NCAA Takes Aim at Satellite Camps Again
The new proposal would limit schools to 10 days' worth of camps and the camps would have to be hosted by NCAA member schools. According to the release, this would make camps "safer" and more focused on "instruction" rather than "recruiting."
My first thoughts are that this would eliminate the SMSB Camps and give local universities complete veto power over camps in their areas. In other words, this is just another transparent attempt to protect schools' territories from Harbaugh.
EDIT: I am wrong about the SMSB Camps. Per comments below, they are already hosted at Wayne State. And they don't have to be "hosted" by the University, just held there. Though they DO need to be owned and conducted by member schools, so I'm not sure there's a difference there.
October 5th, 2016 at 5:50 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 8:00 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 5:50 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 5th, 2016 at 6:12 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 6:57 PM ^
I love this sentiment, but how can we just declare that this is "not legal"? That seems like a leap.
Rather than simply declaring this "not legal", someone should explain why it would not be legal for the NCAA - a voluntary association - to amend its rules to place restrictions on where camps are held and how often.
The initial recommended restrictions from last April did not go through because those restrictions were poorly-thought out (unintended consequences like SMSB getting wiped) and even more poorly-drafted. So they were withdrawn by the NCAA before the full membership voted on them. There was also some question as to whether votes by member schools were properly tallied.
Those elements of the first proposed attack on satellite camps were a shit-show. That doesn't make proposed limitations on camps illegal - and the initially-recommended restrictions were not withdrawn because the NCAA feared they were illegal. They were withdrawn because the NCAA did a hackish job on them, and folks like Harbaugh and Mike Leach called them out on it.
To be clear, I am a fan of the satellite blitz and think it had great benefits for Michigan and for the kids who attended. But so far as I know the NCAA can change its rules on matters like this. The same way they can make rules about when you can call recruits, how many visits a recruit can take, etc.
There are ways to influence the NCAA on this (e.g., call them out for focusing on this b.s. in the face of major problems in the press). Those may or may not work. But I just don't see recourse in the courts for the NCAA changing rules affecting its member institutions.
October 5th, 2016 at 7:02 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 7:16 PM ^
First, the courts have given wide latitude to sports governing bodies on the anti-trust front. You see it in pro sports all the time (long history of this with MLB, and other sports too). Owners in pro sports, in a lot of ways, actively collude against athletes. In this case, we aren't talking about an owner-athlete division. We're talking about how the member institutions choose to govern themselves. That starts to get pretty far away from Sherman Act territory by my lights.
Second, the NCAA tells coaches what they can do outside of their jobs all the time - depending on where you draw that line. E.g., coaches can't have friendly discussions with recruits in dead periods. It's pretty clear that having a satellite camp at, say, Paramus could be construed as part of his job.
Third, opening yourself up to lawsuits is different than violating the law. It only takes a few hundred bucks and a filing fee to sue someone, but you also have to win. And you also have to decide whether you want to sue the NCAA. Member institutions are unlikely to do so for many reasons unless they are fundamentally wronged.
Don't get me wrong. I think that an argument could be built that might prevail that the NCAA is overstepping its bounds here. It's just that I've not heard a convincing one yet.
The good news is that if the rule goes through, Harbaugh will have the 10 best camps in the country, and will exploit other opportunities within the rules to spread the gospel of football and to shine a positive light on Michigan.
October 5th, 2016 at 7:23 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 7:34 PM ^
Just wait - we'll likely have a few folks demonstrate that at least on some of these points I'm talking out of an orifice other than my mouth. Lots of law-talky types on this board, as you know.
But I think the PR was terrible for the NCAA after they put together their proposed rule. IIRC, the Pac10 commissioner had claimed that its schools unanimously supported the proposed rule, and Mike Leach said "hmmhhh, news to me"! Plus people realized the rule was so poorly drafted it would wipe out SMSB. And furthermore, the initial rule was supposed to go into effect just a couple of months before the camps were to begin. And some in the press were calling out the NCAA on how hollow its purported reasons for implementing the rule were.
In short, there were plenty of troubles around this apart from any fear of litigation. The NCAA looked like the SEC's finger puppets, and it appeared from outside that they put the brakes on it because the sudden imposition of the rule was a really bad look for the NCAA.
October 5th, 2016 at 10:53 PM ^
Not quite...
Sports leagues can dictate quite a bit on what players can do because of collective bargaining (for pros) or enforcement of amateurism (for NCAA players). There is no collective bargaining between coaches and NCAA (and they are certainly not amateurs), and because of this they can only limit things that are directly related to competition (like practice times and scholarships).
However, they do not have such powers over coaches' employments. They cannot dictate how much they can work, they cannot dictate how much money they can make, etc. This is why limiting satellite camps to 10 days would probably not survive court challenges.
October 6th, 2016 at 7:53 AM ^
I agree that there are differences between pro leagues' CBAs with their players and the amateur situation. I tried to highlight that above, but in any event concede that point.
In fact, that's a lot of my overall point. The NCAA is a voluntary association of "member institutions" who agree to abide by the rules established under the by-laws and procedures of the NCAA. They have a legitimate goal* of ensuring fair competition between the schools and preserving the integrity of the game. They also have a legitimate goal* of protecting student-athletes' life-work balance. So facially, the NCAA passing rules limiting camps seems in line with the association's goals.
So can the NCAA dictate how much a coach works? In some ways, of course they can. They absolutely can tell a coach "look, these three weeks in December are 'no contact' weeks and you cannot make contact [i.e., work] with recruits during those weeks". Those recruiting calls are work, and nobody seriously debates whether the NCAA can limit those.
The problem with the camps is that they are at best dual-purpose, but it's inarguable that the camps benefit the schools putting them on. Michigan had its branding all over its camps, had all its assistant coaches involved, and used university resources (as business expenses) to travel to and underwrite the camps. If it wasn't part of coaching Michigan football, the university would be entitled to the money back. And if it did not directly benefit Michigan football, a lot less of us would be irritated at NCAA efforts to limit camp activity.
The bottom line is I don't think a person could, with a straight face, say that participating in the summer camps is not part of a Michigan coach's job. That makes these camps a LOT different than, say, a coach taking a job as a fishing guide during the off-season.
Where I'd feel queasy if I was the NCAA** would be if I passed a rule prohibiting employment that did not so directly relate to a coach's job. They certainly would be on thin ice if they said, for example, that Mike Leach can't write books in the off season about how to be the best pirate in the deep blue sea. Or Jim Tressel writing a book about how to build character in young men.***
*Note I'm saying "goal" - whether the NCAA achieves the goal is another matter.
**Of course, I'd already feel queasy, what with deplorable situations at Penn State, Baylor, FSU, UNC, etc.
***Ipecac sales just plummetted in areas served by this board.
October 6th, 2016 at 9:31 AM ^
Limiting contacts with recruit is done for the sake of the students, who would otherwise be bombarded 24/7. They are not limiting what coaches cand do to make money.
That does not apply for satellite camps where the students are voluntarily signing up (and paying for them). You are equating two completely different things. NCAA lawyers saw that as well, which is why they backed off in the first place.
October 5th, 2016 at 8:02 PM ^
Placing restrictions on a mans ability to make money violates interstate cmmerce laws.
October 6th, 2016 at 8:12 AM ^
There are plenty of restrictions on a person's ability to make money. For example, the U.S. and my home state frown on the interstate sale of methamphetimine to pretty much anyone. I also am restricted from selling my kidney (either within my state or interstate), or doing a contract hit on Aaron Hernandez (which would necessarily be interstate). I also am restricted from selling my body for sex (both legally and, to be blunt, aesthetically), both within my state and on an interstate basis.
I get that certain restrictions on employment are illegal, but you're painting with a very broad brush. Now if you can explain why the NCAA restricting Harbaugh's ability to make money (and I don't think he really gets paid extra for the camps, but whatevs) by conducting satellite camps which directly benefit UofM*, I'll hang up and listen.
*FWIW, I'm a fan of the camps, and realize that they also benefit h.s. programs and the attendees of the camps.
October 6th, 2016 at 9:41 AM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 5:53 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 7:09 PM ^
And surely soon to be strongly endorsed on BTN by Robert Smith.
October 5th, 2016 at 5:54 PM ^
Focus on cultists at Penn State? Nope!
Take something else away from the kids who may or may not wind up playing football at any college? Sure!
Fuck off.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 5th, 2016 at 6:05 PM ^
In fact, we need to make Kenneth Starr rapes college girls a google search thing.
October 5th, 2016 at 7:20 PM ^
To be fair, raping girls of any age is bad.
October 5th, 2016 at 6:12 PM ^
....focus on bagmen? Nope!
Focus on NC's sham of academics? Nope?
Harbaugh is in their head and they are shit scared and/or lazy. Next, they will ban coaches from associating with entertainers and forbid sleepovers. Fuck the NCAA and ess eee see coaches.
October 5th, 2016 at 5:54 PM ^
October 6th, 2016 at 8:26 AM ^
Since when can the ncaa limit how much work you do?
They can't
...but they can (and already do) limit the TYPE of work coaches do.
October 5th, 2016 at 5:56 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 5th, 2016 at 6:54 PM ^
Seems like there are rules being passed (potentially) that hurt opportunities for kids.
October 5th, 2016 at 6:01 PM ^
All this extra work the damn yankee is putting in is making the Freeze family vacation a bit less of a sure thing.
October 5th, 2016 at 6:01 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 6:23 PM ^
ESPN is probably licking their chops. Deflategate is finally over after years, but hey now we can fire up the satellite camp machine again to beat to death!
October 5th, 2016 at 6:05 PM ^
So Harbaugh could still host 30+ camps. And they will be held at D2 & D3 colleges instead of high schools. Ok.
October 5th, 2016 at 8:32 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 6:07 PM ^
This wouldn't stop SMSB would it? I believe it is held at Wayne State which is an NCAA school so that wouldn't be a problem and you could probably convince lower NCAA division schools to host camps that you attend in areas where bigger schools won't allow you to.
October 5th, 2016 at 6:09 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 6:09 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 5th, 2016 at 6:09 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 6:13 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 6:23 PM ^
Jim Harbaugh plays chess
October 5th, 2016 at 6:15 PM ^
October 6th, 2016 at 9:54 AM ^
Haha, this is genius. The media storm would be glorious.
October 5th, 2016 at 6:15 PM ^
Did any of you actually read the article? I don't think so. Here's a snip.
"Currently, coaches can participate in camps and clinics during two periods of 15 consecutive days. In the new proposal, the 10 days would not have to be consecutive, providing greater flexibility to attend more events and visit with more students at various locations."
"The proposals also would allow all coaches participating in the camps or clinics to have recruiting conversations with participating prospective student-athletes during the event."
Where are they taking a shot at the camps?
October 5th, 2016 at 6:22 PM ^
The camps can only be held at an NCAA owned facility.
So local schools functionally have veto power on location of the camps.
No more going to the local high school.
October 5th, 2016 at 6:39 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 7:58 PM ^
Also if the 10-day period is by coach and not school, expect JH to do the major camps and 2-3 other teams doing other camps in other 10-day spans.
October 5th, 2016 at 6:38 PM ^
“We needed to limit the number of days (for camps and clinics) and do things differently than we did before,” Bowlsby said. “But the best chance for us to manage this is to acknowledge that the summer is about recruiting, not skill development, and to manage it in ways that reflect best on our universities and the process.”
That kind of makes it sound like the Big XII is proposing that these camps become less camps and more some sort of "meet the staff" session, which seems like it obliterates a significant portion of what the camps are meant to be. I could be wrong there, but if that is what it is, I don't like that at all.
October 5th, 2016 at 8:39 PM ^
I think a big positive aspect of these camps is not just seeing and meeting prospects, but networking with high school and small college coaches, as well as young people, and fans.
October 5th, 2016 at 6:40 PM ^
I for one DID read the article this morning, and yes...the OP and basically every poster in the thread is somewhat misinformed, but also somewhat correct if you read the whole thing.
Anyway, what they're doing is basically turning sat camps into recruiting camps.
The shot that they take is that they say these camps are all about recruiting anyway and they're not instructional.
I call bullshit.
Harbaugh has done a number of camps with no recruitable or recruitworthy athletes and been there only to teach football. People should attend his camps before thinking they're just about getting a bunch of HS kids to go through a combine and watch them play 7v7.
If we're being honest is their a recruiting element to most of the camps? Sure. But if you wanted to argue it was just as much about teaching the sport...I wouldn't fight you, actually, I'd agree 100%
In short, basically they're saying this "The SEC coaches are right, these camps are all about recruiting...however, rather than trying to stop them, we're going to make them legal and allow everyone to recruit during camps. They're going to be recruiting camps."
Everyone smokes weed anyway, so we may as well just make it legal, make some money, and stop cracking down on it.
...my fear is, what happens to the kids who aren't top prospects? If we're making it all about recruiting, aren't coaches ONLY going to invite guys they want to recruit to the camps? They're all going to be elite camps. So it's less of a chance for exposure for the kid who's flown under the radar and needed a sat camp to stand out. Now we could have a situation where the big schools only go to the big camps to see the big time athletes. Because think about it...wouldn't you want to be at the camp with the big time athletes 10 times to recruit them 10 times versus trying to ID an under the radar kid?
My only question is...is it 10 per coach or per institution? Can Harbaugh go to 10, then Drevno go to another 10, and so on? When you add GAs that's like 150 camps Michigan could host/attend. If that's the case, they absolutely should do it just to fuck with the system again.
October 5th, 2016 at 6:54 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 7:15 PM ^
did Harbaugh run when he was with the 49ers?
Saying that these camps are not for recruiting is extrememly naive. There might not have been any Division 1 talent at a camp, but just cause you are hosting a satelitte camp doesn't mean you control who shows up.
If a bunch of JV players show up then of course you are going to coach them, but that in no way takes away from the fact that they are recruiting tools.
October 5th, 2016 at 7:31 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 7:54 PM ^
HOWEVER - From what I have seen and read the difference with Harbaugh is that he and his staff actually run a teaching camp. Others tend to hang out on the sidelines watching the top kids and getting a chance to schmooze them a bit. I remember photos of Smart at the GA camp and Meyer in NJ hanging on the sidelines BSing with other coaches during the bulk of the "teaching" sessions of the camp. In this respect they are correct that the camps are solely about recruiting for other schools. If they are solely about recruiting by M and staff it is recruiting by example of the coaching a prospect would get at M.
October 5th, 2016 at 6:20 PM ^
The cows have already left the barn. No point closing the door.
Harbaugh won.