<
>

What 31 power brokers said about the NCAA's satellite camp ban

play
Hugh Freeze responds to Harbaugh criticism (2:21)

Ole Miss coach Hugh Freeze explains to Mike & Mike his rational for voting to ban satellite camps and responds to criticism from Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh saying he will never apologize for wanting to spend more time with his family. (2:21)

Last week, the NCAA's Division I council shutdown satellite camps, effective immediately, forcing all FBS programs to conduct camps and clinics on their own facilities. These camps rose to prominence as schools, highlighted by Jim Harbaugh's Michigan squad, would hold events in the prospect-rich South. With the SEC and ACC leading the way, the camps were banned.

Reaction to the decision was swift, with former players like Cardale Jones coming down harshly on the NCAA. Harbaugh waited a few days to make his thoughts known, but it was worth the wait. Meanwhile, SEC coaches have remained in lockstep against the camps.

Here's a full rundown of the coaches who have spoken on the record about the ban, and which side they fall on:

ACC

Jimbo Fisher, Florida State: In favor of ban
"I just think it's opened up Pandora's box. (The ban is) probably a good thing."

Paul Johnson, Georgia Tech: In favor of ban
"I think they finally got it right." (via USA Today)

Brian Kelly, Notre Dame: Not bothered by ban
"In terms of camps themselves, high school coaches can still work your camps, I'm under the belief that that can happen. You could still have your staff on your campus working, which we've always had our staff be the prime movers in our camps. So from my perspective, we've had kids from all over the country come to Notre Dame and have given them great opportunities to be here, from Hawaii to Alaska. And we'll continue to do that. We think it's part of our service here at Notre Dame, to offer those camps. And we have outstanding high school coaches that work here, and my staff. And we'll continue to provide that to the young student-athletes that want to be involved in football. So I don't see it impacting what we've done and how our business -- it would not change our business plan and how we operate on a day-to-day basis."

Pat Narduzzi, Pitt: In favor of ban
"As far as the ACC and what we voted on as a conference, I think we got what we wanted. There's so many good reasons I think it's a good decision. There's so many things that can happen when you're on the road with these kids in different areas. You talk about the head coach being in charge of recruiting and violations, there's so many things that can happen when you're on the road. I think it's a good decision. I've gone on the record in the past of saying our coaches need to be around our kids here on campus. The month of May we're all around recruiting and the month of June we're in and out finishing up recruiting. While our kids are finishing up their semester and getting ready for summer school, incoming freshmen are coming in. It's hard to sit in a home and say you're going to be there for a kid when you're really not there. As far as some people say you're taking opportunities away from kids and scholarships, kids are going to have offers. If there's a good play out there, with huddle and technology of Twitter putting your highlight tape out there. We're going to find players, you don't have to go on a campus to do that. I think it just becomes crazy out there, the wild wild west. I know the ACC is happy and I'm happy."

Big 12

Matt Campbell, Iowa State: Opposed to ban
"From my end of it, I'm furious. The NCAA guidelines say their job is, No. 1, to protect the student-athlete, and No. 2, it's to create a fair and equal balance across all Division I athletics. As I look at it, our job should be to go out to these young men, not for (their) parents to fly and create more money situations. The reality of it is that you're hurting kids. I'm coming from a non-Power 5 school, where we made a living on those camps. We went with Ohio State, (and) we went with Michigan. We did our own camps, travelling the circuit throughout Ohio." (via The Des Moines Register)

Bill Snyder, Kansas State: OK with ban
"Our satellite camps, for the most part, were in the state of Kansas, trying to get out to western Kansas, because western Kansas youngsters sometimes just can't get here. We did them in Kansas City, we did them in Wichita. We were in-state. I would prefer the rule still allowed you to do that. I have mixed emotions about it. You like to get out and have the opportunity to be with young guys, but, by the same token, it can get out of hand. The rule now is everything has to be on your campus. I can live with it. That's fine. I think it serves the purpose of not opening the thing up so you have 1,000 camps across the country. That is probably a problem as well." (via The Kansas City Star)

Joe Castiglione, Oklahoma athletic director: Opposed to ban
"We were supportive of (the camps) because it was more of a service," Castiglione said. "We were able to get to some camps. Some of the kids who couldn't afford to travel could go to that camp. It's hard to say how many student athletes we recruited came out of those camps, but it was a positive experience." (via Tulsa World)

Bob Stoops, Oklahoma: Opposed to ban
"In my mind, even if you found one guy, it was worth it," he said. "You might have 200 there and one guy is the one you offer. If he plays for you and does well, I think it's a big get." (via Tulsa World)

Mike Gundy, Oklahoma State: Opposed to the ban
"Just really disappointed by the opportunity that's going to be taken away from potential student athletes," Gundy said. "I don't understand the concept and the thought that's being put into taking away schools and coaches from potentially seeing young men that could be involved in getting an education and being involved in the team at some point later in their career. ... It has given us an opportunity for 12 years to go out and coach and allow young people in other parts of the state who may not be as financially able to come to Stillwater and be at our campus." (via The Oklahoman)

Big Ten

Kirk Ferentz, Iowa: In favor of ban
"We've done them the last two years [in the Midwest], just the chance to get out and see more prospects. Me personally, I'd prefer it the way it just got passed today. In my opinion, I think camps should be done on your campus. And I also think the next step is to just have them by personnel from your university -- people that actually work in your football department, period, so there are no third parties. We've seen that be a problem in other sports, and I think it's becoming an issue in football. I think some schools -- I'm not going to say encouraging it -- but they're partaking in it. I'm not sure that's healthy for our game. I think we have to be really careful."

Jim Harbaugh, Michigan: Strongly opposed to ban
"The image that comes to my mind is guys in a back room smoking cigars, doing what they perceive is best for them. It certainly isn't the best thing for the youngsters. It's not the best thing for the student-athletes." (via SI.com)

Mark Dantonio, Michigan State: Opposed to ban
"I am in favor of opportunities for young people and in favor of making this game better. Anything that can promote those things are positive. I think having camps enables you to do that and having coaches go out and do camps enables you to do that. I do think there is a mad rush to the finish line by universities all over America. I think they take that into context. We voted as a conference to have satellite camps."

Mike Riley, Nebraska: Opposed to ban
"I still frankly don't get it," Riley said of the decision. "I still see it as an opportunity for both coaches and players. Us going to Atlanta and having a camp -- and some guy down there we find or he finds us, he changes his life and he changes Nebraska -- I think those are all good stories. There's just more opportunity. I was surprised at the vote. I don't know how they vote. I talked to Chris Petersen today, and we both were wondering how, in the end, this all gets decided. But it's one [of] those things -- we all know, I knew three years ago this was someday going to be the decision that has been made....It's just more opportunity, but when I say that, I'm not surprised by it. I am surprised where they got the numbers to vote, because I would think this is not just a Power 5 conference vote. I would think that every school in a little lesser division than our school would all want these. I just don't know where the numbers came from in the vote."

Pat Fitzgerald, Northwestern: Opposed to ban

"There was somewhere in between what we were doing and a ban. I think this is an overreaction. I don't think anybody in the SEC and ACC would be upset about Northern Illinois coming to our campus. We had coaches from Wyoming, Nevada, Air Force, Buffalo....That Group of 5 full-ride scholarship opportunity is not gonna be a part of the showcase anymore, and I just think that it's wrong. Part of what our job is as college coaches is providing an opportunity, even to those who don't have the financial means. And I'm disappointed that it's gone this way." (via insidenu.com)

Urban Meyer, Ohio State: Opposed to ban
"I just hate to see, the biggest thing and one that I didn't realize was a part of it, that MAC schools can't come here. There have probably been hundreds of scholarships come out of here to those young players. I know my son now is getting recruited a little bit, what camps do you send him to? Well, not many kids can play at Ohio State, so don't send them or send them and allow Bowling Green to get a chance to watch him play. When I was at Bowling Green, come to Ohio State's campus and get a chance to see all these players. I didn't realize that was a part of the conversation. I wish they'd revisit that part of it. I think there's a knee-jerk reaction because people complained and all that, and I get that. It's a slippery slope. I'm not worried about the high-level players, because they're going to find a way to get where they need to get. I'm talking about, there's a big chunk of players who deserve to play major-college football. I hope they'll revisit it, and I'm not saying it's right or wrong because I don't really know. But you should always think first about the players."

James Franklin, Penn State: OK with ban
"If it's legal, we're going to do it. As long as everybody's playing by the same rules is what I care about. There were some real positives to it, but there were some things people had concerns about. You can make arguments both ways. Obviously this is something that we were doing, and enjoyed doing, but I also like the fact we are going to [be] back on our campus, spend more time with our current players, and then the same thing with our families." (via SiriusXM's College Football Radio's "The First Team")

Jim Delany, Big Ten commissioner: Accepting of ban
"But the football oversight committee recommended to the council and the council is supporting action now. It is what it is. We made our case for holistic vs. ad hoc. You have to accept it. That's part of the (system) we signed on for. No reaction beyond that. You always would like to win rather than to lose a vote -- I don't care whether it's in a court or legislature or an assembly of people. You go with the system that's in place, and so I support that, respect that and move on. (Coaches will) pick up recruitment; satellite camps are off the table, but presumably everything else is on it." (via USA Today)

Pac-12

Sonny Dykes, Cal: OK with ban
"I thought what we did for a long time was good. It worked well. But then it got abused and like other things that get abused, it gets taken away from you. It's like your 6-year-old daughter. You tell her not to do something and when she continues to do it you take it away. I thought the thing was fine until it got abused. It helped us evaluate some guys and get in on some guys we wouldn't have. I thought it was effective but it became a keep-up-with-the-Jones thing and it got a bit silly."

Mike MacIntyre, Colorado: Opposed to ban
"I'm definitely opposed to the ban. We should have satellite camps, there's no doubt in my mind. It hurts high school football players and it also hurts smaller colleges that we do [the camps] with that are able to make money to supplement their budgets, which is extremely important. It hurts football and it hurts young people. I do not understand it whatsoever."

Mark Helfrich, Oregon: Opposed to ban
"Both rule changes seem to negatively affect the prospective student-athlete. We will see what comes."

David Shaw, Stanford: No opinion
"I have no opinion. It's never affected us. People do them, and people don't do them. We've got great attendance at the camps we have here -- we get a lot of guys we want to come....But I didn't like the way that a lot of people have put this as the SEC against Jim Harbaugh. That's not what this has been about. Conference by conference, this has been going on for three-plus years, since Jim was with the 49ers. This has been a battle. As a conference, we had a long discussion three years ago about what we were going to do about satellite camps....I'm great with whatever college football says, because it doesn't affect us. It doesn't make sense for us to go hold a camp some place where there might be one person in the entire state that's eligible to get into Stanford."

Kyle Whittingham, Utah: Opposed to ban
"As far as our program, it doesn't make a huge impact. But what it does is take away opportunities for players who don't have the means to travel around the country and go to various camps. The exposure is less for them now because they won't be able to have coaches come to them in their locals and do evaluations. I'm 100 percent all about the players. That's all that matters to me. So I don't like the rule. In the way I view it, it gives fewer players opportunity to be seen by coaches."

Mike Leach, Washington State: Strongly opposed to ban
"It appears that the selfish interests of a few schools and conferences prevailed over the best interests of future potential student-athletes," WSU coach Mike Leach said in a text message to The Seattle Times. "The mission of universities and athletic programs should be to provide future student-athletes with exposure to opportunities, not to limit them. It appears to me that some universities and conferences are willing to sacrifice the interests of potential student-athletes for no better reasons than to selfishly monopolize their recruiting bases. I will be fascinated to hear any legitimate reasoning behind this ruling. We need to rethink this if we are actually what we say we are." (via The Seattle Times)

SEC

Nick Saban, Alabama: In favor of ban
"First of all, I think the whole idea was crazy. What if they said you could have satellite camps? So, you'd have 100 different camps in Atlanta, Dallas and Houston and all these areas? What's a kid do, go to 100 camps? I just thought it was a bad idea. If you can get a guy to come to your campus and go to your camp, it's going to be better. Our camp is still geared around helping guys improve and being better players. It's not just a recruiting camp. And then, with all that, how effective is it? How effective have the people been that have done these camps? Have they really actually gotten a lot of good players from them or just the average players?"

Kirby Smart, Georgia: In favor of ban
"We were gung-ho, we were going to do what we had to do. We were going to go do some satellite camps, but to be honest with you it's probably a sigh of relief as far as the stress of having to go out and control the controllable." (via onlineathens.com)

Les Miles, LSU: In favor of ban
"I really enjoyed the vote that ... suggested that by a very significant difference that the camp rule should stay intact and it shouldn't just be a free-for-all for camps. From being with your own teammates, from being with your own team and making sure that they're going to class and making sure they're doing the things that they're supposed to do, from extending the calendar. In other words, the calendar is set up so that you don't recruit during a specific time and rather than extend the calendar into that area based on recruiting to a camp and being at a camp off your campus in another state, I just think it's the right thing to do. I think it's good for our players, it's good for our coaches, I think it's good for college football. Every camp, every state in this country has camps within reach for these kids and I don't think there's any question that they can get to it without issue."

Dan Mullen, Mississippi State: In favor of ban
"I think everybody in the SEC as a league we thought we were against that. I think it opens a pandora's box out there. ... Young men come and get the experience of being on a college campus, seeing what the experience is, seeing what it's all about here at a place like Mississippi State." (via The Clarion-Ledger)

Barry Odom, Missouri: In favor of ban
"I'm excited to get as many prospects as we can on our campus. The camps we have had here, we've always found players. I would expect this summer to be the best camp series we've ever put on." (via the Columbia Tribune)

Hugh Freeze, Ole Miss: In favor of ban
"I understand there's one side of the fence that says, 'Well, it could cost kids opportunities. There's the other side of the fence that it could've been a total circus that would put so much pressure on these kids because you might have 50 camps in Atlanta or Dallas. I'm selfish with my time. I'm away from my family enough, and I just did not want to go. I was ready to. We would've jumped in with the rest of them and gone to work. But I'm glad we can have a camp and I can sleep at home." (via The Clarion-Ledger)

Freeze also responded to criticism of his comments on "Mike & Mike."

Butch Jones, Tennessee: In favor of ban
"I've not been a proponent of satellite camps. Ironically we've spoken to many schools that have done the satellite camps, and quietly their assistant coaches were tried and wore out and didn't approve of them. I thought the right decision was made there. For us, our camps are very important, but getting a young man to campus and him having experience in Knoxville, that's most important." (via Chattanooga Times Free Press)

Kevin Sumlin, Texas A&M: In favor of ban
"We're happy about it. We were ready to go either way. With it not passing, that means I don't have to fly around the country and have camps. That means people can still come to our camps and we can stay here and sleep in our own beds instead of going coast-to-coast in the month of June. It's OK. Recruiting is recruiting. We like recruiting. But at a certain point, you have to draw the line somewhere. Obviously for us, having guys on campus here is more important than us flying around all over the country just shaking hands and getting to know somebody and working them out for a day."

Greg Sankey, SEC commissioner: In favor of ban
"Well, we were clear in our perspective, but we had two votes out of 15 in a weighted voting system among the Bowl Subdivision. So it's not as if we simply controlled the outcome. The ACC and the SEC have been in lockstep on this issue over time -- again, dating back years, related to how we're going to conduct football recruiting. Obviously, it takes more than just the Southeastern Conference to accomplish this change. We were clear in articulating our concerns, (and) I would say that people saw the potential problems that we could be creating -- or allowing to continue -- outweighing any benefits associated with these recruiting tours."