Riley Doesn't Like New Early-Signing Period Proposal

QMany said:
I didn't think you could send a private charter for a recruit ...

Jay Bilas is a huge critic of the NCAA (sometimes, too much, IMHO). Here is a bit from one of his articles criticizing recruiting rules:

According to NCAA rules, an institution cannot purchase a recruit a first-class commercial airline ticket to transport him to his official on-campus recruiting visit, but the school can charter him a private airplane.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For the recruit, maybe. But I doubt you can for the parent under the current rules.
 
QMany said:
I didn't think you could send a private charter for a recruit ...

Jay Bilas is a huge critic of the NCAA (sometimes, too much, IMHO). Here is a bit from one of his articles criticizing recruiting rules:

According to NCAA rules, an institution cannot purchase a recruit a first-class commercial airline ticket to transport him to his official on-campus recruiting visit, but the school can charter him a private airplane.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I believe we can't pay for mom and dad though...

 
BigRedBuster said:
Mavric said:
I don't know about disastrous but it wouldn't benefit Nebraska nearly as much as other schools. As was mentioned, it's tough for us to get kids in during the season and there isn't a lot of time between the end of the regular season and the proposed signing period. I think about 25% of our official visitors this year came after the proposed signing period. Might have been skewed slightly with the coaching change but that's not out of line for what happens a lot. Now a bunch of those kids might have signed already without visiting.
Click to expand...
If it benefits schools in recruiting hot beds and not Nebraska, it would be disastrous.
Click to expand...
Define "disastrous." As in how many recruits from the last five years would we not have gotten under the new system and why.

 
Mavric said:
BigRedBuster said:
Mavric said:
I don't know about disastrous but it wouldn't benefit Nebraska nearly as much as other schools. As was mentioned, it's tough for us to get kids in during the season and there isn't a lot of time between the end of the regular season and the proposed signing period. I think about 25% of our official visitors this year came after the proposed signing period. Might have been skewed slightly with the coaching change but that's not out of line for what happens a lot. Now a bunch of those kids might have signed already without visiting.
Click to expand...
If it benefits schools in recruiting hot beds and not Nebraska, it would be disastrous.
Click to expand...
Define "disastrous." As in how many recruits from the last five years would we not have gotten under the new system and why.
Click to expand...
Now, how in the heck do you think I can even come close to coming up with a list like that?

The fact is, we have a problem being able to get kids on campus the way it is. We can't do it in the summer. During the season, it's hard for them to get here after their games on Friday nights. From before Christmas and until after January 15th, is a quiet period. So, we have literally about 2-3 weeks right before signing day that some kids can make it to campus. Now, let's say they put in an early signing date of December 1st or 15th. Let's also say we are going up against Auburn for a big recruit.

Auburn is going to push extremely hard to get him to sign on December 1st and not wait to be able to take a visit to Nebraska. They might even threaten that if they don't sign, there won't be an offer after that date.

Yes, it would be disastrous to Nebraska if there was an early signing date without major changes to the current visit/recruiting schedule to go along with it.

Edit: Also, to your specific comment about benefiting other schools more than Nebraska, we are already behind the 8 ball because we are not in a recruiting hot bed and you don't see a MAJOR problem if rules are put in that benefit those schools even more?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Will it hurt? Yes, I've said so several times already. Is it disastrous, as in will our classes that are usually ranked 25-35 suddenly become 50-60? Not a chance.

 
Mavric said:
Will it hurt? Yes, I've said so several times already. Is it disastrous, as in will our classes that are usually ranked 25-35 suddenly become 50-60? Not a chance.
Click to expand...
Not a chance at all???? Really????

Personally, even if our classes would slip to constantly being below 30 I would call it disastrous. The players that played in the program this year, came in in classes that averaged 26.2. (2010 - 2014) If that average drops to lower than 30? Well, you think we can't compete with the likes of OSU, Wisconsin, MSU now?

We need to be moving that average the other way. The way that happens is good coaches out making good relationships with recruits AND, regulations that don't give schools in hot beds even more advantage than they currently do.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Mavric said:
Will it hurt? Yes, I've said so several times already. Is it disastrous, as in will our classes that are usually ranked 25-35 suddenly become 50-60? Not a chance.
Click to expand...
Not a chance at all???? Really????

Personally, even if our classes would slip to constantly being below 30 I would call it disastrous. The players that played in the program this year, came in in classes that averaged 26.2. (2010 - 2014) If that average drops to lower than 30? Well, you think we can't compete with the likes of OSU, Wisconsin, MSU now?

We need to be moving that average the other way. The way that happens is good coaches out making good relationships with recruits AND, regulations that don't give schools in hot beds even more advantage than they currently do.
Click to expand...
No. Not a chance. And falling five spots is far from a disaster. Wisconsin was three spots behind us this year. TCU was 10. Missouri was three spots behind us last year. TCU was six. Mississippi State was three spots behind us two years ago. Baylor was five. TCU was 12. Michigan State was 14. Wisconsin was 15. Missouri was 19.

I guess I don't buy the premise that we can't compete with OSU, Wiscy and MSU now. (Why no Michigan, by the way? They almost always have significantly higher-rated classes than we do.) We're 1-1 vs. tOSU, 1-3 vs. Wiscy and 2-2 vs. MSU since joining the conference. 4-6 isn't great but it's not terrible either. Three of the losses were ugly but a couple of the wins were dominating as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
BigRedBuster said:
Mavric said:
Will it hurt? Yes, I've said so several times already. Is it disastrous, as in will our classes that are usually ranked 25-35 suddenly become 50-60? Not a chance.
Click to expand...
Not a chance at all???? Really????

Personally, even if our classes would slip to constantly being below 30 I would call it disastrous. The players that played in the program this year, came in in classes that averaged 26.2. (2010 - 2014) If that average drops to lower than 30? Well, you think we can't compete with the likes of OSU, Wisconsin, MSU now?

We need to be moving that average the other way. The way that happens is good coaches out making good relationships with recruits AND, regulations that don't give schools in hot beds even more advantage than they currently do.
Click to expand...
No. Not a chance. And falling five spots is far from a disaster. Wisconsin was three spots behind us this year. TCU was 10. Missouri was three spots behind us last year. TCU was six. Mississippi State was three spots behind us two years ago. Baylor was five. TCU was 12. Michigan State was 14. Wisconsin was 15. Missouri was 19.

I guess I don't buy the premise that we can't compete with OSU, Wiscy and MSU now. (Why no Michigan, by the way? They almost always have significantly higher-rated classes than we do.) We're 1-1 vs. tOSU, 1-3 vs. Wiscy and 2-2 vs. MSU since joining the conference. 4-6 isn't great but it's not terrible either. Three of the losses were ugly but a couple of the wins were dominating as well.
Click to expand...
i think we can compete with Wisconsin and MSU on the field too. I think OSU is a notch better than us in talent that would allow them to win most of the time against us.

It totally baffles me when Husker fans think it's not a big deal if rules are put in place that benefit programs that are located in recruiting hot beds more than us. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

And...let me ask you this. Do you want to ultimately be included in a group with TCU, Baylor, Wisconsin, MSU, Missouri or OSU, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Texas (of old), aTm (of new), USC, UCLA....etc?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
With our location, there are a lot of players who just can't get here during the season with their own games on Friday nights. Right now, those players are not allowed to have an official visit prior to their HS season starting. So, we push those players to visit after the season. That time to visit is actually only a couple weeks long once the quiet period is over in January.

Personally, I think this entire schedule is a HUGE disadvantage to a school in a location like Nebraska. If a 5* DT from small town Alabama or Louisiana wants to attend an Auburn, Alabama or LSU game on Saturday night, they wake up Saturday morning and drive in for the OF. It's simple. Heck, ti doesn't even need to be an official visit and their parents can easily visit with them.

Now, the only way an early signing date works for Nebraska is if they also start allowing summer visits before their school year starts. That allows for that 5* DT to take an official visit to Nebraska before his season starts. If he wants, he can then visit Alabama or Auburn or LSU during the season (or before like he did with Nebraska)

Also, think about the current schedule I discussed above. Many of these kids can't get here till late January. When is it the least attractive time to visit Nebraska? July? October? Late January?......hmmmmm.....

I'm fine with pushing for an early signing date of something like August 15th or September 1st. But, the bigger issue is allowing summer visits the summer before their senior year.
Click to expand...
That makes sense.

 
There is a very odd work around they have for paying for travel expenses for a recruit. If the recruit drives, the school can then reimburse fuel costs. But this is obviously a very limited use thing, as a kid from Cali would need about a week round trip. Paying for a parent should be coming down in the near future. Its already allowed for basketball, and with the autonomy power now, the little sisters of the poor won't be blocking things that are easily affordable.

 
In isolation the early signing proposal would HURT Nebraska. NU should push for total BIG support to vote against it. Its net effect is to hurt the hard to visit schools (hurts BIG, helps SEC, USC, etc).

All these rules and proposed rules affect NU's ability to recruit, which is ALREADY BAD. NU HAS to be focused and relentless to NEVER lose an inch of ground. Not one inch. Ever.

NU needs any and all changes to improve its recruiting of players from 300+ miles away. Such as have been mentioned.....

1. MUCH earlier start to officials (spring of junior year = spring game/practice visits, nicer weather visits, no conflicts with players HS team schedule)

Do the supposed negatives (are there any?) outweigh the positives? No. Will the SEC vote for this? No. Why? They don't care about the players and they know the current scheme helps them.

2. Parents/guardians fully reimbursed for official visits.

ONLY AFTER those are both accomplished, a December signing date would be fine. NU should never vote for this first. People who say "we'll take care of XYZ later, after we do this here ABC thing first, cuz you know, it's FOR THE KIDS...GOTTA HELP THE KIDS, are LYING. If you don't want to be a sucka, don't be a sucka.

/allcap /lecture /rant

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top