(04-21-2016 09:13 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  One last point using Ark St as an example. If out of the 22-25 players you sign, half directly come as a result of a camp then that means Ark St signs 1 prospect per camp conducted. So, if Ark St is traveling 6-10 staff per camp to sign one player, wouldn't it be much more cost effective to pay for kids to come to your in state camp? If the rules dont currently allow that then maybe that is a possible solution given the actual results and cost of the camps.

In the end, out of 200 kids at a camp 1 kid will sign with the school as a direct result of the camp. As you peel the onion and look at the results it is quite startling. And let's not forget the students are picking up 65% or more of the cost of these excessive camps as most budgets are funded though fees.

You do realize that you cannot pay for a student athlete to come to a camp...right? The Athlete has to actually pay for that chance themselves. Even if it is on campus because NCAA rules prohibit talent evaluation on an official visit.

Our students pick up zero cost of these camps. They are 1 day events held on campus that are primarily financed through camp fees by the perspective student athlete, who shells out hundreds of dollars each summer just to attend camps. The only cost we have comes out of our recruiting budget, which is not financed through student fees. Our student fees are used on ticket purchases and new construction.

(04-22-2016 12:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 08:14 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 12:11 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Blake Anderson on satellite camps. He's absolutely pissed off about this.

http://www.953theticket.com/?p=14560

Summary:

"The idea that you can learn enough to offer a player a scholarship based off film alone is ludicrous. The only way a player can get noticed now is to travel across the country from school camp to camp, which is not feasible whatsoever."

"He agrees that there should be limitations on satellite camps. Thinks there needs to be a happy medium"

"The SBC was heavily in favor of satellite camps. Coaches were given input via survey and with an NCAA rep, and almost every SBC Coach said they wanted Satellite camps"

"It's sad that the process allows a single athletic director at Texas State to sit in on meetings, and make his own decision, going against the wishes of his conference, his fans, and his own football coach"

"Somehow, between the time the SBC Coaches and AD's agreed to support satellite camps, and the time the committee voted, Texas State's AD Changed his mind completely on his own."

"Arkansas State signed kids from 11 states this past year. The banning of satellite camps will not necessarilly hurt the schools as much as it hurts the prospects. There will be kids that will end up going D2 or FCS this year that normally would have gotten multiple FBS Offers if the rule holds. Coaches will not offer based on film, and will continue to expect kids to show up at camps in person to be evaluated by the present coaching staff at a school if they want offers. Kids who can't afford that are unfortunately going to be left out"

"This conversation is still up for a lot of debate, and he hopes that the board changes the rule to set more reasonable limits in 2 weeks rather than a ridiculous ban of all off campus camps"

AState Satellite camp list that was scheduled for this summer"

Athens, GA
Tuscaloosa, AL
Birmingham, AL
Oxford, MS
Starkville, MS
Rogers, AR
Little Rock, AR
Texarkansa, AR
Dallas, TX
Lubbock, TX
College Station, TX

He said over 200 prospects were signed up for most of those camps already. The one in Birmingham had over 300 kids signed up.

So 11 camps at 200 each = 2,200 kids fighting for 22 scholarships = 1 % will sign with the school. If a school gives out 150 offers, then 6-7% actually have the opportunity at a scholarship. And some are arguing kids are falling between the cracks. The reality is that there are many, many avenues to get noticed. Just not many scholarships.

Math is waaaay off.
The camp in Athens wouldn't be just AState. It's UGA and AState and probably some FCS and Division II.
Tuscaloosa that's a Bama camp we were sending people to along with other schools.
Oxford is an Ole Miss camp and generally will include at least one FCS.
Starkville is a Miss State camp and we will be there with other schools.
Rogers is an AState camp and generally other in-state Division II schools are present and I think Missouri State also attends.
Little Rock is AState and several in-state lower division schools, same with Texarkana normally Southern Arkansas and Texas A&M-Commerce are present.
Dallas in the past done with Tarleton State.
Lubbock is a Texas Tech camp and usually several Texas Division II are present.
College Station is a Texas A&M camp and several other schools will be present.

You ban advocates want the kid to go to two or three in-state camps and be seen by two or three schools.
With satellite camps a kid attending just two camps will be seen by at least four schools and maybe 8 or more.

Let's be honest. Which is more kid friendly. Going to two camps and being seen by only the two host schools or going to two camps and being seen by four schools or 8 or 12 schools out of those two camps?

The Birmingham Camp had 10 separate schools involved minimum. It was a thing agreed to by a few G5's and regional FCS teams. I think Samford was hosting it.

So if we play by the strange theory that only 1 kid from those camps gets an offer...that's 10 kids minimum walking away with offers.

(04-22-2016 02:12 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 09:13 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  One last point using Ark St as an example. If out of the 22-25 players you sign, half directly come as a result of a camp then that means Ark St signs 1 prospect per camp conducted. So, if Ark St is traveling 6-10 staff per camp to sign one player, wouldn't it be much more cost effective to pay for kids to come to your in state camp? If the rules dont currently allow that then maybe that is a possible solution given the actual results and cost of the camps.

In the end, out of 200 kids at a camp 1 kid will sign with the school as a direct result of the camp. As you peel the onion and look at the results it is quite startling. And let's not forget the students are picking up 65% or more of the cost of these excessive camps as most budgets are funded though fees.

You do realize that you cannot pay for a student athlete to come to a camp...right? The Athlete has to actually pay for that chance themselves. Even if it is on campus because NCAA rules prohibit talent evaluation on an official visit.

Our students pick up zero cost of these camps. They are 1 day events held on campus that are primarily financed through camp fees by the perspective student athlete, who shells out hundreds of dollars each summer just to attend camps. The only cost we have comes out of our recruiting budget, which is not financed through student fees. Our student fees are used on ticket purchases and new construction.

That's why in the post I said the rule should be changed.

(04-22-2016 02:17 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 12:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 08:14 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 12:11 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Blake Anderson on satellite camps. He's absolutely pissed off about this.

http://www.953theticket.com/?p=14560

Summary:

"The idea that you can learn enough to offer a player a scholarship based off film alone is ludicrous. The only way a player can get noticed now is to travel across the country from school camp to camp, which is not feasible whatsoever."

"He agrees that there should be limitations on satellite camps. Thinks there needs to be a happy medium"

"The SBC was heavily in favor of satellite camps. Coaches were given input via survey and with an NCAA rep, and almost every SBC Coach said they wanted Satellite camps"

"It's sad that the process allows a single athletic director at Texas State to sit in on meetings, and make his own decision, going against the wishes of his conference, his fans, and his own football coach"

"Somehow, between the time the SBC Coaches and AD's agreed to support satellite camps, and the time the committee voted, Texas State's AD Changed his mind completely on his own."

"Arkansas State signed kids from 11 states this past year. The banning of satellite camps will not necessarilly hurt the schools as much as it hurts the prospects. There will be kids that will end up going D2 or FCS this year that normally would have gotten multiple FBS Offers if the rule holds. Coaches will not offer based on film, and will continue to expect kids to show up at camps in person to be evaluated by the present coaching staff at a school if they want offers. Kids who can't afford that are unfortunately going to be left out"

"This conversation is still up for a lot of debate, and he hopes that the board changes the rule to set more reasonable limits in 2 weeks rather than a ridiculous ban of all off campus camps"

AState Satellite camp list that was scheduled for this summer"

Athens, GA
Tuscaloosa, AL
Birmingham, AL
Oxford, MS
Starkville, MS
Rogers, AR
Little Rock, AR
Texarkansa, AR
Dallas, TX
Lubbock, TX
College Station, TX

He said over 200 prospects were signed up for most of those camps already. The one in Birmingham had over 300 kids signed up.

So 11 camps at 200 each = 2,200 kids fighting for 22 scholarships = 1 % will sign with the school. If a school gives out 150 offers, then 6-7% actually have the opportunity at a scholarship. And some are arguing kids are falling between the cracks. The reality is that there are many, many avenues to get noticed. Just not many scholarships.

Math is waaaay off.
The camp in Athens wouldn't be just AState. It's UGA and AState and probably some FCS and Division II.
Tuscaloosa that's a Bama camp we were sending people to along with other schools.
Oxford is an Ole Miss camp and generally will include at least one FCS.
Starkville is a Miss State camp and we will be there with other schools.
Rogers is an AState camp and generally other in-state Division II schools are present and I think Missouri State also attends.
Little Rock is AState and several in-state lower division schools, same with Texarkana normally Southern Arkansas and Texas A&M-Commerce are present.
Dallas in the past done with Tarleton State.
Lubbock is a Texas Tech camp and usually several Texas Division II are present.
College Station is a Texas A&M camp and several other schools will be present.

You ban advocates want the kid to go to two or three in-state camps and be seen by two or three schools.
With satellite camps a kid attending just two camps will be seen by at least four schools and maybe 8 or more.

Let's be honest. Which is more kid friendly. Going to two camps and being seen by only the two host schools or going to two camps and being seen by four schools or 8 or 12 schools out of those two camps?

The Birmingham Camp had 10 separate schools involved minimum. It was a thing agreed to by a few G5's and regional FCS teams. I think Samford was hosting it.

So if we play by the strange theory that only 1 kid from those camps gets an offer...that's 10 kids minimum walking away with offers.

What about the other 11 camps?

(04-22-2016 05:03 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 02:17 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 12:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 08:14 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 12:11 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Blake Anderson on satellite camps. He's absolutely pissed off about this.

http://www.953theticket.com/?p=14560

Summary:

"The idea that you can learn enough to offer a player a scholarship based off film alone is ludicrous. The only way a player can get noticed now is to travel across the country from school camp to camp, which is not feasible whatsoever."

"He agrees that there should be limitations on satellite camps. Thinks there needs to be a happy medium"

"The SBC was heavily in favor of satellite camps. Coaches were given input via survey and with an NCAA rep, and almost every SBC Coach said they wanted Satellite camps"

"It's sad that the process allows a single athletic director at Texas State to sit in on meetings, and make his own decision, going against the wishes of his conference, his fans, and his own football coach"

"Somehow, between the time the SBC Coaches and AD's agreed to support satellite camps, and the time the committee voted, Texas State's AD Changed his mind completely on his own."

"Arkansas State signed kids from 11 states this past year. The banning of satellite camps will not necessarilly hurt the schools as much as it hurts the prospects. There will be kids that will end up going D2 or FCS this year that normally would have gotten multiple FBS Offers if the rule holds. Coaches will not offer based on film, and will continue to expect kids to show up at camps in person to be evaluated by the present coaching staff at a school if they want offers. Kids who can't afford that are unfortunately going to be left out"

"This conversation is still up for a lot of debate, and he hopes that the board changes the rule to set more reasonable limits in 2 weeks rather than a ridiculous ban of all off campus camps"

AState Satellite camp list that was scheduled for this summer"

Athens, GA
Tuscaloosa, AL
Birmingham, AL
Oxford, MS
Starkville, MS
Rogers, AR
Little Rock, AR
Texarkansa, AR
Dallas, TX
Lubbock, TX
College Station, TX

He said over 200 prospects were signed up for most of those camps already. The one in Birmingham had over 300 kids signed up.

So 11 camps at 200 each = 2,200 kids fighting for 22 scholarships = 1 % will sign with the school. If a school gives out 150 offers, then 6-7% actually have the opportunity at a scholarship. And some are arguing kids are falling between the cracks. The reality is that there are many, many avenues to get noticed. Just not many scholarships.

Math is waaaay off.
The camp in Athens wouldn't be just AState. It's UGA and AState and probably some FCS and Division II.
Tuscaloosa that's a Bama camp we were sending people to along with other schools.
Oxford is an Ole Miss camp and generally will include at least one FCS.
Starkville is a Miss State camp and we will be there with other schools.
Rogers is an AState camp and generally other in-state Division II schools are present and I think Missouri State also attends.
Little Rock is AState and several in-state lower division schools, same with Texarkana normally Southern Arkansas and Texas A&M-Commerce are present.
Dallas in the past done with Tarleton State.
Lubbock is a Texas Tech camp and usually several Texas Division II are present.
College Station is a Texas A&M camp and several other schools will be present.

You ban advocates want the kid to go to two or three in-state camps and be seen by two or three schools.
With satellite camps a kid attending just two camps will be seen by at least four schools and maybe 8 or more.

Let's be honest. Which is more kid friendly. Going to two camps and being seen by only the two host schools or going to two camps and being seen by four schools or 8 or 12 schools out of those two camps?

The Birmingham Camp had 10 separate schools involved minimum. It was a thing agreed to by a few G5's and regional FCS teams. I think Samford was hosting it.

So if we play by the strange theory that only 1 kid from those camps gets an offer...that's 10 kids minimum walking away with offers.

What about the other 11 camps?

Look up. Covered that already.