There has been a lot of discussion in the media regarding an additional signing day. Currently, there is only one and that always falls on the first Wednesday in February each year.
The SEC and ACC both have publicly laid out plans for what they would like to do, if they were allowed to add an earlier signing day. The ACC would like it in August. The SEC suggests it should be the week after Thanksgiving. There has always been a lot of talk of an additional signing period being in mid-December, which is the time where junior college standouts sign.
Honestly, it’s a mess. If it were to happen, things would have to change and the recruiting calendar would certainly need to be altered. Any way you slice it, it’s coming and coming sooner rather than later.
At Scout.com, I posed three questions regarding an additional signing period to our experienced national recruiting team. Here are their answers.
1) What's your initial reaction to a potential early signing period?
Brian Dohn, East Region
I think it would be a very good thing because it would take a lot of pressure off the kids, who commit and in some instances are recruited even harder than if they remained opened. But in order for it to happen, I think changes would have to take place in regards to spring contact with coaches, such as allowing coaches to call prospects, and head coaches should be allowed out to evaluate and meet prospects in the spring.
Brandon Huffman, West Region
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I think for those that want to sign early, I see the benefit. For others, there is so much movement the last two months leading to signing day, often brought on by coaches, but also brought on by recruits’ own feelings, that you may end up dealing with more guys wanting out of their signed national letter of intent’s from the early signing period.</P>
Scott Kennedy, Director of Recruiting
In what has been called the most one sided contract in sports, I hate and have always hated the idea of an early signing period. The Letter of Intent (LOI) locks the player to the school but not the school to the player. The school does not have to offer a player a scholarship even after he's signed the LOI, but the player must attend the school he signed the LOI with or forfeit eligibility. It's the single worst contract in sports.
Transfer rules are one sided. The coach is free to take another job, but the player has to lose a year of eligibility if circumstances change and he wants the change his mind. Even worse, if a player is cut from scholarship, he still has to sit out a year before being eligible to play.
In what other industry can you be fired for no cause and not be allowed to get another job? Being cut from a team is part of competitive sports, but usually you're allowed to go play for another team. not in the NCAA. In a multi-billion dollar industry, the only party beholden to a contract is the amateur. Coaches change jobs faster than you and we change our shirts.
While the archaic, punitive transfer rules are in place for football players, I'll continue to encourage them to not sign an LOI at all, let alone sign one early. They need a set time to make a decision before committing themselves to a coach and school, because that commitment only goes one way.
Jamie Newberg,Southeast Region
I would like to see it but I also want to see how it affects the entire process. For an early signing period to work the recruiting calendar would have to change. The NCAA would have to allow for official visits to happen prior to the fall of the prospect’s senior season. Not every recruit has the means to make visits or the visits they truly want to make because of financial constraints.
Honestly, the entire thing needs to be blown up and re-written from the ground up. The entire process is spiraling out of control. Randomly adding an additional signing period without major thought, insight and significant changes to the rules and recruiting calendar would make this chaotic and out of control process more chaotic and out of control.
Greg Powers, Midlands Region
This is something that has been discussed often each off-season and as much as it is brought up it is likely only a matter of time before it is instituted. I think that there are going to be pros and cons to any system that is implemented, but would be in favor of more rules to protect the student athletes best interests. However I do believe that the contact rules would need to change significantly as the college coaches would deserve the opportunity to get to know the players it may potentially sign.</P>
Allen Trieu, Midwest Region
I think it is something that definitely has to be discussed. My concern is that an early signing period is just added without any other changes though. I think, if you do it, you have to amend other rules because the way you recruit and the way recruits handle being recruited changes as a result.
Chad Simmons,Southeast Region
I think it is something that definitely has to be discussed. I am a fan of an early signing period, but I do have some hesitation still. I think it would be great for the kids. They are the most important piece of the puzzle here. They have a lot on their plate as a student-athlete and recruiting can be a little overwhelming for some. Many commit and want to end the process, but schools do not let up because nothing is official until the papers are signed. It works both ways though. With more kids committing early these days but still visiting other schools, it puts college coaches in limbo as well not knowing exactly where they stand with a commitment. There are definitely more positives than negatives for me, so I am in favor for it.
For the rest of this round table discussion, please click here and go to Scout.com.
