UK recruiting coordinator Vince Marrow previews early signing period, talks about effect of coaching carousel on recruiting. Jon Hale/The Courier-Journal
This has the makings of a fascinating week for college football, and it’s not because of anything on the field.
Wednesday brings the introduction of an early signing period for football recruiting. This is new. No one can be sure exactly what to expect, though the majority of 2018 commits for teams are likely to go ahead and sign now, ending the suspense that typically lasted until the first Wednesday in February.
Meanwhile, for those in the sport, the topic will remain divisive. Opinions are going to being offered – many of them critical – as to whether the early signing period recently adopted is a good thing for college football.
Alabama coach Nick Saban, for example. He’s against it.
“I didn't like it when we did it. I don't like it now,” Saban told reporters in Tuscaloosa last week. “I don't think it's in the players' best interest. I don't see how it benefits everybody. It's really stressful for everyone. We're all trying to get ready for bowl games and playoff games, and we've got a signing date right in the middle of when we're going to be practicing for a playoff game. …
“I have not talked to a coach who is happy with it. Not one.”
Saban must not have spoken with Kentucky coach Mark Stoops.
Stoops is a rare power-five coach who all along has publicly supported an early signing period in December, saying “What’s the harm in giving them the opportunity to sign early?”
“It would clean up a lot and save us a lot of traveling,” Stoops said this past February. “As I mentioned, I appreciate our staff and our families, our wives. These guys travel around the clock and around the country and spend an awful lot of time away from home, and some of it is just babysitting, and it'll clear the air a little bit. So I don't see anything wrong with giving guys two options. If you want to get it out of the way and knock it out of the way in December, so be it.”
Not to put words in Stoops’ mouth, but such a difference of opinion might be one of vantage point. One can debate this either way, but really, it comes down to perspective.
More: How is Louisville football's signing class shaping up leading up to the early signing period?
While an early signing period might not be best for college football in general, it is good for Kentucky. And it’s good for Louisville too. And any other program that might not fall into the elite recruiting status of an Alabama or other playoff teams like Georgia, Oklahoma or Clemson.
“I see more players getting pressured by some schools to sign early so that they don't get an opportunity from maybe a bigger school later, which I don't think is in the player's best interest,” Saban said. “Because a guy may have an opportunity to go to maybe a place that he's always wanted to go to.”
Again, that's all relative. Kentucky and Louisville obviously don’t want to lose commits to the Ohio States and Alabamas of the world through an unforeseen late recruiting push. And if Kentucky and Louisville each end up adding just one star player that otherwise would have received a late offer and flipped close to the February signing date, then an early signing date is a bonus. Each can lock up players now and not have to spend time re-recruiting them into February, which will allow more time to potentially zero in on a few key players and outwork other programs to maybe lure those bigger fish before February.
More: Kentucky football storylines to watch heading into early signing period
For what it’s worth, however, Bobby Petrino has been “totally against” the early signing period. His stated reasoning had to do with geographic disadvantages and having a lack of time to get to know the players being added nationally.
“Here at the University of Louisville,” Petrino said, “we have to leave our borders to go get our players … I think what you're doing is giving the guys that really want to work hard a disadvantage and geographically give guys an advantage."
Petrino's point is understandable, and it's one of many concerns that haven't yet played out enough to know the impact.
Another concern, as noted by Saban: Having to recruit heavily now is obviously not ideal to the four playoff teams because each of them has a high-stakes “bowl game” to prepare for with national semifinals looming.
It’s in this way that an early signing period, actually, is a little bit like the process of ordering draft picks in the NFL. It penalizes teams for doing well because it allows their coaching staffs less time to prioritize for recruiting in December simply because the pending games are of such significance. If you happen to play in your conference title game – as Georgia, Oklahoma and Clemson all did – that’s even less time to recruit.
On the flip side, coaches – while they wouldn’t say this – can prioritize recruiting in December if they are playing in a garden-variety bowl game without big stakes. Even better in this case, actually, would be if you didn’t make a bowl game at all.
Meanwhile, those players who want to be done with this whole recruiting mess do have the option to now do that. But if you think recruits and families are bombarded by coaches and media now, what happens when about 80 percent of them sign in December? The other 20 percent will face an even harsher spotlight. In addition to the existing pressure of there being only so many spots in a recruiting class and the need to grab one now, that could also now be a factor prompting a young man to do something he might not entirely want to do.
There's a lot to this, so much that collectively, the early signing period is probably destined to cause more problems than it solves in college football.
But for Kentucky and Louisville, it's not a problem as much as it could be an advantage.
Gentry Estes: 502-582-4205; [email protected]; Twitter: @Gentry_Estes. Support strong local journalism by subscribing today: www.courier-journal.com/gentrye