why signing day is overrated

february 4 is National Letter of Intent Day and as a fan of college football, i guess i should be rejoicing.

but i'm not.

actually, i'm filled with a heapin' helpin' of whogivesacrap.

for the uninitiated, National Letter of Intent Day or Signing Day as it's more commonly called, is the first day of the rest of a high school athlete's life when he or she signs a scholarship letter from the college of his or her choice. over the years it's gone from being just another day in late winter to The Day By Which College Football Programs Are Measured.

it's supposedly the day when the seeds of the recruiting season are harvested. every year, the fanfare over Signing Day has grown. websites and newsletters spend all year tracking high school students. football camps have snagged major corporate sponsors and attract everyone from coaches to shoe peddlers to wannabe agents trying to figure out which 16-year old is going to be The Next Big Thing. networks have even begun devoting airtime to some of the most obnoxious prospects - giving them a platform to stage elaborate selection ceremonies.

before you get your jock straps in a bunch, i'm not knocking the need for recruiting. the ability to scout talent is the lifeblood of any successful company, let alone college football program. but the instant analysis of who won and lost and the collective hoo-rah over who's become an instant national championship contender has about as much merit as michael phelps' ideas on the national drug policy.

1. needles & haystacks - every player in the country gets a rating anywhere from 0 to 5 stars based on their observed talent. a wonderful idea in theory, but in practice needs to be taken with a shaker of salt. it's estimated that are more than 26,000 high schools that sponsor football across the country. that's a lot of players to scout. while the most dedicated evaluators do their best to see as many athletes as they can in person, much of it is still word of mouth and a few glimpses at grainy video (much of it shot by untrained, disinterested high school underclassmen). essentially, the rating system is a completely subjective educated guess.
2. it ain't where you're from, it's where you're at - that's an exaggeration, but not by much. many a recruit have seen their rating rise simply by the schools that have expressed interest in them. as though being a top-notch athlete somehow has a relation to property values.
3. 50 million Irish fans can't be wrong - college football more than most any other sports relies heavily on reputation. it's the reason florida state hung around the preseason top 25 for years despite bobby bowden's titanic dropoff in talent. or the reason that this year will be the year that notre dame returns to prominence. (just like last year. or the year before that.) but it also applies to recruiting. the "brand name" schools get bonus points for past performance. granted, the likes of pete carroll, nick saban and bob stoops have a higher batting average than most. but they also swing and miss occasionally.
   
4. war of attrition - watching a recruiting class progress is kinda like those nature specials with baby turtles trying to get to the sea. there's no way everyone's going to make it to the end. you just hope it's a solid enough number to keep the species alive. between academics and personal issues, some guys never get started. others have a change of heart and decide to transfer. for those that actually make it onto the field, they still have to dodge the obstacles of competition and the potholes of injury. then there's always the fact that some guys just won't be as good as the scouts predicted.
5. it's the coaching, stupid - you don't have 10 year veterans in college football. (even though timmy chang seemed to challenge that notion.) you constantly have turnover in rosters and while talent gives teams an advantage, the difference is usually the angry little men running around with the headphones on. their ability to teach the game and put their players in situations to be successful is critical. it's the reason boise state keeps winning despite never having a five-star recruiting class. it's the reason urban meyer has won with unheralded recruits at utah and with blue-chippers at florida. it's also the reason that tennessee, michigan and nebraska had new coaches in 2008 after putting together top 10 recruiting classes three years earlier.

the recruitniks and scouting junkies will shout endlessly into the night like so many trumpets during a marching band halftime show. winners and losers will be dissected and i'm sure someone somewhere will try and predict the 2012 heisman trophy winner. but the winner of college football's second season will be handed a mantle that is even more mythical than the honor bestowed upon the winner of the first.

and no one will argue.