Collusion or not? Topic

ryrun
Posts: 452 (0)
Hall of Famer
96
Rookie
Ok, just to get an answer since thorknight called this collusion on our conference board (and I totally disagree with that claim):

The A-10 in Knight has decided to employ a "scheduling strategy" where we all try to schedule 9-10 winnable games in the non-con.  The difficulty of the games you schedule obviously depends on the strength of your team.  St. Louis and Xavier are obviously scheduling non-creampuff teams and still able to get those 9-10 wins vs. some of the lower prestige teams.  

Nobody is going through and saying "team a go schedule against these teams, team b go schedule these", and even if that were the case, how would that be collusion?  There is absolutely nothing in the fair play guidelines that would prohibit doing this, so just looking for opinions on it.  I don't see a problem, personally.
9/13/2012 9:37 AM
jslotman
Posts: 303 (0)
Hall of Famer
126 9
Prospect
Isn't this how pretty much everybody schedules these days? 
9/13/2012 9:48 AM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
there is no problem, even if one person sat down and figured out every team's schedule and you all just did what he said. 
9/13/2012 10:46 AM (edited)
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
Posted by jslotman on 9/13/2012 9:48:00 AM (view original):
Isn't this how pretty much everybody schedules these days? 
I wish I could convince more of my conferences to do this. If it was any other world, I'd try to join those guys (I don't plan to leave Valdosta St)
9/13/2012 9:53 AM
gvsujulius
Posts: 873 (0)
Hall of Famer
298
Rookie
I like it, plus it seems to be working they moved past big twelve this past season in rpi
9/13/2012 10:41 AM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
283 1
Pro
They Arent colluding to alter the results of the games played, just agreeing on what sort of schedule to play - how someone chooses their schedule is not colluding. They could pick the first five teqms alphabetically ... Or whatever.
9/13/2012 11:10 AM
emy1013
Posts: 2731 (0)
Hall of Famer
899
Prospect
Not collusion, smart scheduling.
9/13/2012 11:53 AM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
I love how this is considered collusion by the "BCS" coaches while the following is not:

http://whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=459413&TopicsTimeframe=30
9/13/2012 11:55 AM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
Posted by tianyi7886 on 9/13/2012 11:55:00 AM (view original):
I love how this is considered collusion by the "BCS" coaches while the following is not:

http://whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=459413&TopicsTimeframe=30
i dont see how this is not collusion. on one hand, you could say, nobody has colluded yet because every single poster basically disagrees with doomey. however, CS seems to have taken the standpoint (and i strongly agree), that suggesting collusion is collusion by the person suggesting - it does not necessarily require an explicit agreement from the other person. you have no way of knowing who agrees without saying anything, and to try to push people in that direction is over the line. i would expect seble to just give a warning in that case, but i do believe he would give the warning.
9/13/2012 12:36 PM
coach_billyg
Posts: 2072 (0)
Hall of Famer
92
Pro
i dont think the scheduling thing is collusion either. we tried the same in the GLV tark after 40 seasons of dominance without the strategy. i prompted it, so if it is collusion, then the blame falls to me more so than anyone else in the conference. most of the time it was just an argument for the value of the strategy, clearly superior from rpi/seeding purposes, however not optimal necessarily from a championship winning standpoint. because we had teams every season in the running, i suggested it might be worth doing only if roughly the whole conference did it that way, and everybody agreed to try it. it seems to work pretty well although we haven't really perfected it yet.

i could definitely see CS telling us not to act like this, but when you look at a conference like the ACC in allen, who has insane records (required, to have a good shot at the NT when you play so many great teams), it is really the logical conclusion if everyone thinks about it. i dont think you can stop people from making a commentary about a scheduling strategy they find best, and if most people adopt it, you really haven't gotten anything. but as it stands, nothing i see from CS/fair play guidelines prohibits this kind of behavior EXCEPT in recruiting and in the determination of the winner of a game.


9/13/2012 12:42 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by coach_billyg on 9/13/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tianyi7886 on 9/13/2012 11:55:00 AM (view original):
I love how this is considered collusion by the "BCS" coaches while the following is not:

http://whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=459413&TopicsTimeframe=30
i dont see how this is not collusion. on one hand, you could say, nobody has colluded yet because every single poster basically disagrees with doomey. however, CS seems to have taken the standpoint (and i strongly agree), that suggesting collusion is collusion by the person suggesting - it does not necessarily require an explicit agreement from the other person. you have no way of knowing who agrees without saying anything, and to try to push people in that direction is over the line. i would expect seble to just give a warning in that case, but i do believe he would give the warning.
I just find it interesting that thor is the one who accused the A-10 of collusion with their scheduling idea when he (along with a few other coaches) proposed the same thing as doomey did in ACC Phelan. 

And oh yea, I play in ACC Phelan and I believe what was proposed in the PAC 10 and ACC was attempted collusion. 
9/13/2012 12:50 PM (edited)
buddhagamer
Posts: 4054 (0)
Hall of Famer
513 249 118
Pro
I find it strange that some people who do think that someone suggesting that it might be more beneficial to not poach conference mates and perhaps recruit elsewhere is considered collusive BUT not consider that same person suggesting that everyone in conference schedule easy games is not.

I'm assuming that the objection in the first is the perception of an unfair advantage in recruiting which could impact other teams but it could be also the case in the latter (if say the ACC scheduled 10 SIM teams in a single non-BCS conference with 1 or 2 humans, those teams could end up going into conf play with a bunch of 0-10 sims which would affect their RPIs in a direct manner).

Yes I'm in the PAC-10 in Phelan, and have battled doomey in the past few seasons, and will continue to do so (and any of my other conference mates) in the future IF it makes sense for me but I do understand where doomey is coming from (and I had that opinion anyway way before this past recruiting season which become just 1 big flame war).
9/13/2012 2:33 PM
ryrun
Posts: 452 (0)
Hall of Famer
96
Rookie
thorknight's latest post:

9/13
2:22 PM		 thorknight Kansas
(Big 12)		 Collusion is collusion. Just because they don't provide your example doesn't mean it's not collusion. ANY deliberate talk apparently that can help you in any way is prohibited. I could care less if it is said in passing, but stating this is what ...
9/13
2:22 PM		 thorknight Kansas
(Big 12)		 ...we are ACTIVELY doing is not just crossing the line it is straight up collusion. And you guys are very specific. One thing in my opinion is to advocate a general strategy once. Another thing is to tell people to do it.
9/13/2012 2:57 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
For the record, I'm not in Knight A-10. 
9/13/2012 2:59 PM
point_piper
Posts: 236 (0)
Hall of Famer
163 129
Prospect

Collusion contains fraud and secrecy. Where are those in either of these cases?

Whatifsports' definition leaves out secrecy:


Collusive transactions

Collusion includes any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users.



I can't see how either of the examples above are acts which support bad, deceitful, or illegal behavior. Who is being deceived?

In the case of the recruiting, it would seem to fit whatif's definition of collusion only if the PAC-12 coaches went ahead and tried to deceive Utah (or whomever) by actually agreeing on a strategy against Utah and implementing it with regard to specific recruits. Chatting openly about how each coach's recuiting practices affect Utah and the conference as a whole does not approach that level of conduct.

In the case of the scheduling, I don't see any problem with it even if they go ahead and carry out the strategy. There is just nothing deceitful, bad, or illegal about it; it's not "collusion" according to a dictionary, a legal dictionary, or whatifsports.com's fair play guidelines.
 

9/13/2012 5:22 PM
1234 Next ▸
Collusion or not? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.