In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 453
Online now 133 Record: 3833 (12/17/2013)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
With these new NCAA rules set to go into effect on August 1 with the 2014 class that means college coaches and support personnel can contact recruits without any limitations on number of calls, texts, and sending out recruiting material, do you feel that an early signing period is the only way to make life bearable for these recruits?
I'm in favor of having an early signing period in August when the camps are done and allowing kids to take official visits during the summer months prior to their senior year.
What are your thoughts on all of this madness?
I am all in favor of an early signing period but there has to be some kind of caveat/clarification that the LOI becomes null if the Head Coach leaves or is fired. Kids can't possibly anticipate those kinds of things, and I know they are supposed to be committing to the school, but many if not most commit because of the coaching staff. Now I know you can't have clarifications in there for position coaches because they are constantly switching hats but I think the head coach is fair and necessary.
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us....They can't get away this time." Chesty Puller
"You can learn more character on the two-yard line than anywhere else in life." - Former LSU Coach and AD Paul Dietzel
1st, it is just that..................MADNESS!!!
2nd....yes, I'm ALL in favor of an early signing period! It's been needed for awhile now; especially with the changes in recruiting in the last 10 years. It'd put an end to SOME of the flipping and "early" silent committ's that flip. Also, a team could change their strategy knowing that "recruit A" has already signed his LOI. A "staff" could then move in a different direction if they're already filled up at that position. Additionally,that'd probably help with some of the last minute, "we don't have any room for you now son, you should committed earlier" crap that goes on...........even from our staff. See T. Lawson and E. Porter! Lastly, they'd be able to concentrate on the kids NOT committed/signed yet instead of "waisting" time on a kid that could already be signed/sealed/delivered. Teams could better use their resources IMO!
Now, I'm sure they're are negatives that I haven't thought through; and we'll be hearing about those shortly from "others."
"It's my hometown, and that's big for me," Henry said. "It's about playing for the home team in front of family
Agree 100%.....Has to be an out clause if the head coach leaves or is fired.
As for the part about kids making uninformed decisions, an early signing period works for them where they can sign 5 months before the spring signing period and it doesn't seem to be bad for them.
If it works for what is truly a circus when it comes to recruiting then it would work in football in my opinion.
This post was edited by Sonny Shipp 14 months ago
I really like the idea of an early signing period. It makes sense and would help alleviate some of the chicanery that is sure to generate from these new rules. I would like for the players to be protected due to coaching changes (HC only), and for the schools to be protected from players who don't qualify. It would probably take the NCAA legal department ten years to figure out how best to implement these changes and then they wouldn't be needed, so I don't expect anything to happen in the real world.
The proposed changes are nothing less than chaos and will be an invasion and distraction without checks.
I like the early signing idea and the idea that a recruit has options to withdraw if there are changes in coaching or conditions, i.e., a desired study program is no longer available or pending NCAA penalties.
SEC schools could benefit by setting up an agreed-to standard of conduct that benefits recruits/families and reduces the onslaught of contacts. But then again, schools could "cheat: and do what they will.
What I'd like to see is a provision that states recruits who are current non-academic qualifiers become ineligible for recruiting until the end of the school term. It would put the horse before the wagon. But I realize many of these kids are on the field regardless. These contact and recruiting rules, I think, will affect academics. There;s only so many hours in a day. Flooding a family and recruit with material and calls, contacts could backfire.
Just some thoughts - fire away.
This post was edited by lsutiger76 14 months ago
Lots of good responses and the overwhelming consensus is that an early signing period is needed.
How the NCAA can enact their most recent legislation, then on the other hand say they are raising academic standards for eligibility requirements in the same breath is an absolute joke.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports