Michael Carvell asks a bunch of coaches how they feel about the about-to-be early signing period. There’s a bunch of talk about commitment, but most of it’s pretty one-sided, as you might expect. Coaches gonna coach, and all. On that side, it’s pretty much distilled into a paragraph by Bert:
“I love the early signing period just for two reasons. First, it allows the kid who wants to come and be somewhere to go ahead and sign. It can really be a cost-effective measure that you don’t have to keep recruiting him in December and January. You know, (with the way we do it now) you’re just kind of babysitting him, even though you know he’s coming. You’re just worried that somebody else is working him. I think it’s going to save a tremendous amount of time and dollars for coaches. And then the second thing, and it makes the most sense, it clears up the recruiting process for the people who want to get it cleared up. I think there are too many times where there’s so much time in there, some doubt can begin to creep into those minds of kids where they have been 100-percent committed for so long … and it gets a kid in a bad situation, and just leads to confusion. I think that part is real.”
Saving money and not letting doubt into the picture. What else do you need?
The coach who gets it right is Hugh Freeze, who, interestingly enough, opposes the early signing period rule. He’d prefer something I’d like to see – sign and drive.
“You know what I want? I wish that if a kid commits to us, and we’re truly committed to him, I’d like to send him the papers right then. And you will find out who is really committed on both sides. I would say start this in August of his senior year. If a kid is committed to you, you can send them the papers to sign. You will find out really quickly which schools are committed to which kids, and which schools are committed to which kids. We’ll stop all the shenanigans about the lack of commitment, and what commitment really means…”
Keep preaching, brother.