i remember losing Patrick Omameh, Preston Brown and Dominique Brown, and, most recently, Joshua Norwood. Do we benefit more from an early signing period, or will this cause recruits to pull back knowing that once pen goes to paper, there's no going back?

Quote:Early football signing period (December) recommended
January 19, 2015 1:54 pm ET

An early football signing period in December has been formally recommended, potentially ending more than a decade of sometimes divisive discussion of the subject, CBSSports.com learned on Monday.

If adopted, the sport's new initial signing period would be in place this year for the 2016 recruiting class. The new early date would begin Dec. 16 and last 72 hours. It would be in place for two years as an "experiment," before being reevaluated.

"There's an acknowledgement," said Big Ten associate commissioner Chad Hawley, a member of the 12-person committee that made the recommendation, "the reality is this becomes the new main signing date. If that's the case so be it, let's see what happens."

The Collegiate Commissioners Association will consider the measure during a spring/summer discussion period before any formal adoption. The CCA will formally vote on the recommendation at its annual meeting, this year in June in Asheville, N.C. The association -- the 32 commissioners of Division I -- oversee the National Letter of Intent program.

The early-period committee chaired by MAC commissioner Jon Steinbrecher made the recommendation over the weekend after meeting during the NCAA convention.

If approved by the CCA, the initial signing period would move up approximately 1½ months. Part of the rationale is to relieve pressure on the early February date. For better or worse, coaches and high school players have become part of a national college football holiday surrounding the date.

That isn't necessarily a positive. Some coaches are concerned that long-committed prospects can be "flipped" during the building hype of January. Players can conceivably be pressured into last-minute visits as the February signing date approaches.

The committee's research showed that 90 percent of prospects sign with the school they commit to. If that's the case, why not move the date up?

"There's an array of opinions on it," Steinbrecher said. "Clearly there was a strong groundswell in the coaching community and the administrative community. This is a drum that has been beating for more than a decade."

The ACC has supported an Aug. 1 signing date. The SEC last spring offered a recommendation for the first Monday after Thanksgiving. With a new early date, the overall recruiting calendar would remain the same. The early date coincides with the earliest date for junior-college transfers. Based on last year's calendar, an early period would conflict only with Texas high schools that conduct their playoffs well into December. Last year's playoffs ended on Dec. 20.

"Mid-December has been the focus for a while for some," Greg Sankey, SEC executive associate commissioner told CBSSports.com's Jon Solomon last week. "We've, over time, observed concerns about that date. Those are still meaningful concerns. Our coaches -- five to six years ago -- did a really good job of creating thinking of what might be an alternative to the mid-December date. That's why we wanted the one day after Thanksgiving as a reasonable approach. We'll wait to see the outcomes and continue to provide feedback."

A number of SEC coaches were "comfortable" with the early date at the recently concluded American Football Coaches Association convention according to Susan Peal, director of the National Letter of Intent.

In regard to other conferences' recommendations Steinbrecher said, "You can't do it [earlier] without changing recruiting rules. Plus, you're not sure whether there's going to be a coaching change. You're looking at six terms of [high school] academic work with an Aug. 1 signing date."

Basketball has long had an early signing period in November following by a final date in the spring. Eighty-five percent of prospects sign during that early period according to Peal.

" ... In men's basketball, the majority signed early," Sankey told Solomon. "That's a pattern you would probably see play out again. Whether that's more or less pressure [on a recruit], I'm not sure that's a prediction one can just make. There are any number of young people who would feel they want to end the decision and the fact it goes on adds pressure.

"We have to carefully consider a number of issues here if we're going to alter the signing date ... We need to be very cautious and very informed."

The 12-person working group commissioned by CCA includes Hawley -- the Big Ten's chief compliance official -- Texas El-Paso AD Bob Stull, Texas Tech AD Kirby Hocutt, Georgia AD Greg McGarity, Stanford AD Bernard Muir as well as former coaches Rich Brooks (Oregon, Kentucky), Gene Chizik (Auburn, Iowa State) and Jim Grobe (Wake Forest).

A final document has not been formalized. Division I commissioners were notified of the recommendation on Friday via email. Coaches, ADs and administrators will have the spring to weigh in with their input.

--Jon Solomon contributed to this post

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ecommended

I am not sure it will change all that much. The big schools will just move up their time frame and still over sign. Perhaps it helps with a Preston Brown and Dom Brown situation since Charlie Strong switched his focus to them so late in the game. May also help with new coaching staffs coming in and going after your committed recruits.

Where it will really hurt is if you hire a new coach in December or January and they need to try to sift through what's left to put a class together. Whereas a normally, you can pick off recruits down the food chain, if they are already off the table the pickings get real slim, real fast.

Help

I think TT and staff do a good job of finding talent.

They will be able to sign the kids before the big schools come calling

I don't think it'll change much. If anything, it would help the top tier programs.

Most of the prospects that don't yet have premium offers would simply wait until the late signing period to see if they materialize.

Say a guy signs with a smaller school early and blows up late in his senior year. That's going to create problems for everyone involved.

It's a good change although I'm not sure why they don't just go all the way and have a basically completely open signing schedule.

As far as who it will help, I think it's good for all because coaches won't have to do as much babysitting for recruits that have already "signed" as you currently have to for those that have only "committed". Digging deeper I think the benefits will help the non-elites a little more than the elites because the non-elites had a broader group to be poached from. With recruits who are merely "committed", most schools had to worry about being poached both "up" and by peers except the elites because there is nobody to poach "up" (the NFL doesn't take HS kids). But if you can sign kids early, they shouldn't be able to be poached which helps even out the playing field to the benefit of non-elites.

As far as how much it helps - that's hard to say. It depends upon how often it ends up getting used. But if you can get at least a few it should at least cut down on the babysitting that coaches have to do which seems like a good thing to me.

UC football coach Tommy Tuberville prefers an early signing day

http://csnbbs.com/thread-723688.html

(01-20-2015 08:54 AM)HoopsJunky Wrote:  Help

I think TT and staff do a good job of finding talent.

They will be able to sign the kids before the big schools come calling

Big schools are smart enough to just tell kids to hang on and that they are being looked at, etc. Ohio State is not going to miss out on a Norwood due to this. They will just ramp up way more way earlier. IMO.

Kids that do not have any interest from P5 schools will likely jump on this...if a kid is getting any interest at all from a big school, unless he has no interest in sitting for a few years, he is probably not signing early.

In a weird way, smaller programs may stock up early on kids they may not take later...mix in the new rules guaranteeing scholarships for 4 years....

Dunno. Could help. But when I look at who is on that committee, doubt they will do a damn thing that will not benefit the big boys.

Schools with smaller recruiting budgets won't have to spend as much time recruiting kids that have already signed. They will also have a much better understanding where they stand and what positions they need to spend their time and $ on.

I am sure Mick is glad Jacob Evans is signed versus having to sweat if the big boys would get involved in April.

I think it would help UC more than it would hurt them

Not a fan of Specht but agree 100% with him

Quote:"The way it is now you have colleges offering so many kids early," Specht said. "By having an early signing period you alleviate the 'soft verbals' and force kids to make good on their commitment or continue the recruiting process. In either case, it gives the colleges a clearer picture on their needs and players available. It helps the 'second' or 'third' tier recruits in the process as well because the colleges will better understand their own needs."

I think it will help, but I really don't see anything changing. The kids who sign early are the same kids who will sign late. They want to go to the school and the team. So unless there is a drastic change in the team philosophy, and the kid no longer "fits", I just think you'll see a lot more "solid" commits sign early because they want to be here. The one thing I think it will do is these "soft" commits who are using UC as an alternate choice might be left in the cold if the class fills up with signees and we no longer have a need and their desired first choice doesn't pan out. Kids will hopefully learn that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". UC is a solid destination.

(01-20-2015 06:11 PM)scvanguard1 Wrote:  I think it will help, but I really don't see anything changing. The kids who sign early are the same kids who will sign late. They want to go to the school and the team. So unless there is a drastic change in the team philosophy, and the kid no longer "fits", I just think you'll see a lot more "solid" commits sign early because they want to be here. The one thing I think it will do is these "soft" commits who are using UC as an alternate choice might be left in the cold if the class fills up with signees and we no longer have a need and their desired first choice doesn't pan out. Kids will hopefully learn that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". UC is a solid destination.

I think it would be a bad idea if UC accepted commitments and signings from lower-ranked guys because prospects higher on their board are looking at the more prestigious programs first. You don't settle.

(01-20-2015 07:37 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 06:11 PM)scvanguard1 Wrote:  I think it will help, but I really don't see anything changing. The kids who sign early are the same kids who will sign late. They want to go to the school and the team. So unless there is a drastic change in the team philosophy, and the kid no longer "fits", I just think you'll see a lot more "solid" commits sign early because they want to be here. The one thing I think it will do is these "soft" commits who are using UC as an alternate choice might be left in the cold if the class fills up with signees and we no longer have a need and their desired first choice doesn't pan out. Kids will hopefully learn that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". UC is a solid destination.

I think it would be a bad idea if UC accepted commitments and signings from lower-ranked guys because prospects higher on their board are looking at the more prestigious programs first. You don't settle.

I agree, but I really don't think that would be the case. I wouldn't see us extending an offer that early to a "fringe" player if you have better options available. So I guess if there was an early signing period, it would be a case where both the player and the coaches agree this is the right place for both. This would prevent the "shot gun" approach at recruiting where you extend a thousand offers because you can always revoke it later.

It will help the non P5 schools IMO. Maybe not a lot, but a little bit at least. A lot of kids by August are still under the radar and don't feel at that point that they'll have better options down the road. It's always risky if you are viewed as a non-elite recruit to let your recruitment play out. Take Norwood for example. He'd very likely be a Bearcat if there had been an early signing period this year.

(01-21-2015 01:58 PM)Marcus Wrote:  It will help the non P5 schools IMO. Maybe not a lot, but a little bit at least. A lot of kids by August are still under the radar and don't feel at that point that they'll have better options down the road. It's always risky if you are viewed as a non-elite recruit to let your recruitment play out. Take Norwood for example. He'd very likely be a Bearcat if there had been an early signing period this year.

If an early signing period is in December as some have recommended, I assume a lot of prospects would just hold off and let a lot of the elite guys sign on to their respective programs and see where things go from there.

It's not like basketball where there's a lot fewer slots on each team to fill and a 5-month gap between signing periods, the first of which occurs before the HS regular season starts.

I reiterate, look at the composition of who is on that committee....they will not do anything that does not benefit the P5.

Quote:The 12-person working group commissioned by CCA includes Hawley -- the Big Ten's chief compliance official -- Texas El-Paso AD Bob Stull, Texas Tech AD Kirby Hocutt, Georgia AD Greg McGarity, Stanford AD Bernard Muir as well as former coaches Rich Brooks (Oregon, Kentucky), Gene Chizik (Auburn, Iowa State) and Jim Grobe (Wake Forest).

An article about our old friend Lyle. Does anyone know if a kid signs an NLI with a school, is the school bound by it? iirc, students have to be released by the institution if they change their minds, but what about schools? Can they just release a student from the NLI if the school recruits over a commitment? if not, than the early signing period idea is an incomplete one. i can understand wanting to protect schools from poaching, but if they aren't bound by an NLI the same way a student athlete is, than this arrangements just reinforces the asymmetrical relationship that currently exists between student athletes and institutions.

Quote:The coach of a former Tennessee commit said college football recruiting is a “ugly” and “nasty business” after saying the Volunteers pulled his star player’s scholarship two weeks from signing day.

Defensive end Marques Ford of Tampa, Fla., had been committed to Tennessee since last summer. He was informed on Wednesday that the Volunteers no longer had room for him in this year’s class because they had too many commitments.

For the rest

(01-22-2015 02:52 PM)eroc Wrote:  An article about our old friend Lyle. Does anyone know if a kid signs an NLI with a school, is the school bound by it? iirc, students have to be released by the institution if they change their minds, but what about schools? Can they just release a student from the NLI if the school recruits over a commitment? if not, than the early signing period idea is an incomplete one. i can understand wanting to protect schools from poaching, but if they aren't bound by an NLI the same way a student athlete is, than this arrangements just reinforces the asymmetrical relationship that currently exists between student athletes and institutions.

Quote:The coach of a former Tennessee commit said college football recruiting is a “ugly” and “nasty business” after saying the Volunteers pulled his star player’s scholarship two weeks from signing day.

Defensive end Marques Ford of Tampa, Fla., had been committed to Tennessee since last summer. He was informed on Wednesday that the Volunteers no longer had room for him in this year’s class because they had too many commitments.

For the rest

I think once they sign, they are locked in from both sides. Thus schools can't take a commitment and then cut them loose, so it would be protection for players from the above.

Yep, and the SEC signed off on 4 year scholies I believe.

(01-22-2015 05:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Yep, and the SEC signed off on 4 year scholies I believe.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the SEC voted 11-2 (Vanderbilt and someone else being the supporters, I assume?) against 4-year scholarships and the Big XII voted against it as well.

It wasn't a surprise given how often players are cut to make room for new recruits in the SEC.

It still ended up passing, but not as easily as the new cost of attendance policy that had one dissenter.

(01-22-2015 06:21 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 05:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Yep, and the SEC signed off on 4 year scholies I believe.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the SEC voted 11-2 (Vanderbilt and someone else being the supporters, I assume?) against 4-year scholarships and the Big XII voted against it as well.

It wasn't a surprise given how often players are cut to make room for new recruits in the SEC.

It still ended up passing, but not as easily as the new cost of attendance policy that had one dissenter.

Yeah, the SEC was NOT for that part of the decision by any means. That completely destroys their oversigning strategies.

(01-22-2015 06:38 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I reiterate, look at the composition of who is on that committee....they will not do anything that does not benefit the P5.

Quote:The 12-person working group commissioned by CCA includes Hawley -- the Big Ten's chief compliance official -- Texas El-Paso AD Bob Stull, Texas Tech AD Kirby Hocutt, Georgia AD Greg McGarity, Stanford AD Bernard Muir as well as former coaches Rich Brooks (Oregon, Kentucky), Gene Chizik (Auburn, Iowa State) and Jim Grobe (Wake Forest).

The thing is with this is that I don't think it neatly packs into better P5 vs. G5. I'm not sure it really necessarily benefits anyone particular (besides benefiting some coaches over others), but I'd imagine the interest of Cincinnati would be as close to most mid-level P5 programs as to most G5 programs in this. The only ones that I feel might be a bit more effected are the top recruiting programs and even there I get the impression coaches want to be done recruiting earlier (at least with the guys they've already got).