NCAA expected to revisit satellite ban

Submitted by lilpenny1316 on

 

Oliver Luck, the NCAA’s executive vice president of regulatory affairs, said Monday morning while speaking to a meeting of the Northeast Ohio Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association, he expects the NCAA to revisit the recent rule to ban satellite camps.

 

LINK (DetNews).  Best news to come out of Ohio since Charles Woodson's birth announcement.

winterblue75

April 18th, 2016 at 11:48 AM ^

I bet that the compromise will be that Group of 5 schools can travel to Power 5 schools camps, but that the big boys will still be shutout of traveling off campus.

Surveillance Doe

April 18th, 2016 at 12:03 PM ^

I don't know the procedure, but my understanding is that this rubber-stamping that occurs on April 28 will be either an approval or a denial. I wouldn't be surprised if there is no mechanism for modifying something that has been voted into place or for enacting something altogether different at that time. This might be rejected with a subsequent proposal that includes some of the limitations others are discussing at a later date, but I think April 28 will simply be a yes or a no.

1VaBlue1

April 18th, 2016 at 12:18 PM ^

A lot of P5 schools also complained about that, led by Mike Leach.  I don't think they enact the Freeze Rule here - my thought is a total reversal to give them time to 'study' an alternative.  The last thing school presidents want is another backlash firestorm over a rash decision with no thought behind it.

Of course, this assumes the NCAA will use some self-respect and do something with common sense behind it...

mGrowOld

April 18th, 2016 at 11:48 AM ^

And the same people who voted against their own conference self-interest the first time will probably still vote against their own conference self-interest again because, in my opinion, they were paid off to do so.

Alton

April 18th, 2016 at 12:57 PM ^

The committee that might revisit the ruling later this month is the "Board of Directors," made up almost entirely of University presidents.  The committee that made the rule was the "Division I Council," made up mostly of athletic directors & conference executives.

I am confident that nobody is paying off a University president to vote in a certain way on a minor (to them) issue like this.  Generally they rubber-stamp the decisions of the Council, but not always when there is a controversy and there are questions of "fairness" involved.

EDIT:  here is a list of the people who voted for & against the ban.  Eight of the ten are athletic directors.  Timothy Day is a professor and Maggie McKinley is an Associate Athletic Director.

    YES (10 votes)
ACC:  Blake James, Miami (2 votes)
B12:  Timothy Day, Iowa State (2 votes) [Professor]
MWC:  Paul Krebs, New Mexico
P12:  Daniel Guerrero, UCLA (2 votes)
SEC:  Mitch Barnhart, Kentucky (2 votes)
SBC:  Larry Teis, Texas State

    NO (5 votes)
AAC:  Maggie McKinley, Cincinnati [Associate AD]
B1G:  James Phillips, Northwestern (2 votes)
CUSA:  Judith Rose, Charlotte
MAC:  Michael O'Brien, Toledo

Jackie Moon

April 18th, 2016 at 12:09 PM ^

I think you are giving the voters too much credit.  Outside of the traditional hookers and blow, I doubt the voters received any compensation from the SEC.  Taking cash directly is crossing a line--a big line.

The sunbelt and mountain west pads the SEC schedule and gain tv exposure and puts cash in the schools pockets--their vote was strictly business in my opinion.  The big 12 have texas; the pac 12 have california--two of the three biggest recruiting states in the union.

SAMgO

April 18th, 2016 at 11:57 AM ^

I wouldn't be surprised if they end up allowing a limited number per school, probably less than 5. That's better than nothing, but has absolutely no sound logic behind it. They'd pitch it as a reasonable compromise to appease all parties, but if you're admitting that these camps are a good thing, what grounds are there to put a low cap on them? If Michigan holds 30 camps and there's enough interest among players to fill all of them, who exactly is it hurting?

I understand I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but it's just another head scratcher I'm expecting from the higher ups.

Jackie Moon

April 18th, 2016 at 12:29 PM ^

I wonder if that means the legislation dies or goes back to the committee.  And if it does go back to the committee, when will they get to vote on it again—if it is next year that means, we might have camps this years like last—which means Hugh is not going to be able to spend time with his family.  This is not good.  Not good at all.  Think about the children, people, Hugh’s children.

 

M-Dog

April 19th, 2016 at 1:10 AM ^

Harbaugh will just come up with something else.

They really have no choice but to outright ban Harbaugh from college football entirely.  

Send him back to the NFL and reinstate Brady Hoke as Head Coach and Rich Rod as Defensive Coordiantor.

It has to be done.  Think of the children.

 

maizenblue92

April 18th, 2016 at 11:59 AM ^

I bet they allow them, but limit them to like five per year. So coaches who don't like work still don't have to work that hard to keep up with jackhammer that is Harbaugh.

707oxford

April 18th, 2016 at 7:10 PM ^

What world are you people living in?

I have lost all faith in people admitting they are at fault or wrong about anything. Despite logic and data staring them right in the face, most people insist on holding firm to their sh*tty position, even if it means avoiding a resolution that is in everyone's best interest.

michigandune

April 18th, 2016 at 11:59 AM ^

I would think they might limit the number of camps you can have outside the 50 mile radius zone.   Maybe they will limit it to say 4 camps.  

OT-- can we please tell Jim Delany it's time to retire.  As much as I hated SEC's Greg Sankey, at least he stuck up for his conference,

EJG

April 18th, 2016 at 6:42 PM ^

This would be an interesting ruling as SMSB is within our 50 miles radius, but outside Sparty's and OSU's.  D'Antoni would attend SMSB, but would Urbs give up his opportunity to troll Michigan for more productive OSU recruiting areas?

 

PopeLando

April 18th, 2016 at 12:00 PM ^

Given the NCAA's level of competence recently, we can expect them to not only uphold the satellite camp ban, but also ban Jim Harbaugh specifically from walking, talking, coaching, and using his left hand while employed at U of M. Because think of the children

Jackie Moon

April 18th, 2016 at 12:23 PM ^

I think the PAC-12 was in a real pickle here.  They have a long, established relationship with the BIG 10.  From a business standpoint, I am guessing they wanted to express support with the BIG 10.  From a recruiting standpoint--I doubt many of the schools wanted to see the BIG 10 and the SEC camping out in California.

The coaches can side with the BIG 10 and public opinion after the fact--and still get their way.

evenyoubrutus

April 18th, 2016 at 12:06 PM ^

It wouldn't surprise me if they made some sort of "compromise, like putting a limit on the number of camps a coach can work off campus or something. I'm not sure if that's even legally feasible but if it is it would seem likely. It's hard to imagine the NCAA turning around and saying "oops we really fucked this one up!" And doing a total reversal.

Ali G Bomaye

April 18th, 2016 at 12:24 PM ^

I'm struggling to see the logic behind such a compromise. If the NCAA decides that satellite camps are bad, it should ban them entirely.  If the NCAA decides that satellite camps are neutral or good, it shouldn't regulate them at all.

As has been discussed extensively, the only people satellite camps "hurt" are coaches who lose free time putting them on.  And the NCAA shouldn't be in the business of protecting the free time of people who voluntarily work in a profession that earns them millions of dollars per year.

LSAClassOf2000

April 18th, 2016 at 12:11 PM ^

“This affects a lot of people,” Harbaugh said. “You’re hearing a lot of voices talking about how it affects them, the players they coach or a family member of players at different universities talking about what Sound Mind Sound Body meant to them. That’s how they got an opportunity. I think you’re seeing and will see more and more evidence. If we can keep the topic in front of people, we’re for that.”

That has been the best way to fight all along, stoke the fire and let them know who is being hurt by the NCAA with such a decision. I am actually glad - shocked in a way -that they are willing to take a second look at it, although I am a little skeptical that the solution they come up with would be a "never mind" on the ban altogether. It would be nice if that was the ultimate effect though, that the ban lasted mere weeks and became a few paragraphs in the chronicles of NCAA ineptitude.