Actually, Naismith is under 1,000 as the crow flies, which is the measure HD uses for recruits. That is where distance matters as costs go up at distance thresholds for home and campus visits.

Posted by topdogggbm on 4/25/2020 10:42:00 PM (view original):
Also gil, I think you had asked beachhouse about why the "two teams in one world" is an issue. And i agree with him, and I think sportsbulls as well..... 2 teams in 1 world just shouldn't be allowed at all. It just opens the door for things that don't need to happen.

Also, there's absolutely no reason for two teams in one world, if it's a coach that doesn't already have 10 teams! (One in each world). Just join a different world if another team is something you want!!! Goodness, how difficult is that?!

that wasn't my question - i kinda tried to be clear about this, but apparently failed. the thing that threw me a bit in his case is he said it was fine in 2.0 but not 3.0. why?

i'm not really questioning why anyone who was against sub-1000 miles in 2.0, is against it now. there's legit reasons and i'm not questioning any of that. i'm simply curious as to what changed in 3.0, in one person's mind, to tip the scales?

I believe you misinterpreted what I was saying. I’ve never been on board with that. Sorry if I didn’t write it correctly.

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/26/2020 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 4/25/2020 10:42:00 PM (view original):
Also gil, I think you had asked beachhouse about why the "two teams in one world" is an issue. And i agree with him, and I think sportsbulls as well..... 2 teams in 1 world just shouldn't be allowed at all. It just opens the door for things that don't need to happen.

Also, there's absolutely no reason for two teams in one world, if it's a coach that doesn't already have 10 teams! (One in each world). Just join a different world if another team is something you want!!! Goodness, how difficult is that?!

that wasn't my question - i kinda tried to be clear about this, but apparently failed. the thing that threw me a bit in his case is he said it was fine in 2.0 but not 3.0. why?

i'm not really questioning why anyone who was against sub-1000 miles in 2.0, is against it now. there's legit reasons and i'm not questioning any of that. i'm simply curious as to what changed in 3.0, in one person's mind, to tip the scales?

It seems like it would be an advantage in both. Though recruiting caps and preferences in 3.0 make it easier to actually do something with that added scouting base, not to mention AP cost the same at any distance.

Posted by beachhouse on 4/26/2020 1:53:00 PM (view original):
I believe you misinterpreted what I was saying. I’ve never been on board with that. Sorry if I didn’t write it correctly.

ok fair enough!

edit: ok by now i had forgotten what was actually said - i went back and looked. i perhaps am still taking it wrong - were you saying, in 2.0, the 1000 mile rule was enough - but now, 2 teams/world should be prohibited?

if so, my question remains - what changed? i totally get why people are against multiple teams in general - and i agree with most of it - and am not really looking to debate any of it. but if there is a difference in 2.0 and 3.0, in terms of how it should/could affect the thinking about allowing multiple teams or not (and how), then i am kinda curious that that is. i didn't really think of the two as materially different. although it does seems like there is more distance recruiting now? so perhaps where the 1000 mile rule was enough, a stronger prohibition is needed? anyway, it was stuff along those lines (changes from 2.0 to 3.0 that impact multi teams), that i was curious what folks were thinking.

Posted by beachhouse on 4/25/2020 10:58:00 AM (view original):
A lot of my comments are sarcastic and to stir the pot. I do however think that nobody on here should have 2 teams in any world period. They made it 1K between and that was fine in the 2.0 setting. In 3.0 it just doesn’t work. That’s just my opinion though.

this is the part i was responding to just to be clear (re: my last post).

but again, if i took it wrong - my apologies, ignore my question!

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/26/2020 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by beachhouse on 4/25/2020 10:58:00 AM (view original):
A lot of my comments are sarcastic and to stir the pot. I do however think that nobody on here should have 2 teams in any world period. They made it 1K between and that was fine in the 2.0 setting. In 3.0 it just doesn’t work. That’s just my opinion though.

this is the part i was responding to just to be clear (re: my last post).

but again, if i took it wrong - my apologies, ignore my question!

Basketts more or less conveyed what I meant with that.

Carry on

Plan all along was to move New York tech out west. Applied to Colorado first cycle same time as I applied to Bluefield and surprisingly did not get it, so I moved out to d3 Cali. Going to have Admin reinstate that. Tyranny of the whiny majority here

Posted by beachhouse on 4/26/2020 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/26/2020 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by beachhouse on 4/25/2020 10:58:00 AM (view original):
A lot of my comments are sarcastic and to stir the pot. I do however think that nobody on here should have 2 teams in any world period. They made it 1K between and that was fine in the 2.0 setting. In 3.0 it just doesn’t work. That’s just my opinion though.

this is the part i was responding to just to be clear (re: my last post).

but again, if i took it wrong - my apologies, ignore my question!

Basketts more or less conveyed what I meant with that.

Carry on

OK sounds good. that kinda makes sense - the preferences and AP - making distance recruiting more practical and FSS info sharing, from long range, more impactful. i see how that helps, in the 'intentional cheating' model of viewing multiple teams (the alternative being assuming an intentional cheater would use two different names, so we wouldn't know their accounts, and therefore to view the two teams question from the standpoint of unintentional advantages gained even by the well-intentioned).

for the record, i agree with the 1000 mile rule - if i could wave a wand, i'd probably tighten restrictions, not loosen them. i just don't like how they've handled the rules in general, especially the transition from allowing things to not.

Posted by abninety on 4/26/2020 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Plan all along was to move New York tech out west. Applied to Colorado first cycle same time as I applied to Bluefield and surprisingly did not get it, so I moved out to d3 Cali. Going to have Admin reinstate that. Tyranny of the whiny majority here

Just play by the rules. It seems simple enough.

Posted by beachhouse on 4/26/2020 6:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by abninety on 4/26/2020 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Plan all along was to move New York tech out west. Applied to Colorado first cycle same time as I applied to Bluefield and surprisingly did not get it, so I moved out to d3 Cali. Going to have Admin reinstate that. Tyranny of the whiny majority here

Just play by the rules. It seems simple enough.

he does raise an interesting case though where you are within 1000 miles for a couple days during the jobs transition. as long as the two teams held during the regular season aren't within 1000 miles, i would be fine with a day or whatever of overlap during the jobs period.

Why on this site do people circumventing rules consistently get defended? I am curious about this.

agree with the summary above of why two teams in a world is more of an issue in 3.0

and agree with Gil that if there were a brief period as described, I would not enforce the 1000 mile limit - although if were admin I would get rid of the 1000 mile exception and jiust ban multiple teams in a world - cross reference URLs, credit cards, emails.....

to new coaches - I have been here forever and I believe this sort of messing around is rare