Early Enrollees Can Sign as Early as August 1

[CaneCounty]

Early Enrollees Can Sign as Early as August 1

Football coaches have been clamoring for an earlier signing date and they got it. But much earlier than they may have thought and only for a select group of prospects:

The academic and membership affairs staff determined that a prospective student-athlete who intends to graduate from high school midyear and enroll at a member institution midyear during the same academic year (e.g., spring semester) may sign an institutional financial aid agreement on or after August 1 of his or her senior year, provided the institution issuing the financial aid agreement establishes, prior to issuing the agreement, that the prospective student-athlete is enrolled in all coursework necessary to graduate from high school at midyear.

This applies to all sports but will have the biggest impact on football with the largest number of early enrollees and recruiting of committed prospects. Note that midyear enrollees still cannot sign NLIs (except for junior college transfers). So the impact may be limited if coaches are unwilling to sign a prospect to a financial aid agreement that locks the university in to providing a scholarship but does nothing to commit the prospect to the university.

That said, with the rising number of early enrollees and the push for an earlier signing date, expect many coaches and prospects to take advantage of this opportunity to get at least some commitment down on paper as early as possible.

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2013/10/18/early-enrollees-can-sign-as-early-as-august-1.htm

 

[1jamaicancane]

Thats actually great news if thekid is mature enough that he knows its the right choice

 

[Oh Snap]

What would be the procedure if the kid felt he made the wrong choice, since he didn't sign his LOI? Would be less tedious, no?

 

[1jamaicancane]

What would be the procedure if the kid felt he made the wrong choice, since he didn't sign his LOI? Would be less tedious, no?

thats the issue I have always seen and especially if the coaches get fired

 

[Consigliere]

What would be the procedure if the kid felt he made the wrong choice, since he didn't sign his LOI? Would be less tedious, no?

thats the issue I have always seen and especially if the coaches get fired

It is an issue but a kid should commit to a program and not a coach. I realize that they do not do this but they should understand a coach can leave or be fired.

The only time a kid should be let out of an LOI if something happens that there is no notice of (i.e. NCAA investigation after you sign).

 

[1jamaicancane]

What would be the procedure if the kid felt he made the wrong choice, since he didn't sign his LOI? Would be less tedious, no?

thats the issue I have always seen and especially if the coaches get fired

It is an issue but a kid should commit to a program and not a coach. I realize that they do not do this but they should understand a coach can leave or be fired.

The only time a kid should be let out of an LOI if something happens that there is no notice of (i.e. NCAA investigation after you sign).

That's great but your future can be in the hand of an ******* coach that hurts your future. We know about Lane Kiffin but what about other coaches who are ******** but dont get the attention? Most kids future is on the field and if they feel like they're ruined by that coach it isn't fair because his dream is being tarnished

 

[Consigliere]

This is a start to fixing the problem. The other way to really fix it is to have a signing day around Thanksgiving and that is the first time an non-EE can commit. You either sign to the school and are "committed" or you don't sign and you are looking around.

This would prevent kids from getting screwed on NSD also because the school would have to give them a committable offer to sign. If they don't receive one, they know at that moment the school is not serious.

 

[dodaniels]

What would be the procedure if the kid felt he made the wrong choice, since he didn't sign his LOI? Would be less tedious, no?

thats the issue I have always seen and especially if the coaches get fired

It is an issue but a kid should commit to a program and not a coach. I realize that they do not do this but they should understand a coach can leave or be fired.

The only time a kid should be let out of an LOI if something happens that there is no notice of (i.e. NCAA investigation after you sign).

The coach established the relationship with the recruit not the program.

 

[1jamaicancane]

What would be the procedure if the kid felt he made the wrong choice, since he didn't sign his LOI? Would be less tedious, no?

thats the issue I have always seen and especially if the coaches get fired

It is an issue but a kid should commit to a program and not a coach. I realize that they do not do this but they should understand a coach can leave or be fired.

The only time a kid should be let out of an LOI if something happens that there is no notice of (i.e. NCAA investigation after you sign).

The coach established the relationship with the recruit not the program.

Exactly, if we forget that then what's all the relationships and bonds for? They build them for years for that reason so coaches will always be a factor

 

[Consigliere]

What would be the procedure if the kid felt he made the wrong choice, since he didn't sign his LOI? Would be less tedious, no?

thats the issue I have always seen and especially if the coaches get fired

It is an issue but a kid should commit to a program and not a coach. I realize that they do not do this but they should understand a coach can leave or be fired.

The only time a kid should be let out of an LOI if something happens that there is no notice of (i.e. NCAA investigation after you sign).

That's great but your future can be in the hand of an ******* coach that hurts your future. We know about Lane Kiffin but what about other coaches who are ******** but dont get the attention? Most kids future is on the field and if they feel like they're ruined by that coach it isn't fair because his dream is being tarnished

Then don't commit to the school. If the coach is an *******, why are you committing to them? If the coach could leave, take that into consideration with your choice.

You don't have to sign an LOI either, just tell the school you are concerned about their staff' future and you will wait till you can just enroll to ensure your coach is at the school. See how that goes for the recruit.

Or enroll at the school and then transfer. I know you have to sit out a year if you transfer but it is like a forced redshirt.

I think this early signing day prevents more issues than it may cause. Basketball uses it to a high degree of success.

 

[Consigliere]

What would be the procedure if the kid felt he made the wrong choice, since he didn't sign his LOI? Would be less tedious, no?

thats the issue I have always seen and especially if the coaches get fired

It is an issue but a kid should commit to a program and not a coach. I realize that they do not do this but they should understand a coach can leave or be fired.

The only time a kid should be let out of an LOI if something happens that there is no notice of (i.e. NCAA investigation after you sign).

The coach established the relationship with the recruit not the program.

The program hired the coach.

I don't get this, then don't sign the LOI. If it is early signing day and a staffs' future concerns you, then don't sign the LOI. Just wait and be with the rest of the people waiting for NSD.

This issue is making recruiting less of a circus and limiting these issues. An early SD clearly limits issues.

 

[pcitycane]

What would be the procedure if the kid felt he made the wrong choice, since he didn't sign his LOI? Would be less tedious, no?

im sure we will find out soon enough

 

[User-4525]

Active this year?

 

[CaneCounty]

This really doesn't change much IMO but is a step in the right direction.

For a kid, unless you are a diehard (lock) why would you want to sign a LOI in August if you are enrolling in January.

A kid that signs a LOI in August essentially eliminates their OVs (free trips) during their senior year right. If I'm a coach why would I pay to entertain a EE in the fall when they will be going to another program in January.

 

[Oh Snap]

This really doesn't change much IMO but is a step in the right direction.

For a kid, unless you are a diehard (lock) why would you want to sign a LOI in August if you are enrolling in January.

A kid that signs a LOI in August essentially eliminates their OVs (free trips) during their senior year right. If I'm a coach why would I pay to entertain a EE in the fall when they will be going to another program in January.

They aren't signing a LOI in August.

 

[1jamaicancane]

What would be the procedure if the kid felt he made the wrong choice, since he didn't sign his LOI? Would be less tedious, no?

thats the issue I have always seen and especially if the coaches get fired

It is an issue but a kid should commit to a program and not a coach. I realize that they do not do this but they should understand a coach can leave or be fired.

The only time a kid should be let out of an LOI if something happens that there is no notice of (i.e. NCAA investigation after you sign).

That's great but your future can be in the hand of an ******* coach that hurts your future. We know about Lane Kiffin but what about other coaches who are ******** but dont get the attention? Most kids future is on the field and if they feel like they're ruined by that coach it isn't fair because his dream is being tarnished

Then don't commit to the school. If the coach is an *******, why are you committing to them? If the coach could leave, take that into consideration with your choice.

You don't have to sign an LOI either, just tell the school you are concerned about their staff' future and you will wait till you can just enroll to ensure your coach is at the school. See how that goes for the recruit.

Or enroll at the school and then transfer. I know you have to sit out a year if you transfer but it is like a forced redshirt.

I think this early signing day prevents more issues than it may cause. Basketball uses it to a high degree of success.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo, if you commit to one coach and he leaves or gets fired then they hire an ******* who you don't know how is that fair?

 

[TNcane83]

This doesn't change hardly anything.

Early enrollees don't sign national letters of intent at all. They just enroll and are at that point a student. This thing does not have any bearing at all on them actually enrolling in the school. It is more or less a mechanism for the school to say "See how much we want you? You can sign your scholarship papers now instead of in December." The onus is still on the recruit to actually follow through, because signing scholarship papers to a school in no way binds them to actually attending that school.

For example, hypothetically assuming this was currently active, Berrios could sign his papers today, and then decide in early December that he would rather attend South Carolina.

I agree its a step in the right direction, but all this is doing is allowing early enrollees a way to get their paperwork out of the way early. That's it.

 

[Consigliere]

thats the issue I have always seen and especially if the coaches get fired

It is an issue but a kid should commit to a program and not a coach. I realize that they do not do this but they should understand a coach can leave or be fired.

The only time a kid should be let out of an LOI if something happens that there is no notice of (i.e. NCAA investigation after you sign).

That's great but your future can be in the hand of an ******* coach that hurts your future. We know about Lane Kiffin but what about other coaches who are ******** but dont get the attention? Most kids future is on the field and if they feel like they're ruined by that coach it isn't fair because his dream is being tarnished

Then don't commit to the school. If the coach is an *******, why are you committing to them? If the coach could leave, take that into consideration with your choice.

You don't have to sign an LOI either, just tell the school you are concerned about their staff' future and you will wait till you can just enroll to ensure your coach is at the school. See how that goes for the recruit.

Or enroll at the school and then transfer. I know you have to sit out a year if you transfer but it is like a forced redshirt.

I think this early signing day prevents more issues than it may cause. Basketball uses it to a high degree of success.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo, if you commit to one coach and he leaves or gets fired then they hire an ******* who you don't know how is that fair?

I understand but what does an early signing day do to change the likelihood of this from happening? What happens if the HC is fired the day after regular signing day? What happens if he leaves to take a job somewhere else after signing day?

That is why you should be committing to the program and not the coach. I understand that the coach has a relationship and the next coach could suck. That is the same risk at any program.

So what is the issue with an early signing day?

 

[Consigliere]

This doesn't change hardly anything.

Early enrollees don't sign national letters of intent at all. They just enroll and are at that point a student. This thing does not have any bearing at all on them actually enrolling in the school. It is more or less a mechanism for the school to say "See how much we want you? You can sign your scholarship papers now instead of in December." The onus is still on the recruit to actually follow through, because signing scholarship papers to a school in no way binds them to actually attending that school.

For example, hypothetically assuming this was currently active, Berrios could sign his papers today, and then decide in early December that he would rather attend South Carolina.

I agree its a step in the right direction, but all this is doing is allowing early enrollees a way to get their paperwork out of the way early. That's it.

If you sign on earlier signing day (this August proposal), aren't you locked into the school? If you don't follow through and enroll, don't you have to ask the school to let you out of your LOI?

 

[dodaniels]

What would be the procedure if the kid felt he made the wrong choice, since he didn't sign his LOI? Would be less tedious, no?

thats the issue I have always seen and especially if the coaches get fired

It is an issue but a kid should commit to a program and not a coach. I realize that they do not do this but they should understand a coach can leave or be fired.

The only time a kid should be let out of an LOI if something happens that there is no notice of (i.e. NCAA investigation after you sign).

The coach established the relationship with the recruit not the program.

The program hired the coach.

I don't get this, then don't sign the LOI. If it is early signing day and a staffs' future concerns you, then don't sign the LOI. Just wait and be with the rest of the people waiting for NSD.

This issue is making recruiting less of a circus and limiting these issues. An early SD clearly limits issues.

The coach determines the program identity. Look at Temple when Golden was there. He changed their program culture, and he is doing the same thing here. The U Tough program was on 10 year hiatus before Golden awoken it.