DuckSouth.com

deltadukman wrote:.... a cotton, corn, or rice novelty tag or bumper sticker?

until recently, i always thought that if you had a "commodity" tag/sticker that you were in some way associated with production of said commodity....then a few years ago i was getting grilled on what i do and the guy said "ah, hence the cotton tag". well, duh, grew up growing cotton and now work in the cotton industry. he then went on to tell me that it is a "status" thing amoungst the youth pimpin' on daddy's $$$...??? we're in a college town...the ag college, as a matter of fact, and he sees those tags on brand new trucks and cars that cost more than all of his cars have ever costed combined, though.

so is it a novelty now?

donia wrote:

deltadukman wrote:.... a cotton, corn, or rice novelty tag or bumper sticker?

until recently, i always thought that if you had a "commodity" tag/sticker that you were in some way associated with production of said commodity....then a few years ago i was getting grilled on what i do and the guy said "ah, hence the cotton tag". well, duh, grew up growing cotton and now work in the cotton industry. he then went on to tell me that it is a "status" thing amoungst the youth pimpin' on daddy's $$$...??? we're in a college town...the ag college, as a matter of fact, and he sees those tags on brand new trucks and cars that cost more than all of his cars have ever costed combined, though.

so is it a novelty now?

Yes it is, and you can add John Deere tags and has into that group.

Lets get back to the roots of this thread which are: Dan Mullen's idea for an early signing period / no visits before signing / can then take official visit after signing - is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

A recruit can sign early but can't take an official visit to the school before signing? But after he signs he can then take an official visit to that school? Schools host recruits on official visits to impress them enough to want to sign - after they've signed what's the point?

Why not let them visit before the early period? Would you want to sign someone early before they visit, then they take their official after signing and realize they hate the place?

He also suggested a 4 week dead period in the summer so coaches could have a break - I guess he's not liking the fact that coaching/recruiting in the SEC is 24/7 365 days a year. He better get used to it or he'll get left behind.

The new Mr. Irrelevant in the SEC is out of his mind. This reminds me of Chris Jones being held under wraps until the coaches attending the MS/AL high school game came calling. I can understand the Big Boys (Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, Michigan, etc) for liking a rule like this....but Mullen? Mississippi State? Come. On. Man!

The time spent obsessing over another team's coach could be much better spent on something positive I would think. But whatever, it's kinda creepy in my opinion. Y'all are a lot like the Arkansas bunch was with Nutt lmao!

I wouldn't let my son sign with any college (for examples sake, even Ole Miss or LSU or MSU that I'm very personally familiar with) without ever taking an official visit as an athlete with the coaches he is committing to...that whole concept is asinine to me. If Mullen truly sees this as prevalent in the recruiting world, it tells me how much parental and life involvement most of the athletes being recruited are getting. I just can't see a parent allowing such a decision under said circumstances...

I have been thinking about this and trying to figure out his reasoning. I beleive what he is saying is basically there should be an early signing period but cut out the official visits so that only the kids that are 100% certain of where they want to go sign early. This way you don't have a kid go only on one official visit early and get caught up in the moment and sign at a school he later realizes he really did not want to go to. Actually not a bad idea when you break it down and think about it. As far as the official visit after signing why not let the kid get a free trip for a fun weekend like all the others.

mshunter77 wrote:I have been thinking about this and trying to figure out his reasoning. I beleive what he is saying is basically there should be an early signing period but cut out the official visits so that only the kids that are 100% certain of where they want to go sign early. This way you don't have a kid go only on one official visit early and get caught up in the moment and sign at a school he later realizes he really did not want to go to. Actually not a bad idea when you break it down and think about it. As far as the official visit after signing why not let the kid get a free trip for a fun weekend like all the others.

I see what your thinking and that's valid. It's hard to get on board with these decisions kids make two weeks before signing day after the only 48 hours they've ever spent somewhere that was a vacation; more specifically when this happens after they've spent months visiting and acclimating to a school and program they've been committed to and the new suitor is in terms of geography, very different. Put aside winning football games, it's a 365 day a year for 3-4 year decision for everyone involved with the prospect. Easy to see why foul play is usually assumed, and for grounded families it's hard to understand the thought process.

How about they just change the last official visit weekend to 3 weeks before signing day----problem solved----no more emotional, last-minute decisions----the newness off the visit would have time to ware off.

SNOT wrote:How about they just change the last official visit weekend to 3 weeks before signing day----problem solved----no more emotional, last-minute decisions----the newness off the visit would have time to ware off.

Not a bad idea at all. Would give the recruits time to sit back look at the big picture and not just make a choice on the fly.

mshunter77 wrote:

SNOT wrote:How about they just change the last official visit weekend to 3 weeks before signing day----problem solved----no more emotional, last-minute decisions----the newness off the visit would have time to ware off.

Not a bad idea at all. Would give the recruits time to sit back look at the big picture and not just make a choice on the fly.

Great idea. The only issue would be the late bowl games. That would put the last weekend of official visits right around the same time as the championship game. I still think it could work.

How does a recruit get a feel for a school if the students are gone? Most schools are out from the middle of December till middle of January.

I knew where I wanted to go.......and did......and never even visited the campus. I understand what Mullen is saying

bigoak wrote:

mshunter77 wrote:

SNOT wrote:How about they just change the last official visit weekend to 3 weeks before signing day----problem solved----no more emotional, last-minute decisions----the newness off the visit would have time to ware off.

Not a bad idea at all. Would give the recruits time to sit back look at the big picture and not just make a choice on the fly.

Great idea. The only issue would be the late bowl games. That would put the last weekend of official visits right around the same time as the championship game. I still think it could work.

Move signing day back a couple of weeks.

If I were MSU, I would be against all official visits to any other school but MSU.

If there was an "early signing period", then the official visit issue becomes a moot point. What school would be dumb enough to host a player on an official visit that has already signed with another school? The only official visit that early signee would be taking would be to the school he signed with.

The NCAA seems to be moving away from trying to micromanage recruiting with a bunch of Mickey Mouse rules. It has a difficult enough time trying to police the more serious stufff. Mullen is pissing into the wind.