New signing day: Dec 20-22
In a surprise vote today (surprising because it was supposed to happen later in the summer), the NCAA approved the early 72-hour signing period, which will take place this year from Dec. 20-22.
Along with the rule, they also passed a period of early visits, from April to June in the year of the prospect's junior year. Those will be availble to the recruits of the 2019 class and you'll start seeing those next spring.
The old signing day (first Wed. in Feb) remains intact.
Get ready for a new wave of crazy recruiting once the regular season wraps up.
and allows for recovery time
should be fun
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Could be good for smaller schools. Could end up being just another play in the game for the blue bloods. Could screw over recruits. Could be a much better way for them to shut down their recruiting earlier.
We shall see.
I think its good for just about everyone other than the SEC. They were still opposed to the rule change.
But for smaller schools and the lower tier of power 5 schools, its good news. Lets you know who is locked in, and lets schools that are good at scouting and can lock up under the radar recruits lock those guys in before another school scoops them up.
Although...coaches at those smaller/lower tier schools undergo a lot of coaching change at that time of the year, so you'll probably see things like ADs wait until Dec. 23rd to fire coaches so they can hold on to their recruits. There's currently no out for those recruits that sign early.
should help Sparty steal 2 and 3 star recruits from division 2 schools
Do you have a RANGE of how many players a year this would help Sparty steal??? Asking for a friend.
3-9 was always implied
23-32 is too much for this example
It'll probably be good for smaller schools for a bit. At least until the bigger schools figure out how to game this system as well as the old one. I'm a highly cynical person if you couldn't tell.
You can visit B1G schools when the weather is nice? WHAT A FRICKIN CONCEPT.
The SEC is going to propose a rule banning spring and summer in Big Ten country.
Can't help but think that, unless they allow for repeals upon a coach's firing after early signing, the optics of whether a coach is on the hot seat may play more of a role in the early signee's decision.
you should have a good idea what is up
The Illini laugh.
Remember that time Dave Brandon waited until January to realize Rich Rodriguez was indeed fireable?
Certainly things will adjust, but it should be interesting none the less.
Here is the real tricky one. What about if you commit and the coach leaves for an upgrade post bowl i.e. you committed to Houston and oops, there he goes to Texas.
not a coach. Maybe such concerns will cause students to look beyond a coach to the school. IMHO that would be a good thing.
If a coach is on the hot seat, I think they'd either have trouble signing recruits in the early period. Plus, it'd be much harder for a new coach to pick up recruits out of the blue, since a lot of them will be locked in.
Which makes me wonder if more coaches will be fired mid-season rather than at the end. The problem there, of course, is that hiring a new coach mid-season is extremely hard unless they're promoted from within, which is unlikely in most firing situations. Whether it continues to happen after the season or gets moved forward, I think this probably adds a lot more tumult to replacing a coach.
How effective are those months for visits, though? Schools out. No revenue sports going on. Spring practice is over. Most of the team isn't even on campus. It's highly possible that I'm missing something so if anyone has any insight, please bring me your knowledge.
It gives an option for an earlier visit. The requirement that they had to wait until their senior year of high school to take their official visit always seemed a bit odd to me. Non-athletes are showing up in hoards for college visists in the summer before their senior year (many even the summer before their junior year). They get to see the facilities, eat in the cafeteria, take campus tours, talk to advisors or professors in the major they want to pursue. Why shouldn't student athletes have the same opportunity on their official visits?
For Michigan, I'm sure the team mom would be around, and, if they're setting up official visits, it would most likely be times when there are coaches and staffers around as well, and they likely would have more time to interact with the prospective student athletes than during a game day situation. It at least gives the potential for some of these visits to occur when the students are on summer vacation (so not confined to just weekends) and there won't be the same rush to get to and from the university (imagine the rush following a Friday night high school game to get to a university for its Saturday game).
Schools know exactly what positions they still need to fill in the last 3 months, and a lot less of the sad stories of kids getting dumped like 2 days before signing day. I would think we're going to see most guys signing on the early signing day very soon
I still think a lot of the really highly rated guys are still going to "play the field" up until January/February. They want to see how the post season games go or maybe want to take more time to take trips. I've always felt though that Michigan does better when they can get earlier commitments and not have to fight the SEC schools for kids on NSD. Harbaugh has certainly made things more interesting though, I'll say that. At least Michigan is now in it on some kids to the end.
I can see the biggest issue being the recruit who has been "committed" to a school for several months or more who decides to forego the early signing period. How will staffs handle these situations? Are they automatically moved to "soft commit" status? I think the early signing period is an excellent development, but I do wonder how coaching staffs (and fanbases) will treat the seemingly locked-in commits who do not sign early.
but you can bet you're putting your spot in jeopardy as that recruit. If you won't sign in December, why should the HC believe you'll sign in February? If I was the HC, I'd start looking at other guys at that position in case you get left at the alter
I know this is a redundant question, especially when dealing with all things NCAA, but how does this benefit the student athlete exactly? I know, I know it’s the NCAA, of course it doesn’t benefit the student athlete.
can sign early, and if he isn't allowed to sign early he knows his status and can look elsewhere - if he is, he locks his spot in and doesn't have to worry about being processed
I am not for the new signing date, if they do not do something for the athlete that commits to a Unversity, then the coach is fired or decides to take another position. That player should be able to 1) not follow through on his commitment and 2) be able to play immediately wherever he transfers to without sitting out a year. Coach can leave at will, and if a player loses the coach he pledged to, he should be able to as well.
I'm actually of the opinion that LOI's should be gotten rid of. That enrollment/eligibility shouldn't start until that person walks into their first real practice, and that scholarships should be required to be honored from the school for 5 years as long as the student decides to stay. Also, the year sit out rule for transfers needs to be gotten rid of.
is going to have both positives and negative consequences.
None of us can clearly see the future. This will put schools and coaches in the position that offering non super star recruits will give them the opportunity to fill slots early. Just maybe that will bring more honesty to the offer process. I think that would be a good thing.
My other guess is that it will rather profoundly change the pressures on heavily recruited hold outs and how coaches attempt to keep slots open for them.
How does this benefit the student? Seriously, not trying to be a smartass but I just don't see it. So they can sign earlier before the coaches are fired after their bowl season/holidays?
A lot of people saying, "don't commit to a coach". That sentiment is dumb considering how many people on here also say, "who wouldn't want to play for harbaugh/staff and all of their nfl experience/success" or, "who would want to play for Brian Kelly"?
Kids commit to coaches all the time, I could see kids committing to Harbaugh and not Rich Rod, in fact, we did see it. Can you blame them?
So, serious question, how does this benefit the STUDENT?
It doesn't. February signing day doesn't either. LOIs only benefit 1 party. The school. None of this is about the students.
by locking in an offer or finding out it isn't committable with time to react
they also can end the recruiting madness by being signed as well
doesn't seem to be a problem for basketball - the elite kids don't have to sign because they know offers will still be there but it definitely helps the kids who are borderline for a program to get clarity
The SEC can't have supported Dec 20-22; after all, it's during high school students winter break.