The Lions' Pride

We live in an impatient society. Its nothing more than that. We want our info and we want it NOW. So naturally we are going to want answers...answers such as who will be on our football team, etc. As far as the advantages/disadvantages, I think its even either way. If you trust your ability to evaluate kids then you'll get some early that others haven't found yet and if you wait you'll find others that came out of the woodwork. I think a balanced approach works best. Get em early when you can but leave some room at the end too.

I would rather a few positions be done before the summer starts so our staff can concentrate on positions that are thin (our secondary). I have a question for you guys and I don't want to start a new thread for it. Do you feel like this B/W game there won't be those stud recruits that come and visit. I know we have some of them that might have visited if they didn't commit to us like Hack and Breneman. It just doesn't feel like that big year for uncommitted guys.

While I agree with the idea of quality over time, but there is no denying there is a seroius advantage in finishing the class early.

If the player falls off the way Wayne Morgan did, pull the offer and try to make up ground with somebody else. Finishing early gives you a leg up on the next recruiting class, and gives the staff a little bit less stress during the season.

Also, people keep mentioning Texas as a bad example of recruiting. Texas' problem wasn't talent, it was coaching. In terms of talent they're a top 5 team year in and year out without a doubt.

EDIT: that being said, I don't believe the class should be finished by the first game, minus a 5* or two. Just extremely beneficial to finish early.

There was a trend back the 90's re early verbals, in fact I think Joe Nastasi was the second ever to verbal to a school in his jr. year. It seemed like PSU valued having a lot of recruits on board verbally prior to the start of the season, for a long while. In fact we took heat from national recruiting services in that we took risks before we got to see senior seasons, and because of limited space for rising seniors. Probably some truth to in considering some of the bad on-the-field results of the dark years. Seems like we backed off of the early verbal approach the last few years. But now there is a clear national trend toward early verbals, and I think we have to compete in that environment. There also seems to be a lot more information available to make better choices now relative to the 90's.

I agree completely with the OP. Some guys are going to go off the board, but I would rather more information about certain prospects (see Derwin Gray) and our staff has shown the ability to target underrated kids pretty well.

Here's something from our national page on early commits.

Just because you have a EC does't mean he will sign on the dotted line in Feb. Football needs a early signing period like bb.

I live in the ATX as well and follow Texas pretty closely. BTW, if you want to point one of the biggest areas of underachievement it was the Oline, which is why McWhorter was let go, this team couldn't get a yard to save it's life when needed for a number of years. Whether or not it was his fault and that can certainly be argued either way, there's an indictment inferred in your post that would include him and I think most here are thrilled to have him at PSU.

Talent and performance are two different things, and that to me is where this debate lies. Is it the coaches' fault that 5* kids flop or the kid's? Or were they maybe not 5* after all. Texas for a number of years had the pick of the litter in Texas and was pretty well filled up before senior years. Some kids didn't come along as expected, some did, but that can be said for late verballing recruiting classes at other schools as well, it's the nature of the game.

My opinion, I saw a few things. First and foremost was a team full of anointed stars, the kids just didn't have the blue collar work ethic to keep getting better, they blew away the competition in high school on talent alone and when it was even on the field, there was a struggle to ratchet up performance. I can't remember seeing at another school so many kids with ridiculous measurables that did not produce - coach or kid fault? Maybe a little of both. Second, and it was interesting to see this year, because so many blamed Greg Davis' stale offense for all their problems and yet Harsin comes in from Boise and does nothing. QB performance is everything - at Texas, PSU, Notre Dame or on the flip side at Baylor, Cal when Rodgers was there, Purdue when Brees was there, etc., will see about Stanford this year. A good QB makes for smart coaches, and when you don't have one, bad coaches. Mack was pretty smart when he had Vince, Major and Colt, but not so smart when he had Mauck, Simms, or Gilbert....

I agree. Maybe some of these kids will actually think twice before committing/signing and actually do their due diligence on visiting schools before jumping the gun.

Why? Because we had kids leave. The coaches need to do their job and hold on to them. What if a kid decides in November he wants to stay home in PA rather than go to school in Cali, no one would be complaining then. Yes the staff change would be a good thing if God forbid we had one, but early signing for "stability" is ridiculous.

I'm torn on an early signing period in football. I find myself agreeing with both sides. A provision for staff changes would help, but that still doesn't cover everything.

What if there's a situation similar to McGlinchey's, where ND tells him, "there's one spot left," so he takes it and signs early. ND then can sign another lineman at the later signing day and even if it pisses McG off, he can't do anything about it.

At the same time, I agree with 42 that there's too much of the wishy-washy behavior. The problem is the type of kid. There are certain types of kids who work fine with an early signing period - Silas Redd is one example. He loved PSU and never wavered. But there are other kids who maybe are pressured into verbally committing early.

I will say that it would certainly add a layer of intrigue. Can anyone imagine how crazy fanbases will go over kids who are verbally committed when the early signing day came, but didn't sign yet?