Gang:

It has been quite a while since I have posted something. I recently took over a team in Allen (UL-Monroe) and filled my recruiting class of 9 players during the first cycle of signings. I noticed a 4 Star PF that dropped to undecided during that cycle. There is only one other human in the conference and I had an urge to sitemail him and suggest he look at the player (I had not FSS'd his state). I never did communicate with him and the player was signed a couple cycles later by someone else. I know in real life coaches do this all the time. Would it have been collusion to have done so?

If everything you say is taken at face value...no. Collusion would have been giving him advise after scouting that recruit or FSS'ing his state OR for the purpose of screwing over someone else (e.g. some other team on the considering list or that may have been on his considering list earlier and still had open scholarship slots, or with which you may be competing for another recruit...whatever).

If you were done with recruiting, hadn't scouted that recruit and hadn't FSS'd that state, then you could have posted in the Coaches corner and it would still be fine. Mind you...no good deed goes unpunished. You probably would end up accused of all of the above, if you had.

Collusion might be a strong word, since you would have not benefited (really it was to your disadvantage to tell him). The bottom line - it would clearly would have hurt the coach that actually signed the player. I think you made the right call.

I know if happens in real life, but I think that's a different dynamic and much more complex... in real life there might be a guy that is undiscovered (whereas there is no reason this coach couldn't have found the player if he was just looking it sounds like)... in real life it's much more complicated as to potential of some players and therefore one coach may say - "hey check this guy out, I'm at Ohio State and he's not good enough for me but he'd be great at Northern Kentucky" and many coaches may disagree (whereas WIS it's very clear with FSS the potential & what division is right for a player).

Just post it in the coaches corner that you noticed something. Site mail is a behind the scenes communication. A post to the coaches corner can be seen by everyone.

But what you describe is not collusion.. You made no agreement.

It would be collusion if you told him.. I got this guy considering me and I am not going to sign him.. And you told him before the guy showed up undecided.

But where you notice something and inform, it's not really a problem. But as I said, you take any private conversation out of the loop by just posting in the coaches corner.

i agree w/ hughes. if you had scouted the guy and the other dude hadn't, it would be an issue. its a tough situation, because its such a sensitive topic and folks get riled up over it pretty easily. i don't think it would have been collusion, if you had notified him. if your scholarships weren't full, it could also be an issue, because youd' basically be letting him know that you weren't going for the guy.

in short - don't think it would be collusion - but i'd probably steer clear, its tricky to navigate those waters and the payoff usually isn't worth it. at least, i'd steer clear unless you really wanted to try to help somebody.

if you have a question of course of action is collusion, it means that if someone else did it, you might accuse them of collusion; and if that's the case, you should stay away from that action.

thanks to all that responded...

I will take a probably unpopular view, and say that I believe this does fall under Collusive Behavior as defined in the Fair Play guidelines - which might be more an indictment on the guidelines than this particular activity...

Collusive transactions

Collusion includes any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users or attempted by a single user. Here are a few examples:

• Discussing the pursuit of a recruit with another coach, including who is pursuing him and money that might have been spent.
• Sharing Future Stars Scouting (FSS) information between multiple teams
• Scheduling a non-conference game against an alias team (i.e. team owned by same owner in a different conference and more than 1,000 miles away). Exhibition games are permitted in this situation, however.
• Any clear throwing of a game (normally indicated by massive lineup changes or settings changes)
• Specifically targeting another coach is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, focusing on recruits a particular coach is pursuing in order to steal them or force the coach to overspend.
• Attempting to persuade another user to participate in a collusive effort (only the initiator would be at fault unless agreed upon by other user)

This would be an act undertaken by a single user and, by the first given example, discusses who is pursuing a player (or in this case, that while someone was previously, now no one is considering the player). Under these guidelines as written, it seems to clearly qualify...

Which isn't to say I'd think you were doing anything wrong per se (although one could argue that no other coaches got a heads up from you, so that is an unfair advantage over others? I dunno...) but simply that the guidelines are ambiguous, perhaps intentionally to encourage people to just avoid all communications around recruiting, which would probably make arbitrating these non-existent discussions easier maybe...

im a little surprised that some are replying its ok, to me the main reason its not ok is that this is a zero sum game... in other words it might seem like helping this other guy is a victimless crime, but if he takes that advice and benefits from it... then his team is just a little better. and presumably he'll play some noncon or tourney games against humans somewhere along the line while this kid is on his roster and maybe this kid will be the difference maker.

i guess i prefer it done in the cc if it has to be done... but really i guess i disagree with hughie... the cc doesnt really make it "public info". if thats the case then it would obligate me to check all cc's all the time for important info.

i wish there was a way to eliminate communications of any kind during recruiting, but of course you cant with multiple worlds. but i do think the best policy to avoid any grey area is to not post or sitemail during recruiting if the subject has anything at all to do with a world that is recruiting

Slightly off topic, it would have been a moot point. That coach had a D+ program and you need to be B- before any 4-star will talk to you.

It is not a discussion of pursuit.. And the guy doing the mail has NO spots left. So he is not trying to gain an advantage or pursue anyone. He is saying. . Here is a guy that showed up as undecided. Nothing wrong with that.

I am fine with no communication as well.. Certainly not via sitemail.

If this is collusion then any type of mentoring at all would be collusion. I don't think that mentoring is collusive either.

Generally speaking, if one asks a question about whether something is collusive or not, it generally is. I agree with OD. What's the point of the comment? To give someone an advantage that otherwise he would not have.

It appears to be an extremely difficult thing to decide.
(1) WIS itself permits and even encourages a user to have more than one team in a world. Managing one team you will see things and learn things that you cannot subsequently un-see or un-learn when you manage your other team(s).
(2) WIS permits and even encourages mentoring. Mentoring another's team you will see and learn things that you cannot subsequently un-see and un-learn when you manage your own team. Some of the things you see and learn you would not have become aware of simply by managing your own team.
Seeing and learning things in an officially approved or even encourged manner yet outside the scope of managing one's team clearly gives a user exactly the type of information he could gain through collusive practices. The argument can be made that WIS is inconsistent (to use the most diplomatic word I can think of, although I think much stronger words could apply).
Just two cents from a relative newcomer.

hughes, i agree that smackawits would not have been trying to gain an advantage... just trying to be a nice guy... i get that...
. but the other guy may have gained an advantage over someone else (either directly if someone else had hoped to pursue said recruit or indirectly if his team benefitted and done the road beat some human opponent(s) that he might not have otherwise beaten.

mentoring is a slippery slope in my opinion although i realize that i may be very much in the minority on that.
i think that mentor should not be coaching in same world as mentee, but thats just my two cents

i agree with spud