Early signing period

[clenz]

Good idea or not?

[Professor Chaos]

It's a good question.

I used to be of the opinion that it would definitely be a good thing because kids who wanted to completely turn off all the recruiting noise around them could do it by signing before their senior season in high school even starts. However, I'm not as sure as I used to be after hearing the opinions of some of the guys who cover or follow NDSU recruiting very closely because they point out that this will put even more pressure on a 17 year old kid to decide before he's really ready. That said, I'd still be in favor of it in the end.

I don't think it'll ever happen though just because the P5 fat cats at the top of the recruiting food chain don't want it to happen and they steer the boat when it comes to recruiting (and most other things involving college athletics).

[BisonTru]

I'm not a fan. I think the early signing period would become the new norm.

[FUBeAR]

Good idea or not?

Yes - with the ability to immediately sign upon offer (and 'offer' is not FIRM until signed) with an until-graduation/up to 5 year obligation by the school contingent upon SA's maintaining academic standing, HS graduation, acceptance by the school, and no behavioral issues (in school and/or legal). Rescindable only by mutual agreement prior to enrollment/start of practice. Take the waffling out of both sides. Probably leaving out a few things (injury exceptions of some nature and taking into account impact of those on # of scholarships)...but this is the basis of what needs to happen - ensure both sides have a balanced obligation and honor their commitments.

Bunch of smart folks ought to be able to figure it out. What's happening now is not good for schools, not good for kids, not good for reputation of College Football - needs to change.

[clenz]

I'm not a fan. I think the early signing period would become the new norm.

Why would that be a bad thing? Interesting thought, though

[clenz]

Yes - with the ability to immediately sign upon offer (and 'offer' is not FIRM until signed) with an until-graduation/up to 5 year obligation by the school contingent upon SA's maintaining academic standing, HS graduation, acceptance by the school, and no behavioral issues (in school and/or legal). Rescindable only by mutual agreement prior to enrollment/start of practice. Take the waffling out of both sides. Probably leaving out a few things (injury exceptions of some nature and taking into account impact of those on # of scholarships)...but this is the basis of what needs to happen - ensure both sides have a balanced obligation and honor their commitments.

Bunch of smart folks ought to be able to figure it out. What's happening now is not good for schools, not good for kids, not good for reputation of College Football - needs to change.

I like this post

I wish I was on a computer to better be able to post what I want. This hits most of it.

[BisonTru]

Why would that be a bad thing? Interesting thought, though

I don't think we need to add any more pressure to these kids to commit that early. You know there would be the thought maybe even provoked by the recruiter if you don't accept someone else will and the offer may not be there anymore.

[clenz]

I don't think we need to add any more pressure to these kids to commit that early. You know there would be the thought maybe even provoked by the recruiter if you don't accept someone else will and the offer may not be there anymore.

You do realize how much that already happens, right?

It's why there are people committing one place and then a week later flipping

NDSU just grabbed a kid away from Missouri State that just committed there last week

I'd argue it would curtail over recruiting and late flips that really could hurt recruiting and position depth at schools

[IBleedYellow]

I want a system that is better for the KIDS.

Once they sign that letter, they are pretty much stuck for all intents and purposes. Fix it for them, allowing them more options is better, in my mind.

[BisonTru]

You do realize how much that already happens, right?

It's why there are people committing one place and then a week later flipping

NDSU just grabbed a kid away from Missouri State that just committed there last week

I'd argue it would curtail over recruiting and late flips that really could hurt recruiting and position depth at schools

I realize that. To me this would just push the whole process up. I don't see any reason to push these kids to make a decision before the start of their senior year. I understand kids already feel the pressure to commit early, but I don't see any reason to add an early signing period to encourage that.

If like Fubear stated they universities made a four to five year commitment to the kid I would be more on board, but still I'd prefer to give the kids till mid way through their senior year to change their minds.

[clenz]

So, a December period?

[Thumper 76]

I want a system that is better for the KIDS.

Once they sign that letter, they are pretty much stuck for all intents and purposes. Fix it for them, allowing them more options is better, in my mind.

Kids change their minds a lot as they go, especially in high school. This would lead to a lot more transfers after the first year IMO just creating more of a headache for all parties down the line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BisonTru]

So, a December period?

No, I would advocate for a dead period during the whole post season (playoffs), tho. :)

It doesn't matter where you put the signing date even if you just call it an early signing date that will become the deadline for these kids to make a decision. Hell, kids don't have to sign on the first day, but for the most part it's **** or get off the pot.

[Bisonator]

I think it's a good idea. If a kid wants to commit and get rid of the recruiting circus he should have that opportunity.

[lionsrking2]

In theory I'm for it, but the reasons against it are sound. Obviously, if a young man knows exactly where he wants to go and is 100% committed, I don't see a problem with letting him sign an early letter of intent. However, having an early signing period, with a deadline, often puts pressure on kids with fewer offers to make hasty decisions while they're still playing, plus there's the issue of coaching changes which usually happen after the season is over. A kid commits and signs with a school in October or November, only to see that coach get fired or jump ship in December. The other factor is the stress it would put on FCS coaching staffs, who don't have the resources that bigger schools have to identify early in the process. There's certainly a benefit to the FCS school who gets on an unknown kid early and secures an LOI before he blows up, but not sure that outweighs the negatives.

What I do think should happen is instead of an early signing period, simply allow a process for kids who are 100% committed to petition the NCAA to sign an early LOI if they are ready. That way, there's no pressure to make a decision, but still allows an avenue for a kid to officially end the recruiting process.

[FUBeAR]

Kids SHOULD put as much 'stock' in committing to a certain school because of a certain coach as they should a uniform vendor or sports drink provider. The commitment should be the kid to the school and school to the kid. That's it. Coach leaves, so you want to change - too bad - you committed to the school. New Coach doesn't want you - too bad for him. You committed to the school. Both of you don't want each other. OK - mutual decision to rescind. He can go find another kid and you can go find another school. School X signed 3 QB's and I play QB - I want to change - too bad...unless Coach doesn't want you (remember, he's restricted by numbers), then we can mutually rescind.

Set the 1st offer date AND, therefore, signing date whenever you want - 1st day of classes FR Year in HS or January 1 of SR Year in HS - Whatever those smart folks decide is right for the kids and (to a lesser extent - idealistically speaking) the schools.

I'm sure there are many 'issues' that need to be resolved, but as long it's done so there is balanced integrity (is it OK to use the "i" word when discussing College Football Recruiting?), then those issues can be resolved. What's happening now is a game that is a combination of Multi-Level Musical Chairs & Liars Poker....Might be a fun game, actually, but these are 40 year decisions for these kids and the livelihoods for these Coaches and their families...and right now - everyone is at risk of getting screwed (screwed, in a bad way - not talking about Louisville Hoops Recruits here) and both sides are NOT playing nice.

[centennial]

You do realize how much that already happens, right?

It's why there are people committing one place and then a week later flipping

NDSU just grabbed a kid away from Missouri State that just committed there last week

I'd argue it would curtail over recruiting and late flips that really could hurt recruiting and position depth at schools
And other schools have grabbed our players including Iowa, and Minnesota if I remember correctly. Like mentioned in this thread the P5 would never allow it. G5 and FCS are just in it for the ride.