(Note: I'm not sure how to insert links for all the quotes, but if someone can tell me or send me somewhere that will tell me, I'll go back and give credit for every quote and such.)

If you’ve been alive for the past few weeks you’ve heard more about satellite camps than you care to know, which is why I’ve written an extensive diary about them. You’re welcome.

Tom VH’s piece on how coach’s voting can bring down the ban on satellite camps sparked my curiosity as to which schools are actually in favor of the ban, which are opposed to the ban, and which don’t give a crap because they’re smarter than you (I’m lookin’ at you, David Shaw).

From Tom’s article: “The April 8 vote that bans coaches from holding high school camps off campus did not pass by 85 percent majority, which leaves the door open for coaches and athletic directors to try to rescind the vote. Behind closed doors, that's exactly what seems to be happening right now.

“One of the options Harbaugh and Manuel have is trying to get a 66.7 percent of the majority of 128 FBS programs to request that the ruling be rescinded within a 60-day override period. Since the original vote only received 66.6 percent approval, well below the required 85 percent, the programs that disagree with the ruling can still get the ban relinquished.

“The original vote to ban the camps was done by conference representatives, whereas a reversal would require individual votes from programs. Getting roughly 85 programs to request the repeal might be difficult, but there are a growing number of coaches speaking out against the ban.”

He’s rounding down to get to that 85 number, so let’s assume 86 just to be safe. There are two different ways to look at this: From Michigan’s perspective, we need 86 programs including ours to vote to undo the ban. But from the other side, the SEC and their minions need over 43 votes in favor of the ban to uphold it. They already got 66.6 percent approval from the original vote; however, the votes there don’t seem to represent every program very effectively (even though they should in theory).

Thus, determining which programs have spoken out against the ban and which have spoken out against the camps can give us a clearer picture of if such a vote is even plausible. Looking at each of the 128 FBS programs, this is what I came up with:

AGAINST BAN: 39

IN FAVOR OF BAN: 20

HAVEN’T SAID YET: 51

ON FENCE, LEANING AGAINST BAN: 10

ON FENCE, LEANING IN FAVOR OF BAN: 6

NO OPINION; UNSURE: 2

I came up with these numbers by simply googling each program by name, the coach’s name, or the AD’s name with satellite camps. If there isn’t anything relevant on the first or second page, I put n/a. It proved fairly true that if a coach or AD spoke up about the camps or the ban in any way that someone wrote about it from somewhere and it’d end up on the first two search pages. We’ve covered it to death at mgoblog, but so has just about everyone else it seems.

The programs that are on the fence are interesting. Some of them I put there simply because they had camps scheduled but I couldn’t actually find that they gave any kind of a response to the ban itself. Some are there because they’ve openly come out as neutral or have suggested some other changes to the rule. Lots of “I can see both sides to it” quotes coming out of these programs. Some were much more interesting, in the case of Texas State, whose coach came out vehemently against the ban, but whose AD represented the Sun Belt by voting for the ban, an action for which he received some backlash. In the breakdown below, I give more explanation to these cases.

One variable that jacks up this data is proven in the Texas State case, where the AD and the coach might disagree. In this case, the AD likely overrules the coach, however there were few cases where both the AD and coach had spoken publicly about the subject (as Harbaugh and Manuel have), and only that one where they openly disagreed. However, if it comes down to a vote, these instances might have a big effect on how schools vote, so keep that in mind.

The current position of every FBS football program, by conference (those who take any position are bolded):

AAC: 3 against, 9 n/a

Cincinnati: against ban

Connecticut: n/a

East Carolina: n/a

Houston: n/a

Memphis: n/a

Navy: n/a

SMU: n/a

Temple: n/a

Tulane: against ban

Tulsa: n/a

UCF: n/a

USF: against ban

ACC: 1 against, 1 neutral, 5 in favor, 7 n/a

Boston College: n/a

Clemson: in favor of ban

Duke: in favor of ban

Florida State: in favor of ban

Georgia Tech: in favor of ban

Louisville: n/a

Miami (YTM): n/a

North Carolina: n/a

North Carolina State: made statement praising Harbaugh: “You want to have as many opportunities as possible to not just recruit but have your brand out there. What Michigan did was smart. They took advantage of an opportunity. They had the budget to do it. Being a northern school, which I've been before, being able to get down into the South where there's a lot of talent, for them, was intelligent.” – Dave Doeren, head coach

Pittsburgh: in favor of ban

Syracuse: n/a

Virginia: n/a

Virginia Tech: n/a

Wake Forest: against ban

Big 10: 7 against, 2 neutral, 1 in favor, 4 n/a

Illinois: n/a

Indiana: n/a

Iowa: in favor of ban

Maryland: against ban

Michigan: against ban (obviously)

Michigan State: against ban

Minnesota: n/a

Nebraska: against ban

Northwestern: against ban

Ohio State: against ban

Penn State: ok with ban: “If it's legal, we're going to do it, as long as everybody's playing by the same rules is what I care about... There were some real positives to it, but there were some things people had concerns about. You can make arguments both ways. Obviously this is something that we were doing, and enjoyed doing, but I also like the fact we are going to back on our campus, spend more time with our current players, and then the same thing with our families." – James Franklin, head coach

Purdue: hasn’t said, but had camps scheduled

Rutgers: against ban

Wisconsin: n/a

Big 12: 4 against, 2 neutral, 4 n/a

Baylor: against ban

Iowa State: against ban

Kansas: n/a

Kansas State: wants to revise rule: “Our satellite camps, for the most part, were in the state of Kansas, trying to get out to western Kansas, because western Kansas youngsters sometimes just can't get here. We did them in Kansas City, we did them in Wichita. We were in-state. I would prefer the rule still allowed you to do that.” – Bill Snyder, head coach

Oklahoma: against ban

Oklahoma State: against ban

Texas: n/a

Texas Christian: n/a

Texas Tech: n/a

West Virginia: ok with ban: “Camps were once formed for developmental purposes and they’ve turned totally into recruiting tools... I think it’s forcing your institution and camp to move all around the country. In reality, how many of those kids are really coming to your school?” – Shane Lyons, AD

Conference USA: 4 against, 2 neutral, 8 n/a

Charlotte: n/a

Florida Atlantic: had camps scheduled

Florida Int’l: n/a

Louisiana Tech: against ban

Marshall: n/a

MTSU: n/a

North Texas: n/a

Old Dominion: against ban

Rice: n/a

Southern Miss: n/a

UAB: against ban

UTEP: had camps scheduled, coach made neutral statement: "It won't affect us too much... We'll have to adjust but it won't affect us as much as it will other people. Our main focus is on El Paso, the big camp we have here with 150 kids." – Sean Kugler, head coach

UTSA: n/a

Western Kentucky: against ban

Independents: 1 against, 1 neutral, 1 n/a

Army: n/a

Notre Dame: against ban

BYU: ok with ban: "I can see both sides of it. I understand where everyone is making statements, has an opinion. I get that. But my job as head coach is whatever the NCAA says to do, we do it. It doesn't matter what my personal opinion is. I can see both arguments. But right now, the camps are off-limits, so we just plan accordingly." – Kalani Sitake, head coach

MAC: 4 against, 2 neutral, 6 n/a

Akron: n/a

Ball State: had camps scheduled

Bowling Green: against ban

Buffalo: n/a

Central Michigan: against ban

Eastern Michigan: against ban

Kent State: n/a

Miami (NTM): n/a

Northern Illinois: n/a

Ohio: n/a

Toledo: ok with ban: “I see both sides of it. I think it’s a positive that everything is going to be done on your own campus, but I certainly know the benefits of what we’ve had in the past, where we’ve been able to go out and see a bunch of young men at a central location.” – Jason Candle, head coach

Western Michigan: against ban

MWC: 4 against, 1 neutral, 7 n/a

Air Force: n/a

Boise State: against ban

Colorado State: against ban

Fresno State: n/a

Hawai’i: against ban

Nevada: n/a

New Mexico: n/a

San Diego State: n/a

San Jose State: against ban

UNLV: n/a

Utah State: n/a

Wyoming: had camps scheduled

PAC 12: 6 against, 2 in favor, 1 neutral, 1 “it’s complicated,” 2 n/a

Arizona: against ban

Arizona State: n/a

Cal: in favor of ban

Colorado: against ban

Oregon: against ban

Oregon State: had camps scheduled

Stanford: no opinion: “I’m great with whatever college football says, because it doesn’t affect us. It doesn’t make sense for us to go hold a camp some place where there might be one person in the entire state that’s eligible to get into Stanford.” – David Shaw, head coach

UCLA: in favor of ban

USC: n/a

Utah: against ban

Washington: against ban

Washington State: against ban

SEC: 11 in favor, 2 neutral, 1 n/a

Alabama: in favor of ban

Arkansas: on fence: "We were gonna jump in; We were gonna jump in with both feet." – Bret Bielema, head coach

Auburn: in favor of ban

Florida: in favor of ban

Georgia: in favor of ban

Kentucky: in favor of ban

LSU: in favor of ban

Mississippi State: in favor of ban

Missouri: in favor of ban

Ole Miss: in favor of ban

South Carolina: ok with ban/no opinion: “"You ever been to Michigan in March? I'd go to Florida if I were them," Muschamp said, in reference to the Wolverines' spring break excursion to IMG Academy in Bradenton. In the next breath, Muschamp was sure to point out that Jim Harbaugh and the Wolverines did nothing illegal per the NCAA rulebook and said he couldn't care less what other teams are doing this spring.” – Will Muschamp, head coach (via Brad Crawford, 247)

Tennessee: in favor of ban

Texas A&M: in favor of ban

Vanderbilt: n/a

Sun Belt: 5 against, 1 in favor, 2 neutral, 1 “it’s complicated,” 2 n/a

Appalachian State: wants to revise rule: “I can see both sides of the argument for satellite camps, and I do agree with the fact more student-athletes get seen when you’re able to have the satellite camps. You’re doing camps in a place where there’s an abundance of players, and you may have 10 to 20 colleges of all levels there to see these kids... I can see a happy medium coming down. It may not happen this year — maybe next year — where you can work your state and go anywhere in your state.”- Scott Satterfield, head coach

Arkansas State: had camps scheduled

Arkansas Little Rock: against ban

Georgia Southern: against ban

Georgia State: against ban

Louisiana Lafayette: in favor of ban

Louisiana Monroe: against ban

South Alabama: n/a

Texas State: had camps scheduled, coach against ban, AD in favor of ban: "I think it was a snap decision. Not very good for kids that need coaches like myself in the Sun Belt and the MAC to be able to go to Texas and Ohio State camps and see those kids." – Everett Withers, head coach

"The Sun Belt voted on a controversial issue to eliminate these satellite camps. Six of ten FBS conferences voted to eliminate these camps. The pros and cons of these camps can be debated, and I am sure there will continue to be discussion on this matter, but for now the majority has spoken and it's time to move on and the Sun Belt football programs will continue to get better with or without these camps." – Karl Benson, Sun Belt Commissioner (in response to Larry Teis, Texas State’s AD, voting for the ban on behalf of the conference)

UT Arlington: n/a

Troy: against ban

To reiterate the summary, here it is again:

AGAINST BAN: 39

IN FAVOR OF BAN: 20

HAVEN’T SAID YET: 51

ON FENCE, LEANING AGAINST BAN: 10

ON FENCE, LEANING IN FAVOR OF BAN: 6

NO OPINION; UNSURE: 2

If every program had to vote on this matter one way or the other, we could simplify it to this:

AGAINST BAN: 49 (goal: 86)

IN FAVOR OF BAN: 26 (goal: 43)

UNDECIDED: 53

Needing 37 of those 53 undecided votes is quite a bit to ask. But let’s look at those undecided programs a bit more closely to see if we can narrow that down even more:

Undecided programs by conference:

AAC: 9

ACC: 7

Big 10: 4

Big 12: 4

Conference USA: 8

Independents: 1

MAC: 6

MWC: 7

PAC 12: 2

SEC: 1

Sun Belt: 3

Let’s also look at how many are against the ban...:

AAC: 3

ACC: 2

Big 10: 8

Big 12: 5

Conference USA: 6

Independents: 1

MAC: 5

MWC: 5

PAC 12: 7

SEC: 0

Sun Belt: 7

...and in favor of the ban:

AAC: 0

ACC: 5

Big 10: 2

Big 12: 1

Conference USA: 0

Independents: 1

MAC: 1

MWC: 0

PAC 12: 2

SEC: 13

Sun Belt: 1

Beyond the ACC and the SEC, no other conference has more than two programs that have spoken out against the satellite camps or agreed with the ruling. Plus those same conferences are the only ones to have only two or less programs against the ban. This pattern is key to gaining the necessary votes to repeal the ban on satellite camps.

Another pattern to notice is that power 5 conferences have more programs that have spoken up one way or the other about the ban. Only 18 of the 53 undecided programs are from power 5 conferences, leaving 35 from group of 5 conferences. This is also key, as the ban seems to really hurt these smaller schools, particularly if they are in smaller markets (anyone feel bad for Hawai’i here?). It is likely that the majority of those 35 schools be against the ban. Which, with 37 more votes needed, that bodes well for the good guys.

Geography doesn’t seem to matter in the group of 5 programs, as the AAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt all either have schools in the south or are totally in the south, yet from just those 3 conferences only 1 school (Louisiana Lafayette from the Sun Belt) has come out in support of the ban while 16 have come out against it. The MWC as well has 5 against it with 0 in favor, which is even better than the MAC can say with Toledo’s Jason Candle being ok with the ban. Programs in the south and west might even be more affected by the new rule as even camping at schools within their own state would likely help them in recruiting, whereas a program in the midwest or elsewhere might not have the same opportunities to see top level recruits within their own state or even nearby.

This explains why many schools in the Sun Belt, MWC, CUSA, even the PAC 12 are against the ban. It also explains why there is so much outrage that some of those conferences inexplicably “voted” for the ban. In the case of the Sun Belt and the PAC 12, conferences that voted for the ban, over half the conference oppose the ban!

Moving forward, as more of these undecided programs come out of the woodwork either opposed or in favor of the NCAA’s ban on satellite camps, it is clear that we can expect most of them to side with Harbaugh and high-schoolers everywhere on this one. Whether or not it will be enough to rescind the vote by June 7^th remains to be seen, but there is hope.