Proposed CFB Recruiting Changes Could Help Northern Schools

Gophers7NatTitlesBadgers0

New Orleans 2020
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
6,615
Reaction score
246
Points
63
There has been some discussion on this topic. Urban Meyer has been a critic of this idea. Understandable because he wouldn't be able to poach late bloomer recruits as easily.
 

GoldenRodents

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
1,677
Reaction score
340
Points
83
Hope this will help us nab 5 star WR's for Seth Green to target.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
15,608
Reaction score
2,563
Points
113
It would help us, but I don't like it.

The idea of having even younger kids singing themselves up to something they can't get out of seems pretty scummy. They're kids, they should get to change their minds.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,848
Points
113
It would help us, but I don't like it.

The idea of having even younger kids singing themselves up to something they can't get out of seems pretty scummy. They're kids, they should get to change their minds.
But it goes both ways, the school also can't get out of the deal. This way the student has a scholarship without having to worry that the school is going to change their mind at the last minute when a higher ranked recruit shows up.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,848
Points
113
If I set the rules...
... I make so recruits could sign anytime during their senior year. After signing, they get a week to change their mind but beyond that week it's a contract. The university has a recruit that they don't need to keep calling every day to make sure they're still on board; and the recruit has a guaranteed slot on the team that the university can't pull.
 

U2Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,206
Reaction score
172
Points
63
If I set the rules...
... I make so recruits could sign anytime during their senior year. After signing, they get a week to change their mind but beyond that week it's a contract. The university has a recruit that they don't need to keep calling every day to make sure they're still on board; and the recruit has a guaranteed slot on the team that the university can't pull.
Are u serious with this???? It just makes too much sense to be implemented! :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
15,608
Reaction score
2,563
Points
113
But it goes both ways, the school also can't get out of the deal. This way the student has a scholarship without having to worry that the school is going to change their mind at the last minute when a higher ranked recruit shows up.
Eh.... maybe some one off guy gets injured but benefits, but teams aren't going to offer a borderline dude. It's not like the player gets to pick unless the school first offers...\

They're only going to offer guys who they want to lock up and keep other schools from seeing. That's not a benefit to most players.
 

MNGoldenGophers1

Go4 Homer
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
4,765
Reaction score
0
Points
36
It would help us, but I don't like it.

The idea of having even younger kids singing themselves up to something they can't get out of seems pretty scummy. They're kids, they should get to change their minds.
Agreed. The adults already have an upper hand as it is.
 

Jack jones

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
468
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Regardless when they sign, an athlete should be able to opt out if the coach is fired or changes jobs,
 

Catechol

Active member
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
412
Reaction score
49
Points
28
Eh.... maybe some one off guy gets injured but benefits, but teams aren't going to offer a borderline dude. It's not like the player gets to pick unless the school first offers...\

They're only going to offer guys who they want to lock up and keep other schools from seeing. That's not a benefit to most players.
At first it sounded like a great concept, but it seems like it would still end up working against the student-athletes. Programs would just adjust their behavior. For top prospects they would offer early and pressure the kid to sign, for everyone else they may wait until the last minute. Programs wouldn't want to put offers out there that they wouldn't be willing to be bound to immediately.

OTOH, maybe that would work out OK. You could have two official visit periods, one in summer before senior year for those who may sign early, and one around Christmas break-January for those who are offered late or are deciding late.

Still have the kids sign any time, but give them 1 month instead of 1 week to back out. If they back out they can sign somewhere else but could not be on athletic scholarship the first year.
 

Hates Monikers

Active member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,552
Reaction score
17
Points
38
At first it sounded like a great concept, but it seems like it would still end up working against the student-athletes. Programs would just adjust their behavior. For top prospects they would offer early and pressure the kid to sign, for everyone else they may wait until the last minute. Programs wouldn't want to put offers out there that they wouldn't be willing to be bound to immediately.

OTOH, maybe that would work out OK. You could have two official visit periods, one in summer before senior year for those who may sign early, and one around Christmas break-January for those who are offered late or are deciding late.

Still have the kids sign any time, but give them 1 month instead of 1 week to back out. If they back out they can sign somewhere else but could not be on athletic scholarship the first year.
The bold is pretty much how it works already, minus some of the pressure. (And I agree that the pressure is new, negative piece.) There's a pecking order. A kid commits to Minnesota in June, then gets a late December offer from Florida State. Minnesota loses the kid. But a different kid who committed to Eastern Michigan now gets a Minnesota offer in December. Eastern Michigan loses the kid, then they look around. Currently, the best programs get to wait longer than we do.

Yes, some kids would miss an opportunity to play at a higher level by signing early. But look at how many kids committed to Minnesota (and other schools) during the summer. In theory, Minnesota wanted them, and they wanted Minnesota. Basketball has an early signing period (November), and the same risk applies. There's no rule that a kid must sign early; there are risks to both sides in signing early, and risks in waiting.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
15,608
Reaction score
2,563
Points
113
The bold is pretty much how it works already, minus some of the pressure. (And I agree that the pressure is new, negative piece.) There's a pecking order. A kid commits to Minnesota in June, then gets a late December offer from Florida State. Minnesota loses the kid. But a different kid who committed to Eastern Michigan now gets a Minnesota offer in December. Eastern Michigan loses the kid, then they look around. Currently, the best programs get to wait longer than we do.

Yes, some kids would miss an opportunity to play at a higher level by signing early. But look at how many kids committed to Minnesota (and other schools) during the summer. In theory, Minnesota wanted them, and they wanted Minnesota. Basketball has an early signing period (November), and the same risk applies. There's no rule that a kid must sign early; there are risks to both sides in signing early, and risks in waiting.
It works that way already..... for older kids.

Now we do it that unpleasant way for even younger kids?

That seems less right.
 
Top Bottom