Posted by deckhand on 1/29/2015 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnnyf on 1/28/2015 7:54:00 PM (view original):
 It's hard to see how teams could collude in this game. Especially in recruiting. Maybe some teams close together geographically could discuss which recruits to go after near them, but it's hard to call that collusion since they couldn't keep other teams from getting involved on those recruits. 

Some "collusion" would reflect the real world.    Schools in the same conference often have gentleman's agreements not to flip each others verbal commits and maybe more (eg Bert Bielema's B1G).    Coaches have close networks, and they're more likely to battle for a rival's recruit than for a friend's.   

Question:    If you and another coach are competing for two WRs, is it cricket to just agree to split them?  

Also,  what about  deferring to the nearer school, rather than fight it out?   I often do that.  If the other coach is doing it too, is that unfair?   If we both agree to that?

IRL, sometimes that happens and sometimes you go harder after a guy because your buddy is after him also(and you think he knows recruits well). The problem with the real life coaches there and fake coaches here is that you can't control that recruit to follow your pre-arraigned plan. 

As for your questions: thats not collusion for two teams competing for the same two players to agree on which players each team can recruit. Collusion requires an element of deception against outside parties. I would define collusion as, speaking hypothetically, that a group of coaches in a single world here at GD pay off yatzr to skew the ratings of certain players so that these players are ignored more by coaches not paying off Yatzr to do so. A couple coaches agreeing to make other teams pay more for their recruits or agreeing who they'll recruit in a given season isn't collusion imo. 

"A couple coaches agreeing to make other teams pay more for their recruits or agreeing who they'll recruit in a given season isn't collusion imo. "

That *is* collusion as defined by WIS in GD, however.

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 2:01:00 PM (view original):
"A couple coaches agreeing to make other teams pay more for their recruits or agreeing who they'll recruit in a given season isn't collusion imo. "

That *is* collusion as defined by WIS in GD, however.

Where on this GD site is the list of what is considered collusion?

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 2:01:00 PM (view original):
"A couple coaches agreeing to make other teams pay more for their recruits or agreeing who they'll recruit in a given season isn't collusion imo. "

That *is* collusion as defined by WIS in GD, however.

As far as I know, the only time in recent history where collusion has been sanctioned by WIS has been when a coach was messaging other coaches trying to get them to go after a certain school in one world to try and ruin their recruiting. That is collusion. If you have a list of what WIS considers collusion, I'd like to see it. 

Posted by johnnyf on 1/29/2015 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 2:01:00 PM (view original):
"A couple coaches agreeing to make other teams pay more for their recruits or agreeing who they'll recruit in a given season isn't collusion imo. "

That *is* collusion as defined by WIS in GD, however.

As far as I know, the only time in recent history where collusion has been sanctioned by WIS has been when a coach was messaging other coaches trying to get them to go after a certain school in one world to try and ruin their recruiting. That is collusion. If you have a list of what WIS considers collusion, I'd like to see it. 

Here you go. 

http://www.whatifsports.com/locker/fairplay.shtm

Posted by stingray002 on 1/29/2015 2:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnnyf on 1/29/2015 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 2:01:00 PM (view original):
"A couple coaches agreeing to make other teams pay more for their recruits or agreeing who they'll recruit in a given season isn't collusion imo. "

That *is* collusion as defined by WIS in GD, however.

As far as I know, the only time in recent history where collusion has been sanctioned by WIS has been when a coach was messaging other coaches trying to get them to go after a certain school in one world to try and ruin their recruiting. That is collusion. If you have a list of what WIS considers collusion, I'd like to see it. 

Here you go. 

http://www.whatifsports.com/locker/fairplay.shtm

Thanks. But like I've pointed out: the collusion would be pointless and WIS didn't give anything more than a warning for the guy who targeted a specific coach and asked others to join his efforts. 

Edit: I'd also point out that the rules for a scenario where two coaches discuss which recruits that they should divide up are pretty vague. If I were to message another coach and talk about how I like one guy but not another that I suggest for him, that technically would be collusion even though there's no actual collusion. 

This game has been going on for over 10 years -  I can definitely remember different dust-ups on conference chat boards and in the forums. I can recall coaches being asked to move to a different program (because he coached 2 schools in too close of a proximity to each other), and other real life sanctions. Now whether or not WIS would act upon collusive activity now, I can't say, but they sure did act in the past.

WIS can also view site mails to determine collusion. I do remember that coming up before.

"If you're not cheatin', you're not tryin'."
Bill Belichick

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 3:40:00 PM (view original):
This game has been going on for over 10 years -  I can definitely remember different dust-ups on conference chat boards and in the forums. I can recall coaches being asked to move to a different program (because he coached 2 schools in too close of a proximity to each other), and other real life sanctions. Now whether or not WIS would act upon collusive activity now, I can't say, but they sure did act in the past.

WIS can also view site mails to determine collusion. I do remember that coming up before.

The incident I brought up is the last incident I can remember and is the last incident that's come up on the forums. 

Posted by johnnyf on 1/29/2015 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 3:40:00 PM (view original):
This game has been going on for over 10 years -  I can definitely remember different dust-ups on conference chat boards and in the forums. I can recall coaches being asked to move to a different program (because he coached 2 schools in too close of a proximity to each other), and other real life sanctions. Now whether or not WIS would act upon collusive activity now, I can't say, but they sure did act in the past.

WIS can also view site mails to determine collusion. I do remember that coming up before.

The incident I brought up is the last incident I can remember and is the last incident that's come up on the forums. 

Could be the most recent activity that was reported and dealt with. There could be many others that go unnoticed, which I think is the point of the OP.
Prior to the most recent incident, collusive activity did happen and it was punished, starting probably in 2005.

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 4:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnnyf on 1/29/2015 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 3:40:00 PM (view original):
This game has been going on for over 10 years -  I can definitely remember different dust-ups on conference chat boards and in the forums. I can recall coaches being asked to move to a different program (because he coached 2 schools in too close of a proximity to each other), and other real life sanctions. Now whether or not WIS would act upon collusive activity now, I can't say, but they sure did act in the past.

WIS can also view site mails to determine collusion. I do remember that coming up before.

The incident I brought up is the last incident I can remember and is the last incident that's come up on the forums. 

Could be the most recent activity that was reported and dealt with. There could be many others that go unnoticed, which I think is the point of the OP.
Prior to the most recent incident, collusive activity did happen and it was punished, starting probably in 2005.

As Chris Hitchens once said: anything presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The OP is premised on an assumption that there's no supervision going on with GD. That's demonstrably false and unless we know of any recent punishments for collusion, vague accusations on the forum aren't enough to assume that its ongoing. 

Collusion is something - done correctly - that no one will notice. I don't think it's a rampant problem or anything, but given human nature and past patterns I find it unlikely that no collusion is occurring across 10 or so GD worlds.

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Collusion is something - done correctly - that no one will notice. I don't think it's a rampant problem or anything, but given human nature and past patterns I find it unlikely that no collusion is occurring across 10 or so GD worlds.

If you consider a couple coaches saying "if you stay away from these players, I'll stay away from any equal number of players that you ask me to" collusion(WIS technically could), then yes I agree. That probably happens off this site all the time. But I don't see any real competitive advantage being gained nor do I think its some problem to be addressed. Trying to go after a certain program and spike their recruiting(which is the most recent documented case of collusion) is a problem that requires intervention. 

I think those 2 coaches can save a boatload of money. That might happen in real life and not be a problem, but it has happened here and been punished.

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 4:53:00 PM (view original):
I think those 2 coaches can save a boatload of money. That might happen in real life and not be a problem, but it has happened here and been punished.

I disagree that it will save anyone any money unless you have every team within 500 miles of the recruits in question on board with the plan(which won't happen). But we'll just have to leave things there.