Football Early Signing Day 2023

[LSUDad]

Early signing day is December 21,2022. Signing day is the start to who wants to be at LSU. Who they bring in for the Spring. Start to reset the roster. Usage of the portal. This is a busy time of the year. Like with a bowl game coming up, isn’t enough. 
 

Years ago the Bayou Bash was the beginning of this, February signing day was a big deal. I made every Bash, every year. This was started with Gerry D, in the Field House. Other schools came down to try and duplicate what we had. It was a money maker, off season football talk. It moved around over the years, Catfish Town Atrium, Riverside Centroplex and the Casino. 
 

Now with the early signing day, you try to get most of the hay in the barn, as the saying goes. You commit, you should sign. Then you know who wants to be there. 
 

The Portal. The portal will give you quick help, a chance to see players in college action, as compared to high school. As for the Portal, we could use a player for almost every position. Many positions could take more than one. Kelly has players that want to be at LSU. Kelly did a good job of cleaning house. There was lots of work done.

 

I often talk about the depleted roster. A major overhaul was done. What they got out of this roster, a major accomplishment. To win the West, no one had this one. Vegas had the line at 6.5 wins. After the Fla. St. loss, some folks were wondering if we’d win an SEC game. 
 

So December 21, Christmas comes early. Let’s get close to that 85 number. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by LSUDad

[LSUDad]

February 1, 2023, the final signing day. Let’s close this out. 

[houtiger]

1 hour ago, LSUDad said:

February 1, 2023, the final signing day. Let’s close this out. 

I guess LB is a priority now.  Pickings have to be slim, it seems most of the kids signed in Dec.  Of the kids that didn't sign, I suspect they already knew where they were going, or at least had a good idea.  A DT and a CB?  We need corners so we don't have to go to the portal every year, we need to raise our own corners.

[LSUDad]

56 minutes ago, houtiger said:

I guess LB is a priority now.  Pickings have to be slim, it seems most of the kids signed in Dec.  Of the kids that didn't sign, I suspect they already knew where they were going, or at least had a good idea.  A DT and a CB?  We need corners so we don't have to go to the portal every year, we need to raise our own corners.

Some talk we only have a few high school players left on the board. We might not sign any. With players hitting the portal daily, we could reach there for what’s needed. 
 

After the Spring, the portal will once again be used. 

[houtiger]

8 hours ago, LSUDad said:

Some talk we only have a few high school players left on the board. We might not sign any. With players hitting the portal daily, we could reach there for what’s needed.

After the Spring, the portal will once again be used. 

Are you thinking that after spring, a few guys who fall lower on the depth chart will transfer out, opening some positions we'll have to fill?

[Nutriaitch]

3 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Are you thinking that after spring, a few guys who fall lower on the depth chart will transfer out, opening some positions we'll have to fill?

that's what happened with Burrow

[houtiger]

18 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

that's what happened with Burrow

This degree of roster turnover has to be a nightmare for coaches.  I guess you hope that when your third string guy enters the portal, that someone else's third string guy entering the portal is better than the one you lost.  My head is spinning.  FH talked about going back to making transfers sit out a year, but I don't think we're going back to that.  You only get one free transfer, if you transfer again, you have to wait a year to play, unless you are a graduate transfer.

[Nutriaitch]

42 minutes ago, houtiger said:

This degree of roster turnover has to be a nightmare for coaches. 

yet another example of people trying to "fix" a system that wasn't broken and making it a complete clusterfuck that is in no way better than what it was.

NIL is another one.

and that playoff expansion everybody is raving about will be yet another.

and when it turns out shitty, everybody say "wait, that's not what we wanted!" but it doesn't ever go back to the way that actually worked.

42 minutes ago, houtiger said:

 FH talked about going back to making transfers sit out a year, but I don't think we're going back to that. 

there needs to be a penalty.

everyone says "but coaches can leave if they want!"
which is true. and about 95% of those have some sort of buyout clause that penalizes them for leaving early.

NFL players under contract can't just get a freebie to go elsewhere if they want.

it's colossally stupid that we allow this to happen in college sports.

 

Edit to Add:  I really need to become Supreme Emperor over all of College Football. Even if it has to be a violent Coup.  I could have all of these issues fixed and humming along smoothly by the following weekend.

[LSUDad]

1 hour ago, houtiger said:

Are you thinking that after spring, a few guys who fall lower on the depth chart will transfer out, opening some positions we'll have to fill?

Yep, after Spring, the roster will change again. 

[houtiger]

1 hour ago, Nutriaitch said:

yet another example of people trying to "fix" a system that wasn't broken and making it a complete clusterfuck that is in no way better than what it was.

The transfer portal is worse for the head coaches, worse for the school, worse for the fans, but its better for the players or they would not use it so much.  Regarding the coach, school football team, and the fans, its a worse system if the kids that are leaving are all better than the kids you are bringing in from the portal to replace them.  If you do an upgrade of player personnel, it could be better.  We did ok with a transfer from Ohio St.

The onus falls on the head coach and assistants.  You can't be an ass and walk around with 10 lb. boots because players will decide they don't want to be around your program.  Some players got abused by the old system, kids like Burrow who had the talent but they couldn't get a chance where they were.  A kid like Jalen Hurts would probably not have progressed as a QB at Gumps sitting behind Tua.  He went to OKlahoma, worked on his skills, became a high pick and he's an NFL star (and a better passer than I thought he would develop into when he was at Gumps).

Proposal:  You can transfer any time, but if you transfer before you have stayed 2 years at your original school, you have to sit out a year.  So if things are not horrible, you stay 2 years then make a decision, like Jack Bech.  That would stop a lot, like Demario Tolan and Denver Harris stuff.

[Nutriaitch]

11 minutes ago, houtiger said:

The transfer portal is worse for the head coaches, worse for the school, worse for the fans, but its better for the players or they would not use it so much.  Regarding the coach, school football team, and the fans, its a worse system if the kids that are leaving are all better than the kids you are bringing in from the portal to replace them.  If you do an upgrade of player personnel, it could be better.  We did ok with a transfer from Ohio St.

the portal itself is not a problem.

the portal is just a way for kids to announce they are considering a transfer and would like to see their options.

penalty free transfers are the issue and needs to be scrapped.

11 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Some players got abused by the old system, kids like Burrow who had the talent but they couldn't get a chance where they were.

graduated from tOSU. 

i would still allow grad transfers.

11 minutes ago, houtiger said:

  A kid like Jalen Hurts would probably not have progressed as a QB at Gumps sitting behind Tua.  He went to OKlahoma, worked on his skills, became a high pick and he's an NFL star (and a better passer than I thought he would develop into when he was at Gumps).

another Graduate transfer. no issues with him making a move.

11 minutes ago, houtiger said:

Proposal:  You can transfer any time, but if you transfer before you have stayed 2 years at your original school, you have to sit out a year.  So if things are not horrible, you stay 2 years then make a decision, like Jack Bech.  That would stop a lot, like Demario Tolan and Denver Harris stuff.

graduate, and you can transfer penalty free.

i would also allow for players to file for a waiver of sorts and allow them to play immediately in certain situations (coach leaves, school put on probation, maybe certain family situations, etc.)

"boo hoo! i'm not starting" is not (and should not be) one of those situations though.

[houtiger]

2 hours ago, Nutriaitch said:

graduate, and you can transfer penalty free.

i would also allow for players to file for a waiver of sorts and allow them to play immediately in certain situations (coach leaves, school put on probation, maybe certain family situations, etc.)

"boo hoo! i'm not starting" is not (and should not be) one of those situations though.

You are advocating indentured servitude.  All for the university, nothing for the player.  Sitting out a year for a 20 year old who is trying to get to the NFL is too big of a penalty.  Sometimes a kid gets in a program, maybe he makes a mistake, and the coaches take a dislike to him and don't play him.  This is a free country and people have rights, to seek better development if they think their talents are being wasted.  Yea, the player gets tuition and a full ride, but for the work they put in, and the revenue they generate for the university, its very unfair to see the coaches make 9 million a year and the student gets 10 - 15 thousand per year.

That said, they have gone a little too far in giving the players 1 free transfer anytime.

[Nutriaitch]

24 minutes ago, houtiger said:

 its very unfair to see the coaches make 9 million a year and the student gets 10 - 15 thousand per year.

Breaking news: CEOs make a shyte ton more than employees.

[houtiger]

24 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

Breaking news: CEOs make a shyte ton more than employees.

If you want to compare it to business, employees always have the right to quit for a higher paying job.

Unrestricted free agency is not right, and 4 years servitude where the university holds all the power is not right either.  The kid is getting a service, not a paycheck.  The "value" of that service in terms of tuition is an overpriced racket.  Most professors don't teach in the classroom most of the time, which is one reason tuition has skyrocketed.  This is so they can make good money on the outside as consultants.  Is tuition really worth 5,000 a semester?  My first semester at USL I paid 97.50 for tuition, take all the hours you wanted.

[Nutriaitch]

1 minute ago, houtiger said:

If you want to compare it to business, employees always have the right to quit for a higher paying job.

 

and lots of corporations have "no compete" clauses that restrict where that employee can go if he leaves.

 

 

[LSUDad]

3 hours ago, houtiger said:

The transfer portal is worse for the head coaches, worse for the school, worse for the fans, but its better for the players or they would not use it so much.  Regarding the coach, school football team, and the fans, its a worse system if the kids that are leaving are all better than the kids you are bringing in from the portal to replace them.  If you do an upgrade of player personnel, it could be better.  We did ok with a transfer from Ohio St.

We did one of the better jobs last season with the roster, not many done better. A cluster when Kelly arrived, build a staff, keep what was left intact. All for what? 
Win the West, win 10 games, play in the SEC Championship, beat Gumps, top 20 finish, play in a major bowl. 

[houtiger]

1 hour ago, Nutriaitch said:

and lots of corporations have "no compete" clauses that restrict where that employee can go if he leaves.

But you don't get a non compete for free, the employee typically gets something for signing that document.

Is the non-compete agreement support by "consideration," which means the employee receives some benefit — like a new job, more compensation, or stock options — for agreeing not to work for a competitor?

A non compete messes with a person's right to earn a living.

[Nutriaitch]

21 minutes ago, houtiger said:

A non compete messes with a person's right to earn a living.

no it doesn’t. 

you don’t have a right to work ONLY where you want under the conditions you want. 

it’s not like that at any level of life. 

so sorry Mr College Athlete, it’s not like that for you either. 

[houtiger]

On 1/12/2023 at 5:08 PM, Nutriaitch said:

no it doesn’t. 

you don’t have a right to work ONLY where you want under the conditions you want. 

it’s not like that at any level of life. 

so sorry Mr College Athlete, it’s not like that for you either. 

Not really.  Non compete's come under state law, and they are continually being weakened.  Cali says they are unenforceable.

Quote

 

Non-compete agreements are historically state-law territory, and the states have come up with a varied approach to their enforceability. For example, North Carolina courts will not enforce a non-compete unless it is part of a written employment contract, based on valuable consideration, designed to protect an employer’s legitimate business interests, and reasonable as to both time and territory. With that said, most states agree that two of the main factors to consider are  geographical scope and the duration of the restriction. Over time, courts across the country have largely come to agree that the most restrictive (and enforceable) non-compete is 50 miles and two years after termination of employment.  An employer can get more than two years’ of protection, but would have to live with a geographical scope smaller than 50 miles; or more than 50 miles, but less than two years.

Technically, the rules just laid out are still applicable, but for the past two decades courts really have struggled with determining whether a non-compete should be enforced or is overly burdensome on the employee – or simply unnecessary to protect the employer.

 

I have a friend, a VP at my former company, who had an employment contract with a non compete.  He had many contacts in the industry and was very personable.  The contract said they would pay him $200K per year not to compete in their industry.  They fired him and he planned to sit out a year, interview or decide if he wanted to start his own company.  He expanded his real estate business, building strip shopping centers and leasing them, and collected 200K from his former company for the year also.  But the company had to give him a lot of value to sit out for a year.  In this day of NIL if a college athlete took the NCAA to court, I think they would rule that the penalty of sitting the athlete out a year is too harsh.

I'm not sure about the penalty for leaving in the first two years, the schools could say they invested in coaching the kid, paid for his room and board, tuition, books, and if he leaves he has siphoned resources from the university and left without providing any return to the university for their investment.

Edited January 14, 2023 by houtiger

[Nutriaitch]

1 hour ago, houtiger said:

Cali says they are unenforceable.

Cali also just made it illegal for McDonalds to give a ketchup packet to anyone that did not specifically ask for that quantity of ketchup packets.  No i’m not joking either. They literally just wrote, voted on, passed, and governor signed into legislation a new law about putting condiment packets into a bag.

So forgive me for not wanting to use that state as a beacon of Sanity when it comes to laws. 

[houtiger]

2 hours ago, Nutriaitch said:

Cali also just made it illegal for McDonalds to give a ketchup packet to anyone that did not specifically ask for that quantity of ketchup packets.  No i’m not joking either. They literally just wrote, voted on, passed, and governor signed into legislation a new law about putting condiment packets into a bag.

So forgive me for not wanting to use that state as a beacon of Sanity when it comes to laws. 

Cali is just one of many, as the article describes.

4 hours ago, houtiger said:

For example, North Carolina courts will not enforce a non-compete unless it is part of a written employment contract, based on valuable consideration, designed to protect an employer’s legitimate business interests, and reasonable as to both time and territory.

N. Carolina is as sane as any other state.

The example of non competes in business, to the awarding of a scholarship to a student athlete who is not paid directly by the university, are two entirely different things.  And if you sign a non compete, there is usually compensation paid for giving up your right to earn a living in a particular area for a specific amount of time.  If compensation is not paid for giving up your right to work where you want, why would you ever sign a document like that.  You wouldn't.  Then you look for a different job.

[Nutriaitch]

1 hour ago, houtiger said:

North Carolina courts will not enforce a non-compete unless it is part of a written employment contract, based on valuable consideration, designed to protect an employer’s legitimate business interests, and reasonable as to both time and territory.

 

um, that’s what a non-compete is?

[Nutriaitch]

1 hour ago, houtiger said:

a written employment contract, based on valuable consideration, designed to protect an employer’s legitimate business interests, and reasonable as to both time and territory

 

so, kinda like a document that states something like….

 

we will pay X, Y, Z. plus pay you an additional stipend. 

in exchange, you will provide the agreed upon labor and can not leave us to go to a competitor. 

[houtiger]

Just now, Nutriaitch said:

um, that’s what a non-compete is?

but an enforceable non compete, is "based on valuable consideration".  What valuable consideration would the universities offer to get a kid to sign a non compete?

Nowadays, the kids, young men, don't have to accept whatever the universities want to offer them.  If the deal is too lopsided in favor of the university, and it is NCAA policy, you can bet that policy will be challenged in court.  The 50's and 60's are long gone.

You can bet that before the NCAA passes a policy, they sit with the lawyers and decide if its legal, and if challenged in court, would they prevail.  Lawsuits are expensive.

[houtiger]

3 minutes ago, Nutriaitch said:

so, kinda like a document that states something like….

we will pay X, Y, Z. plus pay you an additional stipend. 

in exchange, you will provide the agreed upon labor and can not leave us to go to a competitor. 

sort of.  The enforceable non competes, I was just reading, are limited in area to 50 miles and limited in time to 2 years max, whatever the employee is willing to sign.  But if you are going to sign one in business, they will have to basically pay your salary to keep you on the bench.  It's not cheap.  Regular employees don't get employment contracts, your employment is "at will", at the will of the employer.  Not even garden variety VP's get an employment contract, usually it is limited to the top 40 or so employees, but it depends on the size of the company.