National Signing Day: It's Less About The Signature Than The Spotlight

College football recruiting used to be about the team. It used to be about each school's football program, and how well their coaching staff went about finding, and signing the best players the high school ranks had to offer.

The schools were in the spotlight, and the prospects were just a bunch of names on a big board—hanging in some coach's office—the importance of those names had little to no meaning to the everyday fan until said player showcased his talents on the football field.

College football didn't have the luxury of sending out key members of their staff to recruit a particular player. That was something schools with big money did—schools that many coaches considered as "cheaters" for doing so.

You see, during the 1950's, few schools had a recruiting budget and there was no place on the staff for a "recruiting coordinator" or talent scout. There was no Rivals, Maxpreps, or Scout around to offer up their evaluations. It was a fairly new concept back then to do so and very few schools had any idea where to start.

Sure there were guys who knew how to analyze talent—and they did it well—but, for the most part,  their talents were only valuable to those who were looking for an edge over their opponents and were willing to pay to get it.

Nowadays, the everyday college fan finds himself paying a premium to keep up with every little item on a prospect they, prior to that point, probably had never heard of and they will likely know as much as any analyst about how good that particular will be.

In 1956, the University of Florida was the only school in the State of Florida to utilize a full-time recruiter on it's staff.

Fast-forward to 2010, and not only is recruiting a full-time endeavor on just about every Division I football staff, but it's something that is thought to be the very definition of success and/or futility for any given program.

So, the best thing a coach can hope to do is land the best of the best. There isn't a coach worth his millions that doesn't want to be the envy of every other Division I program in America come signing day when he trots out his Top 10 class and it is for this very reason that an 18-year old kid can hold a team, it's fanbase, and it's coaches in the balance.

If he chooses to go to school 'X', then the media, publicity, and leftover spotlight given to schools 'Y' and 'Z' could be enough to bring other big-time recruits their way—particularly if the school is not on the same level, exposure wise, as school 'X'.

The same holds true of the prospect himself. The greater his flamboyance, the larger his legend, the more scrutinized he will become once he hits the field.

Just look at the fate of former University of Miami linebacker, Willie Williams. His path to destruction started with something very innocent—a blog. He was given the unfortunate opportunity to share with the college football world exactly the kinds of perks a blue-chip recruit is awarded.

He relayed experiences of expensive lobster dinners and campus co-eds. The items seemed funny at the time. However, after he signed on the dotted line, he was found to be less a comedian than a comedy of errors.

He bounced around to five different schools before landing in the NAIA—a far cry from the powerhouse of the then, Larry Coker-led, Miami Hurricanes. Needless to say, he never lived up to what his premature coronation promised.

The only thing he ever accomplished in Division I football happened as a result of his recruiting tales. The NCAA enacted new laws to keep such pandering from ever happening again—at least where the public could see it.

Another such example is Ryan Perriloux. The Bayou Boy Wonder with the all-world talent and game-changing athletic ability. The day he de-committed from the Texas Longhorns, it seemed the UT faithful saw their dreams of a national championship float away.

However, all Perriloux ended up doing at LSU was squandering his opportunities. He was eventually kicked off the team and left many wondering what might have been if he had just been able to handle the expectations of the next level. 

Talent evaluation isn't always an exact science. Some kids might be athletically gifted, but mentally incapable of handling the pressure of being touted as a blue-chip talent. That is why for every success story you can find, there is another story with less of an positive outcome.

Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten that these are teenage boys, not men. The elevation of the high school game via televised game broadcasts, prep magazines, and national rankings has made it possible to start scrutinizing kids at 14 and 15-years of age.

Can you imagine being barely out of middle-school and someone is already asking for your allegiances? Your autograph?

Better still, you are 18-years old and involved in the social networking scene afforded us all by the presence of such sites as Facebook and Twitter, and your friend numbers go from a couple hundred to a couple thousand within a week of your name hitting a college team's message board.

It's an unusual position to put an adolescent in when he's barely able to understand the rules, much less the risks. 

Most of us will never know the glitz and glamour that a blue-chip recruit feels when all eyes are on him. We won't be able to understand what it feels like to stand in front of a crowd of a thousand or more people—knowing that they are hanging on our every word—and make a decision that will impact us for the rest of our career.

Think about that, just for a moment, how many times have you seen a kid immortalized for choosing the home team but crucified for spurning the others? How does it feel to know a whole state now hates you because you did what was best for you?

Granted, the prospects milk the spotlight too. Many of them take full advantage of this, likely, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. They play the hat game, send the mixed messages, and play it coy with the media. Many of them love the attention and make the most of it. 

That said, when does it become too much? Where does the hype train stop? Who should be held accountable for the Willie Williams' and Ryan Perriloux's of the world? Someone has to be, right?

Where does the buck actually stop? When is enough truly enough?

Related articles

• Largest National High School Football Combine Camp Announces Expansion and 2011 Combine Schedule (prweb.com)

College Football: The Texas Longhorns Get Swept Away by The Cyclones

Someone forgot to tell the Texas Longhorns that the season didn't end with their victory over Nebraska, because they apparently didn't realize that.

The Iowa State Cyclones, led by a determined Austen Arnaud and a defense with a major chip on its shoulder, marched into Austin, TX with a seven-game losing streak to Mack Brown and his Longhorns.

However, by the end of the day, they were floating out of Texas Memorial Stadium with a helmet full of pride, and a solid 'w' to give to the supporters waiting for them in Ames, IA.

It was clear early that Garrett Gilbert and the rest of his teammates left their pride, their game, and their execution in Nebraska, because the team that showed up to play football today looked unprepared and unimpressed.

At the half, the Longhorns had three-points to show for their mediocre efforts.

By contrast, Iowa State came to play. On their second possession of the game, Arnaud led the team 80-yards downfield for a touchdown.

Two possessions later, the Cyclones added another six via the ground game—in-between the touchdowns, the Cyclones' defense kept the Longhorns off-balance, frustrated, and confused as they bullied, pushed, and punked for three quarters—including several denials in the redzone.

Before Texas finally figured out what was happening, the was game over.

It was a good win for Austen Arnaud and the Cyclones. The talented quarterback has played with a lot of heart over the years, but he's seen his fair share of losses.

For the Texas Longhorns, and Garrett Gilbert, it's just another bad loss on a season that, after last week, seemed to be turning a corner—just another Saturday in college football.

Tuesday Morning Coffee: Some Links to Click While You Sip (6/22)

Jadeveon Clowney's father tells him to stick to football, 'don't do what I did'.  I'm pretty sure that if Jadeveon's college career becomes anything close to what is expected, his father will never have to worry about that happening.

Nick Saban gives a "revealing" interview to The Sporting News in which he talks about the public perception of him being a "liar"—especially given the way he ditched Miami like a two-dollar street John to flee to Alabama.

This writer thinks that Texas was cowardly for sticking with the Big XII instead of moving on to the more competitive Pac-10.

The Football Outsiders have released their preseason Top 25 and some very surprising teams show up in the bottom-half of their rankings. All I can say is, Ole Miss at 25?....Seriously?!?

I don't think that eliminating Arkansas for Georgia Tech or South Carolina for Florida State, would "perfect the SEC", but, to each their own.

The "have-nots" were smart to give up their money so that Texas and Oklahoma remained in the Big 12? Uh-huh....sounds like a load of bull to me. Bend over Baylor, Kansas, and Kansas State and make sure that you say "thank you sir, can I have another" with each beating you get from the chosen ones. 

It seems that Trojan fans aren't the only ones looking to strip Reggie Bush of something valuable.

What would football be like without the Big XII?....Hmmmm, I'd say it would be just fine considering that more than 60 percent of the teams in that conference are awful.

I fail to see the good in E$PN controlling all the BCS Bowls for the next four seasons. That network would sell it's anchors for a good billboard location. They are charging an absurd amount of money to have these bowls sponsored and one must wonder how good the crack is in Bristol because everyone there is clearly smoking it.

The UFL plans to start another franchise, this time in Virginia.

Rivals released it "All-Losers" Team today—those poor, defenseless, Vanderbilt players.

Was Texas Playing 'Chicken' With Dan Beebe All Along?

It was announced this morning that the Texas Longhorns, along with the coat tail riding contingent of Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State, have decided to accept the Big 12's proposal and stay in the Big 12.

Well, Yippee.

Here's the thing, who doesn't believe that the Longhorns were simply angling for more money and a better shot at getting their own network all along?

Think about it, not only did the money pot get bigger with the exodus of both Colorado and Nebraska, who will be forced to pay $17 million each for their transgressions, but the introduction of the league's intent to allow institutions to pursue their own separate television deal had to be the cherry on top for the Longhorns.

It's no secret that the Longhorns wanted to pursue their own network—a la the YES Network of the New York Yankees—but the Big 12 didn't seem open to that possibility. Dan Beebe skirted the issue time and again while, all the time, Texas was fuming and trying to figure out how to make it happen.

Enter the rumors of a Big Ten or Pac-10 raid of the Big 12 and VOILA!,  there's enough leverage to make the Big 12 and Dan Beebe rethink their stance on how revenue is distributed and how much liberality they will give each team in pursuing their own method of making money.

As an added bonus, both Nebraska and Colorado got scared silly enough to leave altogether. By doing so, the Big 12 North just got a lot less competitive and the money to be gained from any deals struck hence forward just got sweeter.

All of this led me to wonder, if Texas wasn’t just playing a very deceptive game of poker with Dan Beebe from the start?

In truth, most of what any of us heard about the expansion deals came from one of a few random sources, none of whom were in a position to make a decision on the fate of Texas or the Big 12.

Orangebloods.com set off this firestorm early on and by last Friday it was at a full blaze as the sports world essentially jumped on the story and ran.

Seriously, think long and hard about it, what did any of us read about Texas, the Big 12, or the Pac-10's invitation to the Longhorns that did not originate from Orangeblood's, Chip Brown? He was the primary source in just about every breaking news story regarding this situation and he is, of course, the source of the most recent news that Texas will stay in the Big 12 today.

Despite a conflicting report offered by ESPN's Joe Schad, that Texas will bolt for the Pac-10 for the academic prestige over the money, it makes sense that the Big 12 stay configured as a ten team league than go to a 16 team Pac-10 where their financial options would be somewhat restrained.

The Pac-10 is looking to expand their market share in hopes of securing more revenue from television. However, there is no deal in place yet, and any team joining the Pac-10 is doing so on good faith—nothing more.

Further, the Pac-10 is not going to allow Texas to pursue a Longhorn Network if they come over which—in my opinion—is what they truly want to do.

So, why join and split the money 16 ways, deny your program the option of netting an additional$3-5 million in television revenue through developing your own network, and risk disrupting your fanbase, just to join with the Pac-10 for academic reasons?

It just doesn’t make sense.

Now, I admit, all of this conjecture could be proved wrong a day or so from now, but for the moment, it makes more sense for the Big 12 to stay together than break apart.

Should Texas A&M Just Say: "So Long To The Orange And The White"?

The Aggie War Hymn, once considered to be the No. 1 college fight song in America, has meaning again on a national level. Here is an excerpt from the famous fight song:

Good bye to texas university
So long to the orange and the white
Good luck to dear old Texas Aggies
They are the boys who show the real old fight
"the eyes of Texas are upon you"
That is the song they sing so well
Sounds Like Hell
So good bye to texas university
We're gonna beat you all to…

The sentiment is fitting, considering the Aggies are seriously considering an offer to move to the SEC. 
Nothing has been set in stone yet but, as of this posting, the possibility was one with legs.

Here is the gist: there is an offer on the table for Texas to move to the Pac-10—assuming the last minute efforts of Dan Beebe to save the conference aren't thought to be "too little too late"–and they will, supposedly take Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State along for the ride.

The last slot, because the Pac-10 is trying to become the Pac-16—was presumed to be A&M's for the taking, if they wanted it. However, A&M is thinking of their own situation, financially, and may break from their rival school altogether. If they do, it would end a 100-year old rivalry game that, in the minds of many, has defined the Aggie program.

In response to that possibility, many alumnus, legislators, and fans of the program are hoping the Aggies will eschew the SEC's offer and stay on the coat tails of Texas.

The obvious solution would be for the Aggies and Longhorns to continue their rivalry as non-conference foes, right? The only problem there is Texas has already made it clear that, if the Aggies don't follow them then, they won't be playing any more reindeer games from now til' forever—if they can help it.

My first and only response to that is this: "To heck with Texas!"

More and more, as the days  go by and the rumors swirl, you get the feeling that the Longhorns have a bit of a god complex.  It looks unattractive, annoying, and extremely distasteful on them and I am puzzled at how long they have been able to railroad other teams—legally—without said teams exploding into a million little pieces.

Why on earth any team should feel the need to kiss the Longhorn's backside, is beyond me. Yet, at every turn of the expansion talk, you hear about the Longhorns intentions and what they want in a deal.

Even more, the Aggie fans that state their team is nothing without Texas, give even more credence to the idea—insane.

Note to all those teams: tell the Longhorns to get bent and then you (Oklahoma, A&M, Baylor, etc.) need to, sorry, grow a pair. 

I mean, seriously, despite the power, money, and prestige the Texas program brings to the college football negotiating table, shouldn't an institution want to stand on it's own two feet?

Don't get me wrong, as an SEC fan, I know the importance of rivalries and tradition—both are a staple in the SEC. However, I do not condone one team holding another hostage just because it can. Face it, folks, Texas is a bully and all they seem to do is make life difficult for every team around them—it's any wonder the Cornhuskers left for the Big 10.

In my opinion, the SEC is fine as is and expansion is not necessary. Leave well enough alone and let the Joneses' keep trying to keep pace with you. Don't react and start trying to pull rabbits out of hats. There is nothing wrong with the SEC and, to echo a common southern refrain. "if it ain't broke..."

Who knows what will happen over the next hour or two? Who knows how all of this will eventually shake out? These days, the information is nearly useless almost as soon as you have read it.

Either way, changes are happening and it's time that the programs who want to play with the big boys start playing with their own equipment because the Longhorns are clearly not playing fair.

A Texas to Big Ten Move Is, Perhaps, The Dumbest Thing I've Ever Heard

Why on earth would Texas consider moving to the Big Ten?

I'm perplexed by the idea and have bantied it about quite enough at this point so, I am posing the question to other common sense-filled beings—why would Texas make the jump from the Big 12 to the Big Ten?

I understand that there is money in doing so; that by adding Texas to the Big Ten, the revenue of the conference increases substantially based on their having secured every major television market that matters—save New York. I realize that the almighty dollar is at the root of all this expansion evil.

That said, I also know that Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan aren't the only teams in the Big Ten who would be given the opportunity to play Texas if they did join. There are, after all, eight other teams that make up the Big Ten (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan State, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, and Wisconsin) and nearly all of them would play Texas at some point.

So, in seriously considering that fact, be honest, who really wants to see Texas play Indiana, Minnesota, or Illinois?

I mean, because, obviously, the Longhorns would have to fill out that 13 game schedule with at least 5-6 other conference match-ups, right? You can't play the big boys every week.

There would be just as many bad match-ups in the Big Ten as there are in the Big 12. The difference would be that Texas would seem alarmingly out of place playing Minnesota as opposed to Oklahoma State.

Even more, what becomes of the Red River Rivalry? Would Oklahoma still play Texas every year?

Of course, the obvious answer is yes, since the two teams have played each other since 1900 but, if the Sooners moved to the Pac-11, which is looking to become the Pac-16, would the rivalry hold as much weight as it has since 1996 when they became part of the same conference?

After all, the 'Red River Rivalry', for many years, was the deciding factor in who would go to the Big 12 Championship Game and represent the Big 12 South; with that implication gone, would that game matter more or less to the college football fan?

Which leads to my next question: Why would Texas want to give up it's Big 12 dominance in exchange for Big Ten parity?

The Big 12 as it's configured right now is Texas, Oklahoma....and everybody else. Period. Nebraska is on the upswing and Texas Tech is always lurking but, in truth, nobody can touch Texas or Oklahoma in terms of success, recruting, or popularity in the Big 12. So why leave?

Texas doesn't need the money and they wouldn't be done any favors by joining another conference. If anything, Texas is bringing more to the table no matter where they go, so what's in it for them?

It just seems like a whole lot of trouble to go through when the formula isn't broken.

For my money, let Colorado go and be the second coming of Oregon State in the Pac-11, but where the chatter about the rest of the Big 12 jumping ship and joining other is concerned, I only have one thing to say: just don't mess with Texas.

The Pac-10 Expansion Might Make Dollars, But Does It Really Make Sense?

There has been a lot of talk about expansion lately. It's difficult to Google "college football" or "NCAA" right now and not find yet another article explaining what it is and why it's happening.

Dan Wetzel, of Yahoo sports, writes an extensive article on why the Big 12 is suddenly the goat in this situation. It's a long read, and it's obvious what side of the fence Mr. Wetzel stands on, but it also brought something to mind for me—an SEC fan—who is admittedly a tad confused by the expansion hoopla; why is this good for college football?

The Pac-10 will, allegedly, look to add six teams to their league (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and either Baylor or Colorado). In doing so, they will hold the largest market share as far as television revenue goes—making them a very attractive conference to sell to the highest bidder for broadcast rights.

My question is, why would any true fan of college football want a 16-team league? With that many teams, you start to phase out natural rivalries and, in part, you begin to water down the true heart of why many people watch the games—the passion and the pageantry.

With that said, it's obvious that the move, if made, will be totally about money. This isn’t about anything else.

It has nothing to do with enhancing the landscape of college football or bringing about a powerful conference that rivals that of the SEC or the Big Ten—although that's precisely the angle being preached to the common fan—no, it's about dollars and sense.

Whatever conglomeration of conference team members brings in the most dollars, makes the most sense—period.

Which brings about another question, one that I haven't seen answered in any of the blogs, media rhetoric, television interviews, or Twitter talk I’ve imbibed; what if this model fails?

It's an honest question to ask, right? After all, the Pac-10 could be making a huge statement by extending an offer to Texas, but what good is all the revenue Texas would bring, if their counterparts bring little to the table.

Texas is a powerhouse and they always have been. They don’t need the Pac-10 or any other conference’s invitation to continue to hold that title—it’s Texas. However, the other five teams that ride on the coattails of Texas, including Oklahoma, benefit from this partnership more than any other.

Remember, the revenue generated by bowl appearances, BCS wins, and network revenue, is divvied up amongst the conference members—split 16 ways—no matter who is the most responsible for the generation of those funds.

It’s not as if USC, Texas, or Oklahoma will be able to negotiate a 70-30 split—whoever is the best representative for the conference that season, gets the most money. It doesn’t work that way. Teams like Baylor, Washington State, and Texas Tech, stand to make a killing if this expansion model works as planned.

However, if it doesn’t work, then you have a conference that is not unlike that of any other conference at present—all the cream rising to the top.

In my opinion, college football’s popularity has very little do with revenue for the fan. Don’t get me wrong, I understand business models and I know that at the end of the day, you have to be able to compete with the big boys if you want your university to thrive at the national level.

Most university presidents welcome the revenue stream that comes in from football, baseball, tennis, and the like because it gives them the brick and mortar money to continue building their academic programs. I get that, I do.

However, just because you make something bigger and add a pretty bow to it, doesn’t mean that it’s going to be better. Consider the Western Athletic Conference which expanded to 16-teams in 1996.
They had four divisions and were, at one time, considered to be one of the best mid-major conference teams in the land.

It wasn’t long before teams started to see that the arrangement wasn’t as beneficial as first thought. It was hard to cover the expenses of traveling and recruiting on a budget that saw minimal increase from the maximum exposure. It just didn’t make sense.

Of course, the revenue possibilities now are better than they were then but that doesn’t truly make life any better for a team like Washington State, does it?

I don’t know, maybe I a little too old school. I was fine with the way the conferences were aligned already and figured, if anything,  it was time the big boys started kicking the dead weight out—bye, bye Baylor and so long Vanderbilt—in order to add teams that are beginning to make head way in their programs. That, to me, makes the most sense—increase the quality, not the quantity.

Whatever happens in the coming weeks, it’s clear that change is on the horizon. The question remains, for me and some others I am sure, is that change really going to be for the best?

What say you?