HUGE setback for recruiting

[jessejames02]

Maybe if I enroll as an online student wherever I set my laptop will be a "school facility." Right?

[WYO1016]

Maybe if I enroll as an online student wherever I set my laptop will be a "school facility." Right?

Now that's the type of loopholes we need to find! Touche sir

[ragtimejoe1]

I wonder if there is any way to structure a coach's contract such that he/she is an employee of the University at all times other than x month or x times when that coach is conducting a satellite camp? I imagine insurance and retirement could be sticky, but the idea is to basically make coaching "seasonal" and their salary is paid over 11 months. In the 12 month, they are laid off for a month and coincidentally that month is when they host satellite camps?

I think coaches should file an antitrust lawsuit ASAP. I wonder if high school recruits would have a grounds for a lawsuit over limiting opportunity?

Terrible rule and boggles the mind why the MWC would vote for it.

[cali2wyo]

No, as far as I understand, this is ONLY for high school camps, schools can still have spring ball, fall camp, practices, scrimmages, etc. wherever they want.

But this ban also applies to college athletes as well, like Michigan's spring practices in Florida this year, right?

No. Those aren't satellite camps. Those are spring practices.

Huh. Interesting. Especially because it seems like this conversation started because the SEC was upset that Michigan took it's team into SEC country. I figured that would be included in the ban since it seemed to be the spark that ignited this fire.

[WestWYOPoke]

I wonder if there is any way to structure a coach's contract such that he/she is an employee of the University at all times other than x month or x times when that coach is conducting a satellite camp? I imagine insurance and retirement could be sticky, but the idea is to basically make coaching "seasonal" and their salary is paid over 11 months. In the 12 month, they are laid off for a month and coincidentally that month is when they host satellite camps?

Nope, this was also included in the NCAA verdict.

Additionally, FBS coaches and noncoaching staff members with responsibilities specific to football may be employed only at their school’s camps or clinics.

[ragtimejoe1]

Nope, this was also included in the NCAA verdict.

Additionally, FBS coaches and noncoaching staff members with responsibilities specific to football may be employed only at their school’s camps or clinics.

I read that, but under my proposal, the coaches would technically be employed or have responsibilities specific to football for that month so they wouldn't have a school. A month later, they would.

I'm not sure if contracts could be structured such a way. i.e. WYO hires Craig Bohl for 11 months with the annual option to extend the contract after the month of unemployment. The terms are for 5 years. If WYO does not extend the offer after the month off, Craig Bohl is paid x$. If Craig Bohl coaches for another team after the month off, he pays WYO y$.

For 1 month, Craig Bohl is unemployed. My understanding is that he plans to utilize his coaching skills and knowledge to provide a learning opportunity for talented athletes around the country.

I'm not sure if this could happen or not. Probably the latter.

[WestWYOPoke]

My guess is that as soon as that coach is re-hired by the school he was just at, the NCAA would lower the boom. Now if they did that and then went to another school, not sure how that would work.

[ragtimejoe1]

Apparently the MWC vote was 7-4 in favor of banning satellite camps. Must be some heat because CT is asking for a confirmation.

MWC commish Craig Thompson told me his league voted 7-4 in favor of satellite ban, but yesterday he sent a memo to the league asking them to make sure of their stance. "I don't think the vote is going to change or the position is going to change," he said. He said Paul Krebs from NM voted on their behalf and did what he was expected. "I was sitting next to him," Thompson said. "He said what are we supposed to do? I said, "they said - they being you the membership, 7-4 ban satellite camps. Vote to ban satellite camps."

On the ESPN sidebar.

[WestWYOPoke]

The questioning about the vote might be in reference to this Sports Illustrated article that came out.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2016 ... power-five

Some interesting quotes from the article:

I have zero problem with the ACC and SEC seeking a ban. Entities are supposed to act in their own best interests. My problem is with the Big 12, Pac-12, Sun Belt and Mountain West, which did not. Usually, people who vote opposite their own interests are stupid, corrupt or a combination of the two.

Pac-12 vote in question...

The Big 12 and Pac-12 also voted to ban satellite camps even though it didn’t appear to be in their best interests, and one Pac-12 coach wondered aloud Monday how that could happen.

Washington State coach Mike Leach said most schools in the Pac-12 were for satellite camps. ESPN’s Brett McMurphy previously reported that the Pac-12 voted in favor of the ban, and Leach isn’t sure how that could have happened. Common sense dictates that only UCLA, USC and maybe Arizona State would want to ban such camps to protect their recruiting turf. The Pac-12’s representative on the Division I management council is UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero.

[WestWYOPoke]

More questions surrounding the veracity of the vote...

http://www.si.com/college-football/2016 ... ro-ucla-ad

Guerrero [UCLA AD]—the Pac-12’s representative on the council—then had to tell his colleagues why he voted against the wishes of 11 of the league’s 12 schools.

Texas State’s athletic director, Larry Teis, was the Sun Belt representative on the council. He cast a vote for the ban—against the wishes of the majority of the league’s schools.

Because Power Five conference votes count double, the result of the vote was 10–5 for the ban. Had Guerrero and Teis voted in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their respective conferences’ schools, the result would have been 8–7 against the ban.

To quote some old, kinda famous guy "something is rotten in the state of Denmark..."

Sounds like this will get revisited and maybe overturned.

[WYCowboy]

Who is doing the voting for the schools? Is it the AD, the school president, or a decision of the BOT? I'm talking about who made the decision - not who cast the vote.

[NebraskaCowboy]

Apparently the MWC vote was 7-4 in favor of banning satellite camps. Must be some heat because CT is asking for a confirmation.

MWC commish Craig Thompson told me his league voted 7-4 in favor of satellite ban, but yesterday he sent a memo to the league asking them to make sure of their stance. "I don't think the vote is going to change or the position is going to change," he said. He said Paul Krebs from NM voted on their behalf and did what he was expected. "I was sitting next to him," Thompson said. "He said what are we supposed to do? I said, "they said - they being you the membership, 7-4 ban satellite camps. Vote to ban satellite camps."

On the ESPN sidebar.

One of the more interesting No's in the Mountain West was from CSU. Someone should tell Bobo he isn't the talent rich area of the SEC that Georgia was. Granted they do have more locally than we do, but they haven't recruited it well in the past. Would love to see us go down there and kick their heads in next year.

[ragtimejoe1]

lol. Yeah, Colorado is a recruiting hotbed. Maybe Bobo was just going along with his SEC cronies.

WWP's info is interesting. This will be rightfully overturned.