According to Mitch Sherman of ESPN.com, the wheels are in motion for an early signing period in college football.
College football is taking steps toward establishing an early signing period, according to the NCAA official who manages the national letter of intent program.
Additionally, it seems as if early official visits are happening too.
The introduction of an early period, Peal said, likely would coincide with NCAA legislation to allow early official visits. Currently, prospects are not allowed to make official visits until Sept. 1 of their senior years.
It seems like the main sticking point is when the early signing period should be.
Peal said the NCAA recently surveyed coaches about an early signing period. Most of the disagreement, she said, involves the actual date.
Options could include a fall date, late-summer or early-summer. No consensus exists.
Frank Beamer has been in favor of an early signing period for a long while. Here's an excerpt from a 2009 interview with Mike Harris.
ACCSports.com: What's one change that needs to be made to college football today?
Beamer: There's not much. I think things are in pretty good shape. I think it would probably have something to do with recruiting and soft commitments, maybe an early sign date. There's no real easy answer. I don't like commitments, then all of a sudden they're soft commitments and they're still visiting so-and-so. It's not an easy thing, but I think we're getting a little closer to (an early signing period), because so many more kids are committing early. So many programs have their class in line before fall starts. I don't have the exact answer, but there's something there.
Beamer's given similar responses over the last couple of years.
What does everyone think about a potential early signing period?
Comments
Do committed recruits get an out if the coaching staff changes?
Otherwise I think this is a great idea
This. Balance the ability for schools and kids to develop relationships early but put safeguards in place so that under certain circumstances the kids or the school can opt out later.
: School offers schollie, kid commits in writing
-> No coaching changes happen? Kid is bound by the commitment.
-> Head coach, coordinator they'd play under, or primary recruiter leaves? Kid can decommit.
-> School drops their major? Kid can decommit.
-> Kid fails senior year? School can revoke offer.
-> Kid goes on more official visits? School can revoke offer.
-> Once commit happens, no tampering allowed by other schools.
etc, etc.
Point is, it has to be fair to both the kid and the school. The school and the coaching staff need to be viewed as one big, static unit by the NCAA. If an adult, who isn't bound by the LOI, changes the deal before the kid enrolls, the kid needs to have rights to reopen the commitment. But the whole governing body of college sports needs to be on the same page so that schools that aren't bound by any individual LOI have to respect it, too.
I think the early signing period is a good idea, and I don't really care how early they sign. Kiffin wants to offer an 8th grader? Sure, why not, but you can't revoke it if his grades qualify him by time he's a senior in high school, even if he busts on the field. There are risks on both sides, but in the absence of blatant disregard for the spirit of the LOI, both sides need to respect it and both sides need to have protections.
Gosh I love the ideas you mentioned.
Upvote, because that's just good horse sense.
In addition to Horses excellent suggestions, I would add in a provision that an early signing would be a 1-2 week process. This would help keep HS kids from being locked into an impulse decision.
gave you your 1000th leg. GO HOKIES!
Actually I would prefer that schools are prohibited from contacting younger kids. I think that schools should not be able to formally, or formerly in LOLUVA's case, contact or offer a kid until his Junior year of high school.
The pressure of recruiting is already intense on 16/17/18 year old kids and a lot get into trouble with the "ride". I can't imagine a 12/13 year old making great decisions at that age or one that they won't want to reconsider 5 to 6 years later.
And if the NCAA wants really to be about the STUDENT-athlete then the amount of sports program information should be limited, say once a month at most, up until this time as well. Keep everything mostly school centric. What is campus life like? What is the daily schedule of a football player like? What your major will be like? Campus housing/food options (which we rock) are like? etc...
That way when a recruit finally has opportunity to commit they at least have an informed knowledge of the school that they will live at for 4 years.
Finally, I would like to see verbal commitments done away with altogether. After you start your Junior year you can commit at any time you want, but must be a LOI. But if you are Senior you must commit by the national LOI day we have now. Once you submit your LOI then follow Horse's rules above.
I agree with everything here (especially getting rid of the verbal commit). I also say schools aren't allowed to 'offer' a scholarship until a high school student is half way through junior year. Also, once a player is offered a scholarship, that offer cannot be revoked (unless student fails classes, gets into trouble with the law, etc).
I'm ok adding additional signing date(s). I imagine the recruiting process can be quite draining. If players have a decision in mind, and don't want to receive 100 letters from other coaches, then they should be able to sign early. If a regular student can apply to a school 'early decision', college athletes should be able to do so too.
I don't see how you can get rid of verbal commits. I may be wrong, but the NCAA doesn't regulate verbal commits. There's always going to be kids that say "I'm going to commit to School X at signing day." Even with an early signing period, there will always be verbal commitments leading up to either signing day.
True. But the NCAA doesn't say they are meaningless either. This way, if they say only an LOI can be given to a school by a recruit, any verbal is rendered moot until they give their LOI. Besides if a kid now gives his verbal commitment to a school and says he will sign, then that same kid can just go ahead and give his LOI when he would "normally" give a verbal.
I must be missing something. In what way does the NCAA care about verbals? I understand them to be a non-binding statement of intent. Much like I can say I'm committed to going to McDonald's for lunch, but then decide to go to Souvlaki's instead without any repercussion.
Never said the NCAA cares, and actually not talking about the NCAA. What I am saying is that in its current state, recruits give verbals as an indication of where they will sign. And as you pointed out some change their mind a lot. The trouble is that everyone, including the schools recruiting them, use the verbal as some form of indication and will judge whether to give another kid a scholarship or not based on that. If recruits can give an LOI at any time then schools can have a contractual commitment from that kid immediately, and don't need to play the guessing game that he may get stolen or choose another program. Meaning any time a kid says to a coach "I'm going to X school" they can say "great, hand me the LOI". If they don't then they know he is not serious yet and can react accordingly.
You would break the hearts of the McDonalds staff and fans...
Yeah, good points. To clarify what I wrote, I mean that there should be a date to which every recruit MUST commit before end of their high school education, which can be the date we have now. But Juniors and Seniors may commit at any time once they reach their 3rd year of high school up to and on that date.
The problems with having a cut off date for when LOIs can be received is that some recruits don't receive a lot of attention until their Senior Year and schools may have scholarships open up at the last moment. Kalvin Cline didn't play football until his Senior Year, so he didn't even recieve any attention for college football until a few months before signing day. He ended up commiting to the Hokies in late May, a couple months after signing day. Other situations might include students who aren't sure if they'll qualify until the end of high school and those who want to focus on finishing high school before they make a decision on college. There also could easily be instances where a school has a scholarship open up late because a recruit they're pursuing goes to another school, a comitted recruit is injured in a way that ends their athletic career, etc. If a school has a scholarship available they should be able to offer it to a freshman as late as they like.
ah, excellent point. +1
Schools can't actually offer a scholarship IN WRITING until something like halfway through the Fall Semester of the recruit's senior year. We hear all the time about a scholarship being offered to a kid who is a sophomore, freshman, or even a kindergartener, but those are just them saying "hey, we want you to come to our school and we will give you a scholarship in time to do so." They don't actually have a scholarship offer until it is in writing from the university. Which is why there often is some sort of drama as a recuit that committed early under the notion that he would receive a scholarship didn't receive a letter saying that they have a scholarship for him.
Correct. I am saying allow offers to go out start of Junior year, and let kids commit via LOI whenever they want.
I think that's dangerous. You're talking about 16 year olds, who can easily get caught up in the moment. I'd stink for coaches to push for guys to sign at the end of any kind of visit. A kid could get locked into a crappy school during his junior year, before he's really even had a chance to figure out what he actually wants to go to school for, or look around at other schools, simply because his first visit was a lot of fun and he got swept up in it. I think we need to look to protect children/young adults who are making very difficult decisions, not make it easier for fans to follow recruiting.
Is there an option now where if the kid starts getting into trouble with the law or whatever, the scholarship can be pulled? I'm not talking about them going to jail for something serious but just general trouble.
Do they mean a firm commitment? Or LOI?
I think early official visits are fine. I think getting the kids into the recruitment will give them more chance to get used to the idea of the recruitment and help them make the final decision easier.
I'm OK with early visits/commitments. I knew that I wanted to be a Hokie at the very beginning of my junior year of high school, so why make these kids (and coaches) wait if they feel the same way?
Im OK with the national signing day as is - mostly because its a hard deadline. If they start changing things its just going to evolve into something else that nobody(or few) want. I cringe envisioning lawyers suing schools to get commits out of early signings. I also think they should restrict how early a recruit can verbally commit.
It makes a lot of sense to have an early signing period just like how basketball has. I think it particularly helps out VT's program.
How so?
If a kid is legally bound to another school no use in giving him, his "mentor" or his family money. It would cut down on the time the practices can occur
Or just make them all happen sooner...