Posted by padgett1547 on 8/27/2013 4:37:00 PM (view original):
e. "C'mon Coach Cal...stop being such a chooch!"

lol

Posted by padgett1547 on 8/27/2013 4:37:00 PM (view original):
e. "C'mon Coach Cal...stop being such a chooch!"

lofl

Posted by professor17 on 8/27/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):

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?

I think that identifying an individual player you're going to go after crosses the line.

I think saying things like, "$110K for for schollies is gonna be pretty sweet" or "I'd be fine going all-in and getting one stud this time around" are fine -- might be truth, might be gamesmanship, but I think it's fine and actually adds a little fun and texture to recruiting.

Posted by ike1024 on 8/27/2013 3:12:00 PM (view original):
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.

ike, I think you're being too literal here.

You're sticking to the dictionary definition of collusion, and you've been around long enough to know that's not how collusion is really applied in HD. So if it makes you feel better, refrain from that term specifically, and think of it more as simply whether or not it violates the Fair Play Guidelines, or some other litmus test.

And as you can see from my previous posts, I'm far from a hard liner here -- I would like to see more chatter, bluffing and mind games. But I do think identifying particular recruits on the CC crosses the line. I think of it more like poker -- there are plenty of things you can do to talk or get inside an opponent's head, but there are plenty of things that are off limits, too.

I think that's a perfectly acceptable opinion. I wouldn't really care if that's where the line is drawn. But I also wouldn't care if people identified specific recruits, either. At the end of the day, it's really my decision whether to go after someone, another person's "all-in" statement notwithstanding.

Posted by ike1024 on 8/27/2013 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/27/2013 3:38:00 PM (view original):

i agree, it is implicit collusion. if professor said, "ok, ill avoid him then", now its two way collusion. it takes two to collude - seems like if your statement can be responded to in a perfectly normal manner, resulting in two way collusion, then you should get dinged for "collusive effort" or "attempted collusion" as i prefer to call it - even if that wasn't the intent.

 

So is it collusion if the guys says "stay away," I look at my open scholarships versus his, decide he will win the battle, and then I decide to stay away? I just don't see how that's possibly collusion. The first statement isn't even directed at anyone in particular, but now I have "colluded" with him?

if you post that you will stay away, yes. if you don't, know. what im saying is, it seems to me, if guy A makes statement A, and guy B makes reasonable response B, and its collusion - then absent response B, by definition, guy A made collusive effort/attempted collusion. its not clear from CS what "collusive effort" is but they clearly put that in after conversations about, collusion is a 2 way street, so your definition sucks, because guy A can say "ill go for this guy and you go for that" in sitemail, and unless there is a response, its not collusion. so they broadened the fair play violations to include "one way collusion" if you will... anyway it seems to me that if you make a statement that others can reasonably interpret and respond to and its collusion, then without the response, its still "one way collusion". what other standard can you use? case by case basis, judging intent? that just seems crazy, im really falling back on this definition because it seems intuitive and easy to assess, not because i think its such a great standard when you go through the details. im just talking hypothetically here, how you would do this if you did it from scratch, i really dont care all that much what seble would say about this. 

anyway if you buy into my definition of collusive effort/whatever, then when someone tells you to stay away, its collusive effort - because you could easily think OK i will, and if you say that, its full blown collusion. so then hed be guilty for opening the door to collusion, which, if you arent going to take on the massive cluster f... that is trying to understanding intent, is intent to collude.

Posted by ike1024 on 8/27/2013 11:49:00 PM (view original):
I think that's a perfectly acceptable opinion. I wouldn't really care if that's where the line is drawn. But I also wouldn't care if people identified specific recruits, either. At the end of the day, it's really my decision whether to go after someone, another person's "all-in" statement notwithstanding.

again, how do you stop people them from doing this -
coach A - i love player A
coach B - i love player B
coach C - i love player C
coach A - going hard for player D
coach B - going hard for player E
coach C - going hard for player F

when A/B/C effectively dominate a local area... how do you draw the line between that and just the first statement? you cant go case by case basis through the universe of comments and draw arbitrary lines, like, once one guy in the conference says hes going hard for someone, nobody else can say anything, or something case-specific. you have to have a general rule or small set of guidelines that make it clear to the average user what is OK and what is not. because thats so difficult, a lot of people say those guidelines should be, say nothing - everyone knows what that means. but it does suck - the problem is people pushing for communication (and id personally love to find a way to make that possible) all have such different opinions on what is OK and there isnt a clear system proposed for determining what is OK and what isnt.

Posted by colonels19 on 8/24/2013 9:53:00 AM (view original):
A coach posted this in my conference coaches corner to one of my conference mates that really kind of ****** me off...I'm not going to report it/him but this amounts to "bullying" and is a violation of the fair play rules, correct?  Signings haven't even begun...

***..very foolish. You do not have the cash needed for *******

Recently, I pondered the extraordinary volume of Colonels' forum-posting.   It struck me as, while not exactly a cry for help, an expression of a need for human contact that was otherwise not being met.  Perhaps if Colonels scheduled some human coaches to play instead of a 100% SIM non-conference schedule he would not have this human contact deficit. 

Well for as ****** of a coach as some of you seem to think I am, I did lose in the National Title game this past season, so I don't think that the lack of "human contact/competition" is hurting me too much.

As far as your suggestion that I'm looking for friends on the internet...lofl...please.  Again I will remind you of this because you never reply when I bring it up...whatever happened to you quitting because WIS wouldn't make some sort of consolation to you because of your hospital visit?  You said you were going to quit, never left, and never renegged that statement...what was that all about?

Mygeneration...do you remember this bit yet?...

Thanks guys (except the last sophomric retort) . Seriously, no recourse for a heart attack? Love the game, but kind of ******. Understand you don't want to open the floodgates but a heart attack,? Tubes and wires? Sedated to point of no phone use? Think I'll retire

Posted by colonels19 on 8/28/2013 12:44:00 PM (view original):
Well for as ****** of a coach as some of you seem to think I am, I did lose in the National Title game this past season, so I don't think that the lack of "human contact/competition" is hurting me too much.

As far as your suggestion that I'm looking for friends on the internet...lofl...please.  Again I will remind you of this because you never reply when I bring it up...whatever happened to you quitting because WIS wouldn't make some sort of consolation to you because of your hospital visit?  You said you were going to quit, never left, and never renegged that statement...what was that all about?

I realized I was wrong and got over it. (Don't worry, nobody expects that degree of emotional maturity from you, young friend.) Have a great day.

Took long enough....

Late to the party .... but agree with colonels19 100%.

Shouldn't even be debatable.

    

all the guy did was express the opinion that another school did not have the chance to win a recruiting battle.  Provided no info.  Flagged no other battles.  Discussed no other recruits

if someone said - "good luck in our game tonight, but frankly I dont think you (or I) have any chance" would that be a violation of some rule?  its a mere opinion that suggests no unfair action

The only information that's exposed is that both teams had cash in on the player.  Another coach could then subtract a little from each team's estimated budget.  It's not much information, but it's not zero.