I have been pondering the rather pithy question of whether or not college football needs an early signing day like college basketball.  While my initial first-blush gut-reaction was, "Why not?", after giving the whole issue some thought and weighing the pros and cons, it seems to me that like most things, the answer is not nearly so simple as it seems.

Earlier this year, the SEC coaches reversed themselves 180 degrees from last year, voting 9-3 for an early signing period, but it failed to pass muster with the Athletics Directors. Obviously, this question has been debated by others at some length, many of them more qualified than me by virtue of following the issue more closely.  So let's take a look at the reasons an early signing day might want to be considered:

• No reason to prolong the process when a recruit has made up his mind;
• Financial considerations for coaches and AD's -- it would save money babysitting the player;
• Time considerations for the coaches -- less babysitting verbals is good;
• Verbally committed recruits won't continue to be accosted by hopeful coaches;
• Fewer decommitments.

On the surface, these look fairly compelling.  But if you'll notice, three of the five are for the benefit of the school, not the kids.  I am therefore inclined to relegate them to the status of "minor consideration."  We have a system that sort of works, so any modifications to it should be for the benefit of the student-athlete, not the institution.  If the institutions also benefit, great.

MaconDawg at Dawg Sports has analyzed the issue, and concludes essentially thus:

An early signing period will not solve the core problem: college football coaches and their schools have millions of dollars riding on the outcome of football games. An early signing period will not solve that core, almost primal, motivation. Nick Saban, when confronted with an early signing period, will respond by sending his assistants out to Ronnie Van Zant Junior High to get an early edge. Book it.

His fundamental argument is that an early signing will simply move the problems that this is designed to solve to, well, earlier in the process rather than later.  In other words, no real benefit.  This argument has merit, but isn't really dispositive, nor was it intended to be.

So what do the recruits say?  Well, if this Scout article is to be believed, they are generally for it, saying that it would take the pressure off them in their final year.  I note that this isn't particularly encouraging -- a kid should be inspired to perform well in his last year, and not just for reasons of impressing coaches.  A sudden drop in motivation might be undesirable.  Other concerns include the possibility of coaching changes at his college of choice, which tend to happen after the proposed windows being floated for the early period -- December or August.

But there are some good reasons for considering an early period, one of the biggest being reducing the number of phone calls and other recruiting contacts the recruit must field before he signs a binding agreement.  To me, this seems to be the main benefit.  Another concern that primarily affects the schools is the idea that some players verbally commit as an insurance policy -- their preferred school, A, doesn't have a slot, so they commit to their second choice, B.  Just before signing day, a spot opens up at A and the recruit decommits from B and signs with A, leaving B in the cold.  That's unethical, and a bad way for a young man to begin an important part of the journey to adulthood.

It's pretty easy to see how this all shakes out -- the hot programs don't want anything to do with an early signing day since they are the ones who generally benefit the most from decommitments, and the Weak Wisters of the Poor (pretty much 70% of all D-I college football programs) really want one bad.  The way the system stands now is very much as if the ethics manual for college coaches were written by Bobby Petrino and Bill Belichick with an introduction by Ralph Kelvin Sampson. At the same time, nobody wants to create another signing day frenzy and, as MaconDawg says, move the whole problem earlier in the process rather than actually addressing it.

One way that has been proposed to mitigate this frenzy is to allow only recruits who have made no official visits eligible to sign early.  That way, you capture mainly guys who have grown up wanting to play for a particular school and really have no interest in the recruiting process.  One official visit, and you have to wait until February.

So what's to be done?  Here is my modest proposal:

• Set an early national signing day in August for the recruits who wish to take advantage of it.  No recruits who have made an official visit may sign.  Coaches may not contact recruits at all two weeks prior to the signing day.  This will relieve the "frenzy" of coaches pressuring their recruits to sign in the early period, which MaconDawg rightly fears.  Yes, it will still be there, but two weeks aught to be enough for cooler heads to prevail.
  
• A national "no call" database (like the national "Do Not Call" list for sales calls) managed by the same people who manage the national letter of intent program, and a written agreement by all Division I college coaches to abide by it.  A recruit who verbally commits may enter his name into the database, and he would be off-limits to other coaches and their representatives until/if the recruit removes his name from the list.  This will stop the badgering of verbally committed recruits, and minimize the "babysitting" by schools.  This would be a nice thing to extend to the basketball side as well.
• Codify the ability of the recruit to back out of an NLOI on a coaching change.  It is going to be granted anyway, so just make it standard procedure absent a "show cause" hearing why it should not be granted.  Another good idea for the basketball side.
  

This addresses many of the concerns of coaches and most concerns of recruits.  They can commit as early as August, or wait until February.  Coaches don't have to worry so much about "insurance" commits, because as soon as his prized quarterback takes his name off the "do not call" list, that coach knows Mr. Football is listening to others and can plan accordingly. 

Of course, this doesn't prevent recruits from calling coaches while they are on the list, so the opportunity for the recruit to reconsider his verbal still exists.  This process will be much more fair to the schools without removing the opportunity for recruits to find the best place for them.  Granted, it isn't proof against "insurance commits," but it does have the advantage of giving coaches a better idea of how firm their commitments are.

Recruits can commit early and have the pressure off them their senior year, or they can wait until February without being pressured by simply putting their name on the DNC list.  As to enforcement of the DNC list, well, if peer pressure won't handle it, perhaps another way can be found -- maybe coaches found in violation could be denied NLOI privileges for a year.  Or, perhaps peer pressure would do.  Unethical behavior by coaches will certainly be news, and a few negative articles about coaches not abiding by their agreement aught to be a concern to the school who employs him -- if he can't abide by rules, can an NCAA investigation be far behind?

So that's my shot at an early period.  I think it could be good, but only if the problems are actually addressed rather than simply accelerated.

UPDATE 7/9/2005:  Taco John at Never Falter has revised and extended this suggestion.  An interesting idea.

Larry Vaught recently conducted a series of interviews with former UK coach Tubby Smith.  For a while, they were subscriber-only, but they recently made them free for all Wildcat fans.

Links to the artcles are:

• Part I:  Smith says the river keeps on rolling
• Part II:  Smith discusses his Cats that made the NBA
• Part III:  OTS discusses Saul, & reflects on Mr. Wildcat
• Part IV:  Tubby Smith discusses camps and recruiting
• Part V:  Smith says he misses the people the most

Thanks to Scout.com for making these interviews available to us all.  They are interesting and informative, and Larry Vaught does a great job as always.

I admit, this does anger me.  In my earlier article about Florida coach Billy Donovan's acceptance of Austin Rivers' commitment to the Gators in apparent disdain of the recent NABC strong discouragement of such a practice, I asked if we would hear Donovan similarly criticized, or silence.  That question has been emphatically answered, at least as of 3 days into the affair.  Not one article has appeared as of this writing anywhere that is the least bit critical of Donovan.  But articles have appeared apparently casting Donovan as a victim of Gillispie's actions.

I wish to direct your attention to that bane of all Wildcat fans, the Original Sin of the Lexington Herald-Leader himself, Jerry Tipton (please note tongue firmly in cheek).  It seems that Jerry got a few emails along the lines of my earlier missive linked above:

“So Clyde (Gillispie) stated he would no longer accept commitments unless they are in their junior year, yet BD (Florida Coach Billy Donovan) accepts this commitment,” wrote one fan in an e-mail. “That's not playing on a level field, in my opinion. BD, in other words, tells the NABC to stick it. I hope you mention this in your blog. I will be disappointed if you do not. Not Right.”

It does seem passing strange that after all the hubbub surrounding Avery's commitment to Kentucky and the subsequent media circus surrounding the NABC "strong discouragement" of accepting commitments prior to June 15th following their sophomore year that we have not one story containing even a mild reproof of Donovan for his acceptance of a commitment from a 15 year-old, much less the kind of blanket, finger-wagging disapproval Billy Gillispie was subjected to on an almost daily basis over the last 60 days for doing exactly the same.  Maybe they are just waiting 'till Monday.  Yeah, that's it.

Tipton goes on to paraphrase some of Donovan's defenders:

Those who defend Donovan note that not all recruiting scenarios are the same. The Florida coach has a longstanding relationship with Rivers and his family.

Well.  That makes it OK, then.  I mean, if you have a relationship with the recruit's father, the "rules" don't apply to you.  But let me take that a little further.  Donovan's relationship with the Rivers' provides him a recruiting advantage over everyone.  You see, unlike Gillispie who had to wait until Avery's father called him, Donovan could call on Doc and Austin anytime because of an existing relationship with the family.  So that makes it all OK for Billy D -- pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.  Move along.

But that isn't quite enough for the Florida media.  They would have us to believe that Donovan is just responding to the threat of the Evil Billy Gillispie, he simply had to do this or be left behind:

Florida basketball coach Billy Donovan just secured an oral commitment from 15-year-old Winter Park guard Austin Rivers, the youngest commitment in his 12 seasons at UF. Austin is the son of Boston Celtics coach Doc Rivers. This is either a case of Donovan outworking other programs or an effort to keep up with Kentucky's Billy Gillispie and his Junior High Kids 'R Us recruiting strategy. ...

Oh, yeah, man.  Absolutely right.  We can't have Kentucky getting away with something Florida can't.  The fact that Donovan has already obtained verbal commitments previously from three players younger than the NABC recommended limit, including current player Nick Calathes, doesn't matter at all.  In fact, the only thing that matters is Gillispie is wrong, and Donovan is ... perfect.  Clean cut, never a hint of impropriety.  This just had to be on the up-and-up, you gotta look at all the facts of the case, and the fact is Donovan is good and Gillispie is bad.  That's all you need to know.

For all you Florida fans that think I'm ragging on Billy D, I'm not.  I agree with him, and frankly think that what he did was just fine, all four times. I think the NABC is full of it on this issue, and the NCAA as well.  You want to establish a limit?  Fine, place accepting scholarship offers off limits prior to a kid's 15th birthday.  But 15 is plenty old enough to make a decision about college, especially with the large amount of family involvement at that point in a young person's life.  I was making decisions at 15 that make a college choice pale into insignificance, and I have news for you -- most other 15 year-olds today are as well.  Stop with this whole "sophomore year" deal.  When we offer the franchise to vote in elections to everyone at 18 years of age or the right to imbibe alcohol at 21, we don't include a caveat about what grade level they have achieved in high school.

But what about the "academic profile" of younger players that garners all the hand-wringing from Miles Brand, the NABC et. al.?  Let's take the case of young Mr. Avery, the commitment that started this firestorm:

Avery has been astute enough to turn his intensity on his studies, too. He graduated from eighth grade with a grade-point average of 3.54.

"I realize that if I don't do well in the classroom, I don't play basketball," he said.

Imagine that.  The kid has a B+ average, and realizes that if he doesn't keep it up, he won't play ball.  No way a kid with a mature attitude like that is old enough to decide about college, right NCAA?  NABC?  And of course, those worthies just know Gillispie didn't take Avery's strong academic record into consideration when he offered his father the scholarship.  No way, we all know Gillispie is evil.

Contrast that to many players who wait and make their decision in accordance with the preferences of the NABC, NCAA and others who wind up in prep school or junior college.  Perhaps if they had committed earlier in their careers, they would not have found keeping up their grades to be of secondary importance, and would have had the additional mentoring of their college coach-to-be to help motivate them.

Do I really want the media to rag out Donovan?  Nope.  What I want is for the media, the NABC and the NCAA to stop their silly, gut-reaction posturing and actually rub those brain cells that they allegedly have together for a moment.  Do we need another stupid rule from the NCAA that makes sense only to a public relations manager, or do we need them to really consider when it is too early for a commitment to a college?  We don't criticize academic prodigies who wind up selecting and entering college at a young age -- we laud them.  It's time to stop creating double standards due to cognitive dissonance and stubborn desire to "look good" to the public.  How about leading, for a change, instead of continuing to contribute to the parochial mentality that dominates academia and the step-child attitude academics have toward athletics?

This is the third in a series of posts breaking down the '08 football 'Cats.  Today, we continue with a breakdown of the linebackers. 

How to replace the irreplaceable?  That is the question Kentucky linebackers coach Chuck Smith must be asking himself as he lies in bed every night, not sleeping.  Wesley Woodyard, the SEC's leading tackler the last two years has taken his speed, intensity, and general havoc-wreaking nature to the NFL's Denver Broncos.  Which begs the questions: Which player will step up and replace Woodyard's 139 tackles, 5 pass break-ups, and 2.5 sacks?  Which player will step up and replace Woodyard's leadership and Mike Singletary-type intensity?  Which player will step up and replace Woodyard's jets ( 4.51 - 40 at the NFL combine ) as he comes around end? Which player will step up and replace Woodyard's refusal to allow that extra yard?  Which player will step up and replace Woodyard on the first team All-SEC defense?

Well, since no one is truly irreplaceable, my money is on:

Braxton Kelley

Kelley a 6'0", 226 lb senior is, in my mind, the most likely to fill Woodyard's considerable cleats.  Kelley has been good since he stepped on campus, earning All-SEC Freshman honors.  Last year he made 63 tackles ( third on the team ), with 5 tackles for loss.  He also grabbed an interception, and recorded 1 pass break-up.  Kelley claims 189 career tackles. 

The one caveat one must remember when evaluating Kelley's impact in '08, is the fact that he is moving from middle linebacker to the weak-side spot, formerly occupied by Mr. Woodyard.  Kelly's transition though, was applauded in the spring by the coaching staff, possibly due to the fact that Kelley brings the same attitude to the football field as his predecessor.  He has always been a hard-driving, aggressive, intense player, this year though he will be looked to for leadership.  Woodyard not only led by example, he was the vocal leader responsible for defensive assignments after the play clock started.  This aspect of Kelley's responsibilities is new.  I have no doubt that he will embrace the challenge and continue in his upward career arc.

Kelley has watched and learned from one of the best linebackers in UK history for the last three years.  Hopefully he's salivating at the chance to lead UK's defense in their next step toward respectability.  If Kelley's '08 Blue-White game is any indication of what is to come, then UK football fans can rest easy.  He posted 12 tackles, with a pick, and 1 tackle for loss. 

Kelley, along with Trevard Lindley, have an opportunity to make a nasty mark on the UK record books.  Together, the two terrific defenders can help change the perception of Kentucky football by leading this team to the seven win mark, all the while gaining the coveted three winning seasons in a row honor.  Recognizing the possibilities this season holds has surely not escaped Mr. Kelley.

Micah Johnson  

Johnson, the 6'2", 255 lb junior, is poised to take over the middle linebacker spot he shared with Braxton Kelley last year.  Johnson made that magical leap from potential to performance last year.  He posted 58 tackles ( fifth on the team ), with 5 tackles for loss.  He also recorded 2 interceptions, and 5 pass break-ups.

The most positive aspect of Johnson's performance last year was the extraordinary improvement he made on passing downs.  His freshman year Johnson struggled mightily with thinking, instead of reacting, on passing downs ( he did make the All-SEC Freshman team though ).  Rich Brooks, when asked about Johnson's playing time, always responded that Johnson wasn't effective in passing downs, therefore he rotated him out of the lineup.  What a difference a year can make.

To his great credit, Johnson seems to have mastered reacting instead of thinking.  Last year he did a tremendous job covering receiving tight ends, and with his 4.6 speed his pursuit was noticeably more aggressive, and ended in success more often.  I certainly expect Johnson to continue to improve during his junior year, and should prove to be yet another important component in UK's defensive revival.  Given his incredible increase in productivity, Johnson has a chance to join Lindley and Kelley as the three ( instead of two ) anchors of Kentucky's defense.

Returning players of note

• Johnny Williams -- 6'3", 240 lb senior: 43 tackles, 1 tackle for loss, 1 fumble recovery, 1 pass break-up.  Williams will continue to battle with Sam Maxwell for the starting nod at the strong-side linebacker position.
• Mikhail Mabry -- 6'2", 235 lb junior: 2 tackles, 1 tackle for loss, 1 interception.  Mabry will most likely back-up Micah Johnson at middle linebacker.
• Sam Maxwell -- 6'3", 225 lb junior: 27 tackles, 5 tackles for loss, 1 interception, 2 pass break-ups, 1 fumble recovery.  Maxwell lost time last time last year to Johnny Williams.  He will once again fight with the senior for playing time.  He will be in the linebacker rotation.
• A.J. Nance -- 5'11", 240 lb junior: 8 tackles.  Nance finds himself third string middle linebacker going into the opening of practice on August 5th.  It's doubtful he will be apart of the rotation, but he will see some playing time.
• Jacob Dufrene -- 6'2", 215 lb sophomore: 3 tackles.  Dufrene is listed third on the depth chart at the weak-side linebacker spot.  As with Nance, he probably won't make the rotation, but he will see playing time.
• Michael Schwindal -- 6'2", 220 lb junior: 4 tackles.  Schwindal is changing positions for '08.  For the last two years the Hancock County native has played at the free safety spot.  He moved to the weak-side linebacker position in spring practice and excelled.  Excelled so much that he is second on the depth chart at weak-side linebacker.  He'll be backing up Braxton Kelley, so he's not likely to play an enormous number of downs, unless of course Kelley goes down to injury.

The newcomers

• Danny Trevathan -- 6'2", 215 lbs.  He has been compared to Wesley Woodyard because of his speed and intensity.  He runs a 4.45 - 40 , which for those new to the sport, is very fast, especially for a linebacker.  With the depth UK sports at the position I doubt Trevathan will see much, if any time.  But, in football injuries are always the unknown factor in the pre-season, and linebackers possessing Trevathan's speed are very difficult to keep off of the field.
• Taylor Wyndham -- 6'4", 204 lbs.  Wyndham is rated the #47 strong-side linebacker prospect by Scout.com.  His senior year in high school he played outside linebacker, but as he continues to grow and become stronger, he will probably be considered for a defensive end spot. 

Final Analysis

Last years linebacker core recorded 5 interceptions, and 14 pass break-ups.  Not bad numbers, but conversely they only sacked the quarterback 3 times.  Obviously that number needs to rise ... considerably.  Consistent pressuring of the quarterback wasn't executed last year,  i.e. the UT and S. Carolina games.  This year there will be no Wesley Woodyard to bail 'em out.  

It's really very simple.  Williams, Johnson and Kelley have to perform better than they ever have to make up for the loss of Woodyard.  And by "better" I mean more consistent, because consistency in performance is the only attribute lacking from this group.  Spring practice though, brought kudos from the coaching staff on the linebackers play, so hopefully the trio will continue UK's recent trend of producing great linebackers. 

Trivia    

Since 1970, which UK football player holds the record for most tackles in a season with 183?   

Thanks for reading, and Go 'Cats!

All summer long, Kentucky fans have been subjected to a constant drumbeat of criticism over Coach Gillispie's acceptance of verbal commitments from players who have not yet reached their junior year in high school.  Evidently concerned about the perception that coaching was getting out of control, the NABC issued a statement which strongly opposed accepting commitments from high school players before June 15th of their sophomore year.

Billy Gillispie agreed to abide by the decision, even though he argued repeatedly that he saw nothing wrong with accepting young commitments and even managed to get UK president Dr. Lee Todd on board, at least to some degree.  But even after the NABC statement, commentary has continued to appear critical of the practice in general and Gillispie in particular.

Comes now Florida head coach Billy Donovan to join Gillispie, USC's Tim Floyd, NC State's Sydney Lowe and North Carolina's Roy Williams (among others) to the party.  Yesterday, Donovan accepted a commitment from Austin Rivers, son of Boston Celtics coach Glenn "Doc" Rivers.  To Donovan's credit, he isn't being a hypocrite or an iconoclast here -- he has accepted early commits before:

Rivers, a 6-foot-3 guard from the Orlando area, has an older sister, Callie, who plays volleyball for Florida. In Donovan's 12 seasons as coach, Rivers is the fourth player to commit to Florida before completing his sophomore year.

The other three all enjoyed successful college careers: Teddy Dupay, Mike Miller and Nick Calathes.

Donovan has so far not commented on the Rivers case, but he has said before that he sees nothing wrong with the practice, and that a decision to commit to a school should be a "family decision."

I think Donovan is right.  Others have argued that the pressures of living up to that commitment are more than a player should have to deal with at that tender age, and that players are simply not experienced enough to make such important decisions.  They also argue that coaches simply aren't good enough to accurately evaluate talent or academic quality at such an early age.

I have discussed this at length here and here, and in this writer's opinion, accepting an early commitment has no demonstrable negative impact on the recruit -- in fact, if Donovan's three previous early commits serve as examples, one can easily dispense with the "Coaches can't accurately evaluate players that early" argument.  Donovan clearly can.  And while it's true that early commitments pose possible repercussions for the school should the recruit fail to develop, as long as the school is willing to honor its commitment, it is a no-lose situation for the young player.  College coaches, on the other hand, get paid to take risks.

As far as decisions go, recruits deciding early are much more likely to carefully consider family input at younger ages than they are when they get their driver's license and begin to conclude they already know everything.  And with respect to "academic qualifications," this is simply a red herring -- the kid either will qualify academically or he won't, and if he fails to do the work, it isn't as if he would be mindless of the consequences.  His college coach will surely remind him -- that is, unless he doesn't have one.  If you want a refresher course on the absurdity of the academic argument, read this post.

So now comes my next question -- will we see the media come out in force condemning Billy Donovan for violating the NABC's "moratorium" on accepting early commitments, or will we hear crickets?  My bet is the latter, because what we clearly have here and have had for some time is a double standard.  The media clearly knows that Gillsipie wasn't the first to do this, but they have, in general, studiously avoided mentioning coaches like Roy Williams and Billy Donovan.  Why?  Because it's much easier to make Gillispie the fall guy.  Everybody knows Gillispie has a couple of alcohol-related incidents in his past, and painting a flawed person as an ogre is much easier than manufacturing one from clean-cut Billy Donovan or sweet Ol' Roy.

Gillispie has to accept responsibility for placing himself in the situation to be made into a bad guy, but he has done that with amazing aplomb and a lot of class.  I expect Billy Donovan will handle the criticism, should any ever actually arise, with equal dexterity.  But in the final analysis, the media and academicians who essentially shamed the NABC into their statement are the ones who are full of it.

These same academicians make up the NCAA, and they'll have the last word on all of this.  But I'm thinking I'll have the last laugh.

UPDATE 09:55 AM:  Guess how old Austin Rivers is?  If you said 15, the same age as Michael Avery and Vinnie Zollo, you win 1,000 ASoB bucks.