SI Column on Impact of Ban
April 11th, 2016 at 10:04 PM ^
April 11th, 2016 at 10:11 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 11th, 2016 at 10:13 PM ^
April 11th, 2016 at 10:27 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 11th, 2016 at 10:23 PM ^
April 11th, 2016 at 10:29 PM ^
I know it has been discussed elsewhere, but Harbaugh's radio silence here is a brilliant play. Others across the country are making his argument for him, and he does not have to say a word. No need for for the witty/cryptic riposte. This keeps him from looking petulant or argumentative in the media, and is a PR win.
April 11th, 2016 at 10:45 PM ^
April 11th, 2016 at 11:13 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I think a lot of it is becuase Harbaugh wasn't doing it just for M. It was also with the purpose of giving a great experience to young kids. I think his silence isn't necessarily a well thought out move on the chess board but a more natural reaction. The reason everyone is making his argument for him is because this was his point all along. The SEC and ACC and anyone else in agreement with the ban failed to see past the Harbaugh-factor.
April 11th, 2016 at 10:37 PM ^
April 11th, 2016 at 10:43 PM ^
April 11th, 2016 at 10:38 PM ^
Great article. Also, loved this comment:
"I have zero problem with the ACC and SEC seeking a ban. Entities are supposed to act in their own best interests. My problem is with the Big 12, Pac-12, Sun Belt and Mountain West, which did not. Usually, people who vote opposite their own interests are stupid, corrupt or a combination of the two."
And then this:
"Meanwhile, one Power Five coach said his league voted against the wishes of most of the schools in his league... Washington State coach Mike Leach said most schools in the Pac-12 were for satellite camps.... The Pac-12 voted in favor of the ban, and Leach isn’t sure how that could have happened. Common sense dictates that only UCLA, USC and maybe Arizona State would want to ban such camps to protect their recruiting turf. The Pac-12’s representative on the Division I management council is UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero. A UCLA spokesman said Guerrero would not be made available to explain the Pac-12’s vote and that all questions should be referred to Northwestern athletic director Jim Phillips, the acting spokesman for the committee."
Wow, some people are going to have some explaining to do....
April 11th, 2016 at 11:16 PM ^
"A UCLA spokesman said Guerrero would not be made available to explain the Pac-12’s vote..."
Over and over, it's nothing but silence from the adults who thought this was so important that it had to be voted on immediately and effective immediately. There's some tag on this blog about people being in charge of things merely because they're in charge of things; that fits this situation well.
This Guerrero person was given some authority and exercised that authority. What's so hard about telling people the reasons for your decision? If you're the SEC, it's because you're lazy or because you want to keep other schools away from "your" high schoolers. That makes sense, and you won. Own it. Flaunt it. As long as you keep winning, nothing else matters.
If you're other conferences, your interests aren't the same as the SEC's, so Mr. Staples says you're probably stupid or corrupt. If that's the case, your employer should help you find a new job. If that isn't the case - if your decision wasn't because you are stupid or corrupt - it shouldn't be that hard to articulate why these camps are so bad.
If the people in charge were in charge for a reason, there would be either be answers or pink slips. Instead, we get the Dave Brandon post-concussion bunker.
April 11th, 2016 at 11:47 PM ^
This shit-show is very rapidly reminding me of Brandon's late night nonsensical email; the story is far from over.
I predict the NCAA will not confirm the existing rule and when the conferences vote again on a slighty tweaked rule the visibility and outrage will dramatically change the dynamic. By the way NCAA, why shouldn't your big money machine create widespread satellite camps? The money has to be spent somehow. So much hypocrisy...
Regardless of final outcome, we stay in the news, we have the most dynamic coach, and we win.
April 12th, 2016 at 12:16 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 11th, 2016 at 11:29 PM ^
there is no doubt in my mind the rule will be changed to not allow Harbaugh to do what he's been doing, while at the same time reinstating Sound Mind camps and the such.
April 11th, 2016 at 11:38 PM ^
April 11th, 2016 at 11:38 PM ^
Actually a pretty impressive analysis by Staples. Would've been more impressive had he used the term rent-seeking, which this NCAA ruling is a classic example of. Still, his understanding of unintended consequences is keen.
Sounds like reps from UCLA and other schools may have stolen the vote, so to speak, and voted against their conferences. That helps explain how the vote went against some conferences' best interests. Sun Belt and MWC - I'm guessing straight up corruption there. The Four Bagmen of the Apocalypse ride again type stuff.
Unlike many who say, I'm not worried about this, Michigan will be fine - I _am_ worried. This sort of market manipulation is what strangles development and wastes resources. It's evidence that the product - NCAA football - is now obviously less than it could be. After decades of this they'll choke things off completely whether they mean to or not, so let's hope we don't get decades of this.
"Your repressive decision against football camps denies educational and career opportunities for student/athletes. It does present an ambitious attorney the opportunity to initiate a class action suit to restore those rights."
I'm no legal expert. Would such a case would be feasible?
In any case: Never underestimate the unwavering determination of a lawyer to make money.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Foreseen consequences are are not unintentional. These people are either evil or stupid.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
This is, by far, the most cogent and even-keeled piece I've seen on the camp ban. I don't look at SI much, but this is an intelligent discussion of the real issues in a non-partisan fashion.
I think a lot of us are too close to this issue as Michigan fans, but Staples lays out the flaws in the NCAA rule in clear terms, offers intelligent options, and at no point sounds like he has a particular dog in the hunt. Thanks to the OP for posting this - it should be required reading for the CFB sportswriting community.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 12th, 2016 at 10:58 AM ^
“I don’t know if there was a genuine determination to further oppress low-income families, but that’s essentially the effect that this rule on satellite camps has,” Leach said.
Damn, he's not afraid to speak his mind
April 12th, 2016 at 11:11 AM ^
"I have zero problem with the ACC and SEC seeking a ban. Entities are supposed to act in their own best interests. My problem is with the Big 12, Pac-12, Sun Belt and Mountain West, which did not. Usually, people who vote opposite their own interests are stupid, corrupt or a combination of the two."
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad