But TXST would get off cheaper than most schools paying for two adults on an official visit. Lot of the people taking an official to San Marcos are driving. They aren't taking three vehicles so the mileage allotment is the same whether there is one or three in the car. It is some extra meals but should be the same number of hotel rooms most of the time.

Not like a situation where its three airline tickets vs one.

(04-21-2016 12:14 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 11:26 PM)RoyK Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 09:49 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Coach Anderson said on the radio this afternoon that he thinks the league was split evenly on paid parent trips. A-State was for it.

I can't find a good reason for anyone to be against it. Happy guardians means happy kids right ( most of the time anyways).

Money. There were a few SBC schools, one in San Marcos in particular who did not want to spend the money necessary to bring parents in.

A "lowest common denominator" conference ain't gonna work forever.

(04-21-2016 12:14 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 11:26 PM)RoyK Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 09:49 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Coach Anderson said on the radio this afternoon that he thinks the league was split evenly on paid parent trips. A-State was for it.

I can't find a good reason for anyone to be against it. Happy guardians means happy kids right ( most of the time anyways).

Money. There were a few SBC schools, one in San Marcos in particular who did not want to spend the money necessary to bring parents in.

Yeah, but you don't have to. Now you can. ...I don't get it.

(04-21-2016 12:14 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 11:26 PM)RoyK Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 09:49 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Coach Anderson said on the radio this afternoon that he thinks the league was split evenly on paid parent trips. A-State was for it.

I can't find a good reason for anyone to be against it. Happy guardians means happy kids right ( most of the time anyways).

Money. There were a few SBC schools, one in San Marcos in particular who did not want to spend the money necessary to bring parents in.

So make it a choice. Just like cost of attendance. not paying these things may or not make any of us better, but not offering it will further continue to make it seem that oh they just happy to be here. just my opionion of course.

I think that allowing this extends the advantages of programs with more money. Our conference has less money, so I see opposing it, if you are looking out for the best interest of our conference.

No, we don't HAVE to do it. But if we choose not to, we give up recruiting edges.

How this balances out not having the camps, I have no idea.
Since you don't often know who to extend trips to without the camps.
You also don't know who might be interested enough in you to accept an offer without face time from a camp.

I'm not for allowing the out of state camps either to be clear.

I think that as a whole - as a conference - we loose too much talent to non Sun Belt G5's and out of state Power 5's via these processes. Yes, I realize the strain that this puts on two of our BEST programs AKA: The two ASUs. But I think it may keep enough out of state competition for recruits away even in Ark and NC that they can find better talent closer to home. I support in state camps. Plus, I'm selfish. I want to keep GA talent in GA.
I also think ULM and ULL will be fine without either.

(04-21-2016 05:33 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 12:14 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 11:26 PM)RoyK Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 09:49 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Coach Anderson said on the radio this afternoon that he thinks the league was split evenly on paid parent trips. A-State was for it.

I can't find a good reason for anyone to be against it. Happy guardians means happy kids right ( most of the time anyways).

Money. There were a few SBC schools, one in San Marcos in particular who did not want to spend the money necessary to bring parents in.

Yeah, but you don't have to. Now you can. ...I don't get it.

I learned long ago there are two mindsets among the low resource schools of Division I.

One group will vote to approve doing things they cannot afford to do because they think the proposal is fair and is something they would do if they could afford it and they don't see the point in blocking others from doing it.

The other group considers anything they cannot afford to do to be an unfair advantage for the ones who can afford it. Of course this ignores that most if not all of the schools that can afford it are going to out-recruit them whether the other schools are permitted to do it or not.

The first stipend proposal sailed through with little opposition in FBS and a handful of the few opposed it because it applied to only head count sports and thought it was unfair to female athletes who have few headcount opportunities compared to men.

FCS and non-football schools opposed the stipend. That took Division I to a near breaking point that resulted in autonomy and increased voting power for the P5 and G5 vs the rest of Division I. Stipend was replaced with cost of attendance and extended it to equivalency sports and now schools are spending double or more on COA than they would have under the stipend. The it ain't fair crowd ended up with a much worse result.

(04-21-2016 11:18 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  I think that allowing this extends the advantages of programs with more money. Our conference has less money, so I see opposing it, if you are looking out for the best interest of our conference.

No, we don't HAVE to do it. But if we choose not to, we give up recruiting edges.

If you can't pay for the parents and Ohio State can't pay for the parents then Ohio State gonna beat you out.

But if you have a 3-star you really want....and Ohio State isn't actually that hot on paying all that for what they see as a 3rd stringer. In that case...you have the upper hand because that particular recruit means a lot more to you than he does to Ohio State and you can back it with money. Being able to pay for the parents...would turn out to be an advantage for that one.

(04-22-2016 12:03 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  I think that allowing this extends the advantages of programs with more money. Our conference has less money, so I see opposing it, if you are looking out for the best interest of our conference.

No, we don't HAVE to do it. But if we choose not to, we give up recruiting edges.

If you can't pay for the parents and Ohio State can't pay for the parents then Ohio State gonna beat you out.

But if you have a 3-star you really want....and Ohio State isn't actually that hot on paying all that for what they see as a 3rd stringer. In that case...you have the upper hand because that particular recruit means a lot more to you than he does to Ohio State and you can back it with money. Being able to pay for the parents...would turn out to be an advantage for that one.

"paying all that" is a drop in the bucket for programs like Ohio State. If he is a top ranked recruit, we are most probably going to lose him any way.
These guys though can spend all that money on any and everybody they are interested in. I'd rather them not come and see what we see locally. What our local parents can already spend on their own, or allowed in state camps would be our advantage. It doesn't cost much for mom or dad to drive over for an instate visit for our local recruits.

(04-22-2016 12:18 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 12:03 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  I think that allowing this extends the advantages of programs with more money. Our conference has less money, so I see opposing it, if you are looking out for the best interest of our conference.

No, we don't HAVE to do it. But if we choose not to, we give up recruiting edges.

If you can't pay for the parents and Ohio State can't pay for the parents then Ohio State gonna beat you out.

But if you have a 3-star you really want....and Ohio State isn't actually that hot on paying all that for what they see as a 3rd stringer. In that case...you have the upper hand because that particular recruit means a lot more to you than he does to Ohio State and you can back it with money. Being able to pay for the parents...would turn out to be an advantage for that one.

"paying all that" is a drop in the bucket for programs like Ohio State. If he is a top ranked recruit, we are most probably going to lose him any way.
These guys though can spend all that money on any and everybody they are interested in. I'd rather them not come and see what we see locally. What our local parents can already spend on their own, or allowed in state camps would be our advantage. It doesn't cost much for mom or dad to drive over for an instate visit for our local recruits.

I don't think you followed my loguc.

(04-22-2016 07:17 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 12:18 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 12:03 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  I think that allowing this extends the advantages of programs with more money. Our conference has less money, so I see opposing it, if you are looking out for the best interest of our conference.

No, we don't HAVE to do it. But if we choose not to, we give up recruiting edges.

If you can't pay for the parents and Ohio State can't pay for the parents then Ohio State gonna beat you out.

But if you have a 3-star you really want....and Ohio State isn't actually that hot on paying all that for what they see as a 3rd stringer. In that case...you have the upper hand because that particular recruit means a lot more to you than he does to Ohio State and you can back it with money. Being able to pay for the parents...would turn out to be an advantage for that one.

"paying all that" is a drop in the bucket for programs like Ohio State. If he is a top ranked recruit, we are most probably going to lose him any way.
These guys though can spend all that money on any and everybody they are interested in. I'd rather them not come and see what we see locally. What our local parents can already spend on their own, or allowed in state camps would be our advantage. It doesn't cost much for mom or dad to drive over for an instate visit for our local recruits.

I don't think you followed my loguc.

I think I did. I'm saying Ohio state would have advantage with any recruit if they are allowed to spend the endless money they have. They wouldn't back off of a three star because they had to spend money.

If the recruit is in our state and I'm not an Ohio based G5. And if getting the parents to come with recruit is an advantage, when neither program is allowed to pay for parents THEN we would have the advantage of the parents being able to come easily on their own dime.

If the recruit is out of state then my point is negated. But the advantage may then fall to another G5 in said recruit's state.

I worry about the unrestricted use of the spending power of these power five programs. Even other p5 programs do, so you get the camps ban. These are the same programs that years ago, before the limits that they have now, would stack players with no intention of ever letting them see the field just to keep talent off of other rosters. They still do that, although not as much due to scholarship limits. One could argue that more kids get scholarships that way and unlimited numbers of scholarships would be better for kid's, and there is some truth in that. However, the game suffers, and many kids talents go wasted. In that case, the separation in power between the g5\p5 would greatly widen. Beware the limit lifting with these guys.

I don't understand why the SBC would vote against it. Schools are only allotted a certain number of paid trips anyway. It's not like Michigan will now be able to bring in 200 recruit's families. NCAA only allows I believe 55-80 paid trips per school. Also, it's time we be more creative in raising money any not just asking alumni. Some schools have great ADs aka Ark St, some just have a dude collecting a check.

(04-22-2016 08:01 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 07:17 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 12:18 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 12:03 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  I think that allowing this extends the advantages of programs with more money. Our conference has less money, so I see opposing it, if you are looking out for the best interest of our conference.

No, we don't HAVE to do it. But if we choose not to, we give up recruiting edges.

If you can't pay for the parents and Ohio State can't pay for the parents then Ohio State gonna beat you out.

But if you have a 3-star you really want....and Ohio State isn't actually that hot on paying all that for what they see as a 3rd stringer. In that case...you have the upper hand because that particular recruit means a lot more to you than he does to Ohio State and you can back it with money. Being able to pay for the parents...would turn out to be an advantage for that one.

"paying all that" is a drop in the bucket for programs like Ohio State. If he is a top ranked recruit, we are most probably going to lose him any way.
These guys though can spend all that money on any and everybody they are interested in. I'd rather them not come and see what we see locally. What our local parents can already spend on their own, or allowed in state camps would be our advantage. It doesn't cost much for mom or dad to drive over for an instate visit for our local recruits.

I don't think you followed my loguc.

I think I did. I'm saying Ohio state would have advantage with any recruit if they are allowed to spend the endless money they have. They wouldn't back off of a three star because they had to spend money.

If the recruit is in our state and I'm not an Ohio based G5. And if getting the parents to come with recruit is an advantage, when neither program is allowed to pay for parents THEN we would have the advantage of the parents being able to come easily on their own dime.

If the recruit is out of state then my point is negated. But the advantage may then fall to another G5 in said recruit's state.

I worry about the unrestricted use of the spending power of these power five programs. Even other p5 programs do, so you get the camps ban. These are the same programs that years ago, before the limits that they have now, would stack players with no intention of ever letting them see the field just to keep talent off of other rosters. They still do that, although not as much due to scholarship limits. One could argue that more kids get scholarships that way and unlimited numbers of scholarships would be better for kid's, and there is some truth in that. However, the game suffers, and many kids talents go wasted. In that case, the separation in power between the g5\p5 would greatly widen. Beware the limit lifting with these guys.

One of the P5 hided Ludacris to play 15 minutes at their spring game. Can you stop them? Can you do the same? No.

Trying to force Ohio State into a starvation contest with you won't work. You are never going to regulate them down to your budget level.

Worry more about what you can do. If you are going after a recruit, you can now pay to bring their parents...if you want to. And in some cases, just maybe, that may be the difference between a recruit coming to start at your school versus walking on at Ohio State.

(04-22-2016 08:58 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 08:01 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 07:17 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 12:18 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 12:03 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  If you can't pay for the parents and Ohio State can't pay for the parents then Ohio State gonna beat you out.

But if you have a 3-star you really want....and Ohio State isn't actually that hot on paying all that for what they see as a 3rd stringer. In that case...you have the upper hand because that particular recruit means a lot more to you than he does to Ohio State and you can back it with money. Being able to pay for the parents...would turn out to be an advantage for that one.

"paying all that" is a drop in the bucket for programs like Ohio State. If he is a top ranked recruit, we are most probably going to lose him any way.
These guys though can spend all that money on any and everybody they are interested in. I'd rather them not come and see what we see locally. What our local parents can already spend on their own, or allowed in state camps would be our advantage. It doesn't cost much for mom or dad to drive over for an instate visit for our local recruits.

I don't think you followed my loguc.

I think I did. I'm saying Ohio state would have advantage with any recruit if they are allowed to spend the endless money they have. They wouldn't back off of a three star because they had to spend money.

If the recruit is in our state and I'm not an Ohio based G5. And if getting the parents to come with recruit is an advantage, when neither program is allowed to pay for parents THEN we would have the advantage of the parents being able to come easily on their own dime.

If the recruit is out of state then my point is negated. But the advantage may then fall to another G5 in said recruit's state.

I worry about the unrestricted use of the spending power of these power five programs. Even other p5 programs do, so you get the camps ban. These are the same programs that years ago, before the limits that they have now, would stack players with no intention of ever letting them see the field just to keep talent off of other rosters. They still do that, although not as much due to scholarship limits. One could argue that more kids get scholarships that way and unlimited numbers of scholarships would be better for kid's, and there is some truth in that. However, the game suffers, and many kids talents go wasted. In that case, the separation in power between the g5\p5 would greatly widen. Beware the limit lifting with these guys.

One of the P5 hided Ludacris to play 15 minutes at their spring game. Can you stop them? Can you do the same? No.

Trying to force Ohio State into a starvation contest with you won't work. You are never going to regulate them down to your budget level.

Worry more about what you can do. If you are going after a recruit, you can now pay to bring their parents...if you want to. And in some cases, just maybe, that may be the difference between a recruit coming to start at your school versus walking on at Ohio State.

We aren't going to out-recruit Ohio State even if we forced Ohio State to spend 10% less on recruiting than we do.

What Ohio State spends is Michigan's problem not ours.

The people we seriously and consistently recruit against are schools with budgets similar to what we have. If they can afford something, chances are we can too.

(04-22-2016 09:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 08:58 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 08:01 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 07:17 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 12:18 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  "paying all that" is a drop in the bucket for programs like Ohio State. If he is a top ranked recruit, we are most probably going to lose him any way.
These guys though can spend all that money on any and everybody they are interested in. I'd rather them not come and see what we see locally. What our local parents can already spend on their own, or allowed in state camps would be our advantage. It doesn't cost much for mom or dad to drive over for an instate visit for our local recruits.

I don't think you followed my loguc.

I think I did. I'm saying Ohio state would have advantage with any recruit if they are allowed to spend the endless money they have. They wouldn't back off of a three star because they had to spend money.

If the recruit is in our state and I'm not an Ohio based G5. And if getting the parents to come with recruit is an advantage, when neither program is allowed to pay for parents THEN we would have the advantage of the parents being able to come easily on their own dime.

If the recruit is out of state then my point is negated. But the advantage may then fall to another G5 in said recruit's state.

I worry about the unrestricted use of the spending power of these power five programs. Even other p5 programs do, so you get the camps ban. These are the same programs that years ago, before the limits that they have now, would stack players with no intention of ever letting them see the field just to keep talent off of other rosters. They still do that, although not as much due to scholarship limits. One could argue that more kids get scholarships that way and unlimited numbers of scholarships would be better for kid's, and there is some truth in that. However, the game suffers, and many kids talents go wasted. In that case, the separation in power between the g5\p5 would greatly widen. Beware the limit lifting with these guys.

One of the P5 hided Ludacris to play 15 minutes at their spring game. Can you stop them? Can you do the same? No.

Trying to force Ohio State into a starvation contest with you won't work. You are never going to regulate them down to your budget level.

Worry more about what you can do. If you are going after a recruit, you can now pay to bring their parents...if you want to. And in some cases, just maybe, that may be the difference between a recruit coming to start at your school versus walking on at Ohio State.

We aren't going to out-recruit Ohio State even if we forced Ohio State to spend 10% less on recruiting than we do.

What Ohio State spends is Michigan's problem not ours.

The people we seriously and consistently recruit against are schools with budgets similar to what we have. If they can afford something, chances are we can too.

Even the poorest FBS school may have that one situation crop up where they decide to pay for one parent's travel and that makes the difference.

Just because you can't pay for every recruit's parents like a Florida could...doesn't mean its pointless to have the option if you need it.

I don't think you are going to be successful with a paranoid strategy of trying to stop everyone from doing everything.

It seems like Teis is anti-FBS in almost every decision he makes. I know our fans have caught flack about wanting to lower travel, but we've supported every rule that will help increase the player/recruit experience. If we want this conference to be considered a legit FBS conference we have to vote/act like one on the national issues.

(04-22-2016 01:31 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  It seems like Teis is anti-FBS in almost every decision he makes. I know our fans have caught flack about wanting to lower travel, but we've supported every rule that will help increase the player/recruit experience. If we want this conference to be considered a legit FBS conference we have to vote/act like one on the national issues.

Partially accurate. Teis was brought "kicking and screaming" into FBS by students, fans and alums. Seriously, it came off like he wanted to wash his hands of it and it hasn't changed much. He just wants to sit and collect a paycheck (and get annual increases at the expense of improving the program.)

(this is to be taken as the opinion of the poster)

(04-22-2016 01:53 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 01:31 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  It seems like Teis is anti-FBS in almost every decision he makes. I know our fans have caught flack about wanting to lower travel, but we've supported every rule that will help increase the player/recruit experience. If we want this conference to be considered a legit FBS conference we have to vote/act like one on the national issues.

Partially accurate. Teis was brought "kicking and screaming" into FBS by students, fans and alums. Seriously, it came off like he wanted to wash his hands of it and it hasn't changed much. He just wants to sit and collect a paycheck (and get annual increases at the expense of improving the program.)

(this is to be taken as the opinion of the poster)

How did he get put in this position to represent the conference? If this was voted by the AD's then shame on them for not knowing the candidate better.

(04-24-2016 10:22 PM)SBEagle Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 01:53 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 01:31 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  It seems like Teis is anti-FBS in almost every decision he makes. I know our fans have caught flack about wanting to lower travel, but we've supported every rule that will help increase the player/recruit experience. If we want this conference to be considered a legit FBS conference we have to vote/act like one on the national issues.

Partially accurate. Teis was brought "kicking and screaming" into FBS by students, fans and alums. Seriously, it came off like he wanted to wash his hands of it and it hasn't changed much. He just wants to sit and collect a paycheck (and get annual increases at the expense of improving the program.)

(this is to be taken as the opinion of the poster)

How did he get put in this position to represent the conference? If this was voted by the AD's then shame on them for not knowing the candidate better.

Well, it was decided by our board of directors, which is headed by the President of Texas State University.

(04-22-2016 01:53 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 01:31 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  It seems like Teis is anti-FBS in almost every decision he makes. I know our fans have caught flack about wanting to lower travel, but we've supported every rule that will help increase the player/recruit experience. If we want this conference to be considered a legit FBS conference we have to vote/act like one on the national issues.

Partially accurate. Teis was brought "kicking and screaming" into FBS by students, fans and alums. Seriously, it came off like he wanted to wash his hands of it and it hasn't changed much. He just wants to sit and collect a paycheck (and get annual increases at the expense of improving the program.)

(this is to be taken as the opinion of the poster)

I've always wondered what was holding y'all back from being more successful consider the facilities, location, enrollment, and I would imagine plenty of potential donors. Now I know...

(04-25-2016 07:45 AM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 01:53 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 01:31 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  It seems like Teis is anti-FBS in almost every decision he makes. I know our fans have caught flack about wanting to lower travel, but we've supported every rule that will help increase the player/recruit experience. If we want this conference to be considered a legit FBS conference we have to vote/act like one on the national issues.

Partially accurate. Teis was brought "kicking and screaming" into FBS by students, fans and alums. Seriously, it came off like he wanted to wash his hands of it and it hasn't changed much. He just wants to sit and collect a paycheck (and get annual increases at the expense of improving the program.)

(this is to be taken as the opinion of the poster)

I've always wondered what was holding y'all back from being more successful consider the facilities, location, enrollment, and I would imagine plenty of potential donors. Now I know...

I agree, it makes sense now.