A random thought about how to retain commitments.....

[UK Cats Rock]

I've seen the debates on having an early signing period because not having one really benefits the "big boys."

The issue we are having is that when an 18-year old "commits," a lot of them don't understand the meaning of "commitment." It's a "hold my spot" type thing instead for them to "hope" a bigger school offers.

So, here's a random idea.... what if we had something similar to a LOI in way of a "commitment letter" that is signed.

If a kid "commits" verbally to a school, they sign a "letter of commitment" and if they change, wherever they end up going to, they have to "gray shirt." In other words, don't cause them to sit out an entire year, but make them have some type of penalty for holding college coaches hostages with their commitment.

I know college coaches have back up plans, but that's still not an easy thing to deal with.

It would be an issue where the kid can still go where he wants, still sign with that school on NSD, but have to pay some type of penalty for committing to a school and not honoring that commitment.

On the flipside, you could do something similar with the coaches.

I am sure there are tons of holes in this random idea and honestly, I've given it about 20 seconds of thought before typing it in. But that's why I'm putting it here: Why would that not work? Why would it work? What issues would there be with it? It would be a "compromise" of having no early signing period.

Just something to discuss as we pass the time to NSD.

 

[Beavis606]

That would definitely take care of decomittments. Because no one would ever commit in the first place.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Kids who make a final decision to attend to a school would sign early. The current day version of this is early enrollment.

The rest would wait.

Nothing would really change.

 

[catben]

What you have laid out is basically an "early" signing period. This idea would hurt schools like UK more so than the bigger schools also. I would counter that a verbal commitment should be disallowed from kids to a school. However, it all comes down to trust between the recruit and the coaching staff.

It baffles me how many of these recruits give a commitment and continue to listen to other schools pitch, especially when the other school is only stringing the kid along in case a higher profile recruit for the big school "de-commits". It's a vicious cycle that is actually no "commitment" at all.

Of course this scenario ends up hurting schools like UK the most. it's extremely frustrating. But I don't know what would end it other than an early signing period for everyone.

 

[southindycat]

Lock them under the basement stairs at Vince Marrow's place until NSD. Slip their LOI under the door early that morning, then take them to breakfast at IHOP after they sign. All is forgiven!

 

[dyersburgcatfan]

It is what it is and it's not likely to change. It's kinda like car dealers. I go in look at a new car. The salesman tries to sell me while I'm there. If I don't sign a contract, I might really be interested in the car so I say something like this: "I'll be back tomorrow. I want to think about it a little" or "I'll get back to you, I want to check my finance options first." (This is similar to a verbal commitment. It's often a polite way of saying, "I'm interested, but not necessarily sold, yet." Then the salesman says something like this: "Don't take too long. There's another lady whose been looking at that car and it may be gone when you get back." (This is called creating urgency. If I'm not really all that interested, it doesn't have any effect on me.) But even if I am interested, I leave and start looking at other dealerships. They have similar offers, but once they find out where I've been they tell me why their car is superior or their service department or their reputation.

Recruitment is like sales. There's a lot of competition out there and it's not going away. Until you actually get a contract signed, it's anybody's game. So we have to have a very good sales force and we have to make sure we have a decent product to offer the kids.

 

[TBCat]

I still believe an early signing period would benefit both the kids and the schools and should be implemented. Kids will be less apt to get offers pulled by the school when it perceives and a better player has come along. Also if most the bigger schools are filling up their scholarships by this point then there would be less of a meat market later in the period like there is now.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

While I appreciate the thought behind that, but by doing that you are making sure the stars of the class play 2 years of college ball and a sr is likely to leave after his 3rd year of eligibility. You don't start the eligibility clock until you enroll, but you start the NFL clock when you get out of HS. The reality is all these kids have dreams of playing in the NFL until they set foot on campus and start practice and suddenly find out they are no longer the baddest SOB on the field.

 

[Vonburns1]

It's very simple really. You pay a $10,000 signing bonus. Under the table, of course, and in untraceable bills.

 

[fuzz77]

Originally posted by TBCat:
I still believe an early signing period would benefit both the kids and the schools and should be implemented. Kids will be less apt to get offers pulled by the school when it perceives and a better player has come along. Also if most the bigger schools are filling up their scholarships by this point then there would be less of a meat market later in the period like there is now.

Meh, that's kind of like saying that if you get engaged in the Fall it has a better chance of working than if you get engaged in the Spring. All you would do is change the time frame that all of this occurs. Add the fact that you would have less evaluation time to see how a kid develops his Senior year. You take away coach's preparation time for the upcoming season.... and I'll always maintain that 90% of the kids that would actually sign during an early period are still going to do so regardless of when they are allowed to do so.
Who is to say that had they been allowed to do so that any of these kids who have flipped would have signed early had they had that opportunity?
Lastly, why would you want a kid on your team that doesn't want to be there?

 

[jauk11]

Organize a support group called the "Blue Scum" instead of the "Orange Pride".

It seems some of the lower class fans on here would endorse the move, they endorse jurich's tactics.

 

[UK Cats Rock]

Thanks guys. Like I said, I didn't give it much thought at all. Just thought some type of alternative to an early signing period could be an option.

I just hate the way the "big boys" slow play guys and then are able to snatch them up even though the "big boys" interest and efforts weren't serious until they missed out on who they actually wanted.

Thought it would be interesting to have a modified version of an LOI that wasn't as severe if it was broken.

 

[JasonS.]

Instead of the whole hat thing, UK tattoo for every recruit upon their verbal.

 

[irishcat1965]

What it boils down to is kids love and want the attention. Once they commit, they don't feel the love of the chase.

 

[vhcat70]

Originally posted by catben:
What you have laid out is basically an "early" signing period. This idea would hurt schools like UK more so than the bigger schools also.

I don't see this at all. An early commitment ends the chase and you have the guy OR when he doesn't sign, you know to move on. It makes the meaning of commitment true.

 

[vhcat70]

Originally posted by UK Cats Rock:

So, here's a random idea.... what if we had something similar to a LOI in way of a "commitment letter" that is signed.

Along this line, what if a school was allowed to make public a signed "commitment", but the player was still allowed to decommit? I think guys would be both a) more reluctant to commit - and the school would thus know where there truly stand - and b) more hesitant to decommit for fear of looking dishonest. I see nothing wrong with putting a free education up for scrutiny.

OR, what if a signed commitment bans the committer from signing a LOI with another school in the same conference?

 

[Rhavicc]

I've got it!
What if the kids had to sign some kind of letter.. A letter that would explain their intent. Some kind of letter of intent, per se, and when the kid signs the letter, they can not play NCAA athletics at any other school until released by the coaches!
Yeah, that's a good one.
Maybe they could do it year-round or something though.

 

[CladinBigOrange]

Originally posted by vhcat70:

Along this line, what if a school was allowed to make public a signed "commitment", but the player was still allowed to decommit? I think guys would be both a) more reluctant to commit - and the school would thus know where there truly stand - and b) more hesitant to decommit for fear of looking dishonest. I see nothing wrong with putting a free education up for scrutiny.

That effectively already exists. A prospect can sign a financial aid agreement with a school after which there are no restrictions on contact and the school can publicly discuss the player. It binds the school to the recruit, but does not bind the recruit to the school.

 

[BBBLazing]

Originally posted by irishcat1965:
What it boils down to is kids love and want the attention. Once they commit, they don't feel the love of the chase.

We just need to quit calling a verbal "commitment" a "commitment". It is not. All it does is evidence a kid's current intent to commit on national signing day. As a practical matter, it helps UK to have a kid commit and then switch to Alabama, because while he is "committed" others think we have a kid that picked us over Alabama, thereby generating momentum to our recruitment. It is not uncommon for a school to announce a verbal "commitment" knowing that the school is unlikely to ever sign the kid, solely to impress rankings and other recruits.

The fact of the matter is that no kid actually commits until he signs. Verbals are bs to impress fans and recruiting rankings. If people would just understand the process and take labels for what they are, everyone would be less likely to criticize UK's staff on the job they are doing, which is much better than their last several predecessors.

BTW, we have multiple kids that will likely sign tomorrow that "de'committed" from other schools.

 

[vhcat70]

Originally posted by CladinBigOrange:

Originally posted by vhcat70:

Along this line, what if a school was allowed to make public a signed "commitment", but the player was still allowed to decommit? I think guys would be both a) more reluctant to commit - and the school would thus know where there truly stand - and b) more hesitant to decommit for fear of looking dishonest. I see nothing wrong with putting a free education up for scrutiny.

That effectively already exists. A prospect can sign a financial aid agreement with a school after which there are no restrictions on contact and the school can publicly discuss the player. It binds the school to the recruit, but does not bind the recruit to the school.

OK. Does anyone know how many of our signees today and decommits signed an FAA? Is that data public? If not, it really doesn't help. If it's public, then perhaps that 's who we/recruiting services should restrict to defining as commited even if they still can change their minds. But if they haven't signed a FAA, then I think they should be called a soft verbal at best or not even listed. I.e., when a recruit tells someone they've committed to such & such school, the first question should be whether they signed an FAA.

 

[FtWorthCat]

An early signing period might protect players from being Petrinoed, by having a "school" like UofL pull their offer with two days to go.