I’ve already posted about how there’s considerable pushback on the early signing date, to the extent that today’s action may be the last of its kind. Because, you know, it’s a real crisis.
“The current model is completely broken,” Berry says. “The idea of keeping the current model is ludicrous.”
“Completely broken” apparently means panicky athletic directors are having to hire and fire earlier than they’d prefer, for the worst of all possible reasons — to attempt to save a recruiting class. What’s hilarious is that the change was made in significant part to make life easier for football coaches.
The early signing date is chief among the issues to figure out. Officials created it to accommodate coaches, recruits and their families wishing to end the recruiting process. Why recruit a committed player for an extra two months? It wastes time and money, coaches said. The early period also avoids the chaos of January, which turned into a last-ditch effort for coaches to flip committed players.
Which brings us to the quote of the year:
“There have been some unintended consequences with the early signing period,” Lyons says. “It’s been a good thing for these kids to commit early and sign. The bad part is it forces coaching changes earlier.”
This will be one time when they make a change and don’t claim they’re doing it for the kids.
I’ve said this for years and it remains true every time they screw around with a signing day schedule: just get rid of signing day altogether. If a school makes an offer and a kid wants to commit, let him sign on the dotted line then and there. Leave in an exception if a head coach leaves before the kid enrolls, if need be. In any event, doing this ends the farce we’re seeing now.
Of course, as is usually the case with college football, that’s a solution that makes too much sense to actually adopt.
Get The Picture 
Your solution is way too logical to ever be taken seriously.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I read the linked article. Geez Louise, what a bunch of whiny hyperbole.
LikeLike
I’d add a little something to your proposal: The kid signs to play football in exchange for a 4 year scholarship. As long as he is physically there he gets a free ride and counts towards the scholarship limit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
when did signing day become the “law”?
how was it done in the “old” days?
LikeLike
I’m only speculating, but maybe at some point football players enrolled in college in the same manner and at the same time as the rest of the matriculating students.
LikeLike
That’s crazy talk!
LikeLike
I have a question for the way things sit now. A kid signs on the dotted line, the school accepts but he changes his mind before he enrolls. Does he have to have to enter the portal to sign with another school or can he just sit out the year at home w/o it counting against his time. If he has to portal, does that count as his one time transfer portal w/o having to site out or does he have to actually enroll before that takes affect?
LikeLike
Since Senor todd reps the coaches and not the student athletes, supposedly all previous, current and future changes are to benefit the coaches of america…coaches that navigate multiple 2/3 win seasons get dismissed…PERIOD!…coaches that are to friggin’ lazy to recruit, say really stupid shit and tell you they are the smartest dipshit in the room deserve to get dismissed (I’m lookin’ at you past FU hc), what ever new, old changes are planned will be disastrous of biblical proportions in 3 years…
LikeLike
But Senator, what if a higher rated recruit at that same position says he wants to commit to that school? What is the coach supposed to do then, when there’s a scholarship limit in place? I mean, you can’t ghost a 3* for that 5* if he’s already committed.
LikeLike
*signed.
LikeLike
And then there’s the $ to be made off of the drama….
LikeLiked by 1 person
There would be a lot of logistics to work through if you are getting rid of signing day. For example, can a student sign at any time at any age? Would a 9th or 10th or 11th grader be allowed to sign with a school if the school was so inclined to take him?
How about other schools actively recruiting a student that has already signed? For example, if a 10th or 11th grader signs with a school, are other schools now not supposed to ever contact that recruit again? Because at this point, he is no longer a recruit and he would be a signee which disallows other schools from contacting him for recruitment under current NCAA regulations.
At least with the current signing day hoopla, everyone knows where everyone stands. Everyone knows what the dead periods are. Everyone knows the exact date that ESD and regular signing day are. Everyone knows they better have their ducks in a row leading up to these two dates. NIL notwithstanding, having a signing day gives some sort of “parity” to CFB that everyone keeps clamoring we need more of. If we remove the actually signing day and allow kids of all ages to sign when they want to, who does that benefit more? Does it benefit the student or the big schools that have money/budget to hire the assistants to go out and sign up kids at all grade levels as early as possible??
LikeLike
IDK, maybe signing day should coincide with the date all other new students are issued acceptance letters.
I already miss Mullen and Grantham. They acted like signing day was February 29th.
LikeLike
Completely broken? Man, these guys running the show are assholes. The only thing completely broken is their sense of shame.
LikeLike
I’m a Georgia Bulldog and my coach is Kirby Smart who is making his living on flipping recruits from other schools. I very much object to the idea of the kids signing binding letters of intent the first time they fall in love with a school before Kirby has a chance to grab them.
LikeLiked by 2 people