Mike Leach Discusses Satellite Camps Today on The Rich Eisen Show (video)

Submitted by gobluescrewosu on

For those of you who, like me, have been tracking almost religiously the outrage that has followed the NCAA's ban of football satellite camps, I have been finding Mike Leach to be presenting the most concise and accurate argument regarding their utility.  For that reason, I link for your viewing pleasure, his appearance today on The Rich Eisen Show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBywcw-JHl8

I don't often post so I do not know how to embed.  Apologies.

MGoBoard
Football

Blue4U

April 13th, 2016 at 6:00 PM ^

as far as he knows 11 voted in favor for the camps and 1 abstained yet the conference states they collectively are against.  "Something's wrong....something's completely wrong."  Sounds like the southern good ole boy network is playing puppet master.

Joined: 09/13/2011

MGoPoints: 4616

LSAClassOf2000

April 13th, 2016 at 6:20 PM ^

I don't doubt that honestly, and really to me, it seems like UCLA and USC - if they really wanted - would be the only two schools in that conference that would be possibly in favor of one in any scenario since they sit in the middle of the largest talent pool in the region. Everyone else except Stanford would likely benefit from them, and Stanford lives in its own weird world by design, so they are likely indifferent. That would be my guess anyway. 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130505

CoverZero

April 13th, 2016 at 6:14 PM ^

Leach gets it.  I like how he brings up that game clock fiasco that Saban tried to push a few years ago.

The other thing that he exposes is if 11 out of 12 Pac 12 schools are in favor of the camps...how did the Pac 12 register as a negative vote?

Is the NCAA really that crooked to change votes to satisfy the SEC agenda?

That seems very much illegal.

Joined: 08/30/2014

MGoPoints: 14571

doggdetroit

April 13th, 2016 at 7:01 PM ^

Which makes the voting process even more bizzare. I had speculated that the Pac 12 vote would probably come down to a 8-4 split in favor of camps. If Leach is to believed, it was actually 11-1 or 11-0 with one school abstaining. Yet, the Pac 12 votes against?

I would really like to more about the voting process in general.

Joined: 09/05/2015

MGoPoints: 2337

Sopwith

April 13th, 2016 at 6:31 PM ^

but ESPN posted a summary of comments from Power 5 coaches re: the ban. Interestingly, Kirk Ferentz at Iowa was one of the people supporting the ban, along with James Franklin. Pat Narduzzi at Pitt also supported. The majority of several Big 12 coaches providing comment opposed the ban, yet the conference voted for it. No dissents among the SEC as expected.

LINK

Big 12 had an interesting mix, and I'm surprised OK didn't carry more weight with both their coach and AD coming out against it:

Big 12
Matt Campbell, Iowa State: Opposed to ban "From my end of it, I'm furious. The NCAA guidelines say their job is, No. 1, to protect the student-athlete, and No. 2, it's to create a fair and equal balance across all Division I athletics. As I look at it, our job should be to go out to these young men, not for (their) parents to fly and create more money situations. The reality of it is that you're hurting kids. I'm coming from a non-Power 5 school, where we made a living on those camps. We went with Ohio State, (and) we went with Michigan. We did our own camps, travelling the circuit throughout Ohio." (via The Des Moines Register)
Bill Snyder, Kansas State: OK with ban "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. I have mixed emotions about it. You like to get out and have the opportunity to be with young guys, but, by the same token, it can get out of hand. The rule now is everything has to be on your campus. I can live with it. That's fine. I think it serves the purpose of not opening the thing up so you have 1,000 camps across the country. That is probably a problem as well." (via The Kansas City Star)
Joe Castiglione, Oklahoma athletic director: Opposed to ban "We were supportive of (the camps) because it was more of a service," Castiglione said. "We were able to get to some camps. Some of the kids who couldn't afford to travel could go to that camp. It's hard to say how many student athletes we recruited came out of those camps, but it was a positive experience." (via Tulsa World)
Bob Stoops, Oklahoma: Opposed to ban "In my mind, even if you found one guy, it was worth it," he said. "You might have 200 there and one guy is the one you offer. If he plays for you and does well, I think it's a big get." (via Tulsa World)

Joined: 06/29/2010

MGoPoints: 60897

Albatross

April 14th, 2016 at 1:12 PM ^

There was a time when we pretty much own Pennsylvania in recruiting, back in the Lloyd era. We are pretty much a non-factor there now.

I think the satellite camps are more a benefit for the kids than a program like Michigan. For all the hoopla, the reality is that Michigan isn't wrestling away these camp kids from other elite programs, usually these kids don't even have offers from their instate powers. It is not like the camps are yielding 5-star prospects. Instead we are getting those "under the radar kids" that you should be able to land at any point in the recruiting cycle.

 

Joined: 11/12/2013

MGoPoints: 1957

CorkyCole

April 13th, 2016 at 7:43 PM ^

I love Bill Snyder's comments in particular. The reason he sees it as a good thing is that he's afraid it's going to get out of hand with too many camps. So you ban satellite camps in order to prevent 20 different major college coaches from doing 30 different camps a piece... Well the problem is now every single college in America is forced to run their own camp instead of just attending an already existing camp, which will bump up the numbers all in itself. And maybe most schools already do that, but still... How is that fair to schools like Eastern Michigan or South Alabama who now have to compete for campers with Michigan and Alabama? It's a joke. However, I think there are enough schools across the board that are concerned about satellite camps in general given the trend it looks like they're headed towards. And because of that I feel that it could be logical to limit the scope of satellite camps to a certain number (5? 10?) per school and it should at the very least be a MUCH better and fairer proposal than a complete elimination. In no way should there even be the option to completely eliminate camps, however. It's a crime against student athletes who are praying for scholarships. The kids who need the scholarships are the same ones that can't afford to go to a bunch of camps seeking offers. Not to mention schools will have to put on camps on the same day as other schools and compete against each other not just for their money but also for their time. Are we going to need a satellite camp recruiting position now? All that being said, I love Mike Leach for what he said. He's hilarious and spot on.

Joined: 06/13/2011

MGoPoints: 4498

Rochester Blue

April 13th, 2016 at 10:43 PM ^

Maybe I haven't read enough yet, but why would a coach doing 30 satellite camps be a problem or "abuse"?  If he wants to take his staff and work his tail off in 15 different states for a month straight, instead of sitting in an office tweeting @ kids or going on in home visits, all while hooking up poorer high school kids with opportunities for college-level coaching and exposure, what's the harm?  What's out of control about that? 

If a coach wants to do 8 and say that's enough for him and his staff, fine.  If a coach wants to do 0, that's fine.  But if a coach wants to teach and give opportunities all summer long, shouldn't that be his choice? 

Limit of 10 camps, but unlimited texting and tweeting?!?!?  Seems 1 is more intrusive to a kid's life than another.

Joined: 12/20/2013

MGoPoints: 572

Pit2047

April 14th, 2016 at 3:46 AM ^

If they overturn the ban and limit them, I don't think they should limit the number, they should limit the dates. Limit it to a 7-14 day period in June (probably compromise at an even 10) where you can have as many camps as you want. Schools in the Southeast don't need to have camps in the Southeast because it's better for them to have one on there campus and have hundred of kids basically take an unofficial visit there to see the coaches and not some random high school in Atlanta or Miami. They can have a camp in Dallas, Houston, if they have a big enough brand Los Angeles, maybe hit up the Midwest or the Mid-Atlantic and call it a day. That's like 4-6 camps MAYBE and really they don't even need them. Michigan on the other hand would need to hit a heck of a lot more camps so limiting the number isn't really fair because different schools have different needs. If Harbaugh wants to split his staff and go to 30 camps why can't he? Not everyone will do that because it's extreme and unnecessary for a lot of schools. I mean Purdue isn't going to have a camp in LA, Oregon State isn't going to Columbus.

Joined: 06/12/2013

MGoPoints: 4378

CorkyCole

April 14th, 2016 at 10:35 AM ^

"Limit the dates." I believe I agree with this. Only issue is that you may be battling with coaches to come up with THE camp for kids to go to since they would only be able to attend camps over a short period of time. Just an initial thought I had, so it may still be the best option.

I will reiterate that I don't believe that camps necessarily need to be limited, but the concern is spread across all conferences. Because of this, I think their voices should be heard as well, and maybe the best outcome is a happy medium.

Just because Harbaugh can't do 30 satellite camps over a span of two months doesn't mean he can't come up with plenty of other fantastic ideas/events for the summer months.

Joined: 06/13/2011

MGoPoints: 4498

Everyone Murders

April 13th, 2016 at 6:52 PM ^

Leach was pretty brutal, folksy speech-style notwithstanding.  I've been a big fan of Leach since the Texas Tech days.  He may be almost as insane (in a good way) as Jim Harbaugh.  And the business with Craig James's son made me like Leach that much more.

He is a football genius (you have to be to be successful in football backwaters like Lexington, Lubboch and Pullman) and always an entertaining interview.  He's a bit more low-key than Harbaugh, but razor sharp.

He also has a fuck garden that lays fallow and salted, with nary a fuck to give about what the NCAA establishment thinks about him.  It seems he sees an opportunity to glom on to Harbaugh's mission here, and in the meantime get his own brand out in the public eye.

That's my kind of pirate!

Joined: 12/14/2010

MGoPoints: 65552

WolverineHistorian

April 13th, 2016 at 7:15 PM ^

I will be rooting for Washington State this Fall. I probably won't see them much, since almost all of their games seem to end at 2:00 in the morning Michigan time, but I will be rooting for them.

Joined: 08/10/2009

MGoPoints: 55409

Maizen

April 13th, 2016 at 8:02 PM ^

Leach said eleven Pac 12 schools were in favor of satellite camps. How the hell did the Pac 12 vote against it?

Joined: 08/15/2015

MGoPoints: -99993347

Carcajou

April 14th, 2016 at 5:32 AM ^

USC & UCLA (and maybe Cal and Stanford) are the only ones who I could see wanting some protection for their "turf" [or as Shaw made it a point to mention, they Stanford is so "selective" the camps might not make much sense for them]. But I would think the other Pac-12 schools would love to be involved in camps not only in LA and the Bay Area, but Texas and other parts of the country, too.

Looks like the Sun Belt voted against them, (and maybe one other), but the B1G was joined by 3 of the G-5 conferences in being in FAVOR, so that refutes the argument that smaller schools felt they are at a disadvantage.

 

Joined: 02/26/2009

MGoPoints: 5749

Carcajou

April 14th, 2016 at 5:27 AM ^

One argument I haven't heard Leach or Harbaugh or anybody else mention so far is the positive effects of these camps have for high school coaches and college assistant coaches.  They have a chance to network not only with athletes, but other coaches from around the country, and demonstrate how they coach.

This is very big in terms of career opportunities for them.

Joined: 02/26/2009

MGoPoints: 5749