Riley Doesn't Like New Early-Signing Period Proposal

[Stumpy1]

Have 2 signing periods, one at the end of their Junior year and keep the one on Feb 4th. If a kid commits to a school during the first period, the kid and the school are bound to that unless certain circumstances occur ( coaching change, probation, ect). If the kid decides to leave after the first signing period, they will lose a year of eligibility. If the school breaks the commitment after the first one, they will lose that scholarship for 2 years. This would make both the kids and the schools really focus on who they want instead of throwing out offers and pressuring kids into decisions.

[Comish]

Have 2 signing periods, one at the end of their Junior year and keep the one on Feb 4th. If a kid commits to a school during the first period, the kid and the school are bound to that unless certain circumstances occur ( coaching change, probation, ect). If the kid decides to leave after the first signing period, they will lose a year of eligibility. If the school breaks the commitment after the first one, they will lose that scholarship for 2 years. This would make both the kids and the schools really focus on who they want instead of throwing out offers and pressuring kids into decisions.

I agree completely.......BUT........

Too logical.

The alphabetic nitwits in charge would never consider it.

[wildman]

 

Have 2 signing periods, one at the end of their Junior year and keep the one on Feb 4th. If a kid commits to a school during the first period, the kid and the school are bound to that unless certain circumstances occur ( coaching change, probation, ect). If the kid decides to leave after the first signing period, they will lose a year of eligibility. If the school breaks the commitment after the first one, they will lose that scholarship for 2 years. This would make both the kids and the schools really focus on who they want instead of throwing out offers and pressuring kids into decisions.

I agree completely.......BUT........

Too logical.

The alphabetic nitwits in charge would never consider it.

 

 

I agree it wouldn't even be approved. But Id also like to see that be added upon such as.

 

1. The school can not offer more kids then what they can take in.

2. If a kid is committed. They can not be recruited by another school. Unless they contact that school first and cleared through the NCAA.

3. Official visits can only happen before or after the football season. Allowing the student to stay focused on his current team and grades.

4. All commitments and offers also decommits must go through the NCAA.

[Sargon]

[zoogs]

SI's Andy Staples tackles the early signing proposal in this week's mailbag.

 

A couple of Nebraska mentions. First, the idea that he (and Bo Pelini) likes: coaches can sign (and mutually bind) players at any time.

 

Second, the topic of unofficial visits as has been discussed here, and how that would help schools such as Nebraska (due to its isolation) as well as eliminate some shady practices.

 

I think I'm largely in agreement with Andy on all of this. He wrote a piece last week criticizing the NLI as tilted completely in the schools' favor, as opposed to the students. And the same goes for largely everything in the recruiting process.

[Mavric]

As the Big Ten throws its support behind a three-day December window for prospects to sign letters of intent -- without an accompanying change by the NCAA to institute earlier official visits -- geographically isolated schools like Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota and others nationally must consider a painful reality that strikes at the heart of the rich-getting-richer debate central to college football.

In advance of the June vote of conference commissioners on an early signing period to supplement the existing February date, Big Ten coaches and administrators met this month to discuss the proposal, designed to ease financial and time burdens on coaches and to keep pace with the accelerated recruiting cycle. If passed, it would allow prospects, on a two-year trial basis, to sign Dec. 16-18.

Commissioner Jim Delany, said a "strong majority" exists to support the proposal among Big Ten schools, who form one of the wealthiest and most influential conferences nationally yet offer a study in contrast amid the game's recruiting subculture.

And out of the meeting, a second conversation emerged, perhaps more integral to the Big Ten's competitive balance than an early signing period -- the implementation of early official visits, which appears much less likely to pass than early signing.

That won't stop a group of Big Ten coaches, already disadvantaged in recruiting, from pushing hard for early visits.

Newcomer Mike Riley at Nebraska is a potential leader in this fight. Riley offers a respected voice at a name-brand school. He opposes an early signing period. But if its passage looks inevitable as other leagues discuss the concept this spring, Riley said, schools that support early visits must act.

"I don't like to get on the soapbox, but I will," said Riley, hired in December at Nebraska after 12 seasons at Oregon State. "I'm not usually that kind of guy, personality-wise, but I certainly would like to be in a case like this. If it goes forward and [the early signing period] does pass, then that discussion about early visits has to take place immediately."

 

ESPN

[Hayseed]

Now I'm thinking the early signing date for recruits who have made up their mind and don't want to be bothered by a hundred coaches every day should be around the end of September,...not December. In my mind it's more about the recruits choice to decide without being harassed during his senior year than the coaches ability to contact him relentlessly. If they need to move recruiting to the summer then the super intelligent and highly overpaid people in charge of the NCAA can figure that out as well.

 

Interesting to know how many big name schools would make September 20 the 'real signing day' knowing that they're stuck with the student they signed even if he gets injured during his senior season?