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

Posted by kujayhawk on 2/29/2012 1:36:00 PM (view original):
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.

I get a chuckle whenever I read things like "feels good to start recruiting with 6 slots and all this carryover money" in a conference thread, when I distinctly remember this team losing a couple of major battles last season and he/she have the 6 slots because of 4 SRs graduating and 2 walkons.

Maybe I am thick but what is wrong with that statement?

All it is doing is exposing someone's philosophy, it's not a (secret) agreement between two people.

the argument is that it is proposing a deal - I wont go into your territory if you stay out of mine - in the real world of say antitrust that is collusion - whether it is collusion in HD is not specified. 

I think it is clear that two coaches cannot agree expressly to stay out of each others states.

So what if the agreement is made less expressly?  hard to say....

I don't think any of the lines posted in the OP are bad. I do consider it psychological warfare. I mean, I just ran into a conference in my area in the CC saying to sitemail him if they wanted some good guys to recruit. So I figure in the big scheme of things, saying you have a ton of carryover when you don't for example, is small potatoes.

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

I don't like the same one a lot of others don't like - but I'm all for putting out misinformation on the CC during recruiting. I lie all the time...until I don't...

Perhaps collusion should not be the word used if the acts are blatant and out in the open.  Outright cheating?  Maybe not.  It doesn't mean another team can't try to get the same recruits.  Cartel seemed like a good word depending on the definition.  An agreement by competing firms to fix prices, etc the aim of which is to increase profits by reducing competition.

Collusion is easier to use in a sentence...an act of collusion, they are colluding.  It's harder to do that with cartel.

Collusion is a perfectly acceptable word.  I don't have my Black's Law Dictionary in California, but I bet if somebody looks up collusion in there you'd find a definition that fits better with what everyone other than TJ thinks the word means.  The legalistic definition - an agreement that allows both parties to profit by avoiding competition - is almost certainly in there.

collusion

I see the words "usually secret."  And no kind of illegal agreement is going to be binding.  Who would force it to stand up?  You can't take it to the court system...

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?

We can get into all kinds of semantics about what the word collusion does or does not mean, but the only definition that really matters is the one that WIS uses. From their Fair Play Guidelines: 

Collusive transactions

Collusion includes any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users. Here are a few examples:

• Trades that clearly benefit one side.
• Dropping/waiving a player so that another team may pick him up.
• Using 1 team to scout for another team.
• Making agreements with other users to go or not go after specific players with the intent of avoiding recruiting/negotiation battles.
• Coaching 2 or more teams in the same world using multiple user IDs within the same conference or regional area of the country is not allowed as it presents opportunities for collusive behavior. All such situations brought to our attention will be investigated and violations of this policy will result in the removal or relocation of one or all of the IDs.
• Intentionally throwing a game to ensure another team improves its chances for a post-season bid.
• Intentionally signing questionable players that benefit the former club (i.e. Type-A free-agents in Hardball Dynasty.)
• Arranging a trade with another franchise so the other franchise can sign a free-agent resulting in the other franchise receiving compensation picks.

Any owner caught colluding for the first time will receive a sitemail and email from us regarding the action. Future violations will result in appropriate consequences. This may include the stripping of all offending teams controlled by the owner(s).

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.

Making agreements with other users to go or not go after specific players with the intent of avoiding recruiting/negotiation battles.
-----------
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


-----------
in basketball if a player is considering one school and only one school., some view that as a vebal commitment, especially if its for consecutive cycles, that could be viewed as a form of the gentlmans rule the big ten has in football, if a confernece agreed not to go after someone who was verbally committment in that sense. 


I have never spoken to anyone duirng recruiting, as long as people arent commenting on potential recuits before they sign and one owner doesn't have 2 or more teams, I have no issue with anything anyone would do.