OT: Mack Brown Institutes the "Brady Hoke" Visit Policy

Submitted by MilkSteak on February 13th, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Looks as though other schools including Texas, Oregon, and Georgia Tech (do they have the recruiting clout to do this?? edit: Talking about GT here) are instituting a similar policy on recruit visits. 

 

Right from the old man's mouth:

"The thing that we will do is we have allowed the kids to commit and still look around the last couple of years -- we're not doing that anymore," Brown said last week on Signing Day. "If you are committed to us, be committed. If you're going to go look, we're going to go look."

Comments

GoBluePhil

February 13th, 2013 at 10:48 PM ^

As much as I would like to see an early signing period ESPN would have a fit and the NCAA would listen. ESPN would lose ratings on NSD and it boils down to money. But I would love an early signing period. Take the pressure of coaches and athletes. They do it for basketball and coaches are only looking at 2, 3 or 4 guys. Football coaches are looking at 20, 25, 30 or more.

Balrog_of_Morgoth

February 13th, 2013 at 10:36 PM ^

Because unexpected events can still happen. Say a kid commits to a school and then that school fires the head coach (or even a position coach), or the head coach leaves for the NFL. If the kid already signed their LOI, they would not be able to jump ship. Now imagine that a kid commits to an out-of-state school. Then his father gets deathly ill and he decides he'd rather go to school close to home.

If kids were forced to sign their LOI when they commit, then you would see far fewer commitments until signing day, which would be impractical for coaches and players alike.

bacon1431

February 13th, 2013 at 10:59 PM ^

Ummm, shit like that happens in basketball recruiting too. You can get a waiver and the NCAA will release you from the LOI. I don't think you'd see a big drop in commitments. With the new rules re: recruiting, allowing more contact b/w coaches and recruits, I think you'd see plenty of kids sign during an early signing period to end the stressful process. An early signing period is actually practical for everyone. Players that are truly ready to end the process can sign and don't have to worry about hearing from anyone that isn't on the staff they committed to. Coaches also don't have to keep tabs on every single recruit. When they get that early LOI, they can focus on other targets. 

graybeaver

February 13th, 2013 at 10:34 PM ^

Texas has the clout to do this. Texas is considered by most to be the best college football coaching job in America. If Texas ever gets the right leader they would become a dynasty. I think Saban would win more at TX than he has at AL. Texas is #1 when it comes to resources.

CAwolverine

February 13th, 2013 at 10:47 PM ^

I am totally against this. The NCAA should stipulate a period of time that allows for these kids to take visits without being allowed to commit. How about after August 1st before their senior year starts while also allowing them to take their officials any time they want starting in their Junior year.

Kilgore Trout

February 13th, 2013 at 11:00 PM ^

If I understand it right, this is basically what the NCAA already did with signing day. They can visit their senior year and can't make a real commitment until signing day. I don't see how the NCAA can regulate someone telling a coach or reporter that they're going to a certain school.

cm2010

February 13th, 2013 at 11:11 PM ^

Commitments are unofficial, it's only a verbal promise. The NCAA has no ability to prevent kids from verbally promising anything to anyone, let alone a coach. The NCAA can control how much coaches talk to players, but not what they say.

EDIT: beat to the punch

GoBlueInNYC

February 14th, 2013 at 8:53 AM ^

Or he's a guy who pulled the program out of the cutter in the '90s and has actually racked up a great legacy at Texas (134-44 record, just shy of 80%, with a national title and two conference titles - Compare that to Carr, who had a winning percentage in the 75% range, with one national title and five conference titles). He's had one bad season (5-7) and two mediocre seasons (8-5, 9-4) lately, which is the worst three year stretch in his tenure. With the relatively recent changes at the coordinator level, Texas will probably continue to claw their way back up to the upper echelon.

I get that Longhorn fans want him gone and I have no real interest in seeing him stick around, but it's no mystery why UT has held on to him.

LSAClassOf2000

February 14th, 2013 at 8:44 AM ^

ESPN's Recruiting Nation had an interesting piece here - LINK

I found this passage striking, and really, true:

"Really, it's up to the kids to determine the fate of these no-visit policies, because for the only time in their amateur careers, they hold the cards. Once a recruit signs that letter of intent, the college essentially owns him."

That's what sort of leads me to think that a program like Texas that is faltering some suddenly instituting such a policy seems more like it comes from shaken confidence in the Texas brand than from anything else.

They actually talk to Dan Samuelson in this article, and he talks some about his own experience and ultimately coming to Michigan and how despite having decommitted from Pittsburgh and, of course, Nebraska, he believes he did the right thing in the end.