Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mavric

Get Rid of National Signing Day

Recommended Posts

The more I thought about this over the last couple weeks - and watched all that went on - the more I think this is absolutely the way to go. There are a ton of reasons to get rid of it and I really can't come up with any reasons against it.

 

Really the only argument people can make against it is what if a recruit signs too early then changes his mind. I'm sure this will happen but this is more about learning life lessons than anything. And it's not like that couldn't happen now. The only caveat I'd put in there is the player is allowed to back out if the head coach leaves prior to some date - February 1 would be fine.

 

But it would eliminate so much of the craziness and borderline absurdity of what's going on now. Coaches wouldn't be throwing hundreds of offers out to everyone. Kids wouldn't have offers pulled at the last minute. Coaches wouldn't have to "baby-sit" the entire class right up to the last day. Kids wouldn't have to keep fending off other coaches once they've made their decision.

I really can't come up with a reason NOT to get rid of it.

 

And then this stuff starts to come to light and it just makes all the more sense:

 

During Jimbo Fisher’s National Signing Day Party Wednesday night, defensive ends coach Brad Lawing made some interesting comments during the portion of the event in which each coach takes the stage to talk about the newest Seminoles. When talking about Manuel, Lawing suggested that he knew the Florida commit was going to flip to FSU for two weeks, but told him to “just play the game” and to “tell them damn Gators what they want to hear” before flipping, according to the Palm Beach Post’s Tom D’Angelo.

 

Link

 

Bad enough when the kids are doing it. When opposing coaches are in on it, it's time to make drastic changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could live with an early signing date as well. But not in December - that gains basically nothing. Sometime in August so guys can get it out of the way before their season starts.

 

Of course, that would have to be tied to earlier OVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either of these two options would be a great improvement.

 

Conversely, if you look at college football and its ancillaries (CFB websites, etc) as an entertainment entity (which I do), then they have pretty much zero incentive for getting rid of national signing day. It's a big event that generates a lot of page clicks (and thus ad revenue) for them in an otherwise dead time of year.

 

If you look at it from that perspective, the spectacle is part of the appeal to the powers that be. That's why you have Bleacher Report making all these announcement videos. All about the $$$$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think everyone around here knows that I'm in agreement with Maveric on this one.

 

I literally can't think of why legitimate, "athlete facing" reason why this type of contract should be treated differently than every other kind of contract in the United States.

 

They should almost completely de-reglate recruiting (i.e., allow as much contact as coaches and players want, allow more visits, both in terms of timing and who can attend, allow use of jets, etc.).

 

Back in the 80s and 90s when there wasn't $10s of millions sloshing around each P5 conference, it may (MAY) have made sense to have some restrictions on spending so there was a semblance of a "fair fight" in recruiting. Now, most P5 conferences have the cash necessary to recruit competitively.

 

I'm sure some will argue that the Texas's, Ohio States and Alabama's have way bigger war chests than even most other P5 programs, and that deregulation would give them an enormous advantage. My counter is that the current system already advantages those programs by (a) driving more recruits to "unofficial visits" and contacts with local/regional teams, (b) limiting a recruit's ability to fully gather information about schools that aren't immediately in their vicinity, and © by making it generally easier for recruits to get to official visits compare to more remote programs.*

 

So, if the system is already skewed in favor of certain programs, then we need to do what we can to give NU a chance to compete. That means removing these restrictions and letting schools spend more on recruiting if they choose to (meaningful recruiting like conversations with kids and getting them and their families on campus (i.e., in person recruiting)... not this "let's have 53 GAs working the phones and film room crap).

 

I don't see that hurting less advantaged schools among the P5 because they all have money to spend on this stuff. And the advantage to big programs, with lots of money, isn't proportionately bigger because there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to "in person" recruiting. Meaning, the dollars are among the least significant issues when it comes to opportunity costs associated with conducting in person recruiting. Mainly, the limiting factor is how much time coaches have to divide themselves among targets (both in terms of evaluation and sales).

 

*For example, Texas and Ohio State are both within 20 minutes of an international airport. Alabama is within an hour. Lincoln is an hour from Eppley, which is not international and often requires a connection.

 

The travel time difference is significant when trying to get a kid in for a weekend after a friday night game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either of these two options would be a great improvement.

 

Conversely, if you look at college football and its ancillaries (CFB websites, etc) as an entertainment entity (which I do), then they have pretty much zero incentive for getting rid of national signing day. It's a big event that generates a lot of page clicks (and thus ad revenue) for them in an otherwise dead time of year.

 

If you look at it from that perspective, the spectacle is part of the appeal to the powers that be. That's why you have Bleacher Report making all these announcement videos. All about the $$$$$.

 

No arguing against that point at all.

 

But if we are going to not pay kids and do all sorts of other things to pretend that they are amateurs, then we shouldn't be monetizing their careers either.

 

NCAA, allegedly, doesn't make money off of recruitniks and such. We should be pressuring them to make these changes over the objection of Rivals, Scout, 247, ESPN et al.

 

Note, if a team an official signing day, fine. But teams should have the right to choose how they want to handle the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NSD is just the earliest date a recruit can sign. If NSD was eliminated you'd see the same recruiting shenanigans happening even earlier in the high school career of the most talented recruits.

 

Here's an idea: Let each school signed a designated number of early "priority" recruits before the start of their senior. For example, each school would be allowed to sign five "priority" recruits on July 1st, the summer before their senior year. This would prevent the top schools in the states with the most recruits from telling everyone that they were the top recruit on their board. They could only lock up five recruits early. It would help level the playing field for schools like Nebraska that lack enough native talent to fill out their roster. Just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NSD is just the earliest date a recruit can sign. If NSD was eliminated you'd see the same recruiting shenanigans happening even earlier in the high school career of the most talented recruits.

 

I don't think so. Coaches would still be evlauating/recruiting younger kids but they wouldn't be committing as Sophomores (at least not as many) when they know that's it. They'd wait longer to make sure they took their visits and made sure (as much as possible) that the coaches would still be there. Coaches wouldn't be giving guys papers to sign as early as they want to make sure they develop as expected, etc.

 

Wouldn't change a lot for the five-stars other than when they sign that would be it. But the lower-level guys would slow down a lot. And coaches would still be "recruiting" guys once they signed but they wouldn't be in the constant fear of them changing their minds and be left scrambling on NSD when a silent commit backs out - or another coach has flipped them but told them not to let the school he's decommiting from know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NSD is just the earliest date a recruit can sign. If NSD was eliminated you'd see the same recruiting shenanigans happening even earlier in the high school career of the most talented recruits.

 

Here's an idea: Let each school signed a designated number of early "priority" recruits before the start of their senior. For example, each school would be allowed to sign five "priority" recruits on July 1st, the summer before their senior year. This would prevent the top schools in the states with the most recruits from telling everyone that they were the top recruit on their board. They could only lock up five recruits early. It would help level the playing field for schools like Nebraska that lack enough native talent to fill out their roster. Just a thought...

Why create that layer of complexity? What would be the benefit?

 

I don't care one way or another about hat games and commitment tapes. If a kid wants to do that, he should do it whenever he pleases.

 

But by making LOIs a true offer and acceptance, you'd see most of the recruiting process slow way down as coaches will be slower to offer until they are certain about their desire to land a kid.

 

That's why this needs to be coupled with an expanded right of coaches to evaluate kids through increased contact (subject to a "no call" registery that players and patents may use).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue is with the NLI itself.

 

I don't think having kids sign earlier is really very good for them. Actually, it'd stink. Schools would probably continue to scoop up everyone as early as they can and if a situation changed to not favor them, they'll find a creative way out of it. They hold all the cards, after all.

 

February after the senior season ends seems like an appropriate enough time. If anything, make it later so programs can recruit into the spring and focus on the upcoming class. Most kids' college decisions are due May 1st.

 

It's more chaos for recruiting operations trying to maintain order, but if you let more kids move around freely I think it'll be better overall. Schools may keep losing guys late they thought they had, but there'll be other players to replace them with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue is with the NLI itself.

 

I don't think having kids sign earlier is really very good for them. Actually, it'd stink. Schools would probably continue to scoop up everyone as early as they can and if a situation changed to not favor them, they'll find a creative way out of it. They hold all the cards, after all.

 

February after the senior season ends seems like an appropriate enough time. If anything, make it later so programs can recruit into the spring and focus on the upcoming class. Most kids' college decisions are due May 1st.

 

It's more chaos for recruiting operations trying to maintain order, but if you let more kids move around freely I think it'll be better overall. Schools may keep losing guys late they thought they had, but there'll be other players to replace them with.

 

I think it would have the opposite effect. Everyone would slow down, especially if you shut the door on "creative ways out" of the contract. A broken contract should, for the college = loss of that scholarship + one more scholarship the following year, and for the recruit, a year of lost eligibility (similar to if they transferred without a redshirt available).

 

Of course both parties could agree to rescind the contract (for example, if a player suffers a career ending injury or there is a coaching change). I'd also give the recruit a right to exit a contract in the event a recruiting coach, position coach or higher were to leave prior to a cutoff date (Feb X for example). A coach's unilateral rights to break the contract would be limited to a kid (a) not being eligible to compete in NCAA competition (i.e., I would not hook it to admissibility at a school... if a school doesn't accept a kid, that was a risk the coach took on when he recruited him), or (b) committing some major crime or act of moral turpitude.

 

Coaches would be so much slower to offer a kid who could immediately accept. Sure, there would be some guys who go super early, because their talent is so obvious and they are set on a school, but that would be the exception, not the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue is with the NLI itself.

 

I don't think having kids sign earlier is really very good for them. Actually, it'd stink. Schools would probably continue to scoop up everyone as early as they can and if a situation changed to not favor them, they'll find a creative way out of it. They hold all the cards, after all.

 

Pretty sure there isn't a way out of it. That's the whole point.

 

Even the financial aid paperwork they've come up with now is binding on the school but not on the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, why don't you like it? Just curious.

I believe it would allow coaches to put extreme pressure on the recruit to sign papers when maybe they haven't had the ability to think things through.

 

The kid gets pressured only to regret it later but he's stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BTW, why don't you like it? Just curious.

I believe it would allow coaches to put extreme pressure on the recruit to sign papers when maybe they haven't had the ability to think things through.

 

The kid gets pressured only to regret it later but he's stuck.

 

 

And how would that be different from just having an early signing day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BTW, why don't you like it? Just curious.

I believe it would allow coaches to put extreme pressure on the recruit to sign papers when maybe they haven't had the ability to think things through.

 

The kid gets pressured only to regret it later but he's stuck.

A possible solution to that, if necessary, is a "cooling off period" like some states have for major purchases.

 

Or a restriction on signing wishing X days of an on campus visit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think that would be good. Coaches would pressure recruits to commit and sign on visits. Kids are gonna end up going to places they dont want to go to and even more transfers are going to happen.

 

Things need to change to make it better for the student- athlete and the coaches. The best thing that is to make an early signing period, around July/August. Sure would help those athletes not having to worry about recruiting anymore and the coaches not having to spend so much time and money on so many recruits for so long.

 

The other thing is allowing tuniversities to pay for at least one parent to come on official visits. Its just a no brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

BTW, why don't you like it? Just curious.

I believe it would allow coaches to put extreme pressure on the recruit to sign papers when maybe they haven't had the ability to think things through.

 

The kid gets pressured only to regret it later but he's stuck.

And how would that be different from just having an early signing day?

The coach isn't sitting at their kitchen table pressuring them to sign right then and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

BTW, why don't you like it? Just curious.

I believe it would allow coaches to put extreme pressure on the recruit to sign papers when maybe they haven't had the ability to think things through.

 

The kid gets pressured only to regret it later but he's stuck.

And how would that be different from just having an early signing day?

The coach isn't sitting at their kitchen table pressuring them to sign right then and there.

 

 

But it will be "if you don't sign right now we might not have a spot for you in February" which would be the same thing, if not worse because then they would feel pressure to absolutely decide in those 3-5 days or however long the signing period is.

 

There are going to be a few kids regretting signing either way. The degree of pressure felt would be more by some under one set of circumstances and more by others under the other set of circumstances. Why do you think 99% of players sign on NSD when they have several weeks when they could sign? Because there is pressure to sign right away as soon as the window opens up. If there is no window because you can sign whenever you want, it means coaches can't give you a deadline. They may say "someone else may take your spot" but that's exactly how it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think that would be good. Coaches would pressure recruits to commit and sign on visits. Kids are gonna end up going to places they dont want to go to and even more transfers are going to happen.

 

Things need to change to make it better for the student- athlete and the coaches. The best thing that is to make an early signing period, around July/August. Sure would help those athletes not having to worry about recruiting anymore and the coaches not having to spend so much time and money on so many recruits for so long.

 

The other thing is allowing tuniversities to pay for at least one parent to come on official visits. Its just a no brainer.

I seriously don't see how an early signing helps recruits but a true offer and acceptance system hurts them, which is what you're saying. The pressure to sign would be there in July/August. Probably even more pressure. And you'd be losing time that both the coaches and the players could use to evaluate each other.

 

One of the biggest benefits of making all offers "commitable" is that recruits can't be strung along. They have a tangible way of knowing exactly where they stand with a staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I'm following.

 

If you have a quiet period around the early signing day like they do now, it give the kid some time away from the coach.

 

That's fine. But it doesn't keep the coach from pressuring them to sign during that early signing window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

BTW, why don't you like it? Just curious.

I believe it would allow coaches to put extreme pressure on the recruit to sign papers when maybe they haven't had the ability to think things through.

 

The kid gets pressured only to regret it later but he's stuck.

And how would that be different from just having an early signing day?

The coach isn't sitting at their kitchen table pressuring them to sign right then and there.
There's a simple way around that:

 

1. Have a cooling off period where a player can withdrawal from a contract, say for up to 1 week after signing.

 

2. Require at least X days between an in person visit and being allowed to sign.

 

There's so much upside for kids by making these contracts the same as all other contracts. We could figure out "tweaks" to mitigate these corner cases.

 

What I do know is that the current system is bad for everyone (but the media).

 

It's especially bad for Nebraska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not sure I'm following.

 

If you have a quiet period around the early signing day like they do now, it give the kid some time away from the coach.

That's fine. But it doesn't keep the coach from pressuring them to sign during that early signing window.

Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quiet periods aren't to help players.

 

They are instituted to give coaches some allowed downtime. And to insulate coaches from competition, especially by schools like Nebraksa who often need to wait until after seasons to schedule visits due to timing constraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quiet periods aren't to help players.

 

They are instituted to give coaches some allowed downtime. And to insulate coaches from competition, especially by schools like Nebraksa who often need to wait until after seasons to schedule visits due to timing constraints.

The period around signing day when visits are not allowed is NOT to give the coaches time off.

 

In fact, they are still working their butts off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quiet periods aren't to help players.

 

They are instituted to give coaches some allowed downtime. And to insulate coaches from competition, especially by schools like Nebraksa who often need to wait until after seasons to schedule visits due to timing constraints.

The period around signing day when visits are not allowed is NOT to give the coaches time off.

 

In fact, they are still working their butts off.

I'm referring mainly to the dead period that lasts 4+ weeks in December and into the middle of January. That's definitely mostly designed to give some coaches dedicated downtime. I'm not saying they are all checked out, but it relieves pressure.

 

Anyway, you're not really getting at the heart of the issue.

 

Recruiting should be set up to benefit kids. Not help certain programs obtain and retain their classes.

 

The current system benefits no one other than the handful of "recruiting Tier 1" programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I dont think that would be good. Coaches would pressure recruits to commit and sign on visits. Kids are gonna end up going to places they dont want to go to and even more transfers are going to happen.

Things need to change to make it better for the student- athlete and the coaches. The best thing that is to make an early signing period, around July/August. Sure would help those athletes not having to worry about recruiting anymore and the coaches not having to spend so much time and money on so many recruits for so long.

The other thing is allowing tuniversities to pay for at least one parent to come on official visits. Its just a no brainer.

I seriously don't see how an early signing helps recruits but a true offer and acceptance system hurts them, which is what you're saying. The pressure to sign would be there in July/August. Probably even more pressure. And you'd be losing time that both the coaches and the players could use to evaluate each other.

One of the biggest benefits of making all offers "commitable" is that recruits can't be strung along. They have a tangible way of knowing exactly where they stand with a staff.

It doesnt take a lot of thought. Sign now or else compared to please sign with us at the signing period. Make your decision now compared to think about it and hope your in on signing day. The pressure is not even close to the same. Not sure how this is so hard to understand. Its completely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quiet periods aren't to help players.

They are instituted to give coaches some allowed downtime. And to insulate coaches from competition, especially by schools like Nebraksa who often need to wait until after seasons to schedule visits due to timing constraints.

The period around signing day when visits are not allowed is NOT to give the coaches time off.

In fact, they are still working their butts off.

I'm referring mainly to the dead period that lasts 4+ weeks in December and into the middle of January. That's definitely mostly designed to give some coaches dedicated downtime. I'm not saying they are all checked out, but it relieves pressure.

Anyway, you're not really getting at the heart of the issue.

Recruiting should be set up to benefit kids. Not help certain programs obtain and retain their classes.

The current system benefits no one other than the handful of "recruiting Tier 1" programs.

Its supposed to even out the recruiting field for the teams in bowl games so they arent punished in recruiting for making a bowl. Hence the time of year it happens. Thought goes a long way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I dont think that would be good. Coaches would pressure recruits to commit and sign on visits. Kids are gonna end up going to places they dont want to go to and even more transfers are going to happen.

Things need to change to make it better for the student- athlete and the coaches. The best thing that is to make an early signing period, around July/August. Sure would help those athletes not having to worry about recruiting anymore and the coaches not having to spend so much time and money on so many recruits for so long.

The other thing is allowing tuniversities to pay for at least one parent to come on official visits. Its just a no brainer.

I seriously don't see how an early signing helps recruits but a true offer and acceptance system hurts them, which is what you're saying. The pressure to sign would be there in July/August. Probably even more pressure. And you'd be losing time that both the coaches and the players could use to evaluate each other.

One of the biggest benefits of making all offers "commitable" is that recruits can't be strung along. They have a tangible way of knowing exactly where they stand with a staff.

It doesnt take a lot of thought. Sign now or else compared to please sign with us at the signing period. Make your decision now compared to think about it and hope your in on signing day. The pressure is not even close to the same. Not sure how this is so hard to understand. Its completely different.

It's completely different because no kid is required to "sign now" (unlike what you actually do have on a signing day).

 

And you're completely ignoring the lion share of the issue, which is coaches firing out a 150 offers to sophomores and juniors that aren't really "commitable" and end up stringing a kid along who could have otherwise found a good fit with a team who was ready and willing to commit to him earlier in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Quiet periods aren't to help players.

They are instituted to give coaches some allowed downtime. And to insulate coaches from competition, especially by schools like Nebraksa who often need to wait until after seasons to schedule visits due to timing constraints.

The period around signing day when visits are not allowed is NOT to give the coaches time off.

In fact, they are still working their butts off.

I'm referring mainly to the dead period that lasts 4+ weeks in December and into the middle of January. That's definitely mostly designed to give some coaches dedicated downtime. I'm not saying they are all checked out, but it relieves pressure.

Anyway, you're not really getting at the heart of the issue.

Recruiting should be set up to benefit kids. Not help certain programs obtain and retain their classes.

The current system benefits no one other than the handful of "recruiting Tier 1" programs.

Its supposed to even out the recruiting field for the teams in bowl games so they arent punished in recruiting for making a bowl. Hence the time of year it happens. Thought goes a long way.

I have a bridge to sell you. Let me know where to send the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say make it to where a kid can sign any time he wants. If he commits and wants to sign, let him. This would save lots of money cause you wouldn't have to continue to recruit the kid. If the coaches go back on the commit, then they would lose that scholarship along with another the following year. This would stop the crap like what Michigan pulled. If the kid goes back on the commitment, he will lose the 2 yrs. of playing time, his RS year and RS Fr year. This would keep the kids from skipping around like no other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Quiet periods aren't to help players.

They are instituted to give coaches some allowed downtime. And to insulate coaches from competition, especially by schools like Nebraksa who often need to wait until after seasons to schedule visits due to timing constraints.

The period around signing day when visits are not allowed is NOT to give the coaches time off.

In fact, they are still working their butts off.

I'm referring mainly to the dead period that lasts 4+ weeks in December and into the middle of January. That's definitely mostly designed to give some coaches dedicated downtime. I'm not saying they are all checked out, but it relieves pressure.

Anyway, you're not really getting at the heart of the issue.

Recruiting should be set up to benefit kids. Not help certain programs obtain and retain their classes.

The current system benefits no one other than the handful of "recruiting Tier 1" programs.

Its supposed to even out the recruiting field for the teams in bowl games so they arent punished in recruiting for making a bowl. Hence the time of year it happens. Thought goes a long way.

I have a bridge to sell you. Let me know where to send the info.

Wtf are you talking about? What is the reason they put the dead period at that time then? Dont just give me some stupid ass saying like im an idiot and you know everything. Explain oh purveyor of secrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I dont think that would be good. Coaches would pressure recruits to commit and sign on visits. Kids are gonna end up going to places they dont want to go to and even more transfers are going to happen.

Things need to change to make it better for the student- athlete and the coaches. The best thing that is to make an early signing period, around July/August. Sure would help those athletes not having to worry about recruiting anymore and the coaches not having to spend so much time and money on so many recruits for so long.

The other thing is allowing tuniversities to pay for at least one parent to come on official visits. Its just a no brainer.

I seriously don't see how an early signing helps recruits but a true offer and acceptance system hurts them, which is what you're saying. The pressure to sign would be there in July/August. Probably even more pressure. And you'd be losing time that both the coaches and the players could use to evaluate each other.

One of the biggest benefits of making all offers "commitable" is that recruits can't be strung along. They have a tangible way of knowing exactly where they stand with a staff.

It doesnt take a lot of thought. Sign now or else compared to please sign with us at the signing period. Make your decision now compared to think about it and hope your in on signing day. The pressure is not even close to the same. Not sure how this is so hard to understand. Its completely different.

It's completely different because no kid is required to "sign now" (unlike what you actually do have on a signing day).

And you're completely ignoring the lion share of the issue, which is coaches firing out a 150 offers to sophomores and juniors that aren't really "commitable" and end up stringing a kid along who could have otherwise found a good fit with a team who was ready and willing to commit to him earlier in the process.

You dont have to sign on signing day.

 

Why would a kid get strung along with an offer? Its up to them to visit schools and decide where they want to go. If they are waiting on schools to commit to them then they are doing themselves a huge disservice. If they are worried, then commit to a school and ask to sign the financial papers to get bound. Great thing there is the school is then bound to them, but the recruit doesnt have to go to that school if they decide different. There are plenty of ways for the recruit to take advantage of the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Quiet periods aren't to help players.

They are instituted to give coaches some allowed downtime. And to insulate coaches from competition, especially by schools like Nebraksa who often need to wait until after seasons to schedule visits due to timing constraints.

The period around signing day when visits are not allowed is NOT to give the coaches time off.

In fact, they are still working their butts off.

I'm referring mainly to the dead period that lasts 4+ weeks in December and into the middle of January. That's definitely mostly designed to give some coaches dedicated downtime. I'm not saying they are all checked out, but it relieves pressure.

Anyway, you're not really getting at the heart of the issue.

Recruiting should be set up to benefit kids. Not help certain programs obtain and retain their classes.

The current system benefits no one other than the handful of "recruiting Tier 1" programs.

Its supposed to even out the recruiting field for the teams in bowl games so they arent punished in recruiting for making a bowl. Hence the time of year it happens. Thought goes a long way.
I have a bridge to sell you. Let me know where to send the info.
Wtf are you talking about? What is the reason they put the dead period at that time then? Dont just give me some stupid ass saying like im an idiot and you know everything. Explain oh purveyor of secrets.

If the NCAA was worried about advantages and disadvantages, then non-bowl teams would get an opportunity to practice during that time (or get additional time in the spring).

 

It has very little, to nothing, to do with bowl season and a perception of disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two problems with no NSD.

 

(1) NCAA does not allow universities to play for a parent or guardian to accompany recruits on official visits. That lives a large number of recruits (not really sure the percentage) alone at a university. If a coach can sit there with a LOI and pressure the recruit (in this case an unaccompanied minor) to sign a legal document, then they are under contract and no matter what the coaching staff does (e.g., recruit 4 more players at their position, leave, etc), the recruits have no recourse. What I don't understand is how the type of situation is legal (i.e., a unaccompanied minor signed a contract).

 

(2) The culture of college football is at a state currently where players transfer and coaches leave. We see it all the time now where after NSD the coaching carousel starts, leaving recently committed players being duped thinking their position coach will be at the university when they show up (or even coordinators or the HC). If recruits sign early, this gives more time for this type of deception to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of those concerns can be addressed, as described throughout the thread.

 

Any argument for signing day has to explain why we should continue to have a system in place that no coaches and players (minus a select few) seem to like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quiet periods aren't to help players.

They are instituted to give coaches some allowed downtime. And to insulate coaches from competition, especially by schools like Nebraksa who often need to wait until after seasons to schedule visits due to timing constraints.

The period around signing day when visits are not allowed is NOT to give the coaches time off.

In fact, they are still working their butts off.

I'm referring mainly to the dead period that lasts 4+ weeks in December and into the middle of January. That's definitely mostly designed to give some coaches dedicated downtime. I'm not saying they are all checked out, but it relieves pressure.

Anyway, you're not really getting at the heart of the issue.

Recruiting should be set up to benefit kids. Not help certain programs obtain and retain their classes.

The current system benefits no one other than the handful of "recruiting Tier 1" programs.

Its supposed to even out the recruiting field for the teams in bowl games so they arent punished in recruiting for making a bowl. Hence the time of year it happens. Thought goes a long way.
I have a bridge to sell you. Let me know where to send the info.
Wtf are you talking about? What is the reason they put the dead period at that time then? Dont just give me some stupid ass saying like im an idiot and you know everything. Explain oh purveyor of secrets.

If the NCAA was worried about advantages and disadvantages, then non-bowl teams would get an opportunity to practice during that time (or get additional time in the spring).

It has very little, to nothing, to do with bowl season and a perception of disadvantage.

What? Non-bowl teams didnt earn a bowl. They dont deserve anything. But bowl teams should get punished for having to practice instead of being able to recruit full time like teams who didnt earn one?

 

We can argue about whats fair or not forever. But the way its set up right now is how it is. Quit trying to prove you are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I dont think that would be good. Coaches would pressure recruits to commit and sign on visits. Kids are gonna end up going to places they dont want to go to and even more transfers are going to happen.

Things need to change to make it better for the student- athlete and the coaches. The best thing that is to make an early signing period, around July/August. Sure would help those athletes not having to worry about recruiting anymore and the coaches not having to spend so much time and money on so many recruits for so long.

The other thing is allowing tuniversities to pay for at least one parent to come on official visits. Its just a no brainer.

I seriously don't see how an early signing helps recruits but a true offer and acceptance system hurts them, which is what you're saying. The pressure to sign would be there in July/August. Probably even more pressure. And you'd be losing time that both the coaches and the players could use to evaluate each other.

One of the biggest benefits of making all offers "commitable" is that recruits can't be strung along. They have a tangible way of knowing exactly where they stand with a staff.

It doesnt take a lot of thought. Sign now or else compared to please sign with us at the signing period. Make your decision now compared to think about it and hope your in on signing day. The pressure is not even close to the same. Not sure how this is so hard to understand. Its completely different.

It's completely different because no kid is required to "sign now" (unlike what you actually do have on a signing day).

And you're completely ignoring the lion share of the issue, which is coaches firing out a 150 offers to sophomores and juniors that aren't really "commitable" and end up stringing a kid along who could have otherwise found a good fit with a team who was ready and willing to commit to him earlier in the process.

You dont have to sign on signing day.

 

Why would a kid get strung along with an offer? Its up to them to visit schools and decide where they want to go. If they are waiting on schools to commit to them then they are doing themselves a huge disservice. If they are worried, then commit to a school and ask to sign the financial papers to get bound. Great thing there is the school is then bound to them, but the recruit doesnt have to go to that school if they decide different. There are plenty of ways for the recruit to take advantage of the process.

 

 

As was pointed out, 99% do in fact sign on signing day. Whether they technically are required to or not, that's what NSD has come to mean. That's why NSD should be eliminated.

 

Maybe we should set up a pro and con chart... usually those are useless, but I'm seriously not seeing any cons to killing NSD. Killing NSD would be all up side for 95% of coaches and players. THat's why so many coaches, especially those outside of the SEC, would love to do away with it.

 

"Why would a kid get strung along?"

 

I can't believe you're asking this question. I would say you're likely the only one on this board that doesn't see how a "non-committable" offer (and an unenforceable acceptance for that matter) strings along the person on the receiving end. I don't think Harbaugh was unethical in his treatment of that one kid this year (based on what I've read), but that kid not being able to pin Harbaugh down on the offer definitely ended up screwing him over.

 

If you really still don't get it, or why such a "real offer/acceptance" scheme would help coaches at places like NEbraska, I'll post a more detailed explanation. But most of the arguments have been laid out (and not refuted) throughout this thread.

 

Oh, and on a technical note, you'er wrong about the financial aid stuff. That rule only allows January graduates to sign papers early. IT wouldn't benefit most HS recruits. And heck, if a school is willing to tell a kid he can't play football but eat the cost of tuition for a year, an argument could be made that it doesn't even really bind a school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quiet periods aren't to help players.

They are instituted to give coaches some allowed downtime. And to insulate coaches from competition, especially by schools like Nebraksa who often need to wait until after seasons to schedule visits due to timing constraints.

The period around signing day when visits are not allowed is NOT to give the coaches time off.

In fact, they are still working their butts off.

I'm referring mainly to the dead period that lasts 4+ weeks in December and into the middle of January. That's definitely mostly designed to give some coaches dedicated downtime. I'm not saying they are all checked out, but it relieves pressure.

Anyway, you're not really getting at the heart of the issue.

Recruiting should be set up to benefit kids. Not help certain programs obtain and retain their classes.

The current system benefits no one other than the handful of "recruiting Tier 1" programs.

Its supposed to even out the recruiting field for the teams in bowl games so they arent punished in recruiting for making a bowl. Hence the time of year it happens. Thought goes a long way.
I have a bridge to sell you. Let me know where to send the info.
Wtf are you talking about? What is the reason they put the dead period at that time then? Dont just give me some stupid ass saying like im an idiot and you know everything. Explain oh purveyor of secrets.

If the NCAA was worried about advantages and disadvantages, then non-bowl teams would get an opportunity to practice during that time (or get additional time in the spring).

It has very little, to nothing, to do with bowl season and a perception of disadvantage.

What? Non-bowl teams didnt earn a bowl. They dont deserve anything. But bowl teams should get punished for having to practice instead of being able to recruit full time like teams who didnt earn one?

 

We can argue about whats fair or not forever. But the way its set up right now is how it is. Quit trying to prove you are right.

 

 

How about, for once, you try to prove you're right. Like post some evidence that shows the restriction/dead period was put in place to keep bowl coaches from being disadvantaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quiet periods aren't to help players.

They are instituted to give coaches some allowed downtime. And to insulate coaches from competition, especially by schools like Nebraksa who often need to wait until after seasons to schedule visits due to timing constraints.

 

The period around signing day when visits are not allowed is NOT to give the coaches time off.

In fact, they are still working their butts off.

I'm referring mainly to the dead period that lasts 4+ weeks in December and into the middle of January. That's definitely mostly designed to give some coaches dedicated downtime. I'm not saying they are all checked out, but it relieves pressure.

Anyway, you're not really getting at the heart of the issue.

Recruiting should be set up to benefit kids. Not help certain programs obtain and retain their classes.

The current system benefits no one other than the handful of "recruiting Tier 1" programs.

Its supposed to even out the recruiting field for the teams in bowl games so they arent punished in recruiting for making a bowl. Hence the time of year it happens. Thought goes a long way.
I have a bridge to sell you. Let me know where to send the info.
Wtf are you talking about? What is the reason they put the dead period at that time then? Dont just give me some stupid ass saying like im an idiot and you know everything. Explain oh purveyor of secrets.

If the NCAA was worried about advantages and disadvantages, then non-bowl teams would get an opportunity to practice during that time (or get additional time in the spring).

It has very little, to nothing, to do with bowl season and a perception of disadvantage.

What? Non-bowl teams didnt earn a bowl. They dont deserve anything. But bowl teams should get punished for having to practice instead of being able to recruit full time like teams who didnt earn one?

We can argue about whats fair or not forever. But the way its set up right now is how it is. Quit trying to prove you are right.

How about, for once, you try to prove you're right. Like post some evidence that shows the restriction/dead period was put in place to keep bowl coaches from being disadvantaged.

Im waiting to here your explanation first since you supposedly have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a compromise. Allow kids to sign financial aid papers any time. Binds the school but not the kid.

 

I don't think it solves all the issues. But I think it would slow things down and be better for the kids.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NU needs more and earlier access to recruits and their parents/guardians before players can sign. Moving up NSD would hurt NU.

 

Agree. I wouldn't be in favor of any changes unless they allow earlier visits.

 

Though allowing them to sign financial aid papers wouldn't be the end of the world because the kid could still change his mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NU needs more and earlier access to recruits and their parents/guardians before players can sign. Moving up NSD would hurt NU.

 

Agree. I wouldn't be in favor of any changes unless they allow earlier visits.

 

Though allowing them to sign financial aid papers wouldn't be the end of the world because the kid could still change his mind.

 

I was just trying to pay strict attention to the actual op. Moving up commitments that bind students will never help NU unless other major changes are made that give NU more opportunity to present it's case to the athletes WAY before they can commit. Official visits MUCH SOONER (April I'd push for...spring game baby) plus 2 parents paid is a huge deal that NU needs to get.

 

Agree with you on your one direction (school to student) commitment suggestion. Actually I'd love that one. It takes away a central weapon from the big fat liar group of coaches, and that is a very large group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a compromise. Allow kids to sign financial aid papers any time. Binds the school but not the kid.

 

I don't think it solves all the issues. But I think it would slow things down and be better for the kids.

 

I could be for this. Like you said, it's a compromise or half way point that could work if other changes are also made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NU needs more and earlier access to recruits and their parents/guardians before players can sign. Moving up NSD would hurt NU.

 

Agree. I wouldn't be in favor of any changes unless they allow earlier visits.

 

Though allowing them to sign financial aid papers wouldn't be the end of the world because the kid could still change his mind.

 

 

My understanding of the rule is that financial paper signing only applies in a very narrow set of circumstances (specifically, to those players who are scheduled to graduate early and enroll in college in the spring of their senior year of HS). I don't think it's a solve for this problem.

 

I do think there has to be holistic reform, which would include allowing players to take official visits earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

NU needs more and earlier access to recruits and their parents/guardians before players can sign. Moving up NSD would hurt NU.

 

Agree. I wouldn't be in favor of any changes unless they allow earlier visits.

 

Though allowing them to sign financial aid papers wouldn't be the end of the world because the kid could still change his mind.

 

 

My understanding of the rule is that financial paper signing only applies in a very narrow set of circumstances (specifically, to those players who are scheduled to graduate early and enroll in college in the spring of their senior year of HS). I don't think it's a solve for this problem.

 

I do think there has to be holistic reform, which would include allowing players to take official visits earlier.

 

Or make it available for everyone. Crazy idea I know. It's not a complete solve but it would make things easier for recruit and school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

NU needs more and earlier access to recruits and their parents/guardians before players can sign. Moving up NSD would hurt NU.

 

Agree. I wouldn't be in favor of any changes unless they allow earlier visits.

 

Though allowing them to sign financial aid papers wouldn't be the end of the world because the kid could still change his mind.

 

 

My understanding of the rule is that financial paper signing only applies in a very narrow set of circumstances (specifically, to those players who are scheduled to graduate early and enroll in college in the spring of their senior year of HS). I don't think it's a solve for this problem.

 

I do think there has to be holistic reform, which would include allowing players to take official visits earlier.

 

Or make it available for everyone. Crazy idea I know. It's not a complete solve but it would make things easier for recruit and school.

 

 

How would it make it easier for the school?

 

how about we just do what everyone else in the world of contracts does and make it a simple "offer and acceptance" system? It achieves what the financial paper thing does but more clearly and fairly for everyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×