NCAA has approved early signing period of 72 hrs. , between Dec 20 and Dec 22.of this year..Does this help or hurt our football recruiting,or does recruiting remain the same? I.e.: The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Thoughts!
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I don't think this is the right time to have it, tbh. If you want an early signing period, have it before the season starts. Not sure what this helps moving it up a few weeks.
Agreed, plus coaches are going through bowl prep and such. I like having an August signing period and than another in February, similar to how basketball has one in the Fall and then another in the Spring.
Advantage: UVA
savage
Is it, really?
Still don't understand why there's a single (or two) signing day(s)... There should be a 'rolling' signing day, and every scholarship offer should be given with a letter of intent to sign.
I guess the new rule is a step in the right direction?
step in the right direction I suppose is accurate.
I am not sure if rolling is the way to go though. I like the idea of there being several windows. An August window before season, a December window before bowling and then the existing time.
This gives recruits and programs set timelines to manage and as commitments come in bunches in each window they can readjust or create a strategy for the next window. It will also give recruits an increasingly accurate picture to judge how they should handle their own strategy to hold out or not.
Unfortunately, this hurts student athletes who are working hard and struggling to qualify. Lots of spots will be filled up by the first two windows and it will be even more difficult to find a landing spot. There will likely never be a perfect way to fix the system. There are pros and cons to adding this early signing period, or periods, as you've suggested.
I disagree.
This should give them a lot more clarity. Your premise is that spots will fill up and they will be left out because they had to wait for qualifying. My counter is that having windows will give those struggling athletes a clear picture at where spots are indeed open. If, for example, a recruit wants to get to VT and sees that we are 90% filled up in first 2 windows and his position already filled then he will know definitively to revert to his 2nd and 3rd choice immediately. Otherwise, he may be struggling the entire time holding out for VT only to find them take other higher ranked recruits at the very end and now he needs to make immediate and perhaps fruitless calls to other programs at the last minute.
My point is that the overall available spots will be fewer if most schools have 70+% locked up in the first few windows and will be less likely to take a chance with their fewer remaining scholarships on a last ditch qualifier.
Regardless, I think it will end up working out well for some and not so well for others. Some might utilize it as you've suggested, and others might end up in the situation I just presented. Either way, I stand firm that there are pros and cons and that it's not just 100% clearly better to have early signing periods.
Aren't schools already taking a chance on late qualifiers? I don't think this changes that equation at all to the detriment of the recruit. Schools currently are taking a chance on late qualifiers to hold out positions for them, and in my scenario that would not change. If a school wants them they will wait for them. Conversely, it helps the recruits know which programs are seriously waiting or not.
not saying this is 100% clearly better, but I do think it is better than the current practice or a rolling policy.
It's just simple math that there will be fewer scholarships (opportunities) available in the last window in this case. I'm not suggesting schools won't wait for super stars, they are the exception, not the rule, they will always wait for super stars. It's why schools hold spots open when a five star randomly decides to go way past signing day to sign. It's the three star kid whose ultimate goal of playing football is to attain a degree he might otherwise not be able to afford.
Not really, whether a school has 1 scholarship available or 15 going into that last period, past recruiting has made it clear that not all coaching staffs/schools are completely honest about who they are waiting on. This is pretty much assuming full disclosure and guarantees from coaching staffs are made to all their remaining targets which just isn't the case and it never will be unless more binding rules are placed on commitments/scholarship offers. So yes, it is true if every coaching staff is being completely honest and guaranteeing a spot to every recruit who is a late qualifier.
Additionally, we haven't even touched on how early signing periods will leave many kids stranded at universities with coaching staffs that didn't recruit them since most fires/hires occur during the winter. Another huge issue created by this where the recruits have even more room to be lied to and misled.
the flip side is that if a coach offers a kid early, right now the coach can rescind the offer when he lands a better player at that position. A lot of these kids are told they are integral to the recruiting class right up until the offer is pulled on signing day. Now that same kid can lock in the spot by signing early and the coach has to live with it/be more cautious about handing out "non-commitable" offers. If the coach won't let the kid sign in the early period, it's pretty clear where things stand and the kid can de-commit and move on.
This seems like an improvement, in that regard.
This is one of the major pros for sure. I mentioned up farther a bit that I think there are definite pros and cons. My main point with that second paragraph was moreso pointing out that these issues with full disclosure and promises will continue to exist with any signing day time. The issue with the dishonesty, whether genuine or perceived, is how none of this is binding except the letter of intent.
tl;dr: Dishonesty, changing minds, lying, etc will continue in any scenario from both sides.
Simple math and schools waiting
It happens now. The risk is no greater with early signing dates. 3 stars that are late qualifiers have an uproad battle no matter what. having the signing period only at the end makes this a pure guessing game for these recruits. And if my goal as a 3 star is to get a degree paid for, ultimately I want more clarity on where I can fit in and get that paid for, by seeing which programs I'll be most likely to sign with late. Rather than pin my hopes on last minute recruiting numbers to work out at my top pick(s) and potentially, as you said later, dishonest coaches.
Seriously waiting or not
My point is that a recruit would be able to visibly see the current state of open slots in a program and not guess. It takes one variable out of the equation. I didn't mention anything about coaches being honest or dishonest.
Kids stranded
I have always been of the mind that there needs to be an option out for early recruits if coaching changes happen. On the flip side, recruits need to pick a school not a coach, unless your a big time 4* or 5* and play specifically in a type of system but other programs would happily accept them in that case.
Your argument just isn't that convincing. I don't see how this puts 3*s in any greater peril. I only see it being better for them. Any late qualifier that wants a paid degree ultimately just wants to get on a roster. The way things are now, it is unclear and they have no way of knowing if a program really has an open slot. In early signing windows, unless the coach is dishonest you have that clarity.
also no big deal, agree to disagree
Let me be clear, because I wasn't clear from the outset, I don't think early signing period is a bad idea and I think it has major pros and some notable cons. I think the pros probably outweigh the cons, but it doesn't make me feel any less bad for a kid working hard to qualify who might miss out. Now to be honest, I don't see how you can say it's not any different. If a player has 4 offers from schools, and all four of those schools have 25 scholarships available, there will be 100 potential scholarships for him to nab as he qualifies late in the process before a normal signing day. Let's say each of those schools filled up half of those numbers on average with an early signing day, he is now competing for 50 spots. There's no way you can say that it's still the exact same. With fewer available scholarships, schools will have to be more conservative with them and make sure they are going to bodies that will be on campus in the fall. Therefore, less likely to take chances on a late qualifier.
That said, I don't think the lack of clarity and dishonesty is going to disappear with an early signing period. Lying will still happen, and it will still happen from both sides. I also don't think they are going to enact some clause that lets the kids leave if the coaches leave, that's wishful thinking. Sure, it would be a safer bet for the student athletes IF that happened, but as far as I know, it's not even on the horizon.
I'm fine with agree to disagree. I just wanted to point out some cons in the early signing day because I think many people are viewing it as a heroic change to an evil system which I don't think is the case. Also, most casual fans are just excited because they won't have as many recruits stolen late by FSU/Bama/etc. Of course, that isn't the case for everyone, and you clearly have other more nuanced reasons for supporting it.
I think this is a misconception and it's assuming coaches are not being transparent with the recruit. But taking that as an assumption, we must also assume a recruit has no idea how many other recruits are targeted for the same spot. Also recruiting is by position so lets get the numbers down to something more functional for demonstration. lets say our fictional recruit is a QB, each school is taking an amount between 1 and say 3, so how about 1, 2, 2, and 3. So there are a total of 8 spots available for our struggling recruit.
The next issue is that a recruit ostensibly has no real knowledge of how many targets each school has for each spot. Lets say each school has 5 targets for each spot they have. So the school with 1 spot has 5 targets, and the one with 3 spots has 15 targets. Now our wayward recruit is in a pool of 40 targets. Some may repeat as our recruit does obviously if a 4 schools gave him an offer. others don't, but our recruit does not have that clarity so moot.
So there are 8 spots with 40 targets. Or is there? 3 of those programs have multiple spots so have a higher need. They are less likely to wait on our late qualifier. But our recruit is told by our assumptive less than savory coaches that he is indeed still in the mix. Yet he has no clarity to believe otherwise. Those schools with multiple spots take out the risk by locking down their best available pick(s). So schools with 2 spots take 1 hard commitment, school with 3 spots takes 2, school with 1 takes 0. Again, our recruit has no way of knowing this, but his chances went from a 8 spots for 40 targets, to 4 spots for 36 targets. Yikes, not looking good at all for our Rudy that needs a chance and pinning his hopes on coaches because he has no other information to make a judgement on.
Now consider the windows of early signing scenario. Using the same numbers of spots, targets and risk elimination. Each of those four schools will mitigate their risk in windows 1 and 2. Now our recruit can see and knows that these schools actually do not have 8 spots with 40 targets, rather 4 spots for 36 targets. He can see that happening and with his added sense of clarity can make a judgement. hold out for one of these spots, or open his recruitment up to programs that he may not have been considering but have more spots open. Or, and this is the best part, he does both. he doesn't have to pull out of consideration of the first 4, but he knows he should hedge his bets now so moves focus to 1 or more schools that still have a high need for him
I agree nothing is perfect and major pros and cons with everything. But in the case of kids making a life changing decision, more information always seems like the better option.
Not a huge fan. Coaches are still often on the hot seat at this time or teams are still finding new or replacement coaches. Just doesn't make sense to me.
agree that there should be an option out if coaching change happens. Have not read this change, does anyone know if that is the case?
Isn't it totally possible that this just moves the coaching hotseat window up some more? Typically this time was when a lot of coaches are fired or hired because national signing day is around the corner. I think the coaching carousel will adjust to this because no school wants to lose the next big recruit
But that would mean we move into November when many teams are still playing or bowl prepping.
right, but the teams who are looking to fire their coaches won't be making a bowl game anyway.
There are a lot of bigger name schools where an 8-6 finish is the hot seat for them. Even a 6-6 where you lose to a rival can spell the end at big SEC school or Big 10 schools. The players going there are pretty hot commodities.
How I have always understood the concept of the early signing period, it is intended for G5s to be able to avoid late cycle recruit poaching from bigger schools. What I think will happen is only the big boys will get these early signees, they can then figure out their needs, and poach more selectively. It just creates a new siphoning effect where everyone pulls from one peg below them and lets some guys get late offers.
What no one is talking about, and I have only read this, may be inaccurate, is the changes to the visit structure. Official visits used to only be done in October or later. The new structure allows for visits between April-June. Northern schools that were already flirting with winter in October can now bring their recruit when it is nice out.
Hell, at Nebraska you're at risk of being fired after finishing the regular season 9-3. It's happened twice, once in 2003 to Frank Solich, and again in 2014 to Bo Pelini.
weren't there underlying culture issues in both those cases? At least with Pelini... or am I not remembering that correctly
Bo Pelini, yes.
Frank Solich, no. He was fired for a second-straight season without winning the division (like he had done the previous 3 years). A top-3 season with a Big XII title, followed by two top-10 seasons with Big XII North titles, followed by a 7-7 season with a (reported) ultimatum of "return to the Big XII Championship Game or you're gone".
Richt was fired after a 9-3 season and a top 25 finish.
For me, the big "pro" to it is that it gives certainty to those who want it.
For those who don't, there's always February.