Archer Daniels Midland will have Iowa and Nebraska duking it out for the rights to the sponsorship. Loser has to be sponsored by Monsanto.
Sadly for Illinois, BTN forces them to accept endorsement of Haas avocados.
Archer Daniels Midland will have Iowa and Nebraska duking it out for the rights to the sponsorship. Loser has to be sponsored by Monsanto.
Sadly for Illinois, BTN forces them to accept endorsement of Haas avocados.
How could you think it would possibly be legal for the NFL to require players to deal only with agents that the NFL had "certified?' That wouldn't last ten seconds in any court of law. The NCAA would be in the same boat.
What he said would make sense if he substituted the NFLPA for the NFL.
Only if the college players were members of the NFLPA. The NFLPA agent certification process is a voluntary restriction on their own representation imposed by the players. You can't impose that restiction on someone on the other side of the table.
Why do I feel like Don King would get involved in this somehow?
So I'll respond.
1.) I have a hard time thinking this scenario is really going to happen. There are a lot of "ifs" in there and at the end of the day you're just making a slippery slope argument that currently doesn't have a ton of facts to support it.
2.) I sorta would need to know what safeguard thoughts Brian was thinking when he said it. But if it were me I would attempt to work with the NFL so only NFL Approved agents are allowed. Doesn't seem as if it would be that difficult to do. It would not prevent shady agents from sneaking around though... but I again don't really see this as a very strong argument.
3.) This seems to be another claim with little evidence to support it. Why do you think this would happen? Is point shaving rampent in the pros where people can easily hide the extra income? Is there any proof that this would happen? I don't really see it anywhere.
Not really, history shows us that most of the real enforcement for scandals comes from government criminal prosecutions where there is an opportunity to provide witnesses with immunity and compel them to tell the truth about what happened in order not to forfeit that immunity. The Fab 5, PSU and Sandusky, SMU back in the death penalty days, OSU and Tressel, all of these were discovered because of the criminal prosecution in the background. Since the NCAA has no subpoena power, it can only investigate with a wet noodle and ask the member schools to tell the truth. If, however, you were to criminalize the behavior of taking money or pay for play, then you could enforce it as much as any other criminal laws are enforced. And you could criminalize agent behavior or any other behavior you want to stop.
Not saying this is the best way, but the throw your hands up and declare any regulations or rules impossible to enforce is not the truth. We may not have the will to enforce the rules, but there are ways!
Because all of these shenanigans happen in minor league baseball, right? Or minor league hockey?
As MEZman points out, most everything would be eliminated simply by NFL certification. The league and the players union have no interest in completely slimy individuals representing NFL players.
Besides, it isn't like there would be a ton of agents putting a ton of money in 18 year old kids. How many sure fire recruits bust? Hell, how many on Mel Kiper's big board before a season fall drastically in the draft? Agents aren't going to be handing out money unless they're very comfortable that they're going to get it back. We're talking maybe 100 players at any given time, and we're probably talking in the range of a few thousand dollars at most. Isn't allowing that better than having to regulate and suspend kids for taking a few hundred dollars from an agent or being flown out to a camp to work with some personal coach?
Again, there is no collective bargaining in NCAA. Players can sign whoever they want. The top players will sign with NFL agents, but there will Bea ton of shady characters jumping in on bordeline players.
I totally agree with you on all points. I really don't think the NCAA has the ability to actually enforce the proper handling of players by the agents. Outside governing bodies ie. Congress need to have a more active role in making sure that players are treated fairly and that the system remains pure. If Congress enacts real laws, people will be less likely to break them.
I'm not going to blast you too much, but I do disagree with you, and that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with Brian.
Point 1: 'Agents gonna agent.' However, do you really think that head coaches, who tend to be both strong-willed and mostly ego-maniacal are going to listen to what some whiny agent and player have to say over playing time, or getting the ball, or whatever? How big of a problem would this really be? I think most coaches would tell them to go ahead and transfer, or quit, or whatever they want to do. I don't buy "Agents are going to whine on behalf of whiny players, therefore complete AD takeover by agents." At the end of the day, the school still holds all of the cards under this model because they're not paying the players, the agents are. If they don't play on the big stage because they're holding out, they won't have anything to sell.
Point 2: I'm not sure I get number two, and I also didn't hear Brian on WTKA so maybe that's why. It really seems like a precursor to set up point 3. There probably won't be unions and I don't see what that has to do with anything, since they're not technically being paid to play football.
Point 3: The presence of agents does not equal gambling. I'm not even really following the jump here. Gambling will still be illegal and against the rules. Throwing games will still be against the rules and probably will get you investigated by a federal agency. Killing a bunch of hookers will still be illegal. Agents paying players will not change that. In fact, some transparency would probably combat whatever problem currently exists.
Finally, I'm not saying agents are generally upstanding people, but I don't follow that introducing agents for future value, selling likeness, self-promotion, endorsements, etc. will suddenly turn college football into a seedy underworld. In fact, I think it's more of a seedy underworld right now than we would like to admit. Currently, ADs, media entities, video game manufacturers, the NCAA, etc. all dance around giant piles of money, while some kids who earned them that money struggle to get by. To me, that's a far more conducive environment to shady activity.
I'm only going to respond to Point 1. And it is a really simple response.
That man makes the Yankees and Red Sox dance like his bitches. He will not have a problem with 99.9% of college head coaches.
Evidence? I'm not really following you there...
Scott Boras doesn't represent a single Yankee. He used to represent Cano and Rodriguez, who have since parted ways with him. He represents three Red Sox (Bogaerts, Drew and Ellsbury). How exactly is he making the Yankees dance?
EDIT: I should add, or the Red Sox for that matter. He negotiates contracts with teams, usually in a hardball fashion. Boras isn't negotiating a contract with a coach or AD. I just don't really see why they would care? If the implication here is that top talent, with Boras-style agents will only play for teams that let them puppeteer the AD and coach then so be it. Even with talent, I doubt that those will be very good teams.
Scott Boras wouldn't have been my choice of example. I'd go with John Calapari and William Wesley.
Holy Mr. Literal. If agents, like Boras, can get professional organizations to give out 10 year, $200 million contracts, they won't have any issue making CFB head coaches do what they want.
I wasn't making the point to be a dick, but you're the one who brought it up and have yet to clarify. I don't understand how Scott Boras "makes teams dance." And I'm being sincere. I just don't see how a guy who gets teams to over pay for players equates to a destruction of the competitiveness and merit of them of playing their role on the team.
Boras represented Teixiera when he signed for the Yankees, which is really the only point in time that matters for an agent-player relationship.
I have no opinion to express about agents, college football or anything else to do with this thread.
That is a point worth noting. He gets big contracts and he does his job well. I just don't get (and you're not arguing or implying this) what that has to do with making college football coaches succumb to the wishes of a player or agent. I feel like the OP is pulling an office space and "jumping to conclusions." I'm not even saying he or she is wrong in that conclusion, just that I don't see a very strong argument here.
Of agents but also of the current system. Strong regulation of agents would be needed. I think you could get around the legal problems by having the players consent to the rules as part of the scholarship agreement.
Regarding the NCAA. It is always suspect when a powerful organization assures you that you don't need representation as an individual. It's kind if like the police, IRS, or an insurance company telling a person they don't need a lawyer.
"Regarding the NCAA. It is always suspect when a powerful organization assures you that you don't need representation as an individual. It's kind if like the police, IRS, or an insurance company telling a person they don't need a lawyer."
I don't know what is suspect about it. I don't have a lawyer and don't need one. The IRS agrees with me.
Allowing kids to sign endorsement deals. It's clear the current system does not work and is not fair to the kids so what is the solution? There are so many competing interests, including Title 9 that all systems have draw backs.
I don't know if Brian was trying to be contrarian or just didn't think this one out, but yeah, adding agents into the mix would be a disaster.
others not so much. There is no reason the NCAA couldn't regulate agents. They could require them to be accredited by the NFL, for example. As you said, you're not a lawyer, and it's possible you don't know what you're talking about here. Of course athletes in every other varsity sport could hire agents too. They would need to make similar requirements for them as well,. While the students would be legally free to sign whatever contracts they want, they could also do that now. In either case they need to be careful about jeopardizing their eligibility.
I think your gambling concern is completely backwards. You think registered agents are going to bribe players to shave points under the cover of a paper trail? And players are just going to start accepting those bribes? Players are exposed to all sorts of shady characters as it is. Many could get money and favors if they wanted them, as we know some do. By taking money now, they are putting themselves at risk of blackmail. It would be easy to threaten their eligibility by going public. Manziel has to know he wouldn't be playing if that autograph dealer spoke to the NCAA.
You are advocating that players can sign endorsement contracts, but you would bar them from using an agent to negotiate those contracts. That's going to lead to some one-sided deals. Really, players are expected to do a decent job of negotiating their own contracts?
I agree there are pitfalls in letting players hire agents. I would suggest that if you are going to create a thread for the purpose of calling out Brian, or anyone else here, on a topic, that you should do a helluva lot better job than this. Maybe just raise some questions next time, instead of operating under the assumption that you are so much smarter than he.
Your points are valid concerns and the ability to mitigate these concerns is debatable. I suspect the NCAA would offer the same concerns as a reason to ban agents. I do wonder if slimy agents are the real concern of the NCAA however. The bigger problem for the NCAA may be if the agents started to do their job as an agent.
If the agent is representing the player they may start to question the terms of the scholarship offer and start to negotiate. Some areas to target would include
I suppose the NCAA and schools could refuse to negotiate but once the top 250 players have an agent that stance could become more difficult.
I've been opposed to pretty much all the "fix college sports" ideas that have been floated, but I'm board with every bit of this if, instead of through individual agents, the players could negotiate these issues collectively.
In theory I agree; in practice I have a hard time imagining that all BCS conference schools (much less all soon-to-be-misnamed FBS or all Division I) to agree on enough to have a unified position for players to bargain against. Also, it is unlikely that NCAA/BCS schools will agree to a method of determining the official bargaining position that would allow their interests vis-a-vis other schools to be harmed.
Scholarship issuance and transfer regulations are exactly the kinds ot things the NCAA regulates. If there's anything that could be successfully negotiated collectively, I'd think it would be this. Transfers, in particular would be pretty much impossible to negotiate school-by-school.
A very fair point, although I think there will be much more consternation on rights to athletes' likeness. Also, I think some of the scholarship issues will be harder than others (medical hardship probably will not be that big of a deal, guaranteed scholarships may very well be).
Also, I think you are potentially overlooking the difficulty that 30-32 professional sports teams (who don't all have regents or donors/boosters, although some have other shareholders) in line while negotiating with players unions. Remember how the Indiana States of the world blocked an increase in scholarship stipend (if I recall correctly)? Likeness and multi-year scholarships likely have a much bigger financial and competitive impact. Overgeneralizing, for competitive reasons would SEC schools agree to four-year guaranteed scholarships if they could not have those scholarships back to count for the 85 scholly limit?
Then again, maybe the schools would surprise me.
Multi-year scholarships might actually be to the advantage of the smaller schools, since they don't oversign and their players don't leave early as often. Think how it would work in basketball if schools were blowing three or four years of scholarship every time they signed a one-and-done.
Likenesses are the odd man out on this list, for me, and it's also the item I care least about. I don't find the compensation arguments all that compelling but athletes need to have more control over their circumstances, and less risk.
I figured it would be the Bamas/Ole Missed of the world that would be against four year scholarships--not as a financial issue but as a competitive issue (cut players that didn't pan out but still wanted to be on the team in favor of blue chip recruits).
We are on the same page that likeness is a big issue. The schools would likely at least want to have joint rights--can you imagine A&M needing to get Johnny Manziel's approval (perhaps in exchange for money) to use his likeness?
But maybe the multi-year scholarships could be used to toss a bone to the smaller schools in exchange for agreement to an increase in stipend?
(Sorry for misreading--somehow I got your Indiana State point upside down and thought you were saying the small schools would be against the multi-year deals.)
By the second time I mentioned multi-year scholarships I accurately conveyed what I meant...
You are correct that multi-year scholarships are an example of something that some schools might give to others if they are negotiating amongst themselves, but if players are going to make a big ask (or really much of any real ask), it will be hard to provide something to the schools that everybody will be willing to accept and to create a win-win amongst the schools. If there are likely to be winners and losers on the school side, the schools will make sure that consensus or near consensus is required to ratify an agreement with the students. Because schools have so much trouble agreeing amongst themselves when they are the only ones at the table, I imagine consensus on an offer from the students will be daunting.
Sometimes another body at the bargaining table is just what you need to break an impasse.
I think it's all doable if there's the will to get a deal done, and it's possible that even a weak threat from the players might be the impetus to get it done.
Who knows? I do think it's more likely with the players than without them.
That sounds pretty much what the APU is asking for. I think the NCAA is already moving in that direction and the O'Bannon lawsuit is taking care of the last point. I don't think hiring individual agents is the best way to effect those kind of changes. Either a union or even the threat of one could be more effective. There's also the class-action lawsuit path.
and complaining about playing time and this and that. They're called "parents". Or in the SEC, it's usually some "Uncle" so-and-so.
It's America. If you want the advice of a professional, you should be able to seek it out anytime you want it.
It seems simple to me. Let the NFL create a farm system and let the kids choose which path they prefer.
There is a simple mechanism to enforce whatever boilerplate the NCAA would like. They can say contracts like this are fine, contracts like this will cost you your eligibility. Like they do now, except they say no contracts are fine.
Rather than giving agents more power, allowing them in a regulated capacity would actually give the NCAA more leverage than they have right now, because they could always decertify someone who isn't acting according to their standards.
The number of agents with current NFL/NBA clients that would risk their business to shave points is zero.
If you are having high school seniors enter into contracts with agents wouldn't parents need to be involved? Most high school juniors (when recruiting really picks up) are not of legal age. So what measures would be available to protect underage kids and or uninformed parents from business savy agents.
This isn't an issue in baseball or hockey. Why does everyone assume that agents are scum? Fly by night dudes with no clientele are one thing but guys with established businesses are in a situation where their reputation is almost literally the only thing they sell. Again, if the NCAA maintains a list of approved agents they're going to stay on that list at all costs.
In baseball and hockey though the contracts are regulated by either MLB, or NHL (Canadian Junior leagues also monitor junior contracts). If the NCAA had no collective bargining with the players than their would be no checks and balance like MLBPA or NHLPA has over underage signings.
for point 1, I think some restrictions could help prevent that, or at worst, greatly lessen that practice. Allowing that from HS is a bad idea but maybe after they sign, they can find an agent.
for point 3, I don't see the risk increasing because gambling is gambling. There is always the of that in any sport. players are still playing for the NFL. I don't foresee college players throwing games when it could jeopardize your shot in the pros.
1. As a prep basketball coach who has sent multiple D1 prospects on from my teams, I promise you that the idea that agents 'control the system' is absurd. They may be part of it, but they don't control it in any way. Your argument about coaches giving playing time to a kid because the agent will otherwise steer away other kids holds no water. Why would a coach even want more kids from an agent who sent him crap in the first place, and then bullied him over it? You're living in a fantasy conspiracy world.
2. I disagree with both Brian and you here. Fronting salaries is a shady practice? There's about 400,000 professions in the world that front salaries all the time. Let the agents and the talent do business. What they agree to, they agree to. Who are you to make rules - the same rules - for every kid in the sport, some of whom come from enormously privileged backgrounds, some of whom come from the poorest countries on Earth?
3. A) You're equating money and force. These are in no way the same. Threatening not to hire someone is not the same as threatening to shoot them. B) This could be happening already in any sport where agents are involved. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't, but it doesn't happen because agents are involved.
The best way forward is to allow the talent to enter into any trade agreements they want.
I downvoted the thread precisely because the criticisms of Brian were overheated and implausible. Thanks, MT, for taking the time to explain some of this to the OP.
I don't disagree with the premise here, and you make strong points. I don't necessarily think they are any more valid than Brian's, though, because they equate to basically the status-quo, which we've all seen doesn't really address the underlying failings of college sports.
I do think the gambling/abuse issue already exists - kids get busted on a semi-consistent basis shaving points or otherwise being influenced by outside parties to affect the outcome of a game. That's more of a human nature issue, and one that is difficult to remove in any circumstance. And to counter that, I'd argue that agents who have a reputation for pushing kids to blow games are going to lose clients for that very reason - competitive kids don't want to be told by some old guy how to play the game. College coaches won't recruit them because they'll be afraid that the agent will have influence, and that will cut down on the available pool of players for those types of agents. It may be a bit naive, but the market should clear itself out so that, for the most part, games are played competitively.
The problem with "paying players", at least to me, has more to do with figuring out where the money will come from and how it will be dispensed. Some schools can afford to set aside accounts for certain student athletes, but I dobut most ADs can pay for every scholarship sport. So then you are basically just paying football, basketball, and maybe hockey/baseball/other revenue-positive sport. If you just pay them, you are going to have a class warfare-type situation between the revenue and non-revenue sports, and I can only imagine that will be a PR nightmare for schools. Pay everyone, and you'll probably bankrupt some athletic departments. And how do you figure out what to pay the 3rd-string rower on the women's crew team? And since many of these sports have more fluid membership, do you pay out when the athlete graduates, stops playing, etc.?
It's a tough situation, one that probably won't be remedied without lots of consternation and unintentional destruction. Personally, I think the big AQ conferences will create a competing organization where they can do what they want, and everyone else will follow the amateur model. It will resemble the minor leagues in baseball, and I'm guessing mid-level programs like your ASU's, MSU's, Arkansas's, etc. will really struggle.
This is the part where Rob Pelinka reveals himself to the board and enlightens us from an agent's perspective.
I've always disagreed with Brian about paying players re: agents. And you make interesting points. But there was no need to flamebait Brian, so I changed my vote to a down vote.
Do people seriously think the OP is going to be banned for this thread title? Or did he change it from something else?
What is the new imperative, from which we need to protect players? Are players being abused or mistreated in some new way(s) from past generations?
I don't think so. An athletic scholarship to Michigan has never been worth so much as it is now. Michigan athletes have never had such high quality academic facilities as they do now. On and off the field, they have never been treated so well .
So what is the problem? Some sportswriters don't like the fact that athletic department budgets are so big, and/or coaches' salaries are so large; with all of the money floating around, the writers have tried to gin up a system of payments to the players. Tax the rich! We are the 99%!
Best comment by far in this thread was the one above that declared that the author sure was going to miss college football when the critics "fixed" it.