Signing day reboot

[Deeringfish]

In the wake of Zack Allen's last minute change and in anticipation of the signing of the rest of the next class for all teams this week, I was wondering if we could have a constructive conversation about what could be different.

Generally speaking when a kid decommits from a program that is not NU, I feel like it is the last chance an 18 year old has to control his own destiny before entering a multimillion dollar organization that will expect a huge commitment from him. Yes, they offer him a free education and food and housing but they control many aspects of the education, food and housing and many aspects of lifestyle and public persona as well. So it's not against any rules and a verbal is only as good as the paper it is written on.

OTOH

The coaches and staffs of the multimillion dollar programs are working very hard and trying to be worthy of their professions, The organizations are under a ton of pressure to succeed and it is a big deal when you lose a top prospect at the last minute. I'm frankly surprised there is not more last minute poaching as a strategy by upper tier programs to keep the underdogs under. I think some times a kid commits to a program before the season as an insurance policy against injury and that is milking the system some IMO.

So, what are some suggestions that would be an improvement ?

One thought I had was to make a rolling signing day that is based on the current signing day. In my system a verbal commitment would have a prorated sign date. I would rate the date at one third out from the national day. So if a kid commits verbally three months out, the NCAA would require him to sign on Jan 4th instead of Feb 4th. If a kid commits verbally on Aug 4th he would have to sign or decommit by Dec 4th. A kid who makes a verbal a year out would have to sign Oct 4th.

My system would still preserve a kids ability to get cold feet or cool off after a rash decision but it would protect coaches who are perhaps building their class around a certain player. It would make poaching a little more complicated because the poachers would have to keep track of a lot of expiration dates (not that hard really). I could see using a one half out from the national date formula but I prefer to keep the flexibility in the hands of the student. I actually think this would enhance the excitement of signing as there would be multiple days to celebrate a student committing to a team verbally and joining the team officially.

Any comments or suggestions for other systems?

This post was edited on 2/1 6:01 AM by Deeringfish

This post was edited on 2/1 8:05 AM by Deeringfish

 

[NUCat320]

Nothing needs to change.

Decommits happen. A February signing day allows kids to make decisions based around actual season results and not anticipated season results (the NU Allen committed to hadn't just missed a second bowl and come out flat in its season finale).

I promise you, the talent level at age 21 and 22 and 23 is much more important that the star rating of an 18 year old. NU has been succeeding in bringing in 18 year olds (a last minute exception here) but not doing the job once they get to Evanston.

Quarterbacks perhaps the exception, but no recruiting class is built around one player. NU still has a fine recruiting class on paper, and it'll be a matter of what happens in the next few years that determines if they earned the rating.

You know, the rest of the world makes its college decision in, what, March or April? Why does the football schedule need to be so *early*?



(Note: the OP, pre-editing, had a comment about building a class around a player that has since been removed. My response includes a reference to that statement.)
This post was edited on 2/1 8:28 AM by NUCat320

 

[willycat]

320, how about just stop with the verbal nonsense.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

So now the decommit is due to two bad years and lack of pro development? Isn't it more likely he just wanted to stay closer to home? Of course our players have aspirations for the NFL, but clearly, right or wrong, our pitch revolves around life after football. Even if you make the league! I see the BC writer predicts Allen will play on Sunday. Of course, this is a ridiculous prediction for any 3 star at this stage of the game. Fact is, he looks like a fine player, but who knows how it will turn out.

I hope will get an explanation, but if we don't, so be it. More ammunition for posters to blame the staff for the decommits .

 

[NUCat320]

I'd be interested in your viewpoint, willy. What was nonsensical about what I wrote?

Clearly the NU staff didn't do its job with this player over the several months since they secured a commitment.

 

[Hungry Jack]

That is not at all clear.

It should not shock anyone that an 18 year old decided he'd rather play close to home at a school that is comparable to NU. How you can pin that on the staff with such certainty is far too simplistic.

 

[NUCat320]

I'm not shocked - I'm happy for any kid who decommits from anywhere - it means they think they've found a better fit.

However, HJ, it is clear to me that, while the NU staff may have performed the duties associated with securing the signature, they were ineffective at their jobs with regard to Allen. It's a binary situation, and they failed at getting the signature (and the fax, yuk yuk yuk, the ncaa mandates faxes, yuk yuk yuk).

 

[willycat]

Sorry 320, I wasn't saying that anything you wrote was nonsensical just that the whole verbal commitment thing is useless. Allen states that BC was in contact with him throughout the entire process and UCLA also offered, choosing to ignore his verbal to NU. Think when a kid commits he should be required to sign a LOI, within 48 hours or maybe a week, no more verbal stuff. He would have an opportunity to be released from the agreement if the HC leaves or the program is put on probation.

 

[NUCat320]

Did Fitz violate his own rule by continuing to honor the commitment even as Allen was talking to UCLA and BC?

If so, Fantastic! Just close the deal next time!

(I hate the policy. It makes no sense and doesn't recognize the realities of recruiting. The realities of recruting are that a) kids commit too early all the time, so that media members and other coaches their teammates and high school coaches will just stop asking already, and b) the verbal means nothing until the fax is in.)

 

[Deeringfish]

Originally posted by NUCat320:
Did Fitz violate his own rule by continuing to honor the commitment even as Allen was talking to UCLA and BC?

If so, Fantastic! Just close the deal next time!

(I hate the policy. It makes no sense and doesn't recognize the realities of recruiting. The realities of recruting are that a) kids commit too early all the time, so that media members and other coaches their teammates and high school coaches will just stop asking already, and b) the verbal means nothing until the fax is in.)

So in your perspective on the system, the staff lives as if none of the verbals are real until they sign on signing day. That would make sense except that it doesn't work that way and staffs do withdraw offers and spend their limited time working other players and positions, and 9 of ten kids do honor their verbals. In many circumstances 9 of 10 is a good chance; better in the stock market than on an airplane but pretty good in most none life or death issues.

 

[Gladeskat]

Originally posted by NUCat320:
I'm not shocked - I'm happy for any kid who decommits from anywhere - it means they think they've found a better fit.

However, HJ, it is clear to me that, while the NU staff may have performed the duties associated with securing the signature, they were ineffective at their jobs with regard to Allen. It's a binary situation, and they failed at getting the signature (and the fax, yuk yuk yuk, the ncaa mandates faxes, yuk yuk yuk).

Some kids will change their minds despite whatever efforts a coaching staff makes.

 

[NUCat320]

Originally posted by Deeringfish:

So in your perspective on the system, the staff lives as if none of the verbals are real until they sign on signing day. That would make sense except that it doesn't work that way and staffs do withdraw offers and spend their limited time working other players and positions, and 9 of ten kids do honor their verbals. In many circumstances 9 of 10 is a good chance; better in the stock market than on an airplane but pretty good in most none life or death issues.

I have never worked in a college football office, but my assumption is thats how it is. Sure, there's prioritization, and there are degrees of re-recruiting (I would assume that Alviti was a now-and-again communication, while, say, Ray Ray Davison was the maximum allowed until it became apparent that it wasn't going to happen / he violated the 'no visits' policy.)

if you don't treat these kids as on the open market, then there's a possibility they're listening and reconsidering. You've got to treat the verbal as nothing more than a good indicator.

 

[Deeringfish]

Originally posted by NUCat320:

Originally posted by Deeringfish:

So in your perspective on the system, the staff lives as if none of the verbals are real until they sign on signing day. That would make sense except that it doesn't work that way and staffs do withdraw offers and spend their limited time working other players and positions, and 9 of ten kids do honor their verbals. In many circumstances 9 of 10 is a good chance; better in the stock market than on an airplane but pretty good in most none life or death issues.

I have never worked in a college football office, but my assumption is thats how it is. Sure, there's prioritization, and there are degrees of re-recruiting (I would assume that Alviti was a now-and-again communication, while, say, Ray Ray Davison was the maximum allowed until it became apparent that it wasn't going to happen / he violated the 'no visits' policy.)

if you don't treat these kids as on the open market, then there's a possibility they're listening and reconsidering. You've got to treat the verbal as nothing more than a good indicator.

Maybe Harbaugh had it right then, don't let kids pull the final trigger, assume they are actually stringing you along and do all you can to string them along, keep the door open to as many recruits as you can as long as you can. I have to admit I like winning.

 

[NUCat320]

I don't feel like it's such an epidemic. NU's class of 20 included one late decommit, two early decommits/"mutually parted ways", and one that NU poached, right?

That feels like "just business" to me.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Originally posted by Deeringfish:

Originally posted by NUCat320:
Did Fitz violate his own rule by continuing to honor the commitment even as Allen was talking to UCLA and BC?

If so, Fantastic! Just close the deal next time!

(I hate the policy. It makes no sense and doesn't recognize the realities of recruiting. The realities of recruting are that a) kids commit too early all the time, so that media members and other coaches their teammates and high school coaches will just stop asking already, and b) the verbal means nothing until the fax is in.)

So in your perspective on the system, the staff lives as if none of the verbals are real until they sign on signing day. That would make sense except that it doesn't work that way and staffs do withdraw offers and spend their limited time working other players and positions, and 9 of ten kids do honor their verbals. In many circumstances 9 of 10 is a good chance; better in the stock market than on an airplane but pretty good in most none life or death issues.

Not really true. The staff spends plenty of time "re-recruiting" committed players from the time they commit through Signing Day, including in-home visits, phone calls, official visits, etc.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Originally posted by NUCat320:

Originally posted by Deeringfish:

So in your perspective on the system, the staff lives as if none of the verbals are real until they sign on signing day. That would make sense except that it doesn't work that way and staffs do withdraw offers and spend their limited time working other players and positions, and 9 of ten kids do honor their verbals. In many circumstances 9 of 10 is a good chance; better in the stock market than on an airplane but pretty good in most none life or death issues.

I have never worked in a college football office, but my assumption is thats how it is. Sure, there's prioritization, and there are degrees of re-recruiting (I would assume that Alviti was a now-and-again communication, while, say, Ray Ray Davison was the maximum allowed until it became apparent that it wasn't going to happen / he violated the 'no visits' policy.)

if you don't treat these kids as on the open market, then there's a possibility they're listening and reconsidering. You've got to treat the verbal as nothing more than a good indicator.

You would be wrong. Each and every committed player receives the maximum number of allowable phone calls and visits, which is usually phone calls once each week during the season and two in-home or high school visits after the season.

 

[Hungry Jack]

It's not like we are selling used cars here. There is no "closing the deal."

 

[julescat]

I would so much rather have a kid decide before signing day to switch than at some point in his first year decide to transfer. I like the sound of the kid who replaces Allen in this class. A big DB prospect will be a very early contributor on special teams and we'll see how he earns his way into the two deep.