Started By
Message

Vote on 10th football coach, early signing period, & camps could come today

Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:47 am
Posted by TideSaint
Hill Country
Member since Sep 2008
75832 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:47 am
quote:

The NCAA Division I Council begins meeting today in Indianapolis, with a number of potentially sweeping changes for college football being put up for a vote.

Any legislation enacted by the Division I Council today faces final approval from the NCAA Board of Directors, but this could be a watershed week for college football recruiting and coaching.

Here's an overview of the proposed pieces of legislation:

1. Early signing period proposal: Currently, only mid-year junior college transfers are allowed to sign with four-year schools during the mid-December signing period. The new proposal would open that 72-hour period to high school seniors, creating a second signing period in addition to the one that already begins on the first Wednesday in February. A third proposed signing date -- in June prior to a recruit's senior year of high school -- was previously voted down. At the American Football Coaches Association convention in San Antonio in January, dozens of FBS coaches spoke out in favor of adding the December signing period. (NOTE: The Division I Council can only recommend the change to the Collegiate Commissioners Association, which governs the National Letter of Intent program. The CCA would then have the enact the change on its own).

2. 10th assistant coach for football effective date: The ability of FBS programs to hire a 10th on-field assistant coach -- they are now limited to nine -- was first proposed last year, with the thought it would be effective immediately once approved by the Division I Council. A handful of schools hired qualified assistant coaches in off-field roles, with the thought they could be moved on-field once the 10th assistant coach legislation was passed. However, some schools expressed concern that having to make an immediate hire of a coach with a six-figure salary would tax athletic department budgets. The proposal before the D1 Council this week would make the addition of the 10th assistant coach effective on Jan. 8, 2018.

3. Early official visit limitations -- Under this proposal, football recruits could take official visits only in April of their junior year of high school. Currently, those visits can take place any time from April 1 through late June.

4. Signing limit exemption -- Under this proposal, if a signee becomes injured or ill to the point that he or she must give up football, that signee would not count toward that year's recruiting class signing limit of 25. In the past, schools were not able to replace a signee who was deemed unable to continue playing football prior to participating in organized team activities.

5. Hiring of "Individuals Associated With Prospective Student-Athletes" -- This is a controversial proposal, about which Gus Malzahn, Nick Saban and other FBS coaches have already spoken out. Under this proposal, a school cannot hire a high school, prep school, junior college coach or "other individual associated with" prospective student-athletes to an off-field or strength & conditioning position for a two-year period before a prospect enrolls and a two-year period after. This means no more high school coaches getting hired as analysts by college programs where a prominent player from that school signs, the route to college football taken by Ole Miss head coach Hugh Freeze and Alabama defensive coordinator Jeremy Pruitt, among others. If college programs want to hire a high school coach, they would have to do so to an on-field position.

6. Removing FCS programs from signing limit -- Currently, FCS schools can sign up to 30 recruits each year. The proposal would remove that limit, with the rationale being that FCS schools are not typically guilty of over-signing. The 25-player recruiting class limit for FBS schools would remain in place.

7. The end of satellite camps -- Under this proposal, an individual FBS school's camps or clinics would be limited to a 10-day period in June or July. No more month-long camp tour, a la Michigan's Jim Harbaugh last year. In addition, the dead period between the last Wednesday in June and the end of July would be removed for FCS programs only. Currently, FCS programs can only hold camps or clinics during July or during weeks that include days in June (for example, May 28-June 3). Because camps are such a big recruiting tool at the FCS level, not allowing recruiting camps during the bulk of June were viewed as an unnecessary restriction.


LINK

The 10th on-the-field coach is a no-brainer.

I'm all for an early Signing Day as well.
Posted by NYCAuburn
TD Platinum Membership/SECr Sheriff
Member since Feb 2011
57002 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:50 am to
quote:

2. 10th assistant coach for football effective date:


A lot of these high profile analyst are praying for this
Posted by Master of Sinanju
Member since Feb 2012
11305 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:54 am to
So which ones are going to pass?
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25869 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:54 am to
I still don't see the upside of an early signing day. It's just another pressure point for professionals to use to manipulate teenagers. The LOI is already a one-sided contract.
Posted by scrooster
Resident Ethicist
Member since Jul 2012
37559 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:55 am to
10th coach is a done deal.

Not sure about the rest of them but I'd be surprised if the early signing period thing passes.
Posted by TideSaint
Hill Country
Member since Sep 2008
75832 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:57 am to
quote:

I still don't see the upside of an early signing day. It's just another pressure point for professionals to use to manipulate teenagers.


Except it works for college basketball. Are you saying football players are more than likely to be manipulated than basketball players?
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25869 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 9:59 am to
quote:

Except it works for college basketball. Are you saying football players are more than likely to be manipulated than basketball players?

Basketball recruiting is a totally different thing (AAU coaches with a lot more leverage specific to this issue) and is totally fricked up. Football should do everything possible to not be like basketball in recruiting.
This post was edited on 4/13/17 at 10:00 am
Posted by TideSaint
Hill Country
Member since Sep 2008
75832 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:04 am to
quote:

Football should do everything possible to not be like basketball in recruiting.


Perhaps.

I look at it like this. If a kid is 100% certain he wants to attend a school why make him wait until February? He can sign in December and be done with the whole recruiting process. It'd be less stress on him in the end and he'd have a guaranteed scholarship.

I mean, even kids who are early enrollees can't sign a LOI until they've been in school for a month. How stupid is that?
Posted by PJinAtl
Atlanta
Member since Nov 2007
12739 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:08 am to
quote:

I still don't see the upside of an early signing day. It's just another pressure point for professionals to use to manipulate teenagers. The LOI is already a one-sided contract.
I think the early signing period should only be open to those who would be able to enroll in classes for the beginning of the January semester. If a high school senior is able to finish his classes and graduate a semester early, he can sign in December and enroll in January. Otherwise he has to wait until the February signing period.
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25869 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:13 am to
quote:

I look at it like this. If a kid is 100% certain he wants to attend a school why make him wait until February? He can sign in December and be done with the whole recruiting process. It'd be less stress on him in the end and he'd have a guaranteed scholarship.


Make no mistake, all but a select few will be forced to sign in December to lock in a spot at a major program. The ones who aren't sure will be forced to make a decision well before the coaching carousel (especially assistants) stops spinning. They should have as much time and opportunity as possible to make the best possible decision.

You will also have kids that need to sign early at smaller schools to lock in a scholarship. A lot of those kids would be candidates for late offers at bigger and better programs. They're pretty fricked by this proposal. Either take the sure thing, or take the risk of being SOL if the big school gets the 5* in February. Dominick Sanders is an All-SEC safety who would be playing for UCF under this rule.

I'm willing to let the "100% sure" kids wait 2 months to avoid those things. They can turn their phone off if it's so stressful.
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25869 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:14 am to
quote:

I think the early signing period should only be open to those who would be able to enroll in classes for the beginning of the January semester. If a high school senior is able to finish his classes and graduate a semester early, he can sign in December and enroll in January. Otherwise he has to wait until the February signing period.


I would be OK with this.
Posted by TideSaint
Hill Country
Member since Sep 2008
75832 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:19 am to
quote:

Make no mistake, all but a select few will be forced to sign in December to lock in a spot at a major program. The ones who aren't sure will be forced to make a decision well before the coaching carousel (especially assistants) stops spinning. They should have as much time and opportunity as possible to make the best possible decision.

You will also have kids that need to sign early at smaller schools to lock in a scholarship. A lot of those kids would be candidates for late offers at bigger and better programs. They're pretty fricked by this proposal. Either take the sure thing, or take the risk of being SOL if the big school gets the 5* in February. Dominick Sanders is an All-SEC safety who would be playing for UCF under this rule.

I'm willing to let the "100% sure" kids wait 2 months to avoid those things. They can turn their phone off if it's so stressful.


I'm sure they would put in some form of "protection" for the recruits that would address coaching changes (maybe not assistants, but definitely head coaches).

I'm also positive they would put in some type of rule that protected the recruit a la the financial aid agreements we have now.
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25869 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:28 am to
quote:

I'm sure they would put in some form of "protection" for the recruits that would address coaching changes (maybe not assistants, but definitely head coaches).

I'm also positive they would put in some type of rule that protected the recruit a la the financial aid agreements we have now.


Assistants play a big part in recruits' decisions. Scheme fit and relationships are important.

Those protections don't do anything to help in my second scenario. Also, if you have to put all these protections on it, you're probably better off just leaving it alone.

The clear intention of this proposal is to make coaches' jobs easier. They are paid millions of dollars to grind it out.
Posted by TideSaint
Hill Country
Member since Sep 2008
75832 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:43 am to
quote:

Assistants play a big part in recruits' decisions. Scheme fit and relationships are important.


I get that. However, you also have instances where the assistant coach leaves after NSD. The NCAA does not let a recruit out of their LOI in that event so in response I would say don't make your commitment based on an assistant coach.
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25869 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:48 am to
quote:

However, you also have instances where the assistant coach leaves after NSD.

Yep, and it's shitty. Why would we want more of that?
quote:

I would say don't make your commitment based on an assistant coach.

That isn't realistic. Making policy based on that ideal is foolish, imo.

The rushed timeline is just so unnecessary.
Posted by TideSaint
Hill Country
Member since Sep 2008
75832 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 10:57 am to
quote:

Making policy based on that ideal is foolish, imo.


I'm not advocating for them to pass the rule because of it, I'm just pointing it out.

I think if there were to be an early signing period the ones who would take advantage of it are the ones who are 100% certain they want to sign.

The rest would simply just wait until the traditional NSD.

ETA: Would some of them feel extra pressure to sign early? Probably, but when the dust settles I think it would be a good thing overall.

This post was edited on 4/13/17 at 11:03 am
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25869 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 11:25 am to
quote:

I think if there were to be an early signing period the ones who would take advantage of it are the ones who are 100% certain they want to sign.

The rest would simply just wait until the traditional NSD.

ETA: Would some of them feel extra pressure to sign early? Probably, but when the dust settles I think it would be a good thing overall.

I think that's extremely optimistic given how much money is at stake for coaches and schools.
Posted by TideSaint
Hill Country
Member since Sep 2008
75832 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 11:26 am to
quote:

I think that's extremely optimistic


I'm an optimistic guy.
Posted by Crowknowsbest
Member since May 2012
25869 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 11:30 am to
quote:

I'm an optimistic guy.



I come from a background in a sport where standard operating procedure is now that anybody who wants to play D1 basically has to be committed before they finish 9th grade and has roughly 48 hours after getting an offer to commit. (men's lacrosse)

frick that.
This post was edited on 4/13/17 at 11:34 am
Posted by MedDawg
Member since Dec 2009
4448 posts
Posted on 4/13/17 at 11:46 am to
If there is an early signing day and kids who aren't sure don't sign, some of them will lose their offers.

A few players have been dropped late right before the February signing date and occasionally caused a scandal blaming the college head coach, but now the coaches/schools won't be blamed if they gave a kid a chance to sign early and he passed it up. If he's dropped right before the early signing period, there won't be a scandal because he still has months until February to find another school.

The BIGGEST rule if it is passed might be prohibiting hiring a person associated with a recruit (2 years before and 2 years after they enroll?), especially if it goes retroactive to January 2017. There are brand new coaches that will have to be fired (or recruits/players dropped), and some current plans/hopes to hire particular coaches associated with recruits will have be scrapped.
This post was edited on 4/13/17 at 12:15 pm
Page 1 2
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next 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