Started By
Message

Early signing period for football close to becoming reality

Posted on 6/12/15 at 9:28 pm
Posted by RLDSC FAN
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Member since Nov 2008
51479 posts
Posted on 6/12/15 at 9:28 pm
quote:

An early signing period for college football is close to becoming a reality after years of debate and discussion about giving prospects the opportunity to end their recruitment before February.

The Collegiate Commissioners Association, which administers the national letter of intent recruits sign to make their verbal commitments to a school binding, will meet next week in Asheville, North Carolina, and are expected to vote Tuesday or Wednesday on a proposal to create a new three-day signing period in December.

The dates would match-up with the signing period for midyear enrollees, who are usually transferring in from junior college.

The early signing period would start this year on Dec. 16 and be reviewed after two years.

"Seeing the rule approved is a distinct possibility," said Mid-American Conference Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher, who has led the committee assigned with coming up with a proposal.

The Southeastern Conference is the only FBS league that has publicly stated opposition to the proposal.

ACC coaches voted in favor of the proposed early signing period during their spring meetings and Pac-12 coaches also support it.

The Big 12 and Big Ten have not put forth official conference positions on early signing, but Ohio State Athletic Director Gene Smith told reporters at Big Ten spring meetings a "super majority" of schools in his conference was in favor.

Big 12 schools are divided, Commissioner Bob Bowlsby said.



LINK

Good, bad? What do you guys think
Posted by Rebel Land Shark
Member since Jul 2013
30162 posts
Posted on 6/12/15 at 9:28 pm to
Good
Posted by Old Sarge
Dean of Admissions, LSU
Member since Jan 2012
55219 posts
Posted on 6/12/15 at 9:30 pm to
quote:

The Southeastern Conference is the only FBS league that has publicly stated opposition to the proposal.




Why?
This post was edited on 6/12/15 at 9:31 pm
Posted by deeprig9
Unincorporated Ozora, Georgia
Member since Sep 2012
63867 posts
Posted on 6/12/15 at 9:39 pm to
quote:

he Southeastern Conference is the only FBS league that has publicly stated opposition to the proposal.



quote:

Why?



Because Saban wants it, so the other 13 schools say frick that.


I tend to agree.

If Saban thinks something is good, then the rest of us must be getting fricked somehow.

Posted by WildcatMike
Lexington, KY
Member since Dec 2005
41528 posts
Posted on 6/12/15 at 9:55 pm to
Good.
Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
37579 posts
Posted on 6/12/15 at 11:47 pm to
Waaaaaay past due.
Posted by coachcrisp
pensacola, fl
Member since Jun 2012
30589 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:14 am to
quote:

Because Saban wants it, so the other 13 schools say frick that. I tend to agree. If Saban thinks something is good, then the rest of us must be getting fricked somehow.
I guess being the baddest arse in town has its moments.
Posted by SECdragonmaster
Order of the Dragons
Member since Dec 2013
16175 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:16 am to
Just needs a provision that if the head coach leaves, they can open back up recruitment.
Posted by meansonny
ATL
Member since Sep 2012
25553 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:16 am to
How does this help the athlete again?

As far as I'm concerned, it binds the athlete to a unilateral contract. All of the benefits go to the universities and none to the athlete.
Posted by CCTider
Member since Dec 2014
24101 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:29 am to
quote:

Just needs a provision that if the head coach leaves, they can open back up recruitment.



This is the most important part, imo. If someone leaves for another job, then they should be released without penalty.

And the benefit to the recruit, is that they get to shut it down. I'm sure at a certain point, those recruiting calls become a annoying as telemarketers.
This post was edited on 6/13/15 at 7:30 am
Posted by lowspark12
nashville, tn
Member since Aug 2009
22365 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:43 am to
Bad idea IMO... will make recruiting even more of a circus than it already is.
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25872 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:50 am to
Terrible idea. Let's rope all these kids in before the coaching carousel starts.
Posted by coachcrisp
pensacola, fl
Member since Jun 2012
30589 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:52 am to
quote:

And the benefit to the recruit, is that they get to shut it down. I'm sure at a certain point, those recruiting calls become a annoying as telemarketers.
Bingo! It's totally a win-win situation. If a recruit likes the process, don't sign, but if, as many have stated, it becomes old or a burden on the kid, he can simply sign with the school of his choice and the rest will leave him alone.
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25872 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:52 am to
quote:

And the benefit to the recruit, is that they get to shut it down. I'm sure at a certain point, those recruiting calls become a annoying as telemarketers.

This is pretty weak justification.
Posted by CCTider
Member since Dec 2014
24101 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:55 am to
As long as a kid has an out in case the hc, or possibly the coordinator, leaves, then I'm all for it. But let's not pretend that staff isn't a huge factor, and that it's all about the school.

The recruit also gets protection in case a coach tries a last minute red shirt, like happened with that QB last year.
Posted by coachcrisp
pensacola, fl
Member since Jun 2012
30589 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:56 am to
quote:

This is pretty weak justification.
Wrong! You've obviously not aware of the strain and annoyance recruiting becomes on some of these kids and their families. They often speak of it at signings.
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25872 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:57 am to
If you have to have all these protections and out clauses, it's probably best to just not do it at all imo.
Posted by 3rddownonthe8
Atlanta, GA
Member since Aug 2011
5212 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:58 am to
Wow and actual insightful position from an Aubie. J/k

Totally agree with you. There needs to be some transparency in recruiting. But I think not only head coach but OC and DC's as well. It's completely unfair to the recruit. Just look at the situation with UCLA, UGA, and Roquan. It was clearly obvious that UCLA was trying to delay the DC announcement till RS signed. That's just wrong imo.
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25872 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 7:59 am to
quote:

Wrong! You've obviously not aware of the strain and annoyance recruiting becomes on some of these kids and their families. They often speak of it at signings.

That's the 5*. Those guys make up a tiny portion of the recruiting pool.

I'm thinking about the other 95% of recruits who have no leverage.
This post was edited on 6/13/15 at 8:01 am
Posted by fillmoregandt
OTM
Member since Nov 2009
14368 posts
Posted on 6/13/15 at 8:01 am to
quote:

If you have to have all these protections and out clauses, it's probably best to just not do it at all imo.


This

Just another example of folks trying to fix CFB when it's not broken
Page 1 2 3
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter