Bumped from a fanpost - BN Eds.
Here is what we do know:
Last month, UCLA Athletic Director (AD) Dan Guerrero voted in favor of the NCAA banning satellite camps. On the same day, Pac-12 Conference Commissioner Larry Scott called out Guerrero for not voting the way he was supposed to vote. Later that day, Washington State Head Coach Mike Leach chimed in for the matter:
"One thing that needs to be understood in our conference is that our conference lined up 11 schools in favor of satellite camps, one abstained, yet our conference voted against satellite camps contrary to the will of 11 schools in our conference. We took straw polls among ourselves as head coaches and went to our ADs in our conference. That's what makes it so disturbing, because we always came out supportive of satellite camps and the ADs came out in favor, and yet we vote against satellite camps.
Coach Leach also made some more colorful comments about the vote to ban satellite camps.
UCLA AD Guerrero attempted to explain his reasoning, but that didn't go over well with the other Pac-12 representatives.
By saving grace, on April 28, 2016, the NCAA Board of Governors voted to rescind the ban on satellite camps.
Guerrero was more than happy to have moved on from the situation:
Larry [Scott] and I have discussed the issue comprehensively, and we are in a place now where we both agree we can move forward. The situation is what it is. There's no sense rehashing it. We are ready to move on.
Here is what you may not know (e.g., the Next Steps with the ban behind us and time for reflection):
1. As USA Today's Paul Myerberg wrote, "The ruling overturns the recent legislation prohibiting satellite camps, meaning such events will be sanctioned by the NCAA during this offseason."
2. Myerberg's article quotes Boise State Head Coach Bryan Harsin as saying, "More than half of last year’s signing class came through one of our [satellite] camps, and we’re excited to be able to continue what we had been doing."
3. After the NCAA Board of Governors voted to rescind the band, the SEC lifted its own conference ban on coaches going to satellite camps.
4. The Big Ten was the only Power Five league to vote in favor of satellite camps. In fact, AP College Football writer Ralph Russo wrote:
"Big Ten leaders say the camps give exposure to high school players, allowing them to be seen and coached by coaches from many schools at one camp. Coaches from Group of Five campuses such as the Mid-American Conference and the Sun Belt would frequently attended camps held at bigger schools as a way of scouting players that they might not have had a chance to see in person otherwise."
5. Russo's article also notes the Pac-12 and the Big Ten both wanted satellite camps dealt with as part of a more comprehensive examination of football recruiting issues by the Football Oversight Committee.
6. The ban was an ill-conceived idea as coaches from virtually every conference opposed the ban as did the players who benefitted from the camps. Take some time to read the tweets by the football players and athletes being recruited. It is very telling where recruits and athletes stand on the matter.
7. When the NCAA Board of Directors rescinded the ban, the Chair of the Board of Directors Harris Pastides said this:
The Board of Directors is interested in a holistic review of the football recruiting environment, and camps are a piece of that puzzle. We share the Council's interest in improving the camp environment, and we support the Council's efforts to create a model that emphasizes the scholastic environment as an appropriate place for recruiting future student-athletes.
SB Nation's Alex Kirshner summed up the awkward scenario pretty well: "Ultimately, the loud uproar over how the camps ban would impact middling recruits and lower-tier programs probably became loud enough for the NCAA's governors to hear."
Former Notre Dame stand-out quarterback Brady Quinn had this to say about satellite camps:
There are definitely some valid arguments to both sides. You look at a lot of the conferences and some of the schools that have been outspoken about it because they are based in a lot of the regions where these northern schools are coming in and trying to recruit these players. They want to protect their territory and those recruiting grounds. You would like to think that these schools should be able to recruit nationwide without having these satellite camps, but it gives them an opportunity and it’s a creative way of putting themselves down there to get an idea of the type of coaching situations and the type of schemes they run. I’m not against it."
In the end, and for the foreseeable future, we will have satellite camps. In terms of recruiting and exposure, this is a great thing. Just ask former "No-Star" recruit Tyler Horn how hard it was to get recruited.
In terms of conferences wanting to hold a monopoly on their recruiting areas, it is not a good thing (i.e., SEC and ACC). However, for a sport based on competition, freedom or minor regulation is better and more efficient as opposed to prohibitions, embargos, and the like.
Is any of this surprising, though, for the NCAA that consistently rakes in billions of dollars through television deals yet always looks to the driving work force for its revenue (the athletes and their coaches) as a source of regulation and rule-making? The NCAA was over-reaching and it correctly-corrected itself.