|
Post by Morkim on Apr 10, 2016 10:04:53 GMT -5
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. I'm not going to feel bad for telling you that it's hard to buy your motive here when it appears that way to me. I mean you've made no qualms about calling me and Jauncy SEC lapdogs. You're entirely using this to bash the hell out of the SEC. When all of the commissioners (except for the B1G) voted for the ban. And the ACC was a big voice behind it as well. And your next post points out SEC coaches who wanted camps. I mean... Okay. If this was all about the kids, why aren't you taking shots at the commissioners who went against what their coaches wanted? And the ACC just tagged along. lol I'm aware that the P12 coaches liked the camps. And why wouldn't they? They are some schools in some super limited recruiting areas. Shocking that the ones against it are in talent rich areas and the ones for it are less talented... But their commissioners still voted for the ban. As did all of the other commissioners except for the B1G. Why did they do that Mo?
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Apr 10, 2016 10:14:12 GMT -5
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. Well. If SEC coaches were for the camps, not sure why our conference is scum then? Is our conference scum because a handful of coaches were against the camps? Maybe you're right and he was against camps from the get go. Maybe he'd never support them. But if there had always been a loophole that allowed SEC coaches to do satellites like the B1G was, he would have done it if only to keep up with the rest. You're the one who has said Michigan brought this to the forefront. Smaller schools have done it for years on a smaller scale before Harbaugh said he would use the loophole and do what? Like 8 camps or something? I would argue if he hadn't exploited it so much, people wouldn't have made nearly as big of a stink about it. Might have gone unnoticed for years still. The rule is you can't host camps outside of your campus(or like 50 miles from it.) the satellite system was Urban and JH would go to smaller schools that were hosting their own camps, but take them over as "guest coaches". But let's be real, they took over the camps as their own just outside of their regions. Esstientially hosting camps outside their limits. That's why it's a loophole. Sure other schools tagged along, but the camps Michigan and OSU were at were basically OSU or Michigan lead camps. But you can tell me how you see the rule. And tell me why ACC and SEC schools couldn't use this loophole.
|
|
|
Post by EagleDomiKnation on Apr 10, 2016 10:41:20 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? I thinks it's very naive to think these camps are even a little concerned about kids who aren't on any recruiters radar...um and ohsu etc...are coming South to nab the elite kids from Florida and other southern states, nothing more. They're trying to bypass the campus visit rules to get to these kids early, and who knows what kind rich shady cheating boosters follow Harbaugh and Meyer to these camps? Just sayin MO...it's a big opportunity to cheat bro.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Apr 10, 2016 12:50:21 GMT -5
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. I'm not going to feel bad for telling you that it's hard to buy your motive here when it appears that way to me. I mean you've made no qualms about calling me and Jauncy SEC lapdogs. You're entirely using this to bash the hell out of the SEC. When all of the commissioners (except for the B1G) voted for the ban. And the ACC was a big voice behind it as well. And your next post points out SEC coaches who wanted camps. I mean... Okay. If this was all about the kids, why aren't you taking shots at the commissioners who went against what their coaches wanted? And the ACC just tagged along. lol I'm aware that the P12 coaches liked the camps. And why wouldn't they? They are some schools in some super limited recruiting areas. Shocking that the ones against it are in talent rich areas and the ones for it are less talented... But their commissioners still voted for the ban. As did all of the other commissioners except for the B1G. Why did they do that Mo? Well, you're going to such great lengths to defend this when it's fucking clear as day who's primarily at fault and that this is a bad thing for CFB. Maybe you need to see somebody else say it. Perhaps maybe somebody within the SEC. www.tnjn.com/2016/04/09/harbaugh-sec-draft/And practically every national writer out there is writing that same exact way. If you type "satellite camp" into Google, you get linked to articles with headlines like "SEC wins, satellite camps banned" and "SEC 1, Harbaugh 0". I'm sure they're all wrong and being completely disingenuous though. [sarcasm]Clearly, there's equal blame to go around.[/sarcasm] Your head is in the sand with this. I really don't know what else to say at this point. The ACC was not that big of a voice compared to the SEC. It's literally just false to say otherwise. Sorry. And I have talked a lot about commissioners over the course of our argument. How the hell am I supposed to know why they voted the way they did? But lol @ saying "shocking that the talent rich areas dislike camps and less talented areas like it" when you're sitting there implying that the west coast is a less talented region while you simultaneously keep talking about how the P12 also voted for the ban. I guess you didn't realize the contradiction when you wrote that. Because by your logic, the P12 should totally be for camps. The ACC too, honestly.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Apr 10, 2016 12:50:24 GMT -5
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. Well. If SEC coaches were for the camps, not sure why our conference is scum then? Is our conference scum because a handful of coaches were against the camps? Maybe you're right and he was against camps from the get go. Maybe he'd never support them. But if there had always been a loophole that allowed SEC coaches to do satellites like the B1G was, he would have done it if only to keep up with the rest. You're the one who has said Michigan brought this to the forefront. Smaller schools have done it for years on a smaller scale before Harbaugh said he would use the loophole and do what? Like 8 camps or something? I would argue if he hadn't exploited it so much, people wouldn't have made nearly as big of a stink about it. Might have gone unnoticed for years still. The rule is you can't host camps outside of your campus(or like 50 miles from it.) the satellite system was Urban and JH would go to smaller schools that were hosting their own camps, but take them over as "guest coaches". But let's be real, they took over the camps as their own just outside of their regions. Esstientially hosting camps outside their limits. That's why it's a loophole. Sure other schools tagged along, but the camps Michigan and OSU were at were basically OSU or Michigan lead camps. But you can tell me how you see the rule. And tell me why ACC and SEC schools couldn't use this loophole. "If SEC coaches were for the camps".... lolll, except they weren't and we both know that. A small minority of the coaches liked the idea. The way you typed it seems like you're trying to make it seem like most (or even close to a decently sized number of them) were in favor. 2 or 3 out of 14 liked the idea of satellite camps. That's practically nothing. No, that's not what I said. I said the media brought it to the forefront. Because the media brings everything Harbaugh does to the forefront. He's one of their favorite people to cover. That's not the fault of Michigan or Harbaugh. They didn't generate any noise themselves other than a tweet or two letting kids know about the location of the camps and when they'd be. And you really believe the SEC wouldn't have caused a commotion if it was a lesser number of camps? Do you even remember the shit they stirred about Michigan spending a couple of days of spring practice in Florida? Not even to mention that most camps were actually outside of SEC territory. And you would be completely wrong to argue that, because James Franklin at Penn St ran 5 or 6 camps a couple of years ago and the SEC didn't make a big fuss about it then, did they? All you did is explain the actual rule to me and how coaches used the loophole, which I already knew. That's not what I asked. I asked you to explain your comment about how the rule was "intended" to hurt smaller schools when it was initially written by the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Apr 10, 2016 12:58:11 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? I thinks it's very naive to think these camps are even a little concerned about kids who aren't on any recruiters radar...um and ohsu etc...are coming South to nab the elite kids from Florida and other southern states, nothing more. They're trying to bypass the campus visit rules to get to these kids early, and who knows what kind rich shady cheating boosters follow Harbaugh and Meyer to these camps? Just sayin MO...it's a big opportunity to cheat bro. I've never said the reason the schools host the camps is because they're concerned for the lesser recruited kids. I'm saying the recruits are who benefit from those camps. There is a difference. It's no more an opportunity to cheat than in-home visits or campus visits. Schools can just as easily (if not more easily) bring boosters or whatever else there as well. Actually, considering the media coverage Michigan got during their camps, I'd say it would have been extremely difficult to pay off a kid or something at the camp. The kids Michigan signed from camps last year were all 2 or 3 stars, for the record.
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Apr 10, 2016 13:15:14 GMT -5
I'm not going to feel bad for telling you that it's hard to buy your motive here when it appears that way to me. I mean you've made no qualms about calling me and Jauncy SEC lapdogs. You're entirely using this to bash the hell out of the SEC. When all of the commissioners (except for the B1G) voted for the ban. And the ACC was a big voice behind it as well. And your next post points out SEC coaches who wanted camps. I mean... Okay. If this was all about the kids, why aren't you taking shots at the commissioners who went against what their coaches wanted? And the ACC just tagged along. lol I'm aware that the P12 coaches liked the camps. And why wouldn't they? They are some schools in some super limited recruiting areas. Shocking that the ones against it are in talent rich areas and the ones for it are less talented... But their commissioners still voted for the ban. As did all of the other commissioners except for the B1G. Why did they do that Mo? Well, you're going to such great lengths to defend this when it's fucking clear as day who's primarily at fault and that this is a bad thing for CFB. Maybe you need to see somebody else say it. Perhaps maybe somebody within the SEC. www.tnjn.com/2016/04/09/harbaugh-sec-draft/And practically every national writer out there is writing that same exact way. If you type "satellite camp" into Google, you get linked to articles with headlines like "SEC wins, satellite camps banned" and "SEC 1, Harbaugh 0". I'm sure they're all wrong and being completely disingenuous though. [sarcasm]Clearly, there's equal blame to go around.[/sarcasm] Your head is in the sand with this. I really don't know what else to say at this point. The ACC was not that big of a voice compared to the SEC. It's literally just false to say otherwise. Sorry. And I have talked a lot about commissioners over the course of our argument. How the hell am I supposed to know why they voted the way they did? But lol @ saying "shocking that the talent rich areas dislike camps and less talented areas like it" when you're sitting there implying that the west coast is a less talented region while you simultaneously keep talking about how the P12 also voted for the ban. I guess you didn't realize the contradiction when you wrote that. Because by your logic, the P12 should totally be for camps. The ACC too, honestly. GG Mo. You totally convinced me. Some writer in Tennessee claiming the whole SEC is scared of Harbaugh got me thinking that's what it was. Which ofc means this is still Harbaughs fault. Shame on him for abusing the loophole that allowed smaller recruits chances at scholarships. I didn't say the ACC was as big a voice. But you're completely dismissing them and just bashing the SEC. Same as you're just pushing the commissioners aside. Oh, let's go ahead and dismiss the fact you said 3-4 coaches were supportive of these camps on the SEC side. Not really sure what you're getting at anymore aside from the SEC is the root of all evil. But I mean, we knew that. People been saying it for the last decade. The COMMISIONER Of the P12 did vote for the ban. And P12 coaches in isolated less talented regions were against it. That's not hypocrisy. I'd have to go back, but did UCLA or USC have anything to say about the Camps Mo? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by EagleDomiKnation on Apr 10, 2016 13:28:13 GMT -5
I thinks it's very naive to think these camps are even a little concerned about kids who aren't on any recruiters radar...um and ohsu etc...are coming South to nab the elite kids from Florida and other southern states, nothing more. They're trying to bypass the campus visit rules to get to these kids early, and who knows what kind rich shady cheating boosters follow Harbaugh and Meyer to these camps? Just sayin MO...it's a big opportunity to cheat bro. I've never said the reason the schools host the camps is because they're concerned for the lesser recruited kids. I'm saying the recruits are who benefit from those camps. There is a difference. It's no more an opportunity to cheat than in-home visits or campus visits. Schools can just as easily (if not more easily) bring boosters or whatever else there as well. Actually, considering the media coverage Michigan got during their camps, I'd say it would have been extremely difficult to pay off a kid or something at the camp. The kids Michigan signed from camps last year were all 2 or 3 stars, for the record. Id like to see how you know the kids signed from the camps were all ,2 or 3 stars benny;) If these camps were 'for' the recruits benefit and not the programs benefit, they wouldn't exist. Kids only get so many visits, is that correct? And I would hope those visits would be more monitored.. these camps are more open and more creepy phil knights lurking in the shadows.
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Apr 10, 2016 13:32:55 GMT -5
Well. If SEC coaches were for the camps, not sure why our conference is scum then? Is our conference scum because a handful of coaches were against the camps? Maybe you're right and he was against camps from the get go. Maybe he'd never support them. But if there had always been a loophole that allowed SEC coaches to do satellites like the B1G was, he would have done it if only to keep up with the rest. You're the one who has said Michigan brought this to the forefront. Smaller schools have done it for years on a smaller scale before Harbaugh said he would use the loophole and do what? Like 8 camps or something? I would argue if he hadn't exploited it so much, people wouldn't have made nearly as big of a stink about it. Might have gone unnoticed for years still. The rule is you can't host camps outside of your campus(or like 50 miles from it.) the satellite system was Urban and JH would go to smaller schools that were hosting their own camps, but take them over as "guest coaches". But let's be real, they took over the camps as their own just outside of their regions. Esstientially hosting camps outside their limits. That's why it's a loophole. Sure other schools tagged along, but the camps Michigan and OSU were at were basically OSU or Michigan lead camps. But you can tell me how you see the rule. And tell me why ACC and SEC schools couldn't use this loophole. "If SEC coaches were for the camps".... lolll, except they weren't and we both know that. A small minority of the coaches liked the idea. The way you typed it seems like you're trying to make it seem like most (or even close to a decently sized number of them) were in favor. 2 or 3 out of 14 liked the idea of satellite camps. That's practically nothing. No, that's not what I said. I said the media brought it to the forefront. Because the media brings everything Harbaugh does to the forefront. He's one of their favorite people to cover. That's not the fault of Michigan or Harbaugh. They didn't generate any noise themselves other than a tweet or two letting kids know about the location of the camps and when they'd be. And you really believe the SEC wouldn't have caused a commotion if it was a lesser number of camps? Do you even remember the shit they stirred about Michigan spending a couple of days of spring practice in Florida? Not even to mention that most camps were actually outside of SEC territory. And you would be completely wrong to argue that, because James Franklin at Penn St ran 5 or 6 camps a couple of years ago and the SEC didn't make a big fuss about it then, did they? All you did is explain the actual rule to me and how coaches used the loophole, which I already knew. That's not what I asked. I asked you to explain your comment about how the rule was "intended" to hurt smaller schools when it was initially written by the NCAA. I've honestly no idea on most SEC coaches stances on satellite camps. I think they'd sure as shit be helpful to Kentucky. You're the one spinning it like all of the coaches collectively are against the camps. When you said yourself there's what, 2 or 3 that have openly said they'd be okay with them? Alabama and Auburn and Florida and TAMU and Georgia etc. these schools have no reason to support camps because they're already where the kids are. Kids come to their campus. And not just the 4s and 5s. I'm certain lots of 2star Alabama kids find their way to Alabama campus, even if it is a few hour drive. lol. Yes I honesty believe Harbaugh goes to less camps, it gets less fuss. Or maybe it's just him going to schools right outside Alabama and Auburn that caused such a stink. I don't know. flaunting it in their faces probably didn't help... Franklin is an ex SEC coach and probably had several relationships built up. Plus, Penn State was going through its rough patch. Not quite the same. Oh twisting words a little. But the rule was written to keep schools on their campus. The fact that it hurts the little guys is beside the point because there shouldn't have been the ability for major schools to take over smaller camps anyway. It goes against the spirit of the rule. Or do you think the way they were exploiting the loophole was totally legit? Idk. Doesn't really affect my team so what do I care I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Jancey on Apr 10, 2016 13:40:52 GMT -5
Wow, MO. Abuse of power. Editing my thread.
|
|