an agreement in general over turf.

1) This better mirrors real life where this would be perfectly ok.

2) I don't see how it works to any coaches detriment, especially coaches uninvolved in the deal.

It works to their detriment because of this. You and the other coach KNOW something about that recruit that I do not know. You know that Team A is never going to get involved in that guy ... I do not. If you reach this agreement after the guy is considering both of you, it is even worse. You know that Team A is not interested and you are going to get that guy, but he is considering you both. I see it as a battle between 2 teams, so I am staying out of it. It is NOT a battle between two teams, one is not going to offer a scholly. That is a HUGE difference.

also, using you example, you are going after player "y", the other team is going after player "x" ,and a third party team is going after player "z". now that you and other team have agreed not to go after each others players, that leaves you more money to come attack player "z" which would affect the outside team not in your agreement. but if you had to battle for "x" or "y" you may not be able to afford to go after "z"

by the way, most of this analysis applies - is treated as applying by WIS - whether it is a secret agreement or posted on the coaches corner - even if others - some or all others know - the collusive agreement hurts the ability of others to compete by conserving budget for the teams that agree

Quote: Originally posted by cthomas22255 on 5/29/2010But if you or I do it then it's not fair play.

There's no reason to drag other people into your own sordid moral failings, cthomas.

Better to not send any sitemails about your recruits during recruiting or any of your intentions.

The issue here has always been the same: the auction format of HD recruiting. As long as recruits go to the highest bidder (with a few significant, but not insurmountable, mitigating factors, such as distance and prestige), WIS will need to stop coaches from any form of communication during recruiting. That's because knowing who is a target becomes very important when it's basically an auction. If recruiting were more like RL (with programs/coaches matching to players a significant part, knowing who was a target wouldn't mean much. The HD recruiting engine is extremely flawed, and one disadvantage of it causes the need to artificially control communication during recruiting. My 2 cents.

Quote: Originally posted by jskenner on 5/30/2010The issue here has always been the same:  the auction format of HD recruiting.  As long as recruits go to the highest bidder (with a few significant, but not insurmountable, mitigating factors, such as distance and prestige), WIS will need to stop coaches from any form of communication during recruiting.  That's because knowing who is a target becomes very important when it's basically an auction.  If recruiting were more like RL (with programs/coaches matching to players a significant part, knowing who was a target wouldn't mean much.  The HD recruiting engine is extremely flawed, and one disadvantage of it causes the need to artificially control communication during recruiting.  My 2 cents.

I agree Jskenn. What changes would you like to see?

Personally these are some additions I'd like to see them make to recruiting:

• Number and year of players at recruits position
• Greater Emphasis on sending recruits to the NBA
• Greater emphasis on favorite school and proximity preference
• a variable based on Team IQs matching recruits preferred set
• Also the addition of hiring assistant coaches who provide benefits (a bigger changes

Honestly, the easiest way to avoid any of this is to just not say anything while recruiting is going on.

I've Sitemailed a coach during Recuiting saying "im not backing off, take it for what its worth"...and recieved no warning...should i have?

Quote: Originally posted by rnevel on 5/29/2010Just wondering, does WIS send Fair Play notices to those coaches who have multiple teams in the same world and share FSS among the teams?

No, in their book it's apparently not unfair to have multiple teams in the same world and division.

Agree, emy. But the point we try to make against the current recruit engine is that it's significantly flawed (the almost pure auction aspect), and there are much better, richer, ways to make the engine.

ellison, I like all your proposals. I'd add lots of coaching/programs attributes (to be improved over time, with varying levels of success). Some coaches could build themselves into more persuasive recruiters. Some could make themselves into better judges of talent and potential. Others could improve abilities in teaching different offensive/defensive sets. Others could be better game coaches. Or some could build various combinations over time. Some recruits would care very much about certain aspects. Some would care very little about some or all (more like the highest bidder recruits now). The system would require a big rewrite of the engine (you know how we love those ;) ), but ultimately (like I think the current rewrite will do) it will make for a much deeper, much less repetitive game.

Quote: Originally posted by cthomas22255 on 5/30/2010

Quote: Originally posted by rnevel on 5/29/2010Just wondering, does WIS send Fair Play notices to those coaches who have multiple teams in the same world and share FSS among the teams?

No, in their book it's apparently not unfair to have multiple teams in the same world and division.

Having multiple teams is not the same thing as sharing FSS information.

In fact, when they introduced FSS, they made it so that you actually do have to actively work at it to cheat effectively.

Quote: Originally posted by jskenner on 5/30/2010Agree, emy.  But the point we try to make against the current recruit engine is that it's significantly flawed (the almost pure auction aspect), and there are much better, richer, ways to make the engine.ellison, I like all your proposals.  I'd add lots of coaching/programs attributes (to be improved over time, with varying levels of success).  Some coaches could build themselves into more persuasive recruiters.  Some could make themselves into better judges of talent and potential.  Others could improve abilities in teaching different offensive/defensive sets.  Others could be better game coaches.  Or some could build various combinations over time.  Some recruits would care very much about certain aspects.  Some would care very little about some or all (more like the highest bidder recruits now).  The system would require a big rewrite of the engine (you know how we love those ;) ), but ultimately (like I think the current rewrite will do) it will make for a much deeper, much less repetitive game.

There have been people (like me!) asking for a more complex, interesting recruiting process, with more variables, pretty much since HD started. I'd like to think the 'fave school/near or far' thing is a first tentative step in that direction, and not all we're gonna get.

Right now, the Favorite School variable is a joke. I had an ineligible player 30 miles from me this past recruiting session in Tark. I'm at UCLA and he listed us as his favorite school.

I know that ineligibles are a bit tricky as far as getting them to show up, so I dumped a TON of cash into him (he was a 4 star, top 10 PG). Well, by now you can guess what happened. He's now at a Junior College in Indiana 1800 miles away. Uhh, buddy, what happened to your favorite school? Does he actually think I'm going to try to recruit him from that far away? Does the favorite school variable mean ANYTHING?

I think it was Pork who had the same thing happen to him with an ineligible at Kansas and I'm pretty sure that he spent even more money than I did. I guess my point is, if we're even going to have a Favorite School variable in the game, shouldn't it actually have SOME influence on where the player plays? Because as it stands right now, it appears that being listed as a player's "Favorite School" is worth about 82 cents worth of recruiting effort.