Just saw this from ESPN:
Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson wants to eliminate signing day. "Do away with the foolishness. You've got some schools offering 500 kids."

Have got to say, this makes a lot of sense.

So of course- it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening.

(07-27-2015 12:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Just saw this from ESPN:
Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson wants to eliminate signing day. "Do away with the foolishness. You've got some schools offering 500 kids."

Have got to say, this makes a lot of sense.

So of course- it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening.

I'm inclined to agree, but I do have some reservations. A lot of kids are likely to make early decisions under pressure that they will regret soon after. A late bloomer who signs before the start of his senior season and then has a breakout year is likely to make a bad choice thinking he doesn't have good choices.

As long as nobody can sign before his senior season is over, and as long as there is some (very brief) period during which he can change his mind (one time) without penalty, I think this would be a good idea.

What is it exactly that he wants to do away with? The "hullaballo" of signing day itself?

Or he actually wants signing day to be pushed back earlier in the process? Or what?


There has to be some date which is the earliest that a recruit can sign with a school. Whatever that date is will always be "signing day", in some sense.

There are several coaches that want to do away with signing day. Johnson has been calling for scrapping signing day for several years now.

He wants to make every offer, a genuine offer. Meaning if the recruit gets an offer he can commit and that commit is honored by the program. This would prevent the hundreds of meaningless "offers" that are made. It would force programs to be more judicious with their offers and less offers would be made. Essentially making the "offer" currency more valuable and have more creditability.

Conversely it makes the recruits commit more binding. He signs, he commits. It also protects the recruit from "offers" and verbal commitments that are not honored by programs. Regrettably we've seen some very notable examples in the past few years where recruits have been burned on signing day by programs they had offers from.

Generally I agree with where he wants to go.

I've long said 17th birthday or 30 days after the last game of your high school season.

My concern with no signing day is that it raises the over-sign risk level, you have to clamp that down.

I really think it would reduce some of the insanity. You have schools whispering sweet nothings to players they don't want to sign just because they want to keep the kid interested in the event a player flips. If a kid flips the Saturday before signing day, you scramble to replace. Kid flips on signing day you really have a mess. Spread it out dial down the pressure cooker a bit.

I kind of wish that there was an "early signing period" that went from June through the end of August (concluding BEFORE the start of the Fall HS season...you pick your date). The point would be for schools that see a kid at their summer camp(s) and want to offer him, and the kid wants to go ahead and sign, then FINE. Let a LOI be taken and let it be concrete.

The risk for a school is that they might well miss on a kid who "pops" during his senior season or if a kid gets hurt during the senior season he's "locked in." If, say, Alabama fills out their entire allotment in August, then that's what they've got. And if a kid signs an early LOI and then gets "cold feet" and wants to "re-open their recruitment" then he has to obtain a release.

But that's not likely to happen.

60 years later and Bobby Dodd still can't keep people from over signing.

(07-27-2015 01:38 PM)Danger in Carolina Wrote:  There are several coaches that want to do away with signing day. Johnson has been calling for scrapping signing day for several years now.

He wants to make every offer, a genuine offer. Meaning if the recruit gets an offer he can commit and that commit is honored by the program. This would prevent the hundreds of meaningless "offers" that are made. It would force programs to be more judicious with their offers and less offers would be made. Essentially making the "offer" currency more valuable and have more creditability.

Conversely it makes the recruits commit more binding. He signs, he commits. It also protects the recruit from "offers" and verbal commitments that are not honored by programs. Regrettably we've seen some very notable examples in the past few years where recruits have been burned on signing day by programs they had offers from.

Generally I agree with where he wants to go.

Agree with this 100%

(07-27-2015 12:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Just saw this from ESPN:
Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson wants to eliminate signing day. "Do away with the foolishness. You've got some schools offering 500 kids."

Have got to say, this makes a lot of sense.

So of course- it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening.

Bo Pellini suggested the same thing when he was at Nebraska.

If a school wants to sign a player and the player and parents are ready to sign why should the NCAA stop them.

(07-27-2015 03:34 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 12:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Just saw this from ESPN:
Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson wants to eliminate signing day. "Do away with the foolishness. You've got some schools offering 500 kids."

Have got to say, this makes a lot of sense.

So of course- it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening.

Bo Pellini suggested the same thing when he was at Nebraska.

If a school wants to sign a player and the player and parents are ready to sign why should the NCAA stop them.

They shouldn't stop.... unless you have a system where Texas signs the kid after his junior season and he doesn't progress like they expect and Texas signs someone else and tells the kid who signed early "Oh we don't have a scholarship for you."

Sign 'em stuck with them.

(07-27-2015 03:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:34 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 12:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Just saw this from ESPN:
Georgia Tech's Paul Johnson wants to eliminate signing day. "Do away with the foolishness. You've got some schools offering 500 kids."

Have got to say, this makes a lot of sense.

So of course- it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening.

Bo Pellini suggested the same thing when he was at Nebraska.

If a school wants to sign a player and the player and parents are ready to sign why should the NCAA stop them.

They shouldn't stop.... unless you have a system where Texas signs the kid after his junior season and he doesn't progress like they expect and Texas signs someone else and tells the kid who signed early "Oh we don't have a scholarship for you."

Sign 'em stuck with them.

I guess the answer to that is that the school must honor all LOI's in the order that they were signed (and accepted by the school).

One thing that is a given for me is that, whatever system you (think you) have in place, somebody will find a way around it.

(07-27-2015 03:56 PM)ken d Wrote:  One thing that is a given for me is that, whatever system you (think you) have in place, somebody will find a way around it.

No truer words have ever been spoken.

What if the tables were turned on the schools? Instead of a national Signing Day, let's have a national Offering Day. Nobody can officially offer a scholarship before a specific date, after the high school season is over. Instead of the athlete faxing his LOI to the school, the school faxes the offer to the athlete.

In this scenario, the athlete has a certain number of days (not more than a few) to either accept the offer or reject it. Schools are prohibited from contact during this period. Once accepted, the offer is binding on the school.

Simultaneously with the sending of offers, the schools send a list of who they are offering to the NCAA in a sealed envelope (to avoid hanky panky). With this list is a certification demonstrating that the school has those scholarships available, and aren't over-offering. If it will be necessary for the athlete to enroll early, or to delay his enrollment (gray shirt), that condition must be included in the offer sheet.

After the waiting period is over, any school is free to offer anybody who did not sign his offer sheet, with the condition that any offer they make is binding on the school.

(07-27-2015 02:27 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  60 years later and Bobby Dodd still can't keep people from over signing.

It would be funny, if it weren't so pathetic of collegiate athletics.

(07-27-2015 04:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  What if the tables were turned on the schools? Instead of a national Signing Day, let's have a national Offering Day. Nobody can officially offer a scholarship before a specific date, after the high school season is over. Instead of the athlete faxing his LOI to the school, the school faxes the offer to the athlete.

In this scenario, the athlete has a certain number of days (not more than a few) to either accept the offer or reject it. Schools are prohibited from contact during this period. Once accepted, the offer is binding on the school.

Simultaneously with the sending of offers, the schools send a list of who they are offering to the NCAA in a sealed envelope (to avoid hanky panky). With this list is a certification demonstrating that the school has those scholarships available, and aren't over-offering. If it will be necessary for the athlete to enroll early, or to delay his enrollment (gray shirt), that condition must be included in the offer sheet.

After the waiting period is over, any school is free to offer anybody who did not sign his offer sheet, with the condition that any offer they make is binding on the school.

To build off what you're saying, why don't we simply have a system like the NFL draft, but for major college programs?

IE, the elite high school players sign up to be eligible (in the official "pool") and then the big programs take turns selecting the top talent.


Kids can workout for teams, go to combines, and official & unofficial visits can still take place.


It would be a huge TV spectacle as well.