Early Signing Period Possibly Coming Soon!!!

#4
#4
terrypedigo said:
A lot going on then, coaches already got it hard enough, why not make it July.:)
Click to expand...

Haha. Not bad Terry.

However, I think December IS a good time to do it. Kids have gotten their officials in, most of them are already committed, the season is done except for bowls....it makes sense.

Plus, I'm sure the staff would love to be able to know exactly who is firmly in the fold, so they can shift their at attention to those who aren't.
 
#9
#9
ntxVOL said:
Would be bad for teams trying to hire a new coach.
Click to expand...

Good point. Also, it seems like it would put a lot of pressure on the recruits at a time when they are in the playoffs, and preparing for finals. Likewise, the coaches are trying to finish out the season.

Teams trying to hire a new coach, or even ones that have just hired a new one, would simply be out of luck for that recruiting season. Colleges would be firing/hiring mid-season to get a jump on recruiting...

I could see an early signing time for projected early enrollees, but otherwise, I see more problems than solutions...except for fans' sake.
 
#11
#11
Be careful what you wish for. Once an athlete is signed, there are no more games for "we found another we would like to recruit over you"
I know no one likes this aspect of recruiting, but it happens.
 
#12
#12
I've always wanted an early signing period. It'll be interesting to see how it goes. I could see them potentially limiting early signees to only EEs and even making it a little earlier in the season.

I'm all for an early signing period of any kind though. It's needed.
 
#14
#14
I don't see it affecting too much honestly. The kids who like to take all of their visits and enjoy the process will wait IMO. This will just give kids like Jack Jones and Andrew Butcher the opportunity to sign earlier.
 
#15
#15
i2amavol said:
Good point. Also, it seems like it would put a lot of pressure on the recruits at a time when they are in the playoffs, and preparing for finals. Likewise, the coaches are trying to finish out the season.

Teams trying to hire a new coach, or even ones that have just hired a new one, would simply be out of luck for that recruiting season. Colleges would be firing/hiring mid-season to get a jump on recruiting...

I could see an early signing time for projected early enrollees, but otherwise, I see more problems than solutions...except for fans' sake.
Click to expand...

Theyre not forced to sign. Its more for people that are firmly commited like a jack jones/kalhil mckenzie
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
I dont think its a good idea, most kids commit to a coach not a school and with all the turnover kid may be stuck playing for a guy he doesnt want to play for, and coach may be stuck with a kid he doesnt want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#17
#17
I remember hearing back when Fulmer was coach that he was against it. He said it would be a big advantage to the TX's, UGA's and UF's of the world that have ton's of in state talent. He reasoned that those schools have enough in state players that want to play for them that they could just fill their class in the early period while TN has to fight to the wire to get players from all over the country. He thought that all the best players from those states would be locked up in the early period and TN wouldn't have the time needed to convince them to leave their home state.

But that said, Fulmer seemed to recruit differently that CBJ. Back then it seemed we wouldn't fill in the class until the very end. Now CBJ has the class nearly full before the season is over. So not sure if this applies any more. WHat do you think?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
UT has alot more in-state talent now that they need to get locked up early in comparison to the 90s when the recruiting base in Tennessee was awful. Plus CBJ and staff have their classes almost full in mid-December whereas Fulmer never had the class full until NSD. So I think it is a better situation now for UT to have an early signing period.
 
#19
#19
Neyland Law Vol said:
I remember hearing back when Fulmer was coach that he was against it. He said it would be a big advantage to the TX's, UGA's and UF's of the world that have ton's of in state talent. He reasoned that those schools have enough in state players that want to play for them that they could just fill their class in the early period while TN has to fight to the wire to get players from all over the country. He thought that all the best players from those states would be locked up in the early period and TN wouldn't have the time needed to convince them to leave their home state.

But that said, Fulmer seemed to recruit differently that CBJ. Back then it seemed we wouldn't fill in the class until the very end. Now CBJ has the class nearly full before the season is over. So not sure if this applies any more. WHat do you think?
Click to expand...
I think you've got it right. Recruiting in this era requires more of a year-round concerted effort and it needs coordinated "salesmanship" within the entire staff...or at least most of it. CBJ's got a leg-up in that aspect with only those such as Saban and Meyer and Richt really doing this similarly in the SEC. There's good, bad and ugliness that would come out of it. Probably Butch could adjust to whatever changes are made. Staff cohesiveness seems to make a huge difference considering the expanded scope into which college recruiting has expanded. Overall, I don't think it would hurt UT's football recruiting...and may well help. My mitigating inducement is looking at the the Vols' early commitments for '16 and even '17. BTW, NLV. I was recently back down in Charleston. The she-crab soup at 82 Queen is as great as ever.
 
#20
#20
velovol said:
I dont think its a good idea, most kids commit to a coach not a school and with all the turnover kid may be stuck playing for a guy he doesnt want to play for, and coach may be stuck with a kid he doesnt want.
Click to expand...

Same thing with kids already on the roster. Clear answer is don't commit unless you're 100% sure.
 
#22
#22
TNHopeful505 said:
Haha. Not bad Terry.

However, I think December IS a good time to do it. Kids have gotten their officials in, most of them are already committed, the season is done except for bowls....it makes sense.

Plus, I'm sure the staff would love to be able to know exactly who is firmly in the fold, so they can shift their at attention to those who aren't.
Click to expand...

I've heard it suggested that August is an optimal month. Idea is that early signers are kids who know where they want to go, don't really want to continue their recruitment into their senior season, so signing early in the summertime wraps it all up and gets it done so they enjoy their last year of highschool football.

Be interesting to see how it's structured.
 
#23
#23
QUOTE=velovol;11100195]I dont think its a good idea, most kids commit to a coach not a school and with all the turnover kid may be stuck playing for a guy he doesnt want to play for, and coach may be stuck with a kid he doesnt want.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's why they should have the proper rules in place to protect the prospect and coach. I a prospect signs early to a university, and something happens along the lines of coaching turnover, NCAA sanctions on the university, death in the family(want to stay close to home) or anything else just as severe. The prospect should be able to retract their LOI as long as it is for a good reason. Same with the coaches. If they are hired after the early signing period, a prospect get into trouble with the law and so on. If a early signing period happens, I'm hoping the NCAA isn't too incompetent to put the proper rules in place.
 
#24
#24
Marques Ford's situation is a perfect example of why I love the idea of an early signing period. If a school isn't willing to sign you early then you know where you stand and have plenty of time to look around. Hate it for him being dealt this two weeks before signing day.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top