NCAA rule against agents struck down

[KeithK]

[quote billhoward]It's hard to understand why a person in college isn't entitled to representation by a lawyer. And is there any line you draw?[/quote]
To play devil's advocate here, why can't a school legitimately impose conditions on participation in athletic activities?  There's a freedom of association/freedom of contract argument.  If it's my league I ought o be able to require certain conditions for participation. You may be entitled to representation by a lawyer (and is this strictly true outside of a criminal setting) but you aren't entitled to participation in college athletics.

[billhoward]

A school or a league can't make you give up basic rights. Talking to a lawyer is probably one of the basic rights and the school / league can't say, "It's a basic right except if you want to talk to the lawyer about sports."

They can make you maintain a minimum GPA, or maybe make you not drink during the season even if you're 21 or wear a tie onto the team bus.

[Beeeej]

[quote billhoward part 1]A school or a league can't make you give up basic rights.[/quote]

[quote billhoward part 2]They can make you...maybe make you not drink during the season even if you're 21[/quote]

Wow, that only took you about three lines.  Impressive.

There's no constitutional right to an attorney unless you've been arrested for a crime.  The NCAA and its members have decided that it's in the student-athletes' best interest not to have direct interaction with people who could and would profit from that interaction until they're done participating in the (theoretically) non-business world of college sports.

And as has been previously suggested, when you know the rules and obligations of participating, it's pretty disingenuous to then complain about being caught and punished for breaking the rules and obligations of participating.

[billhoward]

Wow, that only took you about three lines. Impressive.

It was concentrated powder. What can I say.

There's no constitutional right to an attorney unless you've been arrested for a crime. The NCAA and its members have decided that it's in the student-athletes' best interest not to have direct interaction with people who could and would profit from that interaction until they're done participating in the (theoretically) non-business world of college sports.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say there's no prohibition against counsel? In virtually every dealing with the government or an agency taking government funds, you can have a lawyer speak for you: a lawyer at a zoning meeting even if it's not in the town's statutes allowing it, a lawyer or child-advocate at a special ed annual review (though it might be counter-productive), a lawyer outside if not in the grand jury room. The NCAA and the colleges take government money and can't declare themselves private entities unless they're Grove City (Pa.) College and haven't been at the trough in 20 years. "The NCAA decides the student-athletes' best interests" rings as rhetoric and wishful thinking -- the audacity of hype -- as much as reality. The NCAA may be thinking about what's best for the NCAA and its self-image, not the individual student.

... when you know the rules and obligations of participating, it's pretty disingenuous to then complain about being caught and punished for breaking the rules and obligations of participating.

If the rules are unfair or contrary to law, you might opt to participate and challenge in parallel or challenge only if the other side pushes back (as here with the baseball player). If you waited for a legal challenge to work its way through the courts, you'd be too old to play. And why challenge in advance when all you want to do is play ball and maybe get a good pro contract? Not everyone wants to be a revolutionary.

The player here may not be a saint. Good people don't make good case law.

Any day when the NCAA's PR and legal departments wake up, check their Blackberries, and reach for the Maalox is a good day for America.

[Beeeej]

[quote billhoward]

There's no constitutional right to an attorney unless you've been arrested for a crime. The NCAA and its members have decided that it's in the student-athletes' best interest not to have direct interaction with people who could and would profit from that interaction until they're done participating in the (theoretically) non-business world of college sports.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say there's no prohibition against counsel?[/quote]

Yes, that was exactly my point - it's why what you originally said about them abridging the player's "rights" was not accurate.  People voluntarily accept restrictions as a condition of gaining benefits all the time, and the privilege of playing varsity sports in the NCAA means not being able to consult a sports agent until a certain time.  It doesn't much matter what the NCAA's motivation is, it's a fact.  If you don't like the restriction, go play elsewhere.  That happens all the time, too, particularly in hockey.

And yes, perhaps it will get struck down as unconstitutional, but I highly doubt it - more likely this one Ohio judge is just an aberration along the way and he'll be overturned.  Bad clients make for good case law, but bad trial judges...

[KeithK]

[quote billhoward]
If the rules are unfair or contrary to law...[/quote]
Always keep in mind that just because something is unfair doesn't mean that it's illegal, unconstitutional or that you have any legal recourse about it.  Lord knows there are enough "unfair" laws on the books (but we'll leave that to that other forum).  Life isn't fair.