Dear Diary Vacates the Battle of Hastings Comment Count

Seth

image

so happy we found each other [Joe Dressler for MGoBlog]

SPIKE & CARIS & MAAR & DAWKINS & CALVES (and Colton). Since Beilein’s in the market for a last minute addition or two, Lanknows wrote us a quick look-back at the guys he’s found in a pinch before. I mean, I’m kind of nervous right now—we expected attrition but not that much attrition. But this list would be a ludicrous level of bargain bin success if he had found them all two years before they committed. Even after a disappointing season you have to wonder why nobody else thought Johnny Dawkins’s superbly athletic son was worth a scholarship except Dayton.

IT’S STILL PROBABLY HIS ACCURACY BUT WHOA DADDY. This site is about to be a safe haven for a nation swimming  in politics, so I am going to be extra careful about keeping the politics where they belong. But you know who doesn’t think politics are off limits? Connor Cook’s dad.

image

Connor Cook probably slipped in the draft either because his accuracy, while effective enough for college, suggests he’ll be even less effective in the NFL than Dak Prescott (link: Football Outsiders’ QBase draft projections). Or maybe because his shoulder was pretty messed up and early draft contracts are a lot to gamble on an arm that might fall out. But Daddy being a clearly awful at humanity in 80% of his 1800 tweets probably didn’t help.

If you like me can only handle so much Jeff Moss, go use that up now.

HASHTAG NINETY-FOUR. I think retroactively erasing the outcomes of games makes as much sense as vacating the Norman conquest of England because Harold never swore any such thing, and anyway the Godwins were in truth fine patrons of the Church so the Cross of St. George never should have been allowed to play.

But if they did decide to re-vacate every JoePa victory since he discovered Jerry Sandusky’s a sexual predator, according to a court document that now goes back to 1976:

The line in question states that one of Penn State's insurers has claimed "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky."

Stuff’s still coming out as the legal ramifications of a long-held campus secret become relevant in criminal proceeding or, in this case, a civil case brought by Penn State’s insurer, who claims they shouldn’t be on the hook for the damages if administrators knew and didn’t tell them. Hard not to agree.

I’ve had my fill of Ha Ha Penn State. It’s more a sobering reminder that betraying morality for what you love is betraying the thing you love. Also a sobering reminder that PSU twitter—aka #409—is awful. So I guess what I’m saying is if they did knock his win total back to every game after he knew and didn’t stop it, Joe has 94 wins. #094.

MITCH LEIDNER CAN THROW SPIRALS YOU GUYS I’M SRLSY. Okay nobody posted (Ace linked it in Slack today) this but it should be a thread since the Daily Gopher is having to explain why Todd McShay put Leidner in his 2017 mock draft.

In the first round. As a quarterback. Of the NFL. The football one!

Then the Daily Gopher goes on to explain that yes Leidner can throw a spiral using a video in which Leidner comically doesn’t throw spirals and wracks up highlights by QB sneaking a half a yard. No idea why Gopher fans think moving the ball half a yard is an accomplishment. I mean it should be automatic.

And yes, chucking it where the only way it’s not intercepted by Jeremy Clark is if Clark can’t believe he’d chuck it there is on the reel. Amazingly his pinpoint slant that beat Jourdan Lewis on 4th down isn’t.

ALL ABOARD BOATY MGOBOATFACE. Rivals shared the list of satellite camps that are back on. Map? Map.

image

There’s also rumors of camps to be held in the Pacific Islands, at which point the MGoStaff mutinied and demanded Brian add an option to the Kickstarter to send us all to cover it—all hands on deck. And by that we mean rent a yacht to get us all there. And by that we mean we could use your help naming the boat. Leaders so far are Boaty MGoBoatFace and Happy Ever After, No Brandon’s [sic].

So what I’m getting at here is that for a $30,000 contribution to HTTV’s kickstarter you can have two books (one of them signed), the shirt, a sentence on the thank you page, and three co-workers and I will personally travel to Hawaii to deliver a copy to Harbaugh.

Speaking of Michigan’s Hawaiian presence, I just finished prepping Craig Ross’s article researching the first games of football and it is fascinating. Like I am going to bug Craig to make this his next book.

ETC. Professor Needs a Raise got his raise, is now part of the football program. A thread about Cool World apparently. Magnus (and MGoFish and Brandon the new guy at MnB) gets crystal ball. Space Coyote on defending the pull.

Your Moment of Zen:

Automatic.

Comments

tlhwg

May 6th, 2016 at 4:24 PM ^

so you think that there will be players--who were undiscovered before the camp--that will be able contribute during a season (and championship game) where you win the championship against players on teams like Alabama, Ohio St, Clemson/FSU, etc.?  

Kevin13

May 6th, 2016 at 4:28 PM ^

who get overlooked, because they play at a smaller school or maybe in a state that doesn't get as much coverage. Think about the millions of high school players playing football every year. It's impossible for all of them to get scouted. So sure it's very possible for us to find a few nuggets out there that turn out to be huge contibutors for us down the road.

tlhwg

May 6th, 2016 at 4:47 PM ^

Just trying to make sure there's no ambiguity and we're not talking past each other.

Y'all are chugging the kool aid.  LOL.

Okay, okay.  I disagree (obviously).  IMO the type of benefits that these camps *might* produce are very long-term (like >5 years from now) that result from establishing relationships with really young kids (middle-schoolers) and their coaches, etc.  

BTW, different topic: just wanted to say that I think you exceed expectations again this year, e.g., the newest FPI has Michigan at #11 (see below), which I think under-values you.  And if I were near Vegas, I'd drop some on you to win the conference (which I think you will) and even with it all (b/c of the good odds).  

FPI 3.0: http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings

tlhwg

May 6th, 2016 at 5:26 PM ^

does MGoBlog ban people hastily?  I really like Brian and Ace's work.  

Maybe you mean that the fan/poster mob will gang up on me.  I've been a member/posting here for years.  Haven't had any problems.  (And don't see what I've posted here should cause problems)

Valar Morghulis

May 6th, 2016 at 5:54 PM ^

But if you keep posting the same question over and over (which makes it look like you're mocking the answer you are trying to get out of us) then it starts looking like trolling behavior, which will likely in turn get you banned or create the mob-mentality that you're referencing.

I guess I'm not sure why you don't think that finding an under-recruited/lightly-recruited kid at a camp can help win a championship. Surely FSU (I'm assuming that's your team) had some kids that contributed to their national championships that weren't highly touted coming out of high school. Every year there's many examples of this happening, and this is part of the reason of holding these satellite camps: to identify players that can contribute to your team.

So to answer your original question: yes, it is possible that some of these kids that get offered at these camps can be contributors to a possible Michigan national championship in 5 years, if it were to happen.

Seth

May 6th, 2016 at 5:21 PM ^

"It all helps" answers it. Every rep in practice isn't the one that locks in the muscle memory that is triggered to win The Game. But every rep could be. Satellite camps expand the pool of players they evaluate and have personal interactions with, including the blue chips. Michigan has gotten camp commits as long as there have been camps. Plenty of them were contributors. The value of this isn't hard to prove, short or long term.

In the short term it also got the SEC and some other schools we compete with to look like lazy anti-student fools. The Big Ten and Harbaugh especially will get to hold that episode over their heads for years. Think Donovan Peoples-Jones feels the same way about the SEC after his mom wrote the petition to reverse their rule?

tlhwg

May 6th, 2016 at 6:38 PM ^

You need blue chips to win not diamonds in the rough.

Can you give me a name of a player who was discovered at a satellite camp who became a difference maker in A2?

Your coaches can use the info you mentioned to negatively recruit a kid vs the SEC but that'd be misinformation.

Mr Miggle

May 6th, 2016 at 7:15 PM ^

camps while ignoring others.

They aren't just about discovering unknown players. There will be plenty of well known prospects at those camps too. Those players get a chance to work with Michigan coaches and see them in action. The coaches get to see how the recruits take to coaching and can evaluate them better as prospects.

Aside from the players, they are also building contacts with HS coaches. That can pay benefits in recruiting now and down the line. Harbaugh has also been adding them to his staff. It helps that he can evaluate their work in person. That could also apply to the other college coaches for the next time he has an opening to fill.

 

tlhwg

May 9th, 2016 at 12:42 PM ^

Just thought that most of what you said fell under one that toed a line that others had mentioned (camps provide soft, long-term benefits beyond loading the roster with blue chips) and that I already responded to, i.e., I already said that JH intends camps to produce long-term benefits, etc.  But with the sheer size of Harbaugh's non-coaching staff (probably 2nd in size only to Saban's), Michigan already has recruiting analysts in every corner of the country who have contacts with more HS coaches than any program.  And long-term benefits require keeping JH on staff; otherwise, typically new HCs hire all new assistants, etc.  So the only guaranteed potential benefit to the camps are to the current Michigan program under HC JH.

Aas you note, some blue chip players will be at these camps.  And the camp will indeed give JH 1 extra face-to-face interaction with them.  We'll know how much value this 1 additional contact has after 2017 NSD, when we'll be able to calculate a rate of blue chips who were not leaning towards Michigan or were ambivilant but ended up signing with Michigan.  (Last year Summer Swarm yielded 0 blue chips, regardless of leaning.)  

Like you I see the camp tour less as a means of signing the best players in the country and more as a marketing/branding opportunity.  The catch, however, is that Michigan is already a national brand.

 

Mr Miggle

May 9th, 2016 at 5:32 PM ^

operating under a misconception. Since much of the talk about the satellite camps has been about their value to lesser known recruits, you're assuming that must be the value Michigan sees in them for recruiting too. I'm sure that's not true. If you look, you will see that many of the camps are being held at the home of 5* or high 4* recruits Michigan is interested in. That's not a coincidence. 

tlhwg

May 10th, 2016 at 9:24 AM ^

and, yes, this gives JH one more face-to-face contact with them.  I suppose it's TBD whether the ROI on the camps pay off with respect to signing blue chips.  Again, I'll be paying attention to the # of blue-chips that pre-camps were not leaning towards Michigan that actually end up signing with Michigan on NSD.  Then we'll be able to calculate the ROI on the roughly $600K that the Michigan athletics department projects to spend for satellite camps in 2016.  (Again, we do know that last year Michigan's camps yielded 0 blue chips.)

Note, however, that the ROI issue doesn't address the broader implications for CFB of changing the recruiting calendar, etc.  It should also be noted that all of the soft factors (e.g., establishing relationships with local coaches, etc.) can be achieved without camps, changing the recruiting calendar, etc.

What are your thoughts on the current recruiting model that permits unlimited satellite camps?  For example, do you think it should be modified in any way, etc.?  

Seth

May 10th, 2016 at 12:42 PM ^

Thanks for making a case.

Regarding ROI: That's up to the schools. Michigan has more money than it can legally spend, so from Michigan's perspective any time money can be used to an advantage, that's a good thing. If it's super expensive that just means we can do it and other schools can't. $20,000 for one or two contributors that would have otherwise gone to non-contributors? Sold.

Regarding the recruiting calendar: If you ask the players themselves, the #1 thing they like about the recruiting process, normally, are the camps. As much as the NCAA likes to pretend otherwise, these are uber-elites who've dedicated their lives to excelling at this one thing, and the chance to show that off live, as well as get instruction from some of the best coaches in the country (and get a feel for their coaching sytles), is eleventy bazillion times more valuable to them than letters or texts or even in-home meetings. Coaches don't necessary like having to work in the summer, but they long ago stopped making teachers' salaries. 

Let's be frank about this: the biggest problem Southern schools have with these camps is it increases the nationalization of recruiting, which does not benefit the schools in closest proximity to the most talent. 

tlhwg

May 10th, 2016 at 2:35 PM ^

Southern schools have no need to host satellite camps b/c they can host camps on their own campus.  (And since we're being frank: if Michigan were in the cradle of talent, they'd be against the current unlimited form of satellite camps.  I'm pretty sure this makes the value of the current model of satellite camps relative, not absolute as it is promoted by some.)  

Re the recruiting calendar, I'm on record saying that blue chips don't attend satellite camps (unless their coach tells them that they have to show up that day) b/c they already have dozens of offers and don't need to prove how talented they are.  (And let's be frank again: nobody wants every single head coach hosting a camp at a particular school, e.g., IMG, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.) where every player on the school's team is required/expected to participate in the visiting coaches' camps.)  Blue chips have other higher profile camps to attend to compete with the top talent in the region (or country). 

Re the ROI, yes Michigan has more $$$ than God.  (BTW the figures you cited, i.e., $20K per player, are way off.  Last year you spent $250K and got 0 blue chips; this year you're projected to spend $600K on camps--ROI per blue chip is TBD.)  So it sounds like you might be suggesting that ROI is irrelevant (b/c $$$ is irrelevant), i.e.,

because Michigan (is in the 1% of CFB and) can afford an unlimited # of camps, unlimited model of sattelite camps is the best for CFB. 

And an unlimited model of camps should be permitted regarless of the implications, e.g., eliminating a recruiting calendar, dozens of camps being held at the same high school (where kids are expected/required to participate), etc.  

Last, this question is for the crowd: do you believe that there should be any limits placed on satellite camps?

tlhwg

May 7th, 2016 at 8:50 AM ^

this kid was unknown until he was discovered at a satellite camp (before 2002, when he graduated from high school)?

 

Breaston lettered three times in football at Woodland Hills High School, where he led the team to a 14-1 record and to a berth in the Pennsylvania 4-A state championship game. He helped Woodland Hills win the WPIAL Class AAAA title, gaining 219 yards on 15 carries during a 41-6 victory. The Gatorade Pennsylvania Player of the Year in 2001, Breaston was rated the third-best skill athlete and was named Northeast Offensive Player of the Year by Super Prep. He received a four-star rating and was ranked as the nation's eighth-best "athlete" by Rivals100.com.

Seth

May 7th, 2016 at 3:18 PM ^

He was a QB before the spread had taken root. Next time I talk to him I'll get the full story but the gist is Michigan found him by attending a camp in Pennsylvania and decided to offer then figure out his position later. His ratings climbed over the course of his senior season due to an electric highlight reel.

I think you've been thoroughly answered now. It's not hard to prove that scouting is important in recruiting, or that seeing players in person helps in their recruitment. I have a strong sense now that you came in here hoping to have an argument for your position, not test its validity. I think you should stop now since your horse is good and dead.

tlhwg

May 7th, 2016 at 8:30 PM ^

What's true. I came here because I thought folks here were a good source of info. You found one guy from the class of 2002 and consider the discussion re the value of satellite camps over.... And we didnt even scratch the surface of satellite camps.

Seth

May 8th, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^

You asked for an example and I gave you the first one off the top of my head. The burden of proof goes both ways and so far I haven't seen you produce one convincing argument other than you "believe" satellite camps are worthless.

if you can build a case for why satellite camps are not worth the effort expended on them, do so, because the world is already operating as if they are, and you've been provided ample evidence for why that is. It's high time you offered some.

tlhwg

May 8th, 2016 at 3:10 PM ^

I'm objecting that camps have value.  The onus is on he who believes that camps have value.  (Just like the onus isn't on the athiest to show that God doesn't exist, it's on the theist who believes he does.)  That said, I'll repeat the reason/objection I've already given and then give another broader reason against the *current* version of satellite camps.  The first argument is stronger, the second is weaker.

First, again, blue chips (4*-5* recruits) win championships.  Michigan is an elite program whose goal is winning championships.  The only teams who have won a national championship since the BCS era are teams who had >50% blue chip players in its roster.   And the best teams (e.g., Alabama, Ohio St) recruit well above the 50% blue chip ratio; competing with such teams requires similar talent.  The overwhelming majority of players who attend camps are non-blue chips (This is consistent with the exposure arguemnt that people like Leach, parents, et. al. were giving, i.e., camps should be permitted because it gives the less talented guys, from remote areas, etc., exposure that they deserve.)  Therefore, it's in a team's best interest to spend its time focused on recruiting blue chips, not trying to find diamonds in the rough at camps.  Sure, some <=3* guys discovered at camps will become blue chips by NSD.  But only some of them will sign with Michigan.  

The second, more general reason for doubting the value of the current version of satellite camps permitted by the NCAA is that it permits year round recruiting, which eliminates the NCAA's recruiting calendar.  That is, head coaches can now have year-round face-to-face, off-campus contact with recruiting targets.  Harbaugh is holding all of his camps during the Quiet Period of the NCAA Recruiting calendar.  Here’s what the NCAA guidance says re the Quiet Period:

What is a quiet period?

During a quiet period, a college coach may only have face-to-face contact with college-bound student-athletes or their parents on the college’s campus. A coach may not watch student-athletes compete (unless a competition occurs on the college’s campus) or visit their high schools. Coaches may write or telephone college-bound student-athletes or their parents during this time.

Camps involve face-to-face contact that is not on the coach’s college campus.  So strictly speaking (per the current NCAA Recruiting Calendar) camps involve a recruiting violation, which no one is talking about.  And with the lifting of the satellite ban, coaches can recruit year-round just like NFL coaches, who basically have no restrictions on how they can spend their time.  The NCAA (and everyone) should think about the implications that camps have on the Recruiting Calendar and college football itself, which is turning into a semi-pro league.  Some might not have any problem with this, others will.  Some like to maintain a distinction between college and pro football, some might not.

Mr Miggle

May 9th, 2016 at 6:47 AM ^

reply but mine above. I wonder why that is other than you have no answer and are unable to admit you are wrong..

Also, your are not good at logic. Schools and coaches are demonstrating their belief that the camps have value by spending their time and resources. You refuse to even try and understand why that is. Instead you claim they are all wrong based on your very limited knowledge of their potential and demand we prove otherwise with specific results of one particular aspect.

Let me ask a simple question. What kind of proof would satisfy you at this point? Not one player from Harbaugh's satellite camps has yet played.

 

tlhwg

May 9th, 2016 at 1:46 PM ^

Re your final question here, "what would suffice for evidence that camps have value for Michigan?"  Again, in order to win the B1G and compete in the playoff (and win a championship) Michigan needs difference makers at every position.  If a camp yields such a (more than 1, probably) difference maker, then the ROI on Michigan's camps probably have positive value.  (Note: I do know that the total cost of the Summer Swarm tour, which was smaller than this year's tour, was $240,000.  If Michigan gets 1 difference maker at the cost of $240,000, that's probably not a good value.)

I do undersand, however, why you might think that this might seem reductive (reducting the value of camps to difference makers on the field) because there are other potential longer-term recruiting benefits to camps.  But, again, Michigan already has recruiting analysts at every corner of the country, whose only job is to interact with local coaches and identify players that have Michigan-level talent.  So, the only value that camps have that is indisputable is their marketing/branding value.

Also, as I said in my last longer reply to Seth, it's worthwhile to reflect on the broader implications on college football (and look past the potential benefits of one's own team) that results from eliminating (or significantly modifying) the recruiting calendar, esp. when the only guaranteed benefit is marketing/branding.

It seems that the most benefit from satellite camps is for smaller schools who might identify some under-the-radar kid who doesn't have an offer from a G5 or P5 program.  I think there's a recruiting model that the NCAA can implement that preserves this function.  Per their press release, the NCAA will review the current recruiting model this fall and may make changes to it.

Farnn

May 6th, 2016 at 4:55 PM ^

I don't think the benefits of the camps will be as tangible as a receiver that Michigan discovered at a camp scores the game winning TD against OSU. But it gets Michigan on the minds of younger players, allows the coaches to set up camps at the HS of elite players, and keeps the Michigan name in headlines during the off season.

Many young players want to know the coaches think they are important. It's why they respond well to receiving 50 letters a day and being contacted regularly. It's why the head coach not recognizing you during a visit is a big deal. So bringing your whole staff to the kids school is a pretty good way to show how important they are.

tlhwg

May 6th, 2016 at 5:21 PM ^

it's like Jimmy is starting a long-term (4+ years) plan to establish relationship with the really young unknown kids.  If Jimmy leaves, he'll need to promote from within and retain as much staff as possible for this plan to have a real lasting effect.  

BTW, this:

"keeps the Michigan name in headlines during the off season."

doesn't win championships.  I know that good press is always good, but Michigan is an elite football program and therefore Harbaugh's ultimate goal--what he's paid for--is to win championships.  Period.  

Steves_Wolverines

May 6th, 2016 at 5:42 PM ^

But I don't think you understand that your statement..."Michigan is an elite football program", is something current high school players believe. They need to SEE it to believe it. 

Harbaugh can only impress these students with results once the season is over. 

He is doing everything in his power to get these students to believe in Michigan before the results are there. Yes, 10-3 is impressive, but losses to our rivals and a Pac-12 team still doesn't impress over what OSU, MSU, Alabama, etc have accomplished over and over again the last 10 years. 

Michigan's reputation as a football power has disappeared. It's been this way for about 10 years. 

These camps enables high school athletes to see what Michigan has to offer, when there is no alternative for those same students to get to Ann Arbor to see for themselves. 

But don't let this "repairing the brand" talk get in the way of what's most important about these camps; which is sharing the passion and knowledge of football across the nation. 

Richard75

May 9th, 2016 at 1:52 PM ^

Maybe, but that's not the right question. You do have to win games to reach the playoff. So if a guy is a "difference maker" against, say, IU (which almost beat both OSU and Michigan last season), then he's done something useful, regardless of whether he does it in the playoff.

So the question should just be about whether these guys can contribute, period. (To which I'd say of course they can.)




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Seth

May 11th, 2016 at 12:22 AM ^

We are getting thin so I'm moving the response up here.

What if Michigan was discovered by Ponce de Leon

Southern schools would benefit too from satellite camps. FSU should hold them in Ohio and LA and Houston, or join another big time program who does. If the SEC was smart they'd band together and do a satellite tour of their own, and drag ESPN along for the ride. Just because there's more per capita talent in the south that hardly means all the football is there; not even half of it is.

If's are dangerous--demographics and economics and history put things where they are. That said, if you transported Ann Arbor to Jacksonville, it still comes with Jim Harbaugh, and he'd almost certainly be pushing satellite camps as well, because Michigan still has more money and a harder working coach, and satellite camps are one way to use those things to Michigan's advantage. He'd still have a camp in Saban's backyard.

Don't forget one of the biggest and oldest satellite camps in the country is Sound Mind Sound Body, which is a camp Michigan and Michigan State put together. This didn't start as a raid on Southern talent; satellite camps have been a Michigan thing for awhile. What turned them into a national issue was James Franklin dabbling his toes in the "we don't take kindly" region, and Harbaugh blowing the doors off. To the rest of Americans, selling your thing elsewhere in America is just America: state to state, no papers. At the core of the issue, there's nothing here except the South is offended at the idea of fancy pants (or ahem Wal-Mart khakis) carpetbaggers comin' down and pilfering their precious footballers. In MI America, that happens because you deserve it.

-----------------------

The relative value of the status quo to Florida

Why should Michigan care if the value of satellite camps are higher to Michigan than, say (using an example we probably both hate) Florida? Fuck Florida. Michigan wants to beat Florida for recruits, stomp 'em in bowls, and oh yeah we play them soon too. This is a competition, not a beautillion ball (I actually don't know how beautillion balls work so I may be totally wrong about that).

The "relative" value is that Florida merely exists in closer proximity to more talent than Michigan. Florida relatively benefits from a system in which you can only hold camps within 50 miles of your campus, because they have a wealthy 50 mile radius. Florida also relatively benefits from a rule that states only Florida can have camps, period.

Those relative values are meaningful only to Florida. That is why Michigan's argument for satellite camps is all about what the players benefit. 

Mere proximity doesn't give Florida a right to first dibs. If Michigan holds a camp at Disney World and runs off with Mickey and Minnie's son, well, Michael Mouse Jr. goes to a better school that was a better fit, Michigan gets a better player than the scholarship would otherwise have gone to, and boo hoo Florida has one less spot in their class filled.

It's all the same whether Michigan or Florida gets better at football, but Florida's advantage happens to coincide with the players' disadvantage, while what Michigan wants and what the players want are in alignment. Nobody cares, Florida. Nobody cares, Michigan. The players benefit from the camps; that's what matters.

-----------------------

No Papers vs. Freeze's summer vacation

When you say "current model" it's unclear what other model you are talking about. There's the one Hugh Freeze put forth where you can invite sub-Power 5 schools but not Power 5 schools, but that again just cuts off the value to the players, and serves only the interest of regional schools afraid they won't be the local kids' only choice. So there are two models without banning satellite camps: the AMERICA I WILL BUY A WINNEBAGO AND DRIVE STATE TO STATE NO PAPERS? NO PAPERS. model, and the THINK OF HUGH FREEZE'S CHILDREN model. If there's another, by all means propose it.

As for proliferation, you just saw how that works when Rutgers called Ohio State and tried to hold a camp the same day as Michigan's in NJ. Result: the parents are pissed. That is not ideal, and since the sensitivity of those parents matters to the schools tha puts a cap on how many camps can be held. As markets do, this will settle out, probably with Michigan in good position for being the early adopter, and whatever school figures out how to make them more valuable for the players also in good position.

-----------------------

Money is not equal, nor does it have to be

The free market isn't perfect, but it should remain the default. What needs defending is not the liberty to spend your money on stuff you want--freedom is the base assumption, and any limitation on freedom has to have a much better reason than protecting unfair advantages in the status quo.

I'm already tiptoeing around politics here by talking about free markets and such, but the general American consensus when it comes to buying stuff with your money is you can buy whatever you want until it affects the rights of another. If the result of Michigan spending what Florida can't afford is that Michigan finds more kids who wanted to go to Michigan, okey dokey. You're allowed to use money to compete.

I will be the first to admit that college football is royally unbalanced. Eastern Michigan has a 0.00000% chance of ever winning the national title they nominally compete with Alabama for every year. There are only a handful of elites sitting on ungodly gobs of money, and a bunch more bourgeosie spending themselves to bankruptcy to keep up the fiction that they're also nobility.

By your own admission, satellite camps aren't going to change that. What they do is provide a small advantage for a super wealthy school with a coach willing to put in the time. Effect on the market: nil. Eastern Michigan remains Eastern Michigan.

-----------------------

What's Best for College Football (read: Hugh Freeze's kids)

When you get into "what's best for college football" are you asking what is best for parity? Because Michigan has a gap to close with Ohio State, Alabama, and an unfair disadvantage with a host of other schools because we have a compliance department that's actually functional (I won't claim perfect, but it's closer to that than to Ole Miss).

This may seem off topic, but we're talking about the same regulatory body here. If the NCAA was the EPA, they'd be letting coal-fired power plants ignore all the laws on the books, then hammering a solar company for giving away free solar panels to coal power customers. Different issues, certainly, but coal and solar are competing for the same electric bills, and the arbitrary enforcement is changing the dynamics of the market for reasons unrelated to the public good.

What's best for the majority of D-I schools is access to a wider pool of talent. That's why the SEC had to play Floridian politics to get the ban passed, and why it got overturned entirely by a body that usually rubber-stamps such things. There's only a small minority of flagship state schools in talent-rich states who are better off if they could prevent access to out-of-state schools. They happen to be the same schools spittin' coal dust and telling the rest of us to choke on it, so fuck 'em.

College football is totally fine as long as they can put it on TV and keep the money (a whole different argument). In fact it is more than fine. It is so spectacularly awesome right now that small schools dump most of their other men's teams then charge fees to their students to have way more college football than they should be able to afford.

-----------------------

Work in JULY? What is this, America?

As for the coaches who have to work harder because June and July is suddenly part of the "recruiting calendar", those are the same guys who have been the primary beneficiaries of all this wealth. I just wrote an article about how ludicrous it was that Texas A&M offered Bo a quarter of what is now average for a mid-major head coach. Assistants even make over $1 million.

The kids themselves would prefer satellite camps to any other part of the recruiting process. You spoke earlier here about blue chips not wanting to attend. You probably don't know many blue chips. Those I know are all manically competitive. They got to be the elites because they can stretch their talent further. Jourdan Lewis is one of the best corners in the country, and he was a 4-star as a high schooler, but he got that 4 stars by going to camps and competing his ass off. The camps aren't just about the 2017 kids--they are often the place where a sophomore or junior gets noticed for the first time.

I'll let you fall on your sword when the 5-stars do show up to camps, but once again Donovan Peoples-Jones, one of the best WRs in his class who could go anywhere, was the recruit at the center of the player movement to overturn the ban.

What the satellite camps replace are the 7-on-7's that have been proliferating since the 1990s. Those are run by often less than savory dudes, and the coaching instruction is sub par. Power 5 coaches are some of the best in the country, comparable only to the NFL guys, and then a lot of the NFL coaches are long removed from when they had to spend a majority of their time drilling fundamentals. They're who are setting the demand for these things, and any restrictions have to first demonstrate that they're not just screwing those kids out of something there's no reason they shouldn't have.

-----------------------

Don't be shortsighted

Your faux concern for Michigan's ROI is well noted. Thank you for caring. What is the address of your place of business so we can send the thank you for caring card?

I admit I have an ulterior motive for wanting your address: if you happen to work for a tradeable company I may want to short your stock, since you don't seem to have put much thought into long-term investment or real value.

You harped on 50% (give or take) of every championship team being built of 4- and 5-stars..."blue chips." First of all who's to say that 15-year-old DE throwing his barely pubescent body at registered voters won't be Rashan Gary in a few years?

Second: JUST FIFTY PERCENT! Where's the other half of your team going to come from? Recruiting stars matter in the aggregate but they also have a huge margin of error. Highlight reels don't show inconsistency, or problem areas. The sites tend to rate guys with early growth spurts who went to THEIR camp higher, then forget to adjust much. Very successful coaches routinely say stars don't matter because coaches don't have the luxury of being half as wrong as stars are.

Their evalutations are meticulous, and often they are looking at things that other coaches aren't, for example Josh Uche, a find out of Miami, probably won't be an NFL defensive end, but he excellent skills that translate to being a weapon against college zone reads. Michigan and Florida both needed that badly--if D.J. Durkin hadn't been at Florida before Michigan would never have known about Uche.

Long-term the benefits are immeasurable; that doesn't mean you throw them out. Meeting coaches, meeting young players who may blow up in one or two years, and even if the local 5-star guy doesn't come his best friend the 3-star nose tackle may.

It is, as many satellite camp opponents have noted with cynicism, a sales tour. Actually I'd liken them more to trade shows. I'm certain in the history of American business, some belt-tightening bureaucrat upstairs thought that trade shows should no longer be necessary now that telegraphs exists. This is still wrong. Every year no matter how much you can learn about gadgets and whizpoppers online, and no matter how recognizable their brand may be, General Electric goes all around the country buying up acres of floor space at things shows, half of which they put on themselves. And every time they do so, some local contraptionamawhatsit company asks why GE bothers to spend all that money just in hopes of selling maybe one small contraptionamawhatsit.

GE thanks him for his concern; will you be at WEFTEC, RemTEC, AWWA, A&WMA, IFAT, The Power Show, World of Concrete, Distrubutech, IPPE, Photonics West, PGMA, IPC APEX, AAPEX, RSA, Aviation Week, JEC, Bio Expo, Semicon, Glassbuild, and Power-Gen? Because we're going. In fact I think we shall buy a pickup truck. And drive it State to state. With no papers.

--Summer Glau

 
 

EGD

May 6th, 2016 at 4:36 PM ^

I guess there was that one time Minnesota failed to gain half a yard on the last play of a game, which cost them a certain drinking vessel. Maybe that makes all the other times, when Leidner did gain the half-yard, seem more impressive.

StephenRKass

May 6th, 2016 at 5:08 PM ^

Ok, if your sponsor (homesure lending) is paying for a yacht to get you yahoos out to the islands, that is one incredible sponsor. Tell me what it's like and link to lots and lots of pics.

Rasmus

May 9th, 2016 at 7:11 AM ^

Has confirmed that PSU settled with the 1971 victim, and the court document suggests they also did so with the 1976 victim. PSU hanging its hat on the fact they settled with these accusers and thus that abuse will always be "alleged" without additional criminal proceedings is, well, disingenuous to say the least.

These both seem to be victims who emerged after the end of the 2012 trial. Likely there are more, but it's also possible the assistants who saw whatever they saw in the 1980s did enough that they interrupted Sandusky's grooming process long enough for some of his would-be victims from that period to escape.

But the bottom line is the hashtag should be simple: #JoeLied

I'm not sure where I stand on the Penn State football program, but I will point out that the B1G is in a position not unlike that of PSU's insurers -- there should have been full disclosure when they joined the conference.