Dabo Swinney wants a preseason signing period for a couple of reasons

[BleedGopher]

per Clemson Insider:

College football’s early signing period is four years into its existence. So far, Dabo Swinney doesn’t have many complaints about it.

Clemson’s coach just wishes it was even earlier.

During a recent interview with 247Sports analyst Carl Reed, Swinney said he’d like to see the early signing period move to August. Since the sport’s additional signing period was added to the recruiting calendar in 2017, it’s been held in December.

“I always felt like if we moved it to August, it would protect the kids,” Swinney said.

Specifically, Swinney opined it would force coaches to get serious about the prospects they want to sign by making them hand out committable scholarship offers earlier. Swinney said signing a National Letter of Intent before the college football season begins would also ensure a recruit’s spot on the roster at that school even if a coaching change happened during or immediately after the season.

“We all know the stories,” Swinney said. “These kids are committed, they’ve been committed, they want to sign in December. Well, a new coach comes in or the current coach and (his staff), they just decide they’ve got somebody better. And they tell that kid, ‘Hey, sorry, you’ve got to go somewhere else in the 11th hour.’ Or you’ve got to grayshirt or whatever it is. I think this would cut that out.”

Swinney said a preseason signing period could also benefit coaches. At the high school level, Swinney believes getting prospects signed earlier would help coaches eliminate some of the distractions that come with the recruiting process for some of their players, including college visits during the season.

“The kids can be committed to their team, they can go play and they don’t have to worry about injury or anything because they’ve signed their college scholarship,” Swinney said. “And they’re not gone on the weekends. They can be locked into their senior year, but I think they have to be protected.”

It could also help college coaches hold on to their jobs longer, Swinney said.

“Instead of firing these coaches in the middle of the season, maybe that (athletic director) says, ‘Hey, he’s got a good class coming in August. You know what, if we fire this guy, these guys are free to go wherever. Maybe we give him another year.’ I think that part of it would be good. It would be a win-win on all levels, in my opinion.”

Swinney wants a preseason signing period for a couple of reasons

College football’s early signing period is four years into its existence. So far, Dabo Swinney doesn’t have many complaints about it. Clemson’s coach just wishes it was even earlier. During a recen…

theclemsoninsider.com

Go Gophers!!

 

[fw_horn_32]

Not a bad idea if you can force the kids to not change their commitment once they sign the NLI in August.

 

[Bayfield Gopher]

Why have any signing date. Kids wants to sign, get his signature from on the line.

 

[arborlax]

Why have any signing date. Kids wants to sign, get his signature from on the line.

Absolutely agree. Why are there signing dates anyway?

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Absolutely agree. Why are there signing dates anyway?

I believe the intention is that it would protect the athlete. If signing during your first visit was an option, coaches might "force" kids to sign or pull the offer.

I believe they wanted a situation where a player could commit but then had time to think about he situation prior to making it official - like a built-in engagement. A few years ago, I think it made sense. Players were stuck with their choice for 4 years (or they had to sit out) while coaches could leave whenever. If a coach backed out of a promise, there was virtually nothing a player could do. If a player backed out of a promise (failed to work hard, didn't do well in school, etc.) they could easily be pushed out. So I think there used to be a pretty drastic difference in power and eventual effects of signing a letter of intent. I'm not saying the method of having specific signing days actually worked to balance those situations but I do believe that was the intent.

Now, things have changed quite a bit and I really don't know what's the best way to handle recruiting and signing days.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Would be curious to know what percentage of committed and ready to sign kids are at that point by the end of summer before their senior season/fall camps start up?

I'm sure some have the offer they want and are ready to be done, by then.

But I feel like a good chunk don't have the offer they want yet, and think they will get it based on their senior seasons?


So I guess I'm just wondering how much it will ultimately matter. Especially if say 70% of kids simply choose not to sign with anyone in such an August period.

This comment goes most directly to Dabo's idea that they wouldn't to host recruiting weekends during the season, then. That possibly could be true at a place like Clemson, if it's true that they would already have signed most of their recruits in the August period. But guessing that won't hold true for most places.


That said, this could in fact be beneficial to coaches too. December can either be a down time, if you're not in a bowl game/playoff, or if you are you're trying to get your extra 15 practices in and prepare, so I feel like having to wear your recruiting hat in December, on top of that, is a drag.

 

[arborlax]

I believe the intention is that it would protect the athlete. If signing during your first visit was an option, coaches might "force" kids to sign or pull the offer.

I believe they wanted a situation where a player could commit but then had time to think about he situation prior to making it official - like a built-in engagement. A few years ago, I think it made sense. Players were stuck with their choice for 4 years (or they had to sit out) while coaches could leave whenever. If a coach backed out of a promise, there was virtually nothing a player could do. If a player backed out of a promise (failed to work hard, didn't do well in school, etc.) they could easily be pushed out. So I think there used to be a pretty drastic difference in power and eventual effects of signing a letter of intent. I'm not saying the method of having specific signing days actually worked to balance those situations but I do believe that was the intent.

Now, things have changed quite a bit and I really don't know what's the best way to handle recruiting and signing days.

Makes sense, in the 'old' day. Thanks.

 

[MNVCGUY]

A case could definitely be made for doing away with signing day all together and just letting kids sign at any time.

There would need to be an out clause of some kind for the player if the head coach gets fired or leaves before a certain date. But outside of that it would simplify some things for players and coaches. Would put an end to the whole verbal commitment until a better offer comes in and would also make teams only extend offers to players they actually want.

 

[Gopher_In_NYC]

Why have any signing date. Kids wants to sign, get his signature from on the line.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Makes too much sense so it will not happen. Many kids commit and shut down their recruitment. They would all sign if allowed. No reason for kids to have to stress during their senior year of football and school. If coach gets fired, they still have the opportunity to move on or at least are guaranteed a spot to stay.

 

[Dave H]

A case could definitely be made for doing away with signing day all together and just letting kids sign at any time.

There would need to be an out clause of some kind for the player if the head coach gets fired or leaves before a certain date. But outside of that it would simplify some things for players and coaches. Would put an end to the whole verbal commitment until a better offer comes in and would also make teams only extend offers to players they actually want.

Why? Wouldn't they just be able to enter the portal then?

 

[Gophers_4life]

A case could definitely be made for doing away with signing day all together and just letting kids sign at any time.

There would need to be an out clause of some kind for the player if the head coach gets fired or leaves before a certain date. But outside of that it would simplify some things for players and coaches. Would put an end to the whole verbal commitment until a better offer comes in and would also make teams only extend offers to players they actually want.

Teams will then just say "we've put you on our 'short list', and you're 'one away' from getting that offer to which you can sign any time, just be patient and wait for the decision of that one guy ahead of you ..."

These types of games will always go on. Players side too.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Teams will then just say "we've put you on our 'short list', and you're 'one away' from getting that offer to which you can sign any time, just be patient and wait for the decision of that one guy ahead of you ..."

These types of games will always go on. Players side too.

No doubt, no matter what system is in place this will be the case. I doubt anything changes, just saying a case could be made for getting rid of a fixed signing day.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Why? Wouldn't they just be able to enter the portal then?

If the change happens before a kid is actually enrolled there should be an out that allows them to go commit to someone else and not have to burn there one free transfer.

But this is all hypothetical anyway and unlikely to happen.

 

[#2Gopher]

I believe the intention is that it would protect the athlete. If signing during your first visit was an option, coaches might "force" kids to sign or pull the offer.

I'm not so sure about this one. When you think about it, Fleck and others will offer a scholarship to a prospective player. However, it's on the condition that it is first come first serve. If a player commits let's say a Quarterback. He is only going to take one Quarterback, so he needs to rescind the offer to the other guy. They were warned.

I get what you're saying though. We may have some players committing too quickly. They are pumped on the visit, a big win on Saturday, the coach puts the player on the spot in front of the team during the big huddle gathering after a win, and on and on. So, you may be correct, more harm than good.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I'm not so sure about this one. When you think about it, Fleck and others will offer a scholarship to a prospective player. However, it's on the condition that it is first come first serve. If a player commits let's say a Quarterback. He is only going to take one Quarterback, so he needs to rescind the offer to the other guy. They were warned.

I get what you're saying though. We may have some players committing to quickly. They are pumped on the visit, a big win on Saturday, the coach puts the player on the spot in front of the team during the big huddle gathering after a win, and on and on. So, you may be correct, more harm than good.

Yeah, I think you're right. I think with a lot of the things the NCAA tries to do (regulatory bodies in general), the consequences of the regulation don't often match the goals. I think you're right, it still happened a lot and arguably it happened more often. Your point is well taken and I think it's the point Dabo was making. In your hypothetical, it would be better for the kid to be able to sign the letter of intent right there. If he commits and shuts down his recruiting then the school will have to commit and offer a scholarship.

 

[Bayfieldgopher]

Swinney says his concern is all about the kids. I agree.

The current rules have flaws and one size does not fit all. But it seems unfair to not allow a young man to be able to commit once he makes his decision. Then allow some changes under certain conditions but favor the kids.

The NCAA has the power to revise its rules. I agree with Swinney as the process should focus on the kid rather than the school or a group of highly paid coaches.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Yeah, it would be a bad thing if a player commits to a school, signs an NLI, and then the coach leaves, but the player is either only allowed to play on that team that fall or is forced to use up his free transfer to go elsewhere.

Granted if you didn't think you were going to play on the original team that fall anyway, then simply choosing to enroll elsewhere and be on the practice/development squad at that new school would be a redshirt anyway.

 

[hungan1]

I am in favor of an early August signing period. This benefits mid-tier teams like the Gophers. The majority of the Gophers' commitments come early. Why wait until December?

The early signing period will be less stressful than having a December signing period followed by another one in the following February. This does not include the preparations involved for bowl-bound teams.

 

[Some guy]

Why have any signing date. Kids wants to sign, get his signature from on the line.

Because with no signing date a kid can sign at any time forcing many to make a decision before they’re ready so they don’t lose their spot.
National decision day for non athletes is May 1

I would advocate moving national signing day to the last Monday in April to give athletes the same time frame as regular students. That’s not popular though.

 

[Some guy]

Swinney says his concern is all about the kids. I agree.

The current rules have flaws and one size does not fit all. But it seems unfair to not allow a young man to be able to commit once he makes his decision. Then allow some changes under certain conditions but favor the kids.

The NCAA has the power to revise its rules. I agree with Swinney as the process should focus on the kid rather than the school or a group of highly paid coaches.

Swinney is not worried about the kids at all. It hurts the kids to make them sign earlier, if he was worried about kids he would want the signing day in March or April after the coaching carousel is over