hungan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 14,077
- Reaction score
- 4,150
- Points
- 113
This has been discussed previously on this board, and could come as early as the 2016 class.
It can benefit teams like the Gophers, and save time, energy, and expense of defending commitments. They can focus on the remaining players they are recruiting instead.
For players who already know where they want to play, they can be spared of the unwanted repeated recruiting attention.
Early Signing period recommended - Adam Krohn, Rivals Feature Writer, January 24, 2015
Football prospects may join basketball prospects in being able to sign with schools during an early signing period.
For years, some college coaches and high school prospects have been pushing for an early college football signing period. The idea is to provide an alternative signing date for players who wanted to sign the dotted line ahead of all the recruiting hype that begins after the Dec.-Jan. dead period and lasts until National Signing Day in February.
That concept took a big step forward after last weekend's NCAA convention in Washington, and it could become a reality as soon as next year.
For starters, while the initiative may be a new idea for college football, there's actually nothing innovative about it. As MAC commissioner Dr. Jon Steinbrecher points out, there's an early signing period for every NCAA-regulated sport except for football, soccer and water polo.
"This is not a unique concept by any stretch of the imagination," said Steinbrecher, who chairs the committee that formally recommended an early signing period to the Collegiate Commissioners Association.
The CCA is comprised of all D-I commissioners and oversees the National Letter of Intent program. If the CAA approves the recommendation in the coming months, an early signing period -- a 72-hour window that would begin the third Wednesday in December -- will be in place for next year's graduating class. The traditional National Signing Day, which takes place the first Wednesday of February, would remain intact, as would the current recruiting calendar.
Steinbrecher, as well as other members who serve on the committee, said discussions with coaches about an early signing period have been taking place for years.
"It's been an issue that's been bubbling for almost a decade in some form or fashion," Steinbrecher said. "Multiple conferences have suggested changes at least since 2008."
Those discussions have led to Steinbrecher, who also played a role in bringing the College Football Playoff to life and serves on its Administrative Committee, to chairing the committee that could make the early signing period happen.
Through research, the committee found strong evidence to support the coaches' notion for an early signing period. In an email exchange with Rivals.com, NLI program director Susan Peal said a survey completed by 1,484 of last year's D-I and D-II football signees revealed that 82 percent of them verbally committed early, with 20 percent verbally committing the summer before their senior year of high school. Seventy percent of signees committed during their senior football season and 90 percent of all early commits signed with the institution they verbally committed to.
That was plenty of evidence for the committee to move forward.
"The fact is kids are making early decisions," Steinbrecher said. "(The recommendation of an early signing period) is a recognition that this is occurring and serves as a proposal to manage it."
Deciding a date for the early signing period has been a point of disagreement. An Aug. 1 date was part of earlier discussions, but the committee decided on a December date that, as Texas Tech athletic director and committee member Kirby Hocutt notes, aligns with the NLI's junior college mid-year transfer date.
Texas El-Paso athletic director and committee member Bob Stull said December is "the most reasonable and supported time."
The December date still allows a player to take official visits during the college football season before signing early if he so chooses. Should he sign during the early period in December, he's obligated to the school and other schools can no longer contact him -- the same as if he signed in February.
This early signing period would greatly help those players who are set on attending a specific school and don't need the extra time between when football season ends and February to finalize their decision.
"The last few weeks are pretty crazy when it comes to unlimited contact by coaches," Rivals.com national recruiting director Mike Farrell said. "There's in-home visits, constant phone calls -- it's just a lot, and a lot of kids who are set on a school don't want to be bothered. This rule essentially ends the process. If they decide not to sign early, then they're free game for other schools after the dead period."
With the choice of when to sign -- in December or February -- comes a new set of pressures. Schools will move to sign players to the early signing date and may question a player's verbal commitment should he choose to sign in February, in some case moving on to other recruits.
Committee member and Big Ten associate commissioner Chad Hawley acknowledges the pressures that come with an early signing period, but sees them as the same as before.
"We anticipate that the pressure to sign on that date would ramp up," Hawley said in an email exchange. "But whether that translates into a markedly different environment than exists now -- where the pressure is already great and is already balanced among the regular season and postseason for both college and high-school football programs -- remains to be seen."
Assuming the recommendation passes, the class of 2016 will have a new and valuable option at their disposal. Who chooses to exercise it in December will set the pace for the remainder of the recruiting cycle.
FSU commit Isaac Nauta would be interested in an early signing period.
Isaac Nauta is a class of 2016 player who committed to Florida State in December. The Rivals100 tight end may be one of the first players to sign during the early period.
"I'd probably be a guy to sign early," said Nauta, who will play for Bradenton (Fla.) IMG Academy next season. "I have complete confidence in where I want to attend. That's where I feel at home. It's not that I wouldn't mind other coaches trying to recruit me -- I consider that an honor -- but I know some guys who are completely sick of the whole process and just want to get to their school."
Five-star receiver Demetris Robertson is the top-ranked athlete in the country for 2016 and has been committed to Alabama since July. While he calls the possibility of signing early "a great option," he stops short of saying he'd sign early -- and for good reason.
"I would probably wait in case of a coaching change," Robertson said.
And that's one factor for the player to consider. A coaching change in between the early and traditional signing period could leave early signing players in a wildly different scenario than if they had waited until February.
"Texas A&M, LSU, Auburn -- all those schools are getting high-level (assistant coach) recruiters in January," Farrell said. "If all these changes happen (next year) after the December Signing Day, then what do you do? That's the biggest pitfall to it. But it goes back to kids should be choosing schools for schools. Choosing coaches in this day and age is a huge mistake, because there's too much moving around."
For Nauta, he believes there's a middle ground for committing to a school vs. a coach.
"I think there's a balance," he said. "You've got to like the environment because it's a place you're going to be maybe as long as five years. But you definitely have to have a good relationship with the coaches because they're the ones who are going to take you to the next level. In my case, I've talked to coach (Tim) Brewster, and he told me this is the place he wants to be."
Hocutt said coaching changes between signing periods is a possibility that has been discussed.
"Do you allow those players the chance to reopen the process?" he said.
While there may not be a universal agreement on the answer to that question, former Kentucky coach Rich Brooks doesn't view the potential dilemma as a deal-breaker for passing an early signing period reccomendation.
https://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1728631
"It's been an issue where a coach was dismissed or left after the February signing period," said Brooks, who coached the Wildcats from 2003-09 and now serves on the early signing period committee. "I think the NCAA has tried to deal with those on a case-by-case basis and I wouldn't see that changing."
Brooks believes the rule would have been helpful had it been in place when he coached.
"It would have made recruiting clear cut and easier," he said. "You never know if players (verbally committed early) will actually sign and some verbally commit to more than one school. With this, you'd know whether you're in or out months earlier, and if you're out get another player at that position."
Knowing which recruits are committed to signing early could prove invaluable for a program, Hawley notes.
"From a coach's perspective, time and resources used to continue recruiting prospects who are firmly committed can be used elsewhere," he said. "For both coaches and prospects who may be uncertain as to where the other side stands relative to the level of commitment, an early date could help clear up that uncertainty."
As of now, programs are "in essence, babysitting kids who have committed to them (until February)," Steinbrecher said.
Though players and coaches stand to benefit from an early signing period, not all are on board. Hawley said the committee acknowledges the early period likely becomes the primary signing date, and Brooks points out, "some coaches don't want to change the status quo."
For instance, programs may not have the option of waiting until January to bring in a player for an official visit and in some cases may be forced to do more recruiting during the season than they would have liked. And other, unintended consequences could arise.
The CCA has agreed to conduct a review of the early signing period after two years, should the commissioners approve of the recommendation.
How likely is an approval?
"I don't want to put a handicap on that," Steinbrecher said. "I know my conference supports it, but maybe not all the conferences. What I will say is that there was a unanimous agreement that we should move forward with a recommendation."
"I believe there's a lot of interest and broad support for an early signing period," Hocutt added.
Though further changes could come -- such as an Aug. 1 date or firm rules regarding coaching changes after an early signing period -- the most important thing, the committee believes, was at least getting a recommendation in front of the CCA for a vote.
Hawley is confident the committee has branded a strong recommendation.
"There are too many diverse factors and competing interests involved for there to be a perfect solution that covers everyone's individual preferences," he said. "But we feel the recommendation does the most while changing the least."
It can benefit teams like the Gophers, and save time, energy, and expense of defending commitments. They can focus on the remaining players they are recruiting instead.
For players who already know where they want to play, they can be spared of the unwanted repeated recruiting attention.
Early Signing period recommended - Adam Krohn, Rivals Feature Writer, January 24, 2015
Football prospects may join basketball prospects in being able to sign with schools during an early signing period.
For years, some college coaches and high school prospects have been pushing for an early college football signing period. The idea is to provide an alternative signing date for players who wanted to sign the dotted line ahead of all the recruiting hype that begins after the Dec.-Jan. dead period and lasts until National Signing Day in February.
That concept took a big step forward after last weekend's NCAA convention in Washington, and it could become a reality as soon as next year.
For starters, while the initiative may be a new idea for college football, there's actually nothing innovative about it. As MAC commissioner Dr. Jon Steinbrecher points out, there's an early signing period for every NCAA-regulated sport except for football, soccer and water polo.
"This is not a unique concept by any stretch of the imagination," said Steinbrecher, who chairs the committee that formally recommended an early signing period to the Collegiate Commissioners Association.
The CCA is comprised of all D-I commissioners and oversees the National Letter of Intent program. If the CAA approves the recommendation in the coming months, an early signing period -- a 72-hour window that would begin the third Wednesday in December -- will be in place for next year's graduating class. The traditional National Signing Day, which takes place the first Wednesday of February, would remain intact, as would the current recruiting calendar.
Steinbrecher, as well as other members who serve on the committee, said discussions with coaches about an early signing period have been taking place for years.
"It's been an issue that's been bubbling for almost a decade in some form or fashion," Steinbrecher said. "Multiple conferences have suggested changes at least since 2008."
Those discussions have led to Steinbrecher, who also played a role in bringing the College Football Playoff to life and serves on its Administrative Committee, to chairing the committee that could make the early signing period happen.
Through research, the committee found strong evidence to support the coaches' notion for an early signing period. In an email exchange with Rivals.com, NLI program director Susan Peal said a survey completed by 1,484 of last year's D-I and D-II football signees revealed that 82 percent of them verbally committed early, with 20 percent verbally committing the summer before their senior year of high school. Seventy percent of signees committed during their senior football season and 90 percent of all early commits signed with the institution they verbally committed to.
That was plenty of evidence for the committee to move forward.
"The fact is kids are making early decisions," Steinbrecher said. "(The recommendation of an early signing period) is a recognition that this is occurring and serves as a proposal to manage it."
Deciding a date for the early signing period has been a point of disagreement. An Aug. 1 date was part of earlier discussions, but the committee decided on a December date that, as Texas Tech athletic director and committee member Kirby Hocutt notes, aligns with the NLI's junior college mid-year transfer date.
Texas El-Paso athletic director and committee member Bob Stull said December is "the most reasonable and supported time."
The December date still allows a player to take official visits during the college football season before signing early if he so chooses. Should he sign during the early period in December, he's obligated to the school and other schools can no longer contact him -- the same as if he signed in February.
This early signing period would greatly help those players who are set on attending a specific school and don't need the extra time between when football season ends and February to finalize their decision.
"The last few weeks are pretty crazy when it comes to unlimited contact by coaches," Rivals.com national recruiting director Mike Farrell said. "There's in-home visits, constant phone calls -- it's just a lot, and a lot of kids who are set on a school don't want to be bothered. This rule essentially ends the process. If they decide not to sign early, then they're free game for other schools after the dead period."
With the choice of when to sign -- in December or February -- comes a new set of pressures. Schools will move to sign players to the early signing date and may question a player's verbal commitment should he choose to sign in February, in some case moving on to other recruits.
Committee member and Big Ten associate commissioner Chad Hawley acknowledges the pressures that come with an early signing period, but sees them as the same as before.
"We anticipate that the pressure to sign on that date would ramp up," Hawley said in an email exchange. "But whether that translates into a markedly different environment than exists now -- where the pressure is already great and is already balanced among the regular season and postseason for both college and high-school football programs -- remains to be seen."
Assuming the recommendation passes, the class of 2016 will have a new and valuable option at their disposal. Who chooses to exercise it in December will set the pace for the remainder of the recruiting cycle.
FSU commit Isaac Nauta would be interested in an early signing period.
Isaac Nauta is a class of 2016 player who committed to Florida State in December. The Rivals100 tight end may be one of the first players to sign during the early period.
"I'd probably be a guy to sign early," said Nauta, who will play for Bradenton (Fla.) IMG Academy next season. "I have complete confidence in where I want to attend. That's where I feel at home. It's not that I wouldn't mind other coaches trying to recruit me -- I consider that an honor -- but I know some guys who are completely sick of the whole process and just want to get to their school."
Five-star receiver Demetris Robertson is the top-ranked athlete in the country for 2016 and has been committed to Alabama since July. While he calls the possibility of signing early "a great option," he stops short of saying he'd sign early -- and for good reason.
"I would probably wait in case of a coaching change," Robertson said.
And that's one factor for the player to consider. A coaching change in between the early and traditional signing period could leave early signing players in a wildly different scenario than if they had waited until February.
"Texas A&M, LSU, Auburn -- all those schools are getting high-level (assistant coach) recruiters in January," Farrell said. "If all these changes happen (next year) after the December Signing Day, then what do you do? That's the biggest pitfall to it. But it goes back to kids should be choosing schools for schools. Choosing coaches in this day and age is a huge mistake, because there's too much moving around."
For Nauta, he believes there's a middle ground for committing to a school vs. a coach.
"I think there's a balance," he said. "You've got to like the environment because it's a place you're going to be maybe as long as five years. But you definitely have to have a good relationship with the coaches because they're the ones who are going to take you to the next level. In my case, I've talked to coach (Tim) Brewster, and he told me this is the place he wants to be."
Hocutt said coaching changes between signing periods is a possibility that has been discussed.
"Do you allow those players the chance to reopen the process?" he said.
While there may not be a universal agreement on the answer to that question, former Kentucky coach Rich Brooks doesn't view the potential dilemma as a deal-breaker for passing an early signing period reccomendation.
https://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1728631
"It's been an issue where a coach was dismissed or left after the February signing period," said Brooks, who coached the Wildcats from 2003-09 and now serves on the early signing period committee. "I think the NCAA has tried to deal with those on a case-by-case basis and I wouldn't see that changing."
Brooks believes the rule would have been helpful had it been in place when he coached.
"It would have made recruiting clear cut and easier," he said. "You never know if players (verbally committed early) will actually sign and some verbally commit to more than one school. With this, you'd know whether you're in or out months earlier, and if you're out get another player at that position."
Knowing which recruits are committed to signing early could prove invaluable for a program, Hawley notes.
"From a coach's perspective, time and resources used to continue recruiting prospects who are firmly committed can be used elsewhere," he said. "For both coaches and prospects who may be uncertain as to where the other side stands relative to the level of commitment, an early date could help clear up that uncertainty."
As of now, programs are "in essence, babysitting kids who have committed to them (until February)," Steinbrecher said.
Though players and coaches stand to benefit from an early signing period, not all are on board. Hawley said the committee acknowledges the early period likely becomes the primary signing date, and Brooks points out, "some coaches don't want to change the status quo."
For instance, programs may not have the option of waiting until January to bring in a player for an official visit and in some cases may be forced to do more recruiting during the season than they would have liked. And other, unintended consequences could arise.
The CCA has agreed to conduct a review of the early signing period after two years, should the commissioners approve of the recommendation.
How likely is an approval?
"I don't want to put a handicap on that," Steinbrecher said. "I know my conference supports it, but maybe not all the conferences. What I will say is that there was a unanimous agreement that we should move forward with a recommendation."
"I believe there's a lot of interest and broad support for an early signing period," Hocutt added.
Though further changes could come -- such as an Aug. 1 date or firm rules regarding coaching changes after an early signing period -- the most important thing, the committee believes, was at least getting a recommendation in front of the CCA for a vote.
Hawley is confident the committee has branded a strong recommendation.
"There are too many diverse factors and competing interests involved for there to be a perfect solution that covers everyone's individual preferences," he said. "But we feel the recommendation does the most while changing the least."