PG,
Once upon a time, November was the "early" signing period. Now it's more like the "standard" signing period and April is the "late" period.
While I am no great fan of much of the NCAA's penchant for Catbert-like rule making, I have to say that the approach of allowing a very young kid a chance to realize he made an immature mistake and possibly correct it while there is still time strikes me as sound.
But I could see maybe moving up the "early" signing period to, say, July. And then letting what you suggest take hold thereafter.
I am with you, the early signing period is now the standard. But I do not believe that moving it up will take away the issue of committing, but rather create more issues with signing too early, for both the recruit and the program. I would like to see no commitments until a later date in the process. But as suggested above, this really is not as big an issue as those that have signed and called two weeks before and told not to show up, this is bad and should raise more concerns than a committed player who changes his mind BEFORE he signs.
I think that a lot of issues created are because recruits have to realize that even though the HC signature is on the LOI your commitment is to the school. This is a slippery slope. Too many coaches moving around has also created issues.