Mar 10, 2014, 2:19 PM EST
The long discussed idea of having an early signing period for college football appears to be picking up traction. A recent report by ESPN says that a panel of conference commissioners will meet this summer as momentum for legislation picks up.
With Signing Day becoming one of the signature holidays in college football, a cottage industry has grown around the first Wednesday of February. As stakes grow, the resources allocated by universities chasing recruits around the country has pushed the pressure of the entire situation to a tipping point.
It’s also put an enormous amount of pressure on student-athletes, some of whom aren’t all that comfortable in the fishbowl that recruiting has become. While college basketball already has an early signing period in place, no such thing has happened in football. But Susan Peal, a high-ranking official inside the NCAA says that might be changing.
This from ESPN’s report:
“I think everyone wants an early signing period,” Peal said this week. “It’s just trying to nail down what’s the appropriate date for that.”
The letter of intent program is governed by the CCA, a 32-member panel of Division I conference commissioners. The group will meet in June to review an agenda that includes an early signing period.
The commissioners previously considered the issue, but Peal said it has been a few years.
“I think there’s more momentum now than ever just because of the changes that are happening with recruiting regulations,” said Peal, who works closely with the commissioners on topics related to national letters of intent. “The landscape is changing, so it’s time to look at it again.”
Kentucky head coach Mark Stoops weighed in on the issue, with ESPN reporting that Stoops said in January that college football’s most powerful conference wouldn’t be in favor of changing things. “I know the SEC coaches are not in favor of changing the recruiting calendar,” Stoops said, according to ESPN. “If things start moving up, it changes the way we’ve been doing things for a long time.”
The skeptic would point to over-signing, grayshirting and other mechanisms the SEC has traditionally used to manipulate the recruiting calendar, making it obvious that any changes would require their well oiled machines to go in for some tweaks. Just this offseason Tennessee coach Butch Jones found a new loophole to exploit, adding 31 members to his recruiting class.
Jones likely stated what all coaches feel when he told the Knoxville Quarterback club the following in December:
“If we can find a way to sign 35, we’ll sign 35,” he said.
How an early signing period would effect the Irish remains to be seen. On the surface, you’d expect Notre Dame to be in favor of it. For Brian Kelly’s program, a coaching staff that recruits nationally, finding certainty and taking student-athletes that are firmly committed out of play early would allow for a better use of resources.
With an early signing period, the Irish would’ve most certainly won some and lost some, but ultimately could’ve ended up spending less time and resources making sure that an entire class stays committed, even with schools making late runs at prospects.
But Stanford’s David Shaw is against the early signing period for reasons that might also impact Notre Dame. The Cardinal head coach deals with similar (and probably more stringent) academic challenges as he navigates his university’s admissions process, with recruits sometimes heading into January not knowing whether they’ve officially been admitted into Stanford or not.
Notre Dame landed Troy Niklas after he wasn’t accepted into Stanford. They lost out on recent cornerback target Terrence Alexander after he received admission. But Shaw thinks an accelerated recruiting calendar is a terrible idea (Thanks to Chris Vannini at CoachingSearch.com for the transcription):
“I might be alone in this, but I think it’s terrible,” Shaw said. “I think it’s terrible. The reason is, in my opinion, coaches don’t like when a kid commits and then switches. It’s still going to happen. If a kid wants to change after the early signing period, he’s going to appeal, and that appeal is going to go through, because the committees that decide on those appeals always give in toward the student-athlete. You’ve got a kid that might be 16 going on 17 that commits, then really has a chance to think about it, changes his mind, and we’re going to try to hold him to that.
“On top of that, to be honest, we have a lot of kids that don’t know if they’re going to get into school until after that early signing period. We’re going to punish the academic schools just because coaches don’t want a kid to switch their commitment. People can make whatever argument they want, it boils down to that. Coaches don’t want to keep recruiting an entire class. That’s what it boils down to. We’ve been doing it for a long time, and most of us have been able to do OK.
“We just don’t want those late commitments switches, which puts the young man back in a tough decision. He’s gotta make a fast decision, because we’re saying ‘early signing day,’ when it’s an early pressure point. Coaches pressure these kids into making decisions. We’re going to force kids to make decisions. Three weeks later, he might say, ‘I don’t want to do this.
“This is not something for student-athletes, which is something we’re supposed to be making their experiences better. We’re making it worse. All it’s going to be is a whole bunch of adult males pressuring young males into doing something they might regret three weeks down the road.”
Shaw’s comments are incredibly candid and also a perfect counterpoint to the common sense logic that makes an early signing period desirable. His comments should also ring true for Irish fans, especially after seeing Eddie Vanderdoes earn immediate eligibility after signing his letter of intent with Notre Dame.
While the issue isn’t as transparent as the failed attempt to institute a 10-second wait, there are valid points being made by both sides of the issue. As the debate continues, it’ll certainly be interesting to watch how it impacts Notre Dame.