Pre-Recruiting Psychological Warfare Topic

professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie

We all know blatant collusion when we see it. Coaches sitemailing to ask about recruiting targets/intentions. Explicit non-compete agreements between teams. Coaches giving out critical information during recruiting.

But what about pre-recruiting psychological intimidation, meant to scare other teams off from tangling with you? I'm talking about things posted either *before* recruiting starts or *after* it ends. Not during recruiting itself. Things like this, which are all variations of things I've seen recently:

"This is the most money I've ever had for recruiting. Hopefully I don't blow it!"

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

"I only have 1 guard coming back next season, so that position is a very high priority for me."

"I always protect my territory. I may not succeed, but if someone comes in here, they'd better know they're not getting anyone cheap."

"There's only one guy I really want, so I'm probably going to take a couple walk-ons to make sure I can get him."

"Well, I'm done. Still have $60k left, so I'll have a ton of carryover for next season."

"It sure is nice having full carryover after having no openings last season!"

"Wow, I always thought $120k was the max you could have for recruiting. Guess not!"

I think a lot of us have probably engaged in something like this at one time or another, myself included. Maybe innocently, maybe calculated. Maybe bluffing, maybe not. But it is sending a message that might make people think twice about getting into battle with you.

What do people think about is? OK because it's out in the open, and of a general non-specific nature, and is really just harmless banter? Or is it crossing the line because it's trying to influence the decisions people make during recruiting?

2/29/2012 9:18 AM
mjp8
Posts: 274 (0)
Hall of Famer
68 1
Rookie
Clearly harmless banter
2/29/2012 9:28 AM
alblack56
Posts: 3329 (0)
Hall of Famer
490
Pro
Harmless...especially since you don't know if it's truthful.

The only one that's questionable is "My general rule is to not battle conference mates unless they come into my state."  That's telling your conference mates that you won't battle in THEIR states.  Also, that you'll likely give up if they go after an 'out-of-state' recruit that's considering you both. 
2/29/2012 10:22 AM (edited)
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11794 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 658 54 1
Hall of Famer
If it isn't hidden, it isn't collusion.   I think  all those statements are totally acceptable if they are in the league forums.
2/29/2012 10:29 AM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11794 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 658 54 1
Hall of Famer
In fact, I think that is fine DURING recruiting as well.   A little posturing is fun in my book.
2/29/2012 10:34 AM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Only one I have a problem with is this:

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



2/29/2012 10:38 AM
professor17
Posts: 366 (0)
Hall of Famer
222 13
Rookie
Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/29/2012 10:29:00 AM (view original):
If it isn't hidden, it isn't collusion.   I think  all those statements are totally acceptable if they are in the league forums.

I'm not sure I agree with your first sentence. If I publicly post to a conference mate,  "I'll back off Jones if you back off Smith" in the league forum during recruiting, would you consider that collusion? It's not hidden, but I'd call that crossing the line for sure. Or what if my in-state rival asks (publicly) who my top targets are before recruiting starts, and I actually answer the question by giving 3 recruit names in the league forum. Again, not hidden. But I think most would say unacceptable.

2/29/2012 10:41 AM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
i usually am as strongly in the "dont say anything during recruiting" camp as anyone. but i really see no problem with this. no agreements are being made. i am not sure where exactly to draw the line though - i don't think, for example, an a+ school in a lightly populated area declaring their intention of which players to recruit, would be ok - especially if they were regularly telling the truth. that would/could lead to implicit agreements between teams maybe, and that would be the problem? i know admin (not sure which admin) stated that exact scenario was ok. but i was shocked to hear it - and i strongly disagree.

simple game theory states your opponent is always better off having more information. so it could be argued that any information you give out, like i have X dollars or whatever, is to the benefit of everyone else. i really have no problem with people stating objective facts before/after recruiting like that. i don't like when people threaten with it - like get in a battle, go to that conf, and be like, dont you realize i have X scholarships and Y dollars??!?!? and my prestige is Z better than yours! etc etc... i dont think that should really be allowed, but not because its collusion, just because its a total dick move and creates a bad atmosphere for the game.
2/29/2012 10:43 AM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by professor17 on 2/29/2012 10:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/29/2012 10:29:00 AM (view original):
If it isn't hidden, it isn't collusion.   I think  all those statements are totally acceptable if they are in the league forums.

I'm not sure I agree with your first sentence. If I publicly post to a conference mate,  "I'll back off Jones if you back off Smith" in the league forum during recruiting, would you consider that collusion? It's not hidden, but I'd call that crossing the line for sure. Or what if my in-state rival asks (publicly) who my top targets are before recruiting starts, and I actually answer the question by giving 3 recruit names in the league forum. Again, not hidden. But I think most would say unacceptable.

+1
2/29/2012 10:44 AM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11794 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 658 54 1
Hall of Famer
col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes;


Try to find a definition of collusion that doesn't have the word "secret" in it.   It ain't easy.   I looked in three places....

I am not saying that making public deals is right, (although I am not sure if it totally wrong)  I just don't think it is collusion.

Take my opinion for what it is worth, I am a borderline nutjob.
2/29/2012 11:52 AM
alblack56
Posts: 3329 (0)
Hall of Famer
490
Pro
Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/29/2012 11:52:00 AM (view original):
col·lu·sion [kuh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes;


Try to find a definition of collusion that doesn't have the word "secret" in it.   It ain't easy.   I looked in three places....

I am not saying that making public deals is right, (although I am not sure if it totally wrong)  I just don't think it is collusion.

Take my opinion for what it is worth, I am a borderline nutjob.

For recruiting purposes, I don't think secrecy is relevant. I'd define 'collusion' as:

" any action between 2 or more coaches that enables them to save money on recruiting."
 
The list would include, but not limited to:

a) "I won't battle in your state";

b) "I'll take player A; you take B"

c) "Tell me if the recruit is a top priority for you, or merely a backup option"

d) "Let's share scouting information with each other."

e) Have extra money? I'm in a battle with another coach. Take your extra funds and go after one of his recruits. That will reduce the amount he can spend in battling me."

I'm sure there are other examples

2/29/2012 12:06 PM
wsut
Posts: 224 (0)
Hall of Famer
72 2 2
Prospect
your list is very accurate, and probably happens more often than people think. There have been some ridiculously suspicious situations like this that I've observed. Obviously we can never prove anything, but I do think options B and C are quite prevalent in the D1 BCS recruiting game.
2/29/2012 12:13 PM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 11794 (0)
Hall of Famer
420 658 54 1
Hall of Famer
I do not think that word means what you think it means....
2/29/2012 12:45 PM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
I so want to turn this into an Allen ACC thread. 
2/29/2012 12:57 PM
kujayhawk
Posts: 396 (0)
Hall of Famer
203 89
Rookie
Billy's thought about more info being better brings up something I've been wondering for a while.  If you are in D1 you should have a good feel for how much money your opponents have with the exception of not really knowing about carryover.  If you don't, you shouldn't be in D1.  D2 is probably the same thing.  D3 I think coaches aren't often wise enough to pay attention and new coaches have zero ability to know what conferences earned the previous postseason.  Would disclosing postseason earnings be a good thing?  I'm thinking yes but at the same time can understand how that might be considered spoonfeeding info.
2/29/2012 1:36 PM
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.