Can someone please tell me the purpose of committing to school before signing period? Doesn't seem to matter now days. So why commit at all? These kids should not say or do anything until signing day. Seems like it is all just an attention grabber for all of these kids anyways.
Commitment
- Thread starter Ewooc
- Start date
It's a placeholder. If Nebraska wants one QB in their class and a kid is offered and wants to play for NU then he commits, Nebraska coaches can then concentrate on other areas of need and the kid can relax knowing he has a school. Can you imagine the signing day chaos if nobody committed until signing day?
Probably ok for the kids, but as a coach you always have to wonder if that kid is really going to sign or bail a week before signing day. There should almost we some sort of penalty to help keep these kids honest. I think so many now are using it as a game to get followers and likes on twitter.
They are...up to the adults to be aware of the situation. IMO a kid should be able to put the pen on paper after Labor Day Senior year of HS.
Then there would have to be a penalty if the coach that recruited a player leaves the school before the player graduates.
I say get rid of Signing Day. Let students sign the LOI anytime after they turn 18.
True, but like everyone says a kid should be committing to a school not a coach. I know it probably doesn't work that way most of time.
Works that way for walk ones but IMO very few scholarship players are committed to a school..
People say that, but why should an athlete commit to a school and not a coach? The coach is part of the school, arguably the most important part to the athlete. If you were taking another job, would you commit to the corporation and not the management? Of course not. The school and the coach are not mutually exclusive, and it's only by treating them as such people can claim--incoherently--that athletes should commit to schools and not coaches. What they actually mean to say, I take it, is that since the coach may be fired, it makes sense to commit to the school one likes all-things-considered. But again, there is no reason to think one of those things, and arguably the most important thing, is the coach(es).
I think why people say it, is because they shouldn't be there for football 100% they should be there to get an education. Football is just a means to pay for that education. So since they committed to the school it really shouldn't matter who the coach is. Again I know it doesn't work that way. Probably 90% of the kids the commit are committing for the coach and football.
Because the process is stupid. The NCAA can't just let high school football players enroll at a school. They have to have this two-year, convoluted process involving summer camps, verbal commitments, unofficial visits, official visits, offer letters, quiet periods, dead periods, letters, emails, phone calls, texts, in-home visits, in-school visits, letters of intent, fax machines, scholarship limits, counters, walk-ons, blah blah blah.
Eliminate any of it and what happens? Nothing. Say 100 kids enroll at Alabama. A full 80 of them would transfer the first semester because they'd never see the field. How is that any different than now?
The current process is a bureaucratic nightmare.
Eliminate any of it and what happens? Nothing. Say 100 kids enroll at Alabama. A full 80 of them would transfer the first semester because they'd never see the field. How is that any different than now?
The current process is a bureaucratic nightmare.
I'm skeptical that's what they mean, but you could be right. I think they usually mean they want the athlete to have the same affection and loyalty for the N that fans and indigenous Nebraskans have, which is not very realistic.
As an educator, I am also tempted to agree with you that student athletes *should* be committing to schools based on their academic prospects. But we both know college football has become something much bigger than a means to get a diploma, even if that is how it began. So, again, I'm not buying the idea that athletes should commit to schools and not coaches. It makes the most sense to me that they should commit to the school that presents the best opportunity for them all-things-considered, and in that calculation would be things like the coaches, academics, depth chart/playing time, social life, cute girls, etc....
Well, here is a thought. Those schools actually have to provide financial support for the players, and not just by making a promise, but are actually contractually obligated. And so that necessitates the letters of intent. There is one bureaucratic hurdle.
Then, again, since the school actually has to support the player, and schools, as I'm sure you know, have either 16 week semesters or 10 week long quarters, it needs to be the case that athletes enroll in a timely manner so they can actually be, you know, students. So, that necessitates timing this whole business around a fixed schedule. There is another bureaucratic hurdle.
I suppose since they are actually supposed to be students, that requires certain minimum standards for academic eligibility. Another bureaucratic hurdle.
Finally, and though this is the more contentious issue, to ensure fairness and competitive balance, you would think there actually needs to be limits on the number of student-athletes any given school can take and certain rules regarding their recruitment. (I mean, why not just let Alabama take 100 kids, and they only play 80 of them, but just let the other 20 stick around for 10+ years until they are physically mature enough to play, assuming they can support them financially?)
From what I can tell, the rest of that process you complain about is just a product of these rules. After all, the NCAA does not mandate official visits, text messages, verbal commits, summer camps, or any of that other stuff.
What? Virtually all of admission and enrollment requirements are set forth by the schools - not the NCAA