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.
