What is wrong with this?

JMoff- That is an outstanding and very well-documented article. Thank you for sharing such in-depth information.

You are right, NCAA rules prohibit amateur players engaging in formal contracts with agents. If you notice in the article, however, they are being referred to as "advisors." Amateur players do not sign any papers with the agency that represents them and therefore, in technical terms, do not have an agent. Their "advisor" controls the negotiations for them as an outside party that is not profiting off of the player (until, of course, an agreement is reached). As soon as an agreement is made between the player and the organization, that player becomes a professional baseball player and thus loses his NCAA eligibility. It is at that time that the player will sign papers to officially make his "advisor" his agent.

Advisors may not have direct contact with MLB teams. IF they do, it jeopardizes the players NCAA eligibility. It doesn't matter that they are not officially agents for the players yet. They may not handle the negotiations for the player. This happens all the time and it is an NCAA violation. Of course, since most players sign, and the NCAA usually never hears about it, it's sort of swept under the rug. But, if the agent ****es the team off bad enough, as Boras did in the Paxton case, the team may leak the fact that the advisor violated NCAA rules, which may cost the player his final year of eligibility.

quote:

Originally posted by MTH:
Advisors may not have direct contact with MLB teams. IF they do, it jeopardizes the players NCAA eligibility. It doesn't matter that they are not officially agents for the players yet. They may not handle the negotiations for the player. This happens all the time and it is an NCAA violation. Of course, since most players sign, and the NCAA usually never hears about it, it's sort of swept under the rug. But, if the agent ****es the team off bad enough, as Boras did in the Paxton case, the team may leak the fact that the advisor violated NCAA rules, which may cost the player his final year of eligibility.

I can't bring it up. A better link may help.

I am commenting on the above, which is correct, a player may have an agent acting as an advisor, who may advise him, but he may not in any capacity negotiate with anyone (he can help advise in negotiations on the sideline) or he loses eligibility.

It's done because those players are going to sign and give up their eligibility, it's just a matter of when, so the agent speaking on their behalf doesn't hold up. FWIW,that is why some of Boras' players go to indy ball. I am not sure he was the one who ****ed off the NCAA in Paxton's case. Usually this stuff is ratted out by those that got burned.

Try this. I just deleted the extraneous stuff from the link.

http://www.weei.com/sports/bos...ide-deadline-sign-dr

Sure sounds like some violations going on to me.

For others who might be interested, this is a link to an article about Boras and the Paxton case.

http://www.sportsagentblog.com...gard-for-ncaa-rules/

Also, this is a link to a memo from the NCAA regarding advisors.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/p...ncaabaseballmemo.pdf

Thanks, good stuff. I wasn't sure about paxton and Boras. I do know of two of his players went to indyball to avoid the ncaa stepping in, one was Weaver?

I do beleive that most of those players had all intentions of signing, and knew what their advisors were doing, except for the one that they rolled out the red carpet for, which I heard they do for those that actually follow the rules.

What's interesting is that I didn't know that even a non agent couldn't negotiate, or that you had to pay for advice, as accepting free was against NCAA rules.

MTH,
From my reading of the article, there was only one player who did not sign. He appears to have been in Boston with his mother and girlfriend and did all the negotiating directly.
There does not appear to be any violation for him. Would you agree?
For the others, they all signed. Wouldn't the violation come into play if someone didn't sign and tried to play college baseball? So long as they sign, having the adviser/agent do the talking isn't an issue, is it?
From what I can tell, the catcher who wanted upwards of $6,000,000 put himself at risk of the violation(and so did his "adviser") when, if reported correctly, the negotiations involved the "adviser" directly.
I would assume the Sox knew that and took that as evidence he would(had to??) sign.
If he didn't, one can only guess whether something would have become public as it did following Paxton not signing and trying to return for his senior year.

Infieldad is correct, all of the players with advisors that spoke to teams signed, the one who had doubts, made sure that he took care of his own business.

Violations did occur, but none to enforce, if these players signed.

I truely beleive that most really know what they are going to do, it's just a matter of coming down to dollars at the wire. And that's why it's important to understand the differnce between guys that are basically new at it and guys like Boras.

Infielddad/TPM,

Agreed.

I just can't help but wonder if the guys who let the advisors negotiate for them don't put themselves at a disadvantage. I think there is some sort of unwritten gentlemens agreement/code that the club won't rat the kid out if they can't reach an agreement. But if you're the kid, do you really want to take the chance that the club will abide by that code? Especially after the Jays spilled the beans on Boras and Paxton.

I'd be willing to bet that within the next year, two at the most, the NCAA eliminates this rule.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
MTH,
From my reading of the article, there was only one player who did not sign. He appears to have been in Boston with his mother and girlfriend and did all the negotiating directly.
There does not appear to be any violation for him. Would you agree?
For the others, they all signed. Wouldn't the violation come into play if someone didn't sign and tried to play college baseball? So long as they sign, having the adviser/agent do the talking isn't an issue, is it?
From what I can tell, the catcher who wanted upwards of $6,000,000 put himself at risk of the violation(and so did his "adviser") when, if reported correctly, the negotiations involved the "adviser" directly.
I would assume the Sox knew that and took that as evidence he would(had to??) sign.
If he didn't, one can only guess whether something would have become public as it did following Paxton not signing and trying to return for his senior year.

MTH,
I think your comments are 100% on point...well maybe somewhat less in trying to guess/hope what the NCAA might do.

Not to condone it; but, I've always felt that the NCAA turns a "blind eye" to this. Why, I don't know.

Andrew Oliver would have liked them to turn their "blind eye" his way, would've saved a lot of trouble.

I understand. I just happen to believe that it happens a lot more often than would be indicated by the number of times the NCAA seems to pursue it; and, I can't believe that they're unaware of the discrepancy.

TPM - Sorry about the original hyperlink, don't know how I botched it up.

I also agree no violations on the kid who was there without an advisor and since the others signed their NCAA status is mute. My concern would've been for the kids who did clearly have an advisor negotiating for them and instead of them signing, the computer had locked up and they'd been shut out of a deal.

“That was the time where I got the call that we agreed,” said Bradley. "Just being able to meet inside the box to what I wanted the money to be, that was all there was to it.” This doesn't read like he was on the phone with the team at all during negotiations.

When my son and I visited a college this winter, there was a player who was having issues with the NCAA clearinghouse over his elligibility. The story was he was playing golf with his advisor while negotiating on his cell phone. He'd been placed on hold when his turn to shoot came so he handed the phone to his advisor. The MLB team came on and the advisor told them to "hang on for a second, Jimmy will be right back". The MLB team said, "How about $***K?". The NCAA considered this negotiating on his behalf. I don't know how they found out but I heard this from the coaches at the school and son later heard it from the kid himself. He played this spring, so they got it worked out.

These stories sure sounded a lot more like the kid was just "standing by".

It does beg the question, "If you follow the rules, are you at a distinct disadvantage?"

JMoff,
Gonna be straight up, I don't think that one person here whose son signed can say that an agent did not get involved in one way or the other. You pretty much know what you are going to do, my son being a junior in college I am sure had his advisor/agent handle most of it, in HS there was no advisor involved as he was going to college. As much as there are likely rules being broken, without these guys who know what they are doing, kids would get screwed. My suggestion is don't get involved with anyone unless you know pretty much what you are gonna do.

These down to the wire negotiations usually happen, if the computer had locked up, the fax, or it was late MLB would have found a way to allow it. They do not want kids not to sign.

In the case of Paxton and Oliver, I am pretty sure that someone ****ed someone else off, that is usually how it goes down.

Our son went through the negotiation process almost 10 years ago and the rule still hasn't changed. Many college player's advisors contacted MLB directly on their behalf at that time, and I guess they still do, but it sure made me nervous. Our son knew he wanted to sign no matter what round or team drafted him, so we didn't interfere.

Ultimately, his advisor's contacts probably had a lot to do with the round and team that drafted him. I've always felt it was beneficial, as he went higher than projected to a team that spent a lot of time and money on his development.

I posted this as an interesting article with lots of good information/detail about the process and not really trying to equate to my son's situation. I read it like any cool story, which raised some questions about what I read as the rules versus what is reality (apparently).

Thank you all for your candid inputs. Those are valuable inputs for everyone who frequents HSBBW.

My son is a 2012, so being drafted is a (remote) possibility. He certainly won't be one of these highly drafted situations negotiating at the 11th hour with a time limit. If son gets drafted, it'll be in the 4xth friends & family rounds of some team looking for a discount. He'll end up in college next fall.

I just found this article very interesting and educating about the process...

I think this rule is just a bunch of BS. They don't want the player to have right to counsel in a very important business negotiation?

Thanks for looking out for the youth of America, NCAA.

quote:

Originally posted by JMoff:
I posted this as an interesting article with lots of good information/detail about the process and not really trying to equate to my son's situation. I read it like any cool story, which raised some questions about what I read as the rules versus what is reality (apparently).

Thank you all for your candid inputs. Those are valuable inputs for everyone who frequents HSBBW.

My son is a 2012, so being drafted is a (remote) possibility. He certainly won't be one of these highly drafted situations negotiating at the 11th hour with a time limit. If son gets drafted, it'll be in the 4xth friends & family rounds of some team looking for a discount. He'll end up in college next fall.

I just found this article very interesting and educating about the process...

Thank you for posting it, very good for all people to understand how the process works for the top draft choices. It might also help those to understand that one KNOWS when their son is a serious consideration and when he is not. I

The NCAA REALLY doesn't care about going after (any) players, I think they were forced to with Paxton and Oliver the same with football, they turn a blind eye unless they have to (ex whistle blower on all the UM players). As Txmom stated, this rule has been in place forever and advisors have been dealing directly with teams regarding their players and they have always turned a blind eye.
I also beleive it will continue, not that it is the right thing to do, but rather they have som many issues with football I doubt they really care about one players advisor talking to a ML team. I mean Boras talks openly in public about his clients, but being the smart man he is, he knows when to draw the line.

I wouldn't worry too much about it.