Today's Memphis paper (The Commercial Appeal) has an article saying that the NCAA is proposing an early signing date (December) for football. The SEC is unanimously against the idea, while the other FBS conferences (especially the "G5") are mostly for it (Big 12 is divided). Anybody understand the SEC's reasons for opposing it? I don't buy what they are saying publicly - most likely the change would somehow negatively affect their recruiting advantage in the South. Perhaps they see that it would become harder (due to less time) to swoop in late and take commitments away from other schools after they see how many of their own picks are academically ineligible.

(06-14-2015 10:14 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Today's Memphis paper (The Commercial Appeal) has an article saying that the NCAA is proposing an early signing date (December) for football. The SEC is unanimously against the idea, while the other FBS conferences (especially the "G5") are mostly for it (Big 12 is divided). Anybody understand the SEC's reasons for opposing it? I don't buy what they are saying publicly - most likely the change would somehow negatively affect their recruiting advantage in the South. Perhaps they see that it would become harder (due to less time) to swoop in late and take commitments away from other schools after they see how many of their own picks are academically ineligible.

I suspect the SEC realizes they'd have to actually do their own research instead of swooping in at the 11th hour and swiping recruits that have orally committed to other "lesser" schools.

(06-14-2015 10:18 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 10:14 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Today's Memphis paper (The Commercial Appeal) has an article saying that the NCAA is proposing an early signing date (December) for football. The SEC is unanimously against the idea, while the other FBS conferences (especially the "G5") are mostly for it (Big 12 is divided). Anybody understand the SEC's reasons for opposing it? I don't buy what they are saying publicly - most likely the change would somehow negatively affect their recruiting advantage in the South. Perhaps they see that it would become harder (due to less time) to swoop in late and take commitments away from other schools after they see how many of their own picks are academically ineligible.

I suspect the SEC realizes they'd have to actually do their own research instead of swooping in at the 11th hour and swiping recruits that have orally committed to other "lesser" schools.

Ding!

UCF has lost some key commitments to SEC and even some ACC (FSU) schools on last weekend/days before signing day.

SEC doesn't have to spend extra recruiting $$$ to snag already committed recruits at last minute (many times G5 commits), as all it generally takes is just a phone call or text at last minute...and it works for them.

O'Leary has been promoting earlier signing period for YEARS...as why is Football different when other college sports like Basketball, Baseball, Volleyball, etc...all get to enjoy an early signing period?

Challenge for G5 schools is that time and $$$ still have to be spent on committed athletes till the final whistle...something they wouldn't have to do if they were able to have an early signing period (would save them approx 6-7 weeks of time/$$).

(06-14-2015 10:14 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Today's Memphis paper (The Commercial Appeal) has an article saying that the NCAA is proposing an early signing date (December) for football. The SEC is unanimously against the idea, while the other FBS conferences (especially the "G5") are mostly for it (Big 12 is divided). Anybody understand the SEC's reasons for opposing it? I don't buy what they are saying publicly - most likely the change would somehow negatively affect their recruiting advantage in the South. Perhaps they see that it would become harder (due to less time) to swoop in late and take commitments away from other schools after they see how many of their own picks are academically ineligible.

Going to go ahead and bet that it's divided along the lines of OU/UT not wanting this, and everyone else fully supporting it.

The early signing period would be a boon for the Non-Paid programs. I'm in favor of it but, I'm weary that it may come with some concessions on our side. The Paid5 aren't going to give us anything that would benefit us without receiving something else in return.

I'm now curious as to what that something else may be.

My fear is that it would be tied to raising the number of Scholarships. That would be bad.

(06-14-2015 01:35 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  The early signing period would be a boon for the Non-Paid programs. I'm in favor of it but, I'm weary that it may come with some concessions on our side. The Paid5 aren't going to give us anything that would benefit us without receiving something else in return.

I'm now curious as to what that something else may be.

My fear is that it would be tied to raising the number of Scholarships. That would be bad.

Even if they somehow manage to raise the # of scholarships, I seriously doubt any player in favor of being benched.

(06-14-2015 02:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:35 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  The early signing period would be a boon for the Non-Paid programs. I'm in favor of it but, I'm weary that it may come with some concessions on our side. The Paid5 aren't going to give us anything that would benefit us without receiving something else in return.

I'm now curious as to what that something else may be.

My fear is that it would be tied to raising the number of Scholarships. That would be bad.

Even if they somehow manage to raise the # of scholarships, I seriously doubt any player in favor of being benched.

Isn't that what functionally happened before the limits on scholarships, though? The old 'Bear Bryant would recruit players just so his opponents wouldn't be able to have them' anecdote?

(06-14-2015 02:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:35 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  The early signing period would be a boon for the Non-Paid programs. I'm in favor of it but, I'm weary that it may come with some concessions on our side. The Paid5 aren't going to give us anything that would benefit us without receiving something else in return.

I'm now curious as to what that something else may be.

My fear is that it would be tied to raising the number of Scholarships. That would be bad.

Even if they somehow manage to raise the # of scholarships, I seriously doubt any player in favor of being benched.

Memphis had a lot of success in the 60's when there were no scholarship limits at all. Bear Bryant used to sign players just to keep other schools from having them.

As for the proposed early signing date, I figure anything that the SEC is against, must good for us.

(06-14-2015 02:19 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 02:15 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(06-14-2015 01:35 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  The early signing period would be a boon for the Non-Paid programs. I'm in favor of it but, I'm weary that it may come with some concessions on our side. The Paid5 aren't going to give us anything that would benefit us without receiving something else in return.

I'm now curious as to what that something else may be.

My fear is that it would be tied to raising the number of Scholarships. That would be bad.

Even if they somehow manage to raise the # of scholarships, I seriously doubt any player in favor of being benched.

Isn't that what functionally happened before the limits on scholarships, though? The old 'Bear Bryant would recruit players just so his opponents wouldn't be able to have them' anecdote?

Sure, but college football is much bigger $$$ now and the youngsters know that, so showcasing their skills soon on live TV rather then riding the bench elevates their chances going pro $$$.

The SEC sits in the best recruiting area and they know it --- the more recruits they can string along in that area and the longer they can do it benfits SEC schools. Early signing and the recruit's pressures there, create new problems for this model.

(06-14-2015 09:10 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  The SEC sits in the best recruiting area and they know it --- the more recruits they can string along in that area and the longer they can do it benfits SEC schools. Early signing and the recruit's pressures there, create new problems for this model.

BTW --- this is why the SEC is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 'recruiting satellite camp' idea. They really don't want to add to this movement but if 'everyone else is coming' (into SEC territory) -- what other token response is there?