Started By
Message
Should There Be Changes To Recruiting Rules?
Posted on 9/30/12 at 8:36 pm
Posted on 9/30/12 at 8:36 pm
OK, with all this talk surrounding commits recently, like Loud decommiting from Mizzou and then commiting to Colorado. Then this Ramirez thing pops up about him looking elsewhere (which I think is a load of crap). It begs the conversation on whether these recruits should be responsible to sign apon commiting?
What I'm looking at is if a recruit goes through a visit, then verbaly commits, then 6 months later decommits it's like a rollacoaster ride for school to keep up with. Every kid wants to be "the kid" or "the recruit" and it's got to be a maddening experience for college coaches every year to go through. They stand the chance of standing there with a scholy in there hand at the last minute. Look at what LSU went through this year with that QB. He took up a scholy from LSU for some time and then decommited at the last second and screwed LSU over alittle cause they passed on another QB they would have like to have. By then it was too late to go back and get the other QB.
In my mind. If your a recruit, and you want to commit early, you should have to sign. If you don't want to sign, then stay uncommitted until signing day. It's that simple. Of coarse you would have to leave outlets for these recruits for various reasons, medical family ect.
What do you all think? Sign when commiting or stay with the present process? If you would do it another way, which way?
What I'm looking at is if a recruit goes through a visit, then verbaly commits, then 6 months later decommits it's like a rollacoaster ride for school to keep up with. Every kid wants to be "the kid" or "the recruit" and it's got to be a maddening experience for college coaches every year to go through. They stand the chance of standing there with a scholy in there hand at the last minute. Look at what LSU went through this year with that QB. He took up a scholy from LSU for some time and then decommited at the last second and screwed LSU over alittle cause they passed on another QB they would have like to have. By then it was too late to go back and get the other QB.
In my mind. If your a recruit, and you want to commit early, you should have to sign. If you don't want to sign, then stay uncommitted until signing day. It's that simple. Of coarse you would have to leave outlets for these recruits for various reasons, medical family ect.
What do you all think? Sign when commiting or stay with the present process? If you would do it another way, which way?
This post was edited on 9/30/12 at 8:52 pm
6
Posted on 9/30/12 at 8:48 pm to jafo
See above^^
This post was edited on 9/30/12 at 8:51 pm
Posted on 9/30/12 at 8:58 pm to jafo
There should be an early signing period in August
Posted on 9/30/12 at 9:00 pm to jafo
quote:
In my mind. If your a recruit, and you want to commit early, you should have to sign.
A lot of people in the recruiting game would be down for an early signing period sometime in the fall as well as the spring signing day February 5th, like they do for college basketball recruiting.
Personally the whole recruiting thing can be kind of taxing and hard to pay attention to because of the fact we're dealing with 17-19 year old kids who's mind changes on a whim.
Posted on 9/30/12 at 9:07 pm to FightTigers
Exactly guys.
You know an early signing day in the fall would be a good way to do it. That way it'd be fair to all involved. An would cut down on all the hype and speculation surrounding recruiting.
Even if you recquired recruits to sign when they commit, they could still stay uncommitted and sign anytime before or during signing day. Some recruits look at all this stuff and are relieved when they finally get to sign. It's like having a pack of wolves at the door when your unsigned and as soon as you sign they go away and life gets back to some form of normal. I would think it would benefit them alot in this respect.
You know an early signing day in the fall would be a good way to do it. That way it'd be fair to all involved. An would cut down on all the hype and speculation surrounding recruiting.
Even if you recquired recruits to sign when they commit, they could still stay uncommitted and sign anytime before or during signing day. Some recruits look at all this stuff and are relieved when they finally get to sign. It's like having a pack of wolves at the door when your unsigned and as soon as you sign they go away and life gets back to some form of normal. I would think it would benefit them alot in this respect.
Posted on 9/30/12 at 9:13 pm to jafo
Personally I think the early signing period is a good idea, but I dont agree with forcing the kid to sign. The school pretty mch owns the kid at that point as he loses his power. Especially in a situation of which there is a coach that forces a kid to commit or the offer is pulled.
Contrary to what I thought, most coaches do not want any early signing period (including Pinkel). Therefore I dont think it is necessary.
I get the thought behind this though. People are frustrated with the huge rise of decommitments with recruits the past few years. I understand it and it used to bother me alot too, but its not going away. This is a new era of recruiting, in which there is more exposures to recruits, more knowledge of them, and the recruiting process in general is more intense. The decommitments are just another facet to a new era. It may be frustrating, but it isnt going away. We have benefitted by flipping kids and lost out also. Might as well just get used to it.
Contrary to what I thought, most coaches do not want any early signing period (including Pinkel). Therefore I dont think it is necessary.
I get the thought behind this though. People are frustrated with the huge rise of decommitments with recruits the past few years. I understand it and it used to bother me alot too, but its not going away. This is a new era of recruiting, in which there is more exposures to recruits, more knowledge of them, and the recruiting process in general is more intense. The decommitments are just another facet to a new era. It may be frustrating, but it isnt going away. We have benefitted by flipping kids and lost out also. Might as well just get used to it.
Posted on 9/30/12 at 9:19 pm to jafo
To me the issue comes from having a specific "signing period" of any kind. Having one in the fall would definitely help mitigate some of the issues and is a step in the right direction. But in an ideal world I think what you'd want is to have kids have the freedom to sign binding Letters of Intent at *any time* during their recruitment. Without knowing the ins and outs of why that's not so, I'd imagine it just flat out cuts down on expense and paperwork for colleges or high schools but I really don't know. But I don't think you can just *require* the kid to sign a letter of intent the very second he verbally commits somewhere. That too would lead to all sorts of bad actor coaches manipulating and pushing kids on their official visits - "just sign man, you don't need to wait and talk to your parents, you're having a good time here on our campus so just sign and get it over with" etc. That's how so many verbal commitments take place and Loud is a good example. It's important to have the extra barrier there of the binding LOI to let the parents talk it over with their kids when they get back and just to let the kids think it over and not act in the heat of the moment.
But conversely on the situation we have right now, it gets ugly because everyone knows until the LOI is signed then a commitment can be flipped. Nothing exactly wrong with that, except it does get a bit shady at times and unfair because a kid will appear "off the market" to the outside world but some schools keep on recruiting him. Mizzou has benefitted from that of course, we got Jeremy Maclin and Blaine Gabbert that way for instance.
But I think ideally you'd want to give the kid and his family the freedom to sign a binding LOI at any time they choose, not on a specific signing day. My only rule I'd add would be that a LOI signing could NOT take place when a kid is on a visit to the campus of the school he signs with - I think you have to have that rule in there to avoid undue pressure or cajoling. But beyond that, just like in contract law where you can make a verbal agreement and then later reduce the details into a binding written contract whenever you want, that's how it should be for kids in recruiting. Of course you'd need to have a hard deadline by which a kid would need to sign an LOI to play somewhere to be eligible for a given year, but beyond that, I don't get the idea of having specific "signing periods" at all since everyone knows the recruiting process is year round. If a certain kid and his family are truly DONE with their recruitment and know exactly what they want and don't want to spend several more months with other random coaching staffs mailing and calling them despite the kid having verbally committed somewhere, then they should be able to enter into a binding written agreement whenever they want to fully end their recruitment.
But conversely on the situation we have right now, it gets ugly because everyone knows until the LOI is signed then a commitment can be flipped. Nothing exactly wrong with that, except it does get a bit shady at times and unfair because a kid will appear "off the market" to the outside world but some schools keep on recruiting him. Mizzou has benefitted from that of course, we got Jeremy Maclin and Blaine Gabbert that way for instance.
But I think ideally you'd want to give the kid and his family the freedom to sign a binding LOI at any time they choose, not on a specific signing day. My only rule I'd add would be that a LOI signing could NOT take place when a kid is on a visit to the campus of the school he signs with - I think you have to have that rule in there to avoid undue pressure or cajoling. But beyond that, just like in contract law where you can make a verbal agreement and then later reduce the details into a binding written contract whenever you want, that's how it should be for kids in recruiting. Of course you'd need to have a hard deadline by which a kid would need to sign an LOI to play somewhere to be eligible for a given year, but beyond that, I don't get the idea of having specific "signing periods" at all since everyone knows the recruiting process is year round. If a certain kid and his family are truly DONE with their recruitment and know exactly what they want and don't want to spend several more months with other random coaching staffs mailing and calling them despite the kid having verbally committed somewhere, then they should be able to enter into a binding written agreement whenever they want to fully end their recruitment.
This post was edited on 9/30/12 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 9/30/12 at 9:28 pm to jafo
We just aren't paying our players enough. Damn our pride.
Posted on 10/1/12 at 6:27 am to Stripes314
I certainly understand we have benefited from commit jumping. But thats the whole deal. When your kids go to college they want as little parent ivolvement as possible after they are enrolled. Meaning they want these kids to function on thier own. With earlt signing, it should still invovle the parents. I know, theres that age thing where they are considered adults by law. But they should be involved in the process of signing.
Posted on 10/1/12 at 6:44 am to Mizzou Fan in Da ATX
I think thats some of where I was comming from with this. Being able to sign anytime up to signing day. But do you think with all the hype around signing day now, that that would also discourage signing early? These kids get to be put on a pedistal to announce. Sometimes on national television. Thats a big deal for some of them.
I think you could let the kids sign in visits but maybe require more than one visit to a particular school. Maybe not sign on the first visit. As far as far as deadlines, you could have multipule signing days. But having a deadline wouldn't solve the issue with commit jumping. All is thats required here is if a player wants to commit somewhere, then they sign. If they are not sure, they won't sign. It's that simple. I can understand the cajoling part, but the mulitiple visits can help there. They don't have to be to different schools. They could visit the same school. Just an idea.
I think you could let the kids sign in visits but maybe require more than one visit to a particular school. Maybe not sign on the first visit. As far as far as deadlines, you could have multipule signing days. But having a deadline wouldn't solve the issue with commit jumping. All is thats required here is if a player wants to commit somewhere, then they sign. If they are not sure, they won't sign. It's that simple. I can understand the cajoling part, but the mulitiple visits can help there. They don't have to be to different schools. They could visit the same school. Just an idea.
Posted on 10/1/12 at 10:46 am to jafo
If you commit, you sign...or else it's not a committment.
If you get married, you must sign or else you're not married.
Simple concept.
And there should be penalties if you decommit, just like there are penalties in a divorce.
If you get married, you must sign or else you're not married.
Simple concept.
And there should be penalties if you decommit, just like there are penalties in a divorce.
Posted on 10/1/12 at 1:15 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
If you commit, you sign...or else it's not a committment.
If you get married, you must sign or else you're not married.
Idk if this is the correct Analogy.
Committing : Signing as Engaged : Marriage
quote:
And there should be penalties if you decommit, just like there are penalties in a divorce.
Decommit from an engagement and some backlash, but no real penalties just like a decommitment. Divorce from a marriage and there are penalties like when you try to get out of your LOI.
Perfect Analogy.
A commitment is like an engagement. Signing/Marriage should and probably will happen, but there are exceptions. Kids should be able to rack up as many offers as they can. Not just have the first big school force them to sign or you lose your scholly (which is what will happen)
This post was edited on 10/1/12 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 10/1/12 at 4:43 pm to mizzoukills
A early signing period before the start of their senior season in HS isn't fair to the Student Athlete IMO. Their performance & opportunities during their senior season could change drastically & make it unfair to the kid to sign earlier (late bloomers etc)...
Beneficial for the school but not the athlete... JMHO...
Congrats on your Home page, wondered where you all where...
P.S. Watch out for Vandy, they're sneaky good..
ETA:... If there was a 7 day Early signing period around Dec. 15th after a 2 week dead (no contact) period, I'd be OK with that, for the kids who know & are ready to get it over with...
Beneficial for the school but not the athlete... JMHO...
Congrats on your Home page, wondered where you all where...
P.S. Watch out for Vandy, they're sneaky good..
ETA:... If there was a 7 day Early signing period around Dec. 15th after a 2 week dead (no contact) period, I'd be OK with that, for the kids who know & are ready to get it over with...
This post was edited on 10/1/12 at 4:46 pm
Posted on 10/1/12 at 4:57 pm to dallasga6
I think yall misunderstood what I was saying...
I'm saying that I feel that a committment is just that - a committment. Therefore, don't commit unless you know 100 percent that you are committed to that school.
Therefore, my analogy is perfect for what I was saying. I wish that a committment was like a marriage committment, and if you break your committment, there should be penalties. This should apply to the school if the coach breaks the committment (just like UCLA's coach recently broke a committment to a high school student).
It should be both ways.
I'm saying that I feel that a committment is just that - a committment. Therefore, don't commit unless you know 100 percent that you are committed to that school.
Therefore, my analogy is perfect for what I was saying. I wish that a committment was like a marriage committment, and if you break your committment, there should be penalties. This should apply to the school if the coach breaks the committment (just like UCLA's coach recently broke a committment to a high school student).
It should be both ways.
Posted on 10/1/12 at 5:06 pm to mizzoukills
I understand. But what if it is a commit or pull scholly situation? And if they do commit under the threat but regret it later should they still be punished?
Posted on 10/1/12 at 5:12 pm to jafo
If a kid wants decommit, let them. Having a teenager that doesn't understand the value of a contract showing up for a team he'd prefer not to play for hurts the team and themselves.
If you can't close, it deserves to be reopened when the shite hits the fan. Plus, it's not like you're prohibited from talking to them and get them back.
If you can't close, it deserves to be reopened when the shite hits the fan. Plus, it's not like you're prohibited from talking to them and get them back.
Posted on 10/1/12 at 7:48 pm to Mizzeaux
Well, what if that kid decommits and we just missed out on other prospects? I believe it's all bullshite anyhow. I hate it.
Posted on 10/1/12 at 8:20 pm to Stripes314
The whole idea really here is no committing if your not ready to sign. Having to sign on that line should make recruits really think about what they are doing before doing it. If they don't want to sign, they stay uncommited until signing day, and if they don't know where to go by then...they need help from thier parents to explore thier options.
Does it put more pressure on the recruit? Sure it does, why shouldn't it. They put as much pressure on recruiters during the present process by decommiting. Plus the pressure is just getting started at that point so they better get used to it. Especialy if they are highly recruited. That pressure goes up the closer you get to signing day.
As I said in my OP. The deal with LSU is a good example to me why there needs to be something done when it comes to recruits commiting and then decommiting at the last second.
Does it put more pressure on the recruit? Sure it does, why shouldn't it. They put as much pressure on recruiters during the present process by decommiting. Plus the pressure is just getting started at that point so they better get used to it. Especialy if they are highly recruited. That pressure goes up the closer you get to signing day.
As I said in my OP. The deal with LSU is a good example to me why there needs to be something done when it comes to recruits commiting and then decommiting at the last second.
Posted on 10/1/12 at 8:45 pm to dallasga6
Welcome.
Yeh we been hang'n around in here trying to lay low.
Vani's QB is one fast dude. I watched them play S.Carolina. They just about had a win there if Shaw wouldn't have come back in to finish the game.
All I know is I think the recruit holds all the cards right now when it comes to commiting. I think it should be a more fair process for everyone involved.
Yeh we been hang'n around in here trying to lay low.
Vani's QB is one fast dude. I watched them play S.Carolina. They just about had a win there if Shaw wouldn't have come back in to finish the game.
All I know is I think the recruit holds all the cards right now when it comes to commiting. I think it should be a more fair process for everyone involved.
Posted on 10/1/12 at 8:59 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
Well, what if that kid decommits and we just missed out on other prospects? I believe it's all bullshite anyhow. I hate it.
A legitimate possibility. I think we have a good policy on that of, if you are looking around then so are we. Is it completely fair? No. But that is just the game now and schools are adjusting to it. I would honestly tell yall that until a kid signs on the dotted lines, there are no guarantees. I wouldnt expect anybody to be there until Feb.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News