Greeson: Make football early-signing period earlier

The Big Five conferences have flexed their muscle with this newly granted autonomy from the NCAA.

Late last week, the Big Five passed the groundbreaking -- and potentially budget-breaking for smaller programs -- "cost of attendance," which will allow schools to give student-athletes yearly stipends.

It was passed almost unanimously, getting approved 79-1, with Boston College casting the lone dissenting -- and rational -- opinion. According to national reports, Boston College issued a fairly terse and direct statement that expressed its concern with increasing expense when most athletic departments already are "institutionally subsidized" and warned of the potential of sports programs being cut and possible underhanded recruiting and rule-bending happening under loose federal guidelines.

These concerns are valid and fair. We have long said and written that players already get paid -- college educations are far from free -- and while the current system needs examination, paying players what equals to "slave wages" is not the solution and only leads down the slick trail of "How much is enough?" The process never will end the "$100 handshake" or rogue boosters or any of the seedy underbelly that makes passionate college sports fans cringe.

But we knew that was coming, regardless of which side of the debate you stand on. And while we are against the stipend and the "cost of attendance" fallacy that has been propagandized by the image of some player not being able to "buy a pizza for his girlfriend," it is becoming increasingly tough to argue against some sort of reward since a normally frugal place such as the University of Georgia is paying more than $2 million annually for its football coordinators, for crying out loud.

So the change is coming, and earlier this week that change in the big-time college sports narrative continued to be reshaped.

An early-signing period for football was approved for the Big Five. Starting this December, a player will have 72 hours starting on Dec. 16 to sign on the dotted line on a letter of intent and officially accept a scholarship.

This could severely damage the "Hat Dance" rituals of kids sitting behind four college caps and pump-faking with each lid until they make a decision. But we agree that an early signing day is a positive step for college prospects who are certain where they are headed and are ready to end the texts and phone calls and the last-minute efforts from coaching staffs everywhere who know getting 18-year-olds to say yes is a big part of their job description.

Still, why not go earlier? Why not make it Aug. 1, like the Atlantic Coast Conference was supporting?

This is a positive move, no doubt, but it feels like taking half a vaccination or buying half an insurance deposit. More and more schools are taking early enrollees, and with the difference really being only about 50 days, this is still not a fair extension compared to the ever-changing and forever-moving-forward recruiting calendar.

Plus, an Aug. 1 signing date would put the pressure on these schools that are able to massage their recruiting agenda easily about taking this commitment unless a better player comes along and then maybe telling the one-time commitment he's a former commitment. You want an early commitment from a kid, be ready to give him a truly early scholarship.

We applaud the intent but think the early-signing period is not early enough.

Contact Jay Greeson at jgreeson@timesfreepress.com.

Upcoming Events