Big Ten Opposes Recruiting Changes
Today, the Big 10 issued a statement opposing the changes in recruiting rules scheduled to go into effect in July, reading in part:
We have serious concerns whether these proposals, as currently written, are in the best interest of high school student-athletes, their families and their coaches. We are also concerned about the adverse effect they would have on college coaches, administrators and university resources. We look forward to working with the NCAA toward improving the game, the recruiting process and the overall college football experience for all student-athletes.
Personally, I hope this provokes the NCAA to respond to increasing levels of criticism about the upcoming changes. The changes are going to do nothing but eliminate any down time for recruits and the coaches who recruit them.
February 11th, 2013 at 9:37 PM ^
<kanye>The NCAA does't care about the BIG10.</kanye>
February 11th, 2013 at 11:56 PM ^
I seriously cannot handle your awesome sometimes.
February 11th, 2013 at 9:39 PM ^
Too much change going on. More conference games, divisions, members and this.
With all this conference changing it's so hard to remember whose with who. The Big East and C-USA are a mess.
February 12th, 2013 at 6:51 AM ^
Why would you even care which teams are in the Big East or C-USA?
February 11th, 2013 at 9:39 PM ^
February 11th, 2013 at 9:48 PM ^
just another reason that will be brought up in the future ESPN documentary "The Collapse of College Football"
February 11th, 2013 at 10:04 PM ^
The potentially frightening thing, I think, is that the proposed streamlining seems to pave the way for schools to have staffs dedicated to doing more or less what the recruit from Ole Miss was reported to experience several threads below. As a parent, I don't know if I would be comfortable with having my children essentially spammed by people, especially now that they propose to remove rules on both the means and the volume of the communication. It is perhaps time someone at least raised some concerns about how having no respite from being badgered through various media will affect recruits.
February 11th, 2013 at 10:15 PM ^
Maybe I'm missing something, but if a kid or his parents don't want to hear from a coach, can't they just say: "if you contact me again I'm pressing charges for harassment"?
It's easy to paint the kids as helpless victims, but don't they ultimately control how much or how little they're contacted by any particular coach?
February 12th, 2013 at 6:31 AM ^
Yes, the kid and his family have all of the control, prior to signing day. They don't have to say they'll press charges. They can tell any and all coaches - if you contact me more than once a week, we will no longer consider you or your school. If the coach is serious about the kid, they'll stop contacting him so much. If they're not serious about the kid, they'll move on.
February 12th, 2013 at 10:17 AM ^
We are now talking about high school juniors. Potentially 16-year-old kids, that may love the attention and everything that goes with it, but may not understand what it means or how it impacts the people around them.
Coach Hoke made a great point about the unintended consequences, pointing out that this means kids can be getting visits at their school from recruiters on a regular basis. That could very well interrupt their academics, and would certainly be a strain on coaches and educators that have to set-up the meetings, and often supervise them. HS coaches that are teaching classes would have a full/part time job as recruiting coordinators...yikes.
That said, the current rules don't make a lot of sense, and aren't enforceable. They need to find some rules that restrict the contact recruiters can make (even if it's for certain time periods), and, I believe, add an early signing period.
February 11th, 2013 at 10:22 PM ^
February 11th, 2013 at 10:33 PM ^
Not a funny schtick.
February 11th, 2013 at 10:41 PM ^
Those look fake.
February 11th, 2013 at 11:34 PM ^
It's just your garden-variety silicone-boobed porn "actress" somewhere in southern California.
February 11th, 2013 at 10:44 PM ^
I so sick of this site censoring every little thing worth talking about. Isn't there a way to delete the nasty posts, and let the interesting ones go. If you must lock a topic, why cant you at least leave a majority of the posts while not allowing any more replies so people can follow some of the debate. We cant be critical of the coaching staff, can't ever be critical of any recruit no matter how selfish they act or what they say, or if they take pics of stacks of cash or pose with bongs. You might as well just write what we should all think and forget the board, because its getting beyond ridiculous.
February 11th, 2013 at 10:48 PM ^
February 11th, 2013 at 11:03 PM ^
yeah i know the rules. ive been on this site almost every day for 2 years now. as long as things don't get nasty then the debate should be allowed. otherwise there is no point in having a board.
February 11th, 2013 at 11:59 PM ^
Maybe, and I might be wrong here, Brian intended the board to be a place where people post information about sports. Not necessarily debate.
February 11th, 2013 at 11:14 PM ^
being called out a bit here, I'll respond in turn, and try to address what I see as your three concerns:
- There was a ton of stuff in that thread that crossed the political line. I let it go because it's an issue where politics intersects sports, but the big rule on this site is "no politics". If you want to discuss politics, there are a ton of places where that's encouraged; this Michigan sports blog is not one of them. Once it deviated from the relevant portions, the thread got pulled, as it always will.
- Go ahead and be as critical of a player, recruit, coach, ballboy, or cheerleader as you want. If it crosses into personal territory (i.e. "Denard threw a shitty pass" v. "Fuck Denard, he's not a Michigan Man for losing to ND") it's going to have consequences. We do not tolerate personal attacks here.
- I'd look into that statement before making any more complaints. Both of those issues got play on the board, front page and from the official Twitter account to some extent.
February 12th, 2013 at 1:12 AM ^
Is it possible for a thread to be locked but the comments that have already been posted visible? That would be a little better.
February 12th, 2013 at 1:28 AM ^
To be honest, I just think it would cause more controversy. Again, I won't dismiss the possibility that I'm wrong here, but I think it would just serve to cause a bigger problem down the line, especially after 200 comments that encompass every perspective imaginable. Any positions on "should these elementary/middle/high schools keep the mascots they currently have" should be fairly obvious to anyone willing to consider the issue, and also enters territory this blog just isn't designed to handle.
I have a lot of respect for you, UMxWolverines, but I think that particular choice would be wrong. You're welcome to bring it up in the mod action sticky or email Brian with any concerns you have about the site's moderation to find an answer above my paygrade.
February 11th, 2013 at 10:44 PM ^
February 11th, 2013 at 11:17 PM ^
You didn't put two and two together when you saw that you were the ONLY ONE on here sporting a picture of that sort?
February 11th, 2013 at 11:32 PM ^
February 11th, 2013 at 11:00 PM ^
Is this really as unfair as I am making it out to be? I'm unsure if there are general requirements or not. Thanks in advance
February 11th, 2013 at 11:10 PM ^
I honestly don't see college football ever taking a step back and therefore I think people are right in the idea that college football eventually may turn into a depressing 30 for 30 story.
February 11th, 2013 at 11:45 PM ^
February 12th, 2013 at 1:48 PM ^
Root explanation for childs being victim to a molester at Penn State: The football kind, JoePa, and his cronies in the administration were so beloved and empowered by football fans, that it got into their head that the success of the football program was more important than childen being raped. If JoePa had just been hired, it would have been totally different. But everywhere he went for 30 years, people were saying, Joe you're great, Joe you're the best, we're the best, we're above and better... Grand Experiment etc.... the fans so bought into that, and the administration and JoePa so got drunk on it, it empowered those guys to act (or, not act) the way they did.
Fans largely don't care about the wrestling or bowling teams like that. So their coaches don't have power. It's not always that easy of an equation, but its close.
Fan = $$$, right. And $$$ + ??? = Profit!
February 12th, 2013 at 6:11 AM ^
Coincidence that the conference that doesn't oversign also wants limits on how much a coach can harrass a player? I think not. Score 1 for the good guys trying to do the right thing.
February 12th, 2013 at 7:40 AM ^