List off the Pros of having an official signing day

I'm of the feeling that it's causing more problems than it's worth.

The big advantage for kids is that they will know who the coach is for at least their freshman year unless they get hired by the NFL or get into trouble. Meaning they won't think they are choosing a spread offense and end up in a Wing t.

For coaches it gives new staffs at least a short period of time to have a shot at the kids in their area or doesn't tie them down to kids they would normally take b/c it doesn't fit their system.

What else?

Pro = lots of drama and keeps you on the edge of your seat

Con = lots of drama and keeps you on the edge of your seat

Pros = it's great if you are Bama

Cons = it sucks for everyone else unless you buy players like Ole Miss

I may be wrong, but aren?t students allowed to sign after NSD? I think I remember several times where students were signing LOI weeks after NSD.

If that is the case then moving the start time up to the beginning of senior year and letting an athlete sign any time after that wouldn?t really change much.

Here is a solution: Let them sign an LOI and allow them to list a single coach as their recruiter. If that coach leaves before they are enrolled, then they will have the option to be released from their LOI.

Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irondawg

I'm of the feeling that it's causing more problems than it's worth.

The big advantage for kids is that they will know who the coach is for at least their freshman year unless they get hired by the NFL or get into trouble. Meaning they won't think they are choosing a spread offense and end up in a Wing t.

For coaches it gives new staffs at least a short period of time to have a shot at the kids in their area or doesn't tie them down to kids they would normally take b/c it doesn't fit their system.

What else?

---

Unless you are going to let infants sign, you are technically going to have a signing day. The earlier you move it up, the more things are going to change between signing and enrollment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnson85

Unless you are going to let infants sign, you are technically going to have a signing day. The earlier you move it up, the more things are going to change between signing and enrollment.

---

I get your point that it has to start "somewhere" but here's my point. I think if you had rule where at any point after the 1st day of their senior year of HS a kid could officially sign it would ease the craziness. Only because I think a ton of kids wouldn't sign and schools wouldn't want to fill their class their early without watching senior tape and risk of injury. The December date eases some of the issues with the Feburary date but has caused some other issues.

I just think there is a better way for all involved than trying to pin down two dates and then anytime after the Feb date. Because yes, some kids wait but its very few

Signing day needs to be moved back to April 1st. With a heavy marketing campaign that informs student athletes that April 1 is the first day to sign and not the day you have to sign.

Remove the pressure on the kids on the first day, by instituting a semi dead period. However allow student athletes to contact schools to set up unofficial visits. However no off campus contact by coaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maroonthirteen

Signing day needs to be moved back to April 1st. With a heavy marketing campaign that informs student athletes that march 1 is the first day to sign and not the day you have to sign.

Remove the pressure on the kids on the first day, by instituting a semi dead period. However allow student athletes to contact schools to set up unofficial visits. However no off campus contact by coaches.

---

Boy, that would make my birthday more interesting every year for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irondawg

I get your point that it has to start "somewhere" but here's my point. I think if you had rule where at any point after the 1st day of their senior year of HS a kid could officially sign it would ease the craziness. Only because I think a ton of kids wouldn't sign and schools wouldn't want to fill their class their early without watching senior tape and risk of injury. The December date eases some of the issues with the Feburary date but has caused some other issues.

I just think there is a better way for all involved than trying to pin down two dates and then anytime after the Feb date. Because yes, some kids wait but its very few

---

Nothing eases the craziness. Nothing. The sooner signing day, the sooner the craziness starts. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just naive. It's the beast that's been created.

The "have to sign" push comes from the schools so i don't see how you stop that. The reason everybody signed on Feb date was b/c nobody wasn't to lose their spot somewhere

I don't see the problem with it. It'll be good for us in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irondawg

I get your point that it has to start "somewhere" but here's my point. I think if you had rule where at any point after the 1st day of their senior year of HS a kid could officially sign it would ease the craziness. Only because I think a ton of kids wouldn't sign and schools wouldn't want to fill their class their early without watching senior tape and risk of injury. The December date eases some of the issues with the Feburary date but has caused some other issues.

I just think there is a better way for all involved than trying to pin down two dates and then anytime after the Feb date. Because yes, some kids wait but its very few

---

If you push back to the 1st day of their senior year, it would ease the craziness in some ways, but increase it in others. You'd have lots of schools wanting to push for a commitment earlier and making a bird in the hand type arguments. To the extent signing classes didn't largely fill up in September, you'd have recruits pressured every time they take a visit to sign on the dotted line. Game theory would all of the sudden be extremely important for those players who are borderline offers for the schools they want or who think they can play their way up the board their senior year. What about the senior who has a committable offer to Memphis, but is being kept warm by MSU. He now has to try to forecast Memphis's willingness to take another player at his position and that players willingness to commit, or else maybe he ends up at Memphis.

The two separate signing dates creates a cluster 17 as far as the coaching carousel goes, but I do think over time it will maximize the "match" between schools and players. Players will get an early, strong indication of whether they really have an offer from a school or are being kept warm. There's a few days for people to play musical chairs, and then they have a couple of months to work on contingency plans if things don't work out in the early signing period. Schools will also have an early indication of who is actually committed, and likewise will have a couple of months to work on contingency plans if they get surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnson85

If you push back to the 1st day of their senior year, it would ease the craziness in some ways, but increase it in others. You'd have lots of schools wanting to push for a commitment earlier and making a bird in the hand type arguments. To the extent signing classes didn't largely fill up in September, you'd have recruits pressured every time they take a visit to sign on the dotted line. Game theory would all of the sudden be extremely important for those players who are borderline offers for the schools they want or who think they can play their way up the board their senior year. What about the senior who has a committable offer to Memphis, but is being kept warm by MSU. He now has to try to forecast Memphis's willingness to take another player at his position and that players willingness to commit, or else maybe he ends up at Memphis.

The two separate signing dates creates a cluster 17 as far as the coaching carousel goes, but I do think over time it will maximize the "match" between schools and players. Players will get an early, strong indication of whether they really have an offer from a school or are being kept warm. There's a few days for people to play musical chairs, and then they have a couple of months to work on contingency plans if things don't work out in the early signing period. Schools will also have an early indication of who is actually committed, and likewise will have a couple of months to work on contingency plans if they get surprised.

---

This definitely lets them know if they are Bama plan C,D, or E.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdDawg

I may be wrong, but aren?t students allowed to sign after NSD? I think I remember several times where students were signing LOI weeks after NSD.

If that is the case then moving the start time up to the beginning of senior year and letting an athlete sign any time after that wouldn?t really change much.

---

Yes, there is no such thing as 'signing day' from the NCAA. What we know as Signing Day is really just the first day of the signing period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe

This definitely lets them know if they are Bama plan C,D, or E.

---

Yep. In the long run it is going to help schools like us. We get to lock in guys we know for sure are M&W. We know the guys we have to keep working on moving after the early date. Also we get the advantage of Alabama not being able to string guys along until our class is pretty much full. It should keep from us having to drop low rated players for blue chips.

I for one wish our entire class would sign on the early day and start working on 2019 class while everyone else is working on closing out theirs. If we could get extra time with 2019 guys, it would make an impact.