NCAA Logo

The NCAA may rethink their preposterous rules regarding amateurs and agents

17 Comments

I’ve written about this several times before, but let’s sum up: the NCAA has a rule on the book that serves no purpose other than to exploit kids. It’s the no-agents rule, which allows college baseball players to have an “advisor,” but prohibits the advisor from talking to professional teams.

And that’s the case even before the kid goes to college. If, as most promising players are, the kid is drafted out of high school, he can’t have an experienced agent or attorney contact anyone associated with Major League Baseball, even if it isn’t about money.  Can’t talk to a scout to get an opinion as to how he’ll do as an 18 year-old minor leaguer. Can’t talk to the team about their plans for him.  When it comes time for a teenage kid to make a major life choice — college or pros — the NCAA says that you have to go it alone or else you’ve lost eligibility.

This rule had been ruled unlawful by a court in Ohio and Tigers’ prospect Andy Oliver got a $750,000 settlement out of it from the NCAA.  Of course, by virtue of the settlement, the NCAA got to keep the rule on the books and continues to enforce it against amateurs who have the audacity to actually look out for their future interests in an informed and intelligent way.

But what has struck me the most about this rule is not its actual effect, but the sheer arrogance with which the NCAA has enforced it.  Players are way more likely to get smacked if they own up to a simple mistake or misunderstanding of the rule than if they just flat out lie about having an agent.  During the Andy Oliver suit the NCAA was openly contemptuous of the Ohio court in which the case was being heard, ignoring orders and acting as if it couldn’t be bothered by the proceedings. When the judge told them otherwise — and hinted strongly that the NCAA was going to get reamed — the settlement was hastily reached. More recently was the case of James Paxton and the University of Kentucky, where Paxton’s advisor was told by the UK athletic director that “the NCAA made its own rules and could do whatever it wanted,” and that the NCAA investigator “had [Paxton’s] life in his hands.” Just obnoxious.

Chilling stuff.  But now, it seems, someone at the NCAA may have woken up. Because in the course of this story talking about the latest enforcement of the no-advisors rule comes this passage:

The NCAA’s man in charge of baseball told college coaches earlier this year that new rules acknowledging baseball’s “unique set of circumstances” could be on the way.

“If I had a kid who was left-handed and threw 95 (mph), I’d like to know what his value would be,” Dennis Poppe, managing director for baseball and football, said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. He didn’t discuss any specific changes.

Because the NCAA has been arbitrary and capricious when it comes to its amateurism rules, penalizing kids for nickel and dime offenses while doing everything it can to make millions and even billions off their free-of-charge athletic talents, I am not going to hold my breath.  But maybe — just maybe — there’s some hope here.

Pete Rose wrote a letter to the Hall of Fame, pleading to be placed on the ballot

Former Cincinnati Reds player and manager Pete Rose poses while taping a segment for Miami Television News on the campus of Miami University, Monday, Sept. 21, 2015, in Oxford, Ohio. (AP Photo/Gary Landers)
Associated Press
8 Comments

Tim Brown of Yahoo has obtained a letter written by Pete Rose — well, written by his attorney — to the Baseball Hall of Fame, pleading to be placed on the ballot so he could be considered for induction by the BBWAA.

The upshot of the argument is that when Rose accepted his permanent ban from baseball, it did not include a ban from Hall of Fame consideration. Which, yes, is true. But it’s also true that soon after the ban, the Hall of Fame — which is a private institution, not owned by Major League Baseball — decided to change its rules and only allow those who are not banned by baseball to be on its ballot. That rule, 3(e), was enacted in February 1991.

Which is itself a tad disingenuous, as it’s long been clear that the Hall of Fame and Major League Baseball pretty much see the world the same way. The Commissioner and his close confidants are on the board of the Hall for cryin’ out loud. I have no doubt whatsoever that, if Major League Baseball wanted something of the Hall of Fame, it could get it and that if the Hall of Fame did something Major League Baseball did not like, MLB would make its displeasure known to the Hall and the matter would be remedied.

Which is to say that, yes, Rose probably has a good point or two in all of this and it would be interesting to know how the Hall came to adopt its “no banned players can be considered” rule and why and whether it had anything to do with MLB suggesting that the Hall do via its rules what MLB might not have gotten Rose to agree to in its own right.

But just because something is “interesting” does not make it meaningful. The Hall is a private business that can do what it wants. Major League Baseball is a private business that can do what it wants. There is no legal right to be eligible for the Hall of Fame and, even if Rose had some sort of legal theory — Fraud, maybe? Some sort of interference with economic opportunity claim? — it was one that should’ve been brought decades ago. And no, I don’t think he’d have a legal leg to stand on even if he had.

All that being said, I think Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. I think that his playing career makes him more than worthy and his transgressions, while serious enough to keep him out of the game for life, should not stop a museum and the baseball establishment from honoring what he did between 50 and 30 years ago.

His letter won’t work, though. Because the same folks who decided he was not worthy of reinstatement last year have a lot of influence on the folks who determine who gets placed on a Hall of Fame balance. In asking for what he’s asking, Rose is asking for one of those parties to go against the other. And that has never, ever happened.

Settling the Scores: Tuesday’s results

NEW YORK, NY - SEPTEMBER 27:  Gary Sanchez #24 of the New York Yankees celebrates his first inning two-run home run against the Boston Red Sox with teammate Jacoby Ellsbury #22 at Yankee Stadium on September 27, 2016 in the Bronx borough of New York City.  (Photo by Jim McIsaac/Getty Images)
Getty Images
6 Comments

The Sox’ winning streak ends at 11, thanks in part to Gary Sanchez continuing to hit like Barry Bonds or someone. Well, not quite Bonds, but his 20 homers in 49 games is ridiculous. I’d say “at some point pitchers need to stop giving him stuff to hit,” but this dude drove in a run when someone tried to intentionally walk him a week or two ago, so maybe there is nothing that can be done. In any event, Boston’s loss, along with the Blue Jays win, means that the AL East is not quite settled. It likely is practically, but not technically!

In other news, the Tigers pounded the Indians and their post-clinch, hungover lineup and, with the Orioles’ loss, pull a game closer in the Wild Card. The Mets pounded the Marlins who, one suspects, can only run on emotion so long and desperately want and ned to be with their loved ones to process this past week. The Cards and Giants both won as well, keeping the NL Wild Card at the status quo for another day: the Mets and Giants in, if the season ended today, the Cards one back.

The scores:

Yankees 6, Red Sox 4
Nationals 4, Diamondbacks 2
Cubs 6, Pirates 4
Blue Jays 5, Orioles 1
Tigers 12, Indians 0
Braves 7, Phillies 6
Mets 12, Marlins 1
Royals 4, Twins 3
Rangers 6, Brewers 4
White Sox 13, Rays 6
Astros 8, Mariners 4
Cardinals 12, Reds 5
Angels 8, Athletics 1
Padres 7, Dodgers 1
Giants 12, Rockies 3