“The new rules clearly benefit college programs.”

Fresh off a successful vote to add an early signing date for football recruiting, Bob Bowlsby suggests a 60-day signing period in the fall might be possible.

That might give Saban’s Coke bottle the chills.  Then again,

“We’re dealing with a very entrepreneurial group,” Bowlsby said of the recruiting culture. “There will certainly be lots of thoughts on how to gain an advantage and how to work the system … There’s only so much you can do relative to how individual student-athletes are going to announce their choices.”

True ‘dat.



Filed under Recruiting, The NCAA

6 responses to ““The new rules clearly benefit college programs.”

  1. Macallanlover

    That 18 year drought for those states is another pleasant reminder that TN is approaching our 20 year span between SEC titles that was constantly thrown in our face by the delusional orange hillbillies. Not only have they not won one, they haven’t really even been close. The 2007 East title was a miracle laden fluke with 3 Hail Mary wins coming down the stretch but they weren’t much competition for LSU that game. I hope they never win another title in my lifetime.

    Also, this stat puts even more pressure on Sumlin. Not only are they located in the most talent rich state, they haven’t won the West yet to even get a shot. In addition to some geographical protection, their primary in-state competition for talent has been weakened during their time in the SEC. I like Sumlin but he has just not delivered for A&M. How much time is left for him?


  2. Go Dawgs!

    Can someone explain to me how the early signing period(s) benefit high school student athletes? It seems to me that the only winner is the college coach who doesn’t have to worry about a kid changing his mind once he signs on the dotted line. The only possible benefit I can think of for the player is if he gets hurt during his senior year, he’s already got his scholarship. But that’s a rare case and many schools would honor the offer anyway, and those that wouldn’t would likely kick the kid after a year anyway.


    • Sherlock

      Unfortunately, in the world of recruiting, there is a difference between an offer, a committable offer, and committable offer in which the school will accept your LOI on signing day. Kids get their offer pulled at the last minute because the coach managed to get a commitment from a better recruit. Sometimes their ability to sign with a team is contingent on that team losing the recruiting battle to another team (example: We signed Kenarious Gates because Da’Rick Rogers signed with Tennessee. Had Da’Rick signed with us, Kenarious was going to Kentucky).

      The early signing period, theoretically, will give some of those kids a change to assure their spot early and be forced to deal with the drama later on. Sometimes a kid like Kenarious Gate will be holding out hope to be able to sign with a Georgia, has a back up plan with a Kentucky but that team fills up before Johnny 5* makes his decision, and Kenarious ends up scrambling to find a school with room and ends up at an FCS school. If the dream school won’t let them sign early, some will opt to ensure their spot at #2.


    • Macallanlover

      Just a different viewpoint but I see advantages for both sides, and pretty balanced too. BTW, HS football is over by this point so the injury issue isn’t relevant unless it occurs off the field, or in an All Star game. I have always liked the early signing period, except I would have put a ceiling, say 50-66% of the openings a school has available. It may play out that it isn’t necessary but would prefer it to be for athletes that are tired of the game, or firmly committed to a specific school, not someone getting pressured before they are ready.


  3. I’d imagine that the recruiting services love this. Then again, they’re already at the teenage boy stalking 24/7 stage. Sorry but the lengths that these services now go to kinda makes me cringe.

    Also, I guess you could make the same type of argument you make opposing playoff expansion. Someone will always push for more, for earlier. Someone will always been digging for more advantages, loopholes and gay areas to operate in.

    This is where I’m not sure about our leadership. 10 wins isn’t good enough but somehow we expect more while following all the rules and trying to copy other programs. We don’t even try to blaze our own path or push the envelope. Honestly, I think it’s amazing we had any of the success we did over the last couple decades. Imo, it was done despite much of the leadership.

    I’m not saying we should pay recruits. I’m saying we need to be pushing and innovating, not playing follow the leader and certainly not going above and beyond to throw the best player in your program to the wolves. I’m still mad. Lol