Will the early signing period stay?

Here is a front-page commentary on the early signing period: http://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2017 … allenging/

My thought is that if (a) you didn’t just fire/hire coaches and (b) you don’t have an early bowl game, your staff is probably OK with the new setup. SMU is dealing with A and B. We’re just dealing with A but it’s still a mess. Bama, Clemson, OU, OSU are okay. Okie Lite’s staff stability allowed them to flip one of ours. Still might have happened in late January but CM would have had more time to build a relationship.

Having seen it from the standpoint of a coach fired/hired scenario, it sure looks like a lot of pressure for players to decide. Some, especially in Texas, are not even through with high school playoffs and they’re having to make a decision that makes a life-long impact. I’m not sure this is good for college football, and I was all for it before seeing it this year.

I like it because it gives the player and to a lesser extent the school the option to force the other party to either put up or shut up.

A lot of the “lesser” recruits get played by the schools who are just trying to keep their options open for Plan B or C. Those guys now can find out in December that they only have a conditional offer, which gives them an option to either sign elsewhere immediately in December, broaden their options out for February, or just wait. If the kid or school decides to wait and see, that’s fine, but as one writer put it, everybody has to show their cards.

I can’t feel too sorry for coaching staffs getting time-crunched by the December signing period. They get paid great money to coach, and they have full time staff dedicated to recruiting. They will adjust, just like always.

I think in our own case the early signing period hurts CM because he just plain needs more time as he plays catch up. He is very likely urging kids to wait until February if they have any uncertainty, to give Arkansas more time to prove itself.

I think you pretty much nailed it. This time next year (if we still have it) we probably won’t think its such a bad deal.

However, as the fact is there is going to be substantial coaching changes every year, and some bowls are going to be played early every year, I think this was a good idea that just won’t work. Face it, the kids signing “early” are signing 7 weeks early. 7 weeks. No harm in waiting 7 more weeks and more fair to everyone.

The only other choice would be to have a football early signing period before football season even starts (basketball is pretty much that way). You could have an August 15th signing date. I don’t particularly like it, but it beats mid December.

What I think the coaches are going to see is that it doubles there work load. They are going to still have the February signing date, but also have this one. Two is twice the work and twice the stress.

It probably does increase the stress, but as I recall staffs were recruiting pretty heavily in December anyway. The earlier deadline would make those efforts a little more important; you could flip someone in December before and still lose them by February. Now if you flip them in December they’re yours; if you lose them in December they’re gone for good (or at least until they transfer looking for playing time).

[quote=“SwineFusion”]

My thought is that if (a) you didn’t just fire/hire coaches and (b) you don’t have an early bowl game, your staff is probably OK with the new setup. SMU is dealing with A and B. We’re just dealing with A but it’s still a mess. Bama, Clemson, OU, OSU are okay. Okie Lite’s staff stability allowed them to flip one of ours. Still might have happened in late January but CM would have had more time to build a relationship.

[/quote]See, that’s the thing - it shouldn’t “discriminate” or cause hardship to any “class” of teams. In any given year, yeah, it might be inconvenient to this team, or that, because of one thing or another. But to put a severe hardship on pretty much any team that (a) changes coaches . . . even if it’s just because a long-time coach is retiring; or (b) that is involved in post-season play (and we all know there are a LOT of those), well . . . it just seems a lot of teams are impacted, due to the reasons Clay points out.

I’m not against some kind of period for “early strong commitments” to sign so they can get it out of the way. But I don’t know if the time chosen really helps more than it hurts. Especially where a coaching change is involved.

Need to revisit and rethink, IMO.

This rule is all about the schools. It has no real benefit for the kids. Some are done with the season, some fall into situations like Arkansas recruits when a coach is no longer there, and kids don’t get the glory of signing in front of their school because most are out.

You may say the kids don’t have to sign, but you can’t convince me the schools are pressuring the crap out of these kids to sign early and even threatening pulling offers. I just don’t think it is a good thing.

[quote=“Rocket”]

This rule is all about the schools. It has no real benefit for the kids. Some are done with the season, some fall into situations like Arkansas recruits when a coach is no longer there, and kids don’t get the glory of signing in front of their school because most are out.

You may say the kids don’t have to sign, but you can’t convince me the schools are pressuring the crap out of these kids to sign early and even threatening pulling offers. I just don’t think it is a good thing.

[/quote]Sorry - but, as we are experiencing now, it’s not necessarily any kind of advantage to the school either. I believe that’s the main point of this entire thread . . . questioning whether or not it truly benefits anyone in the long run.

As discussed earlier in this thread, it seems to divide teams (and, by extension in some cases, the players) into ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. Not sure that’s what was intended.

I think it’s a terrible deal for the school’s that fire their coaches (and send them off with golden parachutes for lousy performance). Just shows that we should have fired those guys after the Auburn game last year…the worst game I’ve ever attended as a Hog fan.

I believe it will go away sooner rather than later. I think almost every coach will lobby against it. There was once two signing periods one week apart. You signed a conference letter, then a national letter. Pretty crazy. That was a zoo. The first one usually did it but sometimes players signed more than one then it got interesting.

I remember those days well. Of course there was no internet, so I would read about signing day in the Gazette, then find out a week later that a kid was now going to OU or Nebraska, or whatever! I think I am showing my age.

I fit in this category too