- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,285
- Reaction Score
- 9,284
So the NCAA is putting a proposal on the tale to introduce an early signing period for football (still needs to be approved). The proposal is a 72 hour period in December where HS recruits can sign their LOI - same window that JUCO's can sign. I am definitely in favor of it, and had wanted it for years. It got me thinking about the pro's and con's of this. There are a lot, here's only a couple off top of mind, but curious what everyone else thinks of it.
On the plus side, it eliminates scenarios where either party (university and student-athlete) can back out on their commitment so late in the game. We're living it with the RD situation, and I'm pretty sure we would have lived it even if Diaco was still here with the Cummins (sp?) kid in Texas who was a commit to UConn, opened it up late December after Diaco fired, and is now committed to U. Texas. It also allows the staff to distort their full attention in January to rounding out the class (and not having to continually recruit/stroke kids that were early commits - to keep the poachers at bay.
On the con side of it... what happens if the coach is fired after the Dec. signing date (as would have been the case with Diaco)? Is the signed LOI still valid (that applies to the kid and the incoming coach)? IMO it should not be a scenario where the kid can walk away if they want b/c the coach is different, but the school doesn't have the option. It should be a scenario where either (a) it's a signed conract between the student and the university... not the student and the coach, so it is still enforced; or (b) and 'b' is sticky... is it a case where if both the student and the incoming coach agree to waive the signed agreement the kid and the school can go their separate way?
There's a bunch more pro's and cons, those are just front of mind for me. Curious what others think on a macro level (not just as it relates to UConn)?
Net-net I think it is a great thing to have the early signing date, but will be interesting to see the safeguards that are put in place for certain unique and unlikely situation.
On the plus side, it eliminates scenarios where either party (university and student-athlete) can back out on their commitment so late in the game. We're living it with the RD situation, and I'm pretty sure we would have lived it even if Diaco was still here with the Cummins (sp?) kid in Texas who was a commit to UConn, opened it up late December after Diaco fired, and is now committed to U. Texas. It also allows the staff to distort their full attention in January to rounding out the class (and not having to continually recruit/stroke kids that were early commits - to keep the poachers at bay.
On the con side of it... what happens if the coach is fired after the Dec. signing date (as would have been the case with Diaco)? Is the signed LOI still valid (that applies to the kid and the incoming coach)? IMO it should not be a scenario where the kid can walk away if they want b/c the coach is different, but the school doesn't have the option. It should be a scenario where either (a) it's a signed conract between the student and the university... not the student and the coach, so it is still enforced; or (b) and 'b' is sticky... is it a case where if both the student and the incoming coach agree to waive the signed agreement the kid and the school can go their separate way?
There's a bunch more pro's and cons, those are just front of mind for me. Curious what others think on a macro level (not just as it relates to UConn)?
Net-net I think it is a great thing to have the early signing date, but will be interesting to see the safeguards that are put in place for certain unique and unlikely situation.