Buy or Sell - Do away with signing day?...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
Sell. What if the coach and system you want to play for get fired in Dec/Jan and the new coach doesnt want you (ala Tubby in Cincy)? It would make it much harder for coaches to recruit that are on the hot seat or hot commodities for better coaching gigs. On the flip side, it would however put a premium for recruits on schools that stick with coaches for long periods of time or have a clear succession line in place.
If you aren't 100 percent, don't sign. Recruits can tell which coaches are in trouble/hot commodities. And it has been stated many times before, you commit to the school, not the coach. As far as being dropped, that's a concern, but maybe the NCAA could set it up where once you sign, your scholarship must be honored for the one year minimum.
Sell. It doesn't matter either way.......
Football is mega-popular. People are fanatical about it. Many base their self-esteem on it. It isn't going anywhere. September 1st will become the new Signing Day at that point. I mean, these guys don't have to sign on Signing Day, they could wait longer.
Football is mega-popular. People are fanatical about it. Many base their self-esteem on it. It isn't going anywhere. September 1st will become the new Signing Day at that point. I mean, these guys don't have to sign on Signing Day, they could wait longer.
Soft buy. Or at least add an early signing period. I think it would help the classes shake out a little better. The bigger names would probably wait and enjoy their recruitment, knowing their spots are secure, but other people would be incented to get a binding commitment (it would have to be binding on both sides). This would also let high school seniors protect themselves from injury. It would also put an interesting incentive on getting qualified. People would probably still take risks on the biggest recruits, but if you're borderline, you know you're not going to get a commitable offer if qualifying isn't a sure thing.
The only downside I see is it might put some players in a position where they have to commit before they really know what they want to do, and it might limit the options of some players that really improve their senior year. Maybe recruiting during the season takes that much more resources, because a recruit could be convinced by family/coaches on the take to sign at any time. That's the only reason I think an early signing period might be better.
The only downside I see is it might put some players in a position where they have to commit before they really know what they want to do, and it might limit the options of some players that really improve their senior year. Maybe recruiting during the season takes that much more resources, because a recruit could be convinced by family/coaches on the take to sign at any time. That's the only reason I think an early signing period might be better.
Sell if that's the way it'd be set up. I'd be all for an early signing period, say, a 2 week period mid-season that they could sign and eliminate the pressure on them coming down to the wire on NSD. If you did in fact sign in the early period, you are bound to that school unless there are coaching changes or NCAA investigations, in which you could nullify your binding contract. Much like when the NCAA granted transfer waiver for Penn State players.
If recruit opted to continue the recruiting process, it'd be the same as it is right now, except I think schools/recruits would be much more decisive b/c of limited spots.
If a recruit signed during the early period, but reopened their recruitment w/o a waiver, they'd lose a year of eligibility or something.
If recruit opted to continue the recruiting process, it'd be the same as it is right now, except I think schools/recruits would be much more decisive b/c of limited spots.
If a recruit signed during the early period, but reopened their recruitment w/o a waiver, they'd lose a year of eligibility or something.
Last edited:
I don't know if "commit to the school, not the coach" applies at the high end of the spectrum. There's a reason why Nkemdiche wants nothing to do with Bama. It's not a problem with too many crystal footballs. It's the fact that he doesn't want to be the beef that occupies 2 OLs so one of their LBs can get all the headlines and awards.
I'd have an early signing day in mid-Fall. Say around mid October. If a school is willing to provide a written offer ready to be signed by the recruit, then I say let it happen. I'd also put a head coach condition on the offer. I'd give the option for a recruit to either make it a binding agreement or an agreement dependent on if the head coach is still the head man. If it's binding it must be honored by the school and the player no matter what. If they go the coach-dependent option, then the recruit can opt out before Dec. 31st if a coaching change is made. However, that option would also give the SCHOOL the option to void the offer letter by the same Dec. 31st date if a head coaching change is made. But the recruit gets the choice in mid October. If the school is not willing for the offer to be permanent regardless, don't offer it. And if a player doesn't want the risk of being thrown out to sea on 12/31, either don't sign it to begin with, or make it a firm scholarship.
BFB
BFB
buy an early signing period.
it would force coaches like saban to make a decision on players early. the recruits would know where they stood with the coaching staff if the coaching staff would not accept an LOI from them in the early signing period. they'd know they were a backup plan. which might open up some of these kids to start considering schools like msu. maybe we'd offer to take an early signing period LOI and could get some of these kids in the bag, instead of having saban tell them how great they were and how much they'd contribute, etc etc etc, and then only to drop or ask them to greyshirt close to signing day.
it would force coaches like saban to make a decision on players early. the recruits would know where they stood with the coaching staff if the coaching staff would not accept an LOI from them in the early signing period. they'd know they were a backup plan. which might open up some of these kids to start considering schools like msu. maybe we'd offer to take an early signing period LOI and could get some of these kids in the bag, instead of having saban tell them how great they were and how much they'd contribute, etc etc etc, and then only to drop or ask them to greyshirt close to signing day.
Head coach yes - assistant coaches. if you're making your college decision based on an asst. coach then you're an idiot. I've been a advocate for this for a while now and I really don't see a downside to an early signing period if you let a kids out of his LOI for a head coaching change. I think there are much more benefits for everyone involved.
Kids that are 100% sure don't have to deal with the hassels from other schools and media and can protect their spot while schools get an earlier look at positions they have locked down and can spend more time on the remaining targets.
Might be a good idea but it won't sell.
Too big of a money maker now on the interwebs, radio and TV.
Too big of a money maker now on the interwebs, radio and TV.
If you do that, you've effectively moved signing day to September 1. Coaches would recruit earlier, offer earlier and put immense pressure on players to sign on September 1. Most would do it that day.
I've always been in favor of an early fall signing period to allow the early commits to lock in and move on with their senior year. That way you also force committed prospects to show you if they are truly committed or just reserving a spot.
I've always been in favor of an early fall signing period to allow the early commits to lock in and move on with their senior year. That way you also force committed prospects to show you if they are truly committed or just reserving a spot.