This post is regarding my conversation with Mr. John Farris earlier today on twitter. Please feel free to chime in on the topic. My assumption is that there will be an actual CN article about it in the near future.
I agree with Bo that NSD should be removed. I disagree that there needs to be any extra protection for high school players. This post will primarily be commenting on the "need" to tack on further modifications to NCAA rules to further "protect" the signed players.
I do not feel like reading NCAA regulations to determine what exactly the current rules are for allowing players out of their contractual agreement to play at a University. I am using these assumptions:
1. Players have to petition the NCAA to transfer after a coach has accepted a new job or has been fired.
2. Players have to petition the NCAA to transfer from a University if there is a health problem with a family member (obviously to move closer to home).
3. If a player wants to transfer because of playing time, etc. they have to sit out a year at the transfer school.
4. NCAA decides if players can transfer because of incoming NCAA sanctions. This occurred with PSU, but I am not sure if that is always the case. I do not think the Miami players had the opportunity to freely transfer without incurring the 1 year sit out penalty.
My argument is that there is absolutely no reason to HAVE to change any of these rules when removing the National Signing Day. If a player signs at the beginning of his Junior year and any of the above happens he can petition the NCAA to release him from his contract. Just like any player that signed on NSD (under the current system) and then had a family member get sick, a coach get canned, or NCAA sanctions come down.
I see no increased risk with allowing players to sign a Letter of Intent (contract) when they want to. It will actually make people (universities and players) more judicious with the recruitment process.
Here are some examples of the practices that I believe will cease to exist if the NSD is simply removed.
1. Over offering. Teams will not be able to offer 300+ players every year. There will only be X amount of scholarships available for each team each year. They will be forced to recruit and not just throw out offers.
2. Early offering. It will be a HUGE liability for coaches to offer younger players. (Assuming the University is required to uphold the contract once it is signed, just like a current LOI).
3. Wasted recruiting/Stealing players. I have never been a college coach, but I understand that a lot of recruiting time is spent trying to keep players who are verbally committed. There would be no need to keep re-recruiting players that have signed.
I am sure there are more, but these are the main ones that come to mind.
I do not think there are any ADDITIONAL (compared to the current system) negatives about removing the NSD. All of the negatives are a part of the current (awful) system.
The bottom line is that removing the NSD does nothing to put players in anymore danger of being taken advantage by Universities or coaches. The current system already does a great job of that. Arguing to change the current system is great and 100% correct. Arguing that removing the NSD MUST include other changes to how players can transfer is, I believe, wrong.
OK thats my rant. I look forward to discussing this in the comments. Mr. Farris hopefully this will get our discussion into a better medium for actual intelligent substantial discourse. Thanks!
And I apologize for any run on sentences or bad wording. I didn't have a bunch of time to proofread!