NCAA Bans Satellite Camps
"You can't put it past rule makers to make another dumb rule" - Jim Harbaugh
NCAA D1 council has shut down satellite camps pic.twitter.com/ifCJG6yDds
— Bryan Fischer (@BryanDFischer) April 8, 2016
Satellite camps could've been very helpful in opening up opportunities for young players to get out of SEC country. Some kids actually want a real education.
Donate $100,000 or so to a high school football program down south. Ask for naming rights. Add it to your policy book citing it as one of your practice facilities. Profit.
Suffice it to say that this is a ludicrous ruling by the NCAA. And if my suggestion above wouldn't work, tell me how a school opens a new facility under this rule?
UNC investigation: 5 years and still waiting
burn it down to the ground.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
From an administrative perspective, I think satellite camps could and would get very out of control. These camps were likely to turn into traveling dog-and-pony shows that included one-upmanship at its highest forms. A lot of money would be wasted, and kids already have too many camps available to attend without 128 teams holding satellite camps. In many ways, I do think this is a good rule for the student-athletes themselves.
But I do partially agree with you. However, I don't think they should have been banned outright. A limit on the number would have seemed more appropiarte, in my mind.
I could see that. And, you know, maybe banning them outright might be a temporary solution to an out-of-control problem until the NCAA can come up with a better solution, such as a limit on the number of camps. Stop it now, take a year or two to think about it, and then allow teams to hold 1 or 2 satellite camps per year.
Not trying to be contrary, honestly think you need to explain your reasoning. Why is having more options for camps bad for prospective student-athletes? If there are too many camps, then some of them will be poorly attended and in future years there will be fewer camps as a result.
Having worked with student-athletes who want to play in college, there's a certain sense of "There's a camp within two hours, so I have to go." You have parents and whole families paying hundreds and thousands of dollars to travel, take days off work, pay entrance fees, etc. The whole summer gets filled up with attending camps rather than working out with your team, rather than relaxing, etc. It turns 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds into those creepy kids you see on "American Idol" who are so desperate for their chance at fame that they follow the audition tour from state to state.
I also think it opens up a huge can of worms from the compliance end, because it's one thing to control interactions on campus. It's quite another to control interactions with hundreds of high schoolers when you're on the road, in their hometowns, going from town to town, etc.
Are the kids that attend camps obligated to go?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
It's not the universities' money I'm discussing.
As for families and such, I cannot stress to you enough how parents are often goaded into thinking that going to these camps will get their kids recruited with full scholarships. Yes, it's their choice, but people can be delusional. More camps equal more chances for people to be led astray from their money.
I also have other concerns, some of which I have laid out elsewhere in this thread.
I mean the market is flooded with camps now with random unaffiliated camps, NFL players having camps, so called gurus having camps, ESPN, RIvials, Scout etc. camps, Nike Camps and I don't think there are Addidas or UA camps but I'm sure they are coming down the pipe if they don't exist yet. These are all for the purpose of getting better at football and/or increasing your ranking on recruiting sites for the purpose of more exposure so you can go to college for free. My question is why not eliminate the middleman? Why go to a Rivals camp so maybe you can get some buzz and get coaches to notice you when you could just go directly to the coaches? Want an offer from Jim Harbaugh but you can't afford to go all the way to Ann Arbor, he'll be in a town near you go preform your best in front of his eyes and hear the answer from the man himself at a much smaller cost to the player and his family. This goes for all players and all coaches, if a kid in Los Angelos wants to play in the SEC but can't travel across country then the SEC comes to him, and vice versa for the Pac-12. I mean no one has a gun these kids heads forcing them to go to camps, pick which ones your interested in just like they already do now. The successful camps will thrive and the unsuccessful ones probably won't, this is the free market at work. Saying there would be too many chooses that it would overwhelm their little 17 year old minds is complete, unabashed bullshit. I can see ZERO argument against sattelite camps other than southern schools thinking they own every kid that grows up south of the Mason-Dixon line like their goddamn slaves, made for the soul purpose of making their pale white asses some money and god forbidden they leave the plantation to get a real eduaction or even get that option presented to them. The more I think about this, the more it pisses me off.
Has Delany been fired yet? Where was he in this fight? Oh, wait. OSU wasn't involved...
Would it be possible to host an event in other regions of the country for high school kids and coaches to attend that doesn't involve onfield or physical activity?
For instance, maybe a seminar or conference in which football is talked about that could include film breakdown and coaching enhancement that isn't physical in nature. It would still serve a purpose of getting to meet kids and coaches in person so they get a feel for what the staff is all about.
Honestly, I think some of you are way more riled up about this than necessary just because you're Michigan fans. These satellite camps were not very productive for us last year from a recruiting perspective, and the impact is likely minimal.
As for a "geographical advantage," welcome to geography. It's not the first or last time that some institution has to overcome geographical disadvantages. There's nothing in the NCAA bylaws stating that we all need to be equal in the eyes of geography.
That being said, I think this is a bit silly from the NCAA's perspective. There are other, bigger issues that perhaps they should have cracked down on first. Oh well.
It's about spreading the brand of Michigan, which has taken a huge dent since RR and Hoke. The kids in the south don't know a thing about Michigan being a winning program, they've just seen a ton of losing in the 2000s.
The effect that results from these camps and making connections with the various coaches and academies will come over a 5-10 year span, not right away.
So do what every other team has had to do: Win games and earn attention on the field. It's not like Michigan's never on TV or lacks visibility. I think a lot of what you just wrote is hogwash, frankly. We're not Old Dominion or UTSA.
Over the past decade?? Watching OSU and MSU absolutely kick the shit out of Michigan? Let's not get things twisted here, Michigan doesn't have the cache it used to, as much as it pains us fans to admit. Haven't been to the BTC once, haven't won a conference title in a decade, and other than last year and Hoke's first, the product has been crap.
So yeah, the team may not be Old Dominion, but there is a big band aid that needs to be applied to fix the damage. And these camps are part of the process.
Of course, winning cures all, but what else can he do right now?? It's the off-season, and he's thinking outside the box to try and get Michigan's name back up.
You're strengthening my initial statement, which is that this matters to you people so much because it hurts MICHIGAN, not because it's necessarily a bad rule.
The NCAA should not conduct its business based on helping Michigan apply a Band-Aid to its tarnished reputation any more than they should allow Miami or UNC or SMU special allowances to fix their reputations.
Period. Not sure why exactly you are taking their side on this. Nothing in the rules said that coaches can't go host these camps. And nothing said that SEC schools couldn't come up to Michigan, or Ohio, or any other midwest talent pool.
They just whined because it's too damn cold up there, the SEC has been king and is in the NCAA's pocket, and someone came in and riled them up. They haven't had someone like Harbaugh ruffle their feathers since powdered wigs, and they couldn't handle it.
I'm "taking their side" because I think it's closer to the right solution. I don't really care whose side it is. The NCAA isn't necessarily wrong just because it's the NCAA.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
So I don't have to repeat myself, please look at my other comments in this thread.
That's what it looks like to me. If the SEC wants to compete for players from the North by doing camps here, that's fine with us. What whiners.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I don't think that's accurate. They instituted a rule change to prevent 127 other teams from copying Michigan's dog-and-pony show. It's not about stopping what already happened. It's about stopping the train before it goes off the rails.
Trivially it's not about stopping what already happened, since that's, like, impossible.
You must be pretty convinced that the slippery slope concerns you mentioned above are likely to come to fruitition, because you support a full ban on all satellite camps. I don't see how you can be that confident about it. If the satellite camps don't help the hosting school very much or at all (as you've claimed), then why should we worry about a flood of camps? Are all 127 schools just blind to the information that you have regarding the ineffectiveness of the camps?
You're picking and choosing bits and pieces of my argument. I don't think this line of discussion is going anywhere.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I think you're mis-representing my concerns.
I think your conclusion that these camps did not help last year is a bit short sighted and wrong. Everyone will agree that recruiting is about building up long term relationships with key programs across the country. You may not see the immediate result in one year, but benefits will come over time.
Regarding the short term benefit, look at the number of players Michigan is already gaining interest in from Alabama and Florida after just one year of satellite camps. Washington & Davis (already on campus) and Woods (committed but not signed) from Alabama is more in a two year period than I have seen in my history of following Michigan.
You can still build relationships. You just can't build them by having them host satellite camps. This is no different for Michigan than it was prior to 2015.
Also, Keith Washington and Kingston Davis both committed to Michigan before a single satellite camp was held. Michigan is making more inroads in Alabama and Florida for various reasons, not just because of these satellite camps.
How do you know the impact these camps were having 4, 5 years down the line? No one is saying this is a huge bone-crushing finale to Michigan's recruiting, but these things are important to the overall process.
I don't "know." Nobody "knows" anything that hasn't happened yet.
Regardless, Ohio State has done just fine in recruiting, and they are also in the north. Wisconsin, Michigan State, etc. have also built strong programs. And again, the process in 2016 will be no different than it was prior to the last couple seasons when these satellite camps started.
There are infiinte ways to build relationships, but satellite camps were a great way to do it that benefited pretty much everyone involved.
Regarding Washingto & Davis, they may have committed before the camps were actually held, but (at least for Davis for sure) they committed most likely after the head coach at Prattville knew and agreed to the camps. Again, relationships.
Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, satellite camps are/were beneficial because they were on such a small scale. When every team everywhere starts doing them, then things would probably get pretty crazy.
I have a hard time believing that Kingston Davis only ended up at Michigan because there was going to be a satellite camp there two months later. IIRC, he committed in early April and the camp was held in early June. But if that's what you want to believe, then so be it.
I believe the biggest value to Michigan is the amount of press coverage Harbaugh/Michigan received from the opposition to the summer camps. Michigan/Harbaugh was in the news for almost the entirety of the off season. Ditto for IMC. While Michigan was never irrelevant on a national scale, before Harbaugh arrived, our image over the last few coaching regimes was a bit tarnished.
The luster has been largely restored. Win the BIG and we are back. Play in an NC game, and recruiting in the old manner is back to where it was.
I wonder where Delany stood with respect to the NCAA ruling.
And that deluge of press would have diminished when a) that practice became old hat and b) every team started doing it.
I've said this before - but not in this thread - I think Michigan got a bump of attention from the satellite camps, and it's good that Harbaugh got in ahead of the rush. But this wasn't going to last, so Michigan enjoyed it while they could. If Harbaugh didn't do it, someone else would have, and we would have been left out in the cold when the ban came.
It's like the A-11 offense. Kudos to the guy who came up with it and ran it. Then it got banned. Now it's back to the drawing board.
"You are wrong on this one because you chose the contrarian position."
This doesn't make any sense.
I appreciate your reasoned approach to this, but I must disagree.
First, you're probably correct that this will not have a major affect on Michigan's football recruiting, at least in the near term. Michigan has a big-time reputation, and Harbaugh is a rock star.
However, I think this ruling was important for three reasons:
1. Michigan recruiting long-term.
I feel like Harbaugh is creating a new blueprint for recruiting. A bit part of that is establishing regular contact with players and especially coaches in key recruiting areas around the country. Michigan must recruit nationally to succeed.
Of course, there are other paths toward that goal; however, I felt these camps could become an integral part of our overall recruitment plan. Harbaugh isn't going to be our coach forever. Building a best in class recruiting platform/structure will greatly help whoever follows.
2. Geographic balance and BIG
On a basic level, southern schools and coaches are protecting their turf. I can't blame them for considering their self interest. The long-term trend is inescapable; an ever-increasing percentage of good football players hail from the south.
I want the BIG to be the premier conference. Some don't care about the rest of the conference; I do. OSU and Michigan are absolutely dominating the rest of the conference on the recruiting trail. I don't want a return to "big 2, little 8" (or 12). BIG schools are gonna have to recruit in the south to stay competitive.
Satellite camps provided a real opportunity for less-known programs in the BIG to build relationships and credibility down there. It was only a matter of time until they recognized the value. This is a lost opportunity for everyone.
3. Right and Wrong.
This is my biggest beef, and it has nothing to do with Michigan. The NCAA caved to SEC/ACC coaches, to the detriment of kids and coaches. They openly displayed their favoritism.
I'm terribly worried that my favorite sports (college football and hoops) are going to be destroyed by money and corruption. While this ruling isn't apocalyptic by any stretch, it furthers my belief that the NCAA has no interest in fair play or supporting student athletes.
1. The satellite thing camp wasn't tenable, though. That's the part that's missing from your argument. This would not have REMAINED an advantage. Other teams would copy Harbaugh. He was simply the first to do it. It's like Rich Rodriguez's zone read option. Sure, it gave him a leg up for a few years, and then people started to copy it, tweak it, and put it to their own uses. It gave WVU a short-term advantage, which faded relatively quickly.
2. You're right that it's a lost opportunity for everyone, but that's not what the NCAA is about. It's not about creating recruiting opportunities for Purdue, Indiana, Tulane, etc. Again, there is nothing in the NCAA bylaws saying that every program needs to be on equal footing in every aspect.
3. As others have said, the NCAA didn't decide this. Its member institutions decided this. The U.S. government did not make Barack Obama our president; the voters/electoral college made him our president. If the members of the NCAA wanted satellite camps, they wouldn't have voted to ban them. This isn't "Big Brother" or "The Man" holding us down. This is how any organization works.
1. Agree to disagree. I don't care if other schools would have jumped in; in fact, I welcome that. Everyone having an equal shot at working with local coaches and teaching local kids is nothing but good.
Given our early adopter status, our brand, and our reputation for doing things very well, I think we would compete very nicely with anyone from out of area. Most of all, the biggest positive of the camps was to compete with SEC coaches in their backyard. The more schools doing it the better IMO. If 100 schools are messing with the SEC, great!
2. We basically agree.
3. I don't know enough about the NCAA structure to argue effectively. What exactly is the "D1 Council"? I honestly don't know. Is it a committee voted on by members, or hired/appointed by NCAA leadership?
Sure, the NCAA president is chosen by members, but that doesn't necessarily mean this rule was voted on by members. To use your example, I can vote for president, yet still be outraged by a Supreme Court ruling, The people chose the president, but they didn't vote on the Justices.
Let me clearly state that I honestly don't know how the "D1 Council" works. It sure smells like a group of people who could be bought (like the FIFA group that chooses World Cup host cities.).
If this was enacted on a vote of all NCAA member schools (or all D1 schools, or even all Power 5 schools), then I'll just vehemently disagree with their decision.