Breaking News: Satelite camps shut down immediately

[oaknightshockey1]

You didn't answer the question.

It's no worse than someone not getting a scholarship in the first place. Football scholarships are based upon merit. If you are not good enough to get one, that's too bad.

 

[4down20]

It's no worse than someone not getting a scholarship in the first place. Football scholarships are based upon merit. If you are not good enough to get one, that's too bad.

Still didn't answer the question.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

And bending the rules of satellite camps for personal gain of an institution violates the spirit of college athletics. The integrity of the game is based on rules and the rule was made necassary.The abuse of the system is why they are banned. You may thank Harbaugh

What I'm asking you to do is to explain exactly what is so bad about the camps. I've spent a couple days now laying out all the benefits, yet all you keep saying is "ITS AGAINST THE RULES!" My question is why should it be against the rules.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

Still didn't answer the question.

Sucks to be that kid. Wasn't beneficial for him. I would rather athletic ability be the determining factor over how much money a kid's family has, though. Did I spell that out clearly enough for you?

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You didn't answer the question.

Can you write that in a complete sentence?

 

[4down20]

Sucks to be that kid. Wasn't beneficial for him. I would rather athletic ability be the determining factor over how much money a kid's family has, though. Did I spell that out clearly enough for you?

So overall, there is no actual extra benefits for the kids.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

What I'm asking you to do is to explain exactly what is so bad about the camps. I've spent a couple days now laying out all the benefits, yet all you keep saying is "ITS AGAINST THE RULES!" My question is why should it be against the rules.

Answer the question I asked and you shall have the answer you seek

 

[oaknightshockey1]

Can you write that in a complete sentence?

You picked the one of his two posts that actually was a complete sentence.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

So overall, there is no actual extra benefits for the kids.

If you have the reading comprehension of a monkey, sure.

 

[4down20]

sure.

So in the end, the only one really benefiting is the school.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

So in the end, the only one really benefiting is the school.

How to know when someone has no valid points in a discussion 101: When they resort to manipulating quotations in order to "prove" their point.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You picked the one of his two posts that actually was a complete sentence.

I felt the post was mutually beneficial

 

[4down20]

How to know when someone has no valid points in a discussion 101: When they resort to manipulating quotations in order to "prove" their point.

Ok, then answer the original question if that wasn't your answer.

Are there any actual extra benefits for the kids overall?

 

[SUBuddha]

How have you been Buddha?

Been good kid, just busy with the new job.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Been good kid, just busy with the new job.

I was just on your coast was in Colorado for a while

 

[oaknightshockey1]

Ok, then answer the original question if that wasn't your answer.

Are there any actual extra benefits for the kids overall?

Yes. More kids get an opportunity. That's better than less kids getting that opportunity.

 

[4down20]

Yes. More kids get an opportunity. That's better than less kids getting that opportunity.

So where is the extra benefit to the kid who didn't get a scholarship as a result of another kid being found? The kid who is more local to the school apparently.

Overall there is no extra benefits for the kids because recruiting is a zero sum deal with limited scholarships. Camps do not produce extra scholarships, it's only a matter of picking and choosing who is best based on abilities, which is a benefit to the school/team. It's what all of recruiting is, and this is no different.

Furthermore, your entire claim as to why the SEC/ACC and places like Texas and California are against it is to protect their own interests and the recruits in that area. Yet, that in itself completely undermines your claim of this being about more benefits/exposure for the kids. It's really just a coach trying to get extra face time with better recruits and better players.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with it benefiting the kids. 1 kids gain is another kids loss. You can't get around it. It's not a camp, it's a recruiting tool. And you can make the same exact argument you are making for basically every recruiting rule made.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

So where is the extra benefit to the kid who didn't get a scholarship as a result of another kid being found? The kid who is more local to the school apparently.

Overall there is no extra benefits for the kids because recruiting is a zero sum deal with limited scholarships. Camps do not produce extra scholarships, it's only a matter of picking and choosing who is best based on abilities, which is a benefit to the school/team. It's what all of recruiting is, and this is no different.

Furthermore, your entire claim as to why the SEC/ACC and places like Texas and California are against it is to protect their own interests and the recruits in that area. Yet, that in itself completely undermines your claim of this being about more benefits/exposure for the kids. It's really just a coach trying to get extra face time with better recruits and better players.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with it benefiting the kids. 1 kids gain is another kids loss. You can't get around it. It's not a camp, it's a recruiting tool. And you can make the same exact argument you are making for basically every recruiting rule made.

Weren't satellite camps started not so long ago by Frankling out of Penn State. For the sole purpose of working a grey area around NCAA recruiting rules to begin with?

 

[4down20]

Weren't satellite camps started not so long ago by Frankling out of Penn State. For the sole purpose of working a grey area around NCAA recruiting rules to begin with?

They've been around longer than that. Franklin found out about it because the SEC had banned it. Then he went to Penn St, realized the Big10 didn't have the rule and started doing it. Then Harbaugh got it from that, and put the issue in the spotlight.

That Shaw statement claimed the Pac12 had been talking about these things for more than 3 years.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

So where is the extra benefit to the kid who didn't get a scholarship as a result of another kid being found? The kid who is more local to the school apparently.

Overall there is no extra benefits for the kids because recruiting is a zero sum deal with limited scholarships. Camps do not produce extra scholarships, it's only a matter of picking and choosing who is best based on abilities, which is a benefit to the school/team. It's what all of recruiting is, and this is no different.

Furthermore, your entire claim as to why the SEC/ACC and places like Texas and California are against it is to protect their own interests and the recruits in that area. Yet, that in itself completely undermines your claim of this being about more benefits/exposure for the kids. It's really just a coach trying to get extra face time with better recruits and better players.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with it benefiting the kids. 1 kids gain is another kids loss. You can't get around it. It's not a camp, it's a recruiting tool. And you can make the same exact argument you are making for basically every recruiting rule made.

So kids not having to pay exorbitant sums of money they don't have to travel around the country to see all of the potential schools is not a benefit to the kids? Okay. Looking at this topic from an extremely narrow viewpoint, you're right. Camps do not create scholarships. They do greatly benefit the student athletes, especially the lower income ones whose only chance to get out of poverty is to get a scholarship and either make it in athletics or get a degree. If you can't see the value in that, you are either stupid or willfully obstinate. Hypothetically, even if the exact same kids end up going to the exact same schools, is it not better that their families not have to spend the kind of money it takes to explore their options?