Darren Heitner of The Sports Agent Blog brought to my attention the case of Joseph Agnew against the NCAA that was filed in the Northern District of California in San Francisco. Agnew was a member of the Rice football program but his scholarship was not renewed for his senior season. Earlier this year, the US Department of Justice said they would look at the rule with special attention being shown by the department’s antitrust division. The rule could be considered as an anticompetitive restraint and basically a price-fixing agreement.
If this rule gets overturned, colleges will have to guarantee the student-athletes scholarships for all four years which will affect college baseball. Several schools across the country change a student-athletes scholarship allotment based on the player’s past performance.
You can read the details about this case at Antitrust Today. (LINK)
What do you think about the possibility of overturning this rule?
7 comments
I don’t mind the “scholarship review” at the end of each season, but there should be provisions in place. We are getting into a taboo area of contracts for student-athletes, though, and we may want to usurp that notion by simply blanketing scholarships to as long as the player decides to be there.nnI think if they want to have a review of scholarship, there should be things in place that do not affect the ability of the student to attend school there (different scholarship money available, partial scholarship retraction, scholarship pulled after 1 season of being off team). That way, a player going in to his/her senior season won’t be up the creek without money for school. But going in to a Junior year, that player has one academic year to figure out a way to begin paying for school after the scholarship ends. Like a one year transition incorporated to all scholarships.
Jose,
How you feel if a freshman pitcher blows out his arm in fall practice and never can be used again? Should the school be able to pull the scholarship?
I don’t mind the “scholarship review” at the end of each season, but there should be provisions in place. We are getting into a taboo area of contracts for student-athletes, though, and we may want to usurp that notion by simply blanketing scholarships to as long as the player decides to be there.nnI think if they want to have a review of scholarship, there should be things in place that do not affect the ability of the student to attend school there (different scholarship money available, partial scholarship retraction, scholarship pulled after 1 season of being off team). That way, a player going in to his/her senior season won’t be up the creek without money for school. But going in to a Junior year, that player has one academic year to figure out a way to begin paying for school after the scholarship ends. Like a one year transition incorporated to all scholarships.
I think the school’s should be required to provide the same level of support/scholarship from the previous year at a minimum for the four years of eligibility. The only way a STUDENT/athlete should lose the scholarship earned would be flunking out or disciplinary action that requires the student to be dismissed from the school, not the team. The current system is not fair to the kids and needs to be changed.n
I spoke tonight at UNH in a sports administration class and there was four or five Division 1 scholar-athletes in the room. I brought up this case and none of them were actually aware of it.
I spoke tonight at UNH in a sports administration class and there was four or five Division 1 scholar-athletes in the room. I brought up this case and none of them were actually aware of it.
I spoke tonight at UNH in a sports administration class and there was four or five Division 1 scholar-athletes in the room. I brought up this case and none of them were actually aware of it.
Comments are closed.