Quote: Originally Posted By fussyd on 12/14/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By johnner26 on 12/14/2009

You know I happen to have been on the short end of the stick in recruiting and I thought I was helping the guy out. Clearly Schwartz has problems with how that went down. There was no collusion--just some feedback from what I would do if I were him. I don't control any of the teams I made comments on and if I had to do it all over again (and if Schwartz wasn't such a DB)--I would.

Honestly if anyone has a problem with what I did--they can man up and we can talk about it. Or they can throw it up on the board like Oregon did and wait for a lynch mob to come and help out.

Regardless, check the rules--I didn't do anything that I wouldn't be comfortable doing again. When I start to actually collude with other coaches then feel free to pull out your pichforks.

In the end--Oregon loses big time, screws up his season and then tries to throw me under the bus for attempting to help him out...whatever. Lesson learned. Enjoy your season Schwartz!

Schwartz doesn't need a lynchmob. You've proved yourself worthy of a hanging all by yourself.

Good one! clever. Anything else?

Quote: Originally Posted By mniven on 12/14/2009johnner, are you really still defending yourself? You came off as an a-hole in the sitemails and you're coming off as an even bigger a-hole in this thread

I considered just laying down and taking it, but since I have a set of balls to go along with my a-hole--I decided against it

johnboy, i will take you at your word as to your intentions. i can definitely see how a well-intentioned coach might stray down this path.

but. what you did is wrong. and im pretty sure its against the rules. if its not, it should be.

I know you have stated above that you see nothing wrong and would do it again. I know that it is sometimes hard to change your position when being attacked as you are. but, i hope after this all settles down that you will put some serious thought into the matter and reconsider your stance.

If you would like to discuss via sitemail, let me know.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldave on 12/14/2009johnboy, i will take you at your word as to your intentions. i can definitely see how a well-intentioned coach might stray down this path.

but. what you did is wrong. and im pretty sure its against the rules. if its not, it should be.

I know you have stated above that you see nothing wrong and would do it again. I know that it is sometimes hard to change your position when being attacked as you are. but, i hope after this all settles down that you will put some serious thought into the matter and reconsider your stance.

If you would like to discuss via sitemail, let me know.

Well said and very concise. Who are you and what have you done to oldave?

johnner, i think you'd agree that colorado is by far the most dangerous team to you, long term, outside your conference. im not saying you maliciously attacked them, but i think you should certainly respect the situation and should not influence anybody to compete with them, in any way. doing so is certainly an advantage, right?

i also think you gain an advantage in general from your first message. you would probably never had somebody post about it if you stopped there. anyway, letting a guy know somebody is a prime target of your certainly affects their decision, and i am pretty confident it is in your favor. i get plenty of sitemails when my prestige gets high, asking if i am going for this guy or that guy, or maybe everybody who i am going for. it seems most people don't want to waste money losing a battle to the A/A+ prestige schools, its just not worth it, they would much rather just know who you wanted and steer clear. so i really cannot see how your site mail, which honestly comes across as bullying, does not give you an advantage...

"He's going to cost you approximately 60K for this guy if I don't put any more into him. I have the prestige advantage and a significant chunk into him because I knew I would be competing with other high prestige schools for him. Consider this a helping hand and know that I could still double my investment if I needed to because I had quite a bit of cash on hand to start recruiting. I hate to see great programs strike out in recruiting."

IMO that sounds a lot more like bullying me than a helping hand. its like, just so you know, there is no way you can win this guy, so don't waste your time trying. sure, it is better for both schools if he looks elsewhere, rather than spend all his money and lose. but, its not better for the community. and i don't see where you could draw the line of acceptability between discussing who will get a recruit after recruiting starts and before.

i see where you are coming from johnner. you can always extend a helping hand after the fact, even though it may be less helpful. if that was really your intention, its not so bad. you said you've learned something, thats good enough for me.

I agree with pdanao's take. I have sent the first type of email on a few occasions, and it is absolutely a selfish move. By trying to show a competing coach how he can't win (when I have a prestige, distance and money advantage), I'm trying to prevent him from forcing me to spend unecessarily on the target. If he persists, like almost all tend to do (as most just seem to be irrationally bull-headed; they evidently want so badly to believe I'm bluffing, which I just never do, since that would be pretty poor sportsmanship), I just spend more and sign the recruit. This has happened in each case where the opponent keeps spending. If he backs off, I save money. He saves money as well, but my intent was not to help him. That's simply a side-effect. Now the 2nd johnner site mail pointing to targets, although legal, is pushing sportsmanship IMO, and then followed by the third, sportsmanship is pretty much out the door. But I do understand his frustration with yschwartz. His simple bull-headedness cost both coaches wasted funds.

And I'll say again. Such acts and frustrations will continue to occur until WIS changes its HD recruiting model from a pretty straightforward auction model to a more RL (search, evaluate, match player to program) approach. The whole need for preventing collusion (which the above is not) would pretty much vanish under such a system.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldave on 12/14/2009johnboy, i will take you at your word as to your intentions. i can definitely see how a well-intentioned coach might stray down this path.

but. what you did is wrong. and im pretty sure its against the rules. if its not, it should be.

I know you have stated above that you see nothing wrong and would do it again. I know that it is sometimes hard to change your position when being attacked as you are. but, i hope after this all settles down that you will put some serious thought into the matter and reconsider your stance.

If you would like to discuss via sitemail, let me know.

I do agree OD--lesson learned here. Don't try to help out. I can't help but think that when I was on the other end of it to have a coach help me out like this would have been welcomed. My fault for going ahead with it. Again let me stress, this was not malicious towards any coach.

johnner - again, i agree that the help would have been welcomed. it is definitely an advantage for both schools involved to stop spending on a player as soon as possible. but, especially with an a+ prestige program in a fairly low competition area, its simply unfair to take those advantages. its the same kind of advantage garnered by coordinating before recruiting starts.

Quote: Originally Posted By jskenner on 12/14/2009
I agree with pdanao's take. I have sent the first type of email on a few occasions, and it is absolutely a selfish move. By trying to show a competing coach how he can't win (when I have a prestige, distance and money advantage), I'm trying to prevent him from forcing me to spend unecessarily on the target. If he persists, like almost all tend to do (as most just seem to be irrationally bull-headed; they evidently want so badly to believe I'm bluffing, which I just never do, since that would be pretty poor sportsmanship), I just spend more and sign the recruit. This has happened in each case where the opponent keeps spending. If he backs off, I save money. He saves money as well, but my intent was not to help him. That's simply a side-effect. Now the 2nd johnner site mail pointing to targets, although legal, is pushing sportsmanship IMO, and then followed by the third, sportsmanship is pretty much out the door. But I do understand his frustration with yschwartz. His simple bull-headedness cost both coaches wasted funds.

And I'll say again. Such acts and frustrations will continue to occur until WIS changes its HD recruiting model from a pretty straightforward auction model to a more RL (search, evaluate, match player to program) approach. The whole need for preventing collusion (which the above is not) would pretty much vanish under such a system.

I can agree with this. Thanks jskenner

I've personally come to the conclusion that I won't discuss a player until someone, me or another, has signed him and he is no longer recruitable.

johnner, I do not have a problem with what you did. I would have just deleted the message if it was sent to me, but I do not think that you were being malicious in any way. You were obviously trying to help someone out who was having a colossally bad recruiting season.

A bit of a case of sour grapes from scwartz, IMO.

Quote: Originally posted by gillispie on 12/14/2009johnner - again, i agree that the help would have been welcomed. it is definitely an advantage for both schools involved to stop spending on a player as soon as possible. but, especially with an a+ prestige program in a fairly low competition area, its simply unfair to take those advantages. its the same kind of advantage garnered by coordinating before recruiting starts.

so for example, IMO, if you saw a d1 newbie recruiting against some school out of your market, and it was a senseless reckless battle, telling them is one thing. if it legitimately is to help a new coach and you are not gaining an advantage (or at least, one that is non-negligible), i don't think there is a problem there. but we all have a responsibility not to trade information like that to our own benefit, because its impossible to draw the line in the sand. plus, i think that system would encourage people to push the limit, to make sure they aren't disadvantaging themselves, so the system would naturally tend towards more and more information exchange.

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 12/14/2009johnner, i think you'd agree that colorado is by far the most dangerous team to you, long term, outside your conference. im not saying you maliciously attacked them, but i think you should certainly respect the situation and should not influence anybody to compete with them, in any way. doing so is certainly an advantage, right?

i also think you gain an advantage in general from your first message. you would probably never had somebody post about it if you stopped there. anyway, letting a guy know somebody is a prime target of your certainly affects their decision, and i am pretty confident it is in your favor. i get plenty of sitemails when my prestige gets high, asking if i am going for this guy or that guy, or maybe everybody who i am going for. it seems most people don't want to waste money losing a battle to the A/A+ prestige schools, its just not worth it, they would much rather just know who you wanted and steer clear. so i really cannot see how your site mail, which honestly comes across as bullying, does not give you an advantage...

"He's going to cost you approximately 60K for this guy if I don't put any more into him. I have the prestige advantage and a significant chunk into him because I knew I would be competing with other high prestige schools for him. Consider this a helping hand and know that I could still double my investment if I needed to because I had quite a bit of cash on hand to start recruiting. I hate to see great programs strike out in recruiting."

IMO that sounds a lot more like bullying me than a helping hand. its like, just so you know, there is no way you can win this guy, so don't waste your time trying. sure, it is better for both schools if he looks elsewhere, rather than spend all his money and lose. but, its not better for the community. and i don't see where you could draw the line of acceptability between discussing who will get a recruit after recruiting starts and before

Interesting point of view. I don't see the bullying part though--a bully as defined is "a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people." I tried to help him out--he didn't want the help, I won, 'nuff said. Can't see the bullying part. I think we may be beating a dead horse and I may slow my replies after this. I get it--don't send anymore sitemails during recruiting.

I've received messages of a similar ilk a couple times during recruiting, and always took them as helpful and never once thought to post the messages in a thread regardless of the final outcome of recruiting. No problem here with johnner's unsolicited advice.