"there still isn't a good argument being made that 2 teams dividing up players close to them gives them an advantage." - your words.
My problem is that you can't seem to admit that your impression is incorrect. There *are* advantages to colluding, and they are significant enough that people have been doing it for a decade.

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/30/2015 11:24:00 AM (view original):
"there still isn't a good argument being made that 2 teams dividing up players close to them gives them an advantage." - your words.
My problem is that you can't seem to admit that your impression is incorrect. There *are* advantages to colluding, and they are significant enough that people have been doing it for a decade.

Your tact here of saying(paraphrasing here) "you won't admit that you're wrong" is baloney. Make an argument. Explain your views. I guess you have tried, but its not very convincing. Its basically "its happened here in the past so that means you're wrong." Fine. Name names. Explain in detail what they did and who can confirm that they feel that they lost out because of their collusion(and no, you cant use yourself, sorry lol). My argument isn't that it doesn't happen, I'm sure it has. My argument is that teams wouldn't get a significant advantage from it and neither you nor anyone who's agreed with you has proven otherwise or made even a remotely convincing case that it could. 

I am a relative rookie. Have only participated in about 15 or so recruiting sessions. After about the third one I realized the possibilities were endless for potential collusion. Numerous ways for 2 people to wreak havoc. It's likely my cynical mind works the way it does and sees the possibilities.

 "just because someone has more experience doesn't mean that they're right"  ..... 

I think I heard the same thing from my son when he was buying his first car.... after trying to give him advice so he didn't get ripped off. If successful veterans on this site are telling you it is not only possible to collude, but they have also seen it, why is that so hard to believe?

You want proof? Maybe they are trying to be subtle and discrete. If I told you many politicians lie and are corrupt are you going to ask me for proof?

Pointless debate though since your mind is made up. Opinions are fine, informed opinions are better.

Posted by realist9900 on 1/30/2015 11:46:00 AM (view original):
I am a relative rookie. Have only participated in about 15 or so recruiting sessions. After about the third one I realized the possibilities were endless for potential collusion. Numerous ways for 2 people to wreak havoc. It's likely my cynical mind works the way it does and sees the possibilities.

 "just because someone has more experience doesn't mean that they're right"  ..... 

I think I heard the same thing from my son when he was buying his first car.... after trying to give him advice so he didn't get ripped off. If successful veterans on this site are telling you it is not only possible to collude, but they have also seen it, why is that so hard to believe?

You want proof? Maybe they are trying to be subtle and discrete. If I told you many politicians lie and are corrupt are you going to ask me for proof?

Pointless debate though since your mind is made up. Opinions are fine, informed opinions are better.

This post is about as useless and unproductive as one could write in response to anything I've written, so congrats lol.

As I think I've implied or said several times, I'm willing to hear an argument about how 2 teams who could wreck havoc on recruiting by colluding and no there's no reason to be subtle and discrete especially if they've been caught/punished for colluding(which has been implied many times in response to me). Saying "trust us, its happened before"(paraphrasing again) isn't an argument. Name names. Louddog got the closest with his post, but he fails to explain why the colluding teams could count on minimal competition for the players that they've divvied up. And I concede the point that if we're talking about large number of teams colluding together in a recruiting period then that would give them a significant advantage.

I guess it was just easier for you to write something counterproductive with your own personal anecdotes instead of addressing what I actually said. 

Trust me, that wasn't lashing out. That was me trying to be subtle without saying what I really think.

These forums have proven to be very enjoyable,easy going and sensible ...as compared to most forums. So my troll recognition radar was slow to react.

Posted by realist9900 on 1/30/2015 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Trust me, that wasn't lashing out. That was me trying to be subtle without saying what I really think.

These forums have proven to be very enjoyable,easy going and sensible ...as compared to most forums. So my troll recognition radar was slow to react.

Yes, because I'm just trolling here *rollseyes* I hate to break it to you, but you're not very subtle or anything other than trying to join a lynch mob. You've added nothing to this discussion other than to take up your own time(and mine) and to basically write 'you're just wrong.". I'm looking for a real explanation of why people think that 2 teams colluding could give a real advantage in recruiting. Not because I want to collude but so I can try to see it happening so I know what's really going on when I recruit. Better posters than you in this thread have tried to explain why they think so, but I don't see the validity in their argument. Don't sweat it, after reading your three posts on this topic I have no expectation that you can offer a real argument other than trying to insult me without running afoul of the rules on this forum, so I'm just going to ignore you from on. Bye and good luck in this game.  

And considering how much whining and temper tantrums about game results still are on-going on this board, I'm scared to see which forums you're used to lol. 

Posted by loudawg10 on 1/30/2015 10:23:00 AM (view original):
say you, dubs and I are at BC, Cuse and UConn and we all have similar prestige and whatnot.  Amongst all the players that you see, there are 10 players in the upper northeast that are solid d1 caliber players and fit needs you all have.  If we are all recruiting against one another, we all realize that there is little chance to get all 10 players, so we allocate our resources to the biggest need or best value.  

The potential outcome tree looks like this - 
you and I show up
you, I and a 3rd party show up
you and Dubs show
you, dubs and a 3rd part show up
Dubs and I show up
Dubs, I and a 3rd party show up
all 3 of us show up on some
all 3 of us and more show up
only 1 of us shows up
another team and i show up
you and another team show up
dubs and another team show up

We all spend money trying to best one another and cash is depleated based on need.

If Dubs and I have a draft and can say with 100% certainty that we will show up on 5 players each, it changes the potential outcome tree to:
you and I show up
you, i and a 3rd party show up
you and dubs show up
you, dubs and a 3rd party show up
only 1 of us shows up
dubs and another team show up
you and another team show up
another team and i show up

by eliminating any option where Dubs and I show up on a recruit together, both dubs and I are better positioned to show up alone on a recruit and to have more funds available to fight for the recruits where we show up with you or with another team because we have not allocated any resources to beating one another.

I love Lou's example here and couldn't agree more.

In recruiting, one of my biggest theories I operate with is avoiding "wasting money". Meaning any money that goes to a player that I don't sign is wasted money, that I can't use later to defend battles or go after other players.

Lou's example is just that. His scenario doesn't eliminate all battles, but eliminates several instances where there was a high likelihood the schools would be on the same player(s). If I'm Georgia and I don't have to worry about battling Tech, I'm probably saving a good chunk of money that I can direct for battles with Tennessee, Florida, etc.

It's 100% an advantage - just can't really quantify how much impact this activity has. A great coach will probably see a great advantage, while a mediocre coach would have probably wasted the extra money anyway.

Just my two cents...

Posted by chetty1963 on 1/30/2015 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by loudawg10 on 1/30/2015 10:23:00 AM (view original):
say you, dubs and I are at BC, Cuse and UConn and we all have similar prestige and whatnot.  Amongst all the players that you see, there are 10 players in the upper northeast that are solid d1 caliber players and fit needs you all have.  If we are all recruiting against one another, we all realize that there is little chance to get all 10 players, so we allocate our resources to the biggest need or best value.  

The potential outcome tree looks like this - 
you and I show up
you, I and a 3rd party show up
you and Dubs show
you, dubs and a 3rd part show up
Dubs and I show up
Dubs, I and a 3rd party show up
all 3 of us show up on some
all 3 of us and more show up
only 1 of us shows up
another team and i show up
you and another team show up
dubs and another team show up

We all spend money trying to best one another and cash is depleated based on need.

If Dubs and I have a draft and can say with 100% certainty that we will show up on 5 players each, it changes the potential outcome tree to:
you and I show up
you, i and a 3rd party show up
you and dubs show up
you, dubs and a 3rd party show up
only 1 of us shows up
dubs and another team show up
you and another team show up
another team and i show up

by eliminating any option where Dubs and I show up on a recruit together, both dubs and I are better positioned to show up alone on a recruit and to have more funds available to fight for the recruits where we show up with you or with another team because we have not allocated any resources to beating one another.

I love Lou's example here and couldn't agree more.

In recruiting, one of my biggest theories I operate with is avoiding "wasting money". Meaning any money that goes to a player that I don't sign is wasted money, that I can't use later to defend battles or go after other players.

Lou's example is just that. His scenario doesn't eliminate all battles, but eliminates several instances where there was a high likelihood the schools would be on the same player(s). If I'm Georgia and I don't have to worry about battling Tech, I'm probably saving a good chunk of money that I can direct for battles with Tennessee, Florida, etc.

It's 100% an advantage - just can't really quantify how much impact this activity has. A great coach will probably see a great advantage, while a mediocre coach would have probably wasted the extra money anyway.

Just my two cents...

The amount of the impact is what my argument is about. In your example, yes if Georgia cut a deal with Georgia Tech, they would drop out a competitor from any prospects close by, but my point is that they would still be fighting UT, Florida and all the D1A schools close by(which would also include Clemson, South Carolina, Auburn and Florida State). And any schools far away who decide that they like a prospect near UGA. I do concede that, in your example, UGA benefits from getting GaTech out of their recruits, but my argument is that you're not getting a significant advantage from that. Now, if UGA cut deals with GaTech, South Carolina, Auburn and Florida to stay out of their 360, that collusion would have a major impact. Two teams close by, I still don't see the significant impact of that. 

I have been reading this discussion and I feel I have to weigh in on johnny's side. Collusion does happen, but means very little.

At D3 and D2, collusion doesn't mean much because there are so many more possible players and player growth means so much more that in the long run - after 4 seasons - the effects are minimal. It may make the coaches involved pat each other on the back and get a good laugh, but it means little.

At D1AA, if you have a mediocre team, you can only vision mid tier players which the better D1AA teams don't want. This tier has an abundance of players, and who is at the top of your vision may be at the bottom of someone else's. Easy to find an alternative, undecided and move on. Game play at this level doesn't rely as much on recruiting as it does scheduling to get your win # up.
 
At top level D1AA, you spend so much time figuring out how to get in between the cracks to battle for players the D1A schools don't want. Any 'sharing' with rival D1AA schools may save you some $$, but will rob you of part of the precious few available. Timing can also provide cross-country recruiting options that any collusion would be worthless for. At this level of D1AA, it is possible to communicate with a local D1A school to see who they don't want to save battles against them (since they would usually win). This could be called collusion, but only if there would be an agreement for the D1A coach to only tell their intentions to one D1AA coach and not others. Asking, without agrements to exclude others, would simply be for infomation on recruiting and available to all teams if they wished. Then it would be up to the D1A coach how to respond. A fine line - possibly - but no advantage gained over another team by deception. Again, this would ultimately mean very little to the outcome of each teams recruiting.

At D1A, with all top players being targeted by SIMS from the get-go, and potentially massive amounts to be spent on battles, identifying targets early and not expending any extra $$$ on players that would not be equally challenged would be important. Proximity of schools to recruits play a larger role in who to recruit at this level. Finding the level of recruit based on elite, BCS or mid-major status can also determine which battles you will initiate. Collusion at this level could eliminate some battles. Having SIMs on close schools for competition of recruits can be a great advantage, so then would collusive allies. In my experience, the ability to recruit a quality class is more dependent on how many quality recruits show up in your 180/360 from the WIS distribution, than your ability to recruit. ALL D1A schools are at the mercy of the WIS distribution. When I was at BCS Stanford, if a top 10 recruit was within 180 miles of elite USC it was 80% theirs from the jump. Ask someone at UCLA in the same conference, if collusion with Cal or Stanford or the Arizona schools would have changed their ability to get top 10 teams from USC. Probably not. Collusion between elite schools, doesn't give them that much of advantage because the game has a built in advantage for them. The only advantage they get is they can recruit and be done by signing and not battle much. BSC teams and then mid-major teams see the same built in advantages and top down feeding frenzy, looking for the recruits in the cracks of those not wanted by the elites.

A long winded explanation, but all in all, collusion can happen, but in the long term of many seasons it has a small impact on the outcomes of games, seasons and teams.

Avoiding battles = saving money = advantage

pretty simple

Posted by slid64er on 1/30/2015 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Avoiding battles = saving money = advantage

pretty simple

+1

Except that you're not going to actually avoid battles. At most you're going to go from "facing 3-4 teams for a player" to "facing 2-3 teams for a player." Unless you're colluding over lesser recruits that no one else wants. You're still going to be spending cash fighting for those recruits. 

Posted by johnnyf on 1/30/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Except that you're not going to actually avoid battles. At most you're going to go from "facing 3-4 teams for a player" to "facing 2-3 teams for a player." Unless you're colluding over lesser recruits that no one else wants. You're still going to be spending cash fighting for those recruits. 

I agree with this. Your are just avoiding one other coach to battle. Might avoid 1 per recruiting cycle. Minimal impact.

The most effective collusion is cooperative targeting. I believe the ND/Michigan collusion in Wis about 8 years ago was this type
In this case, Michigan and ND agreed not to invade each others state. Michigan got. All Michigan Players and ND Got All Indiana players. The SIGNIFICANT advantage was in Ohio and against Ohio State. Michigan and ND minimized their waste, but OSUNA no such advantage. So Michigan Would target 3 or 4 OSUNA players. ND would target 3 or 4 different Osu recruits. That made it so that OSUNA not only had normal waste, but was being cooperatively targeted and sniper by two colluding players. If you do not see the advantage here, you need to retake economics and possibly basic math.

Damn autocorrect