ICYMI last week, the NCAA made a decision to ban schools from setting up satellite camps. In a nutshell, schools will now be forced to hold all camps and clinics on their own campus instead of setting up shop at different parts of the country to evaluate kids.
As with any controversial issue, there are people on both sides of the fence. Many players are opposed to such bans since it will now force some to travel further away from home and in theory, you can say that they will miss out on some opportunities. The reaction from coaches has been mixed and Pitt's Pat Narduzzi weighed in recently via ESPN, saying he is in favor of the ban:
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."
Narduzzi wasn't alone as fellow ACC coaches Jimbo Fisher (Florida State) and(Georgia Tech), the two other ACC coaches cited in ESPN's article, were both in favor of the ban as well. Fisher, in particular, said the camps had 'opened up Pandora's box.' James Franklin from across the state (who is fine with the ban) delivered a coherent thought in that everybody has to play by the same rules. By banning all satellite camps, this seems to accomplish that. He also echoed similar thoughts to Narduzzi's in that coaches need to be able to spend more time on campus with their own players.
The opposing side (and you can read that ESPN article for plenty of coaches opposed to the ban) argues that the players are the ones who will suffer here as the ones without the means to travel as much won't be able to get as much exposure. Of course that makes a world of sense and if the NCAA's ultimate goal is to serve the players, you can easily argue that this makes things more difficult for them.
Again, there are two sides to every issue. I don't think there's much question that this hurts the kids to some degree and if the kids are the focal point, I think it's very easy to be against the ban. But as Narduzzi alludes to, while it hurts players being recruited, the satellite camps also hurt the players already on campus with their coaches traveling and not around for them as much as they'd probably like. I also believe that the more you allow things like satellite camps, you create bigger disadvantages against certain schools that can't/won't set up camps all over the place.
Just no easy answer here.