Should College Football Follow the Lead of Basketball and Add an Early Signing Period for Recruiting?

With the pressure and attention young men are under throughout the recruiting process, the question recurs frequently: Should the FBS (formerly D1) schools

With the pressure and attention young men are under throughout the recruiting process, the question recurs frequently: Should the FBS (formerly D1) schools establish an early signing day? College basketball has one, and so does baseball.

The ACC is considering one right now, and if successful, the day, in late December, would allow prospects with their minds made up a chance to sign on the dotted line a few months before the traditional signing day in February. Last year, nine SEC coaches voted in favor of an early signing period in before the conference's athletic directors vetoed the proposal.

The American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) also recently proposed a plan, asking college coaches — the majority of whom want an early day — athletic directors and conference commissioners to consider an early signing day, before having their efforts squashed as well.

The argument that an early signing day will put more pressure on kids does not hold much water. Some coaches, such as Urban Meyer, one of three SEC coaches to vote against an early signing day, might argue that kids should be able to take their time to take visits from December through signing day. The recruiting calendar is just fine, they may say, and why mess with something that's working? Besides, the argument goes, this will just push recruiting back further as coaches seek to be the first to identify talent in tenth, ninth and even eighth graders.

News flash: there is already a ton of pressure on kids, and the most talented are already getting their own names out early in their high school careers. How, exactly, would an early signing day produce any more undue pressure? The top high school freshman and sophomores are already playing at the varsity level, shooting film of their play as they work to put themselves into a position to land an enormously valuable scholarship. Is it really too early to start thinking about college as a ninth grader? (I wish I had thought about it a little more throughout high school, and I have a feeling I'm not alone in that sentiment.)

For many kids who have already made a verbal commitment, an early signing day would blissfully relieve the pressure they receive from programs desperate for the young man's talent and media outlets scrambling to have the inside scoop. And as the trend for more and more kids to verbal early in the process continues, the more an early signing day makes sense.

Take Michigan State, which has two verbal commitments to date — seven months before any potential early signing day. And that's nothing compared to last year at the same time, when the Spartans had at least six verbals in the bag. That was nearly a third of its class, with several more recruits committing throughout the summer. An early signing day would allow programs to reserve valuable resources that might otherwise be spent working to continue to convince a kid to stay verbally committed. Max Bullough is not changing his mind; why not let him make it official in December?

Another, largely unspoken, reason some coaches and programs are against the idea is because talent trickles up. Say a player, a wide receiver, maybe, verbals to Purdue University before signing day — nice school, respectable program, but not a national powerhouse.

But then, on signing day, a national power, say the Michigan Wolverines (disregarding last season, of course, and the past decade or so against Ohio State), shows up with a wizard hat and some snake oil and says come play for us. The pressure on that young man is incredible, putting him in the position to walk away from his word, but doing so with his own best interests in mind. Major, powerhouse programs wouldn’t have as many opportunities to cherry pick late blooming talent with an early signing day, leveling the field just a tad for those programs striving to reach the same level as the Floridas, Ohio States and USCs of the world.

Not exactly a seemly situation for the NCAA to be putting its future student-athletes in, but the very same situation played out last February. Had the young man signed in December, after verballing in late May, he might have never had been subjected to Michigan's last second power play, he probably would never have had his credibility questioned and name dragged through the mud on countless message boards. Most likely, he'd be happy as a clam, learning the Boilermakers spread offense as he watched the hype and hoopla of signing day with a bit of indifference.

So in the end, it seems an early signing day would not only allow many young man greatly desired breathing room, it would also save some money for cash strapped athletic departments. And its hard to go wrong making things a little easier on some of the hardest working young men you will find in the country, kids who have to not only work their tails off in the classroom, but also work at becoming the best of the best on the gridiron, too — no easy task. In short, it may just help put more young men in a better position to succeed. And isn't that what we really want for the student-athletes we cheer like mad for?