(04-13-2016 12:26 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 12:03 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 11:50 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 11:46 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 11:04 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Just trying to understand how the kids benefit:

Without the satellite camps:

Prospect A gets a scholarship
Prospect B is unnoticed and does not get a scholarship although he could be a slightly better talent than A (but maybe not since it is such a crap shoot)

With the satellite camps:
Prospect B gets a scholarship offer
Prospect A loses his offer.

Overall it is a zero sum game in terms of the student athlete. The camps mostly serve to benefit the schools and it creates many, many more problems than it solves.

Having an opportunity and not being successful is different than being denied the opportunity.

You are implying satellite camps are the only means to potentially earn a scholarship.

You should talk to athletes to determine whether camps helped or harmed their efforts.

You mean their parents since we are talking about 15-17 year old minors? Unless you think the NCAA needs to start letting the 15-17 year olds call the shots.

I think maybe 15 year olds could do a better job than some of the sociopaths in $1000 dollar suits have been doing with this sport.