The NCAA Amateurism Cabinet may have heard the critics, or committee members may simply have reached the conclusion on their own.
No matter, the fact is the collection of administrators known as the Cabinet has begun
looking into ways that student athletes can consult with agents and still retain their eligibility.
Mike Rogers, chair of the Amateurism Cabinet, recently told the media that reform is on the “radar screen and we’re in the information gathering stage. One of our overriding concerns is getting accurate and non-biased information to get meaningful decisions. We’re going to be wide open to suggestions.”
The NCAA echoed Rogers’ comments in a statement confirming that it “has begun preliminary discussions about our current agent and advisor legislation. We need to ensure that those select student-athletes with professional athletic opportunities have the best information at the right time to make informed decisions.”
However, the association continued, “the membership is not likely to change its opposition to student-athletes receiving benefits from agents and advisors. As a result, this discussion within our Division I governance structure will be framed in the context of existing rules and how advisors might assist in providing information to student-athletes who are weighing their options. Feedback from NCAA members, including coaches, athletic administrators and others, will be vital to this dialogue.”
The statement came while coaches and administrators at some of college football’s more noteworthy programs – University of Florida, University of Alabama, University of South Carolina, University of Georgia and the University of North Carolina – were advocating pushing agents further away. The agents, reportedly, were providing material enticements to star players, making them ineligible per NCAA rules.
Ironically, the potential reforms that would allow student athletes to consult with agents could alleviate the problem, suggests one expert.
“People talk about a concern that unscrupulous agents will take advantage of players, but that concern is not being addressed by a rule that doesn’t allow for all the good agents to protect players from being taken advantage of by experienced club representatives in the contract negotiation process,” said Rick Karcher, Director of Florida Coastal School of Law’s Center for Law and Sports.
That problem is further exacerbated by the difficultly in controlling unscrupulous agents.
“I am not sure that schools can influence agents to stop violating the rules in the same way that they can boosters of their programs,” said Mark Jones, chair of the Collegiate Sports Practice at Ice Miller. “Rules education by a school to explain to the student-athletes and their families that the receipt of benefits renders an athlete ineligible is often not enough to deter such violations. Schools can’t monitor kids 24/7, and some benefits that may have come from an agent are not always obvious, such as a brand new vehicle.”
To that end, Jones believes some of the “new ideas and approaches should be given some serious consideration.”
At the other end of the spectrum are critics of the NCAA and its policies.
Sports law professor Jordan Kobritz of Eastern New Mexico State University argues that no-agent rules are “designed to guarantee that the student athlete is disadvantaged – indeed, rendered virtually helpless – in negotiations with professional teams.
“You can receive ‘advice’ from an agent, which the NCAA conveniently refers to as an advisor, but that agent cannot be present during negotiations. If you were “smart” enough to pick a lawyer for a parent he/she can be present during negotiations, but otherwise an attorney can’t be present? Please.”
Kobritz, who has written about this particular issue in Sports Litigation Alert, added that he doesn’t “expect much, if anything, to come out of this ‘review.’ The only way the NCAA will change in this regard is via court decisions. Those are unlikely to occur very often, given what’s at stake for the student athlete. And when the NCAA loses, it will just buy its way out, like it did with Oliver.
The professional leagues, on the other hand, may be able to affect change, he says.
“If the NFL adopts a slotting system, like the one in the NBA, during the current CBA negotiations, it will help. But it won’t completely eliminate the problem. Agents will still compete, some illegally, to represent student athletes, although they won’t have the negotiating power with the teams for bonuses.”
If NCAA reforms and steps by the professional sports leagues – NFL Commissioner Roger S. Goodell was on a much-publicized conference call in mid-August with some of the titans in the college coaching profession — don’t affect change, there is one other weapon.
“There is agent regulation law on the books of 38 (soon to be 39) states that does allow for litigation to recover damages, but to my knowledge, those provisions have never been used,” said Kobritz. “As a matter of fact, I don’t think any state really enforces those statutes. However, I saw recently that Debbie Yow, the new AD at NC State, sent out a memo putting agents on notice that she will take action on behalf of her school if an agent’s actions result in one of her student athletes becoming ineligible and costing her school victories, money or a possible bowl appearance. Not sure if she can enforce that, but it might scare off a few rogue agents.”
Meanwhile, as the status quo persists, the real loser isn’t college football, but promising baseball players.
Karcher, a former professional baseball player who has written extensively on the topic, believes “the only way for any baseball player to be able to make a truly informed decision about whether to stay in college or sign a professional contract is to know the maximum amount the club is willing to pay. An experienced agent/lawyer representing the player in contract negotiations with the club’s representatives is really the only viable method for a player to obtain that information.
“The NCAA’s no agent rule is much more detrimental to baseball players than football and basketball players, and there are multiple reasons why that’s the case; and it’s complicated, having to do with differences in the timing and mechanics of each sport’s draft as well as how and when players are eligible to be drafted in each sport.”
Karcher cited the following examples:
“(1) Baseball doesn’t have a draft slotting system or rookie salary pool and thus a player’s ‘signability’ becomes a factor, (2) baseball players are eligible to be drafted out of high school and have to weigh the value of a scholarship against a professional contract, (3) baseball players don’t declare themselves eligible for the draft, and (4) the baseball draft takes place during the baseball season whereas football and basketball players have four or five months between the end of the season and the draft, which gives them time to interview and select an agent/lawyer and to have that agent/lawyer make preparations for the draft and talk to clubs before the draft.
“All of this is compounded by the fact that many more baseball players are affected because there are 50 rounds in the draft versus seven rounds in football and two rounds in basketball.”
