Nacho: you are right that the way I wrote it your conclusion would follow... but it's more specifically if you reveal information that only you are privy to and is only available to you in a public forum then it would not be collusion. For example if a coach says 'I'm spent' or otherwise indicates that he's out of cash in the coaches' corner, that would not be collusion. But if he is in a battle and does the math and concludes and announces that another coach is out of money in the coaches' corner that is collusion.

Quote post by milwood on 5/8/2014 9:00:00 PM:

Except that WIS has made it expressly clear that just asking for this information is in and of itself for the purposes of WIS considered collusion. By the common definition of collusion, The infraction here is only an attempt to collude. It would have only been actual collusion if the OP divulged the information. But again for the purposes of WIS just the act of asking is considered collusion.

This. +1.

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/8/2014 9:33:00 PM (view original):
Nacho: you are right that the way I wrote it your conclusion would follow... but it's more specifically if you reveal information that only you are privy to and is only available to you in a public forum then it would not be collusion. For example if a coach says 'I'm spent' or otherwise indicates that he's out of cash in the coaches' corner, that would not be collusion. But if he is in a battle and does the math and concludes and announces that another coach is out of money in the coaches' corner that is collusion.

I still see what you're getting at, but I think you're trying to shift the goal posts. And not to be rude (because I really enjoy type of conversation) but not only do both of your examples in that paragraph contract themselves, but the second one specifically contradicts your entire premise that any information shared in a public forum couldn't be considered as collusion.

Besides, the second example by itself, would be nothing but conjecture.

As far as a response that addresses the principles of your argument, I would have to reply: No information within to the organized recruiting structure is freely emitted, nor is information transmitted to coaches not requesting such information...therefore, why would a coach be required to divulge info (should he or she choose to do so) without having met at least the later of those criteria???...such a requirement is unreasonable even under the current organized structure.

You're calling it shifting the goal posts...i was clarifying. when I originally posted that information can be shared in the public domain I was still in the op's framework. Once I read your original response, I saw how my post was lacking. With that in mind, I disagree that knowing what another coach has is conjecture. Its pretty easy to figure out how much they started with and if you're in a battle you should have a pretty good idea of what your opponent is spending.

I'm not sure I am understanding your last paragraph. I never suggested anyone be required to divulge information...

Nacho, private communication that gives someone an advantage is collusion. Cut and dried.

Specifically, here is the exact quote :

Discussing the pursuit of a recruit with another coach, including who is pursuing him and money that might have been spent.

Posted by hughesjr on 5/8/2014 11:11:00 PM (view original):
Nacho, private communication that gives someone an advantage is collusion. Cut and dried.

Specifically, here is the exact quote :

Discussing the pursuit of a recruit with another coach, including who is pursuing him and money that might have been spent.

Okay, if that's the case then the whole system of mentoring is nothing but an underground hustling ring...oh wait, there is pinned thread on the topic, which had over 30,000 hits before it was newly incarnated...and don't say I'm taking your comment out of context.

edit: You edited in that last quote after I submitted my response. So, let me say this again for the ninth time, despite my arguments on ethical grounds, I do not utilize, encourage, or endorse such practice because they are considered illegal and/or inappropriate by the site admins.

Mentoring is much different. The mentor only has access to the same information that the mentee has. He's not sharing stuff that he found through his own team, or through his own FSSing. Not remotely similar.

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/8/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
You're calling it shifting the goal posts...i was clarifying. when I originally posted that information can be shared in the public domain I was still in the op's framework. Once I read your original response, I saw how my post was lacking. With that in mind, I disagree that knowing what another coach has is conjecture. Its pretty easy to figure out how much they started with and if you're in a battle you should have a pretty good idea of what your opponent is spending.

I'm not sure I am understanding your last paragraph. I never suggested anyone be required to divulge information...

Fair enough, and I wasn't trying to set up a false premise to just to knock it down. However, at the end of the day you can never really know what another coach has in the bank. I totally agree with you, any coach worth a damn can crunch the numbers and come up with a guess, but those numbers are still based on a guess, and therefore, are conjecture.

I know you never suggested that anyone be required to divulge information, and I'm sorry if it made it seem like you did. I was trying to address the underlying argument that collusion can only be avoided if a coach openly and freely discloses all personal recruiting preference. That scenario was meant to hash-out the problems with such a system.

Posted by wildcat98 on 5/8/2014 11:32:00 PM (view original):
Mentoring is much different. The mentor only has access to the same information that the mentee has. He's not sharing stuff that he found through his own team, or through his own FSSing. Not remotely similar.

Yeah, hughes edited that last part into his statement while I was typing, it originally just said "Nacho, private communication that gives someone an advantage in collusion. Cut and dried." So, I was throwing that obvious example out there. I guess my follow-up edit didn't cut the mustard.

Posted by hughesjr on 5/8/2014 11:11:00 PM (view original):
Nacho, private communication that gives someone an advantage is collusion. Cut and dried.

Specifically, here is the exact quote :

Discussing the pursuit of a recruit with another coach, including who is pursuing him and money that might have been spent.

Just because we do what the overlords tell us doesn't mean we have to think like they do.

I'm pretty sure that's what Orwell was getting at?

While it's not good, this isn't as bad as a coach having two different teams in the same world.

I sent that sitemail, and will happily own up to it. I do not think asking a question should be construed as attempting collusion. It was late in recruiting and I was looking for guys, I started trying to find teams with more players considering them than spots available, and noticed his team had 3 or 4 considering with only 1 or 2 spots. Furthermore, the other players were all better than this guy, and were ranked D1 recruits.

Meanwhile this was an unranked guy in Virginia...all the way across the country....interesting that he scouted VA....but, tannermcc1 has a school in PA in that same world...not far from Virginia, huh?

But, it's cool that he felt it was necessary to decry my nefarious ways on the message board. No mention of how, in that same world, tannermcc has New Mexico and tannermcc1 has D2 Mansfield in PA. Furthermore, I find it extremely interesting that Mansfield, his D2 team in PA signed a guard from California and a center from TX....expensive to get scouting reports for TX and CA with a D2 school based in PA....but, I'm sure he wouldn't have scouted those states with New Mexico...because, that would be unethical, so he must have spent his PA recruiting money scouting states 3000 miles away. Furthermore, the CA PG he signed with Mansfield seems pretty good, I wonder if he was holding onto the guy I asked about to make sure Mansfield had a guy to get in case that ranked PG fell through? But, that would also be unethical, and, as evidenced by his holier than thou response to my horrendous attempts at collusion, we all know that good ole' Tanner would never dream of being anything less than completely ethical in his fake basketball recruiting.

Posted by davidcrone on 5/22/2014 6:36:00 PM (view original):
I sent that sitemail, and will happily own up to it. I do not think asking a question should be construed as attempting collusion. It was late in recruiting and I was looking for guys, I started trying to find teams with more players considering them than spots available, and noticed his team had 3 or 4 considering with only 1 or 2 spots. Furthermore, the other players were all better than this guy, and were ranked D1 recruits.

Meanwhile this was an unranked guy in Virginia...all the way across the country....interesting that he scouted VA....but, tannermcc1 has a school in PA in that same world...not far from Virginia, huh?

But, it's cool that he felt it was necessary to decry my nefarious ways on the message board. No mention of how, in that same world, tannermcc has New Mexico and tannermcc1 has D2 Mansfield in PA. Furthermore, I find it extremely interesting that Mansfield, his D2 team in PA signed a guard from California and a center from TX....expensive to get scouting reports for TX and CA with a D2 school based in PA....but, I'm sure he wouldn't have scouted those states with New Mexico...because, that would be unethical, so he must have spent his PA recruiting money scouting states 3000 miles away. Furthermore, the CA PG he signed with Mansfield seems pretty good, I wonder if he was holding onto the guy I asked about to make sure Mansfield had a guy to get in case that ranked PG fell through? But, that would also be unethical, and, as evidenced by his holier than thou response to my horrendous attempts at collusion, we all know that good ole' Tanner would never dream of being anything less than completely ethical in his fake basketball recruiting.

Not only is your hypothesis completely plausible, but shortly after tannermcc started that thread he admitted that he has a long history of large-scale cheating when it comes to recruiting.

So, given all the information, I think your concerns are very justifiable and I would feel the same way.

Not only is your hypothesis completely plausible, but shortly after tannermcc started that thread he admitted that he has a long history of large-scale cheating when it comes to recruiting.

So, given all the information, I think your concerns are very justifiable and I would feel the same way.


Yep, am ^sure there are many

Posted by davidcrone on 5/22/2014 6:36:00 PM (view original):
I sent that sitemail, and will happily own up to it. I do not think asking a question should be construed as attempting collusion. It was late in recruiting and I was looking for guys, I started trying to find teams with more players considering them than spots available, and noticed his team had 3 or 4 considering with only 1 or 2 spots. Furthermore, the other players were all better than this guy, and were ranked D1 recruits.

Meanwhile this was an unranked guy in Virginia...all the way across the country....interesting that he scouted VA....but, tannermcc1 has a school in PA in that same world...not far from Virginia, huh?

But, it's cool that he felt it was necessary to decry my nefarious ways on the message board. No mention of how, in that same world, tannermcc has New Mexico and tannermcc1 has D2 Mansfield in PA. Furthermore, I find it extremely interesting that Mansfield, his D2 team in PA signed a guard from California and a center from TX....expensive to get scouting reports for TX and CA with a D2 school based in PA....but, I'm sure he wouldn't have scouted those states with New Mexico...because, that would be unethical, so he must have spent his PA recruiting money scouting states 3000 miles away. Furthermore, the CA PG he signed with Mansfield seems pretty good, I wonder if he was holding onto the guy I asked about to make sure Mansfield had a guy to get in case that ranked PG fell through? But, that would also be unethical, and, as evidenced by his holier than thou response to my horrendous attempts at collusion, we all know that good ole' Tanner would never dream of being anything less than completely ethical in his fake basketball recruiting.

instead of b!tching about it after recruiting is done, this is something that could have been investigated if you would have timely reported it. he probably cheated, from what you're saying...but that doesn't mean that your 'question' wasn't wholly inappropriate.