Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by cmgoods, Oct 5, 2016.
100% in favor
Early signing period is pointless IMO.
Pointless? Anything but in my opinion. If a kid is sure where he wants to go in June before his senior year he can sign on the dotted line and not be hounded by recruiters trying to get him to flip. I imagine most coaches would be in favor as well so they don't have to spend as much time making sure that they hold on to commits until February and can focus on filling out the class instead.
All it does it accelerate the recruiting cycle.
While I am all for an early signing period, there should be consideration for recruits to have an out if the coach leaves before the final signing period.
Just doesn't seem like the one before the season makes sense, the one in December is fine though, not too much of a time difference between that and February.
Which is great for kids who have made up their mind. They can enjoy their senior year without constant hounding from coaches and recruiting sites.
It seems to work pretty well in basketball (just before their senior season starts).
I'm saying that recruiting will just happen and intensify earlier than it does now. It's not hard for recruits to ignore coaches calling them and texting them anyways.
Basketball isn't as much about assistant coaches since there are so few recruits though. With football almost all of the recruiting comes down to assistant coaches relationships who leave after the season all the time.
It's also insurance against a senior year injury.
I'll play the debbil's advocate here. This year, the February signing period may end up benefitting CU more than the proposed early signing period. If we continue to win, kids that may have already committed in June, as proposed, may reconsider the Buffs now.
Of course, conversely, after this season, getting juniors to sign in June would end up benefitting us if we **** the bed in '17.
I think it adds a lot to strategy in recruiting, which will be fun. Like in basketball how the spring period is a scramble for the remaining talent among the programs that had unexpected transfers or draft declarations.
I wonder what the recruiters think?
What isn't mentioned is if there is a limit to the number you can sign in the early periods. If you can only sign say, 10 in the early period, it makes it a lot harder for the blue bloods to slow play guys. Which may make more talent available earlier for the everyone else.
Well it is all about the kids isn't it.
Some like to drag it out, play the field, work the egos, bask in being the hottest chick in the bar, but your are gonna have to wait until "the time bell rings" (February)
Some like to work it but ain't into hanging round till the end and like to "hit and run" (December)
Some like to have a little dinner then get outa that place and into happyville.(June)
I like it.
I like one early signing period. Not sure two is needed.
This is how I would prefer to see it.
Allow each school to sign a maximum of 5 or 10 kids in the early signing.
See what happens when those 45 different kids that Urban Meyer or Saban are telling are their "Number one priority" don't get the early signing offer and in fact watch some other kid at the same position get signed ahead of them.
A lot of those kids would at least take a look elsewhere.
It depends, if the December period is limited to players who will enroll in January (mainly JCs), it's probably a good idea.
I'm not sure that's all it does but your point is well taken. With these proposed changes are they going to revise when visits can happen? How about standards for grades - mid-term junior year? It raises any number of questions.
Shifting gears, I think the additional assistant coach rule may have an impact on the perennial also-rans and lower division schools. The "haves" and/or well funded schools will take the best available.
Some kids want it over after the season. Let em have it
Separate names with a comma.