Coaches would like changes in recruiting

[BigRedBuster]

There is a lot I would love to see changed. Here are some interesting ideas from the coaches.

 

LINK

 

Imagine how recruiting would change if these rules were implemented.

 

a) Only commitable offers are allowed.

 

b) A recruit can sign anytime he wants after an official offer has been made and a one week cooling off period has gone by.

 

c) Official visits can be any time after May 1st before their senior year with a dead period in late June or early July to allow coaches some time off.

 

Immagine how many fewer offers a place like Alabama, Texas, USC, LSU...etc. would be sending out. Imagine the different attitude of players if they knew if they are offered, the coach REALLY wants them and isn't waiting to see if someone else signs. I think it would put a screeching halt on offering kids at ridiculously young ages and naturally, it would allow both the schools and the players to evaluate each.

 

Now, even with a week long cooling off period, I think this possibly would open up ways a coach can strong arm someone. Hey...walk in and plop $10,000 on the kitchen table with an offer sheet. Wait a week and that fax would be buzzing with the commitment (at least with some players.) On the other hand, if a coach like Saben does that too early, he possibly is going to have a commitment of a player that he ultimately doesn't want. Also, if he DOESN'T offer the player he really wants, that player might sign with someone else.

 

It really would make it very different.

[HUSKER FREAK]

It would make recruiting for us easier no doubt. But I think it would be a lot better on the student athlete morally. If your peers are constantly lying and deceiving people than what is that teaching them. Not saying it would stop that all together but it sure would help.

[kchusker_chris]

We offer more kids than almost any other program. I'm wondering if it wouldn't make recruiting more difficult for NU. It would create cycles of offers. Each cycle is based on the level of the recruit. Your first cycle would be for your top 250. Alabama couldn't offer a 3* until they knew where they stood with the top of their board. Nebraska would either have to participate in that first cycle, or drop down a notch or two and try to snatch up some of those lower rated players before the big boys moved on to their second cycle. Kids would commit quicker, because an offer likely has an expiration on it. You couldn't expect a school to make an offer in May, wait until January and then be forced to fulfill the offer. It'd be something like 2-3 weeks probably, putting more pressure on the recruits to commit quickly too...likely leading to more uncommitts. So the word "commit" would essentially have to vanish. You're either singed or you aren't. And you're signing without evaluating to beat the expiration date. Transfers would likely increase, which might benefit Nebraska though.

 

 

I think a lot of these changes have more to do w/ the time required of a coach to recruit these days. Coaches are 50% recruiters, 50% coaches. They want that to shift back to coaching. I agree w/ that. To me the better solution is to allow recruiting teams that can travel, evaluate, pitch a school, etc. That creates a bigger show, bigger industry, etc - but couple that with early signing and I think some of it goes away.

[HUSKER FREAK]

I see what you are saying and kinda agree, but if Alabama Texass etc. are not able to hand out non-committable offers then those kids will be searching else where and would help get some of these kids up here sooner. Also, it would help with accepting an offer to later just tell the kid there isn't room for you any more which would also help us.

[BigRedBuster]

If this would be implemented, I think you would see a new category of recruits form. Something like a "player of interest". This would be a kid who the program really thinks they want and they have visited and formed a relationship with. So, they offer the kid to come for an official visit. BUT, they can't actually put out an offer because they aren't quite ready to accept their signed offer yet. It would be an interesting relationship.

 

Another interesting part is the number of offers would become a fraction of what they currently are. Let's say a program has 22 scholarships to give out that year and of those, they want 5 O linemen. Well, they can't really go out and offer 30 O linemen hoping they sign because what happens if all of a sudden they have 18 of those fax in their signed offer all at once? It could potentially really screw a program over.

 

I honestly think these proposals would change recruiting so much that the SEC and schools like Alabama, LSU, Texas, USC...etc would NEVER go for them so they won't change.

[Stumpy1]

^^^Spot on...I wouldn't mind seeing a rule enforced that states if a player commits, he is bound to that commitment and if he de-commits, he loses a years worth of eligibility right off the start, before even stepping foot on campus. If he makes it to campus, he has to stay till his sophomore year before transferring. Another part of the rule would be if a kid commits and the school pulls the offer to give to another kid, the kid is allowed to go to another school but the school that pulls the offer will lose that scholarship for 2 yrs.

[Mavric]

Fitzgerald with a very similar line of thinking

[kchusker_chris]

Fitzgerald with a very similar line of thinking

 

good article until they tried to blast him at the end for not taking a "pro-change" stance on unionization. f'in new yorker media...