The Rest of College Football

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'd be interested to know how the votes in the Big12 broke down too. If West Virginia, Iowa State, or either Kansas school wanted to ban them, they are fools. I've read that Oklahoma regularly held camps in Dallas, which they'd now be banned from doing...so why would they support it?? So if only 4, maybe 5 Big12 schools, supported a complete ban, how'd that league vote in favor?

[WM Wolverine]

Texas Tech used to have satellite camps in Dallas, Houston under Leach; now that they are under Texas' spell, they aren't for satellite camps?

Be very interesting the 'revisiting' of this issue.

[Wild Hoss]

I'd be interested to know how the votes in the Big12 broke down too. If West Virginia, Iowa State, or either Kansas school wanted to ban them, they are fools. I've read that Oklahoma regularly held camps in Dallas, which they'd now be banned from doing...so why would they support it?? So if only 4, maybe 5 Big12 schools, supported a complete ban, how'd that league vote in favor?

The cynic in me says that in the end there is just one guy raising his hand for or against- as the PAC discovered, to their chagrin- so all you have to do in order to rig the outcome is get to that guy. If, say, you were a conference which was opposed to this concept. And one known for bending the occasional rule.

[entropy]

Texas Tech used to have satellite camps in Dallas, Houston under Leach; now that they are under Texas' spell, they aren't for satellite camps?

Be very interesting the 'revisiting' of this issue.

TT was against the ban. I remember reading some concerns about their inability to hold camps in Dallas or Houston.

[entropy]

Wow...so 11 PAC12 schools voted to retain satellite camps, with UCLA being the 1 vote to ban them. The PAC's rep to the NCAA went against instructions, and cast the PAC's vote for the ban.

That rep was UCLA's athletic director, Dan Guerrero.

https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/722936079481856000

https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/722930602962395136

even worse, I read last night that the PAC voted on this.. 11 for the camps, 1 abstained. UCLA refused to vote during their conference review. yet.. and YET... they voted for the conference.

[iam416]

If I were a P12 AD, I'd be really pissed.

I don't think a P12 flip would have changed the outcome. But that's still appalling.

In any event, the ban isn't going to stick. It never was. It was too reactionary. If they're going to address the issue they ought to at least do it with a modicum of thought. There are sensible boundaries. An outright ban is not sensible.

[hack]

Kinda seems like they're at this point adopting the NFL's strategy of turning everything into a controversy to stay in the headlines during the offseason.

[iam416]

CFB offseasons are the dregs. Relatively trivial issues generating disproportionate hot takes to fill the void. God awful.

[Jeff Buchanan]

The satellite ban is a big deal. Not because of Harbaugh's antics either.

It's because it, once again, reveals the incompetence of th NCAA and the bull-shit back room politics involved in collegiate athletics. That's what's appalling.

In retrospect, it looks like Delaney may have played this wisely when, instead of railing against the ban, he alluded to the larger context issues he said were still pending before the committee.

Where is the university president's outrage over this crap? Seems to me it's time for a major change in how collegiate athletics are regulated. I'd like this to be the impetus for a review.

[iam416]

Why on earth would University presidents be outraged over something that absolutely doesn't affect their core mission and barely affects a single sport in their athletics program -- and for some schools not at all. Why? Why the F would they care?

This is a molehill.

[froot loops]

I don't get that the big conferences votes are worth two votes to one for the smaller conferences. I don't follow this that closely but it seems kind of dumb. I also seems kind of weird that it is voted on by the conference level and not the school level.

[Jeff Buchanan]

.......This is a molehill.

We disagree.

[Ghengis Jon]

I don't get that the big conferences votes are worth two votes to one for the smaller conferences.

Think of Citizen's United. The more money you have the more important your voice. $ = free speech, majority doesn't rule. Conferences are people too!

[Jeff Buchanan]

We disagree.

Let me elaborate. The core mission of University while certainly academic in nature, including research, still upholds the important mission of athletics as it relates to the concept of student athlete. Yeah, I know, let's not go there .........

The point is that not only are sports important in student life at Univeristy but they are also critical to funding it. Sure, the idiocy of the NCAA as it pertains to the recent ban affecting only one sport may not be a big deal. However, it's football, THE single revenue producing sport if you back out basketball because the NCAA figured out how to drain that off and into someone else's pockets.

The NCAA has dealt a significant and unfair blow to all football programs most of which depend almost entirely on football derived revenue to fund the rest of collegiate sports that are a part of student life and therefore the University mission.

The larger issue to me, however, is that the governing body of this important student life endeavor within Univeristy, the NCAA, is corrupt and this episode, as small as it might see to you, demonstrates that beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Presidents should be very, very concerned about this and while they may have had some level of concern about the corruption, it's out there now and they have a platform plank from which a move to make significant changes to the NCAA structure and governance could be utilized if they had the balls to do so.

[iam416]

We disagree.

I'll make this point and leave it that: the schools that are most affected by this rule do not run profitable football programs. MAC football programs lose gobs of money. The President of, e.g., Bowling Green ought not give two fucks about a relatively inconsequential rule that affects an aspect of the University that loses money.

This is a molehill. IMO, if it weren't a direct strike to HARBAUGH!!! then you'd agree