Class of 2015 It's tough to take

[anomander]

Seeing as the mans dad said i was right, id say your wrong. But your response is simple minded. Likely cuse wouldve filled up its spots as well with early signing. We wouldnt have dropped the players we did and created room. Recruiting is a dirty game.

I think that's kind of his point though. An early signing period could help take some of the filth off football recruiting. If basketball can do it so can football. I'm even more for an early signing period because it will benefit Syracuse. It's simple for the recruit, unless you are positive that's the school you are going to sign with don't commit. Sometimes the kid will have to bet on himself, but this also keeps the schools in check as well. What takes place the last 2 weeks off recruiting is an embarrassment to the sport.

 

[suloyalfan]

I think that's kind of his point though. An early signing period could help take some of the filth off football recruiting. If basketball can do it so can football. I'm even more for an early signing period because it will benefit Syracuse. It's simple for the recruit, unless you are positive that's the school you are going to sign with don't commit. Sometimes the kid will have to bet on himself, but this also keeps the schools in check as well. What takes place the last 2 weeks off recruiting is an embarrassment to the sport.

I think this also leads to a shorter leash/earlier action for head coaching changes. For example, look at Michigan's current recruiting status... they only have a handful of commits because kids didn't want to sign there, assuming that Hoke would be gone after the year was over. If there is an early signing period, Michigan dumps Hoke a lot earlier so they can pump up their numbers a lot earlier in the cycle. With the early signing period, the available pool of quality players to flip in January will become much smaller so it would be alot harder to rescue a class after the season ends for a new coach hired in December or January.

 

[bcubs9497]

"Filth" will always find its way into college football recruiting.

 

[CuseOnly]

If we would of had an Early sighting period this year Clark would of been already sighted by South Alabama

Yes, that and Davante Davis would probably be on our roster next year instead of top 4 SEC school.

 

[bcubs9497]

Yes, that and Davante Davis would probably be on our roster next year instead of top 4 SEC school.

It's also possible that a "sure thing" in the spring turns out to be an absolute dud in the fall. Now you're stuck with him.

For 5 years.

 

[CuseLegacy]

It's also possible that a "sure thing" in the spring turns out to be an absolute dud in the fall. Now you're stuck with him.

For 5 years.

Not really. What they are talking about for an early signing period is December... not really that early.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Yes, that and Davante Davis would probably be on our roster next year instead of top 4 SEC school.

No he wouldn't have. He decommitted within a week. Instead, hopefully, he would have given it more thought and not committed in the first place.

 

[bcubs9497]

Not really. What they are talking about for an early signing period is December... not really that early.

In other words, the same time that JUCOs sign?

 

[CuseLegacy]

In other words, the same time that JUCOs sign?

From what I read of the discussions... around Decmeber 15th?

 

[Finwad32]

IMO that just accelerates the clock. What you're seeing now at the end of Jan and beginning of Feb, you'd then see it prior to the early signing period. It'd just be a matter of when kids are being pressured.

 

[CuseLegacy]

In other words, the same time that JUCOs sign?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...cember-16-early-signing-date-period/22011935/

 

[RICuse44]

IMO that just accelerates the clock. What you're seeing now at the end of Jan and beginning of Feb, you'd then see it prior to the early signing period. It'd just be a matter of when kids are being pressured.

Agree. Sets off the chain reaction earlier. The top programs take their lot and fill up their classes. This sets off a trickle down effect through the rest of the recruiting world. The under the radar kids would be offered earlier. It would be insane though to make it earlier than the end of the high school football season. You know, so players could actually be evaluated on how they play football rather than how well they SPARC.

 

[bcubs9497]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...cember-16-early-signing-date-period/22011935/

Interesting.

Personally, though, I get the feeling this early signing period thing is really being pushed hard by programs who are trying to fend off poaching of their recruits. I particularly find it interesting that it's the MAC who is putting together the recommendation.

I'm pretty sure this whole early signing period thing isn't to protect or benefit the recruit, but rather the programs in the Group of 5, and lesser P5 programs (not us).

 

[bcubs9497]

Agree. Sets off the chain reaction earlier. The top programs take their lot and fill up their classes. This sets off a trickle down effect through the rest of the recruiting world. The under the radar kids would be offered earlier. It would be insane though to make it earlier than the end of the high school football season. You know, so players could actually be evaluated on how they play football rather than how well they SPARC.

Actually, the under the radar kids would be the ones most hurt. Why? Because they're under the radar, and a spot that they might get will already be filled. In the end, I do believe that an early signing period benefits colleges to the detriment of recruits.

Also, please remember that, at the end of it all, college football is all about the kids playing it, not us fat old men.

 

[ImperialOrange]

I can see benefits for both sides. If coaches know who they have signed they can adjust their recruiting run in accordingly. In doing so, they wouldn't string so many kids along giving more clarity in the context of their offers rather than shotgunning 28 "offers" out they would have to offer less and turn away less when the numbers start becoming clear.

End game, its about the kids and I would love if schools had to be transparent with how firm their offers are while asking the same of kids in terms of their commitments. I'd love for schools to have to offer the same level of commitment to recruits as they ask in return rather than taking a commitment while still actively trying to recruit over them. I'm not a fan of 30+ commits some schools take each year. I'd rather they offer those they truly believe in.

 

[bcubs9497]

I can see benefits for both sides. If coaches know who they have signed they can adjust their recruiting run in accordingly. In doing so, they wouldn't string so many kids along giving more clarity in the context of their offers rather than shotgunning 28 "offers" out they would have to offer less and turn away less when the numbers start becoming clear.

End game, its about the kids and I would love if schools had to be transparent with how firm their offers are while asking the same of kids in terms of their commitments. I'd love for schools to have to offer the same level of commitment to recruits as they ask in return rather than taking a commitment while still actively trying to recruit over them. I'm not a fan of 30+ commits some schools take each year. I'd rather they offer those they truly believe in.

The SEC is notorious for getting 30+ commitments, then, at the end, dumping those that they deem the least favorable. What I think would be a better alternative to early signing is that a school must ensure that, at the time an offer is extended, the recruit is academically eligible, and that they be prohibited from from accepting more commitments than the number of scholarships they're allowed for a particular recruiting class.

 

[RMH44]

I can see benefits for both sides. If coaches know who they have signed they can adjust their recruiting run in accordingly. In doing so, they wouldn't string so many kids along giving more clarity in the context of their offers rather than shotgunning 28 "offers" out they would have to offer less and turn away less when the numbers start becoming clear.

End game, its about the kids and I would love if schools had to be transparent with how firm their offers are while asking the same of kids in terms of their commitments. I'd love for schools to have to offer the same level of commitment to recruits as they ask in return rather than taking a commitment while still actively trying to recruit over them. I'm not a fan of 30+ commits some schools take each year. I'd rather they offer those they truly believe in.

IMO, the easiest way to level the playing field is to cut back the number of schollies to 75 or 80. It would force teams to concentrate on the recruits they truly covet and it might entice recruits to make their decisions quicker. Mathematically, there would be more highly rated recruits available to non-football factory schools.

 

[bcubs9497]

IMO, the easiest way to level the playing field is to cut back the number of schollies to 75 or 80. It would force teams to concentrate on the recruits they truly covet and it might entice recruits to make their decisions quicker. Mathematically, there would be more highly rated recruits available to non-football factory schools.

That still kind of screws over a kid. I'd like to see the number of schollies allowed increased.

Football factories appeal to some kids, and not to others. Obviously, in my son's case, a football factory was unappealing.

 

[ImperialOrange]

IMO, the easiest way to level the playing field is to cut back the number of schollies to 75 or 80. It would force teams to concentrate on the recruits they truly covet and it might entice recruits to make their decisions quicker. Mathematically, there would be more highly rated recruits available to non-football factory schools.

Id go the other way and increase scholies to 100 since you're allowed 25 per year. If a highly touted recruit wants to go play with 4 others of similar stature at a school so be it. The benefit could be less athletes choosing to do so but more importantly schools couldn't plan on the academic failures of non quals and it should open up more paid years for walk ons which I would be a huge fan of.

 

[RMH44]

Id go the other way and increase scholies to 100 since you're allowed 25 per year. If a highly touted recruit wants to go play with 4 others of similar stature at a school so be it. The benefit could be less athletes choosing to do so but more importantly schools couldn't plan on the academic failures of non quals and it should open up more paid years for walk ons which I would be a huge fan of.

Great explanation.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Great explanation.

Thank you. Ive always questioned the ncaa logic in schools needing 4 players a year to leave or not qualify for numbers to match up. I don't like the idea of players being on a schools B list anymore than I like schools being on a players B list. If you really want to reward kids who are at their A list school we should consider those who are paying their own way to be able to compete as athletes.

 

[RICuse44]

The SEC is notorious for getting 30+ commitments, then, at the end, dumping those that they deem the least favorable. What I think would be a better alternative to early signing is that a school must ensure that, at the time an offer is extended, the recruit is academically eligible, and that they be prohibited from from accepting more commitments than the number of scholarships they're allowed for a particular recruiting class.

Agree completely on that. If you make an offer and the kid accepts that should be it. And if you fill up with 25 academically eligible committed kids you should be done instead of over offering and having to rescind (like we appear to be doing- I really dont like that).

I think though that under the radar kids still will get their chance though just by virtue of the fact that there are so many recruiting sites and services out there- and fan boards. As long as you are signing 18 yo kids who aren't done growing the system will always leave some under valued prospects. As a fan that's what makes a lot of it fun. Kids like Kenny carter and Jon burton who are massive and either just started playing or never really had S&C.

I feel for you bcubs- as the father of 3 princess loving daughters I will never have to go through the gauntlet you have just endured!

 

[TexanMark]

Wouldnt the prospect have the option to sign early or wait it out? I will also hope they would come up with something that allows a prospect get of their commitment if the head coach was to leave or get fired.

Agreed take Steve's situation...so he commits to the USA Jaguars and the early signing period is August 31st or December 15th (or whatever date is decided). If he thinks he isn't ready to sign he tells the coach he isn't going to sign until Feb. This happens in basketball occasionally.

 

[timkay99]

From what I read of the discussions... around Decmeber 15th?

That would be pointless, IMO. Know its not your opinion, but surprised that is what schools are looking for.

I think the early signing period should have to be at a time before a kid's senior season. Lets a kid play his season without worrying about recruiting if he knows exactly where he wants to go to school and has that opportunity.

I think it makes coaches a little more cautious on the offers they would accept signing early.

The key to that early signing day though is that the kid has the ability to re-open his recruitment if the staff is let go.

 

[bcubs9497]

I think that anything that restricts a kid's ability to ultimately choose (and take his time while doing so) what's best for him is wrong. Honestly, the only people pushing early signing in football would be G5 and fans.

Look at it this way; you take a job paying 65K per year. The next week, you get an offer for a job paying 98K a year. Too bad, though, as you signed on and you're now stuck. We wouldn't want to live/work under those kinds of conditions, why would we force 18 year kids to do the same?