Would \"Early signing\" period help/hurt SMU

[SWC2010]

With many players 'de-committing' this year, some coaches are groaning for an early signing period.We saw one (in Chris Hall) in this class, but does an early signing help the 17-18 year old decide what is best for his future? Other than summer camps, what does a kid know about college prior to a couple of visits?

And. does it help the SMU's compete? Aren't most players taking their 1st visits with the BCS school? Couldn't Mack or Swoops have a huge kickoff recruiting weekend, put on the high-pressure close on Sunday, and lock up most of their class before a kid sees SMU?

I can see both sides to this arguement, but it sounds like carping from the coach who lost the recruiting battles. Coach SlimFast at Kansas lost 7 commitments leading up to signing day ( http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/sports/10801289.htm)

[JasonB]

In my opinion, it would hurt schools like SMU. The big colleges would be able to wrap up teh big name committments early on, and then target the rest. It lessens the chance of SMU "stealing" a commitment, and also a lot of players wouldn't sign with small schools early because they would hold out hope for offers from bigger colleges later on in the process.

[DallasDiehard]

I disagree -- I think it would help SMU. Whereas Bob Stoops and Mack Brown and Franocchio and Les Miles can sit back and almost wait for the great players to call them (to an extent -- of course they recruit, too), our coaches are out there beating the bushes to come up with lesser-known players (Cedrick Dorsey, Devin Lowery, Bobby Chase, etc.) For example: for several months, the only school reportedly after Juaquin Iglesias was SMU. The only school to go after Ross Nigh early was SMU (after he had a great postseason, suddenly others were interested). With an early signing period, would Iglesias be joining HS teammate Columbus Givens at SMU? Who knows?