(04-13-2016 05:34 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(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.

Not that I don't like eggs Benedict, but poach is also defined as a verb that,means to trespass on another's game preserve to steal game. Which recruits essentially are to schools even yours.

(04-13-2016 06:06 PM)ChooChoo Wrote:  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.

Tell that to David Mayo when you get the chance. 5th round draft pick that had to go JUCO for lack of any DI offers.

As for the state line deal, no they can't. The ruling was on campus only. (Unless the campus is on a state line.)

(04-13-2016 06:28 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 06:06 PM)ChooChoo Wrote:  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.

Tell that to David Mayo when you get the chance. 5th round draft pick that had to go JUCO for lack of any DI offers.

As for the state line deal, no they can't. The ruling was on campus only. (Unless the campus is on a state line.)

Did he attend any camps? If so then it proves that even with camps players fall through the cracks, but will still find a way to get noticed. Maybe he needed a couple years to mature. So no amount of camps would've made a difference. If he didn't go to a camp, why not? Were there none nearby?

Also, a lot of us our assuming the rule is ammended to allow in state camps and maybe a reasonable distance from campus.

Found out at a AppState alumni gathering the Conf Rep acted on his on.

(04-13-2016 06:41 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 06:28 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 06:06 PM)ChooChoo Wrote:  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.

Tell that to David Mayo when you get the chance. 5th round draft pick that had to go JUCO for lack of any DI offers.

As for the state line deal, no they can't. The ruling was on campus only. (Unless the campus is on a state line.)

Did he attend any camps? If so then it proves that even with camps players fall through the cracks, but will still find a way to get noticed. Maybe he needed a couple years to mature. So no amount of camps would've made a difference. If he didn't go to a camp, why not? Were there none nearby?

Also, a lot of us our assuming the rule is amended to allow in state camps and maybe a reasonable distance from campus.

He's from Oregon and was All State. I just know he was only offered an NAIA scholly and went to JUCO for 1 year before Fran and Co, found him.

http://www.scout.com/nfl/packers/story/1...ed-in-shed

I'd be happy with the in state camps. It would be too late for TXST to reschedule theirs, though. I believe they were set for the beginning of June.

(04-13-2016 07:28 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Found out at a AppState alumni gathering the Conf Rep acted on his on.

That's a helluva way to run a conference.

(04-13-2016 08:24 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:28 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Found out at a AppState alumni gathering the Conf Rep acted on his on.

That's a helluva way to run a conference.

You mean normal conferences don't let the Texas State chancellor go off on her own.

(04-13-2016 06:27 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 05:34 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(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.

Not that I don't like eggs Benedict, but poach is also defined as a verb that,means to trespass on another's game preserve to steal game. Which recruits essentially are to schools even yours.

That is my point you don't "own" recruits.

(04-13-2016 09:20 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 08:24 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:28 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Found out at a AppState alumni gathering the Conf Rep acted on his on.

That's a helluva way to run a conference.

You mean normal conferences don't let the Texas State chancellor go off on her own.

Well, it's the AD and well, he's a guy and he's also a huge XXXXXXX (each of you can fill in the missing word with your own expletive.) This is why we have been calling for his head but then Withers got hired and he is getting unwarranted credit so that died down.

I think it should be all or nuttin'.Using State lines as suggested taints satellite camps even more.Camps are recruiting tools and simply allow them inside the bounds of a school's HOME campus.nothing more,nothing less.......nip it,nip it,nip it!

If you are truly recruiting STUDENT athletes then the NCAA needs to confine all camps inside a HOME campus only.

Satellite camps will be dead because lost in all hub-bub about the ban is a new rule where the school can paid for the recruits and their parents to come visit the school.

https://notredame.n.rivals.com/news/ncaa...ing-visits

"Much has been made this past week about the NCAA’s decision to ban satellite camps, and while there’s no question that the ruling will have an impact on the national recruiting scene moving forward it is not the only noteworthy decision that came out of the organization’s annual meetings last week.

The Division I Council also adopted a proposal that will allow institutions to cover round-trip travel costs for the parents and or legal guardians of prospective student-athletes on official visits."

(04-14-2016 04:00 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Satellite camps will be dead because lost in all hub-bub about the ban is a new rule where the school can paid for the recruits and their parents to come visit the school.

https://notredame.n.rivals.com/news/ncaa...ing-visits

"Much has been made this past week about the NCAA’s decision to ban satellite camps, and while there’s no question that the ruling will have an impact on the national recruiting scene moving forward it is not the only noteworthy decision that came out of the organization’s annual meetings last week.

The Division I Council also adopted a proposal that will allow institutions to cover round-trip travel costs for the parents and or legal guardians of prospective student-athletes on official visits."

I think the rule will changed quite significantly. Eventually, someone is going to see reason on this.

If not, I fully support leaving the NCAA.

(04-13-2016 07:28 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Found out at a AppState alumni gathering the Conf Rep acted on his on.

SIAP, but confirmation...

http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2016/4/14...larry-teis

(04-15-2016 07:45 AM)MOTIAW Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:28 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Found out at a AppState alumni gathering the Conf Rep acted on his on.

SIAP, but confirmation...

http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2016/4/14...larry-teis

Hmmm,

So it looks like TxST and ULL were for the ban.

The ASU's were against the ban.

Didn't read the whole thing but I would imagine that GS would be against, but GaSt would be for the camps (but honestly they should be against them too)

Would the alabama schools be against these camps too ( I think maybe). Who else?

I think a poll went out regarding these camps and most took it to mean camps way outside of a schools or even conferences footprint. Doubt they thought they would ban them entirely.

(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.

Poach: To take fish or game illegally, especially by trespassing on another's property.

Plantation mentality. They aren't yours nor UGA nor GT's to be "poached". You aren't given ownership rights over the chattel of the land.

(04-13-2016 04:24 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  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!

It wasn't in the best interest of the student-athletes at the other schools to fly halfway across the continent, land at a small airport with a runway so short that after take off you have to land at another airport to get enough fuel to go home.

(04-15-2016 08:08 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 07:45 AM)MOTIAW Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:28 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Found out at a AppState alumni gathering the Conf Rep acted on his on.

SIAP, but confirmation...

http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2016/4/14...larry-teis

Hmmm,

So it looks like TxST and ULL were for the ban.

The ASU's were against the ban.

Didn't read the whole thing but I would imagine that GS would be against, but GaSt would be for the camps (but honestly they should be against them too)

Would the alabama schools be against these camps too ( I think maybe). Who else?

I think a poll went out regarding these camps and most took it to mean camps way outside of a schools or even conferences footprint. Doubt they thought they would ban them entirely.

I would take the opposite slant, as I believe we derived a great benefit from the camps we had.

Having only done them for just a few years, I don't think we had probably as much vested in them as other schools have, and since we are in a state that exports D1 talent I can say we probably don't feel the brunt of the decision as others might.

I just don't think we would be a clear cut NO on this, as some appear to assume.

(04-15-2016 08:08 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 07:45 AM)MOTIAW Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:28 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Found out at a AppState alumni gathering the Conf Rep acted on his on.

SIAP, but confirmation...

http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2016/4/14...larry-teis

Hmmm,

So it looks like TxST and ULL were for the ban.

The ASU's were against the ban.

Didn't read the whole thing but I would imagine that GS would be against, but GaSt would be for the camps (but honestly they should be against them too)

Would the alabama schools be against these camps too ( I think maybe). Who else?

I think a poll went out regarding these camps and most took it to mean camps way outside of a schools or even conferences footprint. Doubt they thought they would ban them entirely.

No, our idiot AD was for it, not the coach (or players or students or fans). Then again, from what we have read our idiot AD didn't consult anyone.

(04-15-2016 09:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 04:24 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  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!

It wasn't in the best interest of the student-athletes at the other schools to fly halfway across the continent, land at a small airport with a runway so short that after take off you have to land at another airport to get enough fuel to go home.

Just pointing out I never heard one peep about the student athletes in relation to Idaho. Now people are outraged on behalf of the student athletes because there will no longer be camps everywhere.

That said, if you are genuinely concerned about the student athletes' and opportunities provided, then I assumeyou are for unlimited access to FBS as well hat would ACTUALLY benefit the student athletes by providing more scholarship opportunities?

(04-15-2016 09:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(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.

Poach: To take fish or game illegally, especially by trespassing on another's property.

Plantation mentality. They aren't yours nor UGA nor GT's to be "poached". You aren't given ownership rights over the chattel of the land.

No, just don't understand why people think one camp for every three athletes is necessary. Especially when the NCAA has changed the rule to allow each school to pay for the travel of any prospect you are interested in.

1) watch the hudl film
2) call the coach and prospect/parents
3) if interested offer a free trip
4) prospect can accept or decline

With Ark St's $30 million budget and $1 million coach, they need to spend a little on the kids. I don't understand the need for 1 camp for every 3 prospects and let's be honest in that many of the coaches are sharks making promises they have no intention to keep, so not sure an uncontrolled environment is what is best for me he 14-17 year old kids.