Looking back at some of the 2016 signing classes in the league and thought this was pretty interesting.
With OU's class, only 6 of their 20 signees committed before the season started and they landed 8 of their commits within a month of NSD.
With UT's class, only 7 of their 25 signees committed before the season started and they landed 12 of their commits within a month of NSD.
Recruiting is so much faster than it used to be, but seeing this makes me wonder if that could change. Basically OU and UT went into vulture mode down the stretch. Some of the signings were guys that weren't deciding until late, but some of them they picked off from other schools.
So thinking a little bit more about this - could you see an argument that bigger schools would be against an early signing period? I think you could argue this would help smaller schools moreso than big schools, but haven't thought too much about it...
With OU's class, only 6 of their 20 signees committed before the season started and they landed 8 of their commits within a month of NSD.
With UT's class, only 7 of their 25 signees committed before the season started and they landed 12 of their commits within a month of NSD.
Recruiting is so much faster than it used to be, but seeing this makes me wonder if that could change. Basically OU and UT went into vulture mode down the stretch. Some of the signings were guys that weren't deciding until late, but some of them they picked off from other schools.
So thinking a little bit more about this - could you see an argument that bigger schools would be against an early signing period? I think you could argue this would help smaller schools moreso than big schools, but haven't thought too much about it...
