How to Fix the Recruiting Mess

[FtWorthCat]

Obviously an early signing period would help. But why is there a "signing day" at all. Shouldn't recruits be allowed to sign an LOI on the day they make a true commitment? This would be binding, with the commitment made void only if the school changes coaches, or the recruit gets into legal trouble or fails to qualify academically. Why is this not practical? Seems like common sense to me.
This post was edited on 2/5 10:54 AM by FtWorthCat

 

[@lleycat]

Pretty much agree...I consider it a contract between the school and player.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

There is a signing day because without some kind of limitations it would be mass choas. Its an NCAA rule, which is a voluntary organization. When you join you agree to follow its rules. A school doesn't have to be a member of the NCAA, they can be a member of the NAIA or choose not to be a member of any organization and basically doing away with an athletic program. NCAA was a good organization in the beginning, but since we started getting 75 football games a week on TV and 100's of basketball games a week it has gone from a rule enforcing organization to a profit making organization. Big programs that have large followings are not going to be banned from TV or bowls because it would mean lost revenue. SEC has 3 programs who do as they please and could care less about what the NCAA says, and a couple of more who take it to almost that level. Big10 only has 1 pushing like that now, but don't be surprised to see a couple more join it very soon, they don't like playing for 2nd and 3rd.

 

[FtWorthCat]

If the last two weeks haven't been chaos, I don't know what else you would call it. If the kid Petrino screwed over had a binding commitment from UofL, and the schools had binding commitments from the recruits who changed their mind in the last two weeks, wouldn't that be better than the situation we now have?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I think the biggest objection to signing on the day a player commits is the risk that players will be subjected to high pressure sales pitches during their visits to campus which might push them to make a decision they are not yet ready to make. I think a national signing day gives kids a chance to think about things after they get back home and the excitement of the visit wears off. I can understand this view point. The last thing you want is for kids to be pressured into signing on the spot when they make their visits and have a bunch of dissatisfied kids who felt they were pushed into making decision on the spot. I think there should be an early signing period for kids who are ready, but I think letting kids sign anytime they commit might do more harm than good.

This post was edited on 2/5 9:35 AM by cat_in_the_hat

 

[kb22stang]

They have a signing day to protect kids who fall in love on a visit. It's a smart thing to do, and there shouldn't be an early signing period either. Kids should take their time to decide, if that means that they change their mind then so be it. It sucks, but everything else in this system gives the advantage to the institution so it's hard for me to get too worked up over the little bit of freedom these kids have, even if it is forced.

 

[FtWorthCat]

Then keep them away from Army recruiters and car dealers as well then, if they can't handle a high pressure sales pitch. My proposal would protect the kids and the schools.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Originally posted by FtWorthCat:
Then keep them away from Army recruiters and car dealers as well then, if they can't handle a high pressure sales pitch. My proposal would protect the kids and the schools.

This isn't the Army or someone buying a car. The NCAA is a voluntary organization that sets its own rules. I think they want the kids to think about where they fit best and will be happy in the long run. I don't think they want kids being pressured to sign a letter of intent while they are on campus and subject to being manipulated into doing something they might later regret. These are 18 year old kids. It's not hard to see they could be manipulated by a coaching staff and current team members while on a visit. I think it is a good rule, although I think an early signing period would a be a good thing. Today kids can easily be strung along, just like they do schools, by coaches who are keeping them on the hook as a back up plan. If the kid could sign early, I think he would discover if the school was serous or not when it came actually signing that LOI.

 

[vhcat70]

Originally posted by FtWorthCat:

Obviously an early signing period would help. But why is there a "signing day" at all.

This post was edited on 2/5 10:54 AM by FtWorthCat

Pretty obvious. During the season, players need to focus on playing & school together, not recruiting, and college coaches on their main job: coaching.

 

[ram1955]

Though we lost some kids that could have helped us, I wouldn't want to see anything that would take away from the kid's freedom to change his mind. Coaches just need to figure out a back-up plan in anticipation of losing some kids. Likewise, they need to keep pursuing the kids they want even when they make a verbal .

I'd also like to see more freedom for kids to transfer and have immediate eligibility. Coaches make lots of promises during recruiting visits...play the role of Mr. Nice Guy. Then when the kids get to campus, things change. Maybe they don't get the playing time they were told they'd get. Maybe a coach recruited over him. Sometimes kids just make mistakes. They are kids.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by kb22stang:
They have a signing day to protect kids who fall in love on a visit. It's a smart thing to do, and there shouldn't be an early signing period either. Kids should take their time to decide, if that means that they change their mind then so be it. It sucks, but everything else in this system gives the advantage to the institution so it's hard for me to get too worked up over the little bit of freedom these kids have, even if it is forced.

The high pressure signing thing would be easy to fix. Just allow a grace period of say seven days for kids to show regrets and change their mind. Anytime in that seven days they could back out but after the seven days they would be signed.

IMO the recruiting game that most of these kids play is pure BS. The more of it we could eliminate the better.

I definitely am for an early signing period. The kids that are serious about signing could get it out of the way and the ones that crave attention and having a power trip could continue their silly game.

 

[Chuckinden]

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by kb22stang:
They have a signing day to protect kids who fall in love on a visit. It's a smart thing to do, and there shouldn't be an early signing period either. Kids should take their time to decide, if that means that they change their mind then so be it. It sucks, but everything else in this system gives the advantage to the institution so it's hard for me to get too worked up over the little bit of freedom these kids have, even if it is forced.

The high pressure signing thing would be easy to fix. Just allow a grace period of say seven days for kids to show regrets and change their mind. Anytime in that seven days they could back out but after the seven days they would be signed.

IMO the recruiting game that most of these kids play is pure BS. The more of it we could eliminate the better.

I definitely am for an early signing period. The kids that are serious about signing could get it out of the way and the ones that crave attention and having a power trip could continue their silly game.

IMO, that would make it worse. Can you imagine the pressure these guys would be under for those seven days.

I think you'll see some changes of some sort before long.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by Chuckinden:

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by kb22stang:
They have a signing day to protect kids who fall in love on a visit. It's a smart thing to do, and there shouldn't be an early signing period either. Kids should take their time to decide, if that means that they change their mind then so be it. It sucks, but everything else in this system gives the advantage to the institution so it's hard for me to get too worked up over the little bit of freedom these kids have, even if it is forced.

The high pressure signing thing would be easy to fix. Just allow a grace period of say seven days for kids to show regrets and change their mind. Anytime in that seven days they could back out but after the seven days they would be signed.

IMO the recruiting game that most of these kids play is pure BS. The more of it we could eliminate the better.

I definitely am for an early signing period. The kids that are serious about signing could get it out of the way and the ones that crave attention and having a power trip could continue their silly game.

IMO, that would make it worse. Can you imagine the pressure these guys would be under for those seven days.

I think you'll see some changes of some sort before long.

Again real easy to fix. Just make the signed recruit off limits to recruiters from any team for that seven days. A seven day hiatus from recruiting. Seven days for a recruit and his family to assess the situation without being pressured. Any team caught violating that 7 day dead period would lose all right to sign the recruit.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Chuckinden:

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by kb22stang:
They have a signing day to protect kids who fall in love on a visit. It's a smart thing to do, and there shouldn't be an early signing period either. Kids should take their time to decide, if that means that they change their mind then so be it. It sucks, but everything else in this system gives the advantage to the institution so it's hard for me to get too worked up over the little bit of freedom these kids have, even if it is forced.

The high pressure signing thing would be easy to fix. Just allow a grace period of say seven days for kids to show regrets and change their mind. Anytime in that seven days they could back out but after the seven days they would be signed.

IMO the recruiting game that most of these kids play is pure BS. The more of it we could eliminate the better.

I definitely am for an early signing period. The kids that are serious about signing could get it out of the way and the ones that crave attention and having a power trip could continue their silly game.

IMO, that would make it worse. Can you imagine the pressure these guys would be under for those seven days.

I think you'll see some changes of some sort before long.

Again real easy to fix. Just make the signed recruit off limits to recruiters from any team for that seven days. A seven day hiatus from recruiting. Seven days for a recruit and his family to assess the situation without being pressured. Any team caught violating that 7 day dead period would lose all right to sign the recruit.

How would you enforce that CC? A school has multiple prospects and the coach visits them and "accidently" bumps into the kid who is suppose to be off limits? Saban is notorious for those accidential meetings when there is suppose to be no contact. I don't see an easy fix, recruiting has gotten almost as big as the actual season. Kids become rock stars to fanbases, those kids aren't going to sign early and end that even with an early signing period. The blame is on us as much as it is with the kids and coaches for wanting to know every little detail of visits, what they are wearing, who to and how they respond on social media. Have them all sign up, make a draft and teams pick in order, that would end it.

 

[BBBLazing]

Although I have been a long time UK football fan and season ticket holder, I've never really followed recruiting as closely as I have this year. I'm getting old and bored I guess. I've followed big in state recruits in the past (e.g. Couch and Elam) but have never really got into recruiting in football, or basketball for that matter. Mainly because until they arrive on campus they don't play for UK. I've had kids recruited in various sports (not football or basketball) and learned that the concept of a verbal "commitment" was bs on both sides. At least in our case, the coaches acted as their offer was in stone, but when pushed had to acknowledge that if things changed they could/would pull their offer.

I'm really glad Stoops has bettered our recruiting. I'm fairly new to this board, so I don't know if this topic has been discussed in past years. It seems that it is a topic now just because UK is finally recruiting at a level commiserate with the SEC and things such as "de-commitments" and grayshirts are an issue for the first time here. It has been an issue at the top levels of recruiting for awhile. I hate UL and Petrino, but think some of the national media criticism over South Carolina's Mr. Football is a bit disingenuous considering big schools do it plenty. What is even worse is the kids that go to school on an athletic scholarship that are asked to leave after a year or two so the school can sign a more talented, younger player. It happens. Not talked about much, but it happens.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by Grumpyolddawg:

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by Chuckinden:

Originally posted by C1180:

Originally posted by kb22stang:
They have a signing day to protect kids who fall in love on a visit. It's a smart thing to do, and there shouldn't be an early signing period either. Kids should take their time to decide, if that means that they change their mind then so be it. It sucks, but everything else in this system gives the advantage to the institution so it's hard for me to get too worked up over the little bit of freedom these kids have, even if it is forced.

The high pressure signing thing would be easy to fix. Just allow a grace period of say seven days for kids to show regrets and change their mind. Anytime in that seven days they could back out but after the seven days they would be signed.

IMO the recruiting game that most of these kids play is pure BS. The more of it we could eliminate the better.

I definitely am for an early signing period. The kids that are serious about signing could get it out of the way and the ones that crave attention and having a power trip could continue their silly game.

IMO, that would make it worse. Can you imagine the pressure these guys would be under for those seven days.

I think you'll see some changes of some sort before long.

Again real easy to fix. Just make the signed recruit off limits to recruiters from any team for that seven days. A seven day hiatus from recruiting. Seven days for a recruit and his family to assess the situation without being pressured. Any team caught violating that 7 day dead period would lose all right to sign the recruit.

How would you enforce that CC? A school has multiple prospects and the coach visits them and "accidently" bumps into the kid who is suppose to be off limits? Saban is notorious for those accidential meetings when there is suppose to be no contact. I don't see an easy fix, recruiting has gotten almost as big as the actual season. Kids become rock stars to fanbases, those kids aren't going to sign early and end that even with an early signing period. The blame is on us as much as it is with the kids and coaches for wanting to know every little detail of visits, what they are wearing, who to and how they respond on social media. Have them all sign up, make a draft and teams pick in order, that would end it.

We all know that accidental bumps are not accidents. Treat them like what they are recruiting violations. Coaches would learn to avoid such contact if it was illegal and stay away from areas where there would be likely contact. If you go to areas where that you are likely going to bump into a kid you are in violation of the letter of the rule so you should be in violation. If you bump into a kid out of his ordinary area just walk away and avoid contact or speaking to the recruit. If you have a legitimate reason to be in the kids area to see another recruit you must ignore the off limits kid entirely or be in violation. The bump thing is BS and has needed changes for years. We all know that coaches initiate these bumps. Treat them like what they are recruiting violations.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Originally posted by FtWorthCat:
If the last two weeks haven't been chaos, I don't know what else you would call it. If the kid Petrino screwed over had a binding commitment from UofL, and the schools had binding commitments from the recruits who changed their mind in the last two weeks, wouldn't that be better than the situation we now have?

You think having twice the chaos would be better? BB recruiting is completely different. First not near as many kids involved, you don't have shoe companies influencing where kids play. Basketball players, the very best ones are not looking for a 3-5 year commitment, they are looking to get their 1 year done and on the the big stage. I won't say all, but I bet quite a few of those don't even attend class 2nd semester they are on campus. So BB is a completely different beast.

An early signing period in football would result in the borderline and lower level kids signing because they are thrilled to get an offer, while the kids who are doing all the decommitting, flipping, leading on and loving the attention will wait to the second signing day.

Then you have the decision the coaches have to make, are they going to try to sign 5 early and hope for the bigger fish on the 2nd signing day, or play it safe and sign 20-22 the first signing day and not have room for the more elite kids the 2nd signing day?

Some schools are going to cheat, they always have, their history shows that. They always close with a bang, they always have kids flipping to them at the last minute. They do that through multple coaching changes both at head coach, coordinators and position coaches. You look at who flew up the rankings on signing day, the ones who had multiple flips come their way, then you will find the programs who are giving extra incentives.

I think an early signing period is probably on the way, but I think it does nothing to lessen what happened this year in partcular but it is an attempt to do something to correct the issue. But I don't agree that it will stop the flipping, just make it tougher on coaching staffs.