Perhaps the most uninformed article I have read in some time. Telling players they need an NHLPA Certified Agent, when the NCAA has made it clear they do not want agents working with their athletes is reckless.
I figured your article released this morning was in reference to Jeff's
It was. I have no problem with any person stating their opinion on anything. We all have that right. I have to take issue though with what is clearly only a partially informed opinion. I do agree with some of the other things he has in the article though. From a professional standpoint, it is very frustrating when these things come out because it places confusion in the marketplace.
For years, I have begged USA Hockey to come out with standards, and practices guidelines for advisers. They do not want to get involved. We are now speaking with some NCAA institutions about developing a curriculum for a certification process, or maybe a degree program. That unfortunately is taking quite some time as well since it is not seen as a priority.
While I agree with the premise that everyone should be careful with advisers, I don't think anyone should make the statements that were made without actually having a working knowledge of the process.
I read your article and it opens a question I have had as a parent for quite some time. I've seen the NCAA rules you quoted in the article about agents/advisors in the past. Yet, I know countless high school/youth/junior players that have advisors who are linked to agents that pay nothing. It's very common and I have only heard of one case where a kid has lost NCAA eligibility for using an advisor in this way. Why?
For the record we do not have, nor have we had an advisor. Been fortunate enough not to need one to this point.
If they get caught not paying, they will not be playing for a while. I know several players caught in the last two years who have been "red shirted" or otherwise ineligible to play. When you go through your recruiting process, note that nearly every school now asks if you have and adviser. That began roughly three years ago. The agents are the reason why.
As I said, if you're lucky enough to not need an adviser, good for you. Not everyone needs, or should have one. Advisers are not miracle workers. We cant turn a house hockey player into a D-1 player. It just doesn't happen. Yet, people call and try to hire advisers all the time who shouldn't have them because they want someone to sell them the dream.
That's the problem. There are too many people claiming to be advisers who have never even set foot on a college campus. Too many people who never played, or worked in the game who because they watch the game and know what off sides is, feel they can hang a shingle and call themselves an adviser. Too many people who don't know the rules, and wont learn the rules.
I know one adviser who has 300 clients. I like the guy. We talk, yet we compete for talent. But 300 players? I never take more than 30 players per season, and neither do any of the guys that work with me. From a time management standpoint you can not service more than 30 effectively. Because of those limitations we have a much higher percentage of success stories.
If other advisers heard my speech at our combine, they would get pretty upset, because we lay out the truth. The real numbers concerning the many paths to NCAA hockey.
If you ever do get into a positon where you think you need an adviser, call several of them and talk with them. Interview them, because a good one will be interviewing you. You may end up wanting to hire someone, they may or may not end up wanting to work with you. The biggest red flag is if an adviser solicits your business without you first reaching out. If that happens, be wary. Good advisers don't have to look for clients, the clients find them.
There is a difference between someone who plays hockey, and a Hockey Player. which one are you?