Jackie Moon

April 14th, 2016 at 2:55 PM ^

I think that is one of the major problems with the big ten.  There is no leadership and there is limited solidarity.  It seems to me that historically, the big ten has tried not to play (or play it well) when it comes to politics.  The NCAA is a representative body--thus a political one.  While it is admirable that big ten schools try to stay above the political fray, I think there has been costs.  Until, the big ten decides to play ball like JFMH, I think we are relegated backrooms and cigar smoking.

LDNfan

April 14th, 2016 at 4:31 PM ^

IF this should get overturned by the NCAA BOD later this month (I think they will save face with a modified, limited sat camp proposal) then Delaney should be next to get overturned as B1G commish. 

He flubbed this right from the beginning and made that inane comment so now he's stuck in la la land unable to speak up for what has become a popular movement in favour of his conference.

Jackie Moon

April 14th, 2016 at 5:05 PM ^

Maybe I am off here, but Delaney needs to take ownership of the Big Ten.  Instead of staring in the mirror rubbing one off, recanting how brilliant of an idea the bigten network was, he needs to makes sure that the bigten has a unified front on all major issues.  And when you have asshats that go rogue such as Kurt and Mork--phone calls are made and spankings are given—if need be, call in AP.

doggdetroit

April 14th, 2016 at 10:26 PM ^

I can't really fault Delaney for this particular issue. The B1G voted for the camps. He was also publicly supportive of the camps when the SEC first complained. Once it became clear that the ACC was going to be the SEC's bitch, it was going to come down the Big 12 and Pac 12, which both allowed satellite camps at the time. He can't force the Pac 12 or Big 12 to vote a certain way. Those two leagues ended up voting against the interest of the majority of their schools. Aside from telling both leagues to not be idiotic with their votes, there wasn't anything he could do.
 

Wolfman

April 15th, 2016 at 3:17 AM ^

I'd back you, but I think so much of the voting went like that exposed tonight on the part of  The Sun Belt's Conference. I have no  idea if they used different tactics on each conference, but there is simply no way these people, without being assured of future gain of some type are going to vote against the  interests of their constituency. We all have our price is I guess what the the Sun Belt's message was. As soon as Leach said he hadn't seen the wording, I knew how they voting was handled and it stinks. Yeah, it's only logical to not notify the football coach.

This is a clusterfuck that is growing so rapidly I don't believe a show dog could jump over it without losing one of his balls. It's only going to get worse.

In addition to their tradition and history, but not nearly as well publicized is the fact the SEC has, does and always will pay for it's advantages, without compunction. This year they wanted  Emmert and they bought him.

 

Brian Griese

April 14th, 2016 at 2:22 PM ^

I'm sure Pitt is the first ACC school kids have in mind to go camp at.   And I thought I already didn't like the guy.  

 

Furthermore, it blows my mind that 99.9% of the coaches  (yes, even the SEC ones) probably used these camps when they were assistants or head coaches at {insert non P5 college} and now they are suddenly against them.

Avon Barksdale

April 14th, 2016 at 2:22 PM ^

Do not let this bother you guys so much. This ban impacts Michigan very little even if stays intact (which I do not think it will long term). We do not need sleeper recruits because we are a badass program who can get the best of the best.

It will certaintly impact MAC schools and less prestigious football programs like Iowa State, Purdue, and even Vanderbilt/Kentucky in a sense. The sun is going to come up tomorrow for Jim Harbaugh as he reels in another top five recruiting class.

I am somewhat happy this has happened, because it has pissed off our entire team and most of the country. It's GO time and Big Ten Championship time. 2016 is going to be a special year for Michigan athletics.   

samsoccer7

April 14th, 2016 at 2:29 PM ^

I never felt the camps actually were for finding players to recruit.  What it does though is shows the other recruits, maybe younger kids, maybe even kids who are in the area but do not attend the camp, that Harbaugh is a DUDE and not just a GUY.  Don't kid yourself, it's a big deal for us despite not really getting big-time recruits directly from the camps.

MikeinTN

April 14th, 2016 at 2:34 PM ^

I agree with this. I think it is a little undersold how closely ALL recruits are paying attention to this. Also it's not just the recruits, it's parents and everyone advising them. The short term PR for Harbaugh it pretty great with the ban in place. That said it obviously should be lifted.

doggdetroit

April 14th, 2016 at 3:15 PM ^

Michigan doesn't need sleeper recruits but those sleeper recruits will over time lead to bigger recruits. From Michigan's perspective, the satellite camps were about building relationships and getting exposure in Florida, the South, Texas, Southern California, areas that Michigan has for the most part neglected. Carr did OK in California and Rodriguez did OK in Florida, but for the most part they recruited the Midwest. Hoke almost exclusively recruited the Midwest.

From 2004 to 2014. MIchigan signed 1 player out of Alabama. In the 18 months that Harbaugh has been coach, Michigan has signed 3 out of Alabama. They may not be 4 or 5 stars, but they are seeds of a potential pipeline that Michigan is building. Sustained camps in Alabama will eventually lead 4 and 5 stars from Alabama to strongly conisder Michigan.

This is what concerns SEC coaches. Michigan has a unique value proposition to offer players from the South. High level football that equals anything in the SEC and high level education, a combination that really only Florida comes close to matching. Sure, Harbaugh could start knocking down doors across the state of Alabama without having to hold camps, but it's different from going down there and actually seeing kids play, building relationships with multiple coaches who are in attendence, and just basically promoting Michigan to kids who otherwise only see and hear about Alabama and Auburn 24/7.

 

Oscar

April 14th, 2016 at 2:25 PM ^

Here is my hot take. Idealistically, I care because it isn't fair to "student-athletes". Realistically, I don't really care because I don't think "student-athletes" REALLY care. When I see a "student-athlete" declare that they are not going to school X because of this rule, then I'll change my stance.

Humen

April 14th, 2016 at 2:40 PM ^

Well what about people who would have an awesome time going to a camp but aren't good enough to be a student-athlete--most everyone who plays football? I would've liked to get coached up by Harbaugh for a few hours. No reason to hurt this large class of people



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

CalifExile

April 14th, 2016 at 8:09 PM ^

You don't seem to understand how this works. It's not about students declaring they won't attend a school because of the rule. It's about kids losing the opportunity to attend a camp and being seen and then receiving an offer from a school thay may not be the sponsor of the camp. Look at Meyers' and Fitzgerald's comments to see how kids are hurt. It's unlikely that many players will boycott a school because it supported the rule.

Wolverine Devotee

April 14th, 2016 at 2:36 PM ^

Brian Kelly says he's not bothered by the ban, says it's whatever since you can still host expensive camps at your school...............

and yet he was at SMSB last year...........

Hrm.

Pepto Bismol

April 14th, 2016 at 3:25 PM ^

I think that just shows how valuable (or not) he felt the SMSB experience was for ND.  Sure, he'll go if he can.  But if he can't, and all of the elite Detroit athletes are driving down to South Bend for his camp every year anyway, does it really matter?

I don't see the issue.  Makes sense to me.

Scheißkerl

April 14th, 2016 at 2:38 PM ^

What a joke! All those SEC coaches worried about sleeping in their own beds. What about the kids who now have to travel to your campus for a camp? Aren't they going to miss their beds now?



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Njia

April 14th, 2016 at 2:39 PM ^

There are so many paths that Harbaugh can take this ...

- "Look, we WANT you to evaluate as many opportunities as possible; because we know that you'll see what makes Michigan different."

- "While some coaches in the SEC don't want to work very hard, those programs that are most successful know that the highest levels of success comes from outworking everybody."

- "How hard do you think you'll have to work to make it to the NFL? Our staff has is made up of former NFL coaches; you'll be ready for Sundays because you'll have outworked everyone else."

- "Certain coaches in our own conference aren't interested in putting in the time and effort to even recruit players who can make a difference; how do you think that translates onto the field? Their recent results speak for themselves."

- Etc.

 

BoFan

April 14th, 2016 at 2:48 PM ^

Based on this and Mike Leach's comments the Pac12 internal vote would have been:
UCLA, USC, and Cal in favor
Stanford abstained
Everyone else opposed

That makes sense given the school locations and personalities. But their strange vote in favor is still being researched? And if Pac12 votes no on the ban, then it's a tie and the current rule stays in effect? So then the UCLA guy that voted for the Pac12 vote was the deciding vote. Here is something for all you conspiracy theorists to investigate. Remember: "follow the money"

SpikeFan2016

April 14th, 2016 at 2:57 PM ^

Yeah, it's super odd the PAC 12 was against this. All four in the Pacific Northwest plus Utah and Colorado support camps, some of them very strongly.

 

All four of the California schools plus the two Arizona schools must have voted against it. That would have it as a 6-6 tie. Wonder who gets the tiebreaker or what the procedure is. 

raisemeup

April 14th, 2016 at 3:16 PM ^

Some of these statements are so ludicrously illogical.

This is basically what happened:

Jim Harbaugh decided to go teach at a high school.  During his first year he decides he's going to start tutoring middle school students after school.  This gets a lot of positive attention; parents and students like it because of the greater learning opportunities.   The other teachers at the school (1) dont want to work as hard as Harbaugh, (2) dont like that Harbaugh is getting positive attention, and (3) dont like that some students might opt into taking Harbaugh's class in the future because of the positive Harbaugh tutoring sessions.  In response, the teachers lobby the school to shutdown all after school tutoring for middle school students.  The school bans the practice. Students suffer. The end.

LSAClassOf2000

April 14th, 2016 at 3:35 PM ^

"We've done them the last two years [in the Midwest], just the chance to get out and see more prospects. Me personally, I'd prefer it the way it just got passed today. In my opinion, I think camps should be done on your campus." - Kirk Ferentz

I don't understand this coming from Kirk Ferentz at all. I mean, among the schools in the Big Ten, you would think Iowa would be all about trying to get people to come to Iowa to play football because it takes a marketing campaign historically to get "Iowa City" onto someone's list as it is. This is a weird stance for him to take unless he - like others - just didn't want to earn that sizeable percentage of the national debt that Iowa owes him.

As for James Franklin, whatever. I didn't expect a better answer.