Is it time for an early signing period for college football?

It depends on who you ask.

Regardless of the answer, though, the idea has generated debate among Division I football stakeholders.

The Big Ten Conference has submitted a proposal to the Conference Commissioners Association that would establish a three-day early signing period for prospects that would begin on the third Wednesday in December. The CCA will discuss the matter during its September 24-25 meeting.

The National Letter of Intent Policy and Review Committee also has discussed the concept, and most American Football Coaches Association members support the concept of an early signing period.

Proponents say the idea makes sense because prospects are committing to institutions earlier during the recruiting process anyway. Instead of waiting to make the commitment official by the prospect signing an NLI on the first Wednesday in February of his senior year of high school, why not let the prospect and the institution conclude the process earlier?

AFCA Executive Director Grant Teaff, whose organization surveyed Football Bowl Subdivision coaches and found 73 percent in support, said coaches would rather spend their time and resources on recruits who haven’t committed rather than working to retain those who have.

“In the last two or three weeks of the recruiting process, there is undue pressure for everybody,” Teaff said. “Most coaches feel that it is high drama to try to maintain the commitments. You have to make sure they stay in the fold.

 “Coaches are uncomfortable about asking someone to change his mind when he’s made a commitment. But until the prospect signs, it’s not official. That’s the biggest pro among the coaches about why the guys who commit early should be allowed to sign before the regular period.”

But it’s not the coaches’ decision to make. Even though most coaches in the Southeastern Conference favor the idea, the league’s presidents and athletics directors voted overwhelmingly against it this spring, citing too many unanswered questions as the reason.

Some of the SEC leaders were concerned about prospects signing with an institution before taking an official visit to campus. Others were uneasy about the early signing day actually evolving into the regular signing day.

But not all coaches like the idea, either. Pacific-10 Conference Commissioner Tom Hansen said his league discussed the matter at its spring meetings, and most of the football coaches voiced their concern.

“It is important for our institutions to have as much information concerning a prospect’s academics,” Hansen said. “Plus, our coaches want to evaluate players during their senior year of competition.”

The uncertainty of when the early signing date should occur is another challenge.

“Our coaches definitely wouldn’t like it in August before there is any academic work during the senior year,” Hansen said. “Even if you had it in December, you probably don’t have more than an informal report on how the prospect did academically in the fall semester of high school.”

A December early signing period also might coincide with bowl-game preparations, which could cause distractions, Hansen said.

High school coaches like the concept of an early signing period, but Teaff said they generally would like the date to be after their prep seasons conclude.

“We have a strong relationship with high school coaches and value their opinion,” Teaff said. “We are not going to do something contrary to what most of them are thinking.”

A survey of college football assistant coaches in 2007 showed support for a mid-December time frame (the third Wednesday of the month). That’s also when junior college prospects are allowed to sign NLIs.

“There are a lot of stakeholders in this, and it is a work in progress,” Teaff said. “The key is to see if we can we put something together that is favored by everyone.”

So far, that’s been a tough pass to complete.