As I posted a few days ago regarding the SEC approach to recruiting changes (Here: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/ot-sec-prepares-possible-recruiting-reform), there seems to be more movement on the topic. The B1G's own Bo Pelini has weighed in and is essentially about slowing down the recruiting process and ensuring that an offer really means something by eliminating National Signing Day all together. By that reasoning, then the commitment would really mean something -- a topic that has a lot of popularity on MGoBlog. Curious to hear what others think...sorry for the source, though. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/story/_/id/11032021/bo-pelini-nebraska-cornhuskers-suggests-ending-national-signing-day
OT: Bo Pelini's idea for Recruiting Reform
This is great though there obviously needs to be some strictures set that the SEC would hate.
a national signing day show if there's no national signing day? Obv. Bo Pelini in a know-nothing schmuck.
I love it when MGoPosters reference prior posts of theirs. It's like when you read academic footnotes and notice that the writer repeatedly references other books/papers they've written.
Also, that's a great idea by Pelini. Totally agree.
I love it when MGoPosters start out their posts with the words, "I love it when..." Which is to say, you really don't love it when. :-) I keeed, I keeed! (I provided it as context, to give you "the rest of the story" sort of thing). That and because I really love myself.
Honestly doesn't bother me if the poster is good (as you are).* Just find it funny.
*YpsiTuckyBoy, What Bothers Me and What Doesn't, Ypsilanti, Michigan, Edwards Brothers Publishing, 2014.
I was just taking the opportunity to make a joke...as misguided as I can be at times.
ESPN just shit themselves.
Also, this seems unnecessary. Kids need freedom in the case of coaching changes and other circumstances. Just crack down on over signing.
What about if the recruit does not get accepted into their major or even the school. The easy answer is they would be let out of their LOI, but would the student have to wait until spring of their Senior year like most everyone else to find out?
That's still an issue though, even now. Many kids are not academically eligible yet by early February of their senior years. That's why Michigan stopped recruiting Jeff Jones, the RB at Minnesota. He still needs a higher ACT score to be eligible. Michigan didn't want to waste a spot on a guy like that, but Minnesota didn't have any other guys close to him talent-wise, so they took the risk.
And that's another thing you'd have to account for when extending an offer. Top schools won't want to offer kids until they've shown they will qualify.
That's true. I guess I was thinking of the scenario where a kid commits his Junior year, then has a bad academic Senior year, and school X knows he will not qualify but can't break the commitment. The disadvantage for a school like Michigan is that they would have to wait until the kids Senior year to safely accept that commitment, whereas a school like Alabama will just oversign to fix their mistake.
Should get his shit together
Good point, are you a manager? If so, I bet you're great at your job. Strike that, you're great at everything, b/c you'll get your shit together just like that...
Polini says in the article that he would be in favor of kids being released from their LOI in the event of a coaching change. I'm sure other circumstances could be included as well (like the hardship waiver for a transfer, etc).
But I like the idea. Especially because it would hold the school accountable too. If a kid signs his LOI a year before he graduates and he puts in a crummy senior year or the school finds a guy they prefer at that position, too bad. He has his spot.
This would allow kids like Morris and Malzone who knew they wanted to go to Michigan to commit early and get it done with. It would also keep from committing early because they knew they wouldn't have a chance to change their mind, and they would likely take more time to make the decision.
have the appropriate freedom and schools are held accountable then it is a good idea. In the end, it'll make schools responsible (cough cough SEC over signing)
Agreed - any change like this would have to have some teeth to hold the school accountable on their end. Otherwise there's not change.
Polini the good version of Pelini. I'd still probably hate them both
Best idea I've heard, yet. This process would put more responsibility on coaches and would add more value to scholarship offers. Offers would really mean something rather than nationally ubiqutious offers from every major program.
This, however, could have negatives too such as something changes in the players personal life (family hardships, etc.) and they are then bound to their commitment.
I agree with the idea, it would make it easier for coaches to plan and all that plus you wouldnt have commits switching all the time, once you commit your done. Thats how it seems Hoke and staff treat verbal commitments, at least in the "if you start looking around so will we" sense. Might cause kids to draw out the process even more if they have to sign when they commit. And there would have to be a deadline I assume to allow the kids to enroll in school and play that season, which would basically be the same as signing day is now, so how much would actually change who knows.
"Things would slow down dramatically," Pelini said. "Some of these kids get 60 offers. Some of these people don't even know who a kid is. The whole thing gets watered down. There's no way some [team] can take that many guys."
It's actually an interesting idea because you could spin it in a way that forces staffs to do research or at least be a little more attentive to their own actual needs rather than simply send 100,000 mailers out to the trendy names, if you will. Some schools do a good job of tailoring their strategy, but many don't seem to be that organized at the surface. As for having a specific day called National Signing Day, that's something I always wondered about that, but then the recruiting calendars for different sports are structured around the NLI submission periods - there might be a lot of legislation that would need to be altered.
any time after his Junior year graduation, but a school is not allowed to accept a verbal commitment or be expected to hold a scholarship without said acceptance of the LOI? Coaching changes, NCAA penalties etc would allow the kid to reopen his recruitment. Add Summer and Fall officials to this highly complex plan and I think Brady has something he can work with.
I could live with your ideas, but not sure about letting players reopen their recruitment because of coaching changes. Yes, playing for a specific coach is important, but players are not just comitting to a coach. They're committment is to the instituion, not to mention committing to a team and those teammates.
Edit: my opinion was in the context that they were already on campus when the coaching change occurred. I'd be fine with reopening recruitment if the coaching change occurred before they entered college.
Right? Just like those kids who committed to play for the prestigious University of Alabama and not for their head coach, Nick Something-or-other.
As Pelini says, it would cut down the the number of times kids are on the receiving end of bullshit from coaches.
I think signing an LOI as soon as you get the offer is a bad idea. How many kids now "commit" as soon as they get the offer, only to have second thoughts down the road? I think transfers would skyrocket if this were put in place.
High school kids are still going to be emotional, irrational and illogical. Allowing them to shoot themselves in the foot isn't going to make the process better.
I like the idea of not allowing offers until the start of the senior year better, but that might compress the process on the athlete's end too much. Maybe they could add a non-binding "commit" stage to the process that allows communication only between the chosen school and the athlete, but if the athlete changes his mind, he is allowed to do so. Allow offers at the start of the junior year, "commitments" at the beginning of the senior year, then national signing day in February.
I think kids would put a lot more thought into a commitment if it were binding. I think the kids we see every year who commit to three or four schools know when they make their initial commitments that they aren't stuck with the given choice(s).
Also, decommitments happen now in a climate in which the player is still being recruited. That recruitment would stop if a kid signed an LOI.
What I predict might happen is that coaches won't extend offers as willy-nilly as they do now and would wait until after a player's junior year or even into their senior year to reduce the risk of misevaluating a player at a young age. Therefore minimizing the occurence of players making irrational decisions. You'd still have prospects labeled as "can't miss" as freshmen and sophmores receiving legit offers, but the average player wouldn't.
A lot of kids commit right away now because they know they can change their mind. Why not commit? It might get you more attention (and cridibility) and it holds a spot in the event other schools don't come calling. It also gives you a good excuse to turn down calls from schools you aren't interested in ("sorry coach, I'm committed') so you can concentrate on the few schools you like.
However, if a kid (and his parents, and his HS coaches) knew the decision was binding, I think you would see fewer commitments early on, unless a kid was committing to his dream school.
That schools like Bama and Ohio can't just send out offers to the top 100 ranked kids and wait for 25 or so of them to commit? I love this idea. Pelini did also mention that coaching changes before the kid gets to school would be an exception to being locked in to a commitment. ESPN would shit a brick if NSD went away and that makes my heart happy.
...without NSD, we wouldn't have gems like this:
I like it too Eric but can a minor sign a binding agreement? My guess is no - that if a 17 year old Junior signed the contract and then later changed their mind as an 18 year old Senior they would be allowed to do so.
The LOI is already designed to get around the fact that in one state (Mississippi?) you can't sign a contract until you're 21. I'm not sure how it manages to do that, but that's at least the idea as I understand it.
EDIT: Yes, it's Mississippi. I don't have time to read it right now, but here is a law review article from Mississippi that examines whether an LOI is a voidable contract for minors, i.e., whether minors can sign LOIs and then, upon turning 18/21, either affirm or disclaim them.
EDIT No. 2: Super-quick summary: The authors of the law review article argue that commits can void LOIs after they reach the age of majority.
But lots of kids are still 17 in February when NSD is already. That's why their parents have to sign it.
Yes, contracts by minors are voidable - which is exactly why parents have to sign the LOI. Don't you recall the drama over Malik McDowell and his mom? The issue was that his mom refused to sign - which would not have been an issue if Malik could have simply signed for himself.
but will never work. ESPN, Rivals... have too much invested on stupid signing day shows, blog posts, articles...
Eliminate National Signing Day? What are all the recruitniks going to do when they actually have to do their work (or go to school) instead of sitting around watching a webcam fixed on a fax machine?
from applying and being accepted to two schools? Just like a non-football kid. As an athlete, he could verbally commit to two schools and tell the other coach "naa, my mom made me apply there". He could play one against to other and wait until late in the summer to make his decision.
We've seen commits do freaky things - like holding a press conference to announce they are going to a school that never offered!
There are a lot of things the NCAA needs to change about recruiting, but if this suggested change to allow early LOIs gets approved, they also need to allow athletes to take official visits before their senior year begins.
the ridiculous freak show of allegedly mature adults watching 18-year olds pretending to choose from among five hats. Even better would be a clause forbidding recruits from claiming they chose their school because academics.
Best comment I've read all offseason (the clause part). Here is my idea of that statement:
"Academics is real important for me. They is probably my top priority. And that's why I choosen Ole Miss University"
I know we hate it when we get a decommitment, but do we really think the players hold too much power over coaches? This proposal is designed to make recruiting easier for the coaches, which it certainly would. I don't see that the players gain much from it unless they suffer a serious injury.
Coaches will have a much stronger incentive to pressure recruits to commit on the spot. That's going to lead to more decisions based on emotion, with less information.
Teams will always have a way out if they change their mind about a player. They can let the recruit know they're not interested. They can ask them to change position. They can recruit over them. Players will get the message and ask out of their LOI.
Letting the player out after a coaching change is fine. What if they found that the coaches lied to them about how they would recruit their position? I hear coaches might lie about other things too. What if the team decides to completely revamp their offensive scheme? Is it really a good thing that many of the players who blow up their senior year will be locked into low level programs?
I think the idea is that it would incentivize kids to wait longer before "committing." Right now, kids commit, decommit, commit, decommit. Some do that because they feel they have to, or to get other coaches off their back, or whatever. For the kids who totally know where they want to be, they can end their recruitment early, and other coaches would stop recruiting them. That would be a benefit to them. Slowing down the process also benefits the players, because it allows them to check out a lot of places before they need to make a decision. Nowadays, kids commit early because they feel that if they wait they won't have a spot. If you make the commitment binding the first time, far fewer kids will do so early on and will take more visits. This allows a more even playing field and would allow every kid to go on visits before their spot is snatched up.
IF this idea becomes the standard then in theory everyone (the kids/families and the coaches) would become more careful about "committing" because what Pelini is proposing is basically a contract with some out-clauses. For a UM recruit that is essentially a 4-5 year old "contract" to be a Wolverine barring dismissal and historically has also covered injuries. Would that make the argument that the players are employees stronger?
I'm sure the legal minds on this blog (both professional and amateur) can weigh in on this part.
If you want to slow down recruiting, then force schools to wait longer to make verbal offers. Don't allow coaches to contact players as early as they do now. The recruiting process has certainly sped up in recent years. In my view this would speed it up even more. Since those early commits are locked in, coaches can move on even sooner to the next class. They are going to put more and more pressure on kids to commit early.
Commits can already tell coaches not to contact them. If that's such a problem they could adopt a rule that coaches can't contact other schools' verbal commits. As I see it, this proposed rule is purely for the convenience of the coaches. They no longer have to deal with possible (and actual) decommits.
Let's face it, teenagers are going to make some bad decisions, regardless of the consequences. Generally speaking, the players who decommit probably made a mistake in their initial commitment, not in changing their mind. Giving them the option of committing at any time, including some exciting or high pressure situations, guarantees they will still make plenty of mistakes. Not letting them correct those because it might inconvenience some coaches only exacerbates the vast differnce in power between athletes and coaches in the NCAA.