Early signing period could help (and hurt) Irish


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 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.

Go for two or not? Both sides of the highly-debated topic

during their game at Clemson Memorial Stadium on October 3, 2015 in Clemson, South Carolina.

Notre Dame’s two failed two-point conversion tries against Clemson have been the source of much debate in the aftermath of the Irish’s 24-22 loss to the Tigers. Brian Kelly’s decision to go for two with just over 14 minutes left in the game forced the Irish into another two-point conversion attempt with just seconds left in regulation, with DeShone Kizer falling short as he attempted to push the game into overtime.

Was Kelly’s decision to go for two the right one at the beginning of the fourth quarter? That depends.

Take away the result—a pass that flew through the fingers of a wide open Corey Robinson. Had the Irish kicked their extra point, Justin Yoon would’ve trotted onto the field with a chance to send the game into overtime. (Then again, had Robinson caught the pass, Notre Dame would’ve been kicking for the win in the final seconds…)

This is the second time a two-point conversion decision has opened Kelly up to second guessing in the past eight games. Last last season, Kelly’s decision to go for two in the fourth-quarter with an 11-point lead against Northwestern, came back to bite the Irish and helped the Wildcats stun Notre Dame in overtime.

That choice was likely fueled by struggles in the kicking game, heightened by Kyle Brindza’s blocked extra-point attempt in the first half, a kick returned by Northwestern that turned a 14-7 game into a 13-9 lead. With a fourth-quarter, 11-point lead, the Irish failed to convert their two-point attempt that would’ve stretched their lead to 13 points. After Northwestern converted their own two-point play, they made a game-tying field goal after Cam McDaniel fumbled the ball as the Irish were running out the clock. Had the Irish gone for (and converted) a PAT, the Wildcats would’ve needed to score a touchdown.

Moving back to Saturday night, Kelly’s decision needs to be put into context. After being held to just three points for the first 45 minutes of the game, C.J. Prosise broke a long catch and run for a touchdown in the opening minute of the fourth quarter. Clemson would be doing their best to kill the clock. Notre Dame’s first touchdown of the game brought the score within 12 points when Kelly decided to try and push the score within 10—likely remembering the very way Northwestern forced overtime.

After the game, Kelly said it was the right decision, citing his two-point conversion card and the time left in the game. On his Sunday afternoon teleconference, he said the same, giving a bit more rationale for his decision.

“We were down and we got the chance to put that game into a two-score with a field goal. I don’t chase the points until the fourth quarter, and our mathematical chart, which I have on the sideline with me and we have a senior adviser who concurred with me, and we said go for two. It says on our chart to go for two.

“We usually don’t use the chart until the fourth quarter because, again, we don’t chase the points. We went for two to make it a 10-point game. So we felt we had the wind with us so we would have to score a touchdown and a field goal because we felt like we probably only had three more possessions.

“The way they were running the clock, we’d probably get three possessions maximum and we’re going to have to score in two out of the three. So it was the smart decision to make, it was the right one to make. Obviously, you know, if we catch the two-point conversion, which was wide open, then we just kick the extra point and we’ve got a different outcome.”

That logic and rationale is why I had no problem with the decision when it happened in real time. But not everybody agrees.

Perhaps the strongest rebuke of the decision came from Irish Illustrated’s Tim Prister, who had this to say about the decision in his (somewhat appropriately-titled) weekly Point After column:

Hire another analyst or at least assign someone to the task of deciphering the Beautiful Mind-level math problem that seems to be vexing the Notre Dame brain-trust when a dweeb with half-inch thick glasses and a pocket protector full of pens could tell you that in the game of football, you can’t chase points before it is time… (moving ahead)

…The more astonishing thing is that no one in the ever-growing football organization that now adds analysts and advisors on a regular basis will offer the much-needed advice. Making such decisions in the heat of battle is not easy. What one thinks of in front of the TV or in a press box does not come as clearly when you’re the one pulling the trigger for millions to digest.

And yet with this ever-expanding entourage, Notre Dame still does not have anyone who can scream through the headphones to the head coach, “Coach, don’t go for two!”

If someone, anyone within the organization had the common sense and then the courage to do so, the Irish wouldn’t have lost every game in November of 2014 and would have had a chance to win in overtime against Clemson Saturday night.

My biggest gripe about the decision was the indecision that came along with the choice. Scoring on a big-play tends to stress your team as special teams players shuffle onto the field and the offense comes off. But Notre Dame’s use of a timeout was a painful one, and certainly should’ve been spared considering the replay review that gave Notre Dame’s coaching staff more time to make a decision.

For what it’s worth, Kelly’s decision was probably similar to the one many head coaches would make. And it stems from the original two-point conversion chart that Dick Vermeil developed back in the 1970s.

The original chart didn’t account for success rate or time left in the game. As Kelly mentioned before, Notre Dame uses one once it’s the fourth quarter.

It’s a debate that won’t end any time soon. And certainly one that will have hindsight on the side of the “kick the football” argument.



Navy, Notre Dame will display mutual respect with uniforms

Keenan Reynolds, Isaac Rochell

The storied and important history of Notre Dame and Navy’s long-running rivalry will be on display this weekend, with the undefeated Midshipmen coming to South Bend this weekend.

On NBCSN, a half-hour documentary presentation will take a closer look, with “Onward Notre Dame: Mutual Respect” talking about everything from Notre Dame’s 43-year winning streak, to Navy’s revival, triggered by their victory in 2007. The episode will also talk about the rivalries ties to World War II, and how the Navy helped keep Notre Dame alive during wartime.

You can catch it on tonight at 6:30 p.m. ET on NBCSN or online in the same viewing window.

On the field, perhaps an even more unique gesture of respect is planned. With Under Armour the apparel partner for both Notre Dame and Navy, both teams will take the field wearing the same cleats, gloves and baselayers. Each team’s coaching staff will also be outfitted in the same sideline gear.

More from Monday’s press release:

For the first time in college football, two opponents take the field with the exact same Under Armour baselayer, gloves and cleats to pay homage to the storied history and brotherhood between their two schools. The baselayer features both Universities’ alma maters on the sleeves and glove palms with the words “respect, honor, tradition” as a reminder of their connection to each other. Both sidelines and coaches also will wear the same sideline gear as a sign of mutual admiration.​

Navy and Notre Dame will meet for the 89th time on Saturday, a rivalry that dates back to 1927. After the Midshipmen won three of four games starting in 2007, Notre Dame hopes to extend their current winning streak to five games on Saturday.

Here’s an early look at some of the gear: