Early signing period in football approved

[Karma]

72 hours in December.

https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/861692449957175296

[ricepig]

https://twitter.com/Jason_Kilburn/status/861693108685295617


https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/commissioners-approve-early-signing-period/

[theFlyingHog]

I'll comment in this one as it was posted first.

Hopefully this will help Arkansas and also cut down on some of the signing day dramatics.

[thebignasty]

Might help us snatch some late bloomers who powerhouses/home state/etc get on late but I think the main effect will be that blue chippers will be pressured into signing early by the Ohio States and Alabamas of the world.

[factchecker]

https://twitter.com/bumperpool10/status/861724208052797440

[longpig]

Foolish to sign that early.  A whole lot of kids are going to regret it.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Foolish to sign that early.  A whole lot of kids are going to regret it.

What? 40-45 or so days early? Most already know where they want to go by that time. And besides, they don't have to sign then, they can wait until February. What I would favor though is a provision that if they sign early to play for a particular HC and for some reason he leaves or is fired after the 12/20 signing day, that the kids are released from their commit if they so choose.

[LRRandy]

I'm not up to speed on all that this entails. Is this for seniors only? Juniors won't be signing, is that correct? I see nothing wrong with seniors signing a few months early, but what would be the point? If in fact this allows juniors to sign I could sure see many mistakes being made. On both sides.

[RME]

What? 40-45 or so days early? Most already know where they want to go by that time. And besides, they don't have to sign then, they can wait until February. What I would favor though is a provision that if they sign early to play for a particular HC and for some reason he leaves or is fired after the 12/20 signing day, that the kids are released from their commit if they so choose.

I do get what you're saying, but recruits commit to a school, not a coach.

I get it. I know that recruits commit to play for a coach probably more than they commit to a college. But at the end of the day, someone commits to the University of Arkansas, not Bret Bielema.

I like it. Saw somewhere where top schools could tell kids to sign during that period, and if they don't then they'll move on. If schools who have their pick of the litter are playing that card, that can only help Arkansas in my opinion.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I do get what you're saying, but recruits commit to a school, not a coach.

I get it. I know that recruits commit to play for a coach probably more than they commit to a college. But at the end of the day, someone commits to the University of Arkansas, not Bret Bielema.

I like it. Saw somewhere where top schools could tell kids to sign during that period, and if they don't then they'll move on. If schools who have their pick of the litter are playing that card, that can only help Arkansas in my opinion.

Just think back about the kids who said that they committed because of a relationship they built with a coach, or a particular system that they run, or their overall philosophy with how they treat players (important to families..."you going to take of my son?").

Don't kid yourself, the school itself may range from having a lot to do with the commitment to having less to do with it than the staff. The kids and the family need the opportunity to exercise the option to bow out if there is a change in the coaching staff after signing early.

[RME]

Just think back about the kids who said that they committed because of a relationship they built with a coach, or a particular system that they run, or their overall philosophy with how they treat players (important to families..."you going to take of my son?").

Don't kid yourself, the school itself may range from having a lot to do with the commitment to having less to do with it than the staff. The kids and the family need the opportunity to exercise the option to bow out if there is a change in the coaching staff after signing early.

That's fair, I definitely understand your point, and definitely see the side you're coming from. I'm not saying I wouldn't amend the rule as a punishment for committing early, I just feel like giving signed recruits a release could open up some finicky stuff. JMO. If that's the case, why not allow it for recruits who sign if the coach is fired or moves along after NSD? Why allow it for the early period but not the normal period? Just sets a weird precedent.

I would hate to see 7-8 stout players sign with Arkansas during that period who "committed" to Bielema, then he is let go or moves on, and they are granted a release, and the new staff is left scrambling. Just don't like that.

[WJBilly]

What? 40-45 or so days early? Most already know where they want to go by that time. And besides, they don't have to sign then, they can wait until February. What I would favor though is a provision that if they sign early to play for a particular HC and for some reason he leaves or is fired after the 12/20 signing day, that the kids are released from their commit if they so choose.

the only thing I would change about that is if the coach is fired before the Feb. signing date. After that it would stay the same as it is now.

[bennyl08]

What? 40-45 or so days early? Most already know where they want to go by that time. And besides, they don't have to sign then, they can wait until February. What I would favor though is a provision that if they sign early to play for a particular HC and for some reason he leaves or is fired after the 12/20 signing day, that the kids are released from their commit if they so choose.

What about the kids who sign on Febuary Xth and the HC is fired on February X+1?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

That's fair, I definitely understand your point, and definitely see the side you're coming from. I'm not saying I wouldn't amend the rule as a punishment for committing early, I just feel like giving signed recruits a release could open up some finicky stuff. JMO. If that's the case, why not allow it for recruits who sign if the coach is fired or moves along after NSD? Why allow it for the early period but not the normal period? Just sets a weird precedent.

I would hate to see 7-8 stout players sign with Arkansas during that period who "committed" to Bielema, then he is let go or moves on, and they are granted a release, and the new staff is left scrambling. Just don't like that.

I understand your point, but I'm on the side of the parents and kids more than the school. I was even for the kids who signed in February with us prior to Petrino's firing in April, to have the option of transferring without penalty. You might be too, if it were your son. Kids and parents of those kids shouldn't be restricted to sticking to a deal that they made based on a particular HC and system. Heck, they would be penalized enough by going somewhere else where they might have to lay out for a season because scholarships are already taken for that year.

Now if the kid was a Sophomore at the time that Petrino got canned, all bets are off and if you transfer, you suffer the normal penalty of losing a year of eligibility. But a new kid? No. Just not right.

[RME]

I understand your point, but I'm on the side of the parents and kids more than the school. I was even for the kids who signed in February with us prior to Petrino's firing in April, to have the option of transferring without penalty. You might be too, if it were your son. Kids and parents of those kids shouldn't be restricted to sticking to a deal that they made based on a particular HC and system.

Now if the kid was a Sophomore at the time that Petrino got canned, all bets are off and if you transfer, you suffer the normal penalty of losing a year of eligibility. But a new kid? No. Just not right.

So with the recruit getting a release because if the coach leaves he's not getting what he signed up for, you're saying Petrino should've been able to renege on his Falcons contract scot-free when he realized it wasn't what he signed up for because he wasn't getting Vick, eh? 

Just kidding.

But no, I gotcha. Really do. It's an interesting rule and brings some interesting concepts, that's for sure. I like it for Arkansas honestly, but I guess we'll see. Jeremy Crabtree believes it'll only help the bluebloods but...should be interesting.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

So with the recruit getting a release because if the coach leaves he's not getting what he signed up for, you're saying Petrino should've been able to renege on his Falcons contract scot-free when he realized it wasn't what he signed up for because he wasn't getting Vick, eh? 

Just kidding.

But no, I gotcha. Really do. It's an interesting rule and brings some interesting concepts, that's for sure. I like it for Arkansas honestly, but I guess we'll see. Jeremy Crabtree believes it'll only help the bluebloods but...should be interesting.

There will be more leverage on the part of colleges to get recruits to sign earlier while scholarships are available. Obviously, some recruits will know that they are so highly valued that they can drag it out to the end (in February) and make more drama out of the process. These probably aren't the kids that our program pursues, no matter how highly ranked they may be. Seems out of character for our program. What this may produce for Arkansas is an almost complete signing class before Christmas with only a few undecided's remaining until February.

[bennyl08]

There will be more leverage on the part of colleges to get recruits to sign earlier while scholarships are available. Obviously, some recruits will know that they are so highly valued that they can drag it out to the end (in February) and make more drama out of the process. These probably aren't the kids that our program pursues, no matter how highly ranked they may be. Seems out of character for our program. What this may produce for Arkansas is an almost complete signing class before Christmas with only a few undecided's remaining until February.

That hasn't much been the case in the past. Normally, by Dec 20th, we will have 15-20 solid commits with another 5-10 in the air.

This could put us in a bide. Typically, we will have about 5 or so guys who will get an offer is some of the big fish don't sign. Their plan B's are more likely to fill up with the early signing period and they may not be able to wait until signing day to commit.

It could make it a lot harder to recruit against Bama as there is more pressure to secure your spot early. Somebody who isn't sure and eventually decides on us would be under a lot more pressure to sign with the big school early seeing as they are less likely to have a spot by waiting.

Sure, we've had a handful of players where this would have helped us where they were leaning towards us and the pressure to a secure a spot with us would have prevented them from flipping later. However, I believe we've had more recruits where this would hurt us than it would help us.

[PorkSoda]

a stupid and pointless rule IMO.

[ricepig]

That hasn't much been the case in the past. Normally, by Dec 20th, we will have 15-20 solid commits with another 5-10 in the air.

This could put us in a bide. Typically, we will have about 5 or so guys who will get an offer is some of the big fish don't sign. Their plan B's are more likely to fill up with the early signing period and they may not be able to wait until signing day to commit.

It could make it a lot harder to recruit against Bama as there is more pressure to secure your spot early. Somebody who isn't sure and eventually decides on us would be under a lot more pressure to sign with the big school early seeing as they are less likely to have a spot by waiting.

Sure, we've had a handful of players where this would have helped us where they were leaning towards us and the pressure to a secure a spot with us would have prevented them from flipping later. However, I believe we've had more recruits where this would hurt us than it would help us.

Well, that's the exact opposite of our staff's thinking on the early signing period, they are in favor of it.

[RME]

Well, that's the exact opposite of our staff's thinking on the early signing period, they are in favor of it.

I agree with them.

As I said earlier, Crabtree thinks the Alabamas of the world can give ultimatums to recruits to sign during that period, or they'll move along.

How does that help Arkansas?

1.) The pressure of the Alabamas will force the kid's hand, he commits to them, freeing up time and effort into other targets who we could potentially flip late.
2.) The kid doesn't commit, loses his spot to another recruit, and falls into our lap.

Of course, there are two sides to this. I'm choosing to be optimistic (what's that?) about it.

[PorkSoda]

why have 2 signing periods in the first place?  I don't see the benefit.  if they want to move it earlier then move it earlier.  there is no rule saying you have to sign on signing day, you can sign on or any time after signing day.  someone could sign in april if they want. 

I don't get it.  seems like its trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

previously if you don't fill your 25 slots by feburary you had until the fall to sift through whats left to fill your slots.

now if you don't fill your class by dec 20 then you have til feb to fil it and if you don't fill it by then you have til fall to fill it.

again, there is ZERO practical difference except the earliest date of which you are allowed to sign.

[HogHomer]

why have 2 signing periods in the first place?  I don't see the benefit.  if they want to move it earlier then move it earlier.  there is no rule saying you have to sign on signing day, you can sign on or any time after signing day.  someone could sign in april if they want. 

I don't get it.  seems like its trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

previously if you don't fill your 25 slots by feburary you had until the fall to sift through whats left to fill your slots.

now if you don't fill your class by dec 20 then you have til feb to fil it and if you don't fill it by then you have til fall to fill it.

again, there is ZERO practical difference except the earliest date of which you are allowed to sign.

It stops teams from stringing kids along with a loose commitment while they are really hoping for that 5 star player. While that kid is waiting to see if this upper echelon school is going to really accept his commitment all the schools who offered him are filling up. Then when signing day rolls around said school decides they do not need his commitment and put his scholly. Now this kid has limited options as almost everyone is full.

Now with this rule a kid will know almost 2 months in advance if a school doesn't honor his commitment when he tries to sign during the early period. If not then he has till Feb with more options than the old rule.

[PorkSoda]

It stops teams from stringing kids along with a loose commitment while they are really hoping for that 5 star player. While that kid is waiting to see if this upper echelon school is going to really accept his commitment all the schools who offered him are filling up. Then when signing day rolls around said school decides they do not need his commitment and put his scholly. Now this kid has limited options as almost everyone is full.

Now with this rule a kid will know almost 2 months in advance if a school doesn't honor his commitment when he tries to sign during the early period. If not then he has till Feb with more options than the old rule.

it doesn't stop anything and he can still sign with another school after february just like he can after December.

[ricepig]

why have 2 signing periods in the first place?  I don't see the benefit.  if they want to move it earlier then move it earlier.  there is no rule saying you have to sign on signing day, you can sign on or any time after signing day.  someone could sign in april if they want. 

I don't get it.  seems like its trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

previously if you don't fill your 25 slots by feburary you had until the fall to sift through whats left to fill your slots.

now if you don't fill your class by dec 20 then you have til feb to fil it and if you don't fill it by then you have til fall to fill it.

again, there is ZERO practical difference except the earliest date of which you are allowed to sign.

Yeah, it hasn't worked in basketball having two signing periods, oh wait.....

[Birminghog]

https://twitter.com/bumperpool10/status/861724208052797440

Gotta love Bumper's enthusiasm. Hope it's infectious!

[Bacons Rebellion]

All that really does is push signing day to December 20. All the players sign on the earliest day possible now. Why will it be any different?

[Hawghiggs]

 This will stop programs like Alabama from dragging their feet.  Now they can't wait until February  to tell a kid that's been committed for a year they don't want him. Now that kid can look around.

[ChicoHog]

It will also let kids who sign get away from the constant phone calls and text messages from other schools.  And coaches don't have to keep recruiting those kids for the next 6 weeks until the first Wednesday in February since they have already signed. Previously the coaches had to keep recruiting the verbal commitments to make sure they did not change their mind.  Now they can concentrate on all the unsigned kids those last 6 weeks.  I'm guessing 50-75% of the kids will sign early now. 

[thebignasty]

This will stop programs like Alabama from dragging their feet.  Now they can't wait until February  to tell a kid that's been committed for a year they don't want him. Now that kid can look around.

Schools will still be able to try those tactics the the real math ought to be more apparent.

[jgphillips3]

This is very good for us.  We get strung along by a few every year.  This way, we can wrap up those who are solid and focus all efforts on the remaining needs without chasing as many kids that will wind up signing elsewhere.

[HogHomer]

it doesn't stop anything and he can still sign with another school after february just like he can after December.

Are you trying to be dense or is it natural for you? This stops schools from dumping kids in Feb ,now read this because it's important, when MOST schools are FULL and don't have any SCHOLARSHIPS left. Yes kid can sign after Feb that's not the point. The point is it limits big time schools from dragging these kids along until signing day when they aren't even really sure they will take him on signing day.

[Hogtimes]

Just think back about the kids who said that they committed because of a relationship they built with a coach, or a particular system that they run, or their overall philosophy with how they treat players (important to families..."you going to take of my son?").

Don't kid yourself, the school itself may range from having a lot to do with the commitment to having less to do with it than the staff. The kids and the family need the opportunity to exercise the option to bow out if there is a change in the coaching staff after signing early.

I guess I do not understand. Using that logic shouldn't players that sign 6 weeks later in Feb be allowed the same choice.  in other words what has signing in December got to do with it.

[Deep Shoat]

Two ways not mentioned yet that this helps Arkansas (maybe sort of mentioned, unsure).

1. More of our commits signing early means less poaching by the big boys in right at the end, as things change in their classes and/or our early id's of late bloomers pan out.

2. Less time wasted on kids who are stringing us along.  More time to focus on filling the last few slots w/o having to keep recruiting kids who are committed.

[PorkSoda]

Are you trying to be dense or is it natural for you? This stops schools from dumping kids in Feb ,now read this because it's important, when MOST schools are FULL and don't have any SCHOLARSHIPS left. Yes kid can sign after Feb that's not the point. The point is it limits big time schools from dragging these kids along until signing day when they aren't even really sure they will take him on signing day.

so they drag them along until december instead, and for all you know most schools may be full by december too.

[PorkSoda]

Yeah, it hasn't worked in basketball having two signing periods, oh wait.....

I still don't really get the point.  but that doesnt really matter. CBB apparently likes it, so that's good enough.

[hogmolar]

Will signing on the 20th have any effect on the amount of participation a kid can do if he early enrolls for the spring semester?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I guess I do not understand. Using that logic shouldn't players that sign 6 weeks later in Feb be allowed the same choice.  in other words what has signing in December got to do with it.

Because schools typically don't wait to change HC's until signing day in February. If a change is to be made it is usually done before then, which gives a kid and a family an opportunity to make a switch. It may limit their opportunities at that point but usually if a coach is in danger of being released, most times everyone suspects as much well in advance of February. One caveat as I think I pointed out above, if a HC is canned after February for any reason, the kids who signed in February (or before) should have the opportunity to change schools if they choose to, without penalty, even if they are early enrollees and spend the spring on the original teams campus as an enrolled student.

[Hogtimes]

Because schools typically don't wait to change HC's until signing day in February. If a change is to be made it is usually done before then, which gives a kid and a family an opportunity to make a switch. It may limit their opportunities at that point but usually if a coach is in danger of being released, most times everyone suspects as much well in advance of February. One caveat as I think I pointed out above, if a HC is canned after February for any reason, the kids who signed in February (or before) should have the opportunity to change schools if they choose to, without penalty, even if they are early enrollees and spend the spring on the original teams campus as an enrolled student.

OK, so do we agree the date does not matter.  If the coach is replaced players should have options, regardless the signing date
.
Also,  you say coaches in trouble are known well in advance of February.  Isn't that  also known before Dec 20?

Not trying to be argumentative, just having trouble understanding your perspective.

[DeltaBoy]

Good !

[Boss Hog in the Arkansas]

This should cut down on the schools like Alabama gray shirting kids at the last minute.

[woodrow hog call]

This should cut down on the schools like Alabama gray shirting kids at the last minute.

Yeah its really not complicated at all to me, I don't know why some are struggling to see the need for it.

Little Johnny gets an offer from Saban after going to a camp, all his family and half the school buys everything they can find with an elephant on it. 
Johnny is ready to sign his LOI, the whole town is excited, but Nick says uh well there has been some developments and I don't have a full ride for you right now.

Johnny says, well it's only December so I think I will explore my options because I had some other pretty good offers.