Even though it’s the offseason, there’s very much going on in the world of college athletics and specifically football. No, nothing related to conference realignment. Let me just preface this post with that before you get drawn in too deep thinking that the next several hundred words will be about Cincinnati getting invited to the Big 12 or ACC.
Sorry, you’ll find none of those words here. Except those above. But that’s it.
No, this post focuses on college football and specifically the recruiting side of things. There’s been serious chatter during the past couple of weeks about creating a second signing period in the December prior to the official National Signing Day the first Wednesday in February. There’s already two signing periods for basketball and several other collegiate programs, so it stands to reason there would be two for football as well.
The Bearcats in particular would benefit from an early signing period in December. This staff has a knack for identifying talented prospects early in the process and watching other, higher profile programs jump on board in the weeks leading up to National Signing Day. An earlier one in December would allow UC to lock down these players before the big boys desperately came sniffing, waving the glories of National Championships in the 1930’s in the faces of Cincinnati’s verballed recruits.
Plus, allowing players who aren’t in danger of swaying in their commitment to the Bearcats could sign early. That would free up Tuberville and crew to focus their time on less committed recruits or those who haven’t decided on a school yet.
For recruits, I’m sure (read: would hope) a clause would be created stating that if a assistant or head coach left the school where they signed the letter of intent, it would cause it to be null and void. Therefore, they could then explore other options should the coach they expected to play for bolted to another school, which as you know screws these players in the current system.
See? Everybody wins!
But, shocker, there’s been opposition to an early signing period that has delayed a decision for a year.
"The Collegiate Commissioners Association, which administers the national letter of intent recruits sign to make their commitments to a school binding, discussed the issue over two days in Asheville, N.C. The SEC has been opposed to the Dec. 16 signing date, and within the last month the Big Ten expressed concerns as well."
It’s honestly no surprise that the SEC and Big Ten are challenging this idea. They benefit the most from a single signing day in February, feasting on the recruiting boards of smaller programs when their plans for five-star targets don’t work out.
Take three-star defensive end Spencer Williams, for example. He committed to Cincinnati in June of 2013 and in the ensuing months Nebraska, Auburn, and Missouri, just to name a few Power 5 schools, offered him. Williams was a Bearcat right up until National Signing Day on February 5th, when he switched and signed his letter of intent with the Missouri Tigers.
Or consider Conner Krizancic, who committed to UC in May of 2013. A Bearcats verbal for months, Jerry Kill and several other coaches from Minnesota visited him on January 29th, just days before he would have sent in his letter of intent to UC. Krizancic made the trip to Minneapolis the next day and wound up signing with the Golden Gophers a week later.
There’s two players who would be Bearcats today if there was an early signing period.
So you can bet Cincinnati and other Group of 5 teams are pushing hard for this. Smaller Power 5 schools should be doing the same as well. At the very least, you’d think the NCAA would see the value to the recruits and coaches alike from a signing day in December. Overall, it just makes too much sense for the majority of schools and players to have an early signing period.