Unverified Voracity Has Yet More Hot Takes To Deal With Comment Count

Brian April 14th, 2016 at 1:14 PM

Just another day in the life.

lake-invaders_0One of our photographers wrote a book. You've probably seen Bill Rapai's hockey photos around these parts. If you like those you'll no doubt love his new book, which is about invasive species in the Great Lakes. For some reason it has a picture of an SEC coach reacting to Harbaugh's latest antics on the cover. Bill on the contents:

It’s called Lake Invaders: Invasive species and the battle for the future of the Great Lakes and it explains how these little beasties got here, the damage they are doing, how they might be controlled, and why you should care. (Yes, you should care.) There’s even a chapter on everybody’s favorite invasives, the Asian carps.

It's available on Amazon for anyone who's interested.

DRAKE JOHNSON GOT RUN OVER BY A FORKLIFT!? Yes. He is apparently fine afterwards, if 1) very bruised up and 2) understandably pissed off.

Do not run people over in forklifts, people. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

Tick tock the hot takes don't stop. All it took was for Jim Harbaugh to say some pointedly critical, but true, things for people to lose their minds about the dude. NJ.com columnist Steve Politi has been a reliable source of humor ever since that "Jim Harbaugh may be flashy, but Kyle Flood is real" column, and he is undeterred by being as wrong as humanly possible about that. His reaction to Man Invited To Give Speech may even top his earlier opus:

Steve Politi, a columnist for The Star-Ledger and NJ.com, said Paramus Catholic should be ashamed for having Harbaugh give the speech. …

"The big problem here is Paramus Catholic president Jim Vail who, in announcing his decision to give an out-of-state football coach a free infomercial at his school, called Harbaugh a great leader and educator. Come on, Harbaugh speaking to your students is as much a recruiting advantage for your football program as it is for Harbaugh at Michigan."

I love all these accusations that PEOPLE might be DOING THEIR JOBS WELL. While there's no doubt an element of publicity and recruiting on both ends, Jim Harbaugh is also a very interesting and successful person who might want to give people some guidance. And he's sure as hell going to be more interesting than whoever my high school graduation speaker was. I have no idea if there even was one. Chris Ash is openly envious, and he's real, so…

This undercurrent of "wait a second… wait just a minute here! I see what you're doing! You are trying to make your football team good!" is a never-ending source of entertaining spittle these days. Remember that Alabama dude who clutched his pearls and fell over because Michigan's satellite camp at Prattville was really about recruiting? This is just the latest episode. Here's Mike Florio accusing Harbaugh of the blazingly obvious:

If we’re going to pull back the curtain on why the SEC and ACC coaches wanted to keep Harbaugh out of their backyards, it’s only fair to pull back the curtain on why Harbaugh wants to frolic in them. Although Rosenberg does his best to defend the satellite camp process by baking the concept into the apple pie of American dream chasing, it’s obvious that the camps had become at least in part a pretext for recruiting the best players in a setting that, from the perspective of a high school kid, doesn’t feel like recruiting. It all leads to a more organic, authentic, and visceral bond.

That's the point! Also it is good! We have reached the point in this dumb conversation where people are accusing Jim Harbaugh of trying to have a real relationship with the people he recruits. I feel like I am going crazy here.

Yes, e-goons of the world, people have motives. When they pursue those motives within the rules and without negatively impacting anyone, pointing at them and screaming "YOU ARE PURSUING YOUR GOALS" is literally the dumbest argument possible.

I mean, yeah, get on Harbaugh for the various decommits last year. That's a legit criticism. This stuff is moron central.

Shots fired. I assume you've all seen the Harbombing of the satellite camp decision in SI. While Harbaugh talking to a dude who tried to sabotage the program with bogus allegations of NCAA violations is a frequent irritation, I'll take it as long as he's willing to say the things that are true in public:

Says Harbaugh: "You've got a guy sitting in a big house, making $5 million a year, saying he does not want to sacrifice his time. That is not a kindred spirit to me. What most of these coaches are saying is they don't want to work harder."

Hugh Freeze responded to this with the time-tested retort of the smarmy gasbag: muh families.

"I'll never apologize for wanting to be a father and a husband," Freeze said when asked about vacation time. "I miss enough volleyball games (and other things), that is a priority for me. ... I think we work very hard, I don't think working hard is an issue. If you're asking me if I want to add more nights away from my wife and kids, I do not. That window is closing for me to be a husband and a father and I think the kids that play in our system need to see me in that role an awful lot."

When someone talks about being a family man in this way they are always attempting to shut down criticism by being holier than thou. See: Dave Brandon's "this hurts my family" talk on his last-ditch media spree after the Shane Morris incident. It also blows by a point: if you don't want to do them, don't do them. Nobody's making you. You are in fact making the demands.

Freeze then doubled down on the smarm by criticizing Harbaugh for being right, but in public:

Along with being recursively hypocritical, this is an admission that Harbaugh is correct but also mean. I like mean.

Elsewhere in shots fired. High school coaches are just as fired up about the ban:

"Realistically, I shouldn't have been surprised." said John Ford, the head coach at Roswell High School, which is located north of Atlanta. "The NCAA works in opposition to what benefits young kids and student athletes. They work to protect the few as opposed to protecting and promoting the many. The hypocrisy is pretty well known."  …

"I've been doing this for 15 years and I know it's really, really helpful for kids at these camps," [Toby] Foreman said. "It makes it extremely difficult, and I personally don't think the NCAA has kids interests at heart. You're almost punishing people for being proactive. Go out and recruit harder. Quit being lazy."

I wonder if the pushback on this is going to be sufficient to torpedo the rule change here. These days a lawsuit-stricken NCAA is very sensitive about public relations, and there are a ton of people on the warpath about this. It is really rare to see guys with skin in the game come out with these kind of statements, and the condemnation for the rule change has been near-universal. The only people sticking up for it are guys like Tony Barnhart who are more or less bought and paid for by the SEC and a less-than-lucid Dennis Dodd.

Tommy Tuberville, for one, thinks that the ban will not stand.

Elsewhere in how Freeze gets work done. Interesting little glimpse inside the sausage factory Freeze is running at Ole Miss from a doofus with money:

An Ocean Springs businessman claimed to have offered his guest house to unnamed college football players rent-free, only to later amend his story. But a source with knowledge of the situation said Scott Walker’s neighbors were told by the renters they paid for a two-night stay at his home last weekend.

Renting his home on a short-term basis would be a violation of local ordinances, and when first contacted by the Mississippi Press Walker said it was “four university players” who were “absolutely not paying” to stay in his guest house.

That raised red flags, because a booster (Walker is an Ole Miss grad and fan) offering free or reduced rent is a clear-cut NCAA violation.

Ole Miss cheats. Hardcore, all the time. That's how a nobody high school coach with one year at Arkansas State who arrives at a school with a fanbase that mostly still wants a plantation owner as their mascot and zero success in the past 50 years starts recruiting five-stars. I'm resigned to the fact that this will happen forever, and that the correct solution is to let people pay the players without repercussions.

But you run the cheatingest program in the country and you get sanctimonious about your free time? Harbaugh's just trying to level the playing field out a little bit here. Freeze can take his vacations and come back knowing that an Ole Miss offer has thousands of dollars behind it that a Michigan one doesn't.

That solution could be on the horizon. Via Get the Picture, this is a potentially huge move towards an Olympic model of amateurism:

Big East commissioner Val Ackerman told SI Now’s Maggie Gray on Friday that the NCAA is reconsidering allowing student athletes to sign endorsement deals.

Under the current rules, student athletes may not be paid for the use of their image or likeness or they would forfeit their amateur status and their collegiate eligibility could be affected. When Gray asked Ackerman why students shouldn’t be able to capitalize on the value they bring to their university, Ackerman responded that the NCAA is considering changing that rule.

“That’s one that’s actually under consideration I believe by the NCAA,” Ackerman said. “It’s actually a time right now where student athlete interests are being closely examined. I don’t have an answer for you on that one today but I will say that and a number of other topics are under review, and I think rightly by the NCAA and it’s very possible that over the course of the next year or two as these these ideas work their way through the legislative system you could see changes.”

In the next year or two! As always I will remind you that even if you don't like the idea of players getting paid directly by the university, opening up outside compensation is a very good thing when you command a money cannon like Michigan does.

Warde Manuel sticks up for his guy. Good to see that Manuel isn't shying away from the fight either:

“People say this is Jim Harbaugh, he wants to do it this way,” Manuel told the Free Press today. “No. This is a rule that has been allowable for a long time. With all due respect to … questions about not being able to recruit (during the NCAA quiet period), all that stuff was there before, and people did it. Now it’s no good? Some kind of way, it’s bad for the game? It’s crazy.”

That is direct and devoid of hand-waving CYA business speak, so bully for that.

Elsewhere in laziness. Iowa DE Drew Ott will not get a fifth year after a midseason injury. That's not much of a surprise since he played in six games a year ago and the NCAA does not budge on injury redshirts if you've played more than 30% of a season. The timing of the announcement, however, has irritated many since Ott cannot enter the NFL draft proper and will have to go the supplemental route. Why did this come so late? It's not on the NCAA:

In fairness to the NCAA, it does seem like the lengthiest delays in this entire ordeal were not their end -- it sounds like Ott's case wasn't even sent to the NCAA bodies that rule on this matter until late February.  His case was with Big Ten authorities until that point.  What took the Big Ten so long?  Good question -- and one that neither Ott nor Kirk Ferentz had an answer for during their press conference earlier today.  So perhaps our ire at the glacial pace of the decision-making in this situation should be directed at Jim Delany & Co. rather than the NCAA folks.

That is especially odd since Mario Ojemudia suffered a similarly ill-timed injury and found out he would not get an exception in December.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with MSU's attempt to get sixth years for three players, all of whom appear to have taken voluntary redshirts. MSU keeps telling people they'll be back but the NCAA is very strict about sixth years; going to be tough to come up with sufficient documentation about an injury when these guys have bios declaring they were scout team player of the week.

Etc.: FFS just fire Butch Jones already. Willie Henry getting talked up as a second rounder now. Cut off one of Harbaugh's heads and he grows two more.

Comments

FatGuyTouchdown

April 14th, 2016 at 1:23 PM ^

is a goddamn beautiful thing. I noticed some clown named Bobby Kunz that runs some low tier Michigan fan page called @UMGoDieHards or something on twitter was selling shirts that said "Netflix and Jabrill". It got me thinking, why can some 16 year old make a decent sum of money off of Jabrill Peppers's talents and name brand, while Peppers wouldn't make a dime? I'm willing to hear all arguments on why universities shouldn't pay players, but I see no reason why the Olympic Model shouldn't be implemented immediately. 

Also fuck Hugh Freeze.

Pepto Bismol

April 14th, 2016 at 1:51 PM ^

I'm a billionaire booster from whatever school I'm from.  I can walk into the next Rashan Gary's house and offer to pay him 6 figures for his likeness on a tshirt.

That's just me firing something against the wall - haven't really thought it through.  But this seems like it may open up an exploitable way to get cash into players' hands.  Perhaps that's a downside?

Brhino

April 14th, 2016 at 2:17 PM ^

Okay, but what if Stephen M. Ross establishes that he buys million dollar t-shirts of every consensus five-star recruit that ends up playing for Michigan?  He doesn't have to make any specific communications to Rashan Gary, he just lets his actions speak for themselves.

funkywolve

April 14th, 2016 at 2:19 PM ^

Is only the university allowed to 'pay' the players or could a car dealership have a kid do a commercial and pay him?

If it's just the university, then yeah, UM would have an advantage.  It players are free to get paid for endorsements from anyone, it could essentially become like free agency in pro sports - which bagmen are willing to offer the largest endorsement deals.  The grad transfer rule could become interesting if other schools can offer a player a larger endorsement deal than what they are making at their current school.

SAMgO

April 14th, 2016 at 2:29 PM ^

Why do you think Michigan wouldn't be able to offer the largest endorsements in the country? We have one of the top few largest fanbases and some of the richest alumni in college sports. Alabama will put you in a car commercial? Great, Hank and Doug Meijer are both multi-billionaire alums, and they would be happy to put you in some ads. Stephen Ross is only worth about 6 bil and is the biggest real estate developer in the world, how's a billboard in NYC sound, Rashan? Close to home too!

Ulitmately, I don't think it would get to this point. You'd have some small time abuse, but I don't think it would necessarily exceed the levels of under the table problems we have now. Also, these people would be incentivized to put current players that are productive on the field and known to the broader fanbase in commercials as opposed to hotshot freshman. They also still wouldn't be able to (legally, not that that's ever stopped much) directly offer endorsements to recruits.

funkywolve

April 14th, 2016 at 3:54 PM ^

as a very slippery slope.  I see people in the thread talking about making sure it's regulated.  The NCAA can't even regulate the rules they have in place now.  How do they regulate this?

I think there would be bidding wars.  If Clemson was offering Gary 250K + other benefits when it's illegal, that cost is probably only going up when it becomes legal.  And while it won't be legal to pay recruits, the 'annual salary' of a recruit from endorsements once they enroll will be part of the recruiting pitch.

panthera leo fututio

April 14th, 2016 at 4:44 PM ^

It would be interesting to see how the dynamic would play out. I honestly don't have much of a feel for how deeply boosters at various programs would be willing to dig into their pockets for something that's essentially a straight-up donation (as opposed to something like a billboard spot for a business that might be closer to a genuine, face-value endorsement deal). My guess, though, is that there wouldn't be too many universities that would have the means to just throw 6-figures at multiple members of ever incoming class. Along these lines, I imagine that at programs like Ole Miss, the sum of funny-business payments right now might not be that much lower than what the sum would be when limited only by the willingness/ability to pay of boosters, unconstrained by NCAA "oversight".

TreyBurkeHeroMode

April 16th, 2016 at 4:19 PM ^

The corruption issues come because the NCAA's rules basically fix the price of a valuable product that has limited supply and high demand (the labor of high-quality college-eligible football players) at "scholarship, room and board." Markets being what they are, that rarely works.

Allowing schools to effectively compete on price through this kind of system will decrease the need for their boosters to do so behind the scenes. It'll create a more efficient market because everyone will be able to see roughly what their competitors are offering and players can openly share those offers in negotatiations with other schools.

Kids will get paid. Some will be worth it, some won't. But there's so damn much money sloshing around college football that it's good they'll see some of it.

SAMgO

April 14th, 2016 at 2:12 PM ^

That's the obvious loophole. It's definitely exploitable, but it also definitely already happens, just without the endorsement. So why not allow it and allow Michigan to play that game? We've got plenty of wealthy boosters in controlling positions and the best brand in college sports. We would win that game.

grumbler

April 14th, 2016 at 4:23 PM ^

What does that do to your team spirit and healthy competition when a starting potsition becomes worth big money?  More senior players would be foolish to help coach up more junior players who could potentially displace them and get their endorsement fees.

The Olympic model works better in individual sports.  I'm not sure the cost to teams would be worth the benefits.

Pepto Bismol

April 14th, 2016 at 4:36 PM ^

The person I replied to said that he sees no reason not to implement that model.  I answered with a potential reason why the NCAA might not want to do it.

I wasn't offering my opinion.

 

 

But, since I'm already negged and criticized, I'll admit I would hate this. 

Basically open bidding on players' services would be a horrible scene, regardless of Michigan's ability to play the game.  I'd much rather see players get a structured cut of TV money, which would allow incentives for playing in championship games, bowls, playoffs, etc.

That would at least help level the recruiting playing field, and I think that's really what Michigan fans are after.  If somebody's going to cheat and give a kid a car, well, so be it.  At least he's not empty handed in Ann Arbor.

But turning recruiting into a wild west money grab would be the wrong way to go.  If Billy Five Star wants $100k for his commitment, and doesn't give two shits whether he's in Ann Arbor or Ames, Iowa and tunes out when Harbaugh speaks to the value of a Michigan degree, then that just sucks for college football. 

 

Tex_Ind_Blue

April 14th, 2016 at 5:51 PM ^

You also realize that if Billy Five Star is not interested to listen to Harbaugh because UM is paying less, then UM shouldn't be bothered to talk to him either, right? This scenario would self-select someone who really wants to come and play for UM. All-star teams don't always win the tournaments they are assembled for. There are some exceptions, but mostly they don't.

Pepto Bismol

April 15th, 2016 at 2:23 PM ^

I think you're taking my words too literally and missing the point.

Of course the recruit has to have interest in Michigan, and all of the selling points still apply.  But if the legal expectation is cash money, and that is a negotiable figure, at some point a player's recruitment will turn into a bidding war.  The whole thing will be covered like NFL free agency, with recruiting outlets and ESPN reporting like crazy on dollar offers leading up to signing day. 

And when that becomes the norm, that will become the goal.  It will be about these kids using H.S. football to earn a college "deal" and get that money (and yeah, sure, hopefully make the NFL someday). 

Yes, there will be the low end athletes that will fall short of big money and take advantage of a free education for their abilities.  But opening up the payment window will just commercialize the entire setting, especially on the high end. 

Are you ESPN Top 100?  How big of an endorsement can you get for that?   You're ranked #52 overall.  Last year, #52 overall got $75,000 from Texas A&M.  I love Ann Arbor, but Michigan's only offering $60k?  You're way better than that A&M guy.  West Virginia is offering you $80,000.  It's obvious they believe in you more than UM.  Go be a Mountaineer. 

And then Harbaugh tries to remind an 18 year old about the UM degree.  Unless you have Rashan Gary's mom over his shoulder, he's going to say "That's great coach, but you need to match WVU."

 

 

Now say you get the same money from any school (via TV deals or something similar).  If I get a hypothetical $3,000 annual cut of the BTN deal or $3,000 from the SEC network, and I'll get the player cut of ESPN's conference championship telecast if we make it, and I have the same opportunity at both schools to get a nice chunk of ESPN's College Football Playoff payout, then it comes back to the school.

I get paid either way, might make a little more at a better program, but between say Michigan and Florida, it will come down to comparing the actual school, not the bagman.

 

Or something like that.  Forgive my rambling.

 

 

gwkrlghl

April 14th, 2016 at 4:37 PM ^

Right now, you have to be discreet to some level. Pay players families, give the players a fairly non-suspicious chunk of change, etc. so as not to raise too many eyebrows.

If you can give players endorsement deals, then why couldnt Phil Knight just sign every 5 star that goes to Oregon to a million dollar endorsement deal? Seems like you'd have to put a cap on the endorsements somehow or it becomes a funnel for booster money

FatGuyTouchdown

April 14th, 2016 at 4:51 PM ^

But you have to realize there's a 0.0000% chance that Harbaugh wouldn't have a strategy for recruiting like this. If it's essentially legal bagmen, then who cares if we do it? If a 5* recruit can essentially make Michigan boosters buy loads of his memoribilia, all the power to him.

Communist Football

April 14th, 2016 at 5:35 PM ^

Great devils advocate point comrade. There is a relatively simple way to deal with this. You allow players to receive endorsement cash, but only from NCAA-approved businesses (athletic apparel manufacturers, Fortune 500 companies, etc). That way the local booster can't turn the system into bribery.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

kevin holt

April 14th, 2016 at 2:11 PM ^

Orrrr just quit your job! Seriously Freeze you have made enough money to retire now, so why not do it? Oh because you want to be a football coach? Well if the new normal is to hold camps, sounds like that's something you gotta do. Too time consuming? Fucking retire dude. We all wish we had that option for our own lives.

gwkrlghl

April 14th, 2016 at 4:38 PM ^

Freeze wants to work an elite job where he makes millions a year but wants to do it on 40 hours a week while also restricting everyone else to working 40 hours a week. Go coach division II if you want to take it easy Hugh or take it easy and let everyone else outwork you at the FBS level

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 5:42 PM ^

As an FBS coach, Freeze isn't working 40 hours a week. I bet he busts his ass harder than a large number of people on this board and significantly harder than the average person, which is why he gets paid almost $5 million a year. He didn't earn his job for no reason.

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 1:33 PM ^

In regard to Freeze, I think the "Just don't do the camps" argument is very weak. You can say the same thing about any innovation ever. You don't want to run RPOs? Don't. You don't want to install automatic locks on your cars? Don't. Well, sure, but if everybody else starts doing it, then you fall behind. And everybody else was about to do it, which is why we've seen oodles of articles about Ohio State, Arkansas, Michigan State, etc. talking about the satellite camps they're going to have in Florida, at Jerryworld, etc.

The Steve Politi and Mike Flores articles/comments are pure stupidity. I watched Politi's video, and his argument was basically a guy throwing his hands up in the air and saying, "Really? I mean, come on. Can you believe this? Amirite? Amirite?" And somebody is paying that guy to write stuff for a living.

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 1:50 PM ^

Again, you're missing the point. If Jim Harbaugh and Urban Meyer and Mork Dantoni and Bert Bielema are all doing the camps, then Hugh Freeze has to, too. Yes, he COULD just send his assistants, but he and his program would fall behind the others.

Also, that would indicate he missed out on the chapter on leadership training. His assistants aren't going to be happy about being sent out of town for camps when he won't go. That idea just isn't tenable.

Kermits Blue Key

April 14th, 2016 at 2:06 PM ^

Aren't B1G coaches falling further behind the SEC and ACC everyday because their campuses are not located in talent-rich areas with nicer weather? At least Hugh Freeze has an option in the satellite camp matter, whereas B1G coaches are simply fucked from a location standpoint. Hugh Freeze doesn't NEED to work harder at satellite camps because he's already organically located in the the middle of them. 

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 2:25 PM ^

I don't get this argument at all. It smacks of new-age "Everything must be equal and everyone must get a participation ribbon!"

I can't build a water park in Anchorage, Alaska, or create a ski slope in Miami, Florida, and then ask for special considerations when nobody wants to wear a bikini in cold weather or go skiing on a mountain of slush. If you want to be a hockey powerhouse, build your school in the north. If you want to be a powerhouse in warm-weather sports, it helps to build your school in a warm-weather area. My poor choice of a geographical location to build my business does not mean I should get special rules made in my favor to go gallavanting around the country.

To be clear, I'm not against satellite camps as a whole. I think they need to be regulated more than they were. But that doesn't mean every argument for satellite camps is a sound one.

Kermits Blue Key

April 14th, 2016 at 2:39 PM ^

Participation ribbon? You're the one supporting the idea that everyone must partcipate at the same level because it wouldn't be fair to Hugh Freeze to HAVE TO work at the camps or else fall behind. And who the hell is using sports to pick the geography of where a school is built? That is a lame argument right there.

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 2:48 PM ^

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, every profession is regulated. Strippers and prostitutes and truck drivers and teachers and police offers all have regulations.

I don't know what schools use sports to pick where a school is built. But I do know that it makes sense to have a marine biology program somewhere near water, and it makes sense to have a forestry conservation program somewhere other than the Nevada desert. And if my marine biology program happens to be next to a pond rather than the Atlantic Ocean, then I understand why I may not get the cream of the crop applying to my school.

Kermits Blue Key

April 14th, 2016 at 2:57 PM ^

Except Michigan has some of the best football facilites in the country and you're actively arguing AGAINST Michigan's coaches going out to recruit the best football players in the country. Also, most professions are regulated due to health and safety reasons, not to keep some other business from poaching their talent.

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 3:13 PM ^

First of all, *I'm* not against satellite camps. I'm not sure how generally you're speaking or if you're saying "you" as in I'm Hugh Freeze. I'm for satellite camps, but I'm not for unlimited, unregulated satellite camps.

As for your second point, I've said this before, but poaching talent is not the ONLY reason that unlimited satellite camps are a bad idea. However, there are organizations out there who limit their workers' work hours for reasons other than health/safety. For example, I don't think the teachers' union in Michigan is concerned that if teachers work 10 hours a day or 12 months a year that they'll end up driving off a bridge or dropping heavy equipment.

pescadero

April 14th, 2016 at 4:02 PM ^

However, there are organizations out there who limit their workers' work hours for reasons other than health/safety. For example, I don't think the teachers' union in Michigan is concerned that if teachers work 10 hours a day or 12 months a year that they'll end up driving off a bridge or dropping heavy equipment.

 

The teachers union isn't an organization that limits their workers hours when it comes to teachers... because teachers aren't "their" workers.

 

The employer schools limit their workers work hours becuase the employee union negotiated such a limit.

 

 

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 4:09 PM ^

Right. And Jim Harbaugh doesn't work for the NCAA. He works for the University of Michigan, which has chosen to have its athletic teams governed by the NCAA. And the NCAA's member institutions voted for a ban on satellite camps.

Meanwhile, teachers don't work for the union. They work for school districts, which employ unionized workers. And they negotiate using the union. And if teachers want something changed in their job descriptions or salary, they lobby for it with their organization, which is the union.

grumbler

April 14th, 2016 at 4:30 PM ^

I'm not sure that the argument that runs "Harbaugh works for Michigan and Michigan agrees to be bound by NCAA rules and the NCAA has ruled against camps" is an actual argument about camps.  It is just an observation, and that doesn't advance the dicussion.

And no one is in favor of "unlimioted, unregulated" camps, as far as I know, and so that straw dog won't hunt.  There were already regulations in place limiting camps, and no one that I know of was proposing to change those regulations (except to ban them outright).

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 5:46 PM ^

It's not specifically about camps, no, but it's a point that there is an organization of programs designed to rule on things like this. And they have ruled. Right now we're just a bunch of people on one team's website (Michigan's) arguing that the majority of people who voted should not have voted the way they did.

There were *some* regulations on camps. Not enough, in my opinion. And especially not enough if 128 teams wanted to start doing the same thing that Harbaugh did last summer.

Wolfman

April 14th, 2016 at 10:42 PM ^

but  felt the vote itself, the wording of it, the exclusion(conference commissioners) of many whose self interest  - the ADs and coaches would certainly know more about theif feelings than say a Delaney guessing at things he knows nothing about - Emmert acting as if  a spokesman for that part of the U.S., just too many things that make me believe it was presented and carried out in a duplicitous manner than having Leach confirm my  suspicions by not knowing if there could have been ambiguous language or even the content because he didn't see it. The Director of the NCAA is notorious for his inability to present a clear, consise document, that would leave only one interpretation possible if he took time or set with a person's whose abilities include grasping full intent, correct word choice, proper tructure of same that allows a finished product, minus ambiguity to a level that if a reader's only  intent were to present a reasonable argument as to this clause, this sentence, etc, could be interpreted to mean anything other than the intent of the author, he woud fail. It's not that difficult.

schreibee

April 14th, 2016 at 3:32 PM ^

Magnus I appreciate the free talent evaluations you provide on this blog - and as a business I get that you're trying to drive traffic to your own site by posting content here.

But I gotta tell you - the arguments you're making here aren't any more sound than the "Amirite?!" arguments you blasted a few posts above.

A car wash is a business, a ski park is a business, a bar is a business - where they're located will have a great deal to do with their ultimate success.

The University is not a business in that fashion; although it takes in literally billions of dollars between tuition, sports revenues, government subsidies, it does not choose the location of its campus based on the same considerations the bar would have. The University lays down a campus and the people come to it, not vice versa.

In addition to that piece of obviousness, there's the simple fact that the University was founded decades before the creation of the sport of gridiron, or even baseball, so that could hardly have factored into the decision of where to locate. And it coudn't very welll be the University of Michigan if it was located in a more football talent rich Florida or other...

It could however, (until last week) hold camps in those states to meet and coach and evaluate potential student athletes. This has the dual benefit helping both our football team and the youngsters participating. It hurts no one except people that don't feel like doing it. They, as you point out, will be seen to be falling behind our coach and others who do the camps. That's really on them...

The assumedly unintended consequences of prohibiting these camps is the end of college coach participation in SMSB type camps as well. That's an even greater shame than the blatant attempt to restrict Jim Harbaugh from spreading the gospel of Michigan football into other areas - that hurts lots of people besdes JH and Michigan!

Magnus

April 14th, 2016 at 3:45 PM ^

a) I've been posting on this blog for much longer than my website has existed. And if my sole purpose was to drive content to my site, I wouldn't offer unpopular opinions.

b) You lost me at "The university isn't a business." It's basically a business. I mean, maybe it doesn't pay taxes like a business...but it's a business.

c) You're acting as if I'm against satellite camps. I'M NOT AGAINST SATELLITE CAMPS. I THINK SATELLITE CAMPS ARE A GOOD THING. My only point is that they need to be regulated. And if they were regulated (let's say 1 or 2 per year for each school), then we wouldn't be having this conversation because I sincerely doubt the Hugh Freezes of the world would be upset about holding 1 or 2 camps every summer.