Discussion in 'University of Colorado Recruiting Archive' started by TSchekler, Feb 11, 2015.
Makes too much sense. There would still be a deadline of sorts, which is the first day that a kid "can" sign, but it would clarify the offer and commitment issues and cut thru a lot of BS.
I think NSD is good for college football and for the kids.
What I would like to see however is a limited early signing day. Each school would get to sign a set number, say 5 or 10 kids.
I think this would tend to level out the talent distribution somewhat. Every year Urban Meyer and Les Miles sign 25-28 kids, every one of which they tell "You are our number one priority." or at least number one at their position.
If they could only sign 5 or 10 on the early period it would tell a lot of kids that they aren't the number one priority. The kids might say if they don't want me enough to give me an early signing slot and in fact signed someone else who plays my position then maybe I want to look around a bit more.
When the total number of schollies dropped to 85 it had a big leveling effect on college football, I think this would add to that.
NSD wildly favors the big boys. Moving to another design, whether it be early and late or open greatly levels the playing field. Sounds great right now, but I would be delighted to be in favor of NSD as the preferred option sometime down the road!
There would still be an unofficial "NSD" of sorts as there would have to be a deadline for kids to sign. Those kids that want to take all their OVs, meet all the coaches, and be as thorough as possible would still have their "spotlight" moment to choose which school, but it would also give them the option of officially committing early on in their senior year, if they want. It would also force all the elite programs that throw out offers like candy, to be more responsible with who they're offering and when. It would up the competition for recruits and level the playing field between the top and the bottom of the P5 teams. I'm all for it and I hope to see something like this soon.
sounds good to me. Over hyped 5 second's of fame eliminated.
Thinking about it some more NSD isn't going away.
It has become an event. It isn't on par with the NFL draft but it is a day in the off-season when college football gets a chance to grab attention and spread positive feelings about individual programs, even bad ones, to their potential fan base.
Just like the NFL draft it is a day with lots of winners and very few losers. Every program gets a chance to spin their class as an upgrade to the program, they get to show highlight videos, talk about players positives and ignore their weaknesses.
The ones that are good at it are able to turn signing day hype into ticket sales and donations. Even the bad ones can make their fan base feel good for a little while. With losing their coach and getting raided by CU and some other schools CSU ended up with one of the lowest rated classes in the country. Their fans still think that they got better based on the signing day hype.
I agree that eliminating signing day might balance the power a little bit away from the powers but in the end I doubt it. I also don't think that the networks who are bankrolling the whole deal are interested in parity. They would rather have their national powers (including the SEC) that they can hype in the interest of ratings.
I think they should have an early signing period.
It is good for the recruit because they can go ahead and secure their spot and the phone calls can quit. Good for schools that are not the "big boys" as it keeps some from being poached late.
If Joe 5* wants to wait until the last day and pull out a hat, gloves, or boxers.....he can still do that.
Exactly. There would be a deadline day when recruits have to have their LOIs submitted by, so if the top recruits want to do the dog and pony show they are still able to. ESPN would still have their manufactured, made for TV drama for some of the top recruits that can afford to wait till the last minute, but would allow those kids that want to get everything signed and out of the way, the ability to do so. It would allow programs like CU to extend early offers for high caliber recruits, that elite programs are in "wait-and-see" mode on.
I think a "deadline" helps in the decision making process. It forces one to focus more and evaluate better.
Has early signing been a good thing for bball?
The UKs of the world will be fine (as would the Texas'), but I imagine it'd bring more parity in CFB. There really isn't a lot of parity right now at the top, or at least as much as people actually think.
I think this would be the case. It would just move the dates around but be the same circus.
I think it would be a good thing because I think it would reduce how much bull**** that prospects have to put up with.
Mtns circus would come in phases. Some programs would fill up on that day and others may not sign anyone.
The period leading up to signing day can be a circus with calls and offers from competing programs. It is hard to know if the attention is legit as the recruiting landscape shifts, or if the offers are manipulations and a form of recruiting warfare against competing programs. More important for parity then changing NSD, in my opinion, would be formally creating and tightly enforcing signing/scholarship limits and grey shirt rules. The SEC is out of control.
And now there's "blueshirts" which for some reason started at my undergrad alma mater NMSU. USC and Tennessee have 1 guy this year blueshirting.
I agree that it would be a media fest. At the same time I think you missed the key part of it. Each program would only be able to sign a limited number of kids, say 5 or 10. What this would mean is that all those kids being told by Meyer, Miles, Strong, etc. that they are "our number one priority for this year" would find out that they are not when those schools ask them to wait till the regular signing period and instead sign somebody else at their position.
For a lot of these kids it would mean that maybe they want to take a wider look around, maybe it means that they sign with the program that does offer them an early slot instead of the ones that didn't.
The net effect would be to level out talent distribution some more.
No matter what you do it is going to be a circus, LOI day is that now. No matter what you do the top kids will gravitate towards the top programs. Unless you want to see kids signing at 14 you have to have a specified day when kids can sign, and fans will grasp onto that day. NSD isn't going away.
I think an early signing date should be added to the current date. That is all.
Maybe but I doubt the coaches would allow the sort of restrictions on them that would be needed. The way things are right now, the kids actually have some power and leverage and the coaches can't stand that. I find it hard to imagine a scheme implemented by the coaches that wouldn't screw the kids over and take power away from them but I'm a cynic.
If they had an early signing period I also would be in favor of letting the recruit void the deal if the HC leaves or is fired.
If they do it the only reason will be because they see a benefit to the programs. They don't care about the kids.
The benefits to a limited early signing period would be a slight leveling of talent distribution and the big publicity generated by an extra day near the top of the sports news attention.
If they allowed kids to void based on a coach leaving that would be tantamount to admitting that it is a legitimate concern and would then have to answer why they don't do it at other times. Not going to happen.
What if they had a National Signing Day for, say, home mortgages? "The Jones accepted our offer. Can't wait for February 3rd!!"
Separate names with a comma.