I came across this here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8435611/oklahoma-sooners-says-recruit-matt-beyer-struck-spinal-condition

Quote:

---

On Thursday, California Gov. Jerry Brown announced he signed a bill that will mandate financial protections for student-athletes who suffer career-ending injuries at the four universities that receive more than $10 million annually in sports media revenue -- the Pac-12's USC, UCLA, Cal and Stanford. The schools will have to give academic scholarships to students who lose their athletic scholarships if they are injured while playing their sport. They also will have to cover insurance deductibles and pay health-care premiums for low-income athletes, among other provisions.

---

I assume this is only for HS athletes who have already verbally committed to the school in question before their injuries.

I support the bill. It seems like the right thing to do.

It also seems like this will hurt stanfurd far more than Cal, SC, or UCLA. This is due to stanfurd's practice of collecting far more verbal commits than they can actually admit, which exposes them to more risk. It wouldn't matter if the furd had planned to revoke the offer after they had secured the affections of a superior athete. If the kid in question was verbally committed at the time of the injury, then stanfurd would have to provide him with a full academic scholarship.

The Duke!;841962402 said:

---

I came across this here: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8435611/oklahoma-sooners-says-recruit-matt-beyer-struck-spinal-condition



I assume this is only for HS athletes who have already verbally committed to the school in question before their injuries.

I support the bill. It seems like the right thing to do.

It also seems like this will hurt stanfurd far more than Cal, SC, or UCLA. This is due to stanfurd's practice of collecting far more verbal commits than they can actually admit, which exposes them to more risk. It wouldn't matter if the furd had planned to revoke the offer after they had secured the affections of a superior athete. If the kid in question was verbally committed at the time of the injury, then stanfurd would have to provide him with a full academic scholarship.

---

I am pretty sure it can be for those injured playing in college too. As for those who have verbally committed but get injured in high school--Stanford will just keep doing what they always do--the injured player will probably not get through admissions without the benefit of the coaches' recommendation--and if they do, and the kid is low income, they would have been the recipient of a full scholarship anyway as part of Stanford's new policy after Congress threatened to take away their non-profit tax-exempt status for just allowing the annual proceeds from their huge endowment to just keep compounding.

One or two "extra" students on that sprawling campus will not be noticed. Stanford could easily increase it's enrollment and perform the role Stanford set out for it (educating the children of California), but chooses to keep its numbers down to be as "selective" as possible.

You left out a critical element of the item:"...student-athletes who suffer career-ending injuries at the four universities...". I think the law would apply only to players already on scholarship. Since a verbal is not binding, the player and school are not irrevocably committed to each other. Also, the requirement, in some circumstances, to provide for medical care suggests to me that this is intended as a sort of workers' compensation approach to players enrolled at the school and not prospects.

Scholarships are renewed year-to-year. I assume it means if a scholarship student-athlete is injured playing a sports for us, we can't (and we should never) dump him.