OT: NCAA eyes early signing period
I know this has been thrown around before but this seems to be getting traction.
“I think there's more momentum now than ever just because of the changes that are happening with recruiting regulations. The landscape is changing, so it's time to look at it again."” -- Susan Peal, NCAA associate director
of operations
CNNSI LINK
But what happens to kids like McDowell? Or will the kids be stuck if the coach's get fired? Lot of moving parts to this.
the horse's (jackasses'?) mouths:
What happens when a prospective student-athlete signs an NLI and the coach leaves? The NLI is a contract between a prospective student-athlete and a school, not an agreement between individuals. A student-athlete is obligated to attend the school he or she signed with unless the school agrees to release the student-athlete. If a school entices a prospective student-athlete to sign an NLI by offering an automatic release if a coach leaves, the prospective student-athlete’s NLI may be declared void and the school may face penalties.
...but no way to regulate that. Plus with media pressure. Any kid that commits and signs before his senior year to a school and then a coach gets fired mid or after the year will have all of the leverage in the world.
The media would make it look so bad on the school that it would affect other kids who may want to commit/sign because of the coaching staff and the relationships that are made.
If you're not enrolled, you should be able to get out of an NLI if the circumstances change.
If I want to be a chemist, musician or a doctor and I choose to go to a school because of a particular teacher, and that teacher retires, is fired, etc. --- and I haven't enrolled, I may very well think about going to another school.
I'm not a lawyer, but I never realized these were legally-binding contracts. The word "intent" seems to be an oxymora in that regard.
Probably not Hand. But maybe a Gareon (Spell check) Conley.
And if he didn't sign early, then Michigan can treat that as not 100% committed and look around still, and not be burned with a month for a new commit.
for some reason, all I hear in my head is the Peanuts teacher. Wanh wah, wannwahh wanh wah.
If I recall correctly, the early signing period for the sports that do allow it is typically about 4 months prior to the regular period, which would mean October-ish if football adopted a similar timeframe. It doesn't sound so bad on its face really, and I do see their point about not having to worry about the entire class for a period of time, but directed portions of it. I wonder if the NCAA would alter some of the admission rules to make this mesh with early enrollees as well.
I hope they allow commits to back out of their signing under certain conditions like family issues or a coach is fired or hired somewhere else. Similar to basketball and how Levert came to Michigan.
But let's even say that Groce hadn't left Ohio. If you're Caris LeVert and you committed to Ohio thinking that it'd probably be your best option, then you suddenly catch the eye of Michigan, are you really better off being locked in to Ohio? I don't think so. This policy change puts recruits in a really hard position. Many non-5-star recruits will get pressured by smaller schools to sign early, since those schools know that if the recruit blows up he won't be able to take advantage of any of his new options. If you're the recruit, you can hold off, but it's really risky if that smaller school then fills your spot.
I know I'm in the minority (and I wrote more about it below), but I really dislike this. Maybe there's a way to do it that locks in the school but not the player - to kill the "uncommitable offers" or whatever they're called - but I don't like the idea of locking kids in so early.
Will the NCAA then allow players to take official visits in their junior year?
I hope so.
Hoke even said that he wants players to visit in the summer when Michigan is a good temperature and not "too hot" like in the south.
player since it locks them down. The only advantage for the player is stopping other coaches from contacting them and I believe it may allow more contact with the coaching staff.
To me, the most obvious change that needs to be made is that kids should be able to use some of their official visits before the fall of their senior seasons. With kids committing earlier and earlier, classes get filled by local kids who can afford to come visit schools within driving distance. In many cases, a kid from California would have to wait until the fall of his senior year to even see Michigan or any other non-Western school. That's much too late given that signing day is just a few months later.
I don't like the early signing period policy idea. I think it just shifts the whole calendar earlier, which in the long run will be bad for both recruits and (top) programs. If I were a recruit, I wouldn't want the earlier pressure to sign somewhere, especially if I thought I might get better offers later but didn't know. If I were a top program, I'd want to be able to watch kids develop as long as possible before having to choose my targets.
It's a confusing argument, but I actually think the one group this helps is non-top programs. Earlier recruiting means more messiness in who gets offered and commits, and that hurts programs like Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, etc. If you're Michigan, you can wait to see who emerges later in high school and pursue those kids - or try to flip them if they are committed elsewhere. If you're a less recruit-desirable program and you luck into grabbing one of those kids early (or scout him well), you're getting a recruit you probably couldn't hang onto with the current rules. For the recruit, that sucks, since he made a decision at a time when he didn't realize he'd have better options later.
TL; DR version: I don't like it. I think there's an obvious policy to change - that recruits have to wait until their senior years to take official visits - and they're talking about changing the wrong one.