I’m sure plenty of people felt sick to their stomachs after reading Yahoo! Sports’
Agents and AAU: Unrequited Love. Here are some of my thoughts after reading the piece:
First, it’s sad that many of the agents that dominate basketball do so because of how well they recruit, rather than what services they provide their clients. (Henry Abbott
made this exact point last week). In almost every market, customers select businesses to purchase goods and services from based either on quality of the products and services combined, the price of the product and service relative to competing markets, or a combination of both. This is definitely not the case in the world of athlete representation.
If an agent's success in recruiting was simply based on being able to show the quality of services he/she provides relative to the price charged, that would be one thing. But when agents are signing players based simply on quid pro quo deals, the game just gets slimier and slimier. Part of this has a lot to do with current NCAA rules. Players and agents are not allowed to interact before a player declares for the draft. But precisely because of this rule, we get guys like Pat Barrett who are allowed to carve a niche for themselves as blue chip talent brokers. And it’s not just Barrett and AAU coaches taking part in the transgressions. I’ve heard of college coaches (both assistants and head coaches), family members (including parents!), etc. that have brokered blue chip talent off to agents. As well, because of the rules, we punish the good agents that follow the rules and stay away from heavily recruiting violations and reward the bad agents that will do anything to sign a blue chip talent.
I’m not going to weigh the pros and cons of allowing agents to have direct contact with players, but by blocking direct contact, you’re increasing incentives for agents to seek out and pay these brokers to deliver players to them, and for individuals with ties to blue chip talent to seek out agents to broker these players off to.
The sad part of this entire system is that players are the ones that end up getting screwed, by ending up with agents that are very good at recruiting and not much else. Here's what Henry Abbott had to
say on the matter:
You'd think that all the competition to represent NBA players would make for extraordinary service. But in fact, players mostly choose their agents when they are too young to know much about such things, and instead often seem to choose the agent who does the best job of wooing new recruits.
As a result, service suffers. I have heard of players who haven't been able to get their agents on the phone for days and weeks. Many players have no one who is really thinking about long-term plans to maximize their unique talents to be more effective on and off the court. Or how about if a player has health trouble -- who's helping them get the best care? What if the player wants to be traded -- can the agent build the relationships to get that done?
The truth is that recruiting players -- the wooing of friends, family, AAU coaches and the like -- takes an agent's time and money. That's time and money they can't spend on existing clients.
Young players could fix all that, because they can choose any agent they want. They have the power.
I agree with Henry that players should be doing a better job selecting agents. However, one major issue that encourages the under ground market for blue chip talent is just be the lack of information available to players and their families about the potential agent pool. I'm not sure players and their families have the tools available to them to know which agents are right for them. Under those circumstances, it's easy to see why players would select agents based on gifts from agents and recommendations of brokers, and not on the merits of the actual agent.
The players association may be underfunded, but I think the organization should try to create an objective means to measure the success of agents and the pros and cons of signing with each particular agent. The data could then be made available to players and their families. Perhaps this is just wishful thinking. Notwithstanding, if there was a completely objective party printing information for players about agents, then future NBA players and their families would have a much easier time selecting an agent to meet the needs.
Maybe one aspect of objective measurement could be created through an anonymous agent evaluation system for players. SI polls players on a variety of subjects throughout the year. I’m sure if the players association gave its members a chance to anonymously evaluate their agents, you would get a good set of data. That type of evaluation system has worked pretty well for law schools in evaluating professors. Before I pick classes I look through evaluations. If a professor has bad evaluations, I’m likely to stay away from the guy. Could the NBPA come up with such an evaluation system for agents? I would love to hear your thoughts.