Pre-Recruiting Psychological Warfare Topic

caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 57 144 14
Prospect
Posted by professor17 on 3/2/2012 8:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by thecommie on 3/2/2012 7:52:00 PM (view original):
original poster says:

Explicit non-compete agreements between teams.   not competing against conference foes
------------------------

non-compete rules? big ten football has a "gentlemans rule" where once a team gets a verbal from a player all other teams in the conference will not recruit that player, that why when urban meyer came to ohio state coaches schools like wisconsin got really upset because he woudlnt follow the gentlemans rule.

i dont do anytype of gentlemans agreement like this as of now, but if coaches do it in real life, why can't you do it in a simulation viedo game?



First of all, there is no analog to a verbal commitment in HD. There is Considering and Signing, but nothing in between. So the gentleman's rule regarding verbal commitments to which you refer doesn't  apply here.

Secondly, WIS explicitly forbids agreements between coaches, as mentioned just above in my prior post on WIS's Fair Play Guidelines.
I think he's referring to if you have a guy green. But I still agree with you.
3/2/2012 9:03 PM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11794 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 658 54 1
Hall of Famer
I am not really sure what I am arguing for anymore but my points, I think, are:

1.   It's not collusion if you say "I am going to defend the recruits in my home state" or whatever the hell the original statement  was
2.   Collusion needs to be an agreement (which one statement isn't) and secret
3.   A statement by one person isn't an agreement between two....just because I tell my wife I want to have sex doesn't mean it will happen!

I supposed if WIS defines collusion as any agreement (and doesn't use the word secret),  than making a public agreement to not recruit players is collusion.   I think they should use a better word but hey, I am just a dumb kid from Jersey. 
3/2/2012 9:10 PM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11794 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 658 54 1
Hall of Famer
Posted by milkamania on 2/29/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by headpirate on 2/29/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tianyi7886 on 2/29/2012 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Only one I have a problem with is this:

"My general rule is not to battle conference mates unless they come into my state."



think this one is out of bounds, all other examples OK
this is sort of an unwritten rule in most conferences anyway, so it doesn't ever really need to be said.  all the rest are fine.    heck, my conference chat exploded into all out warfare in Rupp  C. Atlantic D2 because 1 coach told another in conference he was going to do everything in his power to get a recruit, so save your money and back off.  If you want a fun read, go check out those 12 or so pages.   I make it a point to check out the other conferences chats at all times during recruiting just to see if anyone lets anything slip that might affect how i recruit
" This is sort of an unwritten rule in most conferences anyway" ?

Not in any I have have been in.   Maybe that's why I can't win a national championship!!!!

:)
3/2/2012 9:14 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 837 2
Pro
why is it that collusion needs to be secret - if one coach posts on the coach's corner that he wants Jones and the other posts - openly - that he can have Jones so long as the second coach can have smith and they then agree - isnt that collusion?  it is not secret

and an agreement can be express "we hereby agree" or established in other ways - if there is agreement, isnt it a problem?

is collusion the only thing banned under the fair play rules - I think not - for example, I think the mere exchange of recruiting priority lists is frowned upon, right?

a whole lot of simplistic "rules" have been tossed around in this thread
3/2/2012 9:55 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
I agree with mets. A good example is a thread from about a couple months ago, where someone asked if it would be ok to ask a former transfers coach about that players potential. A lot of people thought it was ok, as there was no agreement, and anyone can ask. A lot of people thought it was not ok because you gained access to information not already available to you, through communication with another coach. Seble stepped in and said NO, it's not allowed behavior.

I think that is a great example because on first blush, it sounds very harmless. But through the interaction (not agreement) of two coaches, one coach can garner an advantage over another coach.

I think the line is drawn where an advantage can be claimed for a coach by their activity. However, this has to be weighted against the fact that most coaches are most involved in the game during recruiting and that is when they'd most naturally want to post. So its not black and white, but when any significant advantage can be gained, it is against fair play, IMO
3/4/2012 12:53 PM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11794 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 658 54 1
Hall of Famer
"why is it that collusion needs to be secret "-  I believe collusion needs to be secret because that is how it is defined by dictionary.com and law.com....

3/4/2012 5:58 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/4/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):
"why is it that collusion needs to be secret "-  I believe collusion needs to be secret because that is how it is defined by dictionary.com and law.com....

it is not, however, how it is defined by WiS.
3/4/2012 6:02 PM
fmschwab
Posts: 38 (0)
Hall of Famer
47
Prospect
Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/4/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):
"why is it that collusion needs to be secret "-  I believe collusion needs to be secret because that is how it is defined by dictionary.com and law.com....

trentonjoe, I think you're missing the point here. There are different definitions of the same word. That is common. And the WIS definition for collusion is not the same as the dictionary definition. (Just like "poaching" in WIS doesn't fit the dictionary definition, either.) You're splitting hairs by trying to rely on the dictionary definition of the word, and it's leading you in the wrong direction.
3/4/2012 6:02 PM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11794 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 658 54 1
Hall of Famer
Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/2/2012 9:10:00 PM (view original):
I am not really sure what I am arguing for anymore but my points, I think, are:

1.   It's not collusion if you say "I am going to defend the recruits in my home state" or whatever the hell the original statement  was
2.   Collusion needs to be an agreement (which one statement isn't) and secret
3.   A statement by one person isn't an agreement between two....just because I tell my wife I want to have sex doesn't mean it will happen!

I supposed if WIS defines collusion as any agreement (and doesn't use the word secret),  than making a public agreement to not recruit players is collusion.   I think they should use a better word but hey, I am just a dumb kid from Jersey. 
This
3/4/2012 6:48 PM
kmasonbx
Posts: 847 (0)
Hall of Famer
210
Prospect
Everybody is overly sensitive about talking during recruiting. In most conferences the quietest time is during recruiting, everybody is so scared to give away information or say something that might be considered collusion. Personally I think it's perfectly fine to say pretty much anything unless it's blatant collusion. If I'm in a battle and a guy posts on my CC "you might as well quit I still have 60k left," it's up to me to decide if he's serious or FOS. But I wouldn't say something like that because I know people will have a fit. The only thing that would actually get me upset is if guys are actually making agreements on what recruits to go after.
3/4/2012 7:34 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Black's law's definition suggests that a collusive action, while generally secretive, does not need to be secretive to be categorized as collusion:

"A deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party of his right Cowell. A secret arrangement between two or more persons, whose interests are apparently conflicting, to make use of the forms and proceedings of law in order to defraud a third person, or toobtain that which justice would not give them, by deceiving a court or it officers. Baldwin v. New York, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 359; Belt v. Blackburn, 28 Md. 235; Railroad Co. v. Gay. 8G Tex. 571, 26 S. W. 599, 25 L. R. A. 52; Balch v. Beach, 119 Wis. 77, 95 N. W. 132. In divorce proceedings, collusion is an agreement between husband and wife that C0LLYJ3ISTA 217 COLOR OF TITLE one of them shall commit, or appear to have committed, or be represented in court as having committed, acts constituting a cause of divorce, for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain a divorce. Civil Code Cal.

Read more: COLLUSION | Definition of COLLUSION (Black's Law Dictionary) "
3/4/2012 7:43 PM
rednation58
Posts: 630 (0)
Hall of Famer
53
Rookie
Seems the best way to define this is simply by stating a law of advantage. If you voluntarily gain for yourself, or give/receive to/from another coach, an advantage not readily available to any other coach (third party) you are participating in a collusive act. 
3/4/2012 8:01 PM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11794 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 658 54 1
Hall of Famer
Posted by kmasonbx on 3/4/2012 7:34:00 PM (view original):
Everybody is overly sensitive about talking during recruiting. In most conferences the quietest time is during recruiting, everybody is so scared to give away information or say something that might be considered collusion. Personally I think it's perfectly fine to say pretty much anything unless it's blatant collusion. If I'm in a battle and a guy posts on my CC "you might as well quit I still have 60k left," it's up to me to decide if he's serious or FOS. But I wouldn't say something like that because I know people will have a fit. The only thing that would actually get me upset is if guys are actually making agreements on what recruits to go after.
I wish I would have written this three pages ago.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense that the babble I have been spewing out for the last 4 days...
3/5/2012 5:41 AM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by kmasonbx on 3/4/2012 7:34:00 PM (view original):
Everybody is overly sensitive about talking during recruiting. In most conferences the quietest time is during recruiting, everybody is so scared to give away information or say something that might be considered collusion. Personally I think it's perfectly fine to say pretty much anything unless it's blatant collusion. If I'm in a battle and a guy posts on my CC "you might as well quit I still have 60k left," it's up to me to decide if he's serious or FOS. But I wouldn't say something like that because I know people will have a fit. The only thing that would actually get me upset is if guys are actually making agreements on what recruits to go after.
what about saying, hey, i already have 40K into that guy and we're even... but i have 40K left, so u should give up! that opens your opponent up for attack from other coaches, if they now have good reason to believe your opponent is deeply invested. these kinds of comments have been made and very seriously frowned upon. if that kind of tactic was allowed, it would be done rampantly for obvious reasons, and recruiting would be a veritable blood bath. i'd be ok if that was the case, but i really don't think it would make for a friendly environment at all...
3/5/2012 2:14 PM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie

Going one further than billyg, I've actually seen a coach publicly encourage ganging up on a specific team. The gist of the comment was something along the lines of "If anyone's looking for a 5-star PF, take a look at Virginia, they're in 2 battles, and they've already spent a ton on the PG." (Of course, the coach who posted that comment was the one battling Virginia for the PG).

3/5/2012 2:34 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
Pre-Recruiting Psychological Warfare Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.