Let’s just get it over with already.

Per ESPN’s Joe Schad, the coaches are preparing to take another shot at pushing for an early signing date for football recruits.

“We’re looking for an early signing day in the third week of December,” Rob Ianello, Notre Dame assistant and head of the AFCA FBS Assistant Coaches Committee, said at the coaches convention in Nashville. “There are more than 1,000 verbal committments right now, and about 15 per school. Why not sign them? Is it a reservation or a committment? What we’re seeing is oversigning and late switches. An earlier signing day would also be cost effective.”

Whatever they come up with, it probably can’t come soon enough for Spurdog.

About these ads

12 Comments

Filed under Recruiting, The Evil Genius

12 responses to “Let’s just get it over with already.

  1. Joe

    LMAO, Spurrier is going to leave that dump the same way he found it. UF was essentially Scu until 1990. If Scu ever becomes a football power like UF has, I think the world will simply fold in upon itself.

    The early signing period seems like an inevitability and I do not see any huge negatives with it. It takes bums like Dwayne Allen out of the equation and lets you know where you stand with them from the get-go.

    Obviously, people like Saban and Meyer will immediately expose the loopholes in the new process and amendments will have to be made, but all-in-all, it will be a win for the kids who have a guaranteed scholly and for the coaches who can focus their time on other kids.

  2. Macallanlover

    It is hard to find a logical argument against this. They can sign early, or wait to make a decision, their choice. For schools to continue to make trips to coddle/protect recruits is a waste of money and time.

  3. Pingback: DawgsOnline » Won’t someone think of the poor, poor coaches?

  4. Ally

    During the Under Armour All-Star game last Sunday night, Tommy Tuberville made a compelling argument against an early signing day citing the fact that it puts smaller schools at a disadvantage.

    I can see both sides of this issue. But it does seem that the only ones who will benefit by & large from an early commit date are the bigger programs who are already reaping in the uber recruits.

    Take the case of Greg Reid for instance. If he’d signed with Florida early thinking he’d made the right decision, he’d be locked into that agreement and would’nt have the option of opening things back up if he’d changed his mind. Teenagers tend to do that I’ve heard.

    Or what a/b the case of Orson Charles? Many think he’s backed off Miami because of the way Coach Shannon handled the Marve situation. Had he committed to Miami before Shannon pulled this crap on Marve, Orson would still be held to that contract without the benefit of truly knowing what he’d signed up for. Is Caveat Emptor going to be part of the fine print on commit contracts?

    Another thing, the early signing date seems to not only benefit the bigger schools, but most specifically the coaches. Look at the situation with the lamecocks, for instance. Coaches are allowed to change their minds & negate a scholly offer anytime they choose. Would the same be the case if we had an early signing date? Could they back off their scholly offer for an early commit if a bigger, better recruit comes along close to February’s signing day?

    Those are just a few of the questions I have & most of them involve what’s really best for the 18 year old athlete making the biggest decision of his life to date. I’m not so sure the best interests of the student-athlete are the primary agenda to the powers that be in this conundrum.

  5. Joe

    Greg Reid would have had to have SIGNED to be locked in. The early signing period will mostly affect only guys like Mettenberger and Aaron Murray anyway. I do not think more than 15-20% of classes would ever sign before the February signing day.

    These kids who like to “play the game” would be forced to show their hands instead of holding coaching staff’s hostage until signing day. The kids would also have real protection against catastrophic injury if they signed early.

    I think that the early signing period would actually help smaller schools. The big schools would comb the combines for the elite sophomores and juniors and have them signed by December, leaving a whole lot of late bloomers for the smaller schools to pick up. It would also give the smaller schools a chance to sign an under-the-radar kid in December before the recruiting services started pimping him to the Big Boy schools.

    • Joe, I don’t see much of a benefit to the kids from this specific proposal, because of the time frame. We’re only talking about a six-week period between the early date and the final date. That just lets the coaches off the hook babysitting some of their verbals from being poached.

  6. Macallanlover

    I have a lot of respect for Tubbs, he ran a clean program and put a good product on the field. But for every reason someone can list as an advantage for big programs to have an early signing date, I can counter with one that shows how that is a disadvantage. The 85 scolarship limit had a significant impact in favor of the small schools, but this isn’t going to put top recruits in the small schools, it only changes which major program they play for.

    Rarely does any news get better on these recruits as time goes along, only worse. Injuries, grades, and character issues do not favor the early signing school, you find out more “problems” as time goes on. With few exceptions, these men are 18 years of age, or older, and considered old enough to make life and death decisions in the military. A decision over which school to go and play a game with isn’t that traumatic. Let them learn to make a decision and be bound by it. It beats burning excessive fuel and money to continually feed these massive egos. That would seem to favor the smaller budgets. And no one is forcing anyone to sign earlier, they still have the option to wait if they are undecided. Treating these athletes like babies isn’t the right way to begin preparing them for life.

  7. Joe

    Agreed that it does not benefit the kids too much. However, there are many schools which would drop a kid who tore up a knee in b-ball or track and were only bound by a “verbal” agreement. Signed is signed.

    As I said, I think only a very small percentage of kids would actually sign early anyway. The kids who need to be babysat will still need to be babysat, no matter what system is put into place.

  8. Ally

    “That just lets the coaches off the hook babysitting some of their verbals from being poached.”

    Exactly – well said.

    And Joe, I’m well aware of the fact that Greg Reid would’ve had to have SIGNED. So would Orson Charles & Jonathan Davis – all examples in my questions. I was simply asking what ifs? Those are questions that most certainly have not been answered yet are a legitimate cause for concern before adding an additional signing period.

    In additions, let’s take a look at this quote from your comment: “The big schools would comb the combines for the elite sophomores and juniors and have them signed by December, leaving a whole lot of late bloomers for the smaller schools to pick up…”

    That was precisely the point TT was trying to make. That the bigger schools reap in the uber recruits leaving the smaller schools to pick up the leftovers. That’s hardly fair, nor is it in the best interest of the student-athlete.

  9. Hobnail_Boot

    Bah, an early signing period just further extends the power of the head coaches.

    There is no need for this.

    • I’m coming more and more to the position that there’s no reason for a signing period at all. If a coach wants to sign a kid, put the binding letter on the table and get the kid to sign – whenever. But, once done, that’s it, barring academics.

      By doing that, the coaches would have to be much more careful and honest with the offer letters each year and the kids would come to understand that giving your word has consequences. There sure would be a lot less angst over the process.

  10. I don’t see the benefit for the kids either.

    But hey, since when does the college football system give a crap about the meat… oh sorry, “student athletes” anyway?

    When div-I football and basketball players start getting paid, that’s when we might see a little evidence of fair treatment.

    -Michael
    Muckbeast – Game Design and Online Worlds
    http://www.muckbeast.com