Anyone know why the AAC voted for satellite camps?

NCAA bans satellite camps effective immediately

@McMurphyESPN

Source told @ESPN conferences that voted against satellite camps: ACC, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12, MWC, Sun Belt. In favor: B1G, AAC, C-USA, MAC
1:44 PM - 8 Apr 2016

Because we did them in Pittsburgh.

(04-09-2016 07:07 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  Anyone know why the AAC voted for satellite camps?

NCAA bans satellite camps effective immediately

@McMurphyESPN

Source told @ESPN conferences that voted against satellite camps: ACC, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12, MWC, Sun Belt. In favor: B1G, AAC, C-USA, MAC
1:44 PM - 8 Apr 2016

Certain school(s) were hoping to pick up leftovers from not good enoughs at camps at their schools.

(04-09-2016 07:07 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  Anyone know why the AAC voted for satellite camps?

NCAA bans satellite camps effective immediately

@McMurphyESPN

Source told @ESPN conferences that voted against satellite camps: ACC, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12, MWC, Sun Belt. In favor: B1G, AAC, C-USA, MAC
1:44 PM - 8 Apr 2016

USF Head Coach Willie Taggart was obviously for it as he hosted Harbaugh's staff last year and were scheduled to have Harbaugh back again this summer.

I would think satellite camps benefit those schools NOT located in a particularly strong recruiting area the most. The ban, therefore, should most benefit schools that ARE located in good recruiting areas. Frankly, I doubt it makes much difference either way---but its kinda odd that most of our schools are IN good recruiting areas and we still voted for the camps to be allowed.

(04-10-2016 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I would think satellite camps benefit those schools NOT located in a particularly strong recruiting area the most. The ban, therefore, should most benefit schools that ARE located in good recruiting areas. Frankly, I doubt it makes much difference either way---but its kinda odd that most of our schools are IN good recruiting areas and we still voted for the camps to be allowed.

The reason because they can recruit the area harder. For example USF does camps in miami, ft myers, and Jacksonville. Those are great areas to recruit and give USF a bigger reach than just tampa and coaches that recruit city by city. The kids literally come to you.

(04-10-2016 05:47 PM)Bulls Nation Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I would think satellite camps benefit those schools NOT located in a particularly strong recruiting area the most. The ban, therefore, should most benefit schools that ARE located in good recruiting areas. Frankly, I doubt it makes much difference either way---but its kinda odd that most of our schools are IN good recruiting areas and we still voted for the camps to be allowed.

The reason because they can recruit the area harder. For example USF does camps in miami, ft myers, and Jacksonville. Those are great areas to recruit and give USF a bigger reach than just tampa and coaches that recruit city by city. The kids literally come to you.

Im sure thats true. But with their geography, I'd bet USF can still do a pretty effective job of recruiting nearby cities like that. The real advantage is for a school like Maryland to do a camp in Florida. They can literally see, talk to, and evaluate hundreds of kids in a single day. The biggest advantage in these camps is they attract kids that cant afford to travel for unofficial visits and are under recruited for some reason. These kind of under recruited kids are the exact same under the radar kids that local schools have the best advantage of quietly snapping up. These camps take away some of that "home field" advantage IMHO.

That said, I don't think it makes that much difference one way or another---but Im more inclined to think that it works against schools in good recruiting areas more than it would help those same schools. So in your example, USF likely would have the kind of recruiting network already in place to uncover these under recruited diamonds than a school that's located in say Ohio or Indiana (for example). Your guys are probably visiting and talking to their contacts in those nearby cities much more often than recruiters located much farther away. I suspect that's why the SEC doesn't want them---they know they have the best overall recruiting area and they don't want to make it easier for schools outside of their areas to come in and recruit.

(04-10-2016 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 05:47 PM)Bulls Nation Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I would think satellite camps benefit those schools NOT located in a particularly strong recruiting area the most. The ban, therefore, should most benefit schools that ARE located in good recruiting areas. Frankly, I doubt it makes much difference either way---but its kinda odd that most of our schools are IN good recruiting areas and we still voted for the camps to be allowed.

The reason because they can recruit the area harder. For example USF does camps in miami, ft myers, and Jacksonville. Those are great areas to recruit and give USF a bigger reach than just tampa and coaches that recruit city by city. The kids literally come to you.

Im sure thats true. But with their geography, I'd bet USF can still do a pretty effective job of recruiting nearby cities like that. The real advantage is for a school like Maryland to do a camp in Florida. They can literally see, talk to, and evaluate hundreds of kids in a single day. The biggest advantage in these camps is they attract kids that cant afford to travel for unofficial visits and are under recruited for some reason. These kind of under recruited kids are the exact same under the radar kids that local schools have the best advantage of quietly snapping up. These camps take away some of that "home field" advantage IMHO.

That said, I don't think it makes that much difference one way or another---but Im more inclined to think that it works against schools in good recruiting areas more than it would help those same schools. So in your example, USF likely would have the kind of recruiting network already in place to uncover these under recruited diamonds than a school that's located in say Ohio or Indiana (for example). Your guys are probably visiting and talking to their contacts in those nearby cities much more often than recruiters located much farther away. I suspect that's why the SEC doesn't want them---they know they have the best overall recruiting area and they don't want to make it easier for schools outside of their areas to come in and recruit.

You cannot just go recruit in FL. You have to have co-hosted with a school. That usually means a personal connection, or some incentive (home games). See Penn St with GA State and USF as mentioned. The real benefit was for all the camps in your area. You could only hold camps in your state and adjoining states. So USF could go all over FL and even into Georgia and Alabama for some linemen.

WKU held camps all over the state and a few in TN. The BIG needed to use their partner camps and several getting into Ohio. The other conferences are full of secondary schools in their state. They needed to get out more and get in front of more players. The SBC probably can't afford to do camps.

(04-11-2016 12:22 AM)TOPPERSonTOP Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 05:47 PM)Bulls Nation Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I would think satellite camps benefit those schools NOT located in a particularly strong recruiting area the most. The ban, therefore, should most benefit schools that ARE located in good recruiting areas. Frankly, I doubt it makes much difference either way---but its kinda odd that most of our schools are IN good recruiting areas and we still voted for the camps to be allowed.

The reason because they can recruit the area harder. For example USF does camps in miami, ft myers, and Jacksonville. Those are great areas to recruit and give USF a bigger reach than just tampa and coaches that recruit city by city. The kids literally come to you.

Im sure thats true. But with their geography, I'd bet USF can still do a pretty effective job of recruiting nearby cities like that. The real advantage is for a school like Maryland to do a camp in Florida. They can literally see, talk to, and evaluate hundreds of kids in a single day. The biggest advantage in these camps is they attract kids that cant afford to travel for unofficial visits and are under recruited for some reason. These kind of under recruited kids are the exact same under the radar kids that local schools have the best advantage of quietly snapping up. These camps take away some of that "home field" advantage IMHO.

That said, I don't think it makes that much difference one way or another---but Im more inclined to think that it works against schools in good recruiting areas more than it would help those same schools. So in your example, USF likely would have the kind of recruiting network already in place to uncover these under recruited diamonds than a school that's located in say Ohio or Indiana (for example). Your guys are probably visiting and talking to their contacts in those nearby cities much more often than recruiters located much farther away. I suspect that's why the SEC doesn't want them---they know they have the best overall recruiting area and they don't want to make it easier for schools outside of their areas to come in and recruit.

You cannot just go recruit in FL. You have to have co-hosted with a school. That usually means a personal connection, or some incentive (home games). See Penn St with GA State and USF as mentioned. The real benefit was for all the camps in your area. You could only hold camps in your state and adjoining states. So USF could go all over FL and even into Georgia and Alabama for some linemen.

WKU held camps all over the state and a few in TN. The BIG needed to use their partner camps and several getting into Ohio. The other conferences are full of secondary schools in their state. They needed to get out more and get in front of more players. The SBC probably can't afford to do camps.

You seriously believe that? TXST routinely has 4/5 off campus camps. No, they don't go out of state but still had them. There were already 4 camps set up for the summer in DFW, Houston(2) and East Texas (location not specified) and TXST was not the only SBC school with these camps.
Why the SBC voted to kill them is a real head scratcher. We've already had more than a few coaches ready to go in and help get it changed to allow in state camps (only.)

(04-12-2016 03:07 AM)CatMom Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 12:22 AM)TOPPERSonTOP Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 05:47 PM)Bulls Nation Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I would think satellite camps benefit those schools NOT located in a particularly strong recruiting area the most. The ban, therefore, should most benefit schools that ARE located in good recruiting areas. Frankly, I doubt it makes much difference either way---but its kinda odd that most of our schools are IN good recruiting areas and we still voted for the camps to be allowed.

The reason because they can recruit the area harder. For example USF does camps in miami, ft myers, and Jacksonville. Those are great areas to recruit and give USF a bigger reach than just tampa and coaches that recruit city by city. The kids literally come to you.

Im sure thats true. But with their geography, I'd bet USF can still do a pretty effective job of recruiting nearby cities like that. The real advantage is for a school like Maryland to do a camp in Florida. They can literally see, talk to, and evaluate hundreds of kids in a single day. The biggest advantage in these camps is they attract kids that cant afford to travel for unofficial visits and are under recruited for some reason. These kind of under recruited kids are the exact same under the radar kids that local schools have the best advantage of quietly snapping up. These camps take away some of that "home field" advantage IMHO.

That said, I don't think it makes that much difference one way or another---but Im more inclined to think that it works against schools in good recruiting areas more than it would help those same schools. So in your example, USF likely would have the kind of recruiting network already in place to uncover these under recruited diamonds than a school that's located in say Ohio or Indiana (for example). Your guys are probably visiting and talking to their contacts in those nearby cities much more often than recruiters located much farther away. I suspect that's why the SEC doesn't want them---they know they have the best overall recruiting area and they don't want to make it easier for schools outside of their areas to come in and recruit.

You cannot just go recruit in FL. You have to have co-hosted with a school. That usually means a personal connection, or some incentive (home games). See Penn St with GA State and USF as mentioned. The real benefit was for all the camps in your area. You could only hold camps in your state and adjoining states. So USF could go all over FL and even into Georgia and Alabama for some linemen.

WKU held camps all over the state and a few in TN. The BIG needed to use their partner camps and several getting into Ohio. The other conferences are full of secondary schools in their state. They needed to get out more and get in front of more players. The SBC probably can't afford to do camps.

You seriously believe that? TXST routinely has 4/5 off campus camps. No, they don't go out of state but still had them. There were already 4 camps set up for the summer in DFW, Houston(2) and East Texas (location not specified) and TXST was not the only SBC school with these camps.
Why the SBC voted to kill them is a real head scratcher. We've already had more than a few coaches ready to go in and help get it changed to allow in state camps (only.)

"Most" of the suck belch can't afford it.

(04-09-2016 07:07 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  Anyone know why the AAC voted for satellite camps?

NCAA bans satellite camps effective immediately

@McMurphyESPN

Source told @ESPN conferences that voted against satellite camps: ACC, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12, MWC, Sun Belt. In favor: B1G, AAC, C-USA, MAC
1:44 PM - 8 Apr 2016

Surprised MWC was against it since Boise used it at the very least. If the G5 had stayed together it would've stayed like it was and the SEC would've have to learn how to use it.

I think a modified version (maybe limiting number of miles traveled and camps scheduled and having it be two schools per camp) will get through in a year or so.

(04-12-2016 10:25 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 07:07 PM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  Anyone know why the AAC voted for satellite camps?

NCAA bans satellite camps effective immediately

@McMurphyESPN

Source told @ESPN conferences that voted against satellite camps: ACC, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12, MWC, Sun Belt. In favor: B1G, AAC, C-USA, MAC
1:44 PM - 8 Apr 2016

Surprised MWC was against it since Boise used it at the very least. If the G5 had stayed together it would've stayed like it was and the SEC would've have to learn how to use it.

I think a modified version (maybe limiting number of miles traveled and camps scheduled and having it be two schools per camp) will get through in a year or so.

No. If all all the G5 sided with the Big 10. It still would have passed 8-7. P5 conferences get 2 votes. So with 4 P5 schools voting for it, it passed regardless.
the MW and SB went with the PAC and SEC since they like to have a working relationship with those conferences in the footprint.

We're still in the clear at least.

I guess the good news according to Tom Herman is that Houston doesn't need to have satellite camps since he doesn't need to leave Houston to recruit.

Does anybody see what's happening? This is becoming exactly like baseball where Southern schools will dominate, even the small ones.

(04-15-2016 08:00 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Does anybody see what's happening? This is becoming exactly like baseball where Southern schools will dominate, even the small ones.

Nothing wrong with that.

(04-12-2016 09:52 AM)TOPPERSonTOP Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 03:07 AM)CatMom Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 12:22 AM)TOPPERSonTOP Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 05:47 PM)Bulls Nation Wrote:  The reason because they can recruit the area harder. For example USF does camps in miami, ft myers, and Jacksonville. Those are great areas to recruit and give USF a bigger reach than just tampa and coaches that recruit city by city. The kids literally come to you.

Im sure thats true. But with their geography, I'd bet USF can still do a pretty effective job of recruiting nearby cities like that. The real advantage is for a school like Maryland to do a camp in Florida. They can literally see, talk to, and evaluate hundreds of kids in a single day. The biggest advantage in these camps is they attract kids that cant afford to travel for unofficial visits and are under recruited for some reason. These kind of under recruited kids are the exact same under the radar kids that local schools have the best advantage of quietly snapping up. These camps take away some of that "home field" advantage IMHO.

That said, I don't think it makes that much difference one way or another---but Im more inclined to think that it works against schools in good recruiting areas more than it would help those same schools. So in your example, USF likely would have the kind of recruiting network already in place to uncover these under recruited diamonds than a school that's located in say Ohio or Indiana (for example). Your guys are probably visiting and talking to their contacts in those nearby cities much more often than recruiters located much farther away. I suspect that's why the SEC doesn't want them---they know they have the best overall recruiting area and they don't want to make it easier for schools outside of their areas to come in and recruit.

You cannot just go recruit in FL. You have to have co-hosted with a school. That usually means a personal connection, or some incentive (home games). See Penn St with GA State and USF as mentioned. The real benefit was for all the camps in your area. You could only hold camps in your state and adjoining states. So USF could go all over FL and even into Georgia and Alabama for some linemen.

WKU held camps all over the state and a few in TN. The BIG needed to use their partner camps and several getting into Ohio. The other conferences are full of secondary schools in their state. They needed to get out more and get in front of more players. The SBC probably can't afford to do camps.

You seriously believe that? TXST routinely has 4/5 off campus camps. No, they don't go out of state but still had them. There were already 4 camps set up for the summer in DFW, Houston(2) and East Texas (location not specified) and TXST was not the only SBC school with these camps.
Why the SBC voted to kill them is a real head scratcher. We've already had more than a few coaches ready to go in and help get it changed to allow in state camps (only.)

"Most" of the suck belch can't afford it.

Every Sun Belt school hosts Satellite camps. Heck, Arkansas State hosts 6 out of state camps a year...all over the place. For most of us, it's the best way to reach out of state prospects who likely aren't going to pay to travel to your campus based camps.

The SBC voted against it because the SBC rep decided to ignore what most of the league wanted, and make his own decision.

@McMurphyESPN
NCAA Board of Directors rescinds ban on satellite camps, source tells @ESPN

(04-28-2016 01:15 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  @McMurphyESPN
NCAA Board of Directors rescinds ban on satellite camps, source tells @ESPN

Is this true? I haven't seen this anywhere on espn.

(04-28-2016 01:22 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 01:15 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  @McMurphyESPN
NCAA Board of Directors rescinds ban on satellite camps, source tells @ESPN

Is this true? I haven't seen this anywhere on espn.

Stop lying you are watching the Oprah channel