Not too many years ago in a class of 20 commits, maybe (MAYBE) 1 or 2 kids wouldn't show up. That's a 90 or 95 % showing. Now it has gotten completely out of hand. I don't have a definitive answer, but an early signing period makes sense to me. The word commitment has lost all meaning.
STOP the madness
- Thread starter RUTGERZ_R00LZ
- Start date
No. I just think despite all the evidence to the contrary people here put too much stock into it (early verbals). 15-20 years ago recruiting was not followed like it is now with all the recruiting sites. You didn't have camps like you do now. Kids weren't posting Hudl tapes. Really good players could go unnoticed by everyone but the local schools. It was a lot simpler to hide a kid.
I told this before. I used to have to wait till the day after NSD to see who RU signed. I'd drive home from Florham Park via a Cumberland Farms on 206 in Bedminster to pick up the HNT and Courier before heading to Flanders. Now you click on a computer and have all the info ahead of time. If we have all the info, imagine what coaches have.
I think knightfan7 is right in that the recruiting game has completely changed because the technology has, but I don't think that the answer is to restrict the kids more, which is what an early signing period would in effect amount to. The coaches are all for an early signing period because it takes someone they sell off the market early. It would also give teams more leverage to pressure kids to sign early on threat of their offer being pulled for an early signer.
Also, the number of decommits tends to rise and fall relative to a program's strength and coaching stability. A program that is in turmoil, has a bad record over a few years, or whose head coach has a good chance of being let go in the next year or two will see far more decommits than a stable winning program. Even after going 4-8 in the wake of EL's injury, Schiano didn't have a bunch of decommits, because he had the credibility of his program-building record to stand on. We'd been to five bowls in a row and there was a lot of excitement around the program that has been missing since.
Us going through this is a transitionary event. Calling for sweeping changes that Saban, Harbaugh, Meyer and Miles want may be throwing out the baby with the bath water. I know why they want it; it will benefit them. Will it benefit us, though? More importantly, will it benefit the kids who have to make these life-defining decisions? I'm not sold on that, and until I see something that does change my mind, I will urge extreme caution.
Also, the number of decommits tends to rise and fall relative to a program's strength and coaching stability. A program that is in turmoil, has a bad record over a few years, or whose head coach has a good chance of being let go in the next year or two will see far more decommits than a stable winning program. Even after going 4-8 in the wake of EL's injury, Schiano didn't have a bunch of decommits, because he had the credibility of his program-building record to stand on. We'd been to five bowls in a row and there was a lot of excitement around the program that has been missing since.
Us going through this is a transitionary event. Calling for sweeping changes that Saban, Harbaugh, Meyer and Miles want may be throwing out the baby with the bath water. I know why they want it; it will benefit them. Will it benefit us, though? More importantly, will it benefit the kids who have to make these life-defining decisions? I'm not sold on that, and until I see something that does change my mind, I will urge extreme caution.
Early signing periods would not restrict kids. It would not be mandatory for a kid to sign early. But for those who did, they would be protected since the school would be obligated to fulfill their commitment if the player was injured or had a poor season. The schools would be protected by not having to deal with a rash if decommits. The powerhouse schools would less able to wait to the last minute and then swoop in to claim a few prizes.
Give the players and schools a chance to actually commit to one another. There is an abundance of info available now at an earlier stage to help players and schools to evaluate whether the fit between a player and school works. If a player wishes to wait in order to improve a potential landing spot, he is free to do so. If he loses a spot, that is too bad, but remember that the spot then went to a different student athlete who benefited. Any system that allows last minute decommits will yield players who are helped and hurt and schools that are helped and hurt. It is a zero sum game. In other words for every school and/or player who is helped by decommitments, there is another that is hurt. Why protect schools that do not honor scholarship offers or players that fail to honor their so called commitment.
By the way, I woulod require scholarship offers to be 4 year commitments from the school that would remain in effect for 4 years so long as the player remained in good academic standing and remained on the team.
Give the players and schools a chance to actually commit to one another. There is an abundance of info available now at an earlier stage to help players and schools to evaluate whether the fit between a player and school works. If a player wishes to wait in order to improve a potential landing spot, he is free to do so. If he loses a spot, that is too bad, but remember that the spot then went to a different student athlete who benefited. Any system that allows last minute decommits will yield players who are helped and hurt and schools that are helped and hurt. It is a zero sum game. In other words for every school and/or player who is helped by decommitments, there is another that is hurt. Why protect schools that do not honor scholarship offers or players that fail to honor their so called commitment.
By the way, I woulod require scholarship offers to be 4 year commitments from the school that would remain in effect for 4 years so long as the player remained in good academic standing and remained on the team.
Last edited:
Most recruits commit in the summer before the football season which us completely different from 2 years ago when they committed in Nov -Jan. The coaches are probably forcing them to commit earlier.
Knightfan, 15-20 years ago you could tune into WCTC (if you lived a few miles away) and hear the early commits. IIRC they would be reported a week or so before NSD.
You do realize the bball has an early signing period and it works just fine, don't you? The student/athlete knows they have a spot at the school they want, and the school knows they have a commitments at a position of need so that they concentrate their efforts on other athletes/positions. WIn-win.
What about the opposite direction? Not allowing a player to "commit" until NSD. They can at best have a "strong interest" and that is all that can be reported. That way a player can have "strong interest" in 2-5 schools but not actually "commit" until they are eligible.
Perhaps some kind of rule punishing team affiliates, scouting sites, and the players themselves from actually announcing them as commits. Not sure how that could realistically be enforced though.
Perhaps some kind of rule punishing team affiliates, scouting sites, and the players themselves from actually announcing them as commits. Not sure how that could realistically be enforced though.
The day a student athlete signs their NLI they lose all ability to control their future. Position coach or coordinator takes a different job on February 7 and tough cookies. You could be stuck playing in a system that no longer matches your skill set. Moving up signing day would just catch more kids in that crosshair.
As fans, it's maddening to see classes fall apart in the 11th hour but it's the one time for the next 3-5 years that the student-athlete has the "leverage". Moving the date up before juniors declare for the NFL would also create added wrinkles. Suppose Hamilton was healthy this year and looked ready to leave for the NFL so you guys have an "extra" player in this class. Hamilton, liking what Ash is selling, wants to stay and help usher in the Ash era at RU and now you have 86 or more scholarship players. Sorry xyz HS senior but there's no room at the inn for you now?
I think there's room for having a couple early signees, say 3-5, for those kids that want to be the foundation of a class, are legacies, or just plain know where they want to go to college and end their recruitment to focus on their senior season of HS football and studies.
Sure there's answers to all these hiccups but it would basically take overhauling the entire recruiting process to make any changes because of how intertwined everything is.
As fans, it's maddening to see classes fall apart in the 11th hour but it's the one time for the next 3-5 years that the student-athlete has the "leverage". Moving the date up before juniors declare for the NFL would also create added wrinkles. Suppose Hamilton was healthy this year and looked ready to leave for the NFL so you guys have an "extra" player in this class. Hamilton, liking what Ash is selling, wants to stay and help usher in the Ash era at RU and now you have 86 or more scholarship players. Sorry xyz HS senior but there's no room at the inn for you now?
I think there's room for having a couple early signees, say 3-5, for those kids that want to be the foundation of a class, are legacies, or just plain know where they want to go to college and end their recruitment to focus on their senior season of HS football and studies.
Sure there's answers to all these hiccups but it would basically take overhauling the entire recruiting process to make any changes because of how intertwined everything is.
Ok but I never lived closer to RU than Bedminster. There's a huge difference between a week and the kid's Jr of HS.
I don't have any issue with football adopting an early signing period. These kids have enough "advisors" who will advise them on whether its in their best interests to sign early. Most probably won't but if you know the school that is right for you then why not just have the opportunity to end the madness early? How about if your kid is a pretty good student whose football skills gets him into a top flight university like Stanford, Michigan or Northwestern don't you think you might want to lock that up?
Ok but what happens when an early signee gets recruited over before he even gets to the school? What reasonable option does he have then? Early signing is a lot better for schools than it is for the kids.
We can discuss this all day but if people here would just accept the fact that verbal commitments mean very little to everyone but the fans, there'd be no "problem".
Nice to hear from you Bill, sad to say we can't invite you to Barnegat any more as we've sold the place. Also they removed all the South of the Border signs on the way down.
Ah, there's more than one opposite direction. How about an athlete can sign an LOI at any time? A legal binding document as you know.The athlete locks up his choice and the school has their slot filled. Keep the numbers requirement as they are now. The only out would be if the Head coach bails.
