Or maybe you should just clarify what you mean by "recruiting info," which I think I had grounds for interpreting broadly. Your original quote didn't say "info about money spent." Hope you're not someone's lawyer.

I think we should be allowed to agree to recruiting truces, etc.

i.e. I should be able to say to my other local power school (I won't go after X if you don't).

However, I support not allowing people to share details about their recruiting efforts such as promises or money

Quote: Originally Posted By ellisonatg on 5/29/2010I think we should be allowed to agree to recruiting truces, etc.

i.e. I should be able to say to my other local power school (I won't go after X if you don't).

However, I support not allowing people to share details about their recruiting efforts such as promises or mone

um, truces are absolutely not fair play.

But why not? How is that "collusion?" It's not sharing confidential information. It's a gentleman's agreement not to pursue X if they don't pursue Y. How is that unfair or exploitive?

Back when admin cracked down on collusion the point was made - which I think is right - that collusion along the lines of truces or allocation of recruits is harmful for all other competing schools -

Quote: Originally posted by ellisonatg on 5/29/2010But why not? How is that "collusion?" It's not sharing confidential information. It's a gentleman's agreement not to pursue X if they don't pursue Y. How is that unfair or exploitive?

Because it doesn't fit into vandydave's framework of morality.
He admits that he shares every bit of recruiting info with at least one other team every single season, but it's not unfair play because he does it, and he's a man of "principle." But if you or I do it then it's not fair play.

And I should note that WIS agrees with his view on all counts.

I am WIS.

If sharing lists is collusion, then telling someone that you really are going after PG-B and not going after PG-A if you both have been recruiting both is the same as sharing lists.

In this case, there does not seem to be an agreement to recruit one player and not another player. But, sharing lists (where every coach tells his main targets in a list) also does not necessarily contain an agreement.

But if you tell a coach (or group of coaches) something that other coaches do not know, then that is collusion.

I actually do not think that in this case, what happened was even slightly fishy ... but that is an opinion.

I also see no reason why a person should be managing more than one team in a world. There are plenty enough worlds available so that you can have 1 team in each. With FSS, you absolutely have an advantage because you get all info from 2 teams worth of FSS ... basically cutting the price of FSS in half.

If you have a Div-I team in the same world as a Div-III team, then you can get all the FSS info from many states for your Div-III team without paying for it. I don't like it. BUT, I don't make the rules and as long as it is allowed even if I don't like it I will have to live with it.

Quote: Originally Posted By ellisonatg on 5/29/2010
But why not? How is that "collusion?" It's not sharing confidential information. It's a gentleman's agreement not to pursue X if they don't pursue Y. How is that unfair or exploitive?

collusion doesnt only mean sharing confi info - it means agreeing to act in concert to the detriment of others - in fact sharing confi info is a small sub set of collusion

teh crackdown in HD came after an even bigger problem in GD where sharing of recruiting lists was at the center of the issue

the issue isn't "collusion", it's fair play.

Just wondering, does WIS send Fair Play notices to those coaches who have multiple teams in the same world and share FSS among the teams?

Quote: Originally posted by vandydave on 5/29/2010the issue isn't "collusion", it's fair play.

If you look at the Fair Play Guidelines, the original poster's situation is in the collusive transactions section (if it is anything).

Quote: Originally posted by ellisonatg on 5/29/2010But why not? How is that "collusion?" It's not sharing confidential information. It's a gentleman's agreement not to pursue X if they don't pursue Y. How is that unfair or exploitive?

It's unfair because now you know that you don't have to spend as much money to recruit Y, and he knows he doesn't have to spend as much to recruit X (or at least, one obvious contender for the services of X and Y has been removed from play).

Now you each have more money to go spend on players A B C D E F and G.

Quote: Originally posted by wronoj on 5/29/2010

Quote: Originally posted by ellisonatg on 5/29/2010But why not? How is that "collusion?" It's not sharing confidential information. It's a gentleman's agreement not to pursue X if they don't pursue Y. How is that unfair or exploitive?

It's unfair because now you know that you don't have to spend as much money to recruit Y, and he knows he doesn't have to spend as much to recruit X (or at least, one obvious contender for the services of X and Y has been removed from play).

Now you each have more money to go spend on players A B C D E F and G.

Not only that,but if the two teams in question are the major players in the 180 mile one around each player, it could be easy sailing. None of the other coaches are privy to terms of that agreement, they don't know that TeamA is not going to swoop in on player A or TeamB on PlayerB. You can't have offline agreements that help you at the expense of other coaches, its just the rules.

I understand the arguments and have read the fair play guidelines. I guess I didn't frame my question well enough:

How does an agreement not to compete hurt other teams? There's no means of enforcing that agreement. Teams can break the gentleman's agreement.

Fundamentally, how is this any different than seeing that a recruit is considering a team and therefore backing off?

As long as coaches don't share the amount they are spending and what they are promising, there is nothing collusive about it. The reality is that if I tell a coach I will yield to him in a recruiting battle, that is information ultimately revealed by FSS and by the considering statuses. All the coaches do is reach an agreement in general over turf.

1) This better mirrors real life where this would be perfectly ok.

2) I don't see how it works to any coaches detriment, especially coaches uninvolved in the deal.