(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.

(04-13-2016 01:26 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(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:  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.

This may be an SEC thing, but a lot of other conferences voted for it as well. I believe the only P5 not to vote for it was the B1G. The SBC and MWC felt (apparently mostly) that it was also in their best interest.

Now maybe, just maybe, the NCAA thought of this as a way to help level the playing field for D1 colleges. This could really help some G5 and FCS programs. Lets say a player is under the radar and is currently commited to an FCS program, but a big P5 from 1000 miles away comes to a local high school or D2/D3 school and then the commit is on their radar. He maybe seen as a backup or simply has potential, but won't likely start until his junior year (if ever) at the P5. At the FCS school he would be an instant starter and likely get just as good, if not better, education. Which is better for the player/student? Which helps level the playing field?

(04-13-2016 02:04 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 01:26 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(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:  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.

This may be an SEC thing, but a lot of other conferences voted for it as well. I believe the only P5 not to vote for it was the B1G. The SBC and MWC felt (apparently mostly) that it was also in their best interest.

Now maybe, just maybe, the NCAA thought of this as a way to help level the playing field for D1 colleges. This could really help some G5 and FCS programs. Lets say a player is under the radar and is currently commited to an FCS program, but a big P5 from 1000 miles away comes to a local high school or D2/D3 school and then the commit is on their radar. He maybe seen as a backup or simply has potential, but won't likely start until his junior year (if ever) at the P5. At the FCS school he would be an instant starter and likely get just as good, if not better, education. Which is better for the player/student? Which helps level the playing field?

I have no idea what transpired.

But I do know that the NCAA should not be trying to manipulate players by removing options...whether they are doing it for competitive advantage....or as benevolent despots with good intentions.

Give players access to as many opportunities and choices as are practicable and then let them decide for themselves.

(04-13-2016 02:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:04 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 01:26 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

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

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

This may be an SEC thing, but a lot of other conferences voted for it as well. I believe the only P5 not to vote for it was the B1G. The SBC and MWC felt (apparently mostly) that it was also in their best interest.

Now maybe, just maybe, the NCAA thought of this as a way to help level the playing field for D1 colleges. This could really help some G5 and FCS programs. Lets say a player is under the radar and is currently commited to an FCS program, but a big P5 from 1000 miles away comes to a local high school or D2/D3 school and then the commit is on their radar. He maybe seen as a backup or simply has potential, but won't likely start until his junior year (if ever) at the P5. At the FCS school he would be an instant starter and likely get just as good, if not better, education. Which is better for the player/student? Which helps level the playing field?

I have no idea what transpired.

But I do know that the NCAA should not be trying to manipulate players by removing options...whether they are doing it for competitive advantage....or as benevolent despots with good intentions.

Give players access to as many opportunities and choices as are practicable and then let them decide for themselves.

You do realize you he NCAA did not mandate this and that it was supported in a 10-5 vote that consisted of all 129 institutions.

You seem to have a problem with it he democratic voting process and would prefer a dictator versus a voting body.

(04-13-2016 02:38 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:04 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 01:26 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

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

This may be an SEC thing, but a lot of other conferences voted for it as well. I believe the only P5 not to vote for it was the B1G. The SBC and MWC felt (apparently mostly) that it was also in their best interest.

Now maybe, just maybe, the NCAA thought of this as a way to help level the playing field for D1 colleges. This could really help some G5 and FCS programs. Lets say a player is under the radar and is currently commited to an FCS program, but a big P5 from 1000 miles away comes to a local high school or D2/D3 school and then the commit is on their radar. He maybe seen as a backup or simply has potential, but won't likely start until his junior year (if ever) at the P5. At the FCS school he would be an instant starter and likely get just as good, if not better, education. Which is better for the player/student? Which helps level the playing field?

I have no idea what transpired.

But I do know that the NCAA should not be trying to manipulate players by removing options...whether they are doing it for competitive advantage....or as benevolent despots with good intentions.

Give players access to as many opportunities and choices as are practicable and then let them decide for themselves.

You do realize you he NCAA did not mandate this and that it was supported in a 10-5 vote that consisted of all 129 institutions.

You seem to have a problem with it he democratic voting process and would prefer a dictator versus a voting body.

We voted for slavery at one point in time.

You seem to think that the mere act of voting legitimizes whatever is voted for.

This is why we have things like the Bill of Rights that prohibit us for voting for terrible things...like we too often do.

The NCAA's dedication to the high principle of "democracy" is best demonstrated by their recent "we're worth two votes, you are worth one vote" BS.

If you want to argue about the NCAA being a high-minded democratic body interested in equalite and fraternite then knock yoself out...it'll be a lonely fight.

(04-13-2016 02:45 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:38 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:04 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 01:26 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  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.

This may be an SEC thing, but a lot of other conferences voted for it as well. I believe the only P5 not to vote for it was the B1G. The SBC and MWC felt (apparently mostly) that it was also in their best interest.

Now maybe, just maybe, the NCAA thought of this as a way to help level the playing field for D1 colleges. This could really help some G5 and FCS programs. Lets say a player is under the radar and is currently commited to an FCS program, but a big P5 from 1000 miles away comes to a local high school or D2/D3 school and then the commit is on their radar. He maybe seen as a backup or simply has potential, but won't likely start until his junior year (if ever) at the P5. At the FCS school he would be an instant starter and likely get just as good, if not better, education. Which is better for the player/student? Which helps level the playing field?

I have no idea what transpired.

But I do know that the NCAA should not be trying to manipulate players by removing options...whether they are doing it for competitive advantage....or as benevolent despots with good intentions.

Give players access to as many opportunities and choices as are practicable and then let them decide for themselves.

You do realize you he NCAA did not mandate this and that it was supported in a 10-5 vote that consisted of all 129 institutions.

You seem to have a problem with it he democratic voting process and would prefer a dictator versus a voting body.

We voted for slavery at one point in time.

You seem to think that the mere act of voting legitimizes whatever is voted for.

This is why we have things like the Bill of Rights that prohibit us for voting for terrible things...like we too often do.

The NCAA's dedication to the high principle of "democracy" is best demonstrated by their recent "we're worth two votes, you are worth one vote" BS.

If you want to argue about the NCAA being a high-minded democratic body interested in equalite and fraternite then knock yoself out...it'll be a lonely fight.

The P5's are essentially "Superdelegates".

(04-13-2016 02:45 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:38 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:04 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 01:26 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  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.

This may be an SEC thing, but a lot of other conferences voted for it as well. I believe the only P5 not to vote for it was the B1G. The SBC and MWC felt (apparently mostly) that it was also in their best interest.

Now maybe, just maybe, the NCAA thought of this as a way to help level the playing field for D1 colleges. This could really help some G5 and FCS programs. Lets say a player is under the radar and is currently commited to an FCS program, but a big P5 from 1000 miles away comes to a local high school or D2/D3 school and then the commit is on their radar. He maybe seen as a backup or simply has potential, but won't likely start until his junior year (if ever) at the P5. At the FCS school he would be an instant starter and likely get just as good, if not better, education. Which is better for the player/student? Which helps level the playing field?

I have no idea what transpired.

But I do know that the NCAA should not be trying to manipulate players by removing options...whether they are doing it for competitive advantage....or as benevolent despots with good intentions.

Give players access to as many opportunities and choices as are practicable and then let them decide for themselves.

You do realize you he NCAA did not mandate this and that it was supported in a 10-5 vote that consisted of all 129 institutions.

You seem to have a problem with it he democratic voting process and would prefer a dictator versus a voting body.

We voted for slavery at one point in time.

You seem to think that the mere act of voting legitimizes whatever is voted for.

This is why we have things like the Bill of Rights that prohibit us for voting for terrible things...like we too often do.

The NCAA's dedication to the high principle of "democracy" is best demonstrated by their recent "we're worth two votes, you are worth one vote" BS.

If you want to argue about the NCAA being a high-minded democratic body interested in equalite and fraternite then knock yoself out...it'll be a lonely fight.

You have the option to file a lawsuit in the court system if you believe the vote to end satellite camps was illegal/unjust or you received damages as a result. Tell it to the Judge!

(04-13-2016 02:38 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:04 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 01:26 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

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

This may be an SEC thing, but a lot of other conferences voted for it as well. I believe the only P5 not to vote for it was the B1G. The SBC and MWC felt (apparently mostly) that it was also in their best interest.

Now maybe, just maybe, the NCAA thought of this as a way to help level the playing field for D1 colleges. This could really help some G5 and FCS programs. Lets say a player is under the radar and is currently commited to an FCS program, but a big P5 from 1000 miles away comes to a local high school or D2/D3 school and then the commit is on their radar. He maybe seen as a backup or simply has potential, but won't likely start until his junior year (if ever) at the P5. At the FCS school he would be an instant starter and likely get just as good, if not better, education. Which is better for the player/student? Which helps level the playing field?

I have no idea what transpired.

But I do know that the NCAA should not be trying to manipulate players by removing options...whether they are doing it for competitive advantage....or as benevolent despots with good intentions.

Give players access to as many opportunities and choices as are practicable and then let them decide for themselves.

You do realize you he NCAA did not mandate this and that it was supported in a 10-5 vote that consisted of all 129 institutions.

You seem to have a problem with it he democratic voting process and would prefer a dictator versus a voting body.

No prefer that the representatives actually represent.

Blake Anderson is on FCA Board of Directors as the Sun Belt representative. The FCA has asked the board to poll the people they represent to see if there was a consensus so the FCA could make a decision as to whether to take a position. Blake stated today that every Sun Belt coach favored restoring satellite camps.

Oregon has said they favor camps, Oregon State was using them, Stanford after the dust-up the other day has said they are "not opposed to the camps" even though they will not use them. Mike Leach favors the camps and advises coaches to shut up and quit worrying about Jim Harbaugh. Utah defensive coordinator says he wants the camps. Bill Snyder says he has mixed feelings. Wake Forest coach says he favors the camps. Mike Gundy used them at Oklahoma State. Hugh Freeze said he personally didn't want to do them to have more time off but thinks its terrible for G5 coaches especially the assistants because he hires G5 assistants to work his camps and now cannot.

All of the above from leagues that voted for the ban.

Tommy Tuberville predicts the ban will be over-turned by the Board.

Just fun, Andy Staples of SI says the Big 12, Pac-12, Sun Belt and MWC are either stupid, corrupt, or a combination of the two for supporting the ban.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/...power-five

Stewart Mandel of Fox Sports, calls for the NCAA to overturn the decision.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ban-041116

High school coach in Miami says ban hurts his players.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/highs...story.html

High school coaches in Ohio dislike the ban
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state...e-camp-ban

(04-13-2016 02:59 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:45 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:38 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:04 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  This may be an SEC thing, but a lot of other conferences voted for it as well. I believe the only P5 not to vote for it was the B1G. The SBC and MWC felt (apparently mostly) that it was also in their best interest.

Now maybe, just maybe, the NCAA thought of this as a way to help level the playing field for D1 colleges. This could really help some G5 and FCS programs. Lets say a player is under the radar and is currently commited to an FCS program, but a big P5 from 1000 miles away comes to a local high school or D2/D3 school and then the commit is on their radar. He maybe seen as a backup or simply has potential, but won't likely start until his junior year (if ever) at the P5. At the FCS school he would be an instant starter and likely get just as good, if not better, education. Which is better for the player/student? Which helps level the playing field?

I have no idea what transpired.

But I do know that the NCAA should not be trying to manipulate players by removing options...whether they are doing it for competitive advantage....or as benevolent despots with good intentions.

Give players access to as many opportunities and choices as are practicable and then let them decide for themselves.

You do realize you he NCAA did not mandate this and that it was supported in a 10-5 vote that consisted of all 129 institutions.

You seem to have a problem with it he democratic voting process and would prefer a dictator versus a voting body.

We voted for slavery at one point in time.

You seem to think that the mere act of voting legitimizes whatever is voted for.

This is why we have things like the Bill of Rights that prohibit us for voting for terrible things...like we too often do.

The NCAA's dedication to the high principle of "democracy" is best demonstrated by their recent "we're worth two votes, you are worth one vote" BS.

If you want to argue about the NCAA being a high-minded democratic body interested in equalite and fraternite then knock yoself out...it'll be a lonely fight.

You have the option to file a lawsuit in the court system if you believe the vote to end satellite camps was illegal/unjust or you received damages as a result. Tell it to the Judge!

There is still the NCAA Board of Directors, democracy ain't done yet.

(04-13-2016 03:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:59 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:45 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:38 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I have no idea what transpired.

But I do know that the NCAA should not be trying to manipulate players by removing options...whether they are doing it for competitive advantage....or as benevolent despots with good intentions.

Give players access to as many opportunities and choices as are practicable and then let them decide for themselves.

You do realize you he NCAA did not mandate this and that it was supported in a 10-5 vote that consisted of all 129 institutions.

You seem to have a problem with it he democratic voting process and would prefer a dictator versus a voting body.

We voted for slavery at one point in time.

You seem to think that the mere act of voting legitimizes whatever is voted for.

This is why we have things like the Bill of Rights that prohibit us for voting for terrible things...like we too often do.

The NCAA's dedication to the high principle of "democracy" is best demonstrated by their recent "we're worth two votes, you are worth one vote" BS.

If you want to argue about the NCAA being a high-minded democratic body interested in equalite and fraternite then knock yoself out...it'll be a lonely fight.

You have the option to file a lawsuit in the court system if you believe the vote to end satellite camps was illegal/unjust or you received damages as a result. Tell it to the Judge!

There is still the NCAA Board of Directors, democracy ain't done yet.

Well, he's right. Sooner or later the courts are going to deal with the whole rotten structure. "Abuse brings control" applies in more than one situation.

(04-13-2016 03:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:59 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:45 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:38 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 02:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I have no idea what transpired.

But I do know that the NCAA should not be trying to manipulate players by removing options...whether they are doing it for competitive advantage....or as benevolent despots with good intentions.

Give players access to as many opportunities and choices as are practicable and then let them decide for themselves.

You do realize you he NCAA did not mandate this and that it was supported in a 10-5 vote that consisted of all 129 institutions.

You seem to have a problem with it he democratic voting process and would prefer a dictator versus a voting body.

We voted for slavery at one point in time.

You seem to think that the mere act of voting legitimizes whatever is voted for.

This is why we have things like the Bill of Rights that prohibit us for voting for terrible things...like we too often do.

The NCAA's dedication to the high principle of "democracy" is best demonstrated by their recent "we're worth two votes, you are worth one vote" BS.

If you want to argue about the NCAA being a high-minded democratic body interested in equalite and fraternite then knock yoself out...it'll be a lonely fight.

You have the option to file a lawsuit in the court system if you believe the vote to end satellite camps was illegal/unjust or you received damages as a result. Tell it to the Judge!

There is still the NCAA Board of Directors, democracy ain't done yet.

It won't get overturned. Harbaugh and the B1G were about to engage in nuclear war and nobody wins that. As a result a complete ceasefire had to be implemented until an alternative can be worked out.

I would think the in state ban will be lifted first. Then maybe additional concessions will be made as we see how each change works out. Baby steps.

Why not lift all restrictions, give all the talented kids the ability to play for any team that wants them no matter of they already have 85+ players. The argument that this hurts the recruits is bogus. If they are good they will get an offer, just maybe not from their preferred school.

(04-13-2016 03:58 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  Why not lift all restrictions, give all the talented kids the ability to play for any team that wants them no matter of they already have 85+ players. The argument that this hurts the recruits is bogus. If they are good they will get an offer, just maybe not from their preferred school.

Yeah it doesn't hurt a kid to have fewer choices in where to attend college. You slit the throat of your own argument, don't want you in my fox hole when the war comes.

Most coaches think the ban went too far.Even Freeze is back peddling a little.Significant momentum for that April 25th meeting.

(04-13-2016 03:58 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  Why not lift all restrictions, give all the talented kids the ability to play for any team that wants them no matter of they already have 85+ players. The argument that this hurts the recruits is bogus. If they are good they will get an offer, just maybe not from their preferred school.

And all schools are that want to move FBS should be able to because that is more scholarships for the kids. I would expect those for the unrestricted satellite camps are for this as it actually has a greater impact in helping the kids than the satellite camps.

(04-13-2016 04:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 03:58 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  Why not lift all restrictions, give all the talented kids the ability to play for any team that wants them no matter of they already have 85+ players. The argument that this hurts the recruits is bogus. If they are good they will get an offer, just maybe not from their preferred school.

Yeah it doesn't hurt a kid to have fewer choices in where to attend college. You slit the throat of your own argument, don't want you in my fox hole when the war comes.

Someone's just mad they can't go into someone else's backyard and poach recruits. Cause you know, it's all for their benefit.

No matter what the ncaa or the conferences decide it is NOT to help the student. Like I said earlier, why not let programs recruit as many players as they want and from wherever they want. That will allow an unlimited number of choices for recruits.

For those saying it's all about the kids, where was the outrage when you voted Idaho out of the conference which will result in 22 fewer kids getting scholarships? I didn't hear one peep about the kids, but now it's suddenly their top priority.

Just be honest and say the kids line is a front for the real reason!

(04-13-2016 04:08 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 04:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 03:58 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  Why not lift all restrictions, give all the talented kids the ability to play for any team that wants them no matter of they already have 85+ players. The argument that this hurts the recruits is bogus. If they are good they will get an offer, just maybe not from their preferred school.

Yeah it doesn't hurt a kid to have fewer choices in where to attend college. You slit the throat of your own argument, don't want you in my fox hole when the war comes.

Someone's just mad they can't go into someone else's backyard and poach recruits. Cause you know, it's all for their benefit.

You might want to check the definition of poach before using it as you are.

I was in favor of the camps but I wouldn't go so far to say that cutting them out is crushing dreams. Let's face it, even if Johnny is dirt poor, in 2016 Johnny's folks and coaches are gonna find a way to get him to a good camp if he has that much talent. The recruiters will find him if he has the talent. The school will pay to bring him to them if he has that much talent. This is really about the 2 Stars and below. Most HS coaches worth their salt can put a package together on a good player. Heck, most players with today's tech can do it themselves.
As much as I originally disliked what the power conferences did with this rule, I'm beginning to see how this may ultimately help Georgia State, at least as far as G5 recruiting. But let's be honest, the big boys around these parts wont blink an eye. Auburn, Clemson, Tennessee, and Florida State may not be able to camp in Georgia, but they can camp on the state line and the athletes will still show up.