Paid early visits have been past starting in April. No early signing period yet as per 590
Early visit days approved
- Thread starter Red I 73
- Start date
2017 NCAA meeting schedule – Wednesday through Saturday:
New for 2017! The Association-wide Convention schedule has been optimized based on member input. Key session dates include:
Wednesday, Jan. 18
New for 2017! The Association-wide Convention schedule has been optimized based on member input. Key session dates include:
Wednesday, Jan. 18
- Convention workshops starting at 10 a.m.
- Honors Celebration at 6 p.m.
- Menu sessions throughout the day.
- Opening Business Session at 4:30 p.m.
- Delegates Reception at 6 p.m.
- Association Luncheon (formerly Keynote Luncheon) at 11:30 a.m.
- Friday, Jan. 20, for Division I attendees.
- Saturday, Jan. 21, for Divisions II and III attendees.
NCAA Website:
The Council also modified a proposal that would change football recruiting rules, including creating flexibility to allow for earlier signing periods. The modifications were recommended by the Division I Football Oversight Committee.
The Council maintained its support for a mid-December signing date that would last 72 hours and would coincide with the time junior college players can sign a National Letter of Intent. But members decided to withdraw a request for a separate 72-hour NLI signing period for football that would have started on the last Wednesday in June. The Collegiate Commissioners Association has authority over NLI signing periods.
The Council also agreed to another change to the proposal that would expand opportunities for football prospects to take official visits during their junior year of high school by permitting those expense-paid visits to occur from April 1 through the Sunday before the last Wednesday in June. The original proposal would have permitted those visits to occur from June 1 through the Saturday before the last Wednesday in June and from July 25 through July 31 after a football prospect’s junior year in high school.
In the first proposal, official visits could occur in conjunction with camps and clinics. The Council decided to eliminate that section of the proposal.
Official visit changes would be effective Aug. 1.
The Council will vote on the proposal in April.
The Council also modified a proposal that would change football recruiting rules, including creating flexibility to allow for earlier signing periods. The modifications were recommended by the Division I Football Oversight Committee.
The Council maintained its support for a mid-December signing date that would last 72 hours and would coincide with the time junior college players can sign a National Letter of Intent. But members decided to withdraw a request for a separate 72-hour NLI signing period for football that would have started on the last Wednesday in June. The Collegiate Commissioners Association has authority over NLI signing periods.
The Council also agreed to another change to the proposal that would expand opportunities for football prospects to take official visits during their junior year of high school by permitting those expense-paid visits to occur from April 1 through the Sunday before the last Wednesday in June. The original proposal would have permitted those visits to occur from June 1 through the Saturday before the last Wednesday in June and from July 25 through July 31 after a football prospect’s junior year in high school.
In the first proposal, official visits could occur in conjunction with camps and clinics. The Council decided to eliminate that section of the proposal.
Official visit changes would be effective Aug. 1.
The Council will vote on the proposal in April.
Early signing in December not in June. On the surface imo looks like a flipping indicator and antipoaching protection, along with a coach firing anti decommit protection.
No early signing in June imo looks like schools don't want to risk contractual agreements with potentially injured players.
Thoughts?
Makes me think that schools might wait until a coach gets early signees in December before firing him in order to keep some commits.
Not all coaches are fired for bad recruiting and losing records, so I could see it happening.
Also, what if a coach gets players to sign early... then takes a job elsewhere?
Now those kids are stuck with a new coach that could have a different philosophy that doesn't fit that player's skillset.
Interesting quote from Billy Devaney:
Lesson No. 2: The NCAA rulebook: “I thought the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement was really detailed and cumbersome. That pales in comparison to these NCAA rules,” Devaney said. “It blows my mind, what you can and can’t do.”
Case in point: A parent recently sent him a nice note. He wanted to respond to the prospect and his parents, but first, he went to McShane: Can I do this?
Lesson No. 2: The NCAA rulebook: “I thought the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement was really detailed and cumbersome. That pales in comparison to these NCAA rules,” Devaney said. “It blows my mind, what you can and can’t do.”
Case in point: A parent recently sent him a nice note. He wanted to respond to the prospect and his parents, but first, he went to McShane: Can I do this?
I mostly do not agree with you. First, 9 out of 10 times there is plenty of smoke if a coach is going to be fired that if the practice of getting kids to sign and then firing a coach became a thing kids would start to smarten up and not sign. In addition, the recruitment of a coach is more important than the recruitment of a player and maybe even more competitive. If any program delayed the decision to start their coaching search (and back channel stuff gets out thus kids would be aware of the pending change) they could lose out on top candidates and set their program back 5-10 years.
However, it does protect the school if a coach (head or position) leaves by his own choice. This, to me, is actually a big deal because it is quite common especially among assistants as the better ones (and in theory the more desirable to play for as a recruit) often have to go other places to move up the ladder. What I would like to see is a clause that allows the recruit to rescind his commitment if he signs in December and a coach (HC or kid's position coach) leaves. In fairness to the institution maybe you give the program a 48 hour exclusive window to re-recruit the player (before other suitors can come) when the dead period ends in January (under the assumption it gives the institution ample time to find a replacement for the coach).
One part I do agree with is that the December signing period gives a program an opportunity to truly evaluate where they stand in recruiting and adjust where needed. I really don't think this helps the kid all that much because if a kid is truly 100% it doesn't matter when he signs as it is still their choice if they decide to listen to the overtures of other schools (there is no rule or law that makes them talk to coaches on the phone, open letters/email/texts/etc., go on visits etc.).
On your second major issue I don't agree either. The 25 a year limit was supposed to make schools more accountable in how they doled out schollies. As far as I can tell it has done no such thing. If a program no longer wants a kid they will find a way to process him even after he signs..."sorry, we found something on your transcript we didn't like"..."oops, we are over the 85 man limit...how does a grayshirt sound...and in the mean time go to a prep school and we'll ghost you so that YOU make the choice to go elsewhere"..."oh, sorry about the injury...we can put you on an academic schollie then...oh wait, you still want to play football and have notes from 10 different doctors saying you can still play...we don't care...if you want to play you need to go elsewhere..."
As with the 25 recruit programs would still find a way to work the system and loopholes and end up with a full roster of kids they want and be able to process the ones they don't. However, an early signing period in a recruits junior year could be quite damaging to a kid. We are talking about 16/17 year olds feeling pressure to make a life defining decision a year and a half before they will be on campus. Yes it might make us fans and the coaches sleep easier at night but there is no benefit to kid...only detriment of possibly making an uniformed and immature (premature could fit here as well) decision before they really know what they want or is even an option for them.
Kind of neither here nor there, I'd have to go back and look, but it seems like Tom Herman had a buyout clause that if he were to leave before some day in February, he would have to pay Houston $2.5 million. I don't know how prevalent these buyout clauses are, but I could see an impact on head coach hires.
I mostly look at voluntary or involuntary separation the same way. In either case, I don't think a recruit should have an escape clause. They are signing with a school, not a particular coach. That's the way I think, and I don't ask anybody to agree. And if a recruit is given an escape clause, should all players on the team be given that same exact escape clause? In my view, a signed player is a signed player, whether he signed it yesterday or 3 years ago they're all part of the program.
If a young player is making a mistake, they would be making the decision on their own free will. They could make the same exact mistake in February as they could make in June. If a recruit is unsure in June, he doesn't sign in June. If a recruit is sure in June and coaches won't let him sign, then the recruit knows exactly where he stands with the program. Other then rumor I don't know how programs process the players they don't want.
As far as 25/85 rules, that's another subject.
We will have to agree to disagree on early signing.
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying and in a perfect world kids would be signing "with the school." With that said, that is not what I think (well, know) is happening. Kid's are buying into what a program currently offers. They are buying into a culture, relationships, a system, promises, etc. Heck, they might even be buying into an academic/football balance which also can change when a regime changes. Look, if you were being recruited by the top 5 companies in whatever it is you do, picked one (maybe even left another good job and moved half way across the country) and you show up to find out the CEO has been fired, everyone you interviewed with is gone, they changed from making widgets to sprockets and they changed your job description would you say "oh well, I chose it for the logo on the door and not the people, culture and vision?"
You are an adult and maybe you would. But let's remember we are dealing with kids...kids with options, who choose a school not because they hate the other options but because they like one slightly better than the rest. Sure it's great when you land kids who always wanted to play for your school and would come no matter who is the coach but for the significant majority of the kids that is not the case. And right now the system is skewed towards protecting the programs and not the kids. That actually sounds backwards to me and trumps any feelings I have about kids keeping their word, etc.
And as far as allowing current players to leave if there is a coaching change, theoretically I don't think it is a bad idea. When a coaching change happens there is usually a good amount of attrition anyway. Why not speed up the process, let kids get on with their futures (instead of the many who try to stick it out for 6-12 months because of the penalties) and let the new regime bring in a massive recruiting class that is bought in. The reason I said theoretically is in practice I think it could open up a whole new can of worms where as soon as a coach is fired there would be a back-channel recruiting frenzy of a school's top players...and as we've seen the NCAA is powerless to stop stuff like that. Speaking of which, when the PSU sanctions happened the NCAA allowed other schools to recruit their current players and way fewer left than many anticipated. Once the kids have been on campus most are there for the school (it's their school now and not just a tough decision they made when they put a hat on the table or made a video) and the ones that don't feel that way...well it might be best for both parties if they moved on.
One final thing...a coach having a buyout is pretty common...I'm not aware of a single instance where that money actually came out of the coach's pocket even if the lawyers made it seem that way. The boosters and/or program pay for it. Thus it has no effect on the timing of a coach leaving...well for schools like ours that is...Akron or Toledo maybe can't afford it but then again they aren't going after coaches with big buyout clauses.
Do you think that when your wife/girlfriend tells you she doesn't want to talk about it that she really means that? And yes, I know...trying to have a rational conversation at that point is fruitless...but I don't think nebcounrty wants me to take him to dinner and apologize for having an opinion...I figured he was a guy who could take lively debate
Just sharing my opinion. He said we'll have to agree to disagree. Then you followed that up with a 5 page diatribe that went largely ignored. But it's your time, spend it how you want.
Lol...you do know that not responding immediately doesn't mean ignored...crap...I was the second to respond to nebcountry's post...over 24 hours after he made it...if you want to spend your time trying to be a bully (you are not trolling...trolling is an art and you don't have the skill) then spend it how you want...
I was talking about me ignoring it. I lost interest after you wrote I agree with the spirit...... then I looked down at 5 additional paragraphs and thought. Meh. Looks like a repeat of the previous 5 paragraph essay 2 posts up.
What was that you were saying about having the skill to do something? Comedy is not your thing.
I like most discussions, in this particular case we're discussing some hypotheticals and some real life circumstances. So working backwards.
Coaching buyouts - A contract can only be between the entities (or agents acting in behalf) signing the contract. You can not have a valid contract that says something a long the lines of "if this happens, my neighbor will have to pay for it". Unless your neighbor is signing the contract, the contract won't stand up in a court. So, unless one of the lawyers chimes in on this subject, I have to believe the following plays out. Herman cuts the check to Houston. Texas pays Herman the $2.5 million for the buyout. If Herman is smart, he demands $2.5 million + the amount he'll have to pay in taxes. THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME IN REAL LIFE (not $2.5 million, it was significantly less
). So, I'll ballpark a number of $4 million. I just don't see too many schools capable of ponying up $2.5 million (or $4 million) in year 0 simply to buyout a contract. I did look up PJ Flecks buyout clause, his was in $200K yearly declining increments. So, I don't know for certain Minny's cost for Fleck, but it's significantly less than Herman's, and would be "doable" by a lot of schools I think.Players choice to leave - NCAA rules based on member agreement that someone leaving has to sit out a year. A player can choose to leave whenever they want, the cost is sitting out a year. Year 0 player versus year 1/2/3/4/5 player, they're all the same to me. And if the NCAA members want to change their rules, it doesn't really matter to me. We had a player leave fairly recently in year 0, Derrion Grim, his cost, sit out a year.
Would I bail out - it's a personal choice on a case by case basis. What would be the cost to me, what would be the benefit to me. Like it or not, that is the world we live in. If a kid graduating high school enlists with the military (signs up), I just don't see the military tearing up contracts if the kid changes his mind. Welcome to adulthood kids.
So, if you choose to reply, I'll be happy to read your reply. But, these will be philosophical differences.
In the last decade my school has had to twice pay the buyout when we hired a coach from another school. In both instances the payments where on a schedule over multiple years. In one instance a deal was worked out in which Michigan (on behalf of the coach) only had to pay a percentage of the buyout as they agreed to one upfront large payment (a fraction of the full amount but a multiple of the what would have been due in year one). With the second situation the lawyers couldn't come to agreement (WVU was kind of pissed when we took both their MBB and FB HCs within a year) and the payment schedule was adhered to and the buyout paid in full. I assure you that:I like most discussions, in this particular case we're discussing some hypotheticals and some real life circumstances. So working backwards.
Coaching buyouts - A contract can only be between the entities (or agents acting in behalf) signing the contract. You can not have a valid contract that says something a long the lines of "if this happens, my neighbor will have to pay for it". Unless your neighbor is signing the contract, the contract won't stand up in a court. So, unless one of the lawyers chimes in on this subject, I have to believe the following plays out. Herman cuts the check to Houston. Texas pays Herman the $2.5 million for the buyout. If Herman is smart, he demands $2.5 million + the amount he'll have to pay in taxes. THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ME IN REAL LIFE (not $2.5 million, it was significantly less
Players choice to leave - NCAA rules based on member agreement that someone leaving has to sit out a year. A player can choose to leave whenever they want, the cost is sitting out a year. Year 0 player versus year 1/2/3/4/5 player, they're all the same to me. And if the NCAA members want to change their rules, it doesn't really matter to me. We had a player leave fairly recently in year 0, Derrion Grim, his cost, sit out a year.
Would I bail out - it's a personal choice on a case by case basis. What would be the cost to me, what would be the benefit to me. Like it or not, that is the world we live in. If a kid graduating high school enlists with the military (signs up), I just don't see the military tearing up contracts if the kid changes his mind. Welcome to adulthood kids.
So, if you choose to reply, I'll be happy to read your reply. But, these will be philosophical differences.
1) Not a single dime (of the buyout or lawyer fees) came out of either coaches pockets (even if at one point the funds did hit their accounts electronically momentary)
2) This is the standard practice (including trying to negotiate a settlement) and I've never heard of a coach having to pay the buyout himself. In fact, as I understand it, there isn't even a conversation about it between the prospective coach and school as it is understood the school/boosters will have to pay.
As far as not all schools being in a position to buyout certain contracts, yes that is true. On the flip side of that coaches that have them (at least significant ones) tend to be somewhat proven and probably wouldn't leave unless they were going to a bigger program that could afford to buy it out.
Finally, I've heard people use the military argument when talking about college football recruits. I think it is a flawed analogy because the choice is not play college football or don't play college football. The proper comparison is a kid chooses to go into the Navy and changes his mind and joins the Army instead. I have no idea if that's possible but I honestly ask if it were would you philosophically be against a kid choosing to join the military and deciding to switch branches before their first day of basic? To add one more layer, lets say that kid wants to be an engineer and the military decides that the Navy will no longer train engineers but the Army still will...would that impact how you'd feel if a hypothetical kid decided to go into the Army instead of the Navy?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
We always talk about the "big boosters" ... do we know they are? What drives 1890?- Latest: Devosbsolahanini