New NCAA policy regarding agents & "testing the waters"

[WhiteTrash]

You are literally the only person who has brought up race. And now you've done it twice. 🤔  There is nothing better in an argument than the person who is screaming about how disgusting it is that racism is being brought into the discussion...when literally nobody has said a word about racism or race.

Not to mention you're right.  Jim speaks for all student athletes.  Because nobody who has played in the NCAA and NBA in the last decade has spoken out about this at all. 🙄

Wade, fair enough on the race issue. You are right. I am unfairly lumping in previous bashing of the NCAA as running a "slave" type organization with free labor. (I assume you heard/read those arguments in the media in the past few years) I withdraw any comments concerning race.

As for Jim's comments, are you referring to a general bashing/defence of the NCAA by Jim versus other former student athletes? Are you referring to agents taking advantage of  athletes?

As for agents taking advantage of athletes, personally I have not see significant coverage or comments from former NCAA athletes on this issue in the past 10 years.

As for former players bashing the NCAA in the past 10 years, yes I have seen plenty and Jim obviously does not speak for everyone.(I don't know all Jim's thoughts on the NCAA, for all I know he mostly dislikes the NCAA)

I will say that the vast majority of comments and criticisms of the NCAA are almost entirely devoid of facts, critical analysis and a basic understand of what the NCAA is and its purpose.   

[The Sultan]

Wade, fair enough on the race issue. You are right. I am unfairly lumping in previous bashing of the NCAA as running a "slave" type organization with free labor. (I assume you heard/read those arguments in the media in the past few years) I withdraw any comments concerning race.

As for Jim's comments, are you referring to a general bashing/defence of the NCAA by Jim versus other former student athletes? Are you referring to agents taking advantage of  athletes?

As for agents taking advantage of athletes, personally I have not see significant coverage or comments from former NCAA athletes on this issue in the past 10 years.

As for former players bashing the NCAA in the past 10 years, yes I have seen plenty and Jim obviously does not speak for everyone.(I don't know all Jim's thoughts on the NCAA, for all I know he mostly dislikes the NCAA)

I will say that the vast majority of comments and criticisms of the NCAA are almost entirely devoid of facts, critical analysis and a basic understand of what the NCAA is and its purpose.   

So what is the basic understanding of what the NCAA is and its purpose?

[WhiteTrash]

This isn't a social justice issue so nice try.

It's the continued defense of the amateurism model which is foolish and outdated.

The 'social justice' satire line was the significant point you took away from my post? Hmm... interesting. That was an afterthought addition attempt at humor.

I don't know if you agree with me or not but I believe the universities and colleges (NOT the NCAA) are in a virtually no win situation to resolve the differences between the 99% of their programs and athletes who are true amateurs and the 1% that are D1 men's basketball and football players and maybe more specifically the top 2%-3% of that pool of athletes.

[The Sultan]

The 'social justice' satire line was the significant point you took away from my post? Hmm... interesting. That was an afterthought addition attempt at humor.

I don't know if you agree with me or not but I believe the universities and colleges (NOT the NCAA) are in a virtually no win situation to resolve the differences between the 99% of their programs and athletes who are true amateurs and the 1% that are D1 men's basketball and football players and maybe more specifically the top 2%-3% of that pool of athletes.

Let them all earn outside income.

[Uncle Rico]

Death to the NCAA

[Jockey]

Pakuni, you are better than the bolded. That is essentially saying that you are biased against the NCAA, so you will view any NCAA action in the worst light possible. That isn't a rational approach to analyzing anything.

It'a a good back and forth between you and Pakuni. This time, I agree with him on most points.

I think your biggest mistake is to assume the NCAA is in place to help/protect athletes. There job is one-fold. To maintain the cash stream. Nothing else really factors into their decisions.

[WhiteTrash]

So what is the basic understanding of what the NCAA is and its purpose?

FBM, great question and there is not the time nor the space here to fully answer this but I'll start by pointing out a couple of the basics that the media almost always ignores.
First, the NCAA is a member institution. The NCAA employees do not make the policies. Any complements or criticisms of NCAA actions should be directed at the members. And while they are not infallible, most everyone need to keep that mind when comparing "joe six pack" on the internet or some ESPN opinions to the combined wisdom of the presidents of hundreds of the leading universities in America.
Second, the NCAA's purpose, is to govern intercollegiate sports. A very, very, small portion (1%?), by participation, of intercollegiate sports is Division I men's basketball and football. (and a small amount of those are profitable and a small percent of those are highly profitable). The member institutions must develop rules and policies for all programs and student athletes. These must be fair and equitable to all, least discrimination arises.
Third, all of the media and internet discussion of issues focus on a ridiculously small number of participants in D1 football and basketball and completely ignore that the NCAA regulations behind the "outrage" have been developed to fairly and equitably govern the sports (football and air rifle) and institutions (Duke and Incarnate Word)or protect ALL the athletes (Zion Williamson and Bryce Davis<9mpg@UofIW>).
Forth, the media simply forgets that the member institutions are trying to balance all of this with the constant presences of Title 9 and IRS regulations.
Fifth, the member institutions, on top of dealing very smart and wealthy agents and boosters that spend considerable resources to circumvent the existing regulations, have partner institutions who are complicit in rule breaking activities. That to say, there are some "foxes watching the hen house".
I could go on but I won't.   

[The Sultan]

White, great answer.

I am in complete agreement with you that the NCAA is too often the bogeyman when an issue arises, but it is actually their membership that wants to keep things that way.  And they love the fact that the NCAA can take the blame while they skate by.  I would also suggest that they intentionally starve the organization of resources so that they aren't too efficient in their investigative powers.  if you haven't already, read up on how the powerful D1 programs took control over their football television revenues in the 1980s and formed the CFA. 

Anyway, one of the things that the NCAA and its membership want to do is make sure that they control the revenues to fund their own cost structure.  So that is why they don't want to pay the athletes anymore than the cost of attendance, because that would essentially classify them as employees which would require all sorts of workman's comp coverage, etc.

But they also don't want them to receive outside income because they want to preserve that income for themselves.  Why allow Zion Williamson to receive money from Nike when Duke University needs it to pay Coach K's salary?  IMO they have created these barriers to primarily retain the revenues for themselves and not let the market dictate where they should fall.

[Cheeks]

Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison and Michael Dell need not apply.  And Steve Jobs if he were still alive.

Always exceptions to the rule.  I'm sure there are people out there that could cut out cancer cells without a degree and license, feel free to go to them if you wish....but yes there are always exceptions and always will be.  Glad we all agree.

[Cheeks]

This isn't a social justice issue so nice try.

It's the continued defense of the amateurism model which is foolish and outdated.

Then why are so many in media (fake, "legit" and social) making it a SJW issue?  Hmmm

[Cheeks]

White, great answer.

I am in complete agreement with you that the NCAA is too often the bogeyman when an issue arises, but it is actually their membership that wants to keep things that way.  And they love the fact that the NCAA can take the blame while they skate by.  I would also suggest that they intentionally starve the organization of resources so that they aren't too efficient in their investigative powers.  if you haven't already, read up on how the powerful D1 programs took control over their football television revenues in the 1980s and formed the CFA. 

Anyway, one of the things that the NCAA and its membership want to do is make sure that they control the revenues to fund their own cost structure.  So that is why they don't want to pay the athletes anymore than the cost of attendance, because that would essentially classify them as employees which would require all sorts of workman's comp coverage, etc.

But they also don't want them to receive outside income because they want to preserve that income for themselves.  Why allow Zion Williamson to receive money from Nike when Duke University needs it to pay Coach K's salary?  IMO they have created these barriers to primarily retain the revenues for themselves and not let the market dictate where they should fall.

Rumor has it Marquette is a member of the association and a member.  Feel free to play the alumni card, refuse to donate, picket, whatever is appropriate so this grave injustice of requiring a college degree for this certification is overturned.

[forgetful]

No, what it is saying is that the NCAA exists only to serve the interests of its member institutions, not its labor force. Its labor force is just a means to its end, i.e. enriching its members. I make no value judgements about that. It is what it is. The NCAA is a business like any other.
I just find it truly laughable that some wish to portray the NCAA not as a business, but as some sort of benevolent high-minded institution that cares about and wants to protect its labor and provide them with an education. That narrative is not only naive, but provably false. If you want, I'll list off a dozen ways the NCAA shows little regard for the well-being and academic success of its labor force (like, say, Tuesday and Wednesday night football games during mid-terms).

That is my approach to analyzing anything the NCAA does ... that it, like any other business entity, will act in its own interests. Any other analysis ignores the reality of what the NCAA is and why it exists.

And since you don't want to say it, I will. The NCAA has different rules for basketball players because NCAA members are enriched through the labors of its basketball players. And it is therefore in the NCAA's interest to exert as much influence and control as it can over its basketball players.

Explain to me how the Basketball agent rule hurts athletes or benefits "revenue" in comparison to the Baseball rule.

Would the Basketball players be better off by being forbidden from being drafted (if they enroll in college) until their junior year?

Would the Basketball players be better of by being forbidden from accepting any benefits from and agent/advisor, but rather having to pay all expenses out of pocket.

Would the Basketball players be better of by being required to pay "market rate" for any agent/advisor they enlist. Meaning a cost of $1000's of dollars to seek advice on the draft.

These are the questions one must answer when examining the NCAA motives in this issue. I cannot conceive of a way the Athlete is being harmed by these changes, similarly, it is not increasing NCAA revenue.

If the changes were made to make Basketball like Baseball agent rules, there would not be a negative affect on Basketball revenue, or athlete control. Rather, instituting baseball's agent rules would lead to a net disincentive from pursuing the NBA draft. There would be greater control of the athlete, and an increase in revenue by retaining top talent. Bottom line is applying the "Baseball rules" to basketball would be a net benefit to the NCAA and its institutions, and a net detriment to the athletes.

So the argument of NCAA ulterior motive here is misplaced.

Even people like Rich Paul are only moderately affected here. Rich Paul can very simply have other agents at his agency that target NCAA athletes at that phase of their career, similar to how Partners of big law firms use junior partners in regards to clients.

[Cheeks]

Is that you, Mr. Emmert?
You can't seriously mean either of these things. And if you're naive enough to believe the NCAA acts to benefit and protect student athletes, I'm not sure there's any point in continuing this discussion.

As for the rest, I'll just note that your recitation of the different rules wholly fails to answer why different rules are needed.
Again, what's the difference between basketball players and hockey/baseball players that requires a different set of rules?
You're a smart person. I'm sure you can figure it out. (Hint: There's an old saying about what you should follow).

What an enormous pile of excrement and bias, way to be a free thinker.

Yup, the NCaA is always there to screw the kids.  Jeebus H Christmas

[Cheeks]

White, great answer.

I am in complete agreement with you that the NCAA is too often the bogeyman when an issue arises, but it is actually their membership that wants to keep things that way.  And they love the fact that the NCAA can take the blame while they skate by.  I would also suggest that they intentionally starve the organization of resources so that they aren't too efficient in their investigative powers.  if you haven't already, read up on how the powerful D1 programs took control over their football television revenues in the 1980s and formed the CFA. 

Anyway, one of the things that the NCAA and its membership want to do is make sure that they control the revenues to fund their own cost structure.  So that is why they don't want to pay the athletes anymore than the cost of attendance, because that would essentially classify them as employees which would require all sorts of workman's comp coverage, etc.

But they also don't want them to receive outside income because they want to preserve that income for themselves.  Why allow Zion Williamson to receive money from Nike when Duke University needs it to pay Coach K's salary?  IMO they have created these barriers to primarily retain the revenues for themselves and not let the market dictate where they should fall.

Honest question Sult, do you know what the NCAA cost structure is?  Most people don't, but I think you might have a bit of knowledge here.

The main talking point by people is the NCAA is taking in billions....and then they huff and puff.  They rarely go into the next part to show where the money goes and who benefits.  An amazing disservice by those arguing about the revenue without pointing out the expense side and the recipients of most of that revenue.

[forgetful]

It'a a good back and forth between you and Pakuni. This time, I agree with him on most points.

I think your biggest mistake is to assume the NCAA is in place to help/protect athletes. There job is one-fold. To maintain the cash stream. Nothing else really factors into their decisions.

Thank you.

But I don't think I'm not assuming the NCAA is in place to help/protect the athletes though. The NCAA has a ton of faults, but here I'm not making any assumption (at least I don't think I am). Rather, I'm looking at who benefits/is harmed from the rule as it's put in place. Including in relationship to the rules for other sports.

If you want my overall assumption/belief. My assumption is that the NCAA was worried about losing complete control here, and losing all top athletes due to potential longer term changes. To preempt that, they made a new rule, that greatly benefits/protects the athletes. Essentially they are playing the long game.

It gives substantially more freedom/options for the athlete, that results in a short-term loss for the NCAA, but long-term avoids the possibility of catastrophic change.

[MU82]

Thank you.

But I don't think I'm not assuming the NCAA is in place to help/protect the athletes though. The NCAA has a ton of faults, but here I'm not making any assumption (at least I don't think I am). Rather, I'm looking at who benefits/is harmed from the rule as it's put in place. Including in relationship to the rules for other sports.

If you want my overall assumption/belief. My assumption is that the NCAA was worried about losing complete control here, and losing all top athletes due to potential longer term changes. To preempt that, they made a new rule, that greatly benefits/protects the athletes. Essentially they are playing the long game.

It gives substantially more freedom/options for the athlete, that results in a short-term loss for the NCAA, but long-term avoids the possibility of catastrophic change.

The major area of disagreement between you and others (including me) is that some of us do not believe this "greatly benefits/protects the athletes."

I can't speak for others, but I believe it is the NCAA increasing the bureaucracy with the intent of maintaining or increasing control over the athlete-students.

It's also a bit of a cash grab, because they levy additional fees on prospective agents above and beyond what the agents must already pay to existing certifying bodies.

[Pakuni]

Explain to me how the Basketball agent rule hurts athletes or benefits "revenue" in comparison to the Baseball rule.

It limits their freedom to choose their own representation, and limits the field of potential agents. Less competition = worse terms for the consumer, which in this case the player.

Would the Basketball players be better off by being forbidden from being drafted (if they enroll in college) until their junior year?

First, this isn't entirely true. There are exceptions to the three-year rule.
But, yes, if going pro is an option out of high school is an option.

Would the Basketball players be better of by being forbidden from accepting any benefits from and agent/advisor, but rather having to pay all expenses out of pocket.

You're making waayyy to much of this. A rep is allowed to buy meals and pay for transportation for meetings as part of the agent selection process. It's not as if the players are getting SUVs and six-figure gifts, here. It's dinner and a plane ticket. Do you think Boras and Lozano are making their top prospects fly to them?

Would the Basketball players be better of by being required to pay "market rate" for any agent/advisor they enlist. Meaning a cost of $1000's of dollars to seek advice on the draft.

Yes, if that's his choice.

[Pakuni]

My assumption is that the NCAA was worried about losing complete control here, and losing all top athletes due to potential longer term changes. To preempt that, they made a new rule, that greatly benefits/protects the athletes. Essentially they are playing the long game. 

1. How can you say this is about the NCAA keeping control over the top athletes - while avoiding catastrophic change - and at the same time say it's not a revenue issue for the NCAA? Seems contradictory.
2. How does requiring a bachelor's degree greatly benefit or protect the athlete? Is there some data out there that says agents with bachelor's degrees are better and more ethical than those without?

[forgetful]

1. How can you say this is about the NCAA keeping control over the top athletes - while avoiding catastrophic change - and at the same time say it's not a revenue issue for the NCAA? Seems contradictory.
2. How does requiring a bachelor's degree greatly benefit or protect the athlete? Is there some data out there that says agents with bachelor's degrees are better and more ethical than those without?

For

1. Often in life/business entities make decisions that harm them (the NCAA) short term, as a backstop to avoid the possibility of longer term consequences. Now, that doesn't mean that the longer term consequences that are being mitigated will lead to harm to the athlete. It is entirely possible that mitigating the longer term change is beneficial to both parties. I personally believe that is the case here. But the more important part, is that the changes done here benefit athletes now.

2. It leads to a slightly higher bar to entry, that will limit a lot of random predatory agents. It also is the same as the NBPA rule. The difference is the NCAA apparently didn't want to have to run an arbitrary appeal process for non-degree agents, like the NBPA did. I don't blame them for that.

It limits their freedom to choose their own representation, and limits the field of potential agents. Less competition = worse terms for the consumer, which in this case the player.

So the Basketball player would be better off, only being able to hire "advisors," who are not allowed to contact or market you to any teams on your behalf?

A limitation on requiring a "bachelors degree" limits the field of agents so much, that they would be better off not being able to get an agent, but rather only have an advisor forbidden from marketing you to any teams?

Come on, that is absurd. This is a major advantage to Basketball players.

First, this isn't entirely true. There are exceptions to the three-year rule.
But, yes, if going pro is an option out of high school is an option.

Great, then get the NBA to allow high school athletes to be draft eligible. I'm fine with that. And if they aren't drafted or don't want to go to the NBA, let them go to college. Same agent rules (give them the basketball agent rules, as it is far far more beneficial to the athlete).

You're making waayyy to much of this. A rep is allowed to buy meals and pay for transportation for meetings as part of the agent selection process. It's not as if the players are getting SUVs and six-figure gifts, here. It's dinner and a plane ticket. Do you think Boras and Lozano are making their top prospects fly to them?

Baseball players are not permitted to accept any benefits at all from their "advisor," no meals, clothing, transportation to any events. Nothing.

Basketball players can receive benefits, including travel, meals, etc. to any events that do not exceed 48 hours.

Going to tryouts etc. can lead to $1000s of expenses. That is out of pocket for baseball, compensated in Basketball.

Major advantage to Basketball

Yes, if that's his choice.

It is not a matter of choice. Baseball players are required to pay their "advisor" for all services at market rate. That advisor cannot market them to any actual teams. That is additional $1000s out of pocket, and no agent services.

Basketball players do not have to compensate their "agent" and the "agent" can directly market them to NBA teams.

Major benefit basketball.

My take-home. The NCAA is screwing baseball athletes. They need to ask for the same agent rules as Basketball.

[forgetful]

For those curious about differences between basketball and baseball representation, these memorandums and FAQs are helpful.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/enforcement/2019ENF_NBAMemo.pdf

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/enforcement/2019ENF_MLBEducationalMemo.pdf

[Pakuni]

Forgetful .... it seems unlikely we're going to change any minds here, and that's fine. I'll not clutter the board with another point-by-point response.

[Cheeks]

OK just what I suspected.  The bachelor's degree requirement isn't really a requirement.

And Dauster is 100% right.  The NCAA could have made it simple, but they didn't.

If I understand it correctly, there is only one agent in all of the NBA that doesn't have a college degree.  Very much the corner case and maybe the NCAA will do the same thing.

This overall context I keep reading about how the NCAA does these kids raw, it sure seems like the lens people are looking through is one through the .5% and not all college athletes, all divisions, all genders, rev vs non-rev, etc.   Very biased in my opinion.

[forgetful]

Forgetful .... it seems unlikely we're going to change any minds here, and that's fine. I'll not clutter the board with another point-by-point response.

No worries. I was honestly trying to see how these changes are in any way harmful to the athlete. I honestly can't see any way they are. I also find them the most beneficial to the athlete of any NCAA agent/advisor rules.

I enjoyed the discussion. Hope you have a wonderful day.

[MUBurrow]

The dumbest thing about this rule (and there's a bunch) is that by its own terms, its narrowly targeted to punish the extremely small sample size of people it claims to protect.  If you take the NCAA at its word and say this isn't targeted at Rich Paul, the players caught up in this will be the ones with the least sophisticated support structures, who are most susceptible to the types of creeps this is trying to weed out. There will be literally zero people suspended for this who aren't the most vulnerable of the guys on the draft fringe. They will all be sympathetic figures, and in enforcement, the NCAA will look stupid and meanspirited.  Again. Like always.

[WhiteTrash]

2. How does requiring a bachelor's degree greatly benefit or protect the athlete? Is there some data out there that says agents with bachelor's degrees are better and more ethical than those without?

I don't know if there is data out there that says agents with a degree are better but I also don't think it is a stretch or flawed logic for any organization to presume, on the whole, someone with a degree will be better qualified and better able to do a job or serve the needs of their client.

Subjective criteria are applied across all walks of like for eligibility to do certain jobs or activities. These criteria are NEVER fool proof but absolutely serve their purpose to protect people, groups or society.

As a shareholder of IBM, I am not the least bit offended (actually quite the opposite) that IBM requires programming technician candidates to have a computer science degree. That said, I know Bill Gates would never get that job and that's okay because IBM, its employees and the shareholders are better off served by having defined criteria for its staff to achieve the companies goals.

The two most successful people I know and who I am lucky to call friends and business partners never even thought to attended college. I guess you'd say they are in the 0.25%ers club and all self made. So I know first hand a degree is not an absolute prerequisite for being able to make great decisions, to have business success and to assist other in doing likewise. I have the majority of my net worth tied to these two gentlemen and am blessed to have it that way. That said, my public equity holdings portfolio is managed by a CFP who has a master degree and I would not have considered someone with less credentials.