How to make recruiting better (for fans and coaches)...
I think it's safe to say that recruiting is "big business" anymore. It always has been for coaches, but in the past 5+ years, with the advent of Rivals.com and it's ilk, it has become a staple of your average college football fan's diet as well.
The level of interest is of such magnitude, that many, IMO, aren't satiated by the annual rite known as "signing day" anymore. Granted, we all hold day-to-day, year-long vigils over our team's efforts. However, that once per annum crescendo fades far to quickly to meet today's need-to-know-24/7 mentality. Call it akin to mastering the latest Madden or NCAA 2010 version after one week.
What changes can be made to improve upon the current system. Aside from watching & waiting, how can it be more like, say fantasy football, where each week begins anew?
Here's a few ideas, feel free to add to them:
1) Create an early signing day. It would help kids who don't want to have to deal with recruiting during their senior season, and lock down recruits for coaches.
2) Create a national "decommit" day. If you give a verbal, you're frozen, no official visits, no switches, until that date. On that date (maybe right at the end of the HS football season), you must "announce" your decommit and then are free to take visits, change your commitment etc.
Both would create more relevant dates to watch for throughout the year.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
I kinda like recruiting how it is.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
Create a national decommit day? Seriously?
I don't think you understand what a verbal commit is.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:20 PM ^
a media grab to too many. Time to put some bite back into it.
And... it's just to throw ideas (good or bad) around, not meant to please the entire crowd, or specifically you.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
they should be able to decommit whenever. I don't like when players decommit from anywhere, but that's what makes recruiting great. How different surprises happen at random times.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:28 PM ^
Right now the "bite" is all on the student athletes. Recruits make their decisions based on things like their relationships with coaches and whether or not the program is on probation. These factors can change and if they sign an LOI they're stuck. Schools who accept LOIs have no reciprocal obligation, admissions comittees can still reject signees.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^
myrtlebeachmaiz...
Man, your national decommit day idea has got to be chalked up there with one of the du...
Never mind. Not worth it. I like your avatar too much
February 8th, 2010 at 7:40 PM ^
Look, I'm not saying it's a great idea, just food for thought. (And, I'm not saying it'd be after LOIs which I think some are inferring.) It's just too "unorganized right now".
Current recruit: being recruited, commits, still being recruited, decommits, still being recrutied, commits agian, still being recrutied, signs LOI maybe wth the same team etc
Proposed: being recruited, commits & recruitment stops, (for whatever reason - coach change or recruit has better combine/season and "stock rises" or whim) decides to "officially re-open recruiting" and does so on "decommit day", gets re-recruited, signs LOI
The process allows for the same thing to happen, just organizes it. Think of the publicity/media draw (equal to signing day) that such an event would yield. All at once your class sees potential change, we all miss work another day listening for news etc.
Your avatar is sweet as hell! Well done.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:47 AM ^
You can't put rules on something that doesn't have any parameters or repercussions.
I'm going to make a verbal commitment right now. Seriously. Right this very moment, I would like to announce that I intend to play football for the University of Michigan.
*crickets*
See, nobody cares because I'm too old to play football and I wasn't good enough to play at Michigan, anyway. But that's all it takes. A verbal commitment is simply words from a high school kid's mouth. These recruiting sites just keep track of those verbal commitments. There's nothing official holding these kids to those commitments.
You know how these kids would get around decommitting on National Decommit Day?
On Random Day of Their Choice, they'd say, "Uhhh...eff you, I'm not attending the University of ________________ anymore. I don't care what day it is."
February 8th, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
I don't really get why signing day exists. Why not let kids sign whenever they want?
Edit: the real question is why almost all kids sign an LOI anyway. They aren't obligated to. The one hard benefit they get is that it prevents other schools from recruiting them anymore. The school they sign for is in theory tied to giving them financial aid, but admissions can still deny them with no reprocussions, so this benefit is meaningless. And if your coach leaves after you've signed, tough shit.
To sum up, Advantages to signing LOI: no more phone calls. Disadvantages: If something major changes you're stuck for a year.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^
a decision about a week before signing day?
As for the coaching changes, I think all agree it should be an automatic release.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:37 PM ^
Well that would be much better. I guess the heart of my objection is that it's easy as fans to sit back and moan that "commitments don't mean anything anymore" and that something should be done about it. But as it stands, even if verbal commitments don't mean anything, it's a two way street. Sometimes kids decide another school is a better fit, other times schools Barnes or Peace a kid. LOIs, on the other hand, are an iron clad one-way street. As long as that's the case I'd prefer things stay as they are so kids can wait til all the coaching changes are done before signing.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:44 PM ^
what I'm talking about is the time leading up to LOIs (signing day). I don't want to tie kids hands either. I would like to see them take verbals more seriously and think cutting out some recruiting time would do that. If anything it would leave more "uncommited" longer (until they were more sure) and create better "down to the wire" recruiting battles.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:10 PM ^
They kind of do have a deadline sometime in late February, right?
February 8th, 2010 at 7:29 PM ^
NSD exists so that a 13 doesn't sign to a school, change his mind/coach leaves and hes screwed. These aren't 40 year olds, they are teenagers and their mind is going a billion miles an hour. There must be a NSD, now it should be earlier though, but to do away with it altogether would be stupid.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:43 PM ^
Well parents have to sign too, not just the kid, so 40 year olds do have to sign off on it. If anything I think it would discourage the idea that you have to sign an LOI at all. And again, why should we have an earlier signing day if it only locks kids into commitments before the inevitable coaching carousel and the schools have no reciprocating obligation to their signees?
February 8th, 2010 at 7:40 PM ^
I'd say one rather large benefit you missed is that the school will no longer recruit someone else who would take your scholarship.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^
Tell that to Nick Saban.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:21 PM ^
Touche
February 8th, 2010 at 10:45 PM ^
Just because Nick Saban has skirted the rules with respect to scholarship numbers, it doesn't mean that any coach can sign as many recruits as they want. As you (I'm sure) have seen with most coaches, they will stop recruiting once they get to a certain number. Otherwise, the Florida's and USC's of the world would sign 40 recruits every year.
Signing a LOI is a contract between the school and the player. The player is guaranteed a scholarship, and the school is given a promise that the player will some to their school. It's a one year contract on both sides.
Players sign their LOI to guarantee their spot on the team.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:27 PM ^
No, no. It's a one year contract pending admission. A coach has every right, if he decides he no longer wants a recruit, to tell the admissions committee to hold them to a higher standard. Essentially the recruit has to lock into a contract in February that the school can effectively void as late as August. I realize most coaches don't take advantage of the rules like Saban, but they have every right to, and that's the problem. There's an enormous power imbalance in LOIs most signees are completely unaware of. Of course this wasn't intentional, but Marcus Witherspoon signed, qualified and was denied admission here. If an LOI counts as a one year contract, we broke it and without reprocussions. Where's the fairness in that?
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/NLI/Frequently+Asked+Questions/…
Relevant section:
...by signing a National Letter of Intent, you agree to attend the institution for one year in exchange for the institution's promise, in writing, to provide you athletics financial aid for the entire academic year. Simply, by signing a National Letter of Intent you are given an award including athletics aid for the upcoming academic year provided you are admitted to the institution and you are eligible for athletics aid under NCAA rules.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:46 AM ^
More like made a mockery of them. Over the last four four year signing periods he has taken between 104 and 113 recruits when the four year limit is 85 and it's not like Bama has had a ton of people leave early. That is basically the equivalent of taking 5 recruiting classes every four year cycle.
If the NCAA was truely concerned with fair competition of their members they would put an immediate stop to this practice. I would like to see their APR as they have to be flirting with dropping below acceptable standards.
I also wonder what the SEC is going to do as they set a hard cap at 28 in one year and Auburn took 32 LOIs and Bama also exceeded 28.
As far as your comment about USC, they have been no where near the 85 scholarships during the last four four year cycles and they regularly lose players early which may account for some of their problems this year.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^
If there was a decommit day, no one would commit early.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^
this year) out there that make a REAL decision earlier in the year. Whether it be to avoid distraction, or they're just mature enough and sure about their decision, it's their choice.
Look at guys like Ricardo... no way he wasn't commiting early. He relished the role of being one of the first and helping to recruit the rest of the class.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:13 PM ^
These are young men who circumstances are very fluid. Telling a kid he has one day to decommit is unreasonable and unworkable.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:18 PM ^
So kids have less of an opportunity to learn about schools and see which one is the best fit for them? I'm sorry man, that's awful.
Let's say you're 30, married with a kid. Someone offers you a job in one year. It's a great offer, so you accept. Six months later, someone else offers you a different job that your wife wants you to take. Do you think it's right not to look at that job because you told someone you'd take the other one?
Now let's say you're 17 with a girlfriend. You still think your high school friends are going to be your best friends for life. All of them go to MSU. Your girlfriend goes to Michigan and you think she's the one (you're still 17). Your parents both went to OSU (you're uniquely intelligent in the family). Do you have the right to waffle? Yes, you do. Locking a 17 year old into a commitment to the first smooth character they talk to isn't right--and they aren't old enough to really understand the consequences.
No offense, that may be more entertaining for the fans, but it won't really help coaches--because they wouldn't be able to contact recruits when they're committed and it wouldn't help the kids (who are making the biggest decision of their lives to that point).
I'm a fan of early signing day, because it lets convinced kids end the process--but the other stuff isn't a good idea.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:47 PM ^
no one is making them commit to anywhere in the first place.
All I'm looking for is a way to make them take commiting more seriously, yet still offer a way out without making a mockery of the process (and if possible give us more to look forward too).
February 8th, 2010 at 9:17 PM ^
So coaches don't tell kids that they have one safety spot and that if they don't commit, their scholarship offer will go to someone else? Kids don't understand, especially early on in the process.
You want to be entertained? Treat them like real students and see who shows up for the first day of class.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:35 PM ^
being told by the coach "that they have one safety spot and that if they don't commit, their scholarship offer will go to someone else". So, player A commits in your scenario out of "fear". This in turn prevents player B from ever getting that offer, likely going somewhere else, and if/when player A decommits at the last minute, too bad for player B.
In my scenario, Player A hears the same story you propose, is not sure, doesn't commit yet, then the school offers Player B who takes it. Poor player A.
What's the difference?
February 8th, 2010 at 10:04 PM ^
Fine, who determines if a kid commits? Does the NCAA place a listening App on coaches' BlackBerrys or do you propose a binding legal contract stating that "I swear I might go to school X?"
February 8th, 2010 at 9:28 PM ^
It would pare recruiting budgets and give both players and coaches more time to take care of business during football season. I have always been in favor of allowing them to sign as early as they want. If they sign in their junior year, the school is taking a risk that they will get hurt or their performance will decline, and the player is taking a risk that a Rube Goldberg machine-like scenario such as the one mentioned above will happen to him.
This will keep a player from signing with one school, subsequently being influenced by "hostesses" or golden handshakes by another school, and decommitting. It will also save a lot of time and energy on both sides that can be used for their current teams and players.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:50 AM ^
I don't necessarily like the idea of an early signing period, but wholly endorse Brian's idea for a sort of non-binding letter of intent that needs to be officially rescinded.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:46 AM ^
would not ones that would be "implemented" by some kind of governing body. It would be changes in the way that recruiting, player rankings, and commitments were covered.
First, there are unquestionably some stand out players in each class that are a cut above the rest, and these player would always be identified one way or another. But the * system as applied to everybody on the radar is inaccurate, distracting, and a little misleading. 6'1 200 pound safety Smith and 5'11 205 pound safety Jones are both good players. To assign one 4* and the other 3* with what seem to be arbitrary and often undefined distinctions (often including what team they sign with-see below) between them is futile and unnecessary. Leading to the team ranking - why does EVERYTHING have to be ranked. Each class should be discussed according to strength and weakness with the appropriate elaboration. Assigning a number to each class is creating an illusion of precision that does not exist.
Also, I believe that the entire country collectively should stop paying attention to verbal commitments. These are 17 year old kids that cannot believe their name is in the paper. Often a recruit will give as many verbal commitments as visits taken. And a player's verbal commitment DOES play into where they are ranked. Take Carvin Johnson, very happy to have him, don't get me wrong. But the idea that he was a sleeper that RR found and suddenly he's recongnized for being "better" than he was before, ridiculous. He is now a 3* recruit because he signed with a big-time program. If Carvin would have signed with Tulane, he would still not be ranked. This is not to disparage his ability, but to show how baised and incredible that such ranking can be.
It would be interesting if somebody with more time (and a significant degree more ambition) could diary where Florida's two dozen 5* recruits were ranked before their commitment to the Gators.
They make the most sense, since they give the power to the players, but also let the coaches relax a little bit without having to worry about what a commit is doing behind their backs.
Short of the extremely drastic (e.g. NCAA "taxing" all members to form its own compliance army), there's no way to "fix" recruiting. It is going to be skeezy because it's an industry where rich men go around trying to convince 18-year-olds with desirable physical properties to display those physical properties for the pleasure of millions of adults.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^
I read through this thread rather quickly -- I won't do any single comment any justice with this comment.
These are all terrific suggestions, if you presume that a college selection is all about star high school athletes playing football. If high school "signing days" are the functional equivalent of the NFL draft, then I imagine that some of these ideas might be good.
As I read some of these comments, I think about how NFL draft day became a weekend-long televised affair, with fat middle-aged guys sitting around in Giants jerseys and ESPN analysts standing around in $1500 suits. And that for some people, the collegiate equivalent would be, like, really sweet, dude.
But it is the beginning premise -- that we are forgetting that we are talking about high school kids choosing a college -- that I find incredible.