OT: Possible national changes in football recruiting procedures

[LawoftheWest]

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports has an interesting take on college football recruiting. Without going through his article in detail, his thought process can be summarized as:
The portal has had a serious negative impact on recruiting high school players. Wetzel writes: "Due to the transfer portal, no coach is sure what their needs even are." "Are their returning backs leaving? Are they staying?"

The portal opens up just before the beginning of the early signing period. At just about the same time coaches, including assistant coaches who have been involved in recruiting, start changing teams, as the coaches' season has ended. With the portal, too much is going on at one time. Currently there are over 1,000 players in the portal.

As a result, coaches don't know who to recruit, to the detriment of some high school players. Coaches have to decide: Do I look to the portal in hopes of, say, getting a star running back. Or do I take the three star back who is a senior in high school? Or, do I even have an opening?

This does not hurt the five star recruits. But, it does hurt many three star players, and also mid majors, who are waiting for the food chain to become clear. Wetzel adds: "A number of high-major programs are leaving swaths of their roster available for transfers rather than offering high school recruits. Michigan State has just 10 commitments. Ole Miss and UCLA just 12. Historically, every program signed about 25 prep players."

Wetzel's proposal is to eliminate the early signing period. Have signing begin in mid to late February, even in March. That does hurt early enrollees, but they can still enroll early.

What are everyone's thoughts on Wetzel's proposal?

[AuricGoldfinger]

I absolutely agree with Wetzel. The early signing period was intended to be a boon for high school athletes, but that was in a time before unlimited transfers and immediate eligibility. Furthermore, it's created a situation where assistant coaches are retained through the early signing date and then either change jobs or are jettisoned a day later.

And I'm sure the coaches now hate the early signing date. There's barely any time between the end of the season and the early signing date, and it's a helluva conundrum if you are coaching in a bowl game (especially in one of the earlier games like this weekend). Yes, it does help schools like Vanderbilt retain some players who commit early and keeps other programs from poaching them before the February signing date. But for the good of the game, the rule needs to be changed.

[Nashmann]

It shouldn't hurt 3-star players. Just come to Vanderbilt....we thrive on 3-stars....

[AuricGoldfinger]

Here's Wetzel's column: https://sports.yahoo.com/college-footba ... 09292.html

[VUDU]

So the not having to sit out a year when transferring was implemented because of Covid? I think that's right. So why don't they just go back to that rule? I guess it's hard to close Pandora's box now, but it sure would solve the problem, I believe. I honestly don't think it would be unfair because nobody would lose eligibility, but it would sure make players think a lot harder about whether they really want to transfer or not. And it would make schools think a lot harder about whether they want to tie up scholarships with players who aren't able to play for a year.

[dore74]

I wonder if the early signing period may help a school like ours, especially as Coach Lea looks to develop a program based on a certain state of mind and looks to keep our guys for four years. I would seem to give us a chance to target three star players who may not want to otherwise wait to see where the marquee programs end up. Also schools have the option of waiting until the second period to sign players once they assess the situation with transfers, so I'm not as sure the present system doesn't work.

As an aside the story yesterday about footballers and baskeballers in big time programs being able to unionize puts another wrinkle to be considered. This will need to move through the NLBR and then the courts (all the way to the USSCt, likely) and initially is only focused on private schools.

NILs, free transfers, unions, great for the kids for sure, but where does it leave "college" sports and more to the point where does it leave a school like ours. Obviously, who knows... As the old Chinese curse goes, "may you live in interesting times".

[AuricGoldfinger]

So the not having to sit out a year when transferring was implemented because of Covid? I think that's right. So why don't they just go back to that rule? I guess it's hard to close Pandora's box now, but it sure would solve the problem, I believe. I honestly don't think it would be unfair because nobody would lose eligibility, but it would sure make players think a lot harder about whether they really want to transfer or not. And it would make schools think a lot harder about whether they want to tie up scholarships with players who aren't able to play for a year.

The change in the rule was instituted after years (pre-Covid) of various pundits banging the drum about athletes having to sit a year when leaving a school while coaches weren't subject to the same rule, and when the NCAA started making decisions about waivers to the rule on a seemingly random basis.

What was accelerated due to Covid was the number of student athletes in the portal due to having an extra year of eligibility. It will still take us another couple of years to work through those classes of student athletes who have the extra year of eligibility. That will likely diminish the number of players in the portal, but won't eliminate it.

Regarding the prior rule about sitting out a year, I don't think we are ever going back.

[coachinwaiting]

It's interesting to me that for years, fans all over were critical of the rules against transferring freely, and the loss of a year's eligibility when doing so. They would generally decry the fact that coaches were free to move from job to job and leave recruits behind after they had "pledged" to coach them for their time at a school. Which would, in effect, mean no coach could move on to another job ever, because every year brings a new set of recruits.

Now that players have the ability to hop from school to school, some playing at 3 or 4 different institutions in a college career, the reasoning of the previous rules suddenly become clear. Maybe there should be a balance somewhere between the two extremes, but we seem to live in an all or nothing society. No one wants any constraints on their behavior. They are all in on constraints on your behavior, because when you do what you want or consider good for you, they're offended and you have no right to offend them. Conversely, you have no right to be offended by them.

[VandyManners]

Now that college sports are more business oriented, commitments are like contracts. Especially if there is NIL involved. I say if you are not receiving NIL money you can transfer whenever to whoever you want. If you are receiving benefits outside of a scholarship such as money or NIL deals you should have to sit out a year if you transfer since you are breaking your "contract." I also think you should only be able to transfer once. The only exception of no penalty is if you graduate. Once you graduate you have fulfilled your obligation and should be able to go where you want.

Wow, this is all very complicated. Just thinking thru my own opinion has given me a headache.

[AuricGoldfinger]

I personally think that while the transfer without penalty rule for the first transfer is here to stay, it would give student athletes much more pause about transferring if the rule about having to sit out a year after transfer #2 or more (as an undergraduate) were enforced. What we have now is unlimited free agency, and a not-insignificant number of college athletes who will likely spend their four years of eligibility at four different schools even after the Covid extra year of eligibility is gone.

[coachinwaiting]

Now that college sports are more business oriented, commitments are like contracts. Especially if there is NIL involved. I say if you are not receiving NIL money you can transfer whenever to whoever you want. If you are receiving benefits outside of a scholarship such as money or NIL deals you should have to sit out a year if you transfer since you are breaking your "contract." I also think you should only be able to transfer once. The only exception of no penalty is if you graduate. Once you graduate you have fulfilled your obligation and should be able to go where you want.

Wow, this is all very complicated. Just thinking thru my own opinion has given me a headache.

The question then become which contract has precedence, the scholarship commitment or the NIL? If transferring causes the player to sit out a year, the provider of the NIL money is getting short-changed because they aren't getting the exposure they bargained for. If the NIL is suspended because the player is prevented from playing for a year, attorneys are going to line up to sue for inhibiting free trade. It truly does get more complicated with every attempt at solution, which always seems to be the case when people try to fix something that wasn't ever broken. Gee, I wonder why nobody ever warned the NCAA something like this would be an issue....

[VUDU]

Getting back to the original question, I could see how changing the HS recruit signing date could possibly hurt, rather than help, HS recruits. If schools can wait until after the transfer portal has sort of cleared, some schools may decide that they did well enough in the portal that they don't need to sign any HS players in a given year.

[VandyManners]

Now that college sports are more business oriented, commitments are like contracts. Especially if there is NIL involved. I say if you are not receiving NIL money you can transfer whenever to whoever you want. If you are receiving benefits outside of a scholarship such as money or NIL deals you should have to sit out a year if you transfer since you are breaking your "contract." I also think you should only be able to transfer once. The only exception of no penalty is if you graduate. Once you graduate you have fulfilled your obligation and should be able to go where you want.

Wow, this is all very complicated. Just thinking thru my own opinion has given me a headache.

The question then become which contract has precedence, the scholarship commitment or the NIL? If transferring causes the player to sit out a year, the provider of the NIL money is getting short-changed because they aren't getting the exposure they bargained for. If the NIL is suspended because the player is prevented from playing for a year, attorneys are going to line up to sue for inhibiting free trade. It truly does get more complicated with every attempt at solution, which always seems to be the case when people try to fix something that wasn't ever broken. Gee, I wonder why nobody ever warned the NCAA something like this would be an issue....

I miss the simplicity of “hey, if you play football for us we will give you a free college education.”

“That seems fair.” Said player.

[vandy05]

Now that college sports are more business oriented, commitments are like contracts. Especially if there is NIL involved. I say if you are not receiving NIL money you can transfer whenever to whoever you want. If you are receiving benefits outside of a scholarship such as money or NIL deals you should have to sit out a year if you transfer since you are breaking your "contract." I also think you should only be able to transfer once. The only exception of no penalty is if you graduate. Once you graduate you have fulfilled your obligation and should be able to go where you want.

Wow, this is all very complicated. Just thinking thru my own opinion has given me a headache.

The question then become which contract has precedence, the scholarship commitment or the NIL? If transferring causes the player to sit out a year, the provider of the NIL money is getting short-changed because they aren't getting the exposure they bargained for. If the NIL is suspended because the player is prevented from playing for a year, attorneys are going to line up to sue for inhibiting free trade. It truly does get more complicated with every attempt at solution, which always seems to be the case when people try to fix something that wasn't ever broken. Gee, I wonder why nobody ever warned the NCAA something like this would be an issue....

I miss the simplicity of “hey, if you play football for us we will give you a free college education.”

“That seems fair.” Said player.

Problem is, that was never the agreement. The colleges by and large were trying to keep players eligible and not necessarily help them graduate. That was the case until probably 12-15 years ago. The salutatorian of my school went to a Power 5 school to play tennis and they tried to put her in a college algebra class. She had taken calculus in high school. They just assumed as an athlete she needed help staying eligible and not actually graduating. That's one extreme example, but I think it led us to where we are today in a small way.