that may be fd, but it is still a step away...

I'm not going to comment a lot about this, but I will say that I wish that whoever had issues would have raised them sooner...I just spent a season at some D III school in Phelan for nothing.

I am out of Arkansas Tech. If anyone wants to play in Phelan DIII I am in the E8, aejones just kicked my butt in the elite 8 dammit

Posted by fd343ny on 9/22/2010 3:34:00 PM (view original):
nothing evil here, but I suppose it is just a step away from members of a conference agreeing - I'll recuit only in CT, you recruit only in RI, the other guy gets VT, or NH etc etc - which we would all think was inappropriate collusion

You are correct, there was nothing evil going on...  

The rest of my post was irrelevant.  It doesn't matter anymore.


   

Good to know it took Seble more than a month to spot this and shut it down. Glad I wasted 12.95.

No offense, you should have known that this was never happening...seble going out of his way to do something special for the game when the basics aren't even right?  You were all kidding yourselves from the start.

trevor, I don't know where you see the 7 or so of us moving into one conference and coaching our teams in a  particular way would have required any additional effort at all from anyone except perhaps the 7 or 8 of us. seble would not have had to go "out of his way to do something special".

Posted by colonels19 on 9/23/2010 12:36:00 PM (view original):
No offense, you should have known that this was never happening...seble going out of his way to do something special for the game when the basics aren't even right?  You were all kidding yourselves from the start.

um...what?  where is seble going out of his way?  oh, and were you the one that reported us?

Posted by colonels19 on 9/23/2010 12:36:00 PM (view original):
No offense, you should have known that this was never happening...seble going out of his way to do something special for the game when the basics aren't even right?  You were all kidding yourselves from the start.

I should have the right to recruit 12 point guards if that floats my boat.  It's not collusion and it's not asking for anything special from WIS.  It was actually an attempt to bring some interest into an increasingly boring product by a group of coaches that would have spent money and dedicated themselves to filling a DII conference.  WIS just ****** away $100 or so per season in Phelan out of ignorance.

Great to see the powers that be are cracking down on this sort of "collusion" (note the "s before jumping me guys) while continuing to turn a blind eye to the far more offensive and obvious collusion that goes on season after season in this game with regard to coordinated FSS purchases by groups of players and/or the use of D3 ghost ship teams to FSS for D1 or D2 programs.

There was nothing in this idea that would have hurt gameplay...the theme ideas being floated didn't impact opponents in a way that couldn't have been noted via gameplanning and staring at the rosters. How does a non-realistic team of all SG's take away from other players' enjoyment of the game any more than the non-realistic designation that one player to take 80 percent of a team's shots? The latter is something that can be found season after season in probably every world in HD and that WIS has made no effort to prevent. What's the difference between a coach announcing he'll be setting his team to +2 3pt shooting and running -5 defense all season and me logging in and seeing that my opponent has run a 2-3 zone at -2 with the same starting lineup in all 18 previous games because he's used the all-too-common "set it and forget it" regular season strategy that WIS tolerates year after year? 

Come on WIS...tts a game...we play it for fun. If a group of 10-12 guys have a slightly different definition of what fun is, where's the harm in that?

Trust me, you have much bigger issues here than the very novel and interesting idea put forward in this thread.

I especially like that supposedly the new recruit generation makes players that may be slotted as a SG who have Big man skills. Or vice versa. So presumably I could have a roster full of SG's that doesn't look all that different from a standard roster. But by recruiting only SGs, somehow I am ruining the game play for others, even though the world is less than half full.

This conference could have been a great endorsement for the new engine.  I do understand how it is "technically" collusion, but this could only have done good things for this game.  All these teams would have been better than sims, so I don't get how this would have been a problem.

I dont know what I would have done if I were seble, but I think the guys who were involved in this conference idea understate the issues.  Unfortunate that folks were disappointed, but think about a few issues that this raises

1.  having one conference like this may do little or no harm, what if there were ten, with different sets of agreed rules - what does that do to the game

2.  having a conference like this in DIII may do little or no harm, what in some world a BCS conference agreed on rules like these, what if all six BCS conference agreed on rules like these?

3. these rules were similar to the sort of rules that one sees a lot in the NBA SIM - arbitrary rules that hamstring a coach/GM - but what if folks saw theme leagues like this and then said they wanted to agree on rules like - each team will consist only of players from a certain state - what would you think if the Big East agreed that each team gets all the players from a certain state ....or maybe Cuse gets NY outside NYC and St Johns gets NYC.  No battles ever.  What would a school like Boston College think about how it would exist in a world where the Big East agreed on that theme.

I'm confident that one conference like this in DIII would do no harm, but I can see the point that if one allows this there are issues that could be troublesome down the road - would admin want to be reviewing and deciding what agreed themes are okay and which are not?  It is complicated.

Please take this in the spirit in which I offer it - trying to see the perspectives of admin and also the perspective of the theme leaguers - and not attacking anyone.

If this is technically collusion so is the limit on 6 players per year as that is an artificial restriction, the only difference is that the one forcing the "collusion" is WIS.  If they had divided states, that may have been collusive since it was tacitly agreeing not to compete for recruits.  However, I am not sure how having restrictions on players (that are not mutually exclusive en toto) are collusive.  Every coach every year decides on what position that they are recruiting and what standards they are using.  This is only a limiter put on what those choices are, similar to only 6 in a class or running an all SF team which has happened many times before.  What you don't  think that the conference mates of those guys noticed?  What they have 12 SF?  I wonder if they will recruit a center this year?  I am sorry but collusion is an "explicit" agreement to not compete on a paticular recruit.  If it was defined any other way, the word poaching would not exist in here, there would never be a player with talent that was not in a battle at any level and there would be many many more conference battles.  

Why is the number 6 collusion one might ask?  Well, it artificially limits my ability to compete for coach x's last recruit that he is going poor boy on, thereby tacitly allowing him to have a recruit that he should not have.  I cannot take my team and make a "super" class.  While not the advocate of that method that many were, it would surely work well in the new engine, could even be argued that it would guarantee a championship with the emphasis on IQ. And lastly, EVERY coach in here has "agreed" to this making it COLLUSION.

Definition of Collusion:   Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition 

Nothing secretive about their agreement, it was all posted and it would not seem to be illegal and I am not sure how it limits open competition although to  be fair in my diatribe, it could be argued that it was affecting the competition for some recruits by the individuals involved but only in certain instances, kind of like Wrigleys making Juicy Fruit and Black Jack not, choosing only to make Black Jack (chewing gums).  There are reasons that are not collusive.

The rest of the definition:  by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.

You see these restrictions as giving them an "unfair advantage" ?  Over who?  And with what?  There was nothing deceiving or misleading and I certainly can find no intent to defraud.  Again, it could be argued that it is "illegal" since WIS has stepped in and said NO but again, there is no fraud or unfair advantage.

(snort) I really don't see this but I am really starting to get jaded so don't worry about my opinion, or for that matter, guys that just wanna have some fun.  The reality is that not everyone will ever win a championship of any kind in here and the longer I play, the less I think it has to do with coaching and the more I think it has to do with dumb luck and exploitations of a system that are later closed.  That is why most coaches go through periods of greatness, 2 - 4 season periods where they get championships, COYs, POYs, etc and then it shifts to someone else.  Did the coach forget how to be a great coach?  No, the exploit just closed.  Now before all the greats jump on me, there are exceptions but not too many.  There are a ton of great coaches that win consistently but show me one that wins championships consistently?  Over 10 years?  Over 20 years?  No there is just too much randomness and change in the game for that to occur in a large way and that is fine, as it needs to be but still, most will not win.  This gives them a reason to play the game, just as some play to have a National Scoring or rebounding champ.  Just as some play to be with friends in a conference.  Oh my gosh, collusion, they all agreed to go to the same conference thereby not allowing any one else to have the chance to be in that conference which is in the best recruiting area with the best teams.  Do you not think that would affect all of the teams and coaches within 300 miles of that conference and the recruits that they would get?

Ok, I am done with my rant of the month.  Not really sure why I even bother.  Usually no one continues and if it is, I already know where each coach comes down.  Oh my Gosh, must be collusion, they do the same thing every time and I am aware of it and did nothing to prevent it, in fact, I am encouraging it to secretly benefit my cause.  Meh

Nice post marica.  We made everything open and had a debate for a month as to how to set it up.  Several of us would have probably been recruiting against each other anyway.  I was going after PGs, another coach was going after low REB players and a third for F-rated FT shooters.  Guess what happens when a PG has low REB and is a bricklayer from the line?  

I guarantee all of us would have been trying as hard as we could to field NT-level teams, we would have had in-conference recruiting battles, we would have made a 10-SIM team conference a hell of a lot better.

I have never read any WIS rules about what the makeup of a team needs to be.  I have never seen it written where a team must have 2 of each position plus a spare guard and forward.  There are no rules concerning how good your players must be from the line, how well they must rebound, what type of +/- you must run defensively, if your players must be recruited from the US or from internationals, etc.

WHAT IF I had a team full of point guards, or power forwards, or internationals.  That's what we were trying to explore.  What if... 

also, i thought it was clearly stated by the current dev team - anything publicly stated is ok. didn't they say, anything you post in CC is ok? so you can post, i am going for players A B and C, as long as it is in the CC? i mean, i can't disagree more, but isn't that their point of view? so how is stating it in the forums any different?