As I said earlier in this thread, I rescinded Snyder's scholarship just to see what would happen since he had already declared for EE and was gone from my team. I didn't expect him to be back as a transfer (that was a surprise, probably because I hadn't read the forum discussion about a similar situation from last April. I see from that older thread that at that time WIS noted that a ticket was filed about it and that it would be "fixed". If it was worked on at all, it's obviously only a partial fix. Best scenario, I would think, is that since he's still # 29 on the Big board, he should go to the NBA. If so, be interesting to see if he shows up on my drafted list or on Budhas.

Posted by buddhagamer on 11/14/2017 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2017 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 11/14/2017 1:59:00 PM (view original):
What buddha did was legal. Jeez. He had to sign him...

What's crazy was the team who had a guy transfer the signed him again.

That's kind of what I'm thinking. Anyone else could have scouted/signed the guy. BUT what if the other user said "I'm gonna cut this guy to see what happens" thus giving another user a heads up on where to look? It's a really gray area where collusion could take place. Should be fixed. Immediately.

And I still don't understand the reason for cutting him unless the hope was to re-sign him. That's sketchy as hell.

I have to agree with Mike here (feels strange saying that) it needs to be addressed as it can lead to some type of collusive behavior in the existing setup where a team which has an EE and feels they might not be competitive decides to cut an EE to help a conference mate and secretly informing them (although he has no control over where said cut EE ends up relocating to, although it would likely be local?).

For example, if UCLA cuts my EEs, I doubt it would hurt my prestige much (how much higher does it really need to be?) so if I ended up getting decimated and no hope to be competitive, I could do it technically.

When you agree with me, you know you'll be right at least once that day.

I was thinking more in terms of a "You help me now, I help you next season" agreement. Or "I help you now, you help me know" by telling each other which EE they'll cut thus giving the other guy an advantage on the rest of the world.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2017 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 11/14/2017 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2017 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 11/14/2017 1:59:00 PM (view original):
What buddha did was legal. Jeez. He had to sign him...

What's crazy was the team who had a guy transfer the signed him again.

That's kind of what I'm thinking. Anyone else could have scouted/signed the guy. BUT what if the other user said "I'm gonna cut this guy to see what happens" thus giving another user a heads up on where to look? It's a really gray area where collusion could take place. Should be fixed. Immediately.

And I still don't understand the reason for cutting him unless the hope was to re-sign him. That's sketchy as hell.

I have to agree with Mike here (feels strange saying that) it needs to be addressed as it can lead to some type of collusive behavior in the existing setup where a team which has an EE and feels they might not be competitive decides to cut an EE to help a conference mate and secretly informing them (although he has no control over where said cut EE ends up relocating to, although it would likely be local?).

For example, if UCLA cuts my EEs, I doubt it would hurt my prestige much (how much higher does it really need to be?) so if I ended up getting decimated and no hope to be competitive, I could do it technically.

When you agree with me, you know you'll be right at least once that day.

I was thinking more in terms of a "You help me now, I help you next season" agreement. Or "I help you now, you help me know" by telling each other which EE they'll cut thus giving the other guy an advantage on the rest of the world.

If you are doing that, you're already in the realm of "let's split up recruits" type of collusive behavior I'm assuming.

Obviously, not many people know of this loophole. Hard to prove something few know about. That's why WifS needs to shut it down.

Posted by buddhagamer on 11/14/2017 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2017 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 11/14/2017 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/14/2017 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 11/14/2017 1:59:00 PM (view original):
What buddha did was legal. Jeez. He had to sign him...

What's crazy was the team who had a guy transfer the signed him again.

That's kind of what I'm thinking. Anyone else could have scouted/signed the guy. BUT what if the other user said "I'm gonna cut this guy to see what happens" thus giving another user a heads up on where to look? It's a really gray area where collusion could take place. Should be fixed. Immediately.

And I still don't understand the reason for cutting him unless the hope was to re-sign him. That's sketchy as hell.

I have to agree with Mike here (feels strange saying that) it needs to be addressed as it can lead to some type of collusive behavior in the existing setup where a team which has an EE and feels they might not be competitive decides to cut an EE to help a conference mate and secretly informing them (although he has no control over where said cut EE ends up relocating to, although it would likely be local?).

For example, if UCLA cuts my EEs, I doubt it would hurt my prestige much (how much higher does it really need to be?) so if I ended up getting decimated and no hope to be competitive, I could do it technically.

When you agree with me, you know you'll be right at least once that day.

I was thinking more in terms of a "You help me now, I help you next season" agreement. Or "I help you now, you help me know" by telling each other which EE they'll cut thus giving the other guy an advantage on the rest of the world.

If you are doing that, you're already in the realm of "let's split up recruits" type of collusive behavior I'm assuming.

Agree.

and that's harder to notice or prove than seeing teams each others transfers every season. Pretty damn obvious.

Hmmm.... I'm thinking this could very well be exploitable just for your own EEs (assuming based on the other post when someone even quit a team for broken promises and still ended up back on the same team).

Might be worth the risk for someone to actually cut an EE, hoping no one notices him and then attempts to recruit him back to his roster (a team like UCLA could pretty much overwhelm someone just based on prestige differences). If one can't recruit someone you cut yourself, then it's likely not as bad but still leaves it open to abuse (mind you it would be pretty apparent to everyone that one is gaming the system to see a high level recruit cut by school X and then be signed by school X).

I'd advise people to monitor for new transfers especially in D1 to see if anyone is trying to exploit this fact until WIS closes the loophole (and submit tickets as well).

TheWiz cut a EE and IDave got him... It's time that kid is banned.

Banned for what?

For being unsportsmanlike. For making a mockery of the game. He sees the loophole and he deliberately rescind an EE to put him in the transfer...

Snyder and Jenkins both showed up as freshmen.

Maybe this will motivate CS to do something this time and correct the issue.

Here is what I think. I think I agree with both Mike and Buddha.

It is completely unsportsmanlike to sign anyone that left your team, whether it be a freshmen that left because they didn't get a start, or an EE you cut to exploit a loophole.

Something definitely needs to be done. As far as im concerned buddha, idave, and wiz are cut from the same cloth.

Wow. I'm constantly amazed by how prominently people display their lack of ethics and sportsmanship on these boards. My question to buddha is, assuming WIS doesn't step in and correct the situation by immediately removing the player from his roster, is now that he has obtained a player - one that never should have been available - through a glitch (one which he was well aware existed before this incident) is will he actually play the guy? My guess is he will because he stated earlier that the guy "sure would help". But that clearly isn't the right decision. Now being aware that the player never should have been available It would be completely unethical to continue exploiting the loophole he knew existed by playing the guy.

Deluge CS with tickets, guys.