Mike &Mike on satellite camps

[Red I 73]

Really blasted the NCAA for how quickly the "self serving rule to protect the million dollar coaches" was past. How it has huge negative affects on football prospects that cannot afford to travel to get exposure for possible football scholarships. The rule now prevents lower level coaches from attending a camp put on by a larger school as they had in the past thus limiting exposure for players that may not be Division 1 talent to be seen by lower level coaches. Hughe Freeze from Mississippi says that needs to be changed. Typical SEC response.

 

[newAD]

 

[inWV]

If East Overshoe St holds a summer camp and wants to invite D1 coaches to attend, it helps their camp attendance and gives "under the radar" kids a chance to be seen by more eyes. The flip side is true of lower D1 coaches wrt camps host by Power 5 schools. But if you are protecting turf that holds a lot D1 ready kids (any state touching the Gulf Coast and Cali), limiting exposure from out of region coaches is what you want. Screwing the mid-majors is just collateral damage.
One approach promotes competition and produces a better probability that kids end up with a better fit to their skills. The other protects a built-in geographic advantage.

 

[chicolby]

If you didn't see it, here is a snippet. I love when Mike calls out the insane decisions and offers up the person in question to call in and defend themselves. The decision has no basis and I am glad to see the public outcry.

 

[leodisflowers]

I listened to Cowherd yesterday on the topic as well, and he brought up a pretty good point. Who cares... It wasn't really ever a big deal until Harbaugh and others pushed the envelope, and now we want something to be pissed about. It isn't going to hurt anything.

 

[Lincoln100]

I listened to Cowherd yesterday on the topic as well, and he brought up a pretty good point. Who cares... It wasn't really ever a big deal until Harbaugh and others pushed the envelope, and now we want something to be pissed about. It isn't going to hurt anything.

You think that is a good point? Ok.

 

[HuskerAlum92]

I listened to Cowherd yesterday on the topic as well, and he brought up a pretty good point. Who cares... It wasn't really ever a big deal until Harbaugh and others pushed the envelope, and now we want something to be pissed about. It isn't going to hurt anything.

The bolded sums up my reaction to anything Cowherd says.

 

[leodisflowers]

The bolded sums up my reaction to anything Cowherd says.

I don't disagree as I think he's an idiot, but I just think it's funny how crazed people are about a topic that hasn't really mattered and won't really affect the big moneymaking schools.

 

[leodisflowers]

You think that is a good point? Ok.

Thanks...

 

[mkbrkloster]

I listened to Cowherd yesterday on the topic as well, and he brought up a pretty good point. Who cares... It wasn't really ever a big deal until Harbaugh and others pushed the envelope, and now we want something to be pissed about. It isn't going to hurt anything.

It is a big deal for a lot of schools in the country. The SEC coaches obviously "cared" about it quite a bit.

 

[leodisflowers]

It is a big deal for a lot of schools in the country. The SEC coaches obviously "cared" about it quite a bit.

Not saying you're wrong, but why hasn't it been happening up until a few years ago if it is such a huge deal? Now I don't agree with not letting smaller tier schools attend the larger camps, but why all of the sudden is this a big deal when it hadn't mattered? Until recently NU hadn't had a satellite camp.

 

[jackie_moon33]

I listened to Cowherd yesterday on the topic as well, and he brought up a pretty good point. Who cares... It wasn't really ever a big deal until Harbaugh and others pushed the envelope, and now we want something to be pissed about. It isn't going to hurt anything.

Yeah this "isn't going to hurt anything" except guys like Dicaprio Bootle that get discovered at these camps. I mean really, who cares about guys like that??? That's who this hurts the most, prospective student-athletes who can't afford to fly all over and go to camps all across the country. This was their way to get in front of college coaches and try to make a name for themselves. As far as the schools are concerned, it wasn't even the Nebraska's and Michigan's of the world that benefitted, but the smaller FBS and FCS schools are the ones that this hurts. Cowherd's an idiot, this won't have a huge affect on most P5 schools, but the prospective athletes and many smaller schools? Damn right this hurts them.

 

[Lincoln100]

Not saying you're wrong, but why hasn't it been happening up until a few years ago if it is such a huge deal? Now I don't agree with not letting smaller tier schools attend the larger camps, but why all of the sudden is this a big deal when it hadn't mattered? Until recently NU hadn't had a satellite camp.

So when you type "it isn't going to hurt anything," what exactly are you talking about?

 

[timnsun]

Not saying you're wrong, but why hasn't it been happening up until a few years ago if it is such a huge deal? Now I don't agree with not letting smaller tier schools attend the larger camps, but why all of the sudden is this a big deal when it hadn't mattered? Until recently NU hadn't had a satellite camp.

Just because we hadn't had it before doesn't mean it isn't a big deal... I'm not sure how many we got last year due to a satellite camp, but I know we got Bootle, one we never would have gotten without that camp.

The bigger deal is that the SEC and ACC felt threatened if this took off more, and couldn't let people come into their back yard and increase competition for athletes that might be intrigued by schools in the north.

I get that it doesn't cost much to send film anywhere anymore, but if the SEC and ACC weren't worried about it, why go to the trouble to have them banned?

 

[chicolby]

Coach Riley has used these satellite camps for several years. Programs that are not located in a hot bed of talent should have been using them frequently. Our previous coach would rather drive around to find players to play for Nebraska - another sign that his skill set did not include recruiting.

In the end, coaches will keep on keeping on and will continue to find new creative ways to sign top classes, but the bigger question is "who was the NCAA protecting by enforcing this new policy?" It sounds like only the southern schools really cared. Why would they care? Of course, because they have an inherent advantage to recruiting the players close to their schools. One would think this advantage would already be in existence simply because their family can see them play more often, but apparently this wasn't enough and now they don't want the coaches from up north to even sniff around their talent base. No one questions their motive. It is a competitive world and anything that can be done to increase a competitive advantage is exactly what one should expect.

The problem lies when these schools over recruit players and basically kick them to the curb when a more desirable player commits. This leaves these players in a lurch because now other teams that don't use this practice may not have the ability to interact with them.

 

[leodisflowers]

Yeah this "isn't going to hurt anything" except guys like Dicaprio Bootle that get discovered at these camps. I mean really, who cares about guys like that??? That's who this hurts the most, prospective student-athletes who can't afford to fly all over and go to camps all across the country. This was their way to get in front of college coaches and try to make a name for themselves. As far as the schools are concerned, it wasn't even the Nebraska's and Michigan's of the world that benefitted, but the smaller FBS and FCS schools are the ones that this hurts. Cowherd's an idiot, this won't have a huge affect on most P5 schools, but the prospective athletes and many smaller schools? Damn right this hurts them.

We have probably missed out on quite a few Bootle's for many years, but pretty sure DiCaprio would have had a scholly somewhere. My bigger point is people lose their mind over some small change when we have been operating without satellite camps for years and there has been no talk about it. If you are a big time D1 player, you are on someones radar. Between Scout, Rivals, Hudl, Youtube, and every damn thing under the sun that is out there, there is no way kids who can play aren't getting noticed. It's ok to disagree, I just think this is getting blown way out of proportion.

 

[leodisflowers]

Just because we hadn't had it before doesn't mean it isn't a big deal... I'm not sure how many we got last year due to a satellite camp, but I know we got Bootle, one we never would have gotten without that camp.

The bigger deal is that the SEC and ACC felt threatened if this took off more, and couldn't let people come into their back yard and increase competition for athletes that might be intrigued by schools in the north.

I get that it doesn't cost much to send film anywhere anymore, but if the SEC and ACC weren't worried about it, why go to the trouble to have them banned?

I agree with you that they were threatened, but a lot of the kids we are looking at in the South we already have on our radar.

 

[leodisflowers]

So when you type "it isn't going to hurt anything," what exactly are you talking about?

I answered it. When there was no satellite camps, or we weren't participating where was all of the outrage? A loophole that was found, and finally was beginning to be utilized, and now was banned. You can disagree with me all day long, but who is getting hurt? DiCaprio? How is he getting hurt? I imagine this kid would have received a scholly at some school. How is that hurting him? As in my previous reply's, if you are a legit D1 player, you are on someone's radar with Hudl and all of the other modes of social media.

 

[Truehuskerfan]

Not saying you're wrong, but why hasn't it been happening up until a few years ago if it is such a huge deal? Now I don't agree with not letting smaller tier schools attend the larger camps, but why all of the sudden is this a big deal when it hadn't mattered? Until recently NU hadn't had a satellite camp.

If it's not a big deal, then why not allow them to continue? Who was making a big deal over this issue? Not the schools that were doing the camps. It was the SEC and ACC schools who were afraid of schools infringing on their territory. That's the only reason why these are going away. You seem to be all about nobody getting hurt by the camps going away. Who was getting hurt by them staying? You seem to be bothered by the fact that schools are upset they were going away, but not a bit bothered by the reason why SEC and ACC schools wanted them to go away. Again-who is creating this controversy?

 

[HuskerO]

I answered it. When there was no satellite camps, or we weren't participating where was all of the outrage?

How could there have been an kind of outrage when nothing was banned until now?

A loophole that was found, and finally was beginning to be utilized, and now was banned.

It's not really a loophole when it's always been allowed.

You can disagree with me all day long, but who is getting hurt? DiCaprio? How is he getting hurt? I imagine this kid would have received a scholly at some school. How is that hurting him? As in my previous reply's, if you are a legit D1 player, you are on someone's radar with Hudl and all of the other modes of social media.

Who is it hurting by allowing satellite camps? You're only potentially helping players by allowing satellite camps. So if it's not hurting any players, then why ban it?

 

[leodisflowers]

If it's not a big deal, then why not allow them to continue? Who was making a big deal over this issue? Not the schools that were doing the camps. It was the SEC and ACC schools who were afraid of schools infringing on their territory. That's the only reason why these are going away. You seem to be all about nobody getting hurt by the camps going away. Who was getting hurt by them staying? You seem to be bothered by the fact that schools are upset they were going away, but not a bit bothered by the reason why SEC and ACC schools wanted them to go away. Again-who is creating this controversy?

Don't jump to conclusions. I'm not bothered by anything, just presenting another side that I heard. Our school isn't really affected by this, so it isn't on my radar. I think maybe if Nebraska and Power schools were affected my opinion might be different, but from what I see it is a pretty insignificant change. I don't care either way, just thought it was a fair point.

 

[mkbrkloster]

I agree with you that they were threatened, but a lot of the kids we are looking at in the South we already have on our radar.

Us finding kids is one part, but kids finding us is a bigger part of satellite camps.

 

[mkbrkloster]

Don't jump to conclusions. I'm not bothered by anything, just presenting another side that I heard. Our school isn't really affected by this, so it isn't on my radar. I think maybe if Nebraska and Power schools were affected my opinion might be different, but from what I see it is a pretty insignificant change. I don't care either way, just thought it was a fair point.

I couldn't disagree more with your bolded statement above. Satellite camps are ideal for schools like ours, in our location.

 

[Tyante]

We have probably missed out on quite a few Bootle's for many years, but pretty sure DiCaprio would have had a scholly somewhere. My bigger point is people lose their mind over some small change when we have been operating without satellite camps for years and there has been no talk about it. If you are a big time D1 player, you are on someones radar. Between Scout, Rivals, Hudl, Youtube, and every damn thing under the sun that is out there, there is no way kids who can play aren't getting noticed. It's ok to disagree, I just think this is getting blown way out of proportion.

One thing I'd like to point out is you say this is such a small change, but the NCAA moved really quick to change a rule and apply it immediately. That's not how the NCAA usually works. If it was such a small change, it wouldn't have gone the way it has. It would have been looked at closer and probably studied in a committee.

The biggest thing about this small change is the people it hurts the most are the potential student athletes. These are the people the NCAA should be looking out for. Instead they are looking out for the schools in the south mostly. This is why this small change has caused such a reaction. This small change goes entirely against what the NCAA should be doing.

Instead of making such a small change so quickly, why has the NCAA dragged its feet looking at over-signing or the use of forcing players to take medical scholarships to make room for more recruits. Both of these are a lot bigger issue than satellite camps, yet I have not heard any word on the NCAA looking to pass any immediate rule changes to address these.

 

[newAD]

Ah shucks, maybe this was a mistake?

http://www.si.com/college-football/...amp-ban-consequences-group-of-five-power-five

 

[HuskerO]

Ah shucks, maybe this was a mistake?

http://www.si.com/college-football/...amp-ban-consequences-group-of-five-power-five

Good article. Best paragraph of that article for me was;

Leach said such camps helped schools that needed to fill their rosters from other states. Washington State would not hold a satellite camp in Seattle, for example. Those players can drive to Pullman. But Leach would send coaches to work camps in Los Angeles, where they might have discovered some players who weren’t being recruited by UCLA or USC but might still be good enough to play in the Pac-12. Many of those players, Leach said, can’t afford to pay their own way to Pullman to check out the school. “I don’t know if there was a genuine determination to further oppress low-income families, but that’s essentially the effect that this rule on satellite camps has,” Leach said.

Thoughts on what Leach said @leodisflowers ?

 

[leodisflowers]

Good article. Best paragraph of that article for me was;

Leach said such camps helped schools that needed to fill their rosters from other states. Washington State would not hold a satellite camp in Seattle, for example. Those players can drive to Pullman. But Leach would send coaches to work camps in Los Angeles, where they might have discovered some players who weren’t being recruited by UCLA or USC but might still be good enough to play in the Pac-12. Many of those players, Leach said, can’t afford to pay their own way to Pullman to check out the school. “I don’t know if there was a genuine determination to further oppress low-income families, but that’s essentially the effect that this rule on satellite camps has,” Leach said.

Thoughts on what Leach said @leodisflowers ?

Doesn't change my opinion. Leach is probably going to have a tougher time with recruiting because of the team he coaches and where he plays, and so it probably does help him to a certain extent. I still think though Leach has a master list of the kids he wants, and the kids he may bring in from a satellite camp is pretty small comparatively. Not much more to discuss on my end. I listened to another side, and I agreed with a lot of it.

 

[mkbrkloster]

It isn't going to hurt anything.

Your opinion is largely based upon the fact that these camps are a non-event, non-factor for any school in recruiting. So much so, that taking them away won't "hurt anything", presumably for any school. This is especially odd, as one player on NU's roster publicly claims he wouldn't be here without the camp.

Further, I'd love to here an argument where this NCAA decision is better for the recruited athlete.

Doesn't change my opinion. Leach is probably going to have a tougher time with recruiting because of the team he coaches and where he plays, and so it probably does help him to a certain extent. I still think though Leach has a master list of the kids he wants, and the kids he may bring in from a satellite camp is pretty small comparatively. Not much more to discuss on my end. I listened to another side, and I agreed with a lot of it.

Now you admit that it does hurt schools like WA ST (there are dozens of schools like WA ST, BTW), and do so in the same paragraph that stated your overall opinion didn't change.

I guess my question is...what is the basis for your opinion now?

I'm not trying to be a jerk and picking on you, just genuinely curious what arguments you and those like you are holding on to to support this amazingly quick and decisive decision by the NCAA.

 

[leodisflowers]

Your opinion is largely based upon the fact that these camps are a non-event, non-factor for any school in recruiting. So much so, that taking them away won't "hurt anything", presumably for any school. This is especially odd, as one player on NU's roster publicly claims he wouldn't be here without the camp.

Further, I'd love to here an argument where this NCAA decision is better for the recruited athlete.



Now you admit that it does hurt schools like WA ST (there are dozens of schools like WA ST, BTW), and do so in the same paragraph that stated your overall opinion didn't change.

I guess my question is...what is the basis for your opinion now?

I'm not trying to be a jerk and picking on you, just genuinely curious what arguments you and those like you are holding on to to support this amazingly quick and decisive decision by the NCAA.

Go back and read my last response. I don't really care. I heard an opinion that I agreed with that differs from the outrage of mostly everyone on here talking about it. DiCaprio Bootle is one person on our team that was affected by this. Our full roster is what 120? (I have no idea on full roster size, and I admit there is probably a few others who will fall in this bucket, but I'll stick talking about 1). So this issue is currently affecting less than 1% of Nebraska's roster. DiCaprio may become a superstar, but I'm sure if we didn't have a satellite camp and we didn't get him, we would have had someone else on our radar to fill the spot. All of the power schools probably are similar to NU in that fashion. They are probably below 10% too. Also, not knowing any real info on Bootle, did he have other offers? I imagine he did. He would have got free education somewhere, and if he is a stud he will likely make it to the next level no matter the school. This NCAA decision largely hurts the smaller CFB powers, and the kids who aren't utilizing Hudl, Youtube, or who are borderline D1 players. There are exceptions to every rule, but that is my opinion.

Like I said, I don't care. Just mentioned an opposing opinion that I seemed to agree with with all of the outrage out there.

 

[Lincoln100]

Go back and read my last response. I don't really care. I heard an opinion that I agreed with that differs from the outrage of mostly everyone on here talking about it. DiCaprio Bootle is one person on our team that was affected by this. Our full roster is what 120? (I have no idea on full roster size, and I admit there is probably a few others who will fall in this bucket, but I'll stick talking about 1). So this issue is currently affecting less than 1% of Nebraska's roster. DiCaprio may become a superstar, but I'm sure if we didn't have a satellite camp and we didn't get him, we would have had someone else on our radar to fill the spot. All of the power schools probably are similar to NU in that fashion. They are probably below 10% too. Also, not knowing any real info on Bootle, did he have other offers? I imagine he did. He would have got free education somewhere, and if he is a stud he will likely make it to the next level no matter the school. This NCAA decision largely hurts the smaller CFB powers, and the kids who aren't utilizing Hudl, Youtube, or who are borderline D1 players. There are exceptions to every rule, but that is my opinion.

Like I said, I don't care. Just mentioned an opposing opinion that I seemed to agree with with all of the outrage out there.

But, the opinion that you agreed with is, by your own admissions in this thread, wrong, yet you seem to still keep clinging to it. I haven't read the whole thread so maybe somewhere you backed off of it, but it doesn't sound like it.

 

[HuskerO]

But your comments were;

It isn't going to hurt anything.

You can disagree with me all day long, but who is getting hurt?

and Leach is stating;
But Leach would send coaches to work camps in Los Angeles, where they might have discovered some players who weren’t being recruited by UCLA or USC but might still be good enough to play in the Pac-12. Many of those players, Leach said, can’t afford to pay their own way to Pullman to check out the school. “I don’t know if there was a genuine determination to further oppress low-income families, but that’s essentially the effect that this rule on satellite camps has,” Leach said.

So according to Leach some players are being affected / hurt by this ruling. Not sure how anyone can state otherwise considering the bolded statement.

 

[ellobo]

I answered it. When there was no satellite camps, or we weren't participating where was all of the outrage? A loophole that was found, and finally was beginning to be utilized, and now was banned. You can disagree with me all day long, but who is getting hurt? DiCaprio? How is he getting hurt? I imagine this kid would have received a scholly at some school. How is that hurting him? As in my previous reply's, if you are a legit D1 player, you are on someone's radar with Hudl and all of the other modes of social media.

Not sure this has been answered but there are tons of kids each year who wouldn't get schollies each year if not for these camps...to say they would get a schollie somewhere is wishful thinking. Two understated elements of this is that these camps:

1) Build confidence in the kids (and families) that they can get them (that the system isn't designed against them and not worth even trying)

2) They teach kids how to get exposure (yes, many of these camps hold sessions on how to get recruited)

There are a lot of kids who are fortunate to play in HS programs that regardless of their socio-economic background know how to get the players exposure, have connections with plenty of schools at all different levels and have people dedicating (pretty much volunteering) time to help. But sometimes the biggest difference in a HS program producing a good number of D1A athletes (especially at the non-P5 level) and ones that don't is that one school really doesn't know how and/or have the resources to help the kid...especially for the kid who needs help finding that 1 out 10 or whatever schools that might see something in him (others don't) and has a schollie for him. Now, bring those schools to the kid and the how to get the exposure problem is solved.

 

[mkbrkloster]

But your comments were;
and Leach is stating;
But Leach would send coaches to work camps in Los Angeles, where they might have discovered some players who weren’t being recruited by UCLA or USC but might still be good enough to play in the Pac-12. Many of those players, Leach said, can’t afford to pay their own way to Pullman to check out the school. “I don’t know if there was a genuine determination to further oppress low-income families, but that’s essentially the effect that this rule on satellite camps has,” Leach said.

So according to Leach some players are being affected / hurt by this ruling. Not sure how anyone can state otherwise considering the bolded statement.

Exactly. Outlawing these camps does hurt athletes, especially lower-income families, by limiting exposure. It also hurts some schools (IMO, a lot of schools, including Nebraska), also by limiting exposure. To claim otherwise at this stage in the argument is foolish @leodisflowers . Admit that you're OK with those entities being hurt by this ruling, or stop clinging to an opinion whose basis has been proven false. Repeatedly saying "I just don't care", while continuing to post and defend your opinion on the topic doesn't add up either.

 

[leodisflowers]

Exactly. Outlawing these camps does hurt athletes, especially lower-income families, by limiting exposure. It also hurts some schools (IMO, a lot of schools, including Nebraska), also by limiting exposure. To claim otherwise at this stage in the argument is foolish @leodisflowers . Admit that you're OK with those entities being hurt by this ruling, or stop clinging to an opinion whose basis has been proven false. Repeatedly saying "I just don't care", while continuing to post and defend your opinion on the topic doesn't add up either.

Why is my argument foolish just because you don't agree with it? Provide me an example outside of Bootle that this has had any affect on NU? There may be some, just curious. Also, I'm done posting on the matter, but my opinion isn't going to change because you have a different view, and I really don't care. It's hilarious that you are so worked up from a differing opinion.

 

[leodisflowers]

But your comments were;





and Leach is stating;
But Leach would send coaches to work camps in Los Angeles, where they might have discovered some players who weren’t being recruited by UCLA or USC but might still be good enough to play in the Pac-12. Many of those players, Leach said, can’t afford to pay their own way to Pullman to check out the school. “I don’t know if there was a genuine determination to further oppress low-income families, but that’s essentially the effect that this rule on satellite camps has,” Leach said.

So according to Leach some players are being affected / hurt by this ruling. Not sure how anyone can state otherwise considering the bolded statement.

So Leach has been doing this for a year? Maybe 2?

ESPN ARTICLE (Not sure the actual time frame of satellite camps)

So why hasn't there been a push previous to this to have satellite camps? Maybe there has been, no clue to be honest. Basically up until a year ago or so this was a non issue that we are now really outraged about.

Beating the dead horse is over.

 

[ellobo]

Why is my argument foolish just because you don't agree with it? Provide me an example outside of Bootle that this has had any affect on NU? There may be some, just curious. Also, I'm done posting on the matter, but my opinion isn't going to change because you have a different view, and I really don't care. It's hilarious that you are so worked up from a differing opinion.

If you opinion is that it helps smaller schools more than bigger schools than I'm sure many would agree with you...I would actually argue it helps the smaller schools a tremendous amount more and it's not even close.

However, the flaw in the data is that for bigger schools this is relatively new (leaving their own campus) and was just starting to grow as a practice. So it is hard to measure the real impact it would have had over time. But one set of related evidence that makes me think it would have an impact:

For many years both tOSU and Michigan camps have been destination camps for not only local kids but even kids around the country trying to get offers from MAC and other non-P5 programs in the midwest. Between the two you could basically get exposure to pretty much every non-p5 program in the area. And I'm not sure if it was intentional but the two camps have always been back to back if not overlapping...thus someone from an area could put a group of kids on a bus and drive them for 1 day at each school at a relatively low cost (this type of stuff literally happened). I can't speak for tOSU but every year it seemed there was at least 1 (if not more) kids who came for the MAC and walked out with a Michigan offer...I can name at least 1/2 dozen who ended up in the NFL. Now there would be diminishing returns because other areas have their versions of what tOSU and Michigan camps are/were in their regions but there would likely still be more returns for bigger schools if they went out on the road.

 

[mkbrkloster]

Why is my argument foolish just because you don't agree with it? Provide me an example outside of Bootle that this has had any affect on NU? There may be some, just curious. Also, I'm done posting on the matter, but my opinion isn't going to change because you have a different view, and I really don't care. It's hilarious that you are so worked up from a differing opinion.

I'm not worked up, but IMO, this is the definition of foolish: I have an opinion based upon X. I admit X isn't true. I'm sticking with my opinion.

 

[HuskerO]

So Leach has been doing this for a year? Maybe 2?

ESPN ARTICLE (Not sure the actual time frame of satellite camps)

So why hasn't there been a push previous to this to have satellite camps? Maybe there has been, no clue to be honest. Basically up until a year ago or so this was a non issue that we are now really outraged about.

Beating the dead horse is over.

Why does it matter how long satellite camps have been popular? Changes nothing.

I don't know why satellite camps weren't utilized more until recently. Again, why does it matter?

It was being used more often, it only helped the kids and their families (whether it be more exposure or saving families money) and it did no harm to the kids.