I'm in an agreement with alot of college coaches that say there needs to be an early signing period for football. All other sports have early signing periods, and it would eliminate players making commitments then renegging. With an early signing period players like Kenny Bell and Janzen Jackson would not have changed their mind the last minute. They would have signed earlier in the process, or they wouldn't have committed so early keeping our hopes that they were coming. If we know they don't care about being a Tiger we could move on and go after others that would. Now I know an early signing period would not make the people that put on the BASH happy because it would lessen the event. But so be it.
I agree that an early signing period would be good for the sport, but not for the reason you give. I think even with an early signing period, Janzen would have still jerked us around. What it would do is help the kids that don't want to be hounded to be left alone because they are off the market, and help truly identify the ones that really haven't made their final decision. We wouldn't have to spend time continuing to recruit kids that are already committed, which would allow us to focus coaches time toward the ones we haven't locked up. Additionally, it would allow those that aren't committeed a feel for how strong a class is, because it wouldn't consist only of a list of verbals. You'd have a list of kids that are definitely going to be there.
OK, so when do we start the early signing period? Dec 1st? I bet that the premier schools out there will force their recruits to all sign on that first day and fill up their schollies that first day to keep them from signing anywhere else ("you better sign here now or we won't have a spot for you..."). Then the lesser schools will start doing that as well. In two years we would hold the Bash on Dec 1st. I don't think it would work.
the SEC is vehemently against an ealry signing period. i would like one. let the kids who know where they want to go to sign and be done with all the phone calls, texts, emails, and such.
I don't like it. The biggest problem that I think would stem from an early signing period is the increased emphasis on an athlete's performances OUTSIDE of his senior year. Their junior year becomes more important, and by extension, their sophomore year, not to mention camps. These kids are already being recruited at too young of an age, and the further we move up the process, the younger they get. Plus, most proposals I have read would place an early signing day in early December, when the top players from the top high schools are in the middle of playoffs and exams, in addition to the college coaches preparing for championship games and bowls. I like it where it is.
People will find a way to circumvent the system no matter the signing date(s). Has a clearinghouse for LOIs been discussed? For instance, instead of players faxing LOIs to the school, they are faxed to a 3rd party.
I've watched a lot of these February signings. Some recruit or two ALWAYS defects and some recruit or two ALWAYS signs unexpectedly. This won't likely change.
Can't have an early signing period because it doesn't give them enough time to have official visits due to their high school season. The "Saban Rule" has hurt the evaluation period and it gives the coaches less time to track grades and evaluate juniors. The season interferes with in home visits and other events on the recruiting calendar.
Coaches can no longer make off campus visits during the spring evaluation period. It protects lazy coaches and now they can't follow a student's academic progress as easily and it is tougher for them to get a feel for a prospects character among other things, because they can't visit high schools as much.
