Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CuseLegacy, post: 2439071, member: 469"] [URL="https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2017/4/13/15277548/early-signing-day-period-ncaa-rule-recruit-national"]Winners, losers, and a fix for the NCAA's new early Signing Day[/URL] [SIZE=3][B]The most obvious scenario in which recruits could lose: coaching changes.[/B][/SIZE] Most coaching changes happen in December and January. And under the new rule, many of them will occur after a prospect signs early. Under the old rule, the vast majority of coaching changes are made before prospects sign in February. There are always some stragglers, and sometimes moves that are privately agreed to before Signing Day but executed after, [URL='http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2017/2/8/14549886/national-signing-day-coaches-changing-jobs']for the purpose of recruiting[/URL], but those are not all that common. The refrain will be that a prospect should be signing “with a school, not a coach,” but that’s not what happens in most cases. A prospect signs with the staff that has formed the best relationship with him. A player trusts a certain coach, values that relationship, and wants to play in the scheme run by that coach. Letters of intent are usually binding, and a coaching change is not something that can be used as an out clause. The NCAA has been silent as to any exceptions or out clauses afforded to prospects who sign early. Unless addressed, this sets up to be a huge mess. [SIZE=3][B]A fair proposal would be to allow prospects to designate some coaches who, if they leave before enrollment, would allow the prospect to opt out. [/B][/SIZE] I suggest it be the head coach, relevant position coach, coordinator on the side of the ball for which the prospect is being recruited, and perhaps the coach who functions as the area-recruiter for the prospect’s home region. Such a rule is especially needed for this year, as the NCAA is set to approve a 10th coaching position, which will become operative on Jan. 9, 2018. Coming job changes are not hypothetical. We know staffs will be expanding from nine to 10 come January, and many of those new positions will be filled from existing coaches at other schools. Many have their doubts that the NCAA will enact player protections of this type, however, because the NCAA consists of its member institutions. Such a move would transfer power from schools to players. [SIZE=3][B]Update May 10: It seems this option was discussed, but not implemented.[/B][/SIZE] MAC Commissioner [URL='http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/05/was_an_nli_out_clause_consider.html?']Jon Steinbrecher spoke with Al.com about the issue[/URL]. "The (NLI) is administered by the (CCA) and I know that's an issue that continues to be studied and discussed, but I'd also note we have early signing periods in other sports with the same sort of requirements that we have in football," Steinbrecher said. "Students need to go into this with their eyes open. Part of the reason why I think so many people kind of congregated around that mid-December date by the time you get there if there's going to be changes in the program, at least at the head coach level, the vast majority of those changes have occurred by then. "Certainly there are some changes after that, and we certainly know that assistant coaches can change at virtually any time. Students have to contemplate all of that and take that into consideration when they make a determination on whether they want to sign early or not." [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?