College Football Won't Have an Early Signing Period, for Now

College football's hierarchy opted to sideline discussions about an early signing period Wednesday morning, leaving the issue in limbo for at least another year.

While many anticipated the approval of a proposed three-day December signing window, the Collegiate Commissioners Association won't make a decision that impacts this current class of rising high school seniors:

If approved, the proposal would've permitted class-of-2016 prospects to sign a national letter of intent with college programs of their choice from Dec. 16-18. That's seven weeks shy of the national signing day college football fans have become accustomed to following on the first Wednesday of February.

The opportunity to sign early isn't an alien concept in NCAA sports. Basketball, baseball and lacrosse athletes are among those who are already allowed to seal the deal months in advance.

It's been a hot-button issue for years among college football administrators, coaches, prospects and reporters:

It can be difficult to find common ground on the subject among folks who cover recruiting from afar. Perhaps it shouldn't have come as a surprise to see those on the inside also struggle to reach a solidified solution.

The issue was weighed by commissioners from all 10 FBS conferences, with an anticipated vote occurring before noon Wednesday. Ratification would've locked in a two-year trial and 2017 follow-up evaluation.

Momentum seemed to be trending toward that result.

"I anticipate it to pass, but I also anticipate a robust and spirited debate," Mid-American Conference commissioner Jon Steinbrecher told Jeremy Crabtree of ESPN earlier this week. "With the two-year look-in that's part of the proposal, I think many of us are ready to say, 'Let's move forward or not move forward. Let's get away from being in limbo.'"

Instead, a resolution remains elusive:

Some argue the December signing period simply isn't early enough. It would be better served in late summer, so recruits can take care of collegiate matters before the start of their senior seasons.

However, this time table would certainly necessitate further alterations to the recruiting calendar, like an earlier starting point for official campus visits (beginning spring of junior year, perhaps?) and wiggle room for athletes who've signed a letter of intent with programs that undergo coaching changes later in the year.

For some, the solution is much simpler—tear it all down and start fresh:

Concern from both ends of the spectrum is understandable. Some see the current recruiting system as a circus that would become even crazier with another signing period thrown into the equation.

We perennially watch a collection of recruits commit to at least three different schools during the process, though that is and should remain their prerogative.

Verbal commitments are nonbinding. Things get trickier when teenagers put pen to paper.

There's plenty for collegiate commissioners to sort through during the next 12 months, and they must be diligent here. It should be high priority for them to seek out input from players who've already experienced a modern-day recruitment, gauging what works, what doesn't and what could be a welcome addition to the process.

In the end, these efforts will require some give and take from both sides of the argument, and a two-year trial run isn't a bad way to approach the situation. There simply seems to be too much demand for an early signing period from college programs and prospects for something not to get done down the road.

The implementation of an early signing period is just a matter of time. Clearly, we aren't there yet.

The short-term result of Wednesday's announcement is how it impacts this current recruiting class. The latest crop of college prospects must still wait until February to formally sign, which is likely to induce mixed emotions from players who've kept tabs on the possibility of an early period.

"Honestly, in my opinion, I feel like it's a good thing," top-ranked 2016 safety Brandon Jones told Bleacher Report in April. "It gives players who know for sure where they want to go the luxury of just being able to focus on that one school and do what they can earlier on to get a spot on the field in college."

Naturally, as in all discussions on this matter, there's a counterpoint.

"I disagree with the early signing, because what if you sign early and you change your mind? There's no way you can get out of it," All-American defensive tackle Marvin Wilson told Bleacher Report. "Athletes should look into their options as long as possible so they can see what's best for them."

Ultimately, determining what's best for student-athletes is supposed to fall into the hands of college football's leaders. Clearly, they weren't comfortable making the case for what is currently on the table and the repercussions that would follow an approval.

Perhaps they will be next year. Until then, the debate continues.

Bleacher Report National Recruiting Analyst Damon Sayles contributed to this article.