I wouldn't put it past everyone.

So wait, colonels, you actually think I agree with you but for some reason I'm disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing with you? You might want to get yourself checked out, bruh. I'm going to let you in on a little secret, I couldn't care less about you, no offense, but I don't know you. If I disagree with you, it's because I disagree with you. Anybody who has been in a conference with me, knows my feelings on this topic, I've even received warnings from CS for stuff I've said during recruiting. So no I'm not disagreeing with you just because your colonels and all the cool kids disagree with you so I want to be accepted by them. 

I honestly don't remember having any other interaction with you at all on these boards, so for you to jump to the conclusion you did is absolutely absurd. 

I've gone off topic because I've said everything I need to say on the topic, and then you said something that was ridiculous so I pointed it out, but instead of addressing it you just made another statement that was equally ridiculous. 

I'm saying that your responses might have been slightly to moderately different had someone else brought this up/started this thread.  You've spent the last day or 2 trying to catch me in some kind of lie, looking for me to reneg something I said because you think I'm digging myself a hole, and it's just not happening...put your semantical mind games to bed.

colonels seriously... what are you smoking? how are you living in such a different reality than everyone else here? you are here fighting your own battles? with who? as far as it seems to me, some rational people are having a discussion while you said nothing, and then randomly you jump in with nonsense, derailing an otherwise solid thread. you've actually contributed nothing to the discussion, in case that wasn't obvious to you, i think it is very obvious to everybody else. nobody is even talking about your scenario, come on. anyway you should really stop being a complete tool because an otherwise interesting discussion (at least for some people) is now probably too far gone to come back. i guess it wasnt interesting for you because people were staying logical and you were looking to by a martyr, or however it is your delusional / crack infested mind sees yourself.

i dont even know why you think most people disagreed with you, it seemed to me, bunch of people on both sides of the fence. 

Posted by colonels19 on 8/27/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):
I'm saying that your responses might have been slightly to moderately different had someone else brought this up/started this thread.  You've spent the last day or 2 trying to catch me in some kind of lie, looking for me to reneg something I said because you think I'm digging myself a hole, and it's just not happening...put your semantical mind games to bed.

seriously, what the hell are you talking about? nobody has even really been talking to you this whole time. you really, really, need to monitor your drug intake, boxing shadows over here.

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 8/26/2013 5:33:00 PM (view original):
This brings me to another point. Some coaches act like you did something to their children when you poach them on the last cycle, others don't care. I've had at least 2 coaches leave a conference because a conference mate jumped on a recruit at the last minute, that partially made Sweetpea quit the game (I think he quit at least). So this is another thing that some coaches hate and others don't, just like the banter during recruiting, which is why I say it's something that coaches need to deal with better. There are always going to be aspects of any game that some people hate and others don't. As long as you don't break rules, it should be fine. 

As far as coming up with comments, there are honestly many more comments that are NOT OK than are OK, which is part of the reason why I think it's not too difficult to police it. I really don't see the big deal with anybody saying how much money they have, because they are giving everybody else information, while not getting information from anybody else. 

i agree thats ok - but its not ok because they are giving information not getting it. i disagreed with that premise a couple posts ago, and am curious your response. by your logic, this is ok -

coach 1 - i am going hard for player X

this must be ok because hes only giving information, not getting information, per your metric.

coach 2 - i am going hard for player Y
coach 3 - i am going hard for player Z
(coaches 1, 2, and 3 are the only top prestige schools in the local market)

coach 1 - hmm, im also going hard for player A
coach 2 - hmm, im also going hard for player B
coach 3 - hmm, im also going hard for player C

how is this any different than the drafting that went on via collusive site mails years ago? nobody is getting information from anyone else in their own statements, but they are all getting info from each other in the statements of others. you can see how this would naturally evolve from the first guy making his statement, someone else goes, screw that, im going to say who im going for, maybe that will deter people. then the third guy, and soon, you are drafting players... this exact behavior is what was such a huge problem years ago (and maybe still today). its a bit harder to coordinate but i can definitely see it happening, and it clearly can't be allowed. seems to me, under your metric, its ok - what do you think?

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.  

No Colonels, I was not trying to catch you in a lie. I was pointing out that based on your statement your intent for starting this thread was not genuine, and seemed as if you simply started the thread as a rallying cry against a specific coach, and for a bunch of people to agree with you. Anyway, I'm done addressing you. 

Well the example you give, while it does only give away information for the individual coaches it also gives away intent. Giving away intent to pursue a recruit is implicit collusion. I think this is something that is very obviously stepping over the line. This is why I say I think this isn't something that's very difficult to police, nearly everything that is over the line is clearly over the line. The one thing that  I can think of that's a bit of a gray area is the battling comment that was mentioned. 

kmason, seemed to me you were suggesting earlier you didnt see a problem with fd's example about, man, im going all in on that local player. but now i cant see you explicitly say that, just that your next couple posts say i dont see why all this is a problem, etc... are you ok with his example?

if intent is the line you draw, what about the comments where you and kevin say things like, man its spare, im just going to go for 1 guy this season? 2 guys this season? it is not as specifically giving intent - but it is still giving intent. is that implicit collusion? not suggesting you guys were over the line or anything, far from it, just an example that comes to mind. i guess if thats ok, where do you draw the line, between that, fd's example, and mine? thats "im going for 1 guy this season", "im going all in on the local pf this season", and "im going hard for player X". if intent is the culprit, is no intent acceptable? 

and on the same lines, you said earlier you like gamesmanship, saying stuff like "you cant win the battle for player X" - which now i guess you call grey area. seems if you say something like "no way you will beat me for player X", you are conveying intent to battle for player X. so is that now clearly over the line?

Posted by kmasonbx1 on 8/27/2013 11:20:00 AM (view original):
No Colonels, I was not trying to catch you in a lie. I was pointing out that based on your statement your intent for starting this thread was not genuine, and seemed as if you simply started the thread as a rallying cry against a specific coach, and for a bunch of people to agree with you. Anyway, I'm done addressing you. 

Well the example you give, while it does only give away information for the individual coaches it also gives away intent. Giving away intent to pursue a recruit is implicit collusion. I think this is something that is very obviously stepping over the line. This is why I say I think this isn't something that's very difficult to police, nearly everything that is over the line is clearly over the line. The one thing that  I can think of that's a bit of a gray area is the battling comment that was mentioned. 

You suggesting that I A. Did this to get friends/supporters here and B. Did this to help rally against the guy that sent the message is absolutely preposterous.  If wix33 thinks this is over, he's sadly mistaken...it's only just begun...DFWM...and I don't need anyone's assistance...

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 should know this, but where are the fair play guidelines shown?

Gil that example is so vague that I don't think you can consider it collusion, simply because you have no idea which 1 or 2 players that coach would be going all in on. So it's not really a warning to stay away from player "X," as it would be if a coach said "I'm dumping it all into Michael Jennings, so go after him if you wish."

Prior to this recruiting period at UNC I made the statement that there was 1 guy that I really wanted and if I only signed him I was happy with that. I never stated who, and the fact that I've been known to go over into Big 12 country for recruits nobody could have an inclination as to which player I was talking about. In the end I didn't have to go all in on him, and I never even made it known which player I was talking about, even after the fact. 

Posted by fd343ny on 8/27/2013 12:28:00 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 should know this, but where are the fair play guidelines shown?

click the Terms of Use link on the bottom of any HD page. At the top of that new page is a link to the Fair Play Guidelines. Or click here.

I bet Calipari does this at least once a week.... "Hey Pitino, dont bother with *****, you dont have enough money to sign em"