wew lad

Ikes, if things were reversed and good athletes came from the Midwest and the SEC sucked and wanted camps there, you know you would be defending the NCAA now

Fair enough, in bizarro world I would be the one in favor of ****ing over a bunch of kids. Unfortunately, that still leaves SEC slappies as those people in the real world.


(And btw, this is very untrue. I would never, and never have, supported anything ****ing over student athletes in college athletics.)

IKESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Franklin started that **** anyway.

What's the ncaa's reasoning behind this? Doesn't make sense how they can even enforce this or how it's even legal they can make such a rule.

This, I know basically nothing about these camps but this seems like 100% lol ncaaa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

relevant:

It's just like any other NCAA rule. It's legal "because they say so" and is enforced by the usual variety of sanctions, from nothing to a slap on the wrist to Morehead State taking it fully in the ass.

I don't think anyone has really offered any particular justification* and in that sense it's a kind of a good thing -- it just further exposes the extent to which the NCAA and the P5 conferences have become corrupt, money-obsessed organizations.

It's 100% LOLNCAA.

* other than the SEC and ACC wanting to "protect their turf".

Tbf it does seem rather ridiculous

It will be interesting to see just how much this changes the landscape. I can certainly envision a scenario where more power shifts to the shoe companies, the dubious promoters, the 7 on 7 organizers, etc. Kinda of like how basketball works now. When the NCAA bans something, the activity just shifts to being run by people outside their jurisdiction.

Or it may have ~ no impact. Who knows.

It has the Michigan fans rustled, though.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B1G was the only P5 conference to vote for satellite camps

Just the SEC and ACC protecting turf tho

Get outta here with your logic

My apologies, I forgot the PAC and B12 would rather play golf in June.

So what's the rationale then Chad?

All the crying over the satellites and "what about the kids" is pretty lol. Do you think these scholarships are created out of thin air? You realize that when a kid from Prattville gets an opportunity to go to Michigan instead of South Alabama it means that a kid in Detroit has a scholarship taken away right?

It's a zero sum game. Satellite camps don't create more opportunites. They just move them around. There are lots of arguments for the camps, but they are mostly based on making recruiting better and more efficient and increasing the arms race and parity in CFB.

I guess you can argue that there aren't enough quality football camps for kids to go to and this would create more options and experiences for kids and that's a good thing, but that's pretty thin IMO. Anything Michigan was going to provide for kids in Prattville, they can provide to kids in their own area. The only thing to cry about is the fact that Prattville kids are better.

Ok. So why meddle in where a team can hold a camp?

Yeah, that's a fine argument. Just stop trying to pull my heart strings about the kid from GA who realized his lifelong dream to play at a power 5 school after Penn St held a satellite camp, unless you're going to talk about the PA kid who had his lifelong dream crushed when he got bumped from the list.

The real winners are the mediocre high school players up north who will get to play in the B1G now.

Well, that, and also third tier programs in the south who no longer have to compete with B1G schools for Les and Saban's leftovers. Auburn, for example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a fairly cynical view. Largely accurate, but cynical. And it's not in any way, shape or form a reason to ban satellite camps.

I think you undersell the last point pretty significantly. Why should a kid not have the opportunity to get a day of free or low cost coaching from D-1 coaches, close to home? Why should a poor kid's options be limited to schools nearby, unless he's a Marcus DuPree? Going to a camp may not result in a Michigan scholarship, but maybe the word gets out and Western Michigan or Illinois State or even a JC takes a look at a kid that otherwise might end up stocking shelves at Wal Mart, just because of where he was born. Sure, some kids are going to lose out and get bumped. That's the nature of the business. But more opportunity is always better than less opportunity.

And, no, now Michigan can't even do camps in their own area. Has to be on campus (essentially). When you read about how often it's hard for kids from as close by as Detroit to get to campus, the access issue is real.

How can you appeal for sympathy over the kid that will end up at wal mart but then say that the kid who ends up at wal mart in his place is just a victim of the "nature of the business". All you are arguing for is that the system should be more efficient at determining WHICH of the players end up at Wal Mart, which is a fine argument. But it's more an argument for the programs than the kids. There are no net opportunities gained, at Michigan, Illinois St, JUCO, or anywhere. More camps just means better scouting for the programs and more opportunities for the kids TO GO TO CAMPS.

That's fine if you think the NCAA is evil for taking away these learning experiences. The overall argument for more camps I get, and agree with. I have no problem with them. But there are no ACTUAL opportunities being created by satellite camps. The exact same number of kids will get scholarships at every level with or without the camps. So excuse me if the Wal Mart stories don't get me choked up.

We don't disagree on the fact that there are a finite number of scholarships.

But I don't agree with your assumption that the composition of who gets those scholarships is fundamentally the same and that it doesn't matter. It's not as simple as one camp kid gets a scholarship so one other kid ends up at Wal mart. A lot of the marginal kids who get scholarships in the no camp world - the kind that are going to get bumped down or out - are going to be those who have financial or geographical advantages. The financially advantaged, at least, probably aren't going to be deprived of a college education. Whereas the hypothetical camp kid would be. So in that sense it's not necessarily a zero sum game.

But you don't think that's important so we disagree. So be it.

Those are giant leaps in logic you are taking and I'm not buying that camp kids are more disadvantaged than the kids that have their scholarships bumped.

Poor kids from Houston or Jacksonville obviously have massive advantages in life over poor kids from Chicago or Fort Wayne.