No Visit Policy

[TAKODA]

That's what I'm getting at, is there a way the NCAA can make it actually mean something but still give the kid and school some flexibility before they actually sign on the dotted line?

Not sure the NCAA wants to put too much pressure on the student athlete where they have to do anything (if they just verbally) saying they are going to a school. However if they just leave the option on the table that there is open signing throughout their Sr. High School year (X date through LOI day) and make sure the kid understands that if they commit (sign) they are on the hook until that school says otherwise or releases. If they don't sign, then they are free game to everyone and this would take the non-serious commits out of the equation. IMO

I know what you are trying to do. But, I think you would find that there would be EXTREME pressure put on kids my coaches to sign and some will end up signing and it not being in the best interest for them. I believe just before signing day, there is a dead period. This is for that reason. It gives the kid at least a little time to think before he actually signs a binding document.

Like I said early, there is no easy solution to this issue. I think that the kids would understand that they can verbally commit and all that means is they have interest but if they sign, they are in. The only change I am prescribing is one that would aid the coaches and put some integrity into the recruiting system. If I was a young stud athlete, I would go on my visits and I would understand that my verbal is just a commitment of interest but if there was no other place I would rather be, I am going to sign. If there are other potential options that could come up and I am that valued of an athlete that other big schools may come knocking, darn it, I am not signing until I feel I have reviewed all my options. I would also understand that if I don't sign, the school has the options to fill their needs elsewhere or continue their recruiting process and possibly fill the position I was being considered for. At least this way, the kids will not be playing the schools up to the last minute and it would allow the NCAA to tell all schools that if the kid has not signed, you can still contact him, if he has signed and you contact him, then consequences can be administered.

I am not sure where in my thought process it would be something that would cause the kid to act improperly. Life is full of risk and at 17-18; it is time to understand that your signature is your word. Want to play games? Then do it at your own peril. Don't forget, these kids are getting a pretty darn good monetary value (education) by signing on that dotted line, it's not like the poor kid gets nothing out of the deal.

 

[HuskerNationNick]

You know, if you want to take pressure OFF the kid, how about a rule that they CAN'T commit while on a visit?

"Thank you for your visit, we really want you to be a Husker, I know you can't commit while on your visit but we really hope you call us when you get back home and wait the 24 hours"

That takes TONS of pressure off the kid. GIves the kid an "out" so to speak.

That is a rule I could see them adding and being sensible.

 

[Count 'Bility]

That's what I'm getting at, is there a way the NCAA can make it actually mean something but still give the kid and school some flexibility before they actually sign on the dotted line?

I think that's what signing day already is. That's your "mean all" committment, and your flexibility is leading up to that date.

 

[HUSKER FREAK]

That's what I'm getting at, is there a way the NCAA can make it actually mean something but still give the kid and school some flexibility before they actually sign on the dotted line?

This would also have to be a two way street so to speak. Otherwise do this so the students can't decommit, or make it hard for them to, would also leave the door wide open for the teams in the SEC to do wjhat they do best on the recruiting front. Let committed players go because they oversigned or found someone better. I think the kids need to be protected more from the NCAA then the schools, and yes I do agree that some kids aren't innocent either.

 

[TAKODA]

That's what I'm getting at, is there a way the NCAA can make it actually mean something but still give the kid and school some flexibility before they actually sign on the dotted line?

I think that's what signing day already is. That's your "mean all" committment, and your flexibility is leading up to that date.

What you said ↑

:woo This is why I believe the signing period (Hard commitment) needs to be allowed at anytime during the players High school Sr. year, up through signing day. If they don't sign, they are fair game. It then puts the responsibility on the player to only commit to that which he has fully considered rather than committing to just hold a spot while they shop a for something better. I am not saying the player should get the best deal they can but this will eliminate a lot of bull stuff that people are complaining about. As far as coaches putting pressure on a commit to sign while on a visit, I think that the comment above of a 24 hour cooling period is not a bad idea either.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I think you are missing the point of my suggestion. But, I'll just leave it at that.

 

[TAKODA]

I think you are missing the point of my suggestion. But, I'll just leave it at that.

BigRedBuster, sorry if you are talking to me here! I am trying to follow along but if I am missing something tell me or if you are talking to others, my bad! I believe your comment -- "That's what I'm getting at, is there a way the NCAA can make it actually mean something but still give the kid and school some flexibility before they actually sign on the dotted line?" is what the NCAA is presently doing by virtue of not making it official until they sign on LOI day. Until then, open game!

"Make it" meaning the Verbal?

 

[BigRedBuster]

But, then you ignored the rest of my comment and agreed that this is what signing day is for. And, that isn't my point.

My point is that I am not for changing signing day other than I wouldn't mind an early signing day before the season something like what BB has.

What I want is for the verbal to mean something to everyone involved. Meaning, a kid would be able to give his verbal and both he and the school are somewhat restricted from what they can do while that kid still has that verbal in place. The kid can not have a visit paid for by another school and a school can not poach the kid off of the other schools list.

NOW, if something changes and the kid decides he has cold feet and wants to look around, then he takes back his verbal commitment and he is free to look around and other schools have the right to contact him.

THEN, after all of that, when signing day comes around and he signs with the school, then he is locked in the same way he is locked in after signing day now.

Right now, a verbal doesn't mean squat. I am not for being able to sign at any time in the season because we will have coaches put extreme pressure on kids to sign because they know once they have signed they are locked.

My idea might not be realistic. That's why I threw it out there.

 

[Count 'Bility]

But, then you ignored the rest of my comment and agreed that this is what signing day is for. And, that isn't my point.

My point is that I am not for changing signing day other than I wouldn't mind an early signing day before the season something like what BB has.

What I want is for the verbal to mean something to everyone involved. Meaning, a kid would be able to give his verbal and both he and the school are somewhat restricted from what they can do while that kid still has that verbal in place. The kid can not have a visit paid for by another school and a school can not poach the kid off of the other schools list.

NOW, if something changes and the kid decides he has cold feet and wants to look around, then he takes back his verbal commitment and he is free to look around and other schools have the right to contact him.

THEN, after all of that, when signing day comes around and he signs with the school, then he is locked in the same way he is locked in after signing day now.

Right now, a verbal doesn't mean squat. I am not for being able to sign at any time in the season because we will have coaches put extreme pressure on kids to sign because they know once they have signed they are locked.

My idea might not be realistic. That's why I threw it out there.

I said i think that's what signing day is for. And I think it is but you really cleared up in the above post of what you were getting at. I see now. Youre suggesting a more of a writtin type of committment, which as long as it is filed, coaches cannot withdraw their offer, and the recruit cannot accept any official visits anywhere, right?

I honestly dont know how that would even work. That's basically just a letter of intent isnt it?

I feel also that there should be a much earlier signing day. i also feel that the recruiting period for a specific class should be much more limited than it is. Scouting is fine, but when a staff is making offers and recruits are committing so dadgum early, it sparks that chaos we currently have.

 

[HuskerNationNick]

I said i think that's what signing day is for. And I think it is but you really cleared up in the above post of what you were getting at. I see now. Youre suggesting a more of a writtin type of committment, which as long as it is filed, coaches cannot withdraw their offer, and the recruit cannot accept any official visits anywhere, right?

I honestly dont know how that would even work. That's basically just a letter of intent isnt it?

I feel also that there should be a much earlier signing day. i also feel that the recruiting period for a specific class should be much more limited than it is. Scouting is fine, but when a staff is making offers and recruits are committing so dadgum early, it sparks that chaos we currently have.

From my take on how its stated, it would be exactly that.

I think kids should just be able to sign a LOI whenever they feel like it. Coaches can reveal all their new recruits on the original signing day, and announce some that may have kept it a secret the whole time. Hell, if kids want to wait till that day, then let them, but those others that want to commit and be in, why not let them sign that LOI early?

 

[Comish]

I said i think that's what signing day is for. And I think it is but you really cleared up in the above post of what you were getting at. I see now. Youre suggesting a more of a writtin type of committment, which as long as it is filed, coaches cannot withdraw their offer, and the recruit cannot accept any official visits anywhere, right?

I honestly dont know how that would even work. That's basically just a letter of intent isnt it?

I feel also that there should be a much earlier signing day. i also feel that the recruiting period for a specific class should be much more limited than it is. Scouting is fine, but when a staff is making offers and recruits are committing so dadgum early, it sparks that chaos we currently have.

From my take on how its stated, it would be exactly that.

I think kids should just be able to sign a LOI whenever they feel like it. Coaches can reveal all their new recruits on the original signing day, and announce some that may have kept it a secret the whole time. Hell, if kids want to wait till that day, then let them, but those others that want to commit and be in, why not let them sign that LOI early?

Because it makes waaaaaaaaay too much sense for the pencil pushers in the NCAA hierarchy ...

 

[dylan]

Early signing would benefit teams in talent rich areas, not NU.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Early signing would benefit teams in talent rich areas, not NU.

Maybe so. Maybe not. We go find a "diamond in the rough" down in the southeast, scout him, offer him, and he signs, he's ours. As opposed to how it is now, we offer , he committs, plays some more high school ball, then Bama and Florida come calling, offer, he decommitts and is gone for "greener pastures" because he is bullshitted away from his original instinct to honor the first team that wanted to "take a chance" on him. Personally, I feel the current way is benefitting the talent rich areas. It allows for the Nebraskas to do all the analysis on a hidden player only for the premier teams to swoop in late and take'em away. Yes, every now and then we get that honorable young man such as a Cethan Carter and Matti Finnin that tell them coaches/programs to piss of, but they are anomoles, not the norm.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Early signing would benefit teams in talent rich areas, not NU.

Maybe so. Maybe not. We go find a "diamond in the rough" down in the southeast, scout him, offer him, and he signs, he's ours. As opposed to how it is now, we offer , he committs, plays some more high school ball, then Bama and Florida come calling, offer, he decommitts and is gone for "greener pastures" because he is bullshitted away from his original instinct to honor the first team that wanted to "take a chance" on him. Personally, I feel the current way is benefitting the talent rich areas. It allows for the Nebraskas to do all the analysis on a hidden player only for the premier teams to swoop in late and take'em away. Yes, every now and then we get that honorable young man such as a Cethan Carter and Matti Finnin that tell them coaches/programs to piss of, but they are anomoles, not the norm.

+1. It's hard to watch Bo and company to do all the groundwork on a guy in LA, FL, or OH just to see them offered late in the game by their in-state schools because those programs missed out on their first choice and need to fill out their class.