This is going to hurt a lot of prospective athletes hoping to be seen at one of these football camps. Other schools coaches will no longer be able to attend the college’s summer football camps thus limiting their exposure to 1 school per camp.
I don’t think that is accurate. I think the rule says each school can only host a camp on or near their campus. But I do not think there is anything in the rule about coaches attending another school’s camp. Obviously though Nick Savan and Jimbo Fischer are not inviting Jim Harbaugh down to the Bama and FSU camps, but there is no reason why the same coaches who were in Columbus for Friday Night Lights last year won’t be there again. Like most things in the NCAA, this ban is designed to help schools with established recruiting pipelines or who are in big high school football states.
"The rule will prevent FBS schools from hosting camps or clinics at facilities that they do not use regularly for football practice or play. It also prevents coaches from working as guest instructors at another school’s camp.
“The Council approved a proposal applicable to the Football Bowl Subdivision that would require those schools to conduct camps and clinics at their school’s facilities or at facilities regularly used for practice or competition,” stated the NCAA. Additionally, FBS coaches and non-coaching staff members with responsibilities specific to football may be employed only at their school’s camps or clinics. This rule change is effective immediately."
I believe the highlighted language is intended to stop Urban Meyer from being a guest instructor at another school’s camp (he was actually scheduled to do that at a camp in Georgia this summer), or for Nick Saban to be paid as a coach at a third party run ID camp (like the Under Armour or SPARQ series). I could be wrong, but I do not think that coaches from schools who are not the host school are paid at school camps. I certainty have never seen a coach from other than the host school “work” (run drills, actively coach) at a camp. I believe the rule is designed to do what it says, which is stop the school specific satellite camps recently popularized by Harbaugh.
I guess it could come down to the definition of “working”. Certainly the rule would ban coaches from other than the host school from being paid or from running/designing drills and from actively coaching individual kids, which is kinda the whole purpose of a camp. But I am not sure it bars coaches from observing another school’s camp. For most if not all of the Power 5 that is probably a distinction without a difference since it is unlikely that any of those schools will be or have been invited to observe at another school on the same tier’s camp. I do not believe though that this rule will stop MAC schools from attending Ohio State camps, or AAC schools from attending Florida camps as examples. Certainly by the express language of the rule it won’t effect FCS/Div2/Div3 schools from attending other camps, which are the vast majority of schools who attend FBS school’s camps currently.
They were discussing it at great length on the Mike & Mike show this am. From what they were saying for example…if Harvard is hosting a summer football camp, schools like MIT etc…would NOT be able to attend now like they had in this past. They were discussing how this will now limit kids exposure to colleges outside the 1 they were attending.
^^Correct. (for FBS)
Is there a different rule then? Because everything I have seen about this (although admittedly I haven’t looked very hard) refers specifically to FBS schools which by its terms excludes both Harvard and MIT.
On the other hand, I did just see a quote from Urban Meyer saying that this new rule puts schools like Bowling Green (a MAC school where he began his coaching career) in a “quandry”, which certainly indicates that the rule may in fact ban FBS coaches from observing at other school’s camps. If that is true, then the rule sucks for places like the MAC, Mountain West and AAC who spend a ton of their time at Power 5 school camps.
@moscott have you seen anything that applies this to schools outside the FBS other than the comments on Mike and Mike?
@Ohiodad51 I’m not exactly sure at this point. The way they were talking it covered all. I found this blurb on Foxsports
"Furthermore, it’s been common practice for some time that smaller-conference coaches work as guests at larger program’s camps. Say, for example, Ohio State holds a camp for 200 high-school players. There may be only two at the whole camp good enough to garner a scholarship offer from the Buckeyes. But often the coaches at Toledo or Bowling Green are there, too. There may be other players on hand that those coaches deem worthy of a MAC offer.
But in one fell swoop, the Council squashed those opportunities because the head coach at Michigan had the audacity to hold some camps in the backyards of Southern football powerhouses. And it’s going to affect those Toledo and Bowling Green recruits far more than Michigan’s."
We will see in June when we go to the camps for sure. One of the coaches from CMU had told me that he would be at the Princeton camp so we’ll see if that pans out.
@moscott, yeah, I think you are right that it bans FBS coaches from attending FBS camps. I guess “working” means “evaluating” within the context of the rule. Andy Staples has an article about this on SI this morning that quotes Urban Meyer and Hugh Freeze (Ole Miss coach) extensively on this point. The article leaves the impression that the banning of G5 coaches from P5 camps was an unintended, or at least un-thought of, consequence of the new rule.
I still haven’t seen anything that applies this outside of the FBS. As bad as this rule will hurt summer recruiting at G5 schools, it will virtually kill summer recruiting at D2 and D3 schools if it is applied to them. None of those schools really have the draw to get kids to their campus in numbers, or the budget to run a group of stringers to go evaluate kids at high school practices/early season games.
I take it from your post that you and your son will be heading to camps this June. Enjoy it. I had a blast with my kid a few years ago. Good luck to him.
Interesting, I can see why the SEC and ACC schools wanted this (to make it harder for other schools to recruit talent in the southern states) but am not sure why other schools supported it.
Well, you need to look at the geography of the conferences in relation to the “Big Five” - Cali, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Georgia - the states which produce by far the largest numbers of D1 football players year over year. Three of those states (including two of the biggest three) are within the SEC footprint, and two are right in the heart of the conference. Add in that the sixth state, which over the last few years has been getting into Big Five kind of numbers of recruits, is Louisiana and it is easy to see why the SEC was so pissed about this.
By contrast, the Big Ten only has one Big Five state. Even then OSU owns Ohio and it produces far less players than any of the other four excepting Georgia.
This rule lets UT, Baylor, TCU and to a lesser extent OU and Ok State draw a curtain over Texas (with A&M), and USC, UCLA and maybe Stanford and Cal to rope off Cali. This is a huge advantage, especially in Cali since any kid from LA who wants to camp at FSU or MSU needs to spend serious bucks to fly.
That said, there was an article today in SI saying that the Pac 12 conference vote was actually against the rule (which makes some sense because the real strength in Cali HS ball is down south, not in the north) but their commissioner is a UCLA guy. I.would be willing to bet Oregon is none to happy about this vote as an example.
Either way, it is easier to understand the PAC 12 and BIG 12 vote than the ACC. Other than UM, FSU and Clemson none of the ACC schools are really close to the Big Five. And if it is correct that this rule bars G5 schools from attending P5 camps, I have no idea why a G5 conference would support this, although apparently two did.
In fact, the Pac-12 Commissioner is a Harvard guy!
http://pac-12.com/content/pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott
If he is in the pocket of UCLA, would like to see where that opinion comes from.
(According to SI, the Pac-12 rep on the D1 management council is the UCLA AD, though)
Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the rep.
Interesting points Ohiodad51, and if I understand it correctly I can see why the Pac 12 was against it. In that conference it would only seem to benefit USC, UCLA and Cal, which tend to get mostly in state recruits if I recall correctly.
In fact, Pac-12 was for it.
From espn article: “Also impacted will be lower-level recruits that would attend satellite camps hoping to catch the eye of Group of 5 programs or FCS level teams that also coached at these camps.”
They are discussing it again now on Mike & Mike with Hugh Freeze…as of now coaches cannot attend camps outside their own school for HS prospects.
They are considering amending to ban to allow coaches to attend these camps…however he stated that it most likely won’t happen this year for the 2016 camps.
Ah ok, thanks fenwaypark.