The purpose of this document is to further investigate the internal infrastructure within NCAA’s use of the “No Agent 188.8.131.52” rule and the “Restitution” rule. Andy Oliver was suspended from the baseball league as a result of having his attorney/agent present during contract negotiations which is prohibited from the baseball league, Oliver claims that both rules have not been enforced by the league and other baseball players, and are otherwise null and void, the courts ruled in agreement with Oliver’s claim. The objective of this document is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of both arguments in order to test the theory of “Breach of Contract” and to test the validity of both rules (“No Agent” and “Restitution”)in order to determine if they are relevant in accordance with the college baseball league in today’s culture and the prevalence of agents in the industry or are the rules invalid and should be shun from the NCAA as a rule to utilize.
? Should the “No Agent” and “Restitution” rule be considered invalid and/or unenforceable?
? Is the “No Agent” and “Restitution” rule null and void?
? Should the “No Agent” rule be enforced? If so, should violators be punished?
Background literature to support research
In this article, the supporting research was regarding the sports league which provides information as to why they feel it is necessary for professionals and collegiate sports entities to disregard the “No Agent” rule for the reason that during the drafting period individuals will need legal representation in order to compare and contrast various offers and to make the right decisions based on that candidates specifics of what’s best for them.
In the article, the author compared the following leagues and illustrated why the “No Agent” rule is invalid:
In the article were quotes from noted professionals in opposition to the “No Agent” rule.
? Major League Executives
? American League Scouting Director
? Vanderbilt coach Tim Corbin president of the American Baseball Coaches Association.
Law cases pertaining to the “No Agent” rule:
? Bloom v. NCAA
? NCAA v. Tarkanian
? Federal Antitrust Law Under Section I of the Sherman Act “Prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade.”
? NCAA v. Board of Regents
? Smith v. United States
? McCormack v. NCAA
? Banks v. United States-challenged the “no agent” and “no draft” rule.
The court tested whether or not Oliver had a standing for a claim of Breach of Contract in reference to the Bloom v.
NCAA case which illustrates that the NCAA violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing through arbitrary (unreliable) and capricious (illogical) action as a third party beneficiary to the contract between NCAA and OSU.