|
Post by Jindred on Apr 9, 2016 13:30:15 GMT -5
Sorry MO but I have to agree with Jancey. You may not have engaged, but you did respond. I think you're getting caught up in semantics. I used the word "respond" like you're using the word "engage", and you used the word "respond" like I used the word "communicate".. It all means the same thing. Of course I'm getting caught up in semantics. Semantics entertain me lol. Definition of Respond. - To reply. You replied. I'm only picking on you cause I've always found it hilarious for a person to saying "I'm not even going to respond to that." As that is in fact a response. Not a good one, and it isn't engaging in the conversation. But it's a response. This is total semantics but I find it hilarious and hypocritical when people say it. I get what your trying to say, but you are using the wrong word
|
|
|
Post by Jancey on Apr 9, 2016 13:51:22 GMT -5
Ooh, look what I started. Success.
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Apr 9, 2016 16:15:15 GMT -5
IMO honest opinion MarchingOn , there is just too much bad that can come from these sattelite camps...too much money and cheating opportunity's for a school with unlimited funds to sway kids. Sure Harbaugh will get his recruits regardless, but Michigan in Florida or OhSU in Texas or whatever is just shady. lol these camps aren't cheating opportunities though. Schools have been doing these camps for a long time and it's one of the primary ways lesser recruited kids get themselves noticed. And sway kids in what way? To get them thinking more about Michigan (or whatever school is hosting the camp)? How is that bad? You do know it was a loophole to an established rule though right? There's a rule in the books that you can't host a camp further than 50 miles from your campus. These satellites were just a way around that because Michigan wasn't "hosting". They were "guests" at other camps. Guests that took over the camps. lol Again. This wasn't about the kids the the B1G schools. They were looking for a recruiting edge. I don't blame for SEC coaches getting irate that B1G coaches could host camps in places 70 miles from their campus and they couldn't go to them.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Apr 9, 2016 18:13:47 GMT -5
lol these camps aren't cheating opportunities though. Schools have been doing these camps for a long time and it's one of the primary ways lesser recruited kids get themselves noticed. And sway kids in what way? To get them thinking more about Michigan (or whatever school is hosting the camp)? How is that bad? You do know it was a loophole to an established rule though right? There's a rule in the books that you can't host a camp further than 50 miles from your campus. These satellites were just a way around that because Michigan wasn't "hosting". They were "guests" at other camps. Guests that took over the camps. lol Again. This wasn't about the kids to the B1G schools. They were looking for a recruiting edge. I don't blame for SEC coaches getting irate that B1G coaches could host camps in places 70 miles from their campus and they couldn't go to them. Yes. I know that. Obviously to the B1G schools the camps were for recruiting purposes. That's what it was to every school who did satellite camps, actually. But the recruits are who benefitted from it more than anything or anybody else. And you have the wrong idea about why the SEC wanted the ban. It wasn't because they couldn't also camp. Because I'm nearly positive most SEC schools wouldn't even do them. Why would they, considering most SEC schools reside in HS talent hotbeds? They wanted the ban literally for territory protection. Like Mike Leach said, to monopolize their recruiting base. They just did it in a way that fucks over the vast majority of HS recruits nationwide. Defending the SEC in this instance, in any way, shape, or form, is utterly ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Apr 9, 2016 22:18:59 GMT -5
You do know it was a loophole to an established rule though right? There's a rule in the books that you can't host a camp further than 50 miles from your campus. These satellites were just a way around that because Michigan wasn't "hosting". They were "guests" at other camps. Guests that took over the camps. lol Again. This wasn't about the kids to the B1G schools. They were looking for a recruiting edge. I don't blame for SEC coaches getting irate that B1G coaches could host camps in places 70 miles from their campus and they couldn't go to them. Yes. I know that. Obviously to the B1G schools the camps were for recruiting purposes. That's what it was to every school who did satellite camps, actually. But the recruits are who benefitted from it more than anything or anybody else. And you have the wrong idea about why the SEC wanted the ban. It wasn't because they couldn't also camp. Because I'm nearly positive most SEC schools wouldn't even do them. Why would they, considering most SEC schools reside in HS talent hotbeds? They wanted the ban literally for territory protection. Like Mike Leach said, to monopolize their recruiting base. They just did it in a way that fucks over the vast majority of HS recruits nationwide. Defending the SEC in this instance, in any way, shape, or form, is utterly ridiculous. You're ignoring the fact that as I said, there were camps 70 miles outside of Auburn. I'm sure the Auburn staff would have gone had they been allowed. It goes for most of the other SEC schools I think. You don't think they would have liked the extra recruiting time themselves?
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Apr 9, 2016 22:50:05 GMT -5
Yes. I know that. Obviously to the B1G schools the camps were for recruiting purposes. That's what it was to every school who did satellite camps, actually. But the recruits are who benefitted from it more than anything or anybody else. And you have the wrong idea about why the SEC wanted the ban. It wasn't because they couldn't also camp. Because I'm nearly positive most SEC schools wouldn't even do them. Why would they, considering most SEC schools reside in HS talent hotbeds? They wanted the ban literally for territory protection. Like Mike Leach said, to monopolize their recruiting base. They just did it in a way that fucks over the vast majority of HS recruits nationwide. Defending the SEC in this instance, in any way, shape, or form, is utterly ridiculous. You're ignoring the fact that as I said, there were camps 70 miles outside of Auburn. I'm sure the Auburn staff would have gone had they been allowed. It goes for most of the other SEC schools I think. You don't think they would have liked the extra recruiting time themselves? I'm not ignoring anything. If anybody that's you, seeing as how I made a post last night you never responded to. Considering how Gus Malzahn incessantly whined about wanting satellite camps banned nationwide? Yeah, I'd say claiming some SEC schools wouldn't bother with the camps if a fair stance to have. He never once said anything along the lines of "Yeah, I'd like that for my school". I'm not sure what your point even is.
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Apr 9, 2016 22:57:30 GMT -5
You're ignoring the fact that as I said, there were camps 70 miles outside of Auburn. I'm sure the Auburn staff would have gone had they been allowed. It goes for most of the other SEC schools I think. You don't think they would have liked the extra recruiting time themselves? I'm not ignoring anything. If anybody that's you, seeing as how I made a post last night you never responded to. Considering how Gus Malzahn incessantly whined about wanting satellite camps banned nationwide? Yeah, I'd say claiming some SEC schools wouldn't bother with the camps if a fair stance to have. He never once said anything along the lines of "Yeah, I'd like that for my school". lol okay. He was playing politics. He can't ask for the rule to be abolished or the loophole to include his team. He called for the bans because he was already Banned from doing them. If he hadn't been banned, he probably would be doing the camps himself. I literally replied to that post. Not sure if it's half written on my tablet or if I sent it and it failed or what happened... Will get back to you on that. But probably won't reply how you'd like because I'm not making this about "the little guy". If Michigan wasn't getting anything from these camps, maybe Harbs shouldn't have gone so hard at the rule. Flaunting the loop hole. Sure it hurts the little guys. But that's how the rule was intended when it was written.
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Apr 9, 2016 23:08:27 GMT -5
Let's put it this way. Every conference except the B1G voted on the ban. You can say it doesn't hurt Michigan. And I won't really care. But the rule as it stood didn't help the SEC or ACC. Since neither of these conferences by rule could involve themselves in the satellites. So call them petty or whatever makes you feel better. It was a loop hole and they made a stink about it because they couldn't take advantage of it too. So it got closed. The conferences like the Sun Belt and what have you voted for the Ban. So meh at hurting the little guy. Yes, clearly every conference besides the B1G cared about banning these camps just as much as the SEC did. In fact, I'd say there are a decent amount of coaches in the other conferences who are pretty mad at their commissioners for how they voted. Mike Leach, Wazzu HC: Mike Macintyre, Colorado HC: Mark Helfrich, Oregon HC: Gary Andersen, Oregon St HC: Kyle Wittingham, Utah HC: Joe Castiglione, Oklahoma AD: Baylor, TCU, Iowa St, and Texas Tech (and I'm sure other B12 teams as well) also used Satellite Camps so they obviously support the idea as well. But yeah, I'm sure the P12 and the B12 are completely okay with the ban. /s Honestly, I bet if the voting was left to the coaches of the conferences and not the commissioners, there's no way in hell this ban ever passes. You're thinking about all of this way too simply, to the point where I'm almost certain you're intentionally doing it because it's convenient for whatever your argument is. Describing it in simple terms such as "It was a loop hole and they made a stink about it because they couldn't take advantage of it too" is absolutely lol worthy. As if it's as harmless as that. Who cares about consequences of an action like that, right? Who cares about the well-being of under privileged and under recruited kids, right? But yeah, the SEC bitched about something they couldn't also take advantage of. That's the only thing that mattered to them. So it looks like we agree on that part. Trying to act like this doesn't hurt littler schools as much as I'm claiming because their conference voted for the ban is NOT logical. That doesn't mean anything. For one thing, as I've demonstrated above with the quotes from the P12/B12 coaches, the actions of the commissioner does not automatically reflect what the coaches of the conference want, and secondly, just in general, people do and say things that are actually disadvantageous to them all the time. But it doesn't hurt littler schools as much as it hurts the more lightly recruited kids (though, those recruits usually end up attending said littler schools, so that's the tie in I guess). espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/99302/satellite-camp-ban-hurts-recruits-at-all-levelswww.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/04/08/ncaa-hurts-players-by-ending-satellite-camps/82796952/No idea why it's so hard for you to just admit the SEC is a bunch of cockbags for this. Everybody who isn't an SEC apologist sees that. I guess that's the root of why you don't see it, though. Okay this is the one I "ignored" on accident. I don't care about those coaches and their recruiting habits. ACC and SEC schools were never able to satellite camp. It doesn't matter to me that they can't now. I'm not over simplifying it. There's literally a rule against hosting camps. I'm sorry. Maybe they should take a look at that rule and maybe all the schools can host camps on equal ground. I just am not confident in assuming you are this outraged because of the little kids who maybe got looked at by smaller schools because of this loop hole. Mostly because you're just glazing over the fact that the ACC was involved and all of the conference leaders voted on it. It just keeps coming back to the SEC are cockbags or whatever with you. So it's hard to take your stance seriously.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Apr 10, 2016 0:32:15 GMT -5
Yes, clearly every conference besides the B1G cared about banning these camps just as much as the SEC did. In fact, I'd say there are a decent amount of coaches in the other conferences who are pretty mad at their commissioners for how they voted. Mike Leach, Wazzu HC: Mike Macintyre, Colorado HC: Mark Helfrich, Oregon HC: Gary Andersen, Oregon St HC: Kyle Wittingham, Utah HC: Joe Castiglione, Oklahoma AD: Baylor, TCU, Iowa St, and Texas Tech (and I'm sure other B12 teams as well) also used Satellite Camps so they obviously support the idea as well. But yeah, I'm sure the P12 and the B12 are completely okay with the ban. /s Honestly, I bet if the voting was left to the coaches of the conferences and not the commissioners, there's no way in hell this ban ever passes. You're thinking about all of this way too simply, to the point where I'm almost certain you're intentionally doing it because it's convenient for whatever your argument is. Describing it in simple terms such as "It was a loop hole and they made a stink about it because they couldn't take advantage of it too" is absolutely lol worthy. As if it's as harmless as that. Who cares about consequences of an action like that, right? Who cares about the well-being of under privileged and under recruited kids, right? But yeah, the SEC bitched about something they couldn't also take advantage of. That's the only thing that mattered to them. So it looks like we agree on that part. Trying to act like this doesn't hurt littler schools as much as I'm claiming because their conference voted for the ban is NOT logical. That doesn't mean anything. For one thing, as I've demonstrated above with the quotes from the P12/B12 coaches, the actions of the commissioner does not automatically reflect what the coaches of the conference want, and secondly, just in general, people do and say things that are actually disadvantageous to them all the time. But it doesn't hurt littler schools as much as it hurts the more lightly recruited kids (though, those recruits usually end up attending said littler schools, so that's the tie in I guess). espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/99302/satellite-camp-ban-hurts-recruits-at-all-levelswww.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/04/08/ncaa-hurts-players-by-ending-satellite-camps/82796952/No idea why it's so hard for you to just admit the SEC is a bunch of cockbags for this. Everybody who isn't an SEC apologist sees that. I guess that's the root of why you don't see it, though. Okay this is the one I "ignored" on accident. I don't care about those coaches and their recruiting habits. ACC and SEC schools were never able to satellite camp. It doesn't matter to me that they can't now. I'm not over simplifying it. There's literally a rule against hosting camps. I'm sorry. Maybe they should take a look at that rule and maybe all the schools can host camps on equal ground. I just am not confident in assuming you are this outraged because of the little kids who maybe got looked at by smaller schools because of this loop hole. Mostly because you're just glazing over the fact that the ACC was involved and all of the conference leaders voted on it. It just keeps coming back to the SEC are cockbags or whatever with you. So it's hard to take your stance seriously. I don't know if you understood the point of why I posted those quotes. You said "let's put it this way, every conference besides the B1G voted on the ban", which I took as you implying that the P12 and the B12 also don't want them. I countered that by pointing out that (at -least-) about half of the P12 coaches actually are in favor of camps, and a lot of schools in the B12 liked them and used them as well. And then I said (or insinuated, whichever) that the actions of the conference commissioner don't necessarily reflect what the teams of the conference want. Because clearly a decent chunk (and probably the majority) of coaches in those conferences actually did support camps. You really did oversimplify. Or do you actually believe the only reason the SEC wanted the ban was because they couldn't do it too? If so, that's incredibly naive imo. We've gone over this already. I haven't been mentioning the ACC because they weren't the driving force behind this and they didn't play nearly as big of a part. Fuck them too, but they merely just tagged along to what the SEC was doing. Whatever. I honestly find your (and Jancey 's) belief on why I'm upset to be extremely condescending. Guess I'm just obsessed with looking for any excuse to blindly hate the SEC, and there's no way in hell that I'm actually mad for the reasons I say I am. You guys sure caught me red-handed.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Apr 10, 2016 0:32:20 GMT -5
I'm not ignoring anything. If anybody that's you, seeing as how I made a post last night you never responded to. Considering how Gus Malzahn incessantly whined about wanting satellite camps banned nationwide? Yeah, I'd say claiming some SEC schools wouldn't bother with the camps if a fair stance to have. He never once said anything along the lines of "Yeah, I'd like that for my school". lol okay. He was playing politics. He can't ask for the rule to be abolished or the loophole to include his team. He called for the bans because he was already Banned from doing them. If he hadn't been banned, he probably would be doing the camps himself. I literally replied to that post. Not sure if it's half written on my tablet or if I sent it and it failed or what happened... Will get back to you on that. But probably won't reply how you'd like because I'm not making this about "the little guy". If Michigan wasn't getting anything from these camps, maybe Harbs shouldn't have gone so hard at the rule. Flaunting the loop hole. Sure it hurts the little guys. But that's how the rule was intended when it was written. Playing politics? That's so bullshit. Malzahn isn't a slave who's forced to have an opinion that jives with the rules of the conference. Les Miles and Bret Bielema never came out in opposition of the camps. In fact, both of those coaches wanted them. Barry Odom (Mizzou HC) wanted them too. What rebels they are, not caring about political backlash. LOL @ even insinuating Michigan is at all the reason the camps were banned. Thanks for the laugh. But who said Michigan didn't get anything from the camps? We benefited. We just don't get harmed by its removal. And I don't see how that's what was intended when the rule was initially written. You'll have to explain that one to me.
|
|