There was a time when "soft verbal commitment" was considered a degrading term, synonymous with philandering husband or dirty cop.

Now, "soft verbal commitment" is simply part of the recruiting lexicon. For instance, take J.T. Floyd from J.L. Mann High School in Greeneville, S.C.

Floyd committed to UT last September but now (almost proudly) calls himself a "soft verbal commitment".

"Right now, it's just a soft verbal," Floyd said of his commitment. "I'm still going to take my visits."

And not just a couple of visits. Floyd will take a summer's worth of unofficial trips. He's planning to see Notre Dame, Michigan, North Carolina, North Carolina State and, maybe, Maryland.

College coaches traditionally tried to dissuade prospects from such maneuvers.

Not in this case.

"Before I committed, they knew the situation," Floyd said of UT's coaches. "They understood this recruiting thing only happens once."

Some college coaches - UT coach Phillip Fulmer among them - have compared signing a national letter of intent to marriage and a commitment to getting engaged.

"You wouldn't continue dating after you got engaged would you," a college coach has said countless times.

For all those husbands-to-be, try this on your fiancee.

"Honey, I want to be sure I'm totally committed to you, so I'm going to date some other women."

No go? I didn't think so.

Hope you can get your deposit back on the tux.

Now, that's all changed. And before you think I'm criticizing Floyd, let me clarify. It's the system that should be criticized, not the prospect.

If the Tennessee Highway Patrol announces it will only write speeding tickets if you're caught driving faster than 90 miles per hour, whose fault is it if people drive 89?

Floyd is simply working the system. Not his fault, but the system needs to be changed.

How about a spring signing period? College football coaches sign five times as many prospects as their basketball counterparts, yet have half as many occasions to secure those players.

Imagine for a moment if your favorite team could lock up its early prospects in the spring. Imagine giving college football fans another off-season event to enjoy.

I never thought I'd watch old men pick their favorite young men but when the NFL draft comes on, I never miss it. A spring signing day would only help promote college football.

Critics say things can change drastically in one season of college football. That's understandable.

Surely there's no way to fix that. Well, wait a minute. How about releasing any players who signed with a school that underwent a coaching change? That way, they could sign with another school.

I'm looking for the red Staples button.

"That was easy."

There it is.

See, the "soft verbal" commitment doesn't just hurt the school that he's "engaged" to, it also hurts the other schools trying to get involved. They waste their resources for a prospect who may just want to travel the country like a young, athletic Robin Leach.

Lobster, anyone?

And as for the school to which said prospect has committed, losing him may prove to be more damaging than just losing one prospect. Recruiting is about momentum. If a committed prospect decides to sign elsewhere in January, that could cost a school more prospects in February.

In some ways, I have a certain respect for a young man like J.T. Floyd. He seems honest, all the while fully intending to play the game his way. The cards are all on the table. He's not fully committed but not afraid to get engaged.

Hmmm. Maybe I should have tried that with my wife?

On second thought, I'm pretty sure I'd still be single.

Dave Hooker covers recruiting. He may be reached at hookerd@knews.com.

© 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.