That scenario is exactly the sort of thing that used to happen. Two schools have 2 players that are leaning exclusively to both of them. The schools confer and then spend the money they would have used to fight over him to win battles from other schools.

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 5:43:00 PM (view original):
That scenario is exactly the sort of thing that used to happen. Two schools have 2 players that are leaning exclusively to both of them. The schools confer and then spend the money they would have used to fight over him to win battles from other schools.

There's no guarantee of success for the players that were "divvied up." There's still no way to guarantee that any of the rest of the teams in the World won't try to go after(and flip) the prospects that you've agreed upon. So, while you might have saved some money on a couple players that you've reached an agreement on, those players could easily be flipped by a determined recruiter. In the end, I don't see much of a competitive advantage unless you can get most of the world to agree to leave those players alone. 

If after day one, a recruit is yellow to Alabama and Florida, are you considering challenging that? I don't think that's an option unless the recruit is just a few miles away.

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 6:02:00 PM (view original):
If after day one, a recruit is yellow to Alabama and Florida, are you considering challenging that? I don't think that's an option unless the recruit is just a few miles away.

If they're green, I would look at how many miles away they are. If they're yellow and I really want the recruit, I'll throw down some cash. I've knocked off some much bigger schools that were green with a recruit in my time in DIA. Its not easy but not impossible. 

Posted by johnnyf on 1/29/2015 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 5:43:00 PM (view original):
That scenario is exactly the sort of thing that used to happen. Two schools have 2 players that are leaning exclusively to both of them. The schools confer and then spend the money they would have used to fight over him to win battles from other schools.

There's no guarantee of success for the players that were "divvied up." There's still no way to guarantee that any of the rest of the teams in the World won't try to go after(and flip) the prospects that you've agreed upon. So, while you might have saved some money on a couple players that you've reached an agreement on, those players could easily be flipped by a determined recruiter. In the end, I don't see much of a competitive advantage unless you can get most of the world to agree to leave those players alone. 

You are just wrong. Let's assume we are in the Big East.

Let's say Temple and UConn have decided to split up recruits and they hold a draft without telling anyone else.

Will they still have to battle with other people on those recruits like B.C. and Rutgers and Syracuse?
Sure

But Rutgers and B.C. and Syracuse are also spending money battling each other. The other three schools always have four schools to battle instead of three. That is a significant difference, and thus a significant advantage.

Posted by dublinuf on 1/30/2015 6:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnnyf on 1/29/2015 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/29/2015 5:43:00 PM (view original):
That scenario is exactly the sort of thing that used to happen. Two schools have 2 players that are leaning exclusively to both of them. The schools confer and then spend the money they would have used to fight over him to win battles from other schools.

There's no guarantee of success for the players that were "divvied up." There's still no way to guarantee that any of the rest of the teams in the World won't try to go after(and flip) the prospects that you've agreed upon. So, while you might have saved some money on a couple players that you've reached an agreement on, those players could easily be flipped by a determined recruiter. In the end, I don't see much of a competitive advantage unless you can get most of the world to agree to leave those players alone. 

You are just wrong. Let's assume we are in the Big East.

Let's say Temple and UConn have decided to split up recruits and they hold a draft without telling anyone else.

Will they still have to battle with other people on those recruits like B.C. and Rutgers and Syracuse?
Sure

But Rutgers and B.C. and Syracuse are also spending money battling each other. The other three schools always have four schools to battle instead of three. That is a significant difference, and thus a significant advantage.

Except for recruits aren't pooled for by conference. While the Big East schools are playing shenanigans, any other school can jump in and try to steal the recruits supposedly split up by Temple and UConn. Especially if Temple and UConn assume that they have those guys and stop spending money on them. Thats the gigantic flaw in this argument that you just can't get around. 

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.

B.C. is in the ACC. His point is that such an agreement is an inherent advantage because it rules out one opponent, therefore leaving you free to spend money on other battles.

I'm at Army, so I'm in that location. I fight Rutgers, BC, UConn, and Temple more than I fight all other teams combined. If I were to agree with the UConn coach not to fight over recruits, then I would be free to spend the money I would have spent against him on other battles against the other three schools. Meanwhile, the Temple coach (for example) would still be spending money against every one of those schools, and therefore depleting his account faster than I am and allowing me to outspend and win a recruit. That's collusion, because it is an advantage achieved by conspiring with another coach.

EDIT: Loudawg beat me to it. Good post.

It is an absolute advantage. There shouldn't be any debate about that. The only debate is to what degree the advantage is. LD10 explains it well.

There is zero flaw in his example.

Not to mention the poor choice of trying to jump in and get yellow on a player who is already showing yellow to two other teams - yes, it's possible, but it's going to cost more than it should and will probably end up being a bad value and unwise use of limited recruiting funds.

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 understood the argument before your post, but what you're describing doesn't give Dubs and you a significant advantage unless its a player that most teams have decided not to recruit for reasons other than collusion. You're not going to get a situation where two teams split up even just 2 higher end prospects where they reduce their competition for the players from 3 to 2. A much lesser prospect, perhaps but that reduces the competitive advantage gained. At DI-A level, the sims take so much of the top level talent that no one is going to let a good player at a need position go unscouted or uncontacted. I've been up there for 3 seasons now and I've never had a good prospect that I didn't have to fight 3-5 teams for. So, for this "collusion" to make a difference, it would have to be beyond just two teams dividing up recruits. Whole conferences or divisions would have to be in on the collusion for it to have any sort of effect. Even then, there's still zero effect of getting teams outside of the collusion to stop going after those prospects. 

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/30/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Not to mention the poor choice of trying to jump in and get yellow on a player who is already showing yellow to two other teams - yes, it's possible, but it's going to cost more than it should and will probably end up being a bad value and unwise use of limited recruiting funds.

I'm an SEC east team who didn't make a bowl last season and found a LB with the highest level of potential last time around in recruiting. He was 4600 miles from me and green for a school much closer than me. 10k got him to sign for me. 

Posted by johnnyf on 1/30/2015 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/30/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Not to mention the poor choice of trying to jump in and get yellow on a player who is already showing yellow to two other teams - yes, it's possible, but it's going to cost more than it should and will probably end up being a bad value and unwise use of limited recruiting funds.

I'm an SEC east team who didn't make a bowl last season and found a LB with the highest level of potential last time around in recruiting. He was 4600 miles from me and green for a school much closer than me. 10k got him to sign for me. 

Then I'll suggest that you got very lucky. I look forward to hearing more of your recruiting successes using that template.
And as for the logic of collusion, you have several experienced owners giving you abstract examples of situations that they have undoubtedly seen in the past, yet you continue to argue that there is no motive to collusion. There is something to gain from colluding; people have done it and some of those people have been caught.

I'm not going to quote everyone who responded, so I'll just say Caesari: I respect that you have a lot more experience in this game than I do. But even after Louddog's post: there still isn't a good argument being made that 2 teams dividing up players close to them gives them an advantage. You're not explaining why this would mean that they get a significant advantage. As I said to Louddog: if we're talking about a whole conference colluding about local recruits, then that case could be made. Two teams: no way. Unless they're trying to intimidate other coaches from recruiting those players. If you have any specific examples of whole conference colluding or coaches colluding, then trying to intimidate coaches from recruiting those players they want, I'm all ears. 

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/30/2015 11:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by johnnyf on 1/30/2015 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hypnotoad on 1/30/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Not to mention the poor choice of trying to jump in and get yellow on a player who is already showing yellow to two other teams - yes, it's possible, but it's going to cost more than it should and will probably end up being a bad value and unwise use of limited recruiting funds.

I'm an SEC east team who didn't make a bowl last season and found a LB with the highest level of potential last time around in recruiting. He was 4600 miles from me and green for a school much closer than me. 10k got him to sign for me. 

Then I'll suggest that you got very lucky. I look forward to hearing more of your recruiting successes using that template.
And as for the logic of collusion, you have several experienced owners giving you abstract examples of situations that they have undoubtedly seen in the past, yet you continue to argue that there is no motive to collusion. There is something to gain from colluding; people have done it and some of those people have been caught.

All due respect: just because someone has more experience doesn't mean that they're right. And I didn't say that teams have no motive for collusion. Im saying that they wouldn't be getting a significant advantage from it. And to use an analogy, if you rob a bank and only took 2 cents from the vault, you're still guilty of bank robbery whether you knew you were taking 2 cents or not.