[TrumpCard]

If this were to materialize, it would be a boon for Stanford:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-carousel

[TrumpCard]

If this were to materialize, it would be a boon for Stanford:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-carousel

[Farm93]

If this were to materialize, it would be a boon for Stanford:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-carousel

I can't believe I am with Sankey on both aspects.

It should not have been moved up to mid-December. 
Now that we've gone down that path moving it back would not address the coaching carousel and transfer portal moves in November.   Those things are now acceptable or expected, so those negatives will remain even if the signing period goes back. 

Therefore the December LOI and the new coaching craziness will remain.

[Farm93]

If this were to materialize, it would be a boon for Stanford:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-carousel

I can't believe I am with Sankey on both aspects.

It should not have been moved up to mid-December. 
Now that we've gone down that path moving it back would not address the coaching carousel and transfer portal moves in November.   Those things are now acceptable or expected, so those negatives will remain even if the signing period goes back. 

Therefore the December LOI and the new coaching craziness will remain.

[BostonCard]

As I recall, this whole early signing period was driven by coaches who were pissed when verbal commits de-committed and wanted to lock them in early.  Who could have possibly predicted that it would come around and bite them in the behind when schools realized that coaching instability could drive recruits away.

BC

[BostonCard]

As I recall, this whole early signing period was driven by coaches who were pissed when verbal commits de-committed and wanted to lock them in early.  Who could have possibly predicted that it would come around and bite them in the behind when schools realized that coaching instability could drive recruits away.

BC

[Maple Leaf]

As I recall, this whole early signing period was driven by coaches who were pissed when verbal commits de-committed and wanted to lock them in early.  Who could have possibly predicted that it would come around and bite them in the behind when schools realized that coaching instability could drive recruits away.

BC

Saben was a big proponent of the early signing period, one of his arguments for it was that it would allow coaches of bowl teams to focus on prepping for the bowl game and not to spend time recruiting, what a wimp.

[Maple Leaf]

As I recall, this whole early signing period was driven by coaches who were pissed when verbal commits de-committed and wanted to lock them in early.  Who could have possibly predicted that it would come around and bite them in the behind when schools realized that coaching instability could drive recruits away.

BC

Saben was a big proponent of the early signing period, one of his arguments for it was that it would allow coaches of bowl teams to focus on prepping for the bowl game and not to spend time recruiting, what a wimp.

[gailtate]

If this were to materialize, it would be a boon for Stanford:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-carousel

Wouldn't hurt, that's for sure. Of course, you have to do something with those recruits once they arrive.

[gailtate]

If this were to materialize, it would be a boon for Stanford:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...g-carousel

Wouldn't hurt, that's for sure. Of course, you have to do something with those recruits once they arrive.