March Madness may be just a few weeks away, but for the Purdue Boilermakers, the excitement may have ended February 24^th with the loss of Robbie Hummel.

While it’s a given that Purdue will be in the Tournament, the question is, how far will they go? The answer lies in a simple equation: Team – Hummel = not far. This season Hummel has averaged almost 16 points and 7 rebounds per game, leading the team in boards.

You can’t deny it; the guy was the ‘x-factor,’ an irreplaceable player, a dark knight in the fight for Tournament glory. Now it’s up to the rest of the team to prove that the dream is still alive. It’s definitely possible that the Boilermakers could face multiple hungry mid-majors as well as even a Big-12 or a Big East power, testing every newcomer attempting to fill the void left by Hummel.

If there is any comfort to the situation, Notre Dame is succeeding without their gunner, Luke Harangody, and in the NBA, the Los Angeles Lakers, who won four out of five without their star, Kobe Bryant, are solid heading into the playoffs.

However, the NCAA Tournament is much less forgiving. One loss and you’re out!

James Paxton’s fight with the NCAA brings out everything I hate about organized sports.  When it becomes all about money, power, and respect, people suffer.  Those, like Paxton, who do nothing illegal, unethical, nothing out of hatred or spite, but still get punished, show the problems that may exist in organized sport.  When institutions grow in strength, they feel that they can do whatever they please.  In this case, the institution won.  James Paxton was pushed away from the University of Kentucky, the university he came back to after passing up a seven-figure offer from the Toronto Blue Jays.  This is the NCAA’s way of saying thanks, but no thanks.  We have a boatload of student-athletes; you are just one unnecessary person in a large group of college baseball players.

Here is my most recent post, which explains some more about James Paxton’s situation, in case his name does not ring a bell.  The gist: The University of Kentucky suspended Paxton because he would not cooperate with NCAA investigators who wanted to question him about his advisor (Scott Boras) supposedly having direct communication with someone from the Blue Jays front office after Paxton was drafted last year (an NCAA rule violation).

After James Paxton withdrew from the University of Kentucky, the institution of higher education released the following statement (with my emphases added in certain parts):

The University of Kentucky is very disappointed in James Paxton’s decision to not meet with the NCAA about a potential amateurism issue. No one wanted James on the mound in a Kentucky uniform more than UK head coach Gary Henderson, athletics director Mitch Barnhart and the UK Athletics staff. Due to the possibility of future penalties, including forfeiture of games, UK could not put the other 32 players of the team and the entire UK 22-sport intercollegiate athletics department at risk by having James compete. It’s about the team and giving student-athletes the opportunity to achieve their goals. Throughout the process, UK has remained confident that James would be able to pitch for Kentucky during the 2010 season and UK offered every bit of assistance to aid James in that NCAA process.

UK does not know all the facts of last summer’s post-draft interaction among James, his advisors and the Toronto Blue Jays and has not prejudged his situation. James has an obligation under NCAA Bylaw 10.1 (j) to answer questions that relate to his amateur status. On advice of his counsel, James has elected not to be interviewed by the NCAA. UK has offered to pursue an immediate application for reinstatement for James with the NCAA if that became necessary. However, no request for reinstatement of his eligibility can be made based on mitigating circumstances until the student-athlete and his family cooperate and make all facts known to UK, with the NCAA having the opportunity to verify those facts. UK has never been provided all pertinent information from James and his family, who are following the legal advice of his attorneys not to be interviewed by the NCAA. Without knowing all the facts, UK cannot present mitigating circumstances to the NCAA on James’ behalf.

UK is more optimistic than James and his family that any period of ineligibility could be shortened to allow James to pitch during the last and most important part of the season, the Southeastern Conference schedule. So it is disappointing that James is unwilling to go through the normal NCAA process, allowing UK to appeal for him, if necessary. The University of Kentucky is sad to see James leave its baseball team, especially after other players gave up portions of their scholarships in August so that he would have a substantial scholarship for his senior year.

While UK is extremely disappointed in the decision made by James to not meet with the NCAA, he will always be a member of the Wildcat family. UK hopes that James will stay and earn his degree and wishes him the best in his professional baseball career. Should James change his mind and be willing to cooperate with the NCAA inquiry, the door is open for him to return to the UK baseball team and UK will seek any immediate appeal necessary for his reinstatement.

If it truly is about the team and giving student-athletes the opportunity to achieve their goals, wouldn’t that mean that the team/school would rally behind its individual athletes?  Does UK think that the stance it has taken will encourage future baseball players to attend its school any more after not backing up one of its own student-athletes?  And that sentence about UK being sad to see Paxton leave, especially after other players gave up portions of their scholarships…Please!  Do you care about Paxton, or do you wish you had the money to pay the other guys?

Now take a look at Paxton’s attorney’s statement regarding Paxton’s decision to leave UK.

In light of UK’s decision to issue a press release Friday evening, I feel compelled to explain this sad state of affairs, none of which would be occurring, if UK was not scared to death of the NCAA.

UK’s fear of the NCAA has resulted in UK withholding James from intercollegiate baseball competition, when there are no allegations or evidence against him, when he is eligible to play, and when UK admits that it cannot compel James to speak to the NCAA. This fear is based upon the unsupported supposition that someday allegations would be filed against James predicated upon some unknown set of facts that would result in some unknown NCAA retaliation down-the-line.

As everyone knows, James turned down a lot of money from the Toronto Bluejays to come back to UK to play with his teammates and for his coach with the hopes of reaching the post-season and the possibility of winning the College World Series for the Wildcats.

The past several months have been very challenging for James and his family as well as for his teammates and coach. To the many who have stood by him, he is forever grateful for their support.

Much has been speculated about why the NCAA wishes to interview James, even though UK admits that it does not know, and this speculation has focused on a single, unverified blog entry, which is vague at best. However, the implication is that James’ attorney violated the NCAA’s No Agent Rule, which attempts to limit his attorney’s representation of him, and which would be held invalid in Kentucky, if James were ever charged with such a violation—just like it was held invalid in Ohio in the Oliver v. NCAA case last year. The NCAA’s presumptive penalty for a No Agent Rule violation is permanent ineligibility, and not six games or the like that has been bandied about as a possible sanction for such a violation.

Some people wonder why James won’t just go to an NCAA “interview,” if he has nothing to “hide,” so let me tell you why:

First, at UK, students have due process rights under its Code of Student Conduct, faculty have these rights by Kentucky statute, James’ coach and the athletic director have these rights via their lucrative contracts, and UK has these rights via NCAA Bylaw 32, which affords it the rights, when it is being investigated, that it has ironically denied to James. In addition, all of these persons have the rights guaranteed by the Kentucky Constitution. However, James is being denied these rights. Indeed, despite making massive profits on the backs of student-athletes, the NCAA provides no due process protections to student-athletes like James;

Second, what the NCAA cloaks as an “interview” is in reality a prosecution and execution by ambush without notice of what the subject matter will be. On top of that, the NCAA sometimes relies on confidential witnesses, dubious so-called “evidence,” like blogs, without any standards for credibility or weight, and so on. The NCAA acts like an unscrupulous bully by doing essentially whatever it wants without regard to the rights of student-athletes;

Third, at the end its prosecution and execution of a student athlete, the NCAA, does not even have to put its reasoning or the alleged violations in writing to James. With absolute power over the athlete—as the UK AD put it, “the NCAA holds James’ life in its hands”—the NCAA is completely unaccountable to student-athletes;

Fourth, the schools like UK, which described itself to James as just the NCAA’s messenger, are forced to do the NCAA’s dirty work. Under NCAA rules, only UK can suspend James, and all suspensions are indefinite by definition. Indeed, UK indicated to James back in September that, if he went to the NCAA “interview,” he would be suspended— even though UK said that it did not know why. Thus, James has already been told going to an interview means suspension, and under NCAA rules, the suspension is indefinite and possibly forever;

Fifth, in December, James was told by UK that, if the interview was about the No Agent Rule, and if James went to the “interview” and asserted his attorney-client privilege regarding his communications with his attorney, it would be interpreted as not cooperating, and he would be suspended. In fact, UK told James that the NCAA Bylaws superceded his right to have confidential and privileged communications with his attorney, which is mind-boggling. In a nation built upon due process and equal protection, the NCAA’s refusal to respect student-athletes’ right to counsel is staggering;

Sixth, once suspended, only the NCAA can reinstate James, and it can impose whatever penalties it wants as a condition of reinstatement. James has no right to even seek his own reinstatement, and only UK can supposedly “represent” him on reinstatement, subject to whatever position regarding his future it decides to take, even if James disagrees with it. Thus, in layman’s terms, the NCAA has banned James from having any individual right to appeal, so it can do whatever it wants to him, and he has absolutely no recourse of his own; and

Seventh, UK which is beholden to the NCAA, scared of the NCAA, and the selfdescribed messenger of the NCAA, stated in its press release that it is “disappointed” that James is unwilling to go through “the normal NCAA process.” This is astonishing, because in a civilized society, the “normal NCAA process” is hardly normal and is about as un-American as it can get. Hypocritically, UK and the other NCAA members do not believe that such a process would be fair to them, since they have negotiated their own due process protections that apply to them, when they are investigated by the NCAA.

James’ lawsuit against UK was a civil rights case under the Kentucky Constitution, where he challenged the denial of due process rights to student-athletes, yet the circuit court did not even discuss the merits of this challenge. Likewise, the court of appeals did not analyze or even discuss any of the specific arguments advanced on James’ behalf, and, instead, it blamed James for this situation, which was hardly of his own making. While James could have sought discretionary review in the Kentucky Supreme Court, any such review, if at all, would most likely have come long after the baseball season was over, thus making the effort a futile one, all the while leaving James in limbo during the remainder of the season.

At some point, James believes you have to stand up for what is right, and James has decided to do so by taking a leave of absence from the University. James understands that his life will be defined by his principles, and he is making a heartbreaking sacrifice to stand up for what he believes is right. James is a wonderful young man with a bright future, and he will emerge from this process stronger and wiser than he was before. I look forward to that day very soon, when I will be able to see him pitch in the Major Leagues.

In conclusion, James apologizes to his teammates and coach, who are stuck in the middle, just like he is. James wishes his teammates and his coach a successful season, and he will be there in spirit cheering them on. James is and always will be a Wildcat at heart.

Sad ending to a sad story.

MLB Mock Drafts are much less exciting than NFL Mock Drafts.  The NFL Draft only has 7 rounds, but most “mock experts” only predict the first few rounds.  The MLB, with 50 rounds, is almost impossible to guess.  But the first round picks are usually known a year ahead of time.  With high school and college seasons just beginning, a few players who right now may not be projected as top picks will be able to translate their remarkable upcoming seasons to a first or second round draft grade.  Again, most first rounders are already known.  One of those “sure fire picks” is James Paxton.

James Paxton was supposed to be the #1 pitcher for the University of Kentucky this season.  He was drafted by the Toronto Blue Jays with the #37 overall pick (in the supplemental first round) of the 2009 MLB Draft.  Instead of signing after his Junior campaign, he decided to come back to the University of Kentucky to help his school in his Senior Year.  As a ‘thank you’, the University of Kentucky suspended him because he would not cooperate with NCAA investigators who wanted to question him about his advisor (Scott Boras) supposedly having direct communication with someone from the Blue Jays front office after Paxton was drafted last year (an NCAA rule violation).

The University of Kentucky began its baseball season last Friday, and James Paxton was not on the mound.  He should have been, though.  He still is projected to be a top-half of the first round pick.  Draftsite.com pegs him as the #7 overall pick; MyMLBDraft.com thinks he will be the #12 overall pick.  Whether or not Paxton plays, he is still seen as valuable, but will his performance and/or demeanor be affected by this legal nonsense?

My main concern continues to be the potential ramifications that this may have for future student-athletes in deciding whether or not to retain an advisor leading up to and following the MLB Draft.  Baseball parents cannot be thrilled to hear that having an advisor could lead their children to missing out on their final season of student-athlete eligibility.  In the end, the athletes who really could use strong advice from seasoned advisors will end up suffering.

The University of Kentucky still lists Paxton on their official roster.  Too bad no one can see his number on the field.

Last night, I was reading the University of Kentucky’s response in opposition to James Paxton’s motion for a temporary injunction against the university.  If James Paxton’s name does not ring a bell, quickly get caught up by reading this recent post.  Anyway, the most interesting piece of the 86-page document is Exhibit 5.  Exhibit 5 is a copy of an article written by Robert MacLeod in The Globe and Mail.  It was published on August 18, 2009 with the title, Beeston wishes he could have gotten through to Paxton.  Paul Beeston was the interim president of the Toronto Blue Jays, which is the organization that selected Paxton in the 2009 MLB Draft and was unable to sign him before the August 17th deadline.  Here is what caught the NCAA’s attention:

Beeston personally handled the negotiations with Paxton, the top Canadian selected in the draft and his agent is Scott Boras.

When Boras is involved, Beeston said, you can only talk with Boras.

“Because it was Scott, the way that you deal you deal through him,” Beeston said. “You don’t deal through the family. Now I would prefer to deal with the family and I wonder whether I could have done a better job on it. I kind of criticize myself.”

I have a Memo dated May 11, 2009 sent to Baseball Prospective Student-Athletes Who Are Considering Using an Advisor in Connection with the 2009 Major League Baseball First-Year Player Draft.  The fifth paragraph states,

The most important point to remember is that it is impermissible for you to allow your advisor to talk to clubs about you. If you do, the advisor will be considered an agent and you will have jeopardized your eligibility at NCAA schools. [Note: February 12, 2009, in a case entitled Oliver v. NCAA, an Ohio trial-court judge held Bylaw 12.3.2.1 was invalid under Ohio law and as a result a student-athlete was not ineligible if an attorney is present during discussions of a contract offer with a professional team. The NCAA intends to appeal the decision in the Oliver case.]

As you know, the NCAA did appeal the Oliver case and the two sides eventually settled.  Thus, Bylaw 12.3.2.1 is no longer officially invalid; however, many scholars suggested that the NCAA would refrain from enforcing the Bylaw in order to stay out of the public eye.  That is obviously not the case.

Paxton’s attorney’s are not framing the debate on whether or not an advisor is allowed to speak to a professional team on a player’s behalf.  Instead, they are taking the position that Paxton has had his right to due process under the University’s Code of Student Conduct withheld by the University of Kentucky.  They claim that it is the University of Kentucky, not the NCAA, that has power over withholding Paxton from competition, and thus, the university must adhere to its code of conduct, which includes a guarantee that Paxton will not be disciplined based upon his refusal to provide testimony, or without first being provided with a written notice of the allegations against him.  The University of Kentucky says that a temporary restraining order is not appropriate under the circumstances.

The battle seems to be just beginning.

When I first reported on Andy Oliver back on June 2, 2008, no one had heard of him.  Since then, he has made national headlines in every major paper for his lawsuit against the NCAA, which eventually was settled for$750,000.  The antiquated NCAA Bylaw 12.3.2.1 was voided, only to be re-established by the settlement.  It looked like the NCAA would finally receive a blow, but the settlement allowed the organization to remain unscathed ($750,000 is pennies to the NCAA).

Many would say that the NCAA has gone back to its usual tactics of ignoring the rights of student athletes in favor of doing whatever it pleases.  One person who agrees with that statement is Richard Johnson, the attorney who represented Andy Oliver in his lawsuit.  Johnson also has the pleasure of representing another student-athlete who has a solid claim against the NCAA.  This player’s name is James Paxton, and he may have a stronger case than Oliver had.

Just as Oliver was a standout pitcher for Oklahoma State, Paxton is the #1 pitcher for the University of Kentucky.  Oliver was informed of his violation before the NCAA laid down a penalty.  Paxton was not as fortunate.  A University of Kentucky employee basically told Paxton that he would have to sit out from playing and would lose his financial aid if he refused to meet with NCAA investigators for a violation that the NCAA would not disclose.  The employee informed Paxton that when a basketball player cooperated with the NCAA, he only received a 6-game suspension instead of having to sit out the entire year.  Recently, UK has stated that Paxton will not have to sit out.

Paxton was drafted by the Toronto Blue Jays in the Supplemental First Round (#37 overall), largely due to his fastball, which has been clocked up to 98 mph.  He decided to come back to UK for his senior season instead of signing for the offer presented to him by the Blue Jays.  In all likelihood, the NCAA investigation surrounds Paxton’s actions regarding the draft.  Did his advisor have direct contact with someone in the Blue Jays organization?  His advisor was the same man who most recently represented Andy Oliver: Scott Boras.  Boras has already said that he is compliant with NCAA rules and regulations.

“We are compliant with the NCAA rules by mandate,” Boras said. “We have to go to families and charge them for information that we would otherwise not charge for. And we have to go through the bailiwick of having the parents deal with the teams through our counsel, which is crazy.”

The most shady part of how the NCAA has handled this thus far is that the NCAA told Paxton to keep the investigation hidden from his parents and lawyers.

Enjoy the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Injunction, replicated below.

For example – last Monday morning at about 9am I received a phone call from an unfamiliar number. It turns out it was one of the fathers from the Canadian team I had scouted over the weekend. He had gotten my card from someone with the team and wanted to talk to me about how the whole player/agent relationship works at this point in a youngster’s career if they have aspirations of playing college hockey. I spoke with him for about 15 minutes, explaining that we couldn’t sign his son, provide him with any sort of benefits, or even have much actual contact with him, but we could work with the family in advising him about college choices and help to promote his abilities to college coaches (see NCAA Constitution and Operating Bylaws, August 1, 2009 at 12.3.3.1 which permits a prospective student-athlete to allow an agent to distribute records, statistics, etc. without jeopardizing eligibility). Naturally, I wasn’t expecting to start my day like this, but I was pretty pleased with myself by how I handled the conversation without any preparation. I guess in this competitive industry, you’ve always have to be ready. I told the father that I would be planning a trip up to Ontario in the near future to scout the team further and that I’d be more than happy to sit down with him and really discuss their options and timetable.

With these kids being so young, there isn’t much I can do for them now, but as I explained above, I still have a little wiggle room to work with. My plan – start getting these kids some attention throughout the hockey community. If they start popping up on scouting lists after talking with me, at least the parents will know that I’m the real deal. Immediately, I sent a couple emails out to some scouts who contribute to hockey publications. Most scouting reports don’t include the full crop of 95 birth years yet, but I want to get these kids noticed. Hopefully soon we’ll find out if any of my work is paying off.

Last week I didn’t give you an update on Matt’s situation and you might be wondering what’s going on with him. Right now, he’s still skating with the same club we got him signed with two weeks ago. He’s been seeing increased ice time and he’s taking advantage of it – yesterday he had an assist and a +2 rating. It’s been a few weeks since the CHL and SPHL seasons started and teams should be figuring out where they still need to upgrade. Thus, getting Matt back on their radars is my next move.

Also last week I called a couple of the teams I had spoken with in the past who were struggling defensively. Basically, I identified the teams giving up the most goals per game and then checked their rosters to see where the defensemen were on the +/- rating. Some teams had a few defensemen with a figure deep in the negatives, but many times the player would also have more goals and assists than the rest of the blueliners. As I’ve explained before, Matt’s more of a stay-at-home defensemen – one that will take care of the puck and keep traffic away from his goaltender but not a guy that’s going to be lighting up the lamp every night. Every team has different roles that need to be filled in order to find a certain level of success. Since Matt’s not going to compete with a defenseman who puts up big offensive numbers, I pretty much decided to focus on teams with defensemen without high point totals who were struggling to keep their +/- in the black. Fortunately I was able to reach a handful of coaches that sounded like they might be interested in bringing Matt in on a three-game tryout contract. Today, I’ll be sending the teams Matt’s updated resume as there’s already been a few coaching changes and not everyone currently has his information. Throughout the next couple of days I’ll continue to make some calls and we’ll see where it takes us.

Over the next few weeks I’ve got another challenge ahead of me – setting up my immigration law practice. Last Tuesday, I was officially sworn in and I should be receiving my certificate to practice law any day now. In the mean time I’ve got a lot of matters that need to be addressed.

Step one – find an office. Up until now, I’ve been working out of my home to save money, but with a steady stream (hopefully) of clients that I’ll have to meet with on a daily basis, I’m going to need something a little more professional. Last week, I checked out a few suites located about 15 miles west of where I live and I need to make a decision within the next couple days. After that I’ll be getting my business cards printed up, filing some documents with the State, and taking out my first malpractice insurance policy. With the seemingly never-ending list of fees being thrown at me, it can be extremely stressful at times. Luckily, my family has always been very supportive of me and they’re helping me out with some of the down payments.

Well there’s no surprise that I’ve got another busy week ahead of me. I haven’t gotten much sleep lately but I suppose that in today’s job market, I’d rather be swamped than the alternative. Before I go, I’d like to point out that last week SportsAgentBlog.com had over 20 new articles posted. There are a lot of solid pieces out there for anyone looking to break into the sports industry and I strongly encourage you to check them out. Also please feel free to continue providing the great feedback I’ve gotten so far in the “Comments” section of each entry.

Recently, this proposal has been picked up by various major media outlets.  Tom Farrey’s piece on ESPN.com, sparked a lot of interest across the World Wide Web.  His story talks about a distinction within the same proposal I talked about in August, that would allow athletes who do not earn a professional salary, but play alongside other athletes that do, to retain their amateur eligibility (which apparently they forgo under the current NCAA Amateurism rules).  It definitely does not make sense that one athlete on a team could jeopardize the amateur eligibility of all of his teammates.

Here is a telling fact from the ESPN.com article,

Of the 490 incoming athletes penalized for amateurism violations last year, 434 were foreign students, according to the NCAA.

The NCAA Amateurism Cabinet held a meeting regarding this proposal on September 24.  For the full report from that meeting, click here.  The result regarding NCAA Proposal No. 2009-22: Men’s Ice Hockey will be excluded.  Here is the relevant justification section of that report:

The ice hockey community strongly believes that many more prospective student-athletes seeking to participate in NCAA Division I men’s ice hockey would elect to participate in Major Junior A hockey prior to initial collegiate enrollment. As a result, although the proposal would permit such activity, their eligibility status would likely be jeopardized once they became involved in the Major Junior A leagues (e.g., by being influenced to accept more than actual and necessary expenses, signing with an agent, or by signing a professional contract). The ice hockey community expressed concern that the Canadian Hockey League, the governing body for Major Junior A ice hockey, would intentionally attempt to jeopardize prospective student-athletes’ NCAA eligibility in order to retain their services and continued participation in their league. Further, the ice hockey community asserted that participation in Major Junior A hockey would be detrimental to prospective student-athletes’ academic success given the demands of participation in that league. Lastly, USA Hockey commented that the proposal would adversely impact future U.S. performance in international competition, including the Olympic Winter Games.

So ice hockey is out, but the rest of the NCAA sports are still attached to the proposed NCAA legislation.

Last, I want to touch on an interesting question that was brought to my attention by Minor Leaguer and prolific blogger, Garrett Broshuis.  Broshuis received an email from another MiLB player who noted,

The salaries that some guys make in short season or extended spring training aren’t even considered large enough for the NCAA to qualify it as a professional salary.

And Broshuis ends his piece by asking,

If a player receives a tiny signing bonus and never makes it out of short-season professional baseball, could he then maintain amateur status? This thought is as absurd as the current salary structure.

This is definitely out of the question if said player hires an agent.  Once an agency contract is signed by the player, he automatically loses his amateur eligibility, and once it is lost, it can never be returned.  But what if the player never hires an agent?  What are your thoughts?

A huge lawsuit ensued, and if you are not familiar with the slew of events, I suggest you read through our posts on the subject.  A lot was gained by Andy and his attorney, including the voiding of NCAA Bylaw 12.3.2.1, which used to prohibit a lawyer from being present during discussions of a contract offer with a professional organization or have any direct contact (i.e., in person, by telephone or by mail) with a professional sports organization on behalf of the individual.  However, that rule now has the force of law behind it once again, now that Andy has settled with the NCAA.

Rick Johnson, Andy’s attorney, believes that it would be a grave mistake for the NCAA to try to enforce that rule, though.  In his words,

So the NCAA can continue to act with its typical arrogance and try to continue to deny student-athletes the right to counsel, or it can realize that it will lose 100/100 of any such future lawsuits over this rule, since no court is going to allow the NCAA to regulate lawyers or prohibit nonmember student-athletes from retaining counsel (Can you imagine what would happen if they had a rule that its members couldn’t have counsel when negotiating their media rights?).  As has been reported recently, the NCAA has sent out a baseball questionnaire to student-athletes who were drafted, but who did not sign, and this questionnaire goes beyond even the bad-faith the NCAA evidenced towards Andy.  No student-athlete legally has to respond to this inquiry, but we’ll see if they are bowed into submission or whether someone decides to challenge this new affront to student-athlete rights.

Oliver settled in turn for $750,000 of consideration.  The Settlement Agreement is embedded below.

Andy Oliver Settlement Terms –

Texas Tech has come out of the NCAA gates softer than expected this season, as they have a record of 2-2 at this point. Last season the team compiled 11 wins and produced star wide out Michael Crabtree, who has yet to officially begin his NFL career after being a hot commodity in the previous draft when the 49ers attempted to sign him. Crabtree and a couple of his former teammates have been glimmering in the spotlight, but not for the right reasons.

The 2-2 Texas Tech squad expected to re-live the glorious season they had last year, but after being defeated by Houston in their last game, players have demonstrated signs of frustration through their Twitter accounts. Marlon Williams posted his reaction on his account after losing the game against Houston and it goes as follows: “WTF I can’t believe what happened man my senior season isn’t goin anything like what I busted my azz for …. New week now F$&@.” Also, Brandon Carter, a senior offensive lineman, had similar comments on his twitter account that have been deleted after fueling some interesting stories. All in all, the frustrations and use of Twitter to exemplify those feelings have resulted in Brandon Carter, a Texas Tech leader, losing his captaincy and also the ability to play next week against New Mexico. Coach Mike Leach has decided that the suspension is appropriate and has banned the team from using Twitter in the future. Leach was noted earlier in July making statements about the detrimental use of Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook and concluded with the statement that he really doesn’t even send emails. A bit ironic for a school with the word TECH in it’s title.

The recent string of lawsuits arising over NCAA player licensing has raised significant questions about the nature of what it means to be a college athlete, and furthermore, what it means to be an amateur athlete. The pending decisions have the potential to reshape the landscape of college sports and the definition of the word amateur. In order to fully understand the nature of what it means to be “amateur,” a dive into the origins of the word is most appropriate. Amateur comes from the French amateur meaning “lover of” and the latin amator meaning “lover.” Essentially, amateurism is participating for the love of the game rather than for compensation, mainly monetary. In America, all college athletes are amateur athletes. They aren’t allowed to receive monetary compensation for playing their respective sport.

Universities, though, have found loopholes in order to entice star athletes to choose their program in the form of scholarships. The NCAA considers these scholarships payment for the athlete to attend classes rather than to play sports, which is why they are allowed. Although college athletes are still considered amateur, they still receive a significant amount of non-monetary perks. Student-athletes receive equipment, clothes, tutors, academic advisors, trainers, etc. on top of all school related costs (tuition, books, housing). While these athletes are not getting paid directly, they are still benefitting handsomely from their ability to play a sport. That being said, the NCAA has very stringent rules concerning the relationships coaches are allowed to have with players in terms of providing them with anything of value. This carries over into recruiting as well.

Opening up collegiate athletes to direct or indirect compensation would jeopardize, if not completely destroy, the integrity of the NCAA. It would ruin the last pure (sort of) arena of sports in the United States.

For argument’s sake, lets say the class action lawsuit brought by former Nebraska QB Sam Keller is decided in favor of the players. This sets a precedent that every time an image of any collegiate athlete (in any sport) is used for marketing, sales, or promotion, that respective player must be compensated. Even contemplating this scares me. Where do you start? Where do you stop? Would it be necessary to pay the third string center who appears in the background of a promotional video for two seconds? There is no cap on who could possibly get paid, and if a cap was implemented the uncompensated parties would probably bring further suits. Furthermore, how would it effect recruiting and player/coach relationships? Now that the players are not amateur athletes, would the coaches be able to lure them to their universities with monetary compensation packages? The bottom line is allowing players to receive monetary compensation for playing the game would blur the lines between amateur and professional sports to the point where the two couldn’t be distinguished.