NCAA Considers Early Signing Period for Football

Donate To GopherHole

Hopefully the NCAA doesn't bow to the SEC and gets this done because football has needed this for quite some time. Give the kids that want to commit a chance to actually sign instead of this current system of worthless verbal commitments. Of course the SEC doesn't want this because it will make it impossible to poach recruits at the last minute when plan A and B fall through. This would be huge for the smaller schools and even places like the U to avoid losing guys late in the process when the big boys come calling.
 

" NCAAA Considers Early Signing Period for Football"

Is this a step up from the NCAA??? :)
 






I totally agree that flipping committed players has to very frustrating for college teams that spend enormous time and resources. All the energy that is sapped to keep in close contact with your committed players can be spend elsewhere. Great for the College, the coaches, the HS, and the players.

I think this will be great for the Gophers.
 

MNVCGUY said:
Hopefully the NCAA doesn't bow to the SEC and gets this done because football has needed this for quite some time. Give the kids that want to commit a chance to actually sign instead of this current system of worthless verbal commitments. Of course the SEC doesn't want this because it will make it impossible to poach recruits at the last minute when plan A and B fall through. This would be huge for the smaller schools and even places like the U to avoid losing guys late in the process when the big boys come calling.
Click to expand...

This would maybe hurt us more then help us, We wouldn't be getting guys like Isaiah Gentry and Jared Weyler anymore who we flipped from the smaller schools.
 



Early signing period doesn't mean a kid has to sign early, just that he can.
 







Maybe NCAAA is kinda like the ADAA: American Dodgeball Association of American.

NCAAA: National Collegiate Athletic Association of Athletics.
 

Stanford's David Shaw against early signing day

If the NCAA moves forward with an early signing period in college football, it will be staunchly opposed by Stanford coach David Shaw.

"I might be alone in this, I think it's terrible," Shaw said following the Cardinal's spring practice Saturday. "I think it's terrible. The reason [for an early signing period], in my opinion, is coaches don't like when kids commit and switch late."

http://espn.go.com/college-football...david-shaw-strongly-opposed-early-signing-day

Go Gophers!!
 

BleedGopher said:
Stanford's David Shaw against early signing day

If the NCAA moves forward with an early signing period in college football, it will be staunchly opposed by Stanford coach David Shaw.

"I might be alone in this, I think it's terrible," Shaw said following the Cardinal's spring practice Saturday. "I think it's terrible. The reason [for an early signing period], in my opinion, is coaches don't like when kids commit and switch late."

http://espn.go.com/college-football...david-shaw-strongly-opposed-early-signing-day

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Shaw is worried about Stanford, not about college football in general.

On top of that -- and I'll be honest here, which is rare for a football coach in a setting like this -- but we have a lot of kids that don't know if they're going to get into school until after that early signing day," Shaw said. "So we're going to punish the academic schools just because coaches don't want a kid to switch their commitment?

"People can make whatever argument they want, it boils down to that. ... Coaches don't want to keep recruiting an entire class all year."

Three players in Stanford's most recent recruiting class made verbal pledges to other major programs before their senior years. The trio of offensive linemen -- Casey Tucker (USC), Reilly Gibbons (Miami) and Jesse Burkett (Vanderbilt) -- all settled on the Cardinal in late January or early February..

The concept of an early signing signing period would create challenges at Stanford that other schools would be immune to due to its strict admissions process. Shaw said that fewer than half of the program's recent 20-man recruiting class was admitted to the university before November, and the final admission didn't occur until the weekend before signing day.

"That's a kid we never would have gotten because someone would have pressured him into forcing him to sign some place because they say, 'You don't know if you're getting into Stanford so you got to sign with us,' " Shaw said. "I don't think these kids should be pressured into decisions, and that's what this is all about."
 

I have a solution for Stanford - If you are worried about admissions, lower your admissions standards for athletes and you'll be fine like the rest of CFB world.
 

Brew chimes in:

Would you be in favor of an early signing period?

“I would. I think an early signing period would certainly clean up a lot of issues we have in recruiting with kids decommitting and committing, decommitting and committing three and four times. It has become a little bit of a farce – these early commitments and what they genuinely mean. It is unfortunate. One of the things we truly need to teach our children as they grow up is that your word needs to mean something.”

Hopefully an early signing date could help some of these kids with their decision, if they feel good about it. If that means you lose a really good player and another school gets him, then so be it. I think right now the process has kind of gone amuck a little bit. I think an early signing period could bring some clarity to what we are trying to accomplish in recruiting.”

http://247sports.com/Article/Tim-Brewster-says-relentless-recruiting-is-key-to-FSU-success-181733

Go Gophers!!
 

Of course an early signing period is a good idea. It's worked well for other collegiate sports, why not football? How much money will be saved by shortening the recruiting period?
 

What's going to happen is this:

Guys with major conference commitments will sign early. Guys with non-majors will wait to see if the majors bite.

No school in their right mind will sign 25 in the fall.
 

Mandel's take from SI:

Stewart, would you devote a few lines to the proposed early signing period? Why is it important? Who is for or against it? How does it help student-athletes, I mean, overpaid coaches? What if a player signs early and the whole coaching staff leaves (whether the head coach is fired or not) and the prospect is now stuck because he signed early?
-- Keith Walker, Grand Prairie, Texas

For one thing, there is no proposal yet. An early signing period in football has been bandied about for years, and an NCAA official quoted in an ESPN.com article said that college commissioners (who oversee the National Letter of Intent program) will likely revisit the topic in June. Since the article first appeared, reporters have been asking coaches about the subject, with many (including Notre Dame's Brian Kelly, Miami's Al Golden, Texas A&M's Kevin Sumlin and Florida State's Jimbo Fisher) supporting it, and others, most notably Stanford's David Shaw, opposing it. A particularly adamant Shaw called the idea "terrible." But even those in support of it are all over the map as to when, exactly, the earlier date should be. August? September? December?

I've long been in favor of an early signing day -- preferably before the school year begins -- and it seems more warranted than ever given today's accelerated recruiting cycle. For example, 60 percent of Ohio State's 2014 signees committed to the school before Sept. 1 of their senior year. Yet instead of letting those kids make it official, they were forced to go through five months of opposing coaches trying to flip them. Meanwhile, the Buckeyes' staff presumably spent an absurd amount of time and money flying around to ensure their commits knew they were still loved. "It's a waste of money, and it's a waste of time when we know that a guy is coming here," Sumlin told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Conversely, Shaw contends that moving the date up will pressure prospects to sign early when they may not be ready. That's certainly a possible consequence. He also has a Stanford-specific concern, which is that many of its recruits don't find out whether they've been admitted to the university until well after that date. "So we're going to punish the academic schools just because coaches don't want a kid to switch their commitment?" he asked.

Both are valid concerns. So, too, is the possibility that a late-bloomer who emerges in his senior year might miss out on better opportunities by signing early. But I still believe the pros outweigh the cons. Perhaps cap the number of players a school can sign in the early period (maybe at 10?) to reduce the pressure and negate possible imbalances, and include an opt-out clause if a coach is fired or changes jobs. Right now, most staffs are already honing in on prospects for the class of 2016. Most recruits go to camps at schools and take unofficial visits long before their senior years. (If an earlier signing date were in place, they would presumably also be allowed earlier official visits). Meanwhile, an ever-increasing number of early enrollees are already taking college classes a month before National Signing Day. It's time for the officially sanctioned recruiting calendar to start reflecting the actual recruiting calendar.


Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...sec-big-ten-recruiting-mailbag/#ixzz2vr3nuI3o
 

Most coaching hiring/firing occurs in November and December. No way would I sign an LOI before that.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom