I coach ND under another user name in another world, and there is NO WAY that I would collude with another coach in the B1G.  It's way too competitive and if I stuck to Indiana and surrendered Michigan I would lose!

However - I see nothing wrong in the lower divisions trying to avoid battles within the conference.  In D3 and D2, if a conference mate is on a guy that I like and there is another guy I like just about as well with a different conference coach on him, I would battle the coach that's not in my conference.  I want my conference to be strong and send a bunch of teams to the playoffs so I can get as much recruiting money as possible.

Posted by ermackey on 1/30/2015 7:22:00 PM (view original):
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.

In this case, it is more double collusion  - if Michigan and ND agree to respect each others state AND attempt to communicate and deliberately target the Ohio state. Some "respect" against certain players or areas limits one schools battles with another school and lets the chips fall after that. To then jointly recruit another schools recruits would be underhanded.

The thing is is that with a little effort, these types of situations could be eliminated from recruiting, and still keep recruiting a fun part of the game. Recruiting is too much of a unidimensional bidding war right now.

Posted by katzphang88 on 1/30/2015 10:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ermackey on 1/30/2015 7:22:00 PM (view original):
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.

In this case, it is more double collusion  - if Michigan and ND agree to respect each others state AND attempt to communicate and deliberately target the Ohio state. Some "respect" against certain players or areas limits one schools battles with another school and lets the chips fall after that. To then jointly recruit another schools recruits would be underhanded.

Well that's what people have been saying. Two owners can wreak havoc. Not only make it easier on themselves but also target any team(s) they feel are a threat. Which could change year to year. If two owners decide to collude, they are likely going full in. They won't just dip a toe into the water.

Edit: It's actually not that different from two people colluding at a poker table or online poker. There are no guarantees, but you sure increase you chances to win and decrease your chances of losing big. Same theory honestly.

Posted by johnnyf on 1/30/2015 11:54:00 AM (view original):

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. 

I suppose I will try again, though if you didn't believe it when loudawg told you, you won't believe it now.

Recruiting at DIA is mostly about prestige and distance.

Can Army recruit against Syracuse and UCONN?
Sure, but they have to spend more than those schools on each player.

Can Auburn compete against LSU and Alabama?
Sure, but they have to spend more than those schools on each player.

So let's take the Southeast

There are Elites at LSU, Alabama, FSU, Florida and Miami

Now, LSU and Alabama share a ton of recruits that are within 360 of each school. So do Alabama and FSU, FSU and Florida and Florida and Miami

For the purposes of this, we assume, Auburn, Georgia, Tulane and USF also have coaches at them.

Now, Alabama and FSU agree not to battle each other, and split targets.

Let's also assume every school listed above needs 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 3 OL, 3 DL, 2 LB and 2 DB this year. (Never happens, but let's assume.
That means that each team gets 225,000 to recruit plus Bowl money, but I will ignore the bowl money.

It takes at most 6K for an Elite to move a SIM off a local recruit. Mostly the same for BCS schools, maybe a little more so let's say 8.

I will further assume that there are no non SIM recruits worth a damn in the area.

All the recruits that are situated on the Alabama, Florida border that are any good should have Alabama and FSU on them, but instead, they don't. Let's assume that there are 8 Elite players in between LSU and Alabama. 8 between Florida and Alabama, 8 between Alabama and Georgia, 8 between FSU and Florida and 8 between Florida and Miami.

That's 40 absolute stud players. Now, the 8 between LSU and Alabama are also between FSU and LSU, so those 8 along with the 8 on the Bama, FSU border would have been split for no battles equally by FSU and Alabama. We can further stipulate that LSU gets say half of its 15 needed players from the other side or outside of the local areas for either Alabama or FSU.

So let's say Alabama lands on 8 of those recruits, FSU lands on 8, and LSU lands on 4 of the Alabama recruits and three of the FSU recruits. Auburn also lands on one, that both LSU and Alabama are on, but Auburn wants no part of that battle, and lands on one just LSU is on. LSU spent let's say 80K on its other battles, and 50K lining up other recruits in case these battles go poorly. That leaves about 95K

FSU ends up on 5 of the 8 recruits between them and Florida, but they only overlap with Florida on three of them and USF on one. Meanwhile, USF anf Florida are both on the three FSU didn't go after.

Florida and Miami are also locked up on 7 recruits in South Florida, two of which USF is also on.

On the Alabama- Georgia border, Alabama lands on all 8 recruits, 4 of them have Georgia on them, 4 have Auburn, but 2 of those are overlaps. so two just have Alabama.

FSU locks up the three Elites on just them and SIMs on the Florida side and the five on the Alabama-LSU side. FSU now has 8 recruits that are great for just the 48K it took to get SIMs off and 177K left to spend on seven battles, mostly with two teams, Florida and LSU, who are battling other Elites

Florida has 3 recruits locked up cheap for 18K and two others that it had to beat USF for, which cost another $60K, and $70K for USF to not get them for that matter. USF had to lock up local not as good recruits as well, so they spent another 80K getting 10 of those.

So Florida has 147K left and still needs 10 recruits, and is in seven battles with Miami and three with FSU
FSU has 177K left, and only needs 7 recruits
USF has just 75K left, which can't outspend 60 from an Elite, and needs five, but it will cost them 40K to get sims off, so they have no hope off battling FSU.
Georgia and Auburn have spent $150K battling each other and another 30K each losing recruits to Elites, so then still need have their players and have only 45K left to spend.

Alabama locked up the six Elite guys they could get cheap for 36K and spent 60K more winning battles against Auburn and Georgia for four more, and signed a local okay guy cheap for 6K. So they have 129K for their four LSU battles.

So, Alabama could now beat LSU outright for the recruits if the spend right because they have 129K and LSU has only 95K, but of course, LSU also has three battles with FSU who has 177K to spend on its battles, some with LSU and some with Florida, but as we mentioned, Florida is in battles with everyone, especially Miami.


Basically, recruiting is a bloodbath, and any money you don't waste is free money. As caesari said, any money I spend on a recruit I don't sign is completely wasted. Just the initial money FSU and Alabama are not spending on the players the other school drafted is free money. If you add to that never spending 50,60,70K or more on a losing recruiting battle to each other, all the more free money.

The cast iron truth here is if players identify places that they will have more competition and places they will have less competition (and thus less chance of throwing away money), then they have a significant advantage.

To put it another way. If there are 7 valuable things to bid on, and four of us, and we all have say 21 dollars. If two of us only bid $2 on the first go round on 3 non-overlapping things, and the other 2 bid $2 on each of the seven things, we enter the second round with one item that has a one-way tie between the two that bid on all seven at $2, and a three-way tie on all the others.

Unfortunately for the two that made the first bid on everything, they only have $7 left to spend on all seven ties (or one dollar more for each), and the two of us that were colluding have $15 left to spend on the three we were interested in (or five dollars each). Human nature says that you either split it up futilely or go all in on the one that there is only you and one other bidder.

In both those scenarios, the two colluders end up with three valuables each and one of the two of the others gets the last one.

The simple way to state this is:
All avoided waste is an advantage
Colluders avoid a significant amount of waste
Therefore, colluders have a significant advantage

Mcbeth.

johnnyf, just look at the bottom of your recruiting summary page at the end of recruiting. See all those recruits where you spent thousands and someone else signed them? Now imagine having some of that cash left during the last 2-3 battles you're in. I've dropped $100k on  losing battles at D1A. Collusion could have let me save that money for other recruits. Do you really not see how that is a competitive advantage, or are you just refusing to concede your point?

Dublinuf, I'm not going to quote your post or go through it line by line, because I don't have to. Let me start with your hypothetical: the Alabama-Florida line(for purposes of argument, lets say Pensacola Florida). Within 360 miles, you have-and I'm just counting major programs here: FSU, Florida, UGA, Auburn, Alabama, Miss State, Ole, LSU and Arkansas. Within 500 miles, you add in Tennessee, South Carolina, Clemson, Baylor, Texas A&M, maybe Texas and UNC. 

The problem with your Syriana type scenario is the same fallacy everyone who agrees is still making: that two teams colluding could keep competition to a minimum. While FSU and Bama might agree to divide up some guys in the panhandle, no one's made that agreement with the dozen or so other schools(human controlled schools) in that geographic area that are looking for similar prospects. Please explain why those schools have decided that they're not going to recruit the players that FSU and Bama decided to collude on? The whole "collusion gives a significant advantage" argument rests on the teams colluding not having to fight that hard to get those players that they've divvied up. 

And you(and the others) also are making another fallacy: that teams focus their recruiting in their 360. I had recruits from Hawaii, Arizona, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri and Pennsylvania in my last recruiting class. Pulling up the classes of two of my divisional opponents also: Georgia(Minnesota, West Virginia, Maryland, PA and Texas) and Tennessee(illinois, Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Michigan). So its just not only me. And if teams, even big teams, are going out of their 360 regularly then two of the premises for "why teams would want to collude" are broken. Why would FSU waste the time and effort colluding over some players near them if they're going to Texas, the Northeast and the west coast for recruits along with their 360? And before you say "well, they want the top players around them" let me mention the second broken premise: that teams wouldn't face much competition for a colluded player. Instead of now discussing which teams in their 360 the colluders might have to still fight, we're talking nationwide(or at least teams within 1000 miles). And any collusion would be truly pointless. 

Sorry, you still haven't made an argument for why collusion gives a significant advantage. 

Posted by scrodz on 1/31/2015 3:41:00 AM (view original):
johnnyf, just look at the bottom of your recruiting summary page at the end of recruiting. See all those recruits where you spent thousands and someone else signed them? Now imagine having some of that cash left during the last 2-3 battles you're in. I've dropped $100k on  losing battles at D1A. Collusion could have let me save that money for other recruits. Do you really not see how that is a competitive advantage, or are you just refusing to concede your point?

Even if there was absolutely no collusion whatsoever, teams would still lose out on prospects then spent money for, so I don't see your point. And this isn't any argument for your beliefs, so I'm not "just refusing to concede" anything. I'm still waiting for there to be a real argument for it. 

Posted by ermackey on 1/30/2015 7:22:00 PM (view original):
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.

In order to see if there was a significant advantage gained, we would need to see how many in-state recruits Ohio State had to spent a lot more money on or lost out on and how many in-state recruits Michigan and Notre Dame still had to fight for(and how much they saved on them). On the face of it, Michigan and Notre Dame shouldn't have been gaining that much since they're only knocking out one competitor for in-state recruits. They're still having to fight for their in-state recruits, so any money saved would have been minimal. For Ohio State, it's possible that they spent a lot more money on in-state recruiting, but its also possible that they had a slightly easier time going after the Michigan and Indiana recruits. 

I'll say that this is the best case(so far) made for collusion potentially giving a significant advantage, but we would need the data to see. If there's anyone reading this post who's done this cooperative targeting in the past(hopefully you were caught by WIS and sanctioned so you can talk about it) and has the numbers on how much that they saved from this, I'd love to see the data. 

Edit: I will concede one point, if Michigan in this collusion had a separate deal with Michigan State to divvy up the in-state recruits between them on top of their deal with Notre Dame, then Michigan will have been getting a significant advantage from it. But thats hypothetical, not actual. 

johnnyf - Your lack of understanding of some basic recruiting tenets is probably a major cause of your recruiting woes.

Posted by slid64er on 1/31/2015 12:03:00 PM (view original):
johnnyf - Your lack of understanding of some basic recruiting tenets is probably a major cause of your recruiting woes.

If you can't actually make an argument, I feel no need to respond to you if all you're going to do is take some uninformed shot at me. Especially when I'm not the only one holding this opinion. 

Posted by johnnyf on 1/31/2015 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by slid64er on 1/31/2015 12:03:00 PM (view original):
johnnyf - Your lack of understanding of some basic recruiting tenets is probably a major cause of your recruiting woes.

If you can't actually make an argument, I feel no need to respond to you if all you're going to do is take some uninformed shot at me. Especially when I'm not the only one holding this opinion. 

For a while I was thinking you're an alias for a more experienced owner, but then you mentioned your "13th ranked recruiting class" (since edited out). That must refer to the email you receive when recruiting ends, which any veteran coach quickly learns to ignore.
So instead of a troll alias, you're one of those trolls with 1.5 years of D1 under his belt who knows everything.

I got bored reading this very quickly.  Here it is, plain and simple.

ANY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN COACHES, REGARDING RECRUITING, WHILE RECRUITING IS ACTIVELY GOING ON, IS INAPPROPRIATE.  Furthermore, any communication, EVER, regarding a plan to split, share, avoid, target, etc, etc, etc is inappropriate.    Even just saying to another coach that "you are done recruiting and have some good leftovers" is inappropriate.

Do not discuss specifics of recruiting, before or during, and you are golden.  After recruiting is over, you can share with others how much you spent, how you strategized to get (or lose) recruits, etc...that is fine and is part of learning the game.

Posted by guano92 on 1/31/2015 12:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnnyf on 1/31/2015 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by slid64er on 1/31/2015 12:03:00 PM (view original):
johnnyf - Your lack of understanding of some basic recruiting tenets is probably a major cause of your recruiting woes.

If you can't actually make an argument, I feel no need to respond to you if all you're going to do is take some uninformed shot at me. Especially when I'm not the only one holding this opinion. 

For a while I was thinking you're an alias for a more experienced owner, but then you mentioned your "13th ranked recruiting class" (since edited out). That must refer to the email you receive when recruiting ends, which any veteran coach quickly learns to ignore.
So instead of a troll alias, you're one of those trolls with 1.5 years of D1 under his belt who knows everything.

Is Katzphang another guy with little experience? If this is the new tact, to try and make me the issue instead of discussing the point at hand, this thread is boring. It's hilarious that literally no one has responded to Katzphang88 at all who's agreed with me and instead, all you guys have left is to call me a troll, stubborn, uninformed, etc. If Katz and I are wrong, then we're wrong but since no one will respond to him then this isn't about whether collusion is effective or not and is just people trying to join a lynch mob. But feel free to keep calling me names, ignoring Katzphang's posts and trying to insult me instead of addressing the issue. It makes me think that I've hit a nerve with some people by pointing out something that people don't want pointed out.