It's an idea that's been bandied about for the past several years. The vast majority of coaches seem to want it (over 70% voted in favor in a poll I found from a couple years ago). I've also seen reports that high school coaches would like it since they'd have more of their players focused on their high school season rather than all the stress of the recruiting process. Football is also the only major college sport that doesn't have one.
But what about the student athletes? It only makes sense if it benefits them.
On the positive side, they are able to get recruiting out of the way prior to their senior season (as most choose to do for basketball by signing during the early period). Further, it would allow for official visits to be taken and paid for by the schools during the spring/summer time frame. This would allow for a more informed decision in an era where schools are pressuring for early verbal commitments. It would certainly increase the opportunities for prospects who don't have the financial resources to make a bunch of unofficial visits.
On the negative side, it would mean that prospects are locked into a commitment before the season plays out. With the high rate of coach turnover, there's a decent chance that the coach a player signs with is fired or leaves for another opportunity during or after the college season. Under the current system, that still leaves a couple months to evaluate the new staff, take other visits, and decide whether to stick or go elsewhere. To be fair, in basketball most schools are pretty good about granting releases in that situation... but they don't have to. It also may limit the opportunities even more for players who develop late (or were stuck behind talent, switched sports or whatever) and don't show what they can do until their senior seasons. Using basketball as an example once again, it is not to the point where probably 90% of prospects sign during the early period.
Last, one idea that was proposed was for the early signing period to be during the season. That may make a difference with the late developing prospects, but it puts an unworkable burden on college staffs that need to focus on coaching and game planning rather than collecting signatures. I highly doubt that will be the model they'll use if this comes to pass.
It looks like an early signing period for football is inevitable, whether it happens in the next few years or takes longer.
What say you? Would you like it or should we stick with the current system with a single National Signing Day event?
But what about the student athletes? It only makes sense if it benefits them.
On the positive side, they are able to get recruiting out of the way prior to their senior season (as most choose to do for basketball by signing during the early period). Further, it would allow for official visits to be taken and paid for by the schools during the spring/summer time frame. This would allow for a more informed decision in an era where schools are pressuring for early verbal commitments. It would certainly increase the opportunities for prospects who don't have the financial resources to make a bunch of unofficial visits.
On the negative side, it would mean that prospects are locked into a commitment before the season plays out. With the high rate of coach turnover, there's a decent chance that the coach a player signs with is fired or leaves for another opportunity during or after the college season. Under the current system, that still leaves a couple months to evaluate the new staff, take other visits, and decide whether to stick or go elsewhere. To be fair, in basketball most schools are pretty good about granting releases in that situation... but they don't have to. It also may limit the opportunities even more for players who develop late (or were stuck behind talent, switched sports or whatever) and don't show what they can do until their senior seasons. Using basketball as an example once again, it is not to the point where probably 90% of prospects sign during the early period.
Last, one idea that was proposed was for the early signing period to be during the season. That may make a difference with the late developing prospects, but it puts an unworkable burden on college staffs that need to focus on coaching and game planning rather than collecting signatures. I highly doubt that will be the model they'll use if this comes to pass.
It looks like an early signing period for football is inevitable, whether it happens in the next few years or takes longer.
What say you? Would you like it or should we stick with the current system with a single National Signing Day event?
