http://www.baseballamerica.com...ees-permitted-agent/
My son's advisor wrote a paper recommending this several years ago. I believe that this is a step in the right direction although further areas need to be addressed also.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
It's a step in the right direction. Now a kid and his family don't have to worry about getting the right advice negotiating against a big business. With the advisor rule one wrong step and the web of NCAA rules could sweep away a kid's eligibility and negotiating power.
Meanwhile......back at the Sports Management International office
Attachments
Images (1)
some confusion for me...
So the NCAA changed a rule, but it is a rule change specifc only to the conferences that adopted the rule change? Ex: super prospect high school kid A gets an agent when drafted, he's within the NCAA rules for the power 5 but not a conference who didn't adopt the rule? Me thinks the article was poorly written...
Good news for kids. Instead of a semi-guessing game, or trying to negotiate themselves with guys that do it every day for a living, they can now be on somewhat equal ground in being able to determine what there is for them on each side before making a decision.
I wonder if any of the 2016 early enrollee's in the P5 schools are looking at this and having any regret in their decision.
Go44dad posted:some confusion for me...
So the NCAA changed a rule, but it is a rule change specifc only to the conferences that adopted the rule change? Ex: super prospect high school kid A gets an agent when drafted, he's within the NCAA rules for the power 5 but not a conference who didn't adopt the rule? Me thinks the article was poorly written...
Not really, what the P5 schools did was basically align themselves to write their own rules, many which will contrast the rules applied to athletes not in P5 schools. Stipends and guaranteed scholarships are another example of P5 rules differing from non P5 conferences.
The real way to look at this is that the NCAA didn't change the rule, the 5 conferences changed the the rule as it applies to them.
Go44,
Here's a link that does a pretty good job of describing the autonomy the P5's now have. When the article was written, it hadn't yet been adopted, but since has.
ok, is below correct? (assume AAC doesn't adopt rule)
HS stud A commits to Florida, then is drafted, can hire agent to negotiate and is within the rules
HS stud B commits to U of Houston is drafted, cannot hire agent to negotiate and stay within rules.
Thanks for input.
That is correct.
Note that other conferences outside the P5's have the ability to adopt this rule also, and if the AAC chooses to, they can and then your example B would be able to hire an agent and be within the rules..
The reason that the other conferences have to adopt is because players committed to these programs usually don' t get drafted out of HS. According to my understanding, there will be a fee paid for services regardless of the outcome?
I think that some people see this as a good thing, I am kind of on the fence with this. Now its going to be a bigger field day with agent promises than it already is. People are going to have to be very careful in making choices for advice and representation.
I guess this kind of nullifies my question on another thread about when the relationship goes from informal to formal.
I highly doubt the fee paid in connection with a decision to go to college will be sufficient to keep an agent neutral on his recommended course of action - way more recommendations to go pro. That said, I can also see a few more deals somewhat similar to Aiken where the agent simply holds out for too much (realize the Aiken situation was apparently not 100% about money - so no need to comment there). Will there be hardship waivers for kids who cannot afford the standard fee - or will the agent simply agree on a token $250 and then work towards getting the kid to sign.
I think an agent who recommends college ought to get to stick around. I assume a kid can always go back to that agent 3 years later, but the wording as to having severed the relationship seems a little heavy handed.
Also hope there is a wholesale adoption by all other conferences - and soon.
The way I understand it the rule allows only if the player is drafted, they can help in the negotiations.
Funny part about it that players have agents aka advisors way before the draft. They do help the player and family understand the process and pros and cons of signing or going to school.
Doesn't the draft slotting system prevent negotiations? What's there to negotiate for 8 million or a bit less. You either sign or you don't.
I think that only plus in this is allowing an agent to talk to a team without fear of the player getting penalized. This would avoid issues like what happened to the Astros? Its designed for the elite player only.
I don't get the part about severing relationships afterwards? If you are a top prospect and you don't sign, Scott Bora's isn't going to let you go.
TPM posted:
Doesn't the draft slotting system prevent negotiations? What's there to negotiate for 8 million or a bit less. You either sign or you don't.
The slot money becomes an aggregate total to each club, so if the aggregate slot value of all the slot picks they possess in all round totals 30 million, they are free to spend that money on bonuses however they see fit. If they exceed their aggregate slot total, they pay a fine/penalty/luxury tax. So there is still negotiation that can and does take place. If you're the agent of a team's first round selection, you'll work to get as much as you can above slot. If successful, the team then needs to sign their other remaining players below slot to stay within their budget.
Also, an assumption on my part, but I believe that what they imply with "sever the relationship" I believe that they are referring to the relationship as an "agent", i.e., for fee and interacting with clubs. I would assume that a player foregoing a pro contract and going to school could maintain the player/advisor relationship with the same person.
Also, the rule as I read it states that the agent can work on behalf of the high school draftee at their "going rate", which in most cases is a percentage of wage/bonus. Since most are on their contingency, revenue sharing basis to begin with, it would reason that if the player doesn't sign, then the fee would be $0?
Nuke83 posted:Also, an assumption on my part, but I believe that what they imply with "sever the relationship" I believe that they are referring to the relationship as an "agent", i.e., for fee and interacting with clubs. I would assume that a player foregoing a pro contract and going to school could maintain the player/advisor relationship with the same person.
Also, the rule as I read it states that the agent can work on behalf of the high school draftee at their "going rate", which in most cases is a percentage of wage/bonus. Since most are on their contingency, revenue sharing basis to begin with, it would reason that if the player doesn't sign, then the fee would be $0?
I dont know. An agent doesnt take a fee until the player signs a contract. But he essentially doesn't do what he is not allowed to do (yea right). Now I see the agent negotiating for maybe a month and if the player backs out and goes to school will this mean the agent can charge a fee?
HS players alway had advisors. No written contract, but verbal.
bob
Consultant posted:HS players alway had advisors. No written contract, but verbal.
bob
Bob: yes, but now the adviser can negotiate directly with the club on behalf of the player, as opposed to advising without being a direct part of the conversation.