Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.
Amidst the media blitz of Super Bowl week, a different kind of press storm swept through the nation yesterday – National Signing Day.
National Signing Day has become a sort of national holiday in the college football world, as it is the final day for high school seniors across the country to declare the school they will be attending (and playing football for) after graduation.
Originally, the day was intended as a deadline so that prospective students who would otherwise drag their feet would finally commit to one institution. Today National Signing Day has transformed into a sort of coming-out party for the highest-profile, most heavily coveted recruits who wish to start the timer on their fifteen minutes of fame. Seventeen-year-old boys who should be studying for their Bio exams and trying to get up the nerve to ask some girl to the prom are suddenly transformed into miniature versions of superstar athletes. These boys schedule official press conferences and set news releases, all for a single moment of glory when they will don a college ball cap and announce to all the world, “I will attend _____.”
Who can blame them, though? The media LOVES the pomp and circumstance of National Signing Day, and what 17 year-old WOULD NOT love to be superstar for a day? For some people, it ultimately marks the birth of a great football player. Since football is king in America, fans are always on the lookout for the next great Montana, or Sanders, or even Tebow. That search begins with the transition from high school to college, when boys become men and legends are born.
Recruiting and scouting is an inexact science, though. The transformation from potential to proven is not an easy one, and there is no formula that exists to confidently identify those people who will successfully reach the next level of performance. Instead, it is all just a crap shoot. Sure, trained scouts may be better at identifying potential talent, and some athletes simply possess the raw natural ability to succeed at any level, but there is no guarantee that a five-star high school recruit will amount to ANYTHING at the college level. Likewise, being a two-star recruit has little to no REAL bearing on whether or not that athlete will ultimately find success in college, or even the pros.
Which brings us to our question for the day: Does the media put too much stock in recruiting?
Clearly, every college and professional superstar was at one time a high school recruit. There is no disputing the necessity for, and overall impact of, recruiting on the game of football. However, is the media today placing too much emphasis on intangible qualities that cannot be measured in players who have not yet been proven beyond their own high school fields?
Sports Geek will take the position that the media attention in regards to recruiting is appropriate while Loyal Homer will argue that the media places far too much stock in this one aspect of the game.
The nation awaits your responses!
