BVW, you are right, but I was only identifying the touchdowns Peppers will directly score, not those combined with the ones that are influenced by him just being on the field. If we take those into account, you are correct, that number is probably 35.
It never gets better than a game between teams that have split their meetings. You never know who is going to win when it comes to an overall series that is 50/50.
dozens of other teams sell out for their crap games
Probably not the ones that have put together mostly 7 mediocre to bad seasons in a row.
+1 for you. Peppers definitely would have at least been worth an additional 21 touchdowns.
You forgot to mention that Michigan didn't have a marquee game at home last year. They had to play Notre Dame, MSU, and tOSU all on the road with only Penn State at Home. The Home slate sucked. The unbelievable part is that Dave Brandon let the B1G stick him with playing MSU on the road two years in a row. Not sure why or how he let that happen.
Edit: Now that I look at what I wrote, it isn't exactly what MMan preached. He wouldn't have said anything bad about Dave Brandon.
Harley, I appreciate the kind words and commentary. I will say that I don't fool myself in coming on here and thinking I will be changing any minds and hearts, I just enjoy the conversation I am able to get here.
I will say that if you were simply to look at the comments and actions of the leader of your team, then we aren't as far apart as you would think. Part of Urban's success can be traced to his willingness to push the lines. I will remind you that at one time FNL was viewed as a recruiting scheme, but now nobody bats an eye at it. if Urban feels he can gain an advantage doing something, he will.
So I think we should look at his quotes to see what they may tell us.
Am I fan of that? Not really,"
Ok, seems to be leaning against it, but by saying not really, he isn't taking a strong stance. The SEC coaches were much stronger with their stances. Ok, let's continue to listen what he has to say.
If it helps us, we'll do it. I think we might try one this year. I don't know if it's been finalized, you'll certainly hear about it if we do.
Ok, so that seems like an about face. In fact it sounds like one might even be in the works for this summer.
Ok, how about his actions, what do they say. Well, the last couple years Urban and his staff have used the guest staff provision to coach at the Sound Mind Sound Body camp in Michigan. Ok, so he actually has already been a guest coach at a satellite camp in another state? Granted other coaching staffs were also at that camp, but it was all done under the guest coach provision, so Urban can't be that strongly against it if he has participated.
In my opinion he kind of hedged his bets a little bit with his comments at the press conference. As a man that is currently sitting on the throne of the college football world as one of a few elite programs, there really isn't a lot of upside. Not like there is for say Harbaugh who was out of the recruiting game for over 4 years and needs to play catch up building relationships and reestablishing his network. So as the man sitting on top, certainly you wouldn't want to see this trend continue because it is something you will need to account for in recruiting. We all know that recruiting is about building relationships, so it is something he can't discount. With that in mind, Urban will do anything in the rule book that he feels will give him an edge like all the good coaches do, and he knows sometimes that means pushing the lines. He did that with the creation of FNL and he's also already done it by previously taking advantage of the guest coaching provision at SMSB.
Blue Bayou, you're making my point. No, I don't think a high school can put together an equivalent camp for the same money that a D1 school can.
Upnorth, you are reaching too much by generalizing my comment. I was talking about the The PR machine for the camps and trying to compare apples to oranges with the flyers. The coaching they get at the camp is solely based on the man, not the flyer or facilities. You take Harbaugh or Meyer and put them on a field anywhere, and I'm betting you they will coach the same way they do if they were on their home turf. The venue doesn't matter. You bet these kids will get a quality experience for $25. That is only an expense of $6.25 an hour. Shoot, $25 is probably what it would cost them to go to a movie and get popcorn a drink and some candy. In fact, the camp is probably a better value since it will be two hours longer and they will get a shirt to take home.
Meanwhile, the visiting "guest" coach is using the time to evaluate the more elite player
So you readily admit that Ohio State uses FNL for a recruiting event, but somehow Meyer or the star coaches will be coaching every player their equally, but Harbaugh and his staff won't be able to at their smaller venue? Come on, if it can be done at one, it can certainly be done at the other. These coaches are professionals and I'm certain they can refrain from staring at the elite recruits and drooling over them long enough to coach all the kids. You are also ignoring the greatest value this camp has to offer as well. The Elite players are known commodities, you don't need a camp like this to work them out. The true value of a camp like this is to unearth the under the radar prospects that are unknown because they can't afford the expensive camp circuit. That kid might be able to attend Alabama's camp, but then again, if only Bama knows about him, they can afford to slow play him. The more schools that know him, the better his options will be. That is the true value for the "guest" coach and the recruit. So really, it is in the "guest" staffs interest to coach all. Just like the tOSU coaches do at FNL
You do realize you are nitpicking a flyer put together by the hosting high school? I'm sure Michigan signed off, but the Prattville High School put it together. I don't think you can expect a high school to put in the same time and money as a top D1 college program.
+1 for this. I agree, recruiting is a monster for these staffs.
Sorry about the profit comments, it was a playful response. I was hoping the use of "altruistic" to describe the NCAA's intentions would properly put the comments in their place, but I guess I was wrong.
You are right, colleges can profit from their in home camps, but with regards to the satellite camps, guest coaches cannot.
I agree that I find it disappointing that the Michigan's public and women's camp aren't being done this year, but I'm hopeful they will return next year. My guess is that they will, but we will have to see. I do believe they intend to do some sort of charitable fund raising in its place this year, but I'm not versed on the details, so I'm not sure how that will work out.
As for these satellite camps, I guess we should really be labeling them "satellite camps" since the coaches are guest coaching them and it isn't really their camp. They aren't getting paid by the camp to be their. Is the intent to do some recruiting? Absolutely. Is there potential to unearth an under the radar prospect? Absolutely, but this was all kicked off by an invite to Harbaugh and his staff by the A+ Foundation in Prattville, Al. You can read the story at this link about how that one got kicked off. They were looking for a guest speaker for a golf tournament, and Harbaugh said yes, but he'd much rather coach football, so that was the start. I'm sure from there, that opened the staff up to look at other potential opportunities to guest coach, but everything is within the NCAA guidelines for this. Here is the link for the one that will be held in Pennsylvania, which all proceeds from the camp go to the hosting charity.
Although the camp he is guesting at in California has been reported to be hosted by his own personal football camp company.
So I have not seen anything in Michigan news stating Harbaugh's personal football camp company is the hosting company for the California camp. I would love to see a link on that since it would be news to me. No details have come out, but the speculation I've seen is that the University of San Diego will be hosting Harbaugh and staff. This would be good for USD since it would bring in more recruits than normally would attend their camp.
Your description that you give for FNL doesn't outline anything special that benefits recruits/campers anything more than what these "satellite camps" will be. They are the same thing, other than Michigan's staff will be on the road, and in at least 2 of the instances, proceeds from the camps are going to charities. I'm not sure about the others because the details just aren't really out there yet. You say FNL is honest, but so are these camps. With regards to only camp level experiences, they will be the same. The difference being that one isn't using the venue as a showcase of their facility to attract recruits. You imply that not all the campers at Michigan's "satellite camps" won't get instruction, but I'm sure they could get more. See, there is a special provision that guest coaches can't give special attention to campers, but at FNL, tOSU isn't restricted by the same rules. How many times have we heard from Birm or DJ that so and so big time recruit got pulled aside by one of the coaches at FNL to get one on one instruction?
By the way, why aren't we talking about how tOSU's staff has already been making use of the "guest coach" policy. Meyer and staff have already used it to be able to attend the Sound Mind Sound Body camp in Michigan, so if anything changes, that would no longer be allowed. Also, I think the Nike camp is a much bigger recruiting competitive advantage. How is tOSU allowed to host that camp year in and year out? Why doesn't Nike rotate where they hold that camp in the MidWest? Wouldn't that be int he best interest of the recruits / campers that attend?
I'm not M Man.
Not really a ploy to defend Harbaugh. It is the truth. This is not a loophole, and is specifically spelled out by the NCAA bylaws as acceptable. As long as the NCAA has the rule, it is admissible.
As for my thoughts, I've already admitted that I don't think it matches the original intent of the provision. I don't think the writers of this rule imagined that coaches from some of the top programs were going to use the "guest coach" provision to in essence slum it at high schools or smaller D1 programs when they could host potential recruits at their top of the line facilities. Does this have potential to be a great recruiting tool and is that the main motivation? Absolutely. So the true question that should be asked is "Are these satellite camps harmful to any potential recruits / campers?" No, in fact, it can only benefit them to have greater access to top D1 coaches. It increases the possibility that some under the radar prospect could raise their recruiting profile and get a scholarship offer, and if everyone else gets some coaching along the way, I don't see a downside to it for the recruits. I think $25 is well worth that payout.
As for the colleges, could this lead to a recruiting "arms race"? I believe so. There is a tipping point where as more and more schools do this, there will be diminishing returns for the schools, so that is why it is important to be one of the early ones doing it. There is potential for a higher recruiting reward for being an early adopter of it, because at some point, as more and more schools do this, I'm sure the NCAA will ban it, and it will be done. They won't ban it for the benefit of the recruits/campers though, they will be banning it to prevent an escalating arms race between schools. That is my opinion.
In the world of recruiting, I think the idea of satellite camps is far far down on my list of things to be outraged by. They kind of are what they are, and I don't see anything harmful about them to a recruit. At the end of the day, a recruit can choose to go to the camp or not. There is nothing forcing them to go, and there isn't really any way they are being taken advantage of in my opinion.
Your previous arguments against the satellite camps were based on the level of coaching/experience the kids would get, not specifically on the merit of the NCAA rules, so based on your previous arguments, what advantages does Friday Night Lights offer for this over any potential satellite camp at equivalent costs? In my opinion, they are essentially the same thing with the only difference being who is doing the travelling.
As for the NCAA rule, they probably didn't want to see all these colleges trying set these camps all over the place trying make a profit, so they limited them. They obviously don't want to be perceived trying to make a profit at the expense of kids. They also didn't want to take away the opportunity for kids to get high quality instruction from D1 coaches, so that is why the included the important guest coaches provision. This ensures that the campers' best interests are in mind and the colleges can't profit, since that is one of the stipulations for being a guest coach. So really, satellite camps are meeting the NCAA's altruistic intentions of their own rules.
Edit: Sarcastic Font Added.
+1 for you. Solid point.
The role of guest coaches is specifically addressed and outlined in NCAA bylaws, so these satellite camps are not taking advantage of some loophole, they are operating within the rules. Now, I agree that when this rule was written, that they were probably thinking that this was needed so that coaches from smaller D1 programs like those in the MAC could guest coach at B1G camps as an example and not the other way around, but these camps are completely within the rules.
The SEC's outrage is purely selfish and with no consideration as to what is best for potential campers/recruits. Think about it, if their coaches were to set up satellite camps in Ohio, Michigan, or California, then schools in those states would be compelled to do the same in their region, increasing the competition for the hearts and minds of the recruits on their home turf, which happens to hold the highest concentration of talent. It is a losing scenario for the SEC for these to be allowed, that is the reason for their ban on them, and that is why they are opposed to it. You better believe though, if the best football talent was concentrated in the MidWest, you would see them on the other side of this argument and setting up satellite camps there.
Upnorth, you have a very cynical view of Harbaugh without even knowing the man. So what is your opinion on Friday Night Lights? Do you consider it a great "camp" or do you view it the same disdain you have towards these satellite camps? The length of FNL seems to be on par with the satellite camps being offered, one could say the monetary fees are quite similar or in the same price range, and outside of coaching bias or preference, the quality of instruction that could be offered in both formats should be similar. So.... based on your objections to the Satellite camps, am I right in assuming you don't like FNL? Maybe you hate it even more since FNL also forces all these recruits to have to pay all the additional travel costs to attend.
The SEC holds the high road on this right now.
Is there really a high road on this? My personal opinion is there isn't. If the SEC was making its stance based on potential recruits' best interest, then I would agree, but their complaints are purely selfish. They don't want kids in their area getting greater access to coaches outside their regions for fear they are more likely to choose to go elsewhere than stay home. In my opinion, these satellite camps give low radar recruits that can't afford to visit colleges outside their region a better and cheaper platform to launch their recruitment. Does this benefit the schools that are guest coaching? Yes, but does it also benefit the recruits/campers? Absolutely. In my opinion, it can only benefit the recruits/campers to have this additional level of access to high level D1 coaches. I don't see anything wrong here.
I disagree. At least if you tell a kid 2 weeks before early enrolling, he can still back out and go someplace else without losing a year of eligibility. Forcing a grey shirt on a kid after he has signed his LOI means his choices are accept it and don't play a year or leave and lose a year of eligibility. In one scenario, the kid gets to keep his freshman year, in the other his freshman year is essentially lost no matter what choice he makes. They both are dick moves, but finding out before early enrolling is definitely the better of the two in my opinion.
I only ask because I haven't looked at myself in a mirror since my wife said I didn't need to because I was perfect just the way I am. That was 4 years ago about a week ago since she said that. Since I was perfect at that time, I also haven't bathed, change my clothes, shaved or cut my hair for fear of ruining it.
As a matter of fact...... YES..... YES I AM!!!!!!!!
(At this time I find myself wondering what sexiness unknown to mankind might actually look like...)
I'm not MMan.
Why don't we talk about Harbaugh lying to Mike Weber about being the only rb in the class?
Considering the fact that it was widely reported in the news and on Michigan blogs that Michigan was recruiting Higdon and that he visited the weekend before signing day, I have a hard time believing Harbaugh told Mike Weber he was the only RB he was recruiting. It would be stupid to lie when any easy internet fact check would out it. What Weber was more likely told was that he was the guy they wanted and that if he recommitted, he would be the only RB in the class. Since Weber didn't give his commitment the night before or early on signing day, Harbaugh accepted Higdon's commitment since they were looking for a RB in the class. So in my opinion Weber wasn't lied to.
As an additional aside about Michigan recruiting, I will be watching Michigan's 2016 class to see if it shows any potential for oversigning. As of right now, Michigan 2016 commits/recruits are using a #Fab25 hashtag on their tweets for a class that right now looks like it will only have room for 14. So if the fab25 means a potential 25 people in their recruiting class, that means 11 players with eligibility for 2016+ will need to leave in some way. So I plan to watch the future departures with some skepticism depending on how it plays out.
Of course you'd be all over this...
Since I'm a member of this community, I thought I would comment, and given the skepticism of some of the fan base, I thought I could contribute to the conversation. I don't believe I have said anything judgmental, and I have not once attacked Urban or anybody else's character in this. But since it appears you may disagree, I will gladly bow out of this conversation from this point forward. You won't see any more comments or replies from me.
If they were so callous, they would have cut bait in January and signed another player in February.
Nicholas, I disagree with this statement. Dean was an early enrollee, so cutting ties with him in January wasn't an option. If you deny Dean at that point you are knee deep in a situation similar to what LSU did to Elliott Porter, which would be a PR nightmare. Letting him sign and then offering him a medical scholarship was really the best option PR wise.
Another way to look at this is, which situation offers a better angle for future recruits coming from his school or in general. Scenario 1, cut Dean in January citing the injury, which then has him looking and signing somewhere else. How would this look to Judson and Gardner? They would start hearing from other schools how tOSU didn't stick by Dean and honor his commitment. Scenario 2, Dean's injury doesn't look so good, medical doesn't clear him yet, but it is possible longer rehab could get him there. There still is a possibility in the future he won't be able to play at all, but you give him the time and if it is a worst case scenario, you offer the medical hardship scholarship the next year. Scenario 3, Dean's injury doesn't look so good, medical doesn't clear him yet, but it is possible longer rehab could get him there. You decide to continue to recruit CB's like Damon Arnette. If you land that additional CB, you convince Dean his injury career ending and offer Dean a medical hardship scholarship sometime after signing day and don't gamble on the rehab. If you don't land that CB, proceed with scenario 2. Scenario 2 and three offer the best options from a recruiting PR standpoint.
Since Dean was an early enrollee, I think that rules out scenario 1 as a viable option, so my thought is it went to scenario 3, but since Damon Arnette committed on February 2nd, scenario 2 was no longer a viable option at that point due to the numbers.
Ponder, I found it interesting as well. The fact that Nicholas provided the following quote on Alabama and also the chart caused me to raise my eyebrow a bit.
They're supposed to be uncommon, but between 2008 and 2010, Alabama awarded medical hardship scholarships at a rate ten times higher than the rest of the SEC.
The key to me was that Alabama was at 10 times higher than anybody in a 3 year period with 12 medical hardship scholarships. Throw in the fact that Nicholas also linked an article that states tOSU, counting Dean, has issued 6 medical hardship scholarships since last season. (Linebackers Trey Johnson and Devan Bogard, offensive lineman Kyle Dodson and defensive backs Armani Reeves and Ron Tanner).
Given that most people have thought that Saban has been abusing medical hardship scholarships to be able to oversign given he has doled out 12 in 3 years and has been accused by a player or two of his of forcing them out, now that tOSU and Meyer have also experienced something similar (6 in less than a year and 1 recruit and his coach accusing them of it), why is it not ok for people to be skeptical of what is going on at tOSU?
I haven't really been thinking much about this, and it still doesn't necessarily raise the needle for me yet, but the comparison to Saban and Bama did get my attention.
Braxton was offered a Medical Redshirt while Dean was offered a Medical Scholarship. The one gives you an additional year of eligibility to play (Braxton), the other one effectively ends your football career in lieu of a scholarship (Dean).
OSU78 gives what the medical reasoning would be behind the different offers.
"I'm always right, except when I'm not, but sometimes I am even then."
That is my equivalent of "I told you so" that I say to my kids.