Committing/LOI idea?

[onebadrubi]

Listening to Mike and Mike this morning they are discussing the BP pulling the scholarship from the SC rb so late.  I mentioned this the other day and have been trying to think of some downsides to this, yet can't really. 

I know this won't happen, but we aren't on a board of ideas for the NCAA.  But help me out with some thoughts on if you didn't have a signing day.  You mandate a kid before signing a LOI to a P5 school must take a minimum of 3 official visits and after his third he can sign at anytime during his senior season?  If this were in place you remove the KJ happenings,  you remove the signing day scramblings, you remove kids being spurned late by Saban and Petrino.  I believe now a school is limited to like 250 offers or something crazy like that.  Put some pressure on them to not offer as many and have a better selection and recruiting process. 

[Hoggish1]

It sounds like schools named Bama, Louisville and Alburn wouldn't like such a rule because it would put pressure on them to be up front on who they want from the get go.

They don't work that way.  They cast a net and then sort it out at the end...

[onebadrubi]

*Head Coach and Cordinators changes break the binding agreement between a school and signed LOI in this theory. 

[RAZORHOGG15]

Listen, it works both ways.  A kid can screw a school just as quick as a school can screw a kid.  making kids take visits is going to help anything.  I like the way CBB approaches this and I do feel bad for that kid, but let's be honest.  He is probably way better off not having to play for cbp and he will still get a ride somewhere

[onebadrubi]

Listen, it works both ways.  A kid can screw a school just as quick as a school can screw a kid.  making kids take visits is going to help anything.  I like the way CBB approaches this and I do feel bad for that kid, but let's be honest.  He is probably way better off not having to play for cbp and he will still get a ride somewhere

Doesn't this cure both sides though?  If the kid can sign in November after taking 3 trips, then once he signs he has to sit out a year under the current year if he were to transfer. 

[Tim Harris]

This goes both ways with players and coaches.

If they end up doing an early signing period that will take care of some of the issues.

[RAZORHOGG15]

The early signing period is the key, I'm not sure what forcing a kid to take 3 visits accomplishes

[onebadrubi]

The early signing period is the key, I'm not sure what forcing a kid to take 3 visits accomplishes

You keep a kid from being shocked off his feet on his first visit and signing a LOI out of flattery and a shock and awe tactic. 

Early Signing can still have these same exact problems.  While it does sound like it can eliminate it, Auburn could still ask a LB to gray shirt, Bama with philon, Louisville could still yank that RB's offer 48 hours before the late signing day.  It does not eliminate the actual problem. 

[LA Football fan]

The best way to handle this is to take away a schollie for the next year for a coach that pulls an offer during the last week of the recruiting period.  This applies to the coach and not the school in case they took a position at another school.  That way the hiring school knows in advance if they hire said coach, that schollie loss comes with him.

The only way the coach can get out of the penalty is if the recruit drops out of school, has a legal issue that would reflect poorly on the school if they accept the recruit, etc.  That would force the Saban's and Petrino's into honoring their word to these recruits and not leave a deserving athlete hanging at the last minute.  I don't care about recruits switching at the last minute because these coaches are being paid top dollar and it is up to them to make sure their recruits are solid going into the last week.

Just my thinking how this could be handled to protect players that commit early and get hung out at the last minute by greedy coaches thinking they have a better player available at the last minute.  If you want to take players at the last minute then the coach needs to plan for that contingency by having a spot open just in case.  If they don't use it, they still have the option to fill it at a later date.  A player that is hung out has to either takes whats available, which is usually not much for your power schools or lay out a year and try to get re-recruited.

[nationwish]

Maybe one thing to stress to recruits on a wide scale is to ask for a NLI as soon as possible. If the coach acts hesitant to give you one, you may know you are not a top priority.

[WriterWrong]

The thing is that there is no "good" way to handle recruiting.

Both sides, schools and players, can be very fickle and someone gets hosed.

How do you sanction a school for doing what they believe is best for their program and pulling a scholarship?

How do you punish a kid for doing what he believes is best for him and changing his commitment?

Is there a better way to do things? Sure. But, every possible scenario will have it's drawbacks. Recruiting is set up to be a flawed system from the start. Too much politics and $ involved.

[LA Football fan]

You sanction said school because they have had an entire year to target their recruits and make offers.  They also have the opportunity to hold open a spot for a late commitment if they so choose without losing it if they don't fill the spot.

The recruit has done their part by committing early and sticking with it, usually without going on any visits elsewhere.  If coaches have a problem with it, they can just not accept commitments except from the most talented on their target list and wait until the last couple of weeks to offer those that are borderline in talent.  If they feel that they might have to let someone go, they should at least notify them that they are on the "bubble" so said recruit can take some visits elsewhere as a backup plan before recruiting visits are over.

The coaches are paid top dollar and should have a pretty clear indication if a recruit is wavering on them before the last weekend.  I highly doubt coaches are truly blindsided on NSD.  They may think they are in the lead and the recruit changes their mind at the last minute, but the coaches already knew the recruit was considering someone else and the possibility was there for them to switch.

Most of the time this only pertains to your high level recruits.  A coach losing a 3 star or lower at the last minute really shouldn't make or break their recruiting class.

[EastexHawg]

I think both the coaches and the recruits should be forced to honor the binding contracts they signed when the kid committed.

Oh, wait.

This is a mountain out of a mole hill.  It happens numerous times every year at programs across the country.

Besides, if the player is definitely good enough to play at the Division 1 level another school will pick him up.  In fact, we have a scholarship available right now.  Do you think we are calling him?

[EastexHawg]

Having said all that, I am in favor of doing away with "National Signing Day" and letting players sign LOIs whenever they are ready...and making the agreements binding.

[Hog N Bama]

Maybe one thing to stress to recruits on a wide scale is to ask for a NLI as soon as possible. If the coach acts hesitant to give you one, you may know you are not a top priority.

Very good point