Satellite Camp ban overturned, 11of 12 Pac-12 Coaches did not want ban

Pac-12 coaches spoke up about the Satellite Camp ban along with others around the country; the vote didn’t go as planned, but today the ban was lifted!

Coaches in the Pac-12 were not happy about the vote on Satellite camps being banned by the NCAA. On Tuesday, coaches from the Pac-12 addressed how they felt about the situation. The ‘situation’ from an outsiders point of view seems simple, but when you start to dig in, it becomes a little more complicated. Representatives from the Pac-12 were ready to vocalize their opposition to the ban at the National Football Coaches Conference in Phoenix, but now they won’t need to since the ban has been lifted.

More from Zona Zealots

• By the Numbers: Breaking down the Arizona Football win
• Arizona Football overcomes injuries, rallies to beat Stanford
• The Keys to an Arizona Football win over Stanford
• Last-Minute Game Information: Arizona Football vs Stanford
• CFB Promos: Bet $15 on Any Game, Win $400 in Bonus Bets!

Plain and simple, the initial ban happened three weeks ago. News organizations all over the country were reporting that there was a new rule in place, voted in by the NCAA. Starting immediately, satellite camps were banned for everyone. It seemed like the NCAA possibly ambushed conference representatives with the vote. One person from each conference votes and the vote resulted in favor of the ban in the NCAA.

Most of the sportscasters and Pac-12 coaches agreed that it hurts the less fortunate athlete, and benefits big schools in places where there is a plethora of talent, like Texas, California or Florida.

A satellite camp, for those that don’t know, is a camp held away from campus. Local athletes from that area can showcase their skills, and possibly receive more recruiting exposure.  We asked recruiting expert Brad Allis to enlighten us on these camps, “Satellite camps are either school camps conducted off campus or coaches working other camps off campus. Teams sometimes work together to put on camps.”

Most coaches like the camps; it reduces travel, and they can just go to these camps and essentially makes their recruiting strategies more efficient.  It’s kind of like AAU basketball for football. Tournaments held in Vegas, for example, are held so college coaches can come and observe talent in one location, ultimately saving time and money.

Arizona Football head coach Rich Rodriguez clearly was trying to be politically correct, but wanted to make sure we knew his position. He appeared to be unhappy about how it all went down. Arizona coaches and outlying Pac-12 schools like Washington State rely on these camps to lure away So Cal talent to their school.

Coach Rodriguez was asked by Ted Miller of ESPN about the ‘broo ha ha’  regarding the vote for the ban:

“The quick, sudden ban on satellite camps. It’s like, one of these deals like, here we go again, a rule is passed without a whole lot of input from coaches, or its seems like not without a whole lot of input from coaches and what our opinion is as a group. And so the sudden swiftness or overturn of a new rule seems to come up every spring. Hopefully, we will get that corrected in the future.”

Washington State Head Coach Mike Leach (known for being outlandish), shed a more lighthearted perspective on what went down, but he doesn’t tell us who the sole school in the Pac-12 was who voted to ban the camps. Most of the camps for the Pac-12 take place in Southern California, so you can just imagine which school it was…our guess is: UCLA?

Here’s what Mike Leach had to say, in a little more detail:

“First of all, let’s be clear, the Pac-12, among their schools, 11 of them have already voted to have satellite camps. And that parts indisputable, okay? Now sadly, we failed to place a vote in the wishes of our schools, so this conference is overwhelmingly for satellite camps, just so there is no confusion. As a conference, we are obligated to do everything we can do to restore it on behalf of the schools involved.

I think everybody would benefit. Because the mission of higher education in division one schools is to provide opportunities and the more opportunities, the better it is for everybody. I mean if you are a low-income person, a low-income family, that is qualified and skilled enough to be a division one college football player, and you have the opportunity to get discovered whether through a satellite camp or any means. It does nothing but one help better-fy your life and two, help build the product of college football which in the end helps everybody.

And I can’t fathom any school would be against satellite camps although I think it’s clear that one school is. And the only reason they could possibly be against satellite camps is for some selfish motivation of locking other schools out of the opportunity to see their players.

But you know, every school that’s against satellite camps needs to take comfort in the fact that one, you wouldn’t be against them if you weren’t already in a pretty good recruiting area. And, two, take comfort in the fact that you can only sign 25 of them, and you are still going to be situated in a fashion to get the pick of the litter providing you have something to offer, and your motivations are sincere with regards to helping people become the best players they possibly can.”

Leach made sure we knew that his school is unique, and there are non-stop flights to get to Pullman, but not every athlete can afford the flight to come to see him, and thinks that the Pac-12 should provide this opportunity to these athletes.

It’s obvious he hoped the decision would be reversed, but he wasn’t sure it was going to happen. The first decision seemed to happen behind the scenes; some schools didn’t even know there was a vote. Leach felt the vote was an ambush, and the ban would be overturned since the camps have been going on for ten years, and NCAA football is ‘a national sport’ that deserves national recruiting.

It just so happens that Conference Commissioner Larry Scott sent a UCLA representative for the initial vote, Athletic Director Dan Guerrero. Guerrero voted for the ban, then tried to explain what happened (see next slide) and why his vote wasn’t necessarily for the ban. If 11 of the 12 Pac-12 schools were in favor of Satellite Camps, wouldn’t you think that the Pac-12 would back the majority opinion rather than allow the opposite to happen?

Leach felt he would skip the discussions in Phoenix with all the football coaches, and instead stay at home if there was no hope for a lift of the ban. He made a joking reference to the one school who voted for the ban being close to ‘Mickey Mouse.’ Again, you can assume the outlying school in the Pac-12 vote was UCLA.

There in lies the rub.

As luck would have it, both coaches got what they wanted; the ban was lifted this morning! We can surmise that all Pac-12 coaches, except UCLA coach Mora, are ecstatic. Arizona Coach Rod and Matt Dudek were quick to comment.

Next: UCLA Chancellor Dan Guerrero's explanation on his vote

Message from the Pac-12 and their representative UCLA Chancellor Dan Guerrero:

Dear Pac-12 Council Colleagues-

As many of you know, we have received inquiries, both internally and externally, related to our conference position on NCAA legislation as it relates to “satellite Football camps,” considering our Pac-12 Council position against banning (i.e., and instead “tabling”) such events.

To that end, see below for a note from our NCAA Council rep, Dan Guerrero, explaining how the voting went down at the NCAA Council meeting last week.

Take care,
Jamie

(Note to Pac-12 Council from Dan Guerrero)

Dear Pac-12 colleagues,

Recognizing the inquiries made to the Pac-12 Conference office about the decision rendered at NCAA Division 1 Council meeting this past week to pass Proposal 2015-59, ending  “satellite camps”, I thought it best to convey my rationale for voting to support this piece of legislation.  Prior to these meetings, I had extensive conversations with Pac-12 representatives in regard to the Conference’s position on a number of legislative proposals – the “satellite camp” proposals included. With

a 0-11-1

vote cast by the Pac-12 Council, a vote to oppose proposals 2015-59 (sponsored by the ACC) and 2015-60, (sponsored by the SEC) was the charge with the ultimate goal to refer the legislation to the Football Oversight Committee (FOC).

Going into the meetings, it was the feeling of many members of the D1 Council that these proposals would be tabled at the request of the FOC, thereby rendering both of these proposals moot and keeping the current rule relative to “satellite camps” unchanged.  In fact, this was the preferred outcome by our Conference as indicated in the preparatory materials I received prior to the meeting.

When this did not happen, it was conveyed on the Council floor that the FOC was supportive of 2015-59 and/or 2015-60. Based on the subsequent discussion it appeared as though passage was imminent. Therefore, I made the call to support 2015-59, which was the preference of the two options.

Proposal 2015-59 was clearly preferable from a Pac-12 perspective because it is aligned with current Pac-12 legislation SPR 6-6(a) that limits institutional camps to the campus.  If 2015-60 had passed, other conferences would have had a more lenient camp rule than the Pac-12 . As such, avoiding that outcome became my top priority.

When my read of the situation was that 2015-59 was going to pass, regardless of a Pac-12 vote against, I voted in favor of this proposition as it was the more consistent of the two with current Pac-12 legislation.

Hopefully, this sheds some light on the process.

Thanks,
Director of Athletics, UCLA

Jamie Zaninovich
Deputy Commissioner/Chief Operating Officer
Pac-12

Umm..nope…oh well, it looks like he was voting for the lesser of two evils, both banning satellite camps. Or, it seems that he thought his vote didn’t matter because after all, it was going to a different committee.

Next: NFL Draft: Where there’s a Will there’s a way

Whatever the case, 11 coaches in the Pac-12 are smiling, we are assuming all except for those in Westwood.

ZonaZealots is still curious why Larry Scott sent a UCLA representative from the one school who voted for the ban to represent the 11 schools who didn’t want a ban. What do you think about this decision? Let us know in the comments below.