Marc Weiszer lets the cat out of the bag:
The Athens Banner-Herald has learned that proposed legislation to be considered at the SEC meeting to address “roster management” includes:
► Limiting the size of a football signing class in each academic year to 25, down from the current level of 28. The NCAA adopted that SEC-sponsored legislation put forward in 2009. The 25 limit would cover those who sign from Dec. 1 to August 1. The rule now runs from the February signing day to May 31, which allows schools to exceed 28 by enrolling signees before or after those dates. An exception would be made for mid-year enrollees included in the current academic year’s initial counters.
► Making football signees who attend summer school on athletic aid before the fall semester count against a school’s scholarship numbers for that next academic year.
There currently are no limits on how many can attend summer school, which can leave a recruit already on campus to be asked to delay enrollment until January if there’s no room. The proposal would go into effect in summer 2012.
► Giving the SEC office more oversight in medical scholarship exemptions to review and determine outcome for cases. A team doctor, trainer and athletic director would need to sign off on each case.
► Keeping early enrollees from signing an SEC financial aid agreement until they are enrolled and attend class at the school. Currently, recruits can begin to sign a financial aid agreement after their junior year of high school, which keeps other SEC schools from recruiting them.
That’s… interesting. I expect most SEC coaches will go ballistic over the first item there. I wouldn’t anticipate as much opposition to the other three, although I think most of us can easily speculate on those who would be unhappy with their implementation.
Honestly, I give Slive a lot of credit with these. It’s clear his intent is to restrict certain tactics which allow coaches to limit recruits’ options. Of course, the devil’s in the details; never underestimate the ability of an SEC football coach to find the weak spot in a rule which can be exploited. But, overall, I like what I see.
And it’s interesting that one thing not floated there is a total ban on grayshirting.
Weiszer doesn’t name a source for his information, but Slive’s tactics (assuming that the info is coming from Slive or someone who sides with Slive on the legislation) seem to me to be of as much interest as the proposals themselves. Is he putting this out because he feels more confident in his support, or because he feels the need to rally support in the media and with the public? I guess we’ll find out in another week or so.
***********************************************************************
UPDATE: Oversigning.com is critical of the proposal, calling it “window dressing” for failing to address the 85-player limit.
***********************************************************************
UPDATE #2: Year2 names names.
***********************************************************************
UPDATE #3: Brian Cook’s analysis is here.
Get The Picture 
I have to admit, this is promising and my respect for Slive will go up dramatically if this is a genuine effort. If he is committed to it he will make it happen through whatever means is required. My sense is he is leaking so as to pre-emptively amp up the pressure and shame effect on the Presidents, should they plan to carry water for the habitual over-signers (Saban, Nutt, et al).
LikeLike
Does the current 28, proposed 25 limit apply to signees of letters of intent or to signees of financial aid documents? If it limits the number of LOI a school can sign it really would be good and SC, both UAs and UM would have to do business much differently.
LikeLike
I would be careful about giving credit to Slime before he proves he actually intends to enforce any regulation, new or already on the books. The only thing we know so far is Slime has no cojones, or ethics, and is a whipping boy of those who like to push the envelope. Saban, Cheetzic, and The Right Reverend have had him for lunch already.
LikeLike
There’s a stupid philosophical joke about the self needing its other in order to continue to exist to be found in oversigning.com’s response to the legislation. What a load of hogwash.
If Slive gets the first point approved, it will dramatically effect the oversigning problem. It won’t solve all the problems, but it will definitely reduce the ease with which coaches can practice questionable roster management tactics. Like another poster said, though, the question is whether or not he’s serious about pushing this legislation through and / or whether or not he’s ready to start policing Saban, Nutt, etc., when they find a new loophole to exploit.
LikeLike
Given that Slive’s proposals are more focused on recruits’ disadvantages than competitive advantage, I’m not surprised that oversigning.com finds them lacking.
LikeLike
True, true.
LikeLike
I think the expansion of the signing window plus the lower hard-cap dramatically reduce the opportunity for coaches to balloon rosters during the spring and summer – to conduct try-outs, in other words. These proposals mostly legislate that spring/summer netherworld where caps don’t count out of existence. And that’s a significant change, if it happens.
O/S filters everything through a “B1G good, SEC bad” lens. Tiresome and a waste of what could have been a much more effective platform.
LikeLike
Bingo. O/S’s problem, in addition to being more concerned with competitive advantage than student-athlete welfare, is that it would lose its reason for existence if it admitted the SEC did something right. Their goal is more so to discuss relative virtues between the B10 and the SEC than it is to remedy oversigning.
LikeLike