OL Isaac Seumalo may make an impact next season.
Last week recruits all across the nation signed their letters of intent to their college of choice in an out-dated ceremonial signing of a contract and faxing in the paperwork.
How signing day is run must change. And it has nothing to do with the fax machine being so 1990s and will go way of the cassette tape soon.
Four DBs got away from the Oregon State football team to other programs this year. Three of them were CBs, and coach Mike Riley felt the only thing missing in his 2012 recruiting class was more depth at CB.
Riley lamented about the recruiting process that players get confused with all the different colleges going after them. He suggested making the decision before signing day and turning signing day a celebration.
That’s a great idea, but more must be done.
Some say bigger programs such as Southern California allow teams such as the Beavers to do their work for them. If the Beavers find either a diamond in the rough or a standout USC didn’t see the Trojans sweep in and make an offer.
OL Isaac Seumaulo was tempted and DB Devian Shelton, who is from the Los Angeles area, went against his OSU commitment to USC.
The NCAA must do away with these signing periods, commitments and players changing their minds on teams. Players should be able to go through the recruiting process to gain information about colleges, but then be allowed to decide when they want.
When Seumalo committed to the Beavers last summer he should have been able to sign his letter of intent right then. His recruitment would have been over with his announcement. OSU has him, end of story.
It would also keep Shelton from committing to the Beavers until something better came along.
If they weren’t sure about the Beavers they could wait until they were ready. Teams then can sign who they need and stop over recruiting and creating a huge greyshirt class like the Beavers have done.
Scholarship offers won’t be thrown out like candy at a parade. Teams might not take a chance on a guy who can’t qualify at their school. Once teams hit their limit, they are done.
This sounds like free agency in the pros. Yes, it’s like that. However, coaches won’t be poaching players. Young athletes won’t be overwhelmed by coaches and recruiting middlemen who ended up acting like used car salesmen.
So, stop the madness of signing day.
20 comments
Dave says:
Feb 7, 2012
Second article I’ve read about signimg dsy reform. Is the mcaa progressive enough to do this for foote?
chris says:
Feb 7, 2012
Good ideas, but going up against the establishment is tough.
The situation with Cleveland Wallace and him following Heyward to UW is also an issue.
Shelton got an offer from USC; what can you say?
The thing that bothers me the most is the Heyward situation. Maybe there needs to be a period after a coach leaves that bars any of his recruits from the prior school following him.
But again, how would you do this? I don’t think you can.
Pos0x45 says:
Feb 7, 2012
If recruits could sign LOI when they verbal, that would help with the “follow the coach to his new school” problem. Another option might be a blackout period where announcing a coach moving to another school would be a violation if done within one month of signing day (or some predetermined time period). But I think the worst is as Cliff pointed out, the USC – Devian Shelton scenario. Let some other school do the work and then swoop in and poach the player. Lame Kitten is a real piece of work.
Dash says:
Feb 7, 2012
I agree that there should be an earlier signing date for football; I also understand, since I work in that world that kids are kids and parents are parents. In other words, parents should be teaching their kids what a commitment means. But, we don’t have an early signing period, and, parents, are parents-in other words, they aren’t doing much parenting these days as far as ethics and morals are concerned.
As for a school/coach coming in and getting a kid to flip, everybody (colleges) does it! USC saw a few kids flip. So, by that logic, Mora, Sarkisian and every coach in the league is a “piece of work.”
The fact is that USC had been in touch with Shelton for a long time. He was not an early offer as they valued other DB’s more. As those didn’t work out, USC decided to offer Shelton, who, if they had more than 15 rides available would have had an early offer.
Eli says:
Feb 7, 2012
All of this whining about Devian Shelton is comical. The kid played HS ball ten miles from USC. Do you really think they didn’t know who he was? And he showed up to his official visit at Oregon State wearing USC gear. Do you really think he didn’t want to go to USC all along? If you want to blame anyone for Devian Shelton, blame Riley for not having the foresight to know that the kid was going to end up at SC if either of their other top CB commits went somewhere else.
I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of allowing an early signing period and barring players from following assistants that jump ship right before NSD but that’ll do nothing to keep kids from choosing their dream school or visiting a great program when a scholarship opens up late in the process (Seumalo).
AndyPanda says:
Feb 7, 2012
This sounds good, but other than moving the first day earlier, it really changes nothing.
There isn’t a signing day now; there is a signing period, which starts on a given day. The push is to get people signed on the first day possible, but they don’t have to, and don’t all do so now.
However, those prospects who don’t sign on the first day possible, whenever that day is, run the risk of schools awarding all their scholarships to others, and getting left out. Schools who wait run the risk of other schools signing all the best prospects.
Moving the first day a prospect can commit earlier by a month or even a year will only move the push to an earlier date, because the same pressures of competition for a finite number of scholarships among an limited number of prospects will still exist.
It there is no earliest day, then the business of signing high school sophomores and even middle school players will become a problem. If a time period for changing ones’ mind is instituted, then prospects will still flip-flop when circumstances or their desires change. If there isn’t an option to change one’s mind, then the prospect is left without any option to react if circumstances change. And coaching staff changes, which result in system and scheme changes, are a perfectly valid reason to change plans, when the institution no longer offers the same opportunities and environment that they were using as selling points to get the student to commit.
bbb95 says:
Feb 7, 2012
how about if you verbal and switch you have to sit out a year or burn your redshirt? it re-enforces an old way of thinking that your word is worth something. its a good lesson for young men to learn.
right now its a wh#$es market. That is the values they teach young men. your word isnt worth anything but a signature is.
i dont think you should wreck a kids life over backing out on his word at 17 or 18 but he should know that if you dont keep your word there are concequences to it. i wonder how many partens said to their son “now son, you gave your word to that school and coach. maybe you should think twice about that”?
BeaverBeliever says:
Feb 7, 2012
Eliminate the day and allow them to sign when they want, period. Brilliant!
Cliff, I’m not sure why you weakened your argument with the free agency statement. I think that you are spot on. If USC gets a commit from a high school sophomore and that counts against their class even if he doesn’t qualify academically or gets hurt, then brilliant!
Buzz says:
Feb 7, 2012
Counter-point (which I’m not sure I believe but I think has some merit). While this change would greatly benefit the schools (especially the lower profile schools) it definitely doesn’t benefit the kids, who you could argue are the more important part of the process. An 18-year-old kid is easily influenced. And if you allow them to sign whenever they want, a very convincing/pushy coach could ultimately compel a kid to sign before he’s had the opportunity to consider all his options. Then, you may lose the kid after a year, meaning he loses a year of eligibility and the team wasted a year and a scholly on a kid who never contributed.
Cliff Kirkpatrick says:
Feb 7, 2012
You make a very good point about pushy coaches. Not all 17-18 year-old athletes will have parents or parent-type people looking out for them.
Nothing will be perfect. Those athletes are already dealing with pushy coaches.
shane says:
Feb 7, 2012
to add onto it, if you have an early signing period and players sign, but then that coaching staff gets canned at the end of the season you have kids stuck playing for coaches they didn’t agree to play for
OS_Beaver says:
Feb 7, 2012
For DB coach we need a strong recruiter who also teaches sound DB technique. We need a guy who can close on 4-star athletes. Rod Perry isn’t the worst coach but I don’t like us getting older as the majority of the conference gets younger. We just bring it on ourselves it seems. We need to have fans excited about the energy in the program and our future over the next half decade.
Reser Phase 3 becoming more crucial:
http://beaverbyte.com
blah blah says:
Feb 7, 2012
if you make it so kids can sign whenever they want it doesn’t change much. Power schools will be able to pressure kids into signing and then when those kids realize they made a mistake they won’t be able to change and then they’re screwed, so basically there is no way to fix college recruiting and get over it.
Canard says:
Feb 7, 2012
Move the date around all you want, but this problem remains all but eternal:
“It would also keep Shelton from committing to the Beavers until something better came along.”
In the Pac-12, when all you have is an OSU offer, any other offer apart from one from Wazzu is “better” and worth the risk of waiting for.
Moving or ending signing day will never make the beavers a more popular choice.
Hartwig says:
Feb 7, 2012
I think you have to remember these kids are in high school. Making one of the biggest choices of their lives. If they change their mind late you can’t fault them on that. If someone goes to USC because they feel like it will be a better career path after OSU put in the work to find the player that is part of the process. The job is to make OSU a better draw for recruits. That is done through having a winning program. Having players make it to the NFL. And having the coaching staff to attract players to your team.
OSU will have a disadvantage against the top teams in the Pac-12 while we are having losing seasons. But we will also be able to pick up players when we start to win again.
As for recruiting coaches maybe we should spend some of the money other Pac-12 schools are spending now that we have this new TV contract money. Spend money on facilities to compete with the other schools.
Haggmeez says:
Feb 7, 2012
While I agree that signing day throws a lot of programs and kids into disarray, the reason that the Beavers lost their entire DB class is because they didn’t have a DB coach. Don’t lose you your coach, don’t lose your class. Seems pretty silly to blame the entire outcome on other schools’ questionable recruiting practices. The blame should also lay on Oregon St.
Mtlifan says:
Feb 7, 2012
For the longest time, I’ve admired the Oregon State program, but disliked their coach. My dislike for Riley has been re-affirmed with his crying over the recruiting process. All programs lose recruits. Even USC can lose a 2 year commit (De’Anthony Thomas) at the last minute. There were no cries from USC about reforming recruiting as a result. Maybe if Riley can win games in the beginning of the season and not just the end, he can keep all the recruits he goes for. But then again, no school gets ALL the recruits they go for, so stop whining.
Mtlifan says:
Feb 7, 2012
In addition, the guy lives a whole 10 minutes from USC. If you’re going to cry about losing a commit, don’t cry about one that lives 10 minutes away from your competitor that just ended their season ranked 5th in the nation.
OSUSupporter says:
Feb 7, 2012
Cliff, it seems to me that Riley did not have a well thought out contingency plan for DB’s in the event that one or more flipped. It is naive to think we won’t possibly lose one or more so where was our backup plan? Seems like USC had one. They must be better prepared.
Doing away with signing “day” won’t change anything. It’s just an arbitrary start of a signing period, not a single point in time. Move the date up, same problem on a different day. Not allowing a recruit to change their mind is dumb too…especially when coaches change. What if Riley left before signing day? What if we got a new head coach that had a different idea about offensive and defensive schemes (undoubtedly) and the kid didn’t like it?
Oh and it’s not unheard of to have a coach withdraw an offer even after a kid accepts verbally. Bottom line is we have to do a better job of recruiting and planning with a contingency in the event the unexpected happens instead of whining about the process because someone did a better job than we did.
Mdog says:
Feb 8, 2012
How about kids can sign on their 18th birthday, or the week before the Super Bowl? Nobody watches the probowl anyway.