Potential Changes to CFB and Recruiting Rules

[koonja]

NCAA board of directors to consider legislation that could alter football recruiting - ESPN

 

[phork]

There is a whole list of other things I would add, including early signing periods.

 

[koonja]

There is a whole list of other things I would add, including early signing periods.

How early though?

I could just see someone like Kiffin selling USC hard, real early, getting a signature then having said-athlete regret it once he was exposed to the reality of what/who he just signed with.

 

[IrishLax]

The change I would like to see is a rollback of the scholarship cap to 100 to level the playing field. 25/100 and the schools that employ fuzzy math lose their advantage.

 

[IrishLax]

How early though?

I could just see someone like Kiffin selling USC hard, real early, getting a signature then having said-athlete regret it once he was exposed to the reality of what/who he just signed with.

You have it before the season. It forces schools to be upfront with players... so no more ditching someone if they get hurt, etc. or offering someone you expect to push out later for a better player. If you buy a line from a coach and sign and change your mind well then that's your fault. What you'll see is kids declaring later if they're not 110% sure and kids who ARE 110% sure getting the spot they deserve without some less ethical coaches being able to take it away.

You leave an out clause in early signing for coaches getting fired or sanctions.

 

[ND NYC]

one change that would sove soooo many problems:

a scholarship should be a FOUR YEAR scholarship.

this would eliminate all this BS greyshirting/oversigning/kids getting kicked to the curb if they cant crack the 2 deep etc.

at ND we basically do it on integrity even though ALL schollys are actually one year renewables.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I would create a situation where:

(1) much more lenient contact rules with committed kids
(2) other schools get ZERO contact with a committed kid, UNLESS the kid reaches out to them first, in writing
(3) if a committed kid wants to contact another school in writing, he has to inform the school where he is committed first

Perhaps also...

(3) Two year scholarship minimums and
(4) Kids who do not maintain grades are automatically counted against the scholarship limit for two years or until they have enrolled in another school and are once again in good standing academically.

 

[ThePiombino]

The change I would like to see is a rollback of the scholarship cap to 100 to level the playing field. 25/100 and the schools that employ fuzzy math lose their advantage.

Serious question- how would that not allow the rich to just get richer? In other words, a hot program is just going to snatch up that many more top recruits while other programs will have even less talent to chose from. It's not as though the talent pool increases with increased scholies. I dunno, I'm sure I'm just missing something here.

 

[chicago51]

How early though?

I could just see someone like Kiffin selling USC hard, real early, getting a signature then having said-athlete regret it once he was exposed to the reality of what/who he just signed with.

Yea I don't like this. These are young and often confused immature kids. College choice is a big decission they need to be given time to think and rethink there decission.

 

[IrishLax]

Serious question- how would that not allow the rich to just get richer? In other words, a hot program is just going to snatch up that many more top recruits while other programs will have even less talent to chose from. It's not as though the talent pool increases with increased scholies. I dunno, I'm sure I'm just missing something here.

That's exactly why the cap was lowered in the first place and they're talking about lowering it again to 80... to encourage parity. Instead, what has happened is that schools which actually stay within the 85 are at a huge competitive disadvantage to schools that actively work around it. 25/85 encourages cutting/pushing out players whereas 25/100 would reward schools that recruit the right type of kid, keep him enrolled, and make sure he graduates. Yes, the rich would definitely get richer. But we are the "rich" in that scenario along with a handful of other schools.

There are tons of guys every year that we have to play a game between offering/not-offering that we would no longer need to. Joe Bolden, Reilly Gibbons, Tommy Schutt, etc. It would help us immensely. How do you think Alabama affords to sign so many 3 players? Because they know they can cut them if they don't pan out... but when they do pan out, you get all-american OLs.

If not increasing the 85 cap to 100 I hope they decrease the year cap to 22 or something like that. The problem is that the 4 year number and yearly number are so out of whack it allows for manipulation.

 

[koonja]

The change I would like to see is a rollback of the scholarship cap to 100 to level the playing field. 25/100 and the schools that employ fuzzy math lose their advantage.

What do you mean by 25/100? I'm not implying you're wrong, I just don't know what that means. What's the 25?

 

[ThePiombino]

That's exactly why the cap was lowered in the first place and they're talking about lowering it again to 80... to encourage parity. Instead, what has happened is that schools which actually stay within the 85 are at a huge competitive disadvantage to schools that actively work around it. 25/85 encourages cutting/pushing out players whereas 25/100 would reward schools that recruit the right type of kid, keep him enrolled, and make sure he graduates. Yes, the rich would definitely get richer. But we are the "rich" in that scenario along with a handful of other schools.

There are tons of guys every year that we have to play a game between offering/not-offering that we would no longer need to. Joe Bolden, Reilly Gibbons, Tommy Schutt, etc. It would help us immensely. How do you think Alabama affords to sign so many 3 players? Because they know they can cut them if they don't pan out... but when they do pan out, you get all-american OLs.

If not increasing the 85 cap to 100 I hope they decrease the year cap to 22 or something like that. The problem is that the 4 year number and yearly number are so out of whack it allows for manipulation.

I see - and it makes sense that the lower the cap, the more parity. Seems to me the emphasis should be on policing the actual limits rather than changing them. Keep it at 85 and force schools to offer 4-year schollies and actually enforce it. I don't think that's asking too much of the NCAA.

 

[NDLS_USMC]

(3) if a committed kid wants to contact another school in writing, he has to inform the school where he is committed first

Perhaps also...

(3) Two year scholarship minimums and

If you have the first rule, limiting kids' options, the college ought to have a duty to honor the offer. Otherwise, all the risk is on the kid.

And by honor, in my mind, it rightfully means a four-year scholarship is granted and guaranteed.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Serious question- how would that not allow the rich to just get richer? In other words, a hot program is just going to snatch up that many more top recruits while other programs will have even less talent to chose from. It's not as though the talent pool increases with increased scholies. I dunno, I'm sure I'm just missing something here.

I like the 25/100 idea. It wouldn't let the rich get richer, as schools could still only take 25 new players per year. It would just take away the motive for schools to get rid of borderline players to make room for new recruits under the 85 limit.

 

[Domina Nostra]

If you have the first rule, limiting kids' options, the college ought to have a duty to honor the offer. Otherwise, all the risk is on the kid.

And by honor, in my mind, it rightfully means a four-year scholarship is granted and guaranteed.

Agreed. Once the kid is "committed" the scholarship the school has to honor his scholarship unless he contacts another school. They could still call those kids "soft committs" if they wanted.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Yea I don't like this. These are young and often confused immature kids. College choice is a big decission they need to be given time to think and rethink there decission.

This doesn't make any sense. Nobody is talking about an early signing period that would allow kids to sign as high school sophomores. If you had a signing period from Aug. 15 - Aug. 31st for kids going into their senior years, it would give kids the opportunity to officially shut down the process and concentrate on their seasons, while letting the coaching staffs move forward recruiting the rest of their class knowing what pieces they still need. Many kids are committed by the end of the summer anyway; why prolong the process until February? How much is a kid really going to mature from Aug. 31st to Feb. 2nd? All the other sports have early signing periods, and I think it makes the process go much better.

 

[Rhode Irish]

One other point about "committed" players and treating them differently under the rules as some are suggesting here: a player being "committed" is an informal status. There is no difference between a committed player and an uncommitted player under the rules; you've either signed a LOI or you haven't. A player "committing" is something that basically just happens on the internet that makes it easier for us to follow. People say all the time that nothing matters "until the fax comes in." That isn't just some sort of recruiting wisdom; its also actually technically true. So if you changed the rules protect the status "committed" players in either direction (for the benefit of the player or the school), you might as well eliminate the signing period altogether and just let kids sign whenever they want.

 

[btown35]

The problem with college football is oversigning by the SEC! Can you imagine the class ND could have had this year if he could replace 60% of his first recruiting class when no one wanted to come here? Kick 3 star players out for high 4 stars! This is why the SEC is winning these titles year after year you can just do away with the worst 15 guys every year this is the rule that needs to change ASAP so that everyone is on the same level playing field!

 

[chicago51]

The problem with college football is oversigning by the SEC! Can you imagine the class ND could have had this year if he could replace 60% of his first recruiting class when no one wanted to come here? Kick 3 star players out for high 4 stars! This is why the SEC is winning these titles year after year you can just do away with the worst 15 guys every year this is the rule that needs to change ASAP so that everyone is on the same level playing field!

You can't make changes. You will disrupt the process. The process is what you have to do day in and day out to be successful. If you disrupt the process you will not be successful.

 

[scUM Hater]

Agreed. Once the kid is "committed" the scholarship the school has to honor his scholarship unless he contacts another school. They could still call those kids "soft committs" if they wanted.

How would the NCAA police it? The commited to college could just say they have knowledge of a kid contacting another school if they don't want him anymore. Wouldn't work.

 

[BGIF]

How would the NCAA police it? The commited to college could just say they have knowledge of a kid contacting another school if they don't want him anymore. Wouldn't work.

Agreed, can't police it.

HS coach can make the contact, or family member, "advisor", recruiting service, etc.

 

[scUM Hater]

There is a whole list of other things I would add, including early signing periods.

I like this idea. A kid doesn't have to sign, just able to. Think Steve Elmer or Jaylon Smith, these kids knew they wanted ND. Keeps other coaches from trying to poach. Only way out of being a early signee would be: sanctions imposed or head coaching change.

 

[BGIF]

There is a whole list of other things I would add, including early signing periods.

Early signing period is only workable for ND if ND Admissions Office is shutdown permanently.

 

[irishpat183]

Just as a note...All the stuff I've read seems like great additions. However, even though we're thinking of making recruiting better for the school...we need to make sure that the athletes are still the ones that hold the cards. And I'm accepting those hated signing day decommitments when saying that, but the power needs to be with the kids.

After all, it is their decision.

 

[irishpat183]

Agreed, can't police it.

HS coach can make the contact, or family member, "advisor", recruiting service, etc.

Eliminate contact with those.

No advisors, no recruiting services. They're all crooks.

 

[scUM Hater]

Agreed, can't police it.

HS coach can make the contact, or family member, "advisor", recruiting service, etc.

Right, but what I am saying for example, if Kiffin has a kid commited, then doesn't want him anymore, Kiffin can just say that they have knowledge that the recruit contacted another school.

 

[scUM Hater]

Early signing period is only workable for ND if ND Admissions Office is shutdown permanently.

If the applicants high school is Don Bosco, then it automatically gets the "REJECTED" stamp.

 

[Irish Man3]

Really and advocate for the 25/100 idea and an early signing period.

 

[gkautz10]

Yea I don't like this. These are young and often confused immature kids. College choice is a big decission they need to be given time to think and rethink there decission.

At one point in time (they still might, not sure) most of the other sports did have early signing periods. I know for a fact cross country and track do. Why not for football? Are we assuming that these student-athlete football players are not capable of making a decision like a track student-athlete is? I understand your concern about flip flopping on decisions, but maybe this is what these kids need? Throughout life you are held to your commitment and your word, why is it any different for a 17-18 year old kid? The late great Steve Jobs once said that most people do not know what they want until they are shown it. That is how I am viewing this early signing period.

 

[Domina Nostra]

How would the NCAA police it? The commited to college could just say they have knowledge of a kid contacting another school if they don't want him anymore. Wouldn't work.

The school is just going to lie directly to the NCAA about a recuit and implicate another institution in the process? I doubt it. It would be the equivalent of a dead period for every school but the one to which he committed. Sure a school could cheat around it, but it would be cheating.

The point would be that commitment meant something. Specifically, you limited yourself to being actively recruited by that school during that period. I'm not drawing up a rule here, so I am not going to go through every possibility, but you could create some acceptable methods of reaching out, like letters or through coaches or parents, or something. All the kid would have to do to open back the flood gates is decommit.