Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I look for an in state exclusion to be added to the proposal, and perhaps an exclusion for a limited number of out of state camps within a certain distance from your campus.

(04-11-2016 06:57 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I look for an in state exclusion to be added to the proposal, and perhaps an exclusion for a limited number of out of state camps within a certain distance from your campus.

Well to figure out the distance rule take the closest Big 10 school and see how far it is from GA. Or how far Tuscaloosa is from Key West.

I could see the lift on instate or a border state / distance provision.

I believe the old rule was within your state or 50 miles from campus.

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I think they know that. There is also more internal issues such where rich schools within the conference can hold quite a few camps in the opposing teams area. (i.e. USC holding camps in the Bay Area).

What this is more about is the coaches are getting to lazy to recruit and want everyone to come to them.

However, the BOD will pass the ban as dictated I believe.

(04-12-2016 01:13 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I think they know that. There is also more internal issues such where rich schools within the conference can hold quite a few camps in the opposing teams area. (i.e. USC holding camps in the Bay Area).

What this is more about is the coaches are getting to lazy to recruit and want everyone to come to them.

However, the BOD will pass the ban as dictated I believe.

Precisely why most Sun Belt schools voted against it.

(04-12-2016 02:43 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 01:13 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I think they know that. There is also more internal issues such where rich schools within the conference can hold quite a few camps in the opposing teams area. (i.e. USC holding camps in the Bay Area).

What this is more about is the coaches are getting to lazy to recruit and want everyone to come to them.

However, the BOD will pass the ban as dictated I believe.

Precisely why most Sun Belt schools voted against it.

Do we know there was ever a "vote"? Not uncommon at all for there to not be a vote to dictate how the representative votes at the NCAA.

(04-12-2016 03:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 02:43 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 01:13 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I think they know that. There is also more internal issues such where rich schools within the conference can hold quite a few camps in the opposing teams area. (i.e. USC holding camps in the Bay Area).

What this is more about is the coaches are getting to lazy to recruit and want everyone to come to them.

However, the BOD will pass the ban as dictated I believe.

Precisely why most Sun Belt schools voted against it.

Do we know there was ever a "vote"? Not uncommon at all for there to not be a vote to dictate how the representative votes at the NCAA.

Since we don't even have bylaws maybe somebody just flipped a coin.

(04-11-2016 06:57 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I look for an in state exclusion to be added to the proposal, and perhaps an exclusion for a limited number of out of state camps within a certain distance from your campus.

This is not fair at all to western schools where the geography is much more expansive. It must be kept simple by allowing camps with your state. This country operates through states so crossing borders creates problems.

(04-12-2016 04:17 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 06:57 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I look for an in state exclusion to be added to the proposal, and perhaps an exclusion for a limited number of out of state camps within a certain distance from your campus.

This is not fair at all to western schools where the geography is much more expansive. It must be kept simple by allowing camps with your state. This country operates through states so crossing borders creates problems.

That's goofy. States are political bodies, their borders have absolutely nothing to do with what is good for the sport of college football.

How is restricting Wyoming to Wyoming's borders "fairer" to Wyoming than Wyoming's borders + a certain distance?????

Personally, I'm not sure I care that much whether it is fair to Jim Harbaugh, the SEC, or Wyoming...or Arkansas State for that matter.

What the goal should be is to provide as many opportunities as possible for FBS level athletes to get access to opportunities for FBS level scholarships where they fit....wherever those opportunities might be....and regardless of hardship.

There is a whole host of creative ways you can dream up to make it easier for athletes to get looked at and interact with their potential coaching staffs.

As long as your goal is the right goal you can get it done.

But that is not the goal is it. The goals are to either make it harder for opponents to get athletes or make it easier for you to get athletes or increase the distance between you and those with fewer resources or have the best players play for the conference your network has the biggest deal with or poke a stick in the eye of someone and get yourself press or a hundred other goals that aren't...the...right...one.

(04-12-2016 06:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 04:17 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 06:57 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I look for an in state exclusion to be added to the proposal, and perhaps an exclusion for a limited number of out of state camps within a certain distance from your campus.

This is not fair at all to western schools where the geography is much more expansive. It must be kept simple by allowing camps with your state. This country operates through states so crossing borders creates problems.

That's goofy. States are political bodies, their borders have absolutely nothing to do with what is good for the sport of college football.

How is restricting Wyoming to Wyoming's borders "fairer" to Wyoming than Wyoming's borders + a certain distance?????

Personally, I'm not sure I care that much whether it is fair to Jim Harbaugh, the SEC, or Wyoming...or Arkansas State for that matter.

What the goal should be is to provide as many opportunities as possible for FBS level athletes to get access to opportunities for FBS level scholarships where they fit....wherever those opportunities might be....and regardless of hardship.

There is a whole host of creative ways you can dream up to make it easier for athletes to get looked at and interact with their potential coaching staffs.

As long as your goal is the right goal you can get it done.

But that is not the goal is it. The goals are to either make it harder for opponents to get athletes or make it easier for you to get athletes or increase the distance between you and those with fewer resources or have the best players play for the conference your network has the biggest deal with or poke a stick in the eye of someone and get yourself press or a hundred other goals that aren't...the...right...one.

Ark St fan was against camps within state borders because it hurt schools such as Idaho and Wyoming with little talent in their home state. However he is for allowing a radius of xx miles which would do nothing to help western schools where the geography is totally different than the east.

Point is that no matter what you do, someone isn't happy and having a free for all would create massive problems that could strain the entire college athletic model. It would have become a nuclear war which is why it was stopped immediately. Harbaugh is pushing the envelope which will force everyone to respond to protect the current student athlete model. Otherwise we may as well dissolve college athletics and just have pro teams with salaried employees.

(04-12-2016 06:39 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 06:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 04:17 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 06:57 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I look for an in state exclusion to be added to the proposal, and perhaps an exclusion for a limited number of out of state camps within a certain distance from your campus.

This is not fair at all to western schools where the geography is much more expansive. It must be kept simple by allowing camps with your state. This country operates through states so crossing borders creates problems.

That's goofy. States are political bodies, their borders have absolutely nothing to do with what is good for the sport of college football.

How is restricting Wyoming to Wyoming's borders "fairer" to Wyoming than Wyoming's borders + a certain distance?????

Personally, I'm not sure I care that much whether it is fair to Jim Harbaugh, the SEC, or Wyoming...or Arkansas State for that matter.

What the goal should be is to provide as many opportunities as possible for FBS level athletes to get access to opportunities for FBS level scholarships where they fit....wherever those opportunities might be....and regardless of hardship.

There is a whole host of creative ways you can dream up to make it easier for athletes to get looked at and interact with their potential coaching staffs.

As long as your goal is the right goal you can get it done.

But that is not the goal is it. The goals are to either make it harder for opponents to get athletes or make it easier for you to get athletes or increase the distance between you and those with fewer resources or have the best players play for the conference your network has the biggest deal with or poke a stick in the eye of someone and get yourself press or a hundred other goals that aren't...the...right...one.

Ark St fan was against camps within state borders because it hurt schools such as Idaho and Wyoming with little talent in their home state. However he is for allowing a radius of xx miles which would do nothing to help western schools where the geography is totally different than the east.

Point is that no matter what you do, someone isn't happy and having a free for all would create massive problems that could strain the entire college athletic model. It would have become a nuclear war which is why it was stopped immediately. Harbaugh is pushing the envelope which will force everyone to respond to protect the current student athlete model. Otherwise we may as well dissolve college athletics and just have pro teams with salaried employees.

There are a multitude of ways to give every FBS quality athlete better opportunities to get an FBS scholarship without the "destruction of the college athletic model". The choice here is not Harbaugh or doom...no disolution of college athletics will be necessary in order to hook up FBS quality players with FBS schools.

I am going on the record against any rule of camps outside of "X" radius, if "X" is greater than 60 miles because the Atlantic ocean has not proven to be full of quality recruits

(04-12-2016 08:08 PM)Eagle22 Wrote:  I am going on the record against any rule of camps outside of "X" radius, if "X" is greater than 60 miles because the Atlantic ocean has not proven to be full of quality recruits

Or the GOM.

(04-12-2016 06:39 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 06:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 04:17 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 06:57 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I look for an in state exclusion to be added to the proposal, and perhaps an exclusion for a limited number of out of state camps within a certain distance from your campus.

This is not fair at all to western schools where the geography is much more expansive. It must be kept simple by allowing camps with your state. This country operates through states so crossing borders creates problems.

That's goofy. States are political bodies, their borders have absolutely nothing to do with what is good for the sport of college football.

How is restricting Wyoming to Wyoming's borders "fairer" to Wyoming than Wyoming's borders + a certain distance?????

Personally, I'm not sure I care that much whether it is fair to Jim Harbaugh, the SEC, or Wyoming...or Arkansas State for that matter.

What the goal should be is to provide as many opportunities as possible for FBS level athletes to get access to opportunities for FBS level scholarships where they fit....wherever those opportunities might be....and regardless of hardship.

There is a whole host of creative ways you can dream up to make it easier for athletes to get looked at and interact with their potential coaching staffs.

As long as your goal is the right goal you can get it done.

But that is not the goal is it. The goals are to either make it harder for opponents to get athletes or make it easier for you to get athletes or increase the distance between you and those with fewer resources or have the best players play for the conference your network has the biggest deal with or poke a stick in the eye of someone and get yourself press or a hundred other goals that aren't...the...right...one.

Ark St fan was against camps within state borders because it hurt schools such as Idaho and Wyoming with little talent in their home state. However he is for allowing a radius of xx miles which would do nothing to help western schools where the geography is totally different than the east.

Point is that no matter what you do, someone isn't happy and having a free for all would create massive problems that could strain the entire college athletic model. It would have become a nuclear war which is why it was stopped immediately. Harbaugh is pushing the envelope which will force everyone to respond to protect the current student athlete model. Otherwise we may as well dissolve college athletics and just have pro teams with salaried employees.

This isn't high school where you only get the kids in your neighborhood. The NCAA is supposed to be about the benefit of young athletes. By reducing their opportunities they have taken care of coaches with nice neighborhoods, but not young athletes.

(04-12-2016 04:17 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 06:57 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I look for an in state exclusion to be added to the proposal, and perhaps an exclusion for a limited number of out of state camps within a certain distance from your campus.

This is not fair at all to western schools where the geography is much more expansive. It must be kept simple by allowing camps with your state. This country operates through states so crossing borders creates problems.

Huh?

How is it fair that Memphis cannot hold any camps east or south of campus in communities that send a good number of students to the school and the people watch Memphis television? They can go a handful of miles south, handful west, less than 120 north but hey it's OK because you can go more than 400 miles to the west.

Ditto Idaho, they have Washington State 8 miles away and can't go into nearby communities in Washington that send students to UI.
AState can go 275 miles to Texarkana but can't go 45 miles to Senath, Mo where people watch Jonesboro television and listen to Jonesboro radio.

TXST can go 588 miles to El Paso but NMSU can't go 46 miles to El Paso.

ULM can go 194 miles to Lake Charles but not 78 miles to Vicksburg

Meanwhile UConn is in a state that is 110 miles from east to west and 70 miles north to south but USA can go more than 300 miles north which pales in comparison to the nearly 770 miles that SDSU could travel north.

(04-12-2016 06:39 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 06:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 04:17 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 06:57 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 05:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Board of Directors still gets a crack at it.
One vote per conference, plus one senior women's administrator (ACC), one student-athlete (MWC), and one AD (B1G).

Now if everyone sticks to the way it voted before, camps go away by an 8-5 vote, but you have coaches such as Oregon's arguing that camps should return but Pac-12 voted no.

I would imagine that camp supporters will put together some sort of alternative such as limiting schools to participating in a set number of off-campus camps (maybe 3 to 5) and limiting the duration of each camp (maybe one day) to try to get them restored.

Also of note, prior to discovery of the satellite camp loophole, schools held camps within their state with no limits, the new rule eliminates those as well, I question whether some of those voting against the camps realized they were doing that.

I look for an in state exclusion to be added to the proposal, and perhaps an exclusion for a limited number of out of state camps within a certain distance from your campus.

This is not fair at all to western schools where the geography is much more expansive. It must be kept simple by allowing camps with your state. This country operates through states so crossing borders creates problems.

That's goofy. States are political bodies, their borders have absolutely nothing to do with what is good for the sport of college football.

How is restricting Wyoming to Wyoming's borders "fairer" to Wyoming than Wyoming's borders + a certain distance?????

Personally, I'm not sure I care that much whether it is fair to Jim Harbaugh, the SEC, or Wyoming...or Arkansas State for that matter.

What the goal should be is to provide as many opportunities as possible for FBS level athletes to get access to opportunities for FBS level scholarships where they fit....wherever those opportunities might be....and regardless of hardship.

There is a whole host of creative ways you can dream up to make it easier for athletes to get looked at and interact with their potential coaching staffs.

As long as your goal is the right goal you can get it done.

But that is not the goal is it. The goals are to either make it harder for opponents to get athletes or make it easier for you to get athletes or increase the distance between you and those with fewer resources or have the best players play for the conference your network has the biggest deal with or poke a stick in the eye of someone and get yourself press or a hundred other goals that aren't...the...right...one.

Ark St fan was against camps within state borders because it hurt schools such as Idaho and Wyoming with little talent in their home state. However he is for allowing a radius of xx miles which would do nothing to help western schools where the geography is totally different than the east.

Point is that no matter what you do, someone isn't happy and having a free for all would create massive problems that could strain the entire college athletic model. It would have become a nuclear war which is why it was stopped immediately. Harbaugh is pushing the envelope which will force everyone to respond to protect the current student athlete model. Otherwise we may as well dissolve college athletics and just have pro teams with salaried employees.

You have me confused with someone else. I have NEVER put forward the idea of within a radius. Far as I'm concerned the state border idea is utter and complete BS oddly enough favored by people who happen to support schools in one of the five top states for producing FBS recruits.

Within a state is an artificial construct. Chicago wasn't a part of Illinois until it was pointed out that if the north and south ever got sideways Illinois would have no water route to ship goods. Toledo was part of Michigan and Michigan had to cede its claim to be admitted to the Union, the Missouri bootheel was Arkansas until a wealthy landowner bribed his way into Missouri because being in a state was better than being in a territory, Oklahoma was once part of Arkansas, Texas once stretched to Colorado, Kansas stretched into Colorado but gave it up during the gold and silver rush to not have to police the mining camps, and on and on and on. The borders aren't always about logic but politics and money from long ago.

The boogey man is camps getting out of control, simple, cap the number.

This is kinda one of those situations where people slip into considering kids as just assets and resources without thinking. The University of Alabama doesn't actually own all the potential FBS athletes in Alabama.

I mean seriously. The NCAA just put its foot down in order to try to limit Michigan interacting with kids in the South it might want to offer scholarships to. Like Michigan offering a kid from Alabama a scholarship is just an awful, awful, thing.

(04-13-2016 12:21 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  This is kinda one of those situations where people slip into considering kids as just assets and resources without thinking. The University of Alabama doesn't actually own all the potential FBS athletes in Alabama.

I mean seriously. The NCAA just put its foot down in order to try to limit Michigan interacting with kids in the South it might want to offer scholarships to. Like Michigan offering a kid from Alabama a scholarship is just an awful, awful, thing.

Any crop raised on the plantation belongs to the plantation's owner and the owner is Bama, UGA, LSU, forget that and someone might go to the legislature trying to shut you down.

Arkansas St needs to quit being cheap and offer more young men official visits. They can offer an unlimited number and the young men can choose to accept or decline. Have a camp on your campus and offer official visits to young men from wherever.

Ark St has been touting their new $30 million budget. They need to spend more on the young men and offer more official visits. Spend the money on the young men and let them have the experience of traveling to a new place if they are interested.

At the end of the day, the individual school has the power to make this right by offering the official visit. With the advances in technology, communication is easier than ever.

1) Watch the hudl film.
2) Call, FaceTime, text the HS coach and young man
3) Share marketing video with coaches and players selling your school
4) Coaches work hard for that million $ salary! Get in the car and visit High Schools
5) Review other camp data such as Nike Sparq. Coaches ATTEND the Camp!
6) MAKE THE OFFICIAL VISIT OFFER!
7) Young man can accept or decline.