Two early signing dates (June and Dec) likely to pass
So after getting support from all 10 conferences, it looks like TWO early signing dates, one in June and another in December, are likely to pass this time around. Each will be 72 hours long, and neither contains any sort of out for the player if they sign, although its possible that could change before it's fully approved.
If it passes as expected, it would go into immediate effect for the 2017-18 recruiting cycle. The final draft of the rule gets presented at the NCAA D-1 council's January meeting, and would get voted on in April. Which, if I'm understanding things right, would mean you'd have your first early signing period in June of 2017.
So what say you, MGoCommunity? Good idea? Bad idea? If they add an escape clause for recruits when the coach gets fired, I think it'll be a home run. It should slow down the early offer cannons since there's now a chance the kid could fully commit to you prior to their senior season. And if a school/coach and player really want to commit early, from a fan's perspective, it'll be nice to not have to worry about flipping a recruit. Gotta be great for the recruits that want to commit early and be left the hell alone too.
October 5th, 2016 at 9:08 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 9:11 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 5th, 2016 at 10:30 PM ^
Eh, the institutions already have a massive advantage the way things are now. I'm not a fan of things that make it harder for the high school kids who are making life-changing decisions about their futures.
October 6th, 2016 at 8:25 AM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 11:00 PM ^
Why is "flimsy" commitment bad? They are friggin' kids. They can change their minds, and they certainly should be allowed to when schools can fire and hire coaches whenever they want.
October 5th, 2016 at 9:43 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 11:49 PM ^
I'm not sure it will work so well under Harbaugh's recruiting strategy.
Of course, if this passes Harbaugh will adjust accordingly--but as the current recruiting strategy stands, M could end up with a lot of commits locked down in June. And those commits not be the sort M has at the top of the list.
October 5th, 2016 at 11:39 PM ^
The kid has no "out", but the school has not "out" too, right? They have to sign the kid and give him a scholarship, even if a bunch of 5-stars come sniffing around, right?
The only issue would be if the head coach gets fired. The kid should get an out for that.
October 5th, 2016 at 11:58 PM ^
No, schools do not have to give a scholarship. Schools can take it away for any non athletic reasons, like 'violation of team rules'. Funnily enough, some players who didn't meet expecations at Bama and Clemson suddenly got booted for that.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2015/2/9/8000851/co…
October 6th, 2016 at 8:31 AM ^
October 6th, 2016 at 9:45 AM ^
to be very selective on the early offers they send out. Then schools cannot just carpet bomb offers to many kids. I can see a future where schools get early committments and then struggle with the player if they dont pan out their senior season.
October 5th, 2016 at 9:08 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 5th, 2016 at 9:11 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 5th, 2016 at 9:16 PM ^
As for the intent of the rule, it's not because of decommitments, but because of the every accelerating "offers" that go out. Coaches will have to be a lot more judicious about who they offer now. It's fine to "offer" 200 kids in April, but if they can fully commit 2 months later? Gonna see that come to an end real quick. And that's the point of the rule (I think...you never know with the NCAA).
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 5th, 2016 at 9:21 PM ^
If anything, this will just allow coaches to go to high pressure recruiting tactics to force commitments in the June signing period so their class is locked up before they start losing ballgames. Players will be told their spot is filled unless they sign in June, yet they won't have the chance to actually see the record of the team they're signing with until it's already locked up. That's going to lead to A LOT of unhappy signees come NSD every season.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 5th, 2016 at 9:21 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 11:32 PM ^
October 6th, 2016 at 12:42 AM ^
On the sports side, I don't care about transfers. Let kids play where ever they want.
But keep in mine they ARE students, and transferring can be difficult academically.
Minting tons of situations where down the line people have to switch schools and maybe majors just because of a decision they made at 17 not working out...that's just stupid.
I mean, when some kid that age says they love their girlfriend forever, we don't offer them marriage papers and act like it's no big deal if they lead to a messy divorce.
October 5th, 2016 at 11:59 PM ^
Won't you think how hard it is for coaches making millions of dollars worrying if a 17 year old will change his mind?
October 5th, 2016 at 9:11 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 9:11 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 5th, 2016 at 10:03 PM ^
October 6th, 2016 at 6:49 AM ^
guy comes along and asks to commit early.
These kids shouldn't be signing commitment papers anyway. They should be signing financial aid packages which give them the most flexibility and control.
October 5th, 2016 at 9:53 PM ^
They should be allowed to get out of their LOI if a coach is fired or leaves or there is something considered "conduct detrimental to the program or institution." Basically that means...
If you fire the head coach...I can leave
If the head coach leaves...I can leave
If anyone on the staff is touching boys...I can leave
If there is a huge scandal at the school or institution...I can leave*
*I think this one would have to be something that the NCAA steps in and defines "scandal" on a case-by-case basis, not that I trust the NCAA....but there's a difference between UNC Academics and Baylor Sexual Assault and say, a head coach caught banging his secretary (unless of course he gets fired).
It'll be extremely beneficial for kids that know where they want to go and be left alone. It'll be beneficial for coaches to know who they have before the Feb NLI Day where kids flip and leave schools fucked. And like the OP says, it'll slow down the early offers.
That said, I wonder if Harbaugh's clause about your offer is pending you holding up your end of the deal will be affected. But then again, I suppose they could still offer a bunch of kids and then just not accept their NLI if the kid is trying to sign early. That could get kind of messy with today's media.
At the same time, I get the Urban Meyer "kids change their minds" argument....I'm not sold on two signing periods, but I do think one in August before their senior year starts would be nice. But no one is forcing a kid who is committed to sign. They can stay verbally committed and pass...if the school really wants him, they'll save a scholarship for him the next time around.
October 6th, 2016 at 10:18 AM ^
I don't understand why you want to hand the NCAA the responsibility of defining a "scandal" given their actions regarding your examples so far.
October 5th, 2016 at 9:13 PM ^
Will quickly become a problem when a coach pressures s player to sign then is fired or jumps to a better job.
October 5th, 2016 at 9:14 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 10:38 PM ^
Which is exactly why they need to include "outs" for the student-athlete.
Or what if the team goes on probation? Can't go to a bowl game or something...
Kids should be able to get out of it then too.
They have to put in a ton of clauses to protect the student-athlete if this circumstances change. I have no faith that they will.
October 5th, 2016 at 9:16 PM ^
What's the point of this? To prevent kids from decommitting? Who cares if a kid decommits 15 times. This is the most important decision of their life. Let them flip flop as many times as they want, 17/18 year olds never know what they want for longer than a day.
This is just going to cause problems. There are going to be kids who sign early, decide they make a mistake and want to back out but not be able to. So either the freshman transfer rate is going to sky rocket or we're going to have some ugly situations on our hands.
October 5th, 2016 at 9:19 PM ^
But at the same time...how about they just don't sign? They can stay verbally committed and skip the signing day period.
You think if Rashan Gary committed in March and skipped the June and December Signing Day's Harbaugh would've pulled his offer?
If so, then if I'm Gary, I don't want to go to Michigan anyway. Wasn't meant to be. That was a risk I took because I wanted more time to make my decision.
So I guess I see both sides.
October 5th, 2016 at 9:30 PM ^
Sure, in an ideal world that would happen. The only kids who sign with a school are the ones who are 100% sure they will end up there.
No, I don't think coaches will pull offers if kids don't sign, but when was that ever mentioned? That's not even a remote concern of mine.
The problem is there are going to be a ton of kids who think they are 100% sure in June or December, but a few months later have second thoughts. At that point you have major issues. And there's a greater than 100% chance this happens, many times.
I don't see how this plan benefits anyone. For the players, it just means that you might be stuck at a school you don't want to attend. For the school, it ddoesn't help either. The only thing this does is traps kids who may end up having second thoughts about your school from leaving. That's not going to end well and just going to lead to increased transfer rates, so the kid will leave eventually anyway, and you just lost a spot in a recruiting class.
The only way you can say this is a positive is for schools who want to trap unsure kids or for fans like us who won't have to worry about recruits flipping. So basically, two irrelevant issues. When it comes to recruiting, everything should work in favor of the kid, not the school. This really does nothing to benefit the schools to begin with, but even if it did, it hurts the kids, so fuck any benefit the schools get.
October 5th, 2016 at 10:11 PM ^
But moving the signing day doesn't change what you're saying.
You think kids don't change their minds how the system is currently set up now in February?
There's a more than 100% chance that happens too.
So I don't understand what you're saying...all you did is move up something that's already happening by a few months. If that's what your issue is, that's one thing. If you think leaving it alone prevents kids from changing their minds after they sign a LOI...I've got a bridge to sell you.
You want it to work for the kids?
- If a kid wants to sign earlier and be left alone...it works for the kid
- If a kid wants to sign early to prevent coaches from pulling his scholarship later in the year (which happens all the time)...it works for the kid - think about the oversigning and how kids are committed and no longer have a scholarship in the 11th hour.
- If a kid wants to be guaranteed a scholarship/grant-in-aid so he can go to college...it works for the kid. It's a contract between the kid and the university...
- If a kid wants to be guaranteed a scholarship to a university even if there is a coaching change or something...it works best for the kid. Plenty of time coaches leave and the new coaches want kids to fit their system, but if I grow up wanting to go to Michigan and Michigan hires a new coach and I still want to go...now I'm guaranteed my spot and the new coach can't do anything about it. (On the flip side, I think the kid should have an out if HE wants to leave like I said above)
Again, I'm not saying it's the best thing in the world or I'm 100% sold. I'm not. But it works fine in other sports like basketball. And your post is so dramatic as if every kid is going to be trapped into doing something he doesn't want to do. That's just not the case and there ARE benefits to the student-athlete that you're not necessarily recognizing.
October 5th, 2016 at 10:18 PM ^
I don't see what your point is. Yes it happens with kids in the current system wanting to change their minds after the current February date. But because a problem already exists lets just make it worse by greatly increasing the chances it happens?
I'm not there isn't the current issue with the February date in the sense that kids will still want to change their mind after the fact. That's a problem inherent with having 17/18 year olds make major decisions. But my point is we should try to limit the chance of this happening, which this plan does not.
As for your bullets:
- If a kid wants to be left alone, they can be left alone as is. Private/no social media accounts and ignoring interview requests are a thing. Also if you a think a kid who has already signed is going to be "left alone", especially by local media and scouting sites, I have a bridge to sell you.
- If this proposal actually did that, I'd agree. But if a kid wants to sign early, he'll only be able to sign if the school lets him do so in June/December. If a school was debating on pulling a kids offer in February,especially if they're waiting for a bettter recruit, they're not going to let him sign early and take the more talented recruit's spot.
- Kids can do that now...with the current LOI in February...or signing financial aid papers...
October 5th, 2016 at 10:34 PM ^
...but then respond to my point?
That makes zero sense.
You just don't agree with my point...which is fine.
- Left alone by other coaches recruiting him...it's against NCAA violations to contact a kid who has signed a NLOI. What does media have to do with anything? We're all talking about other coaches.
- If the school doesn't let the kid sign early...then what's the problem? The kid can commit to another school or stay committed until he's allowed to sign. The point is very clear...way too often a coach gets a commit from a kid late in the period and that pushes out a kid who's been committed since forever and wants to attend that school. This would prevent that, you can't argue that fact.
- I know they can do it now...but they can't if their offer is pulled in January when they would've liked to sign earlier and guarantee their free school. I guarantees the kid a spot in June if they want to sign in June so they cannot lose that scholarship offer in July-February. Also, the kids who are going to Michigan, they can find another school...what about low level schools? Sometimes those kids have 1 or 2 D1 offers...if they can sign in June that's another benefit to the kid whether you want to admit it or not.
You keep saying you don't see any positives for the athlete. I just quickly gave you 4. I'm not saying the negatives don't outweight the positives - but that's b/s to act like there are no positives for the kid.
Like I said, they have it in basketball...are those kids just inherently smarter than football recruits?
October 5th, 2016 at 11:26 PM ^
In your previous response to me you said:
"So I don't understand what you're saying"
And then proceeded to respond knowing exactly what I was saying. Are you really going to play this semantic bullshit game?
As for your bullets:
- If your only concern is coaches, sure this works. But do you really think kids need to sign a NLOI to prevent other coaches from contacting them? If a kid doesnt want a coach contacting them, just don't respond to the coach. Kids shut down their recruitments all the time nowadays. You don't need new NLOI dates to help kids not get contacted by coaches. If this is one of the "positives" you have to lean on for this new system, you're reaching hard.
- "This would prevent that, you can't argue that fact." I love when people say stuff like "you can't argue that fact." Just because you say that does not mean you're right, does not mean it's a fact, and does not mean I can't argue it. Because it's not a fact and I will argue it. Your scenario only holds in the ideal, most optimistic outlook. But these kids who you are talking about, the ones who get pushed out, are the fringe committs, the lowest kids in the class who were borderline takes to begin with. 4/5 star recruits aren't being kicked out in this scenario. So all this would do is make it so coaches just wouldn't sign these fringe 3 star guys. So this early signing date does nothing.
- Continuing off of this, if a kid tries to sign with a school and isn't allowed to, it may give him an earlier indication to move on. But schools can still string these recruits on saying don't sign with another school, and if we have a spot after the last signing day it's yours. So once again, the scenario you mentioned is still there. Also a guy like Rashad Weaver, who was one of these guys who was pushed out late (granted not last last minute, but still) said that his recruitment blew up because he was a Michigan commit for so long, so he got offers he wouldn't have before. If Weaver moves on frm Michigan in this scenario early because he can't sign, he doesn't get his Pitt offer, which is where he ended up. So he gets hurt there. Or he stays committed and isn't allowed to sign and the same thing happens. Also, look at players like Willie Henry/Karan Higdon/Dennis Norfleet. All were last second Michigan adds, waiting for a big offer like Michigan, that they only got in the last few weeks/days before signing. If they all had signed with schools earlier, they don't get to go to Michigan, the school they wanted to in reference to your 4th point, so they get hurt there.
- To your third bullet: once again this only works in an ideal scenario, not the real world one. These kids will only get the guaranteed spot in June if the school wants to give it to them. If the kid is borderline/worried about getting a guaranteed spot, the school probably won't offer them one in June. So this really does nothing.
- This goes back to your original 4th point that I didn't see the first time: I don't see how this benefits the kid. If he gets to stick at Michigan despite a new coach who wanted him gone, great, he gets to go to Michigan for a year before the new coach forces him out. How is that a positive for the kid?
So you say you listed 4 positives. I see for neutrals at best.
And this is different from basketball for many reasons. Basketball recruiting is much shadier for one. But even ignoring that. The prevelance of AAU circuits has made it so recruitment starts much earlier, so kids are getting recruited as middle schoolers/early high schoolers. That means kids are much more familiar with the coaches and schools so commitments can happen earlier, and schools/rankers are more familiar with kids so there are a lot less late bloomers and kids getting pushed out of spots. Also, smaller rosters and less scholarships with a significantly larger amount of D1 schools, with as many 1 and dones where new scholarship spots are opening much more frequently, makes basketball an entirely different beast. Not comparable.
October 6th, 2016 at 12:01 AM ^
Because I didn't understand what you were getting at...which afterwards I explain why I didn't understand what you were getting at.
You kept saying that kids change their minds after signing day and my rebuttal was that it already happens - so you may not agree, but that logic is extremely flawed and doesn't make sense.
...so I was correct in saying that I didn't understand what you were getting at. It was very different.
There is no semantic bullshit game to be played, period.
As for your bullets...you keep saying point blank that there is nothing good about this for the student-athlete. You're flat out wrong, it's not even debatable.
Are their more negatives than positives? You can debate that all night long, I'm not going to argue with you on that, it's a matter of opinion.
But to be finite and repeatedly say there a NO incentives or nothing good comes of it for the student-athletes is bullshit. It's wrong.
Fact: College coaches can no longer contact a player after he signs a NLOI...so for all the kids that complain about coaches contacting/recruiting them after they've committed, this would be a benefit to them. Right there that is an incentive to the student-athlete. By the way, ever read the Detroit News interviews of players comments after Signing Day? They gets asked about the worst thing about the process, all the time this is brought up.
It doesn't matter what my scenario holds...if it can happen even one time. It is fact and you cannot argue it. That's just how destroying an argument works. You say something concrete like you did and all I need is one single rebuttal and your arguement is kaput.
Continuing with your second bullet, you're saying Kurt Taylor who's been committed to Michigan for a YEAR now. If he is diehard and all in, it wouldn't serve him well to be able to sign now rather than risk losing his spot to say Najee Harris who flips to Michigan in January? Of course it would serve him well. There's another example of how it could benefit the student athlete Mr. "I literally cannot see any positives in this." That is another positive. If you can't see it, it's because you simply don't want to see it.
So the point is...quit acting like a crazy person and going around saying there are no benefits/positives when there clearly are. It just may not be as many benefits as there are negatives...which I'd agree with unless they put some clauses in to protect the student-athlete. But that's not what you've implied 2-3 times in this thread already.
October 6th, 2016 at 12:31 AM ^
Okay
First off:
"that logic is extremely flawed and doesn't make sense."
The logic that this new system would lead to an increased amount of kids wanting to flip their commitments after signing (which they can't in this new system), so we shouldn't implement it is flawed? Are you serious? The fact that you cannot see the logic behind not wanting to increase those chances, regardless of the fact that the issue already exists with kids after the February date, is legitmately worriesome.
"I don't think we should expose people to radiation because that would greatly increase the amount of people with cancer."
"That logic is flawed. People already have cancer."
And once again, because apparently this part of my argument isn't clear enough, your Kurt Taylor situation would literally never happen. If Michigan thinks they have a legitimate chance to flip Najee Harris, and know that they would boot Kurt Taylor to do so, they would not let Kurt Taylor sign. So this situation does nothing. The only players that will be able to sign early are the ones programs have at the top of their boards, the take in any circumstance players, and they're not getting booted in any circumstances, so no extra help. If Kurt Taylor isn't that player, ie if there's any player at any point Michigan would rather have than Taylor and they think they can get, Taylor will be told to wait to sign until February. So your scenario does not hold.
But lets pretend it did happen and Taylor signed in June. I would still argue that this is not a positive for Taylor. If Najee Harris wants to come to Michigan, a spot will be found, guaranteed. So in your scenario, where Taylor would have been replaced by Harris if not for this early signing period, Michigan now has Harris, so what would prevent Michigan from forcing Taylor out now that they have Harris?
But whatever, let's pretend you're right here. Congrats on finding the one very iffy/arguable example where this might work. If I rephrase it like this will you be happy?
"In 99.99999% of scenarios this system has no benefits whatsoever to the players."
But you're right, you got me here. Your list of 4 positives has been narrowed down to one iffy one, but congrats on the moral victory.
October 6th, 2016 at 1:13 AM ^
I lost my page so I'll try to "summarize" (I use that very loosely)
- You didn't originally say an increased amount - I have nothing to back up your statement, but I'd agree with an increased amount...but that's not what I responded to and that's not what you said.
- That said, your analogy is pointless and completely ridiculous as it is. That whole first part was a waste of time because you just added something in that wasn't said from the jump.
- The Kurt Taylor situation absolutely could happen. It happens every year. A coach gets fired or moves on and top recruits look elsewhere. So Harris may not be interested in June or even Decemeber so the Michigan coaches would NOT know...then all of a sudden he's available. Not him in particular, because we're recruiting him now, the point is someone of his calibur. Guys flip late, situations change, it's happens every year where a top guy goes to another school and someone gets pushed out. If that kid could've signed, he could've protected himself from being pushed out. That's standard logic.
- It particularly happens when teams start getting good...say Michigan wins a National Championship, that could make someone look at Michigan who had no interest before.
- Your whole argument has been about kids changing their minds...then you act like kids can't change their minds at the last second. No, stick with your original thought you've been spewing. Kids change their minds, and yes, a kid can change his mind in the current system really late in the process and take a spot from a kid who's been committed for over a year. Don't give me that crap about it would never happen.
- You didn't even touch the coaches contact/recruiting response...so not it's not one positive.
The point is, you saying there is nothing positive and zero good for the kids is wrong. There are some things that would be good from this move. Again, does it outweigh the bad? I'd say no. But to act like there isn't one thing that would benefit the student-athlete is absolutely ridiculous.
All I was doing was calling you out on it. Then you wanted to try and argue the exceptions to your statement. It doesn't work like that...if you say it never rains in California, but it rains 2 weeks out of the year...your statement is wrong. It doesn't matter if it's 2 weeks or 52 weeks...your statement would always be wrong either way.
October 6th, 2016 at 1:28 AM ^
This is exactly what you said:
"The problem is there are going to be a ton of kids who think they are 100% sure in June or December, but a few months later have second thoughts. At that point you have major issues. And there's a greater than 100% chance this happens, many times.
I don't see how this plan benefits anyone. For the players, it just means that you might be stuck at a school you don't want to attend."
...there is no mention of "increase."
My counterpoint was simple: In the current system, kids sign in February and a few months later they have second thoughts (Mike Weber for instance). There is a 100% chance it already happens where kids sign with a school and they're locked in (or stuck as you put it) and they don't want to go there after they've signed.
Now if you would've said..."I think there would be an increase in the number of kids who sign with a school and then want to change their mind, but they'd be stuck at a school they don't want to attend"...if you said that, I'd probably agree with you.
But you didn't and that's different. All I said in response is that it already happens, so you're not going to prevent it from happening by staying with the current model. Which is fact. Could you prevent an increase? Quite possibly, even probably.
October 6th, 2016 at 8:29 AM ^
I have ever seen this many consecutive long winded rebuttals. It is like it is debate season or something.
October 6th, 2016 at 12:13 PM ^
At least they made bullet points this time.
October 6th, 2016 at 12:46 PM ^
I'm sorry for expecting you to infer something from my post. In the future I will not make that mistake again and explain everything to you word for word.
October 6th, 2016 at 8:39 AM ^
Continuing with your second bullet, you're saying Kurt Taylor who's been committed to Michigan for a YEAR now. If he is diehard and all in, it wouldn't serve him well to be able to sign now rather than risk losing his spot to say Najee Harris who flips to Michigan in January?
This wouldn't prevent that. Coaches can still dump players who have signed a NLOI.
October 5th, 2016 at 11:09 PM ^
October 5th, 2016 at 11:53 PM ^
Every year we hear about kids getting pushed out in February in the SEC schools because of top recruits wanting to sign with Bama, LSU, Auburn.
Gary wasn't cherry picking, it was just an example because people on a Michigan board obviously know who he is...
Anyway, some how I've been made out to be the supporter of this thing. I don't support it at all unless it has the clauses I mentioned to better protect the athlete. If it's just as it's written...I completely disagree with it.
That said, even if it IS how it's currently written, there STILL are some obvious benefits that would help some HS student-athletes. I just don't think the good outweighs the bad. But I'm not going to be like Bambi and act like there is absolutely zero good whatsoever, because that would be completely inaccurate.
October 6th, 2016 at 12:18 AM ^
October 6th, 2016 at 1:15 AM ^
You just said marginal players won't get committable offers and then said they'll lock up under the radar players.
What's the difference?
And I already explained the Gary comment and added the SEC comment in there...
October 5th, 2016 at 9:17 PM ^
I don't like the whole signing thing at all.
If I have two job offers, I can show up Monday at work at one and never tell the other.
Not professional, for sure, but whatever.
"Signing Day" should be the same day that every other student must pay tuition bill or lose his spot.
October 6th, 2016 at 10:23 AM ^
I think if you don't have any official signing thing, we see Alabama have an incoming class of 80 students and magically it's down to 25-30 by the end of fall camp.
October 5th, 2016 at 9:17 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad