Posted by girt25 on 8/26/2013 11:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 8/26/2013 10:40:00 PM (view original):
I'm not surprised that so many people disagree with me here despite me "remembering" a prior thread where people were up in arms about similar content....that's protocol...to an extent, there are a fair amount of people on here that will say what I'm not saying, just so they wouldn't be agreeing with me...like you.  I asked if I was right, the majority seems to say no...big deal...but if you think this is "on the level", I'd tell you that you're kidding yourself.  You don't even give a **** about the argument anymore, your sole intent now is to one up me (I guess it's been that from the get go really), so we'll play this game as long as you want to.

colonels, don't flatter yourself -- no one here cares enough one way or the other about what you have to say. (And that's not even a dig on you, really -- I'd say the same about basically anyone.) But the notion that people would be expressing opinions that are the opposite of how they really feel because it's so incredibly important to them to vocally disagree with you ... well, again, don't flatter yourself. That's preposterous and borderline delusional.

You have to understand he thinks like that because that's EXACTLY what he does. No matter how right the majority is, colonels MUST disagree. So for him, it's not far-fetched for someone to care enough to disagree for no particular reason other than to be disagreeable.

Posted by girt25 on 8/27/2013 12:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 8/26/2013 11:39:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn't put it past everyone.

Self importance + delusional = colonels

What was posted: Self importance + delusional = colonels.

What colonels sees: ____ importance __________ = colonels

Posted by professor17 on 8/27/2013 11:13:00 AM (view original):
From the Fair Play Guidelines, the following activities are prohibited:

• Discussing the pursuit of a recruit with another coach, including who is pursuing him and money that might have been spent.
• Sharing Future Stars Scouting (FSS) information between multiple teams
• Scheduling a non-conference game against an alias team (i.e. team owned by same owner in a different conference and more than 1,000 miles away). Exhibition games are permitted in this situation, however.
• Any clear throwing of a game (normally indicated by massive lineup changes or settings changes)
• Attempting to persuade another user to participate in a collusive effort (only the initiator would be at fault unless agreed upon by other user)

You can make an argument that the CC post in question violates both the first and last bullet point on that list. A strict reading of this would prohibit any discussion about the pursuit of recruits, and any attempts to influence another coach's recruiting activities.  

I disagree.

A strict reading of bullet one requires "discussing the pursuit of a recruit with another coach." I don't really see that post as a discussion, nor from the examples listed do I really see it as the type of activity they are trying to dissuade.

A strict reading of the last bullet requires an attempt to "persuade another user to participate in a collusive effort." I don't see that either. Collusion requires an agreement, not a unilateral bullying attempt. There's no agreement; nothing to really benefit both parties. If the recipient of the CC message decides to go another direction, presumably it's because he/she has performed a risk/benefit and decided it was against his/her best interests to pursue the recruit. That's not collusion.

This thread just keeps getting better and better.

WIS has already ruled on this matter

CLOSED

And what was their response?

Posted by ike1024 on 8/27/2013 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 8/27/2013 11:13:00 AM (view original):
From the Fair Play Guidelines, the following activities are prohibited:

• Discussing the pursuit of a recruit with another coach, including who is pursuing him and money that might have been spent.
• Sharing Future Stars Scouting (FSS) information between multiple teams
• Scheduling a non-conference game against an alias team (i.e. team owned by same owner in a different conference and more than 1,000 miles away). Exhibition games are permitted in this situation, however.
• Any clear throwing of a game (normally indicated by massive lineup changes or settings changes)
• Attempting to persuade another user to participate in a collusive effort (only the initiator would be at fault unless agreed upon by other user)

You can make an argument that the CC post in question violates both the first and last bullet point on that list. A strict reading of this would prohibit any discussion about the pursuit of recruits, and any attempts to influence another coach's recruiting activities.  

I disagree.

A strict reading of bullet one requires "discussing the pursuit of a recruit with another coach." I don't really see that post as a discussion, nor from the examples listed do I really see it as the type of activity they are trying to dissuade.

A strict reading of the last bullet requires an attempt to "persuade another user to participate in a collusive effort." I don't see that either. Collusion requires an agreement, not a unilateral bullying attempt. There's no agreement; nothing to really benefit both parties. If the recipient of the CC message decides to go another direction, presumably it's because he/she has performed a risk/benefit and decided it was against his/her best interests to pursue the recruit. That's not collusion.

The last bullet point only requires a collusive *effort*, not actual collusion, hence the qualifier that only the initiator would be at fault if there was no agreement. I would argue that the same logic would pertain to your first point about the first bullet. Making an effort to have said discussion would make the initiator at fault even if there is no follow-through from the other user.

Maybe. But even an effort to collude requires an effort to some sort of an agreement. If I bully someone into backing down, is that really an implicit agreement to refrain from doing something?

Posted by cusetroop on 8/27/2013 1:08:00 PM (view original):
I bet Calipari does this at least once a week.... "Hey Pitino, dont bother with *****, you dont have enough money to sign em"

Cusetroop wins the forums today.

Posted by ike1024 on 8/27/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Maybe. But even an effort to collude requires an effort to some sort of an agreement. If I bully someone into backing down, is that really an implicit agreement to refrain from doing something?

In either case, you are attempting to modify another user's recruiting actions for your own benefit; one is a nice approach, the other is a not-so-nice approach. The end result is the same. The fundamental question that underlies much of this thread is whether it should be allowable/acceptable in this game to overtly attempt to alter the recruiting actions of other users. Or is it only a problem if there is tacit agreement between the parties? What about an in-between case, such as this:

I was in a conference where another coach openly declared before recruiting that the PG in his home state was his top target and he would spend his entire budget to get him if need be. Prior to that statement, I had interest in that player, but I refrained from recruiting him because I didn't want to get into that type of battle. I didn't initiate anything. I didn't "agree" to anything. I never had a "discussion" with that other coach. But his words certainly influenced my recruiting actions. Is that OK?

To answer your question: yes, I believe an agreement, tacit or otherwise, is required to collude. I think that's the definition. 

In that example, I think that's perfectly acceptable. His actions may have influenced you, but him being the only coach to show up on the first cycle even after you dumped money in may have influenced you, too. Recruiting is all about making decisions based on the totality of information available. All he's doing at that point is giving you more information with which to make a decision. But basically, you're accusing him of attempting to collude with every other coach in the country, and in theory, there would be implicit collusion if no one attempts to go after his player. I just think that's a logical stretch.

We've actually talked about that exact example professor, and I think that is implicit collusion. Reason being, you are intentionally dissuading others from going after a particular player, and in the process helping them out. Let's use a D1 budget, the school that makes the announcement has 4 openings, another school that was thinking of going after that same player has 2 openings. The coach sees that comment and now doesn't put any money into the recruit knowing it would just be a waste. Whereas if that announcement isn't made he may have dumped 20k into him the first period, so the statement saved him 20k.