Hopefully Michigan enjoyed their trip to Florida while they could because it looks like those are no more.
DI Council also approves rule requiring FBS camps and clinics be conducted on a school's campus or in regular facilities.— NCAA (@NCAA) April 8, 2016
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
at least Harbaugh will always have tree limbs to climb
And this still lets him have creepy sleepovers with high school kids!
Hello
via GIPHY
oh to be a fly in that tree
via GIPHY
Also:
Interesting
Yeah, there's that too, but not much explanation on what that means.
use to be rules on how often a recruiter could speak with/text a kid... now that rule basically goes out the door.
THIS IS ONLY FOR TEXTING/PHONE CALLS... social media like twitter and facebook contacts are still not allowed.
Back in January February time frame of this year they let this rule go for Basketball, that was the 1st tester and now they've opened it up to more sports.
This.... This is pleasing...
via GIPHY
Tasting bile in my throat.
Harbaugh be like:
Meanwhile the rest of us:
Of course. Why would the NCAA keep anything in the rules that helps prospective students gain attention. The SEC says they don't want it so the NCAA follows. Meanwhile the SEC over signs and pulls scholarships all the time but the NCAA has no problems with that even though its much more harmful.
The ACC was equally vocal in objecting to this practice.
Yeah, if not moreso. Swofford, the Presidents and the ADs throughout the ACC were not overly pleased with the Big Ten setting up shop in places like Norfolk with sweetheart deals with lower schools.
Very glad the NCAA did the right thing and banned this practice.
How is this the right thing? Because it helps our school?
I don't see how it's a bad thing to ban the practice. Could you explain why satellite camps shouldn't be banned?
The biggest losers in all this is high school athletes.
While I disliked the practice as a Hokie fan, part of me feels bad for the kids who won't be getting the extra exposure. Not every family from the Tidewater area has the resources to send their athlete to a camp at Michigan or Penn State. The big name programs won't have any issue getting the 4 and 5 star recruits, but the mid tier/diamond in the rough recruits who might have gotten noticed at such camps are less likely to be seen.
Yeah, they'll have to settle for attending mid-major programs like VT. /s
VT is still a hike from Norfolk/Va. Beach, if a kid couldnt go out to PSU or UM for a weekend for a camp it is only marginally more likely he could attend VT's.
Four hours and change from the 757 to Blacksburg.
Six hours or so to State College (provided Northern VA traffic cooperates).
Ten hours to Ann Arbor.
A VT camp trip looks like cupcakes compared to the others.
These camps were all to benefit players who otherwise would not have been able to get exposure to those schools. Last year Michigan signed a handful of kids that were ignored by their own area powers. Now those kids will get passed by.
Instead of complaining that PSU was holding a 757 camp, we could have done one too. Or gone to Charlotte or DC. Why do we have any more of a right to the 757 than anyone else? You can make the argument that allowing the practice will skew recruiting to teams with big budgets, but now all this is doing is skewing it to teams with fertile recruiting grounds. How is that better?
On top of that, now you are screwing teams like Texas Tech and other isolated schools that were holding them in their own state. Now they have no access to the majority of Texas kids and they weren't even "encroaching" on other territories.
The ACC and SEC were hurting themselves by having the rule in the first place. They just dragged down the rest of the NCAA with them.
Well, personally I think you're bass-ackwards on this one. These satellite camps were a gimmick to allow major programs to recruit without it coming out of the recruiting budget or falling under recruiting guidelines. It wasn't a "recruiting visit," it was a "camp." The SEC and ACC saw them for what they were and banned them, while the B1G, probably realizes their own backyard isn't exactly fertile soil for the type of high school recruit that championship-level P5 football targets right now, and was all about getting into recruiting hotbeds.
The reason it was unfair is that it can't work in reverse. Sure, we could do satellite camps in Texas and California, but we don't need to. We are already located in close proximity to a recruiting hotbed. And nobody is going to be knocking down doors to set up a satellite camp in Indiana or Iowa. The B1G was in a position to gain everything and lose nothing from this practice. Literally every other conference stood to lose from this setup. It is absolutely a no-brainer to ban them.
Of course it cant work in reverse. "All" the talent is in the south. Does that mean only the south should have access to them? So now instead of everyone being able to access all players, teams have to stay localized?
Not surprised at all to see TKP backing up this exclusionary ruling after the hissy fit it threw about the PSU satellite camps at ODU. As if Virginia players belong to us. How dare an outsider take our kids
Take the geography out of it and it's still wrong. It reinforces a "haves" vs. "have-nots" environment that is unsustainable. Does every school have the budget that Michigan does to jet-set around the country wherever they'd like to showcase their program? No. Now, I don't necessarily think we need to have enforced equality (or the illusion thereof) here, but for an organization (the NCAA, and by proxy, the conference commissioners) that steadfastly claims academics over athletics in the growing face of college football as business, the only justifiable move is to maintain equality in matters like these. Huge entities with massive budgets now cannot crush the little guy.
Legs for you, good sir. I support this take.
Honestly, the idea of satellite camps doesn't bother me, but I take issue with it when it's used as a marketing tool for a specific university. I think a better solution might be something where you see universities in the same state collaborating for a camp, with perhaps interested coaching staffs from other states as observers (just not participating to push their brand).
I think a camp in Richmond sponsored jointly by VT, ODU, JMU, UVA (shudder), etc. might actually have some juice to bring in talent around the state, plus the optics are better.
Well, for one thing, outsiders have been taking "our" kids for years. Frank lost his stranglehold on the 757 years before he retired. However, if we are going to lose them to other programs, it's going to be because we get out-recruited, not because of some bogus camp that's really a recruiting conference. Other programs can compete with us, and we're damn well going to make them pony up a significant portion of their recruiting budget to do so.
These satellite camps were a loophole, plain and simple. And we used every ounce of leverage we could to close the loophole. You seem to be pretending that closing down these camps means the B1G can't recruit in Virginia anymore. Now they just have to actually play by the recruiting rules to do it.
Thanks for your reply.
I have a hard time believing that kids need to have camps to get exposure. With the prevalence of HUDL and other similar highlight reel type things I'm fairly confident that any kid who plays high school football in the US would be able to get his film out there.
Well, we couldn't because the ACC wouldn't allow it. Right?
I don't buy that logic. Teams all over the country have been recruiting kids from fertile recruiting grounds for years and years without satellite camps. I don't see how taking the camps away hinders schools from recruiting rich areas.
I'd actually be really interested to hear TT's perspective on this. On the one hand, they can't hold camps in their own state so maybe that hurts their outreach. On the other hand, based on your argument that schools in fertile recruiting grounds benefit from the banishment of the practice, TT would have to like the fact this practice is banned since Texas is such a rich recruiting area, right?
I think that your argument that TT, which is in a rich recruiting area, is getting screwed by the practice being banned directly contradicts your argument that teams in rich recruiting areas stand to benefit from the practice being banned since outside schools can no longer recruit TT's recruit-rich home state (Texas).
>I have a hard time believing that kids need to have camps to get exposure. With the prevalence of HUDL and other similar highlight reel type things I'm fairly confident that any kid who plays high school football in the US would be able to get his film out there.
And with the growth of "Non Commitable" Offers just as heavily balances out this. What good is an offer if it is contingent on performing in front of coaches at a summer camp you might not be able to attend?
" I think that your argument that TT, which is in a rich recruiting area, is getting screwed by the practice being banned directly contradicts your argument that teams in rich recruiting areas stand to benefit from the practice being banned since outside schools can no longer recruit TT's recruit-rich home state (Texas)."
We should absolutely dispel the notion that TTU is in a rich recruiting area, no more than VT itself is in one in Montgomery County. Lubbock is in the sticks so far many of the surrounding schools have to play 7on7 HS ball for lack of numbers.
It screws TTU because it is just as far to Lubbock as it is to say Stillwater or Norman, but TTU had the advantage of being a Texas school with all the state pride and legacy that might imply for a Texas HS recruit and that potential pull. But by not being able to be on the ground as it were in the populous part of the state they have to rely on a 7 hour drive from Dallas, 10 hours from Dallas etc.
So yes this really hurts two types of schools, the ones with national profiles and budgets to match(UM, tOSU, PSU) and schools nearby to great locations but in inconvenient locations( TTU, VT). Is hindering both worth it?
That is a personal question that everyone needs to decide on their own.
I just don't believe that banning the practice truly hinders the latter. VT was able to recruit the 757 with great success a decade ago. Without camps. Over the last 4 years (2012-2015) Texas Tech has averaged a recruiting class in the mid to upper 30s (247sports). They had the 27th ranked class (their best mark in that span) in 2012. It appears to me that their recruiting is completely unaffected by their (in)ability to conduct camps throughout the state.
It is fairly well known that Texas, as a state, has a ton of talent. There may not be talent immediately adjacent to Lubbock, but I can guarantee that every high school football player in the state of Texas has heard of Texas Tech. I really don't think their recruiting is affected in any way by having (or not having) camps in the state. I think the only thing that would negatively impact Texas Tech's recruiting is big name schools from far away setting up shop in their backyard and actively recruiting Texas High School players who might otherwise be considering Texas Tech.
I'm guessing he only real impact to TTU is their pocket book because outside schools are no longer paying for their camps.
This whole thing was extremely SEC vs B1G. Obviously this ruling benefits the ACC, but the SEC was easily more vocal, specifically with regards to when the camps were set up in Alabama. The ACC hardly has any weight in comparison to the SEC
Considering this was done by vote of a group that included no SEC representation and only one B1G representative, I'd say that the group who decided this had the interests of all member institutions in mind.
http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1COU...
EDIT: Basically it was only the B1G and a few of the G5 folks who voted no to this.
Weight with whom? This council is made up of representives from every conference and both academic, atheltic and administrative sides.
I'm not 100% sure that this benefits the ACC as a whole.
Had this remained permissible, the 757, FL/GA/SC/NC probably would have gotten a lot of satellite camps, which might cramp the style of half our conference. But it would have allowed all the northern schools like Syracuse and BC to go south for camps and it would have allowed all of us to go to Texas and California too. With Fuente's connections in OK, TX, and TN, and our own in FL, VT might have been able to leverage this quite a bit.
Now, having said all that, I'm glad it has now been forbidden. I like it better this way. Suck it Big Ten! Ha ha ha!
I'm glad they ruled it out as well.
I don't think VT would have gotten as big an advantage out of this as Big 10 powerhouses and schools with aimless beans to spend on recruiting. Certainly the ODU thing was hurting us by bringing in Big 10 schools so they could do some cost-efficient recruiting in our territory, and also by giving ODU more funds.
This is ultimately a "haves" and "have nots" situation, and schools with tighter budgets would have suffered more than the big schools with endless budgets.
Maybe we need some arms race limits, because at a certain point it's the school's donors who are paying.
There was an actual vote by conference. Amazingly, only 4 conferences voted against the rule. The ACC and SEC are the only teams that are actually helped by the rule. With the exception of teams in select locations (e.g., USC & UCLA having the LA basin), every team should have voted against it.
Dear ODU
I specifically came here to say this as well.
Suck it ODU
Can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet, but does this also apply to our coaches' clinics like the ones being held in the 757?
I doubt it. I don't see that as a problem.
I think it is actually hosting practices with the players participating.
Calling Jugs. So a few questions that either can you answer or point me to rule book where the answer is. How are 3rd party camps treated now? For example Nike is holding a camp can coaches go and watch? Of so what prevents ODU from holding a camp and other coaches coming and watching?
college coaches are not allowed to go to these Nike Combine skills things.
ODU camps shouldnt be an issue now. Coaches and top players would rather go to Nike Combine camps or Camp at interested schools.
There's a saying don't start no shit won't be no shit. Michigan started shit and NCAA/Most conferences said nope.
NCAA should have never allowed the satellite camps to begin with. They outlawed it once it seemed to get out of hand, and the conferences were taking a stand before the ultimate ruling body. Just another case of the NCAA being reactive instead of proactive.
I'd say just be happy that the schools are able to sponsor their own football camps for potential recruits. The only football camp I remember regionally was the Chris Hamberger Football Camp in the DC area, and I couldn't even attend that one after getting grounded. Kids/players nowadays still got it easy. HEY BOY, GET OFF OF MY LAWN!
I think this is a good thing. I haven't heard this brought up much but this ruling is a "win" for the idea of student athletes. I can't imagine it being easy to get to class while you are having spring practice hundreds of miles away from campus.
This ruling does not effect practices for enrolled kids being off campus.
Here's the opinion of a player who wound up at Michigan due to a satellite camp:
I think that the NCAA should allow a limited maximum in state and out of state satellite camps that a school can participation in each year. That benefits the recruits, and universities in more remote locations without giving too much power to universities with a significantly larger budget.
Umm few things, IMG Academy can still hold their camps and a kid from Detroit going to a school 47 minutes away doesn't seem like he needed to go to a camp at a smaller college nearby to get seen.
Yep, if anything he might have been seen by Michigan and other Big Ten schools earlier had they not been so focused on the satellite campus they were hosting halfway across the country in Norfolk, Charlotte, Atlanta, etc.....
Am I reading this right? This is a kid who lives in Michigan that had to go to Florida to be seen by the recruiters in Michigan? Without satellite camps, this kid who lives in Michigan would have never had the opportunity to show the people at Michigan his talent... in Florida... ('nuff said)
Lets say the NCAA allowed satellite camps in-state, wouldn't it be nice to tack on a requirement of community service? Give something back to the community that morally (and in some cases financially) supports the school?
Thing is he went to a 3rd party camp anyway, IMG. So this ruling does not effect them.
Any bets on how long it will take OSU or Michigan to establish a "regular facility" somewhere in Texas or Florida?
On a more serious note, this decision by the NCAA is awful. Just because a bunch of southern schools want to protect their turf in the most fertile recruiting grounds in the country, the NCAA is creating obstacles for student athletes (you know, the people they claim the organization exists to serve) to meet and build relationships with coaches from other parts of the country, at whose schools they might get a great education and advance their football careers. The real losers in this are not the northern college teams, but the high-school players, and that's a real shame.
I disagree how did schools in the "North" recruit prior to these merged camps? This about schools with large budgets just spending more money to gain easier access.
This is the point that's being missed in a lot of the conversation surrounding this. The problem was there was undeniably a ton of recruiting going on at these camps, but the setup skirted recruiting guidelines. The trips weren't out of the recruiting budget and didn't count as recruiting visits for the coaching staff.
Under the new setup, coaches from B1G schools can still attend camps held at other locations, they just can't run the camps and have to attend under the auspices of being a recruiter. That's specifically what the coaching staffs at Michigan and Penn State were trying to avoid, and that's what prompted other members to object.
Okay. I can't argue with that assertion. But so what? If they want to spend their money that way, that's their business. These camps can be tremendously beneficial to the players. They're the ones getting hurt by the NCAA ban on these camps. The kids are now going to miss out on the opportunity to meet and impress big time college coaches that they wouldn't ordinarily have access to. Let's take Dadi Nicolas for an example. If his HS coach didn't already have a good relationship with our coaching staff, he'd likely have ended up playing for a crappy C-USA or Sun Belt team, where his chances of getting to the NFL would've been much lower. How many other kids like him are out there, under the radar, overlooked by the powerhouses in their own home states, that won't get a chance to play big-time college ball?
Also, how great would it be for a conference like the MAC, if they could hold a UM-style camp in the deep south and bring a lot of prospects together to meet with and learn from the coaches in that conference. I'm sure that individual MAC schools can't afford such an excursion, but if they pooled resources and did it as a group, I suspect it could be feasible, and a lot of people would benefit. Obviously, they've never tried it before, and it's hard to tell if it'd be politically workable within the conference, but now the option is not even available to them.
Do you really think that Michigan is looking for some overlooked, under-developed talent, or are they looking to build a relationship with the four-star talent from another state?
Judging from their recruiting stats, they're going for the four stars, not the diamonds-in-the-rough that VT is known for.
No, I don't think Michigan is looking for those kinds of players. I also don't think the story should be about Michigan at all. They're just the lightning rod that ignited the whole firestorm. The issue should be about the student-athletes, whose best interests are being disregarded here. That's my objection to the whole brouhaha. There are a lot of kids out there on scholarship to a lot of good programs that wouldn't be there if not for these satellite camps. They're the ones who have the most at stake in this debate, and they don't have a say in the matter. Here's a small sampling of what players think about the situation.
Players don't like the new satellite camp ban
Umm the satellite camp thing has only been around for a season or two how have all these kids been given a chance in that small amount of time?
I'm fairly sure these satellite camps have been around for a while. It's just that nobody paid much attention to them until Harbaugh went over the top with the whole process.
Nope Peen state in the 2014/15 season was the first school to send coaches to another smaller schools camp to work there.
Well then, I stand corrected. I was sure I'd heard of Beamer doing something similar at ODU several years back. Memory ain't what it used to be, I guess.
Seems to me that the opportunity for a high school player to get noticed by colleges is better than ever, even without satellite camps.
This wasn't about getting noticed or general exposure. This was about specific large schools or conferences getting an advantage in recruiting.
1. I'd argue that it's more about certain large schools (in places like FL, TX, CA) trying to maintain their existing advantages in recruiting than it is about other large schools trying to gain an advantage.
2. While technology has indeed increased a player's ability to get noticed by coaches nationwide, no top program is likely to offer a scholarship based solely on a Hudl video or a Rivals article.
3. Regardless of the intent, it's clear that the effect of this policy will be to limit the opportunities of many football prospects. When judging a policy, is it more useful to measure the intent, or the results?
I'd argue that it's more about certain large schools trying to maintain their existing advantages in recruiting
no top program is likely to offer a scholarship based solely on a Hudl video or a Rivals article.
If, as you state, the goal of these camps was to maintain the recruiting advantage of certain schools, it seems to me the NCAA decision is correct.
Depends... The NCAA was original a program that looked out for student athletes. Now it's a quasi-governing body in charge of maintaining a somewhat level playing field for teams/schools.
There's no doubt that this is a net negative for recruits. I suppose one's opinion as to if this was a good or bad decision depends on how much of a negative you think this is for a recruit, and how much parody it provides (insures?) across the CFB landscape.
Personally, I think there are better solutions that benefit the recruit without giving a school too much power. Maybe restrict the number of in-state and out of state camps or require staffs from multiple universities/conferences to be present. To me, this seems like a not very well thought out solution by the NCAA.
Leaving it to be the wild wild west wouldn't be that great a solution, either.
With no NCAA, you'd have schools providing cash, hookers, and fake diplomas to high school students. Oh, wait...
If you're going to mix sports with money, you do need some limits, or you're going to have a handful of teams manipulating the situation.
Seems to me the NCAA does at least an OK job of looking out for student athletes. Many get an education out of college sports. Some get pro careers.
I think you misunderstood me. The goal of the camps was for geographically challenged programs to access more fertile recruiting grounds, not to maintain an advantage. They don't have an advantage to maintain. Schools not in the deep south, Texas, or California are not surrounded by D1 talent everywhere they look. The rule from the NCAA was designed as a protectionist measure to help the schools located in more talent-rich states/regions maintain their advantages, at the expense of everyone else.
I think it comes down to a simple concept. The football team should not be traveling in Spring semester. That's their chance to actually focus on academics, and making them travel in the spring just interrupts that cycle.
That was not banned. Still allowed.
well crap, they should ban off campus / out of town practices too.
That could be a reasonable proposition, but didn't the NCAA rule go far beyond that? If I'm understanding the ruling correctly, the coaches can't go and host a camp far from home. It's not limited to holding spring practice in Florida like UM did this spring.
edit: never mind. It looks like they didn't even address the spring practice issue.
or for Tech to set up a VT-aTm joint research facility in texas that also has football facilities. Yessir, these are regular facilities...
gross
Wow. That guy can really turn red, and fast.
You would too if you got shot in the neck by a Sharpy dart.
Would there have been a way to not eliminate these camps, but prevent schools like Michigan from holding practices at IMG academy? Because Satellite camps were beneficial to recruits, especially those that were less noticed and allowed northern schools to access recruits in the south/elsewhere. However, there is a big difference between holding practices at the most talent loaded "school" IMG academy because they can, and hosting satellite camps. One is a rich program taking advantage, the other is a benefit to student athletes.
Based on the comments above, it seems that the new rule does not prevent the whole spring-practice-in-Florida idea, so it's safe to assume that the two phenomena are not linked and what you suggested was indeed possible.
Welp, that makes me think they got this whole thing completely wrong then.
Did anyone hear the Mike/Mike discussion on this this morning? I didn't care very much about this issue and I realize that Mike/Mike usually don't delve deep enough to actually grasp the intricacies, but it changed my mind from being against satellite camps to being in favor. Simply put, what's best for the student-athletes?
Since when did the NCAA care about what's best for the student-athletes?
They don't but we should.
I would buy into it more if these camps were being held in remote locations where the players have an exposure problem. Instead, they were being held in talent rich areas where the players already have multiple options. Hold them in Idaho if we're so concerned about the diamonds not being discovered. This was always about colleges that have enough money to expand their footprint. I'm normally in favor of free market, but when colleges start conspiring together against other colleges, I draw the line. If schools want to poach the fertile recruiting grounds, they should have to do it the old fashioned way.
With all that said, I'm all in favor of 3rd party camps that have equal opportunity for everybody, and those are still allowed.
Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh made national news and ruffled plenty of feathers, especially in the SEC, last year with his "Summer Swarm" tour of satellite camps in Indiana, Alabama, Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas and California.
Michigan had camps scheduled this summer in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Florida and Texas
---- Michigan Live
Come on, now. This wasn't about giving high school students at 'the little sisters of the poor' general exposure. This was mostly about one school taking the arms race to a new level, and trying to parlay their name-brand and robust finances into an additional recruiting advantage.
I don't object to football camps that aren't completely geared towards giving one school or conference an advantage in exchange for financing it.
I'm not really feeling sorry for B1G football. They've done a great job of monetizing their football, but I suppose we shouldn't be surprised when they try and convert this to an even bigger advantage than it already is.
I thought this was an interesting look at some coaches perspectives on the banning of satellite camps:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/4/16/11436608/ncaa-satellite-camps-ban-coach-reaction
I wouldn't be shocked to see this ruling revisited in the next couple years - at the very least, with a little more regulation.
Wah... from that story, the ones whining about this the most are the ones who got called out on their BS. Screw the likes of ODU who set up these sweetheart deals to bring in schools from halfway across the country to pilfer the local talent in an effort to screw over their in-state rivals. I'm glad this ruling hurts them, and I hope it hurts them for a long while to come.
Schools like Michigan and Penn St don't need to host camps in Norfolk to recruit that talent. But by doing so, they were hoping to create 'home state' pipelines, bypassing VT and UVa in the process. Fuck that.
Looks like satellites camps are back in orbit....
The NCAA changed its mind, something they have never done before...
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2016/4/28/11511352/n...