[CTcard]

Will guaranteed scholarships stop the over signing practice? 

The answer is mostly no, but in some cases it might give the athlete a little more power.

A ton of the oversigning problem happens before athletes get on scholarship.
Team SEC-State1 signs 32 players expecting 7 of about 14 possibilities won't actually become eligible. Somehow 9 make it. Then we hear that 1 of those guys really didn't want to start school until spring semester and another got confused and really wanted to go to "Southwest SEC-State1 Technical College" and he is graciously allowed to do so. Four year guaranteed scholarships are irrelevant here.

For kids already on the team who have outlived their usefulness, simply telling them they won't ever play is a h.u.g.e. incentive to transfer. Especially when that announcement comes along with a bunch of brochures for the local Div. 1-AA school. The line between allowing transfers and forcing transfers is often intent, which is hard to regulate.

Finally, much comes down to the phrase "... provided the student-athlete remains in good standing and meets his/her terms of the agreement."
One of the midwest schools that ostentatiously announced they would offer four year guaranteed scholarships also released fine print that used the phrase "complying with team rules" or something like that. I often suspect that one of the team rules is effectively "you must be good enough". 

But for the kid who wants to stick around despite being not wanted by the coach, this might give them a little more leverage.

------
In reading the list of reforms, I was appalled to remember that for in-conference transfers athletic-aid was not allowed in the year of waiting. Getting rid of that in/out of conference disparity is long overdue. Do other conferences have that rule?

Otherwise, the only item that looks like a big deal is the four years of medical coverage post-school for "documented athletically related injuries".
I wonder how long it will be until we read about disputes as to whether particular injuries were "athletically related" or not.


****
I seem to be feeling cynical this morning.

[CTcard]

Will guaranteed scholarships stop the over signing practice? 

The answer is mostly no, but in some cases it might give the athlete a little more power.

A ton of the oversigning problem happens before athletes get on scholarship.
Team SEC-State1 signs 32 players expecting 7 of about 14 possibilities won't actually become eligible. Somehow 9 make it. Then we hear that 1 of those guys really didn't want to start school until spring semester and another got confused and really wanted to go to "Southwest SEC-State1 Technical College" and he is graciously allowed to do so. Four year guaranteed scholarships are irrelevant here.

For kids already on the team who have outlived their usefulness, simply telling them they won't ever play is a h.u.g.e. incentive to transfer. Especially when that announcement comes along with a bunch of brochures for the local Div. 1-AA school. The line between allowing transfers and forcing transfers is often intent, which is hard to regulate.

Finally, much comes down to the phrase "... provided the student-athlete remains in good standing and meets his/her terms of the agreement."
One of the midwest schools that ostentatiously announced they would offer four year guaranteed scholarships also released fine print that used the phrase "complying with team rules" or something like that. I often suspect that one of the team rules is effectively "you must be good enough". 

But for the kid who wants to stick around despite being not wanted by the coach, this might give them a little more leverage.

------
In reading the list of reforms, I was appalled to remember that for in-conference transfers athletic-aid was not allowed in the year of waiting. Getting rid of that in/out of conference disparity is long overdue. Do other conferences have that rule?

Otherwise, the only item that looks like a big deal is the four years of medical coverage post-school for "documented athletically related injuries".
I wonder how long it will be until we read about disputes as to whether particular injuries were "athletically related" or not.


****
I seem to be feeling cynical this morning.