What are the pros and cons of an "Early Signing" day?

[MNSpaniel]

The early signing period would be nice for coaches and schools. However, I think with the way coaches move around at the end of the season it could negatively impact the recruit. Yes, you should be picking the school for your future/academic interest .... but the coach is a main reason they go to a certain school. All of a sudden the coach is successful and he is no longer at your school. You could be a total drop back QB and fit in perfectly to one system. Then a new coach comes in and operates a system in which the QB is highly involved in the running game. You either transfer or end up on the bench your whole career.

 

[Buck_Buchanan]

There are certainly ways in which football recruiting could certainly be modified.

 

[MNSpaniel]

An example brought up before is Bill O'Brien from Penn State. Up until two days before he signed his contract with Houston he was telling recruits to ignore the rumors and that he was staying at Penn State. I think the players need some insurance and rights as well as the coach. I think if they ever did an early signing period that the player should be able to opt out if the coach that signs him leaves before he ever gets a chance to enroll in the school.

 

[GoUgophers]

They have to come up with an early signing period, and quick. The amount of de-commits or kids continuing to look around after making a verbal commitment is just staggering and has reached ludicrous proportions. It effects all teams and coaching staffs. Not only do you have to worry about attracting new recruits all the time, but you are spending MONTHS babysitting kids that have already verballed to you. It's just stupid, and I don't understand why every single coach in America isn't in favor of an early signing period.

That being said, the negatives: just about every school can benefit from late flips from other schools. Most teams will lose a few, but also gain more than they're share over time. It probably all balances out in the end. In terms of coaches leaving, players don't HAVE to sign during the early period. That will just be an option for them to consider. You would still have the later period in February for those worried about coaches moving or who have not completely made up their minds yet.

But at the end of the day, coaches move around all the time and it's just dumb to hold the entire recruiting calendar hostage due to that fact. What happens if a coach leaves when the kid is a sophomore? Should we allow free transfers to any player at a school that experiences a coaching change? Of course not, they're just part of the game.

 

[WolfontheProwl]

When would it be? I have heard in the past it would be early august which for the Gophers would mean little. If the early signing period was in mid October maybe it would be better.

 

[GophersInIowa]

An example brought up before is Bill O'Brien from Penn State. Up until two days before he signed his contract with Houston he was telling recruits to ignore the rumors and that he was staying at Penn State. I think the players need some insurance and rights as well as the coach. I think if they ever did an early signing period that the player should be able to opt out if the coach that signs him leaves before he ever gets a chance to enroll in the school.

They do that in basketball already and I would think that would be the case in football as well. Just this year Alvin Ellis was let out of his LOI when Tubby was fired.

 

[Gopherprof]

An early signing period would hurt the Gophers more than it would help us. Just this year we'd have lost at the very least two guys who we've flipped from MAC schools. Would Melvin Holland have waited to get his offer? Or Campbell, Celestein and Rasmussen? That's six guys who have received offers in the last two months.

What we personally really need, which Coach Kill has talked about a lot, is to allow kids to officially visit or attend camps in their junior years on our dime. There aren't going to be many kids living in the Deep South who have the money to drive or fly up to Minnesota, especially if they have comparable offers close to home.

Fix that and maybe an early signing date would make sense for us. As is, we need all the time we can get. The fact that kids are verballing more and more in their junior years is not a good development for schools like us, Nebraska, Iowa, etc.

 

[GoUgophers]

An early signing period would hurt the Gophers more than it would help us. Just this year we'd have lost at the very least two guys who we've flipped from MAC schools. Would Melvin Holland have waited to get his offer? Or Campbell, Celestein and Rasmussen? That's six guys who have received offers in the last two months.

What we personally really need, which Coach Kill has talked about a lot, is to allow kids to officially visit or attend camps in their junior years on our dime. There aren't going to be many kids living in the Deep South who have the money to drive or fly up to Minnesota, especially if they have comparable offers close to home.

Fix that and maybe an early signing date would make sense for us. As is, we need all the time we can get. The fact that kids are verballing more and more in their junior years is not a good development for schools like us, Nebraska, Iowa, etc.

I thought they had already made the change to allow juniors to visit?

You're definitely wrong about the last part, though. Iowa is doing just fine with the new sped-up process. Their class has been basically full by October in each of the last 2 cycles.

 

[Gopherprof]

They are allowed to visit but they have to pay for it themselves.

And Iowa is doing just fine? I mean...I guess. Iowa has never been terribly reliant on the South, so maybe that's not the best example, but pretty much any school that isn't within driving distance of a major recruiting area is going to be against locking up prospects early (or at least they should). It gives the schools in the south a major advantage on top of the ones they already have.

 

[GoUgophers]

They are allowed to visit but they have to pay for it themselves.

And Iowa is doing just fine? I mean...I guess. Iowa has never been terribly reliant on the South, so maybe that's not the best example, but pretty much any school that isn't within driving distance of a major recruiting area is going to be against locking up prospects early (or at least they should). It gives the schools in the south a major advantage on top of the ones they already have.

I don't even understand the argument that you're trying to make here.

There are football prospects all over the country, not just in the South. Schools like OSU and Michigan have no problem piling up the juniors. The vast majority of the B1G have had little to no problem adapting to the new recruiting paradigm vis a vis earlier commitments.

I will admit that I have little specific knowledge of the Gophers particular situation, but it's not bothering a school like Iowa one bit. It's actually fairly beneficial as they need to expend much less energy during the actual season worrying about attracting new prospects for the current class.

The problem, as this thread was designed to address, is you then need an early signing period to actually get these guys locked up so you can stop worrying that they'll decommit in January or February after they've verballed in July or August.

 

[Gopherprof]

I don't even understand the argument that you're trying to make here.

Clearly.

There are football prospects all over the country, not just in the South. Schools like OSU and Michigan have no problem piling up the juniors. The vast majority of the B1G have had little to no problem adapting to the new recruiting paradigm vis a vis earlier commitments.

1) No there aren't. The vast majority of the top division 1 football talent comes from about 8-12 states. (Florida, Texas, Cali, Ohio, Penn, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Virginia, North Carolina, Illinois, Michigan-- and even then Florida/Texas/Cali dominates the other states combined). If you aren't in or very near one of those states, you're at a major disadvantage.

2) No they haven't. Ohio State and Michigan have adapted well. That's it. How many top 250 players have committed to a B1G program not named Ohio State or Michigan this year? Go ahead...I'll wait. (Ok I didn't wait. The answer is 13, and of those 12 came from within the B1G footprint)

Iowa has adapted very well? They have zero 4-star players. Great job?

If you think the B1G isn't at a big structural disadvantage when it comes to recruiting you haven't been paying attention for the last 15 years.

 

[corcoran1]

Given how much the transfer rules have loosened up, I think you can count on any early signing day giving players analvin Eliis when automatic release if the coach leaves whether by resigning or getting fired. That is basically what is going on a lot of the time now for example Alvin Ellis when Tubby got fired.

 

[MNSpaniel]

Can't remember who I was listening to while I was driving down the road but they were talking about an early signing period. The one guy thought it would actually favor the power schools. He said those schools would sign a high number of good kids early. Then they could really focus on specific needs and players. He thought this would actually help them be more of an elite school than they were already.

I think the exception would be if your coaches were very adept at finding diamonds in the rough.

 

[GoUgophers]

Clearly.


1) No there aren't. The vast majority of the top division 1 football talent comes from about 8-12 states. (Florida, Texas, Cali, Ohio, Penn, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Virginia, North Carolina, Illinois, Michigan-- and even then Florida/Texas/Cali dominates the other states combined). If you aren't in or very near one of those states, you're at a major disadvantage.

2) No they haven't. Ohio State and Michigan have adapted well. That's it. How many top 250 players have committed to a B1G program not named Ohio State or Michigan this year? Go ahead...I'll wait. (Ok I didn't wait. The answer is 13, and of those 12 came from within the B1G footprint)

Iowa has adapted very well? They have zero 4-star players. Great job?

If you think the B1G isn't at a big structural disadvantage when it comes to recruiting you haven't been paying attention for the last 15 years.

Way to completely change the premise of the thread. You clearly lack the basic intelligence to carry out a coherent argument.

I never said that Iowa was doing well pulling in highly ranked prospects. They have never done that very well. What they have excelled at recently is pulling in EARLY COMMITMENTS, which is the entire point of this thread, genius.

As far as the states that you mentioned, Iowa has very few players from their roster from any of them except for Illinois, and just want 8-4 and played in a major New Year's Day bowl game. You also listed several traditional B1G states, which completely contradicts your earlier point that only warm weather locations near the SEC produce quality players.

In short, you are all over the map here, and not very intelligent to begin with. So congratulations on that.

 

[Gopherprof]

Way to completely change the premise of the thread. You clearly lack the basic intelligence to carry out a coherent argument.

Haha...ok tough guy.

I never said that Iowa was doing well pulling in highly ranked prospects. They have never done that very well. What they have excelled at recently is pulling in EARLY COMMITMENTS, which is the entire point of this thread, genius.

Anyone could do well pulling in early commitments if you're offering kids that nobody else really wants. Who cares?

The premise of the argument is that an early signing period benefits the biggest programs who have the earliest access to the top recruits (who primarily live in the South, California, and to a lesser degree certain states in the Midwest).

Honestly, what I said isn't even remotely controversial or arguable. Everyone knows this. Hell, Coach Kill has spoken extensively about how they are hurt by the fact that more and more kids are committing as juniors before they have a chance to get them up to Minnesota. You really have no point at all, which is why you're resorting to your petty little shots (which are unoriginal and lame, btw).


Also, are you an Iowa fan or something? I mean....it's really weird to run into an Iowa defender named "GoUgophers", but you're weirdly defensive about this. Iowa is very good at turning mediocre high school prospects into quality college players. That has given them a pretty strong run as an above-average program. But that's it. They aren't a top program, and the absolute #1 far and away reason why is because they are so geographically isolated from the major recruiting areas in the country, bringing us back to my completely obvious and not-at-all controversial point.

And a good day to you, sir.


Oh...and Iowa didn't go 8-4. They went 8-5, capped by a loss to the much more talented LSU Tigers.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I realize this will be a very contrary view on this board, but I'm really starting to dislike the entire recruiting process. I think I liked it better back in the 60's and 70's when we really didn't know who teams were recruiting, and we didn't have to go through this ridiculous cycle of "verbal" commitments, followed by de-commitments, and then the frenzy of speculation leading up to signing day.

A verbal commitment means nothing. The only thing that matters is when letters of intent are sent in on signing day. Anything before that is just B-S and rumor-mongering.

 

[imthewalrus]

I realize this will be a very contrary view on this board, but I'm really starting to dislike the entire recruiting process. I think I liked it better back in the 60's and 70's when we really didn't know who teams were recruiting, and we didn't have to go through this ridiculous cycle of "verbal" commitments, followed by de-commitments, and then the frenzy of speculation leading up to signing day.

A verbal commitment means nothing. The only thing that matters is when letters of intent are sent in on signing day. Anything before that is just B-S and rumor-mongering.

For many of the GopherHole types the "fantasy recruiting" game is much more important than the actual football season. The games come...and the games go...BUT...the fantasy recruiting season is ALWAYS going on. To them, fantasy recruiting is the alpha and the omega.

I'd agree with your take. Give me the Conference Football games! I wish the Gophers played EVERY team in the conference EVERY year. Skip the ooc games. I'll take a bowl game at the end of the year...and then let it all end until the season starts again the next season. All this recruiting stuff is so out of hand. It's kind of like the coaching salaries. Every year a new round of inflation starts when the hiring and firing season begins at the end of the year.

Between the outrageous recruiting budgets and butt kissing of potential recruits, AND the multi-million dollar coaching salaries: college football is becoming more and more "not worth it..." Eventually, it will collapse under it's own excesses...and that day may be closer than some people think.

 

[dpodoll68]

college football is becoming more and more "not worth it..." and that day may be closer than some people think

Can that day for you be today? Please?

 

[imthewalrus]

Can that day for you be today? Please?

The day after you "go bang" and whimper away just may be the day dopodoll! Hang on to fantasy high school football recruiting all you want. Raise the salary of the Coach some more. Extend him until you want his replacement to be hired.

Excesses will exist until they can exist no longer.

I will last one day beyond the bitter end of all of the excesses so I can say: "...I told you so..."

 

[Dr.Don]

Look, guys. Wren has a lot of points to make. It is too bad no one gets them.

 

[RodentRampage]

This is the time of year where the subject is recruiting. Later on, the subject will be sprint practice followed by the spring game. Then it will be a summer of speculation about the upcoming season, followed by talk of the actual games. After that will come discussion of upcoming bowl games, watching the bowl games, followed by discussion of the results of the games. After that, recruiting is again the subject. If you are bothered by discussion of recruiting, you might want to consider doing something else at this time of year.

If recruiting bothers you so very much, there is a wide variety of MIAC teams to choose from where recruiting won't be such a big subject. But even the MIAC teams recruit, and I don't think they are going to stop recruiting just to please you. Recruiting isn't "fantasy" - calling it that is saying that it is impossible to evaluate talent. If that is the case, then teams should get random students to play.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

An early signing period would hurt the Gophers more than it would help us. Just this year we'd have lost at the very least two guys who we've flipped from MAC schools. Would Melvin Holland have waited to get his offer? Or Campbell, Celestein and Rasmussen? That's six guys who have received offers in the last two months.

What we personally really need, which Coach Kill has talked about a lot, is to allow kids to officially visit or attend camps in their junior years on our dime. There aren't going to be many kids living in the Deep South who have the money to drive or fly up to Minnesota, especially if they have comparable offers close to home.

Fix that and maybe an early signing date would make sense for us. As is, we need all the time we can get. The fact that kids are verballing more and more in their junior years is not a good development for schools like us, Nebraska, Iowa, etc.

I think players committed to FCS schools would sign early, but you would see MAC, C-USA, etc schools with hardly any signees. Unlike BB, where there is a national off-season league, FB players depend on their HS seasons to get good offers. Those MAC players would wait until after they play their sr. year to see if the better offers come.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

This is the time of year where the subject is recruiting. Later on, the subject will be sprint practice followed by the spring game. Then it will be a summer of speculation about the upcoming season, followed by talk of the actual games. After that will come discussion of upcoming bowl games, watching the bowl games, followed by discussion of the results of the games. After that, recruiting is again the subject. If you are bothered by discussion of recruiting, you might want to consider doing something else at this time of year.

If recruiting bothers you so very much, there is a wide variety of MIAC teams to choose from where recruiting won't be such a big subject. But even the MIAC teams recruit, and I don't think they are going to stop recruiting just to please you. Recruiting isn't "fantasy" - calling it that is saying that it is impossible to evaluate talent. If that is the case, then teams should get random students to play.

What I'm trying to say is that I miss the "simpler" era when recruiting did not get covered 24/7. As I get older, I find myself becoming more nostalgic for that time before the internet, twitter, facebook, etc - when you could be surprised by some freshman or sophomore who seemingly came out of nowhere to become a key player for your team. Today, there are no surprises.

I know you can't turn back the clock, but part of me just misses that era - when some kid you never heard of had a big game, and everyone wondered "who is this kid and where is he from?"

And, a related thought - these kids get built up so much during the recruiting hype, that we now have sophomores being declared as flops or failures, because they didn't measure up to what some website projected them to be. There's almost no room anymore for a "late bloomer" - the kid who never gets to play until his senior year, then surprises everyone by making a key play to help win a game.

Chalk it up to another old f**t waxing nostalgic for the "good old days."

 

[50PoundHead]

I'm in agreement with S.O.N (too lazy to type) and (gasp) wren (just kidding my friend).

I really enjoy reading about possible recruits and conjecture can be fun, but I think the whole process has gotten goofy. I'm all for the kids in the process and I don't think an early signing day helps them at all. At the same time, I worry that this whole process puts kids on a pedestal and in some sense gives them a sense of entitlement that doesn't really help them develop as people.

But as to the original post, I just don't think an early signing day is in the best interest of the kid.

 

[BarnBoy]

I think I liked it better back in the 60's and 70's when we really didn't know who teams were recruiting, and we didn't have to go through this ridiculous cycle of "verbal" commitments, followed by de-commitments, and then the frenzy of speculation leading up to signing day.

I agree with you, but it can also be argued that our participation in this ridiculous cycle is voluntary. The only real place the frenzy is covered is on the recruiting websites and in the "all things" and "2014 recruiting" threads. Stay out of those traps and it will be just like 1974.

 

[Jeshurun]

I realize this will be a very contrary view on this board, but I'm really starting to dislike the entire recruiting process. I think I liked it better back in the 60's and 70's when we really didn't know who teams were recruiting, and we didn't have to go through this ridiculous cycle of "verbal" commitments, followed by de-commitments, and then the frenzy of speculation leading up to signing day.

A verbal commitment means nothing. The only thing that matters is when letters of intent are sent in on signing day. Anything before that is just B-S and rumor-mongering.

I totally get what you're saying, but I'd be lying if I said I don't enjoy the constant soap opera that is the recruiting landscape. It's entertaining. Gives us something to talk about in the offseason. Speculation is fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk