Posted by David Wade on Friday, December 4, 2009 at 10:51 am

One of the best pitchers in college baseball is suing his school in order to play in 2010.

James Paxton, left-handed pitcher for the University of Kentucky, elected to return for his senior year even though the Toronto Blue Jays drafted him 37th overall this past June.  However, the decision to do so is apparently not without consequences that go beyond the normal risks associated with turning down a large MLB contract to play another year of college baseball. 

Local newspapers and a sports blog at the New York Times began reporting on Dec. 2 that  Paxton has sued U.K. because officials speaking on behalf of the Athletic Department insinuated that his college baseball career could be in jeopardy if he did not agree to meet with NCAA.  The suit also alleges that U.K. officials told Paxton he could not consult with his parents or have legal representation and further states that he was not informed of the reason for the meeting.  An article with PDFs of the suit, an affidavit from Paxton’s attorney, and a potentially relevant previous ruling against the NCAA by another college player can be found here. 

I’ve looked over the complaint, the affidavit, and the previous ruling.  To my knowledge, Paxton seems to only be interested in protecting his baseball future. 

Apparently, the NCAA at some point before or during October contacted U.K. about meeting with Paxton.  U.K. officials then (according to Paxton) told him that he needed to meet with the NCAA and that the situation could be similar to that involving an unnamed student-athlete, formerly of the U.K. basketball team.  Paxton claims that led him to believe that since the aforementioned student-athlete was suspended for a period of time he would likely also face a similar fate.

I speculate that the player could be Randolph Morris, even though the suit’s mention of a 6 game suspension does not coincide with what actually happened in his case.  I suppose it could also be in regards to John Wall, a current freshman on the basketball team, but his suspension was only for 2 games and was so recent I doubt there’d be confusion on the number.  I do know Morris was suspended because he was not as diligent as the extremely rigid NCAA requires their college basketball players to be in months leading up to the NBA draft back in 2005 and that could be seen as similar to this situation, though the two sports handle their professional drafts in a much different manner.  The NCAA initially ruled Morris out for the year, but later reduced the penalty to 14 games. 

The discrepancy in the number of games could be due to miscommunication between Paxton and the official or about a player with whom I’m not even familiar or don’t remember.  Either way, in Paxton’s view U.K. officials left him thinking that he would likely be suspended some number of games, probably due to questions concerning his amateur status, and that the NCAA was after him for those vague reasons. 

As I said, and I think it’s interesting to remember, the main demand of the suit is to prevent U.K. from suspending Paxton.  Monetary concerns do not go beyond that of legal fees he’s incurred so far. 

It sounds like he is concerned about actions surrounding the MLB amateur draft this past summer.  Since he did not sign with the team that selected him as a supplemental first found pick, I must assume he left quite a bit of money on the table.  A suspension of part or all of his senior season would hold serious financial ramifications for Paxton and that’s what he’s trying to avoid. 

In the affidavit submitted by Paxton’s attorneys, we learn that they assert U.K. Athletic Director Mitch Barnhart contacted them through their secretary and voice mail and implied that Paxton’s deliberation in regards to submitting to the interview could be impacting the very thing he’s suing for- his baseball future.  Barnhart allegedly went so far as to say the NCAA ‘played by their own rules’ and that failure to acquiesce to their desires could be detrimental to Paxton. 

By the way, that last part I easily believe- not so much that Mr. Barnhart would say it, but that that is in fact what the NCAA often appears to do.  This article says Paxton claims the U.K. official that had warned him not to contact lawyers or his parents later apologized and indicated that they were only a mouthpiece for the NCAA and relaying its message in this situation.

The Courier-Journal article also mentions that Paxton’s lawyer does not rule out an eventual suit against the NCAA, which brings me to the most interesting document from the Herald-Leader story- the previous case concerning another college player and his amateurism.

An Oklahoma State Baseball player was suspended for the year by the NCAA following his discussions with a Major League Team in 2006.  He sued the NCAA and won when the court ruled in February of 2009 that the NCAA’srule prohibiting contacts with agents (article 12.3.2.1) and lawyers was too vague since in the NCAA’sagreement (loosely a contract) with student-athletes does not prohibit them from any legal counsel.  Since it could never be clear when a lawyer’s advice on maintaining amateur status could shift to monetary advice more akin to that normally coming from an agent, the court ruled the NCAA’s rule as impossible to enforce.  In the circumstance found in the previous case, a lawyer was present but did not speak directly with Major League Baseball during negotiations. 

Since Paxton’s lawyer asserts that U.K.A.D. Barnhart referenced that ruling in some manner in one of his messages, I believe that there was probably a similar situation with Paxton this past summer.  Given the NCAA’s history (they suspended a college football player for this year because he lied about a lunch with a former NFL player), I further believe that Paxton was likely afraid the NCAA would try to suspend him and that when U.K. supposedly told him (perhaps under orders from the NCAA) that he not seek legal counsel this reinforced that fear.

I also believe that Paxton’s attorneys are sending a message to the NCAA by suing U.K.  As stated in the student newspaper, they contend that U.K. is afoul of their stated student rights, specifically the right to see in writing all reasons for having to appear and provide any testimony before anyone under orders from the University.  They probably conclude that the NCAA has ordered U.K. to submit to this interview and since U.K. is the only institution that’s had direct contact with Paxton about this, they are the ones he has to deal with in this legal matter.  For now.

If the NCAA bans Paxton (or perhaps pressures U.K. to suspend him), his attorneys in my opinion may be able to reference the previous case mentioned above and Paxton could then seek financial damages from the NCAA since such a suspension or ban could potentially cost him value in a contract he would surely gain next summer in the 2010 MLB draft.

I have contacted U.K., and understandably all they can say is

 ”UK is aware of the lawsuit and because of the legal nature, we cannot comment at this time.”  

I will follow the story to provide updates as they become available. 

On a baseball level, this could be very damaging to U.K. baseball, as Paxton projects to be one of the best pitchers in Division I this year and if his eligibility is maintained the team has a chance to compete for a conference title in what’s perhaps the toughest conference in the country.

On a more broad sports level, these situations could force the NCAA to ease their restrictions on young athletes as far as their ability to seek any advice from those qualified when making choices between college and professional sports.  Since the NCAA’s demand of amateur status should (in my opinion)center on whether a player has actually competed and been compensated as a professional as opposed to whether or not they’ve asked someone for legal advice, an easing of the restrictions could be a good thing.

In some of these cases it appears that the NCAA’s desire to maintain amateurism in college sports may lead them to overzealous demands that appear to prohibit young people from getting legal advice on decisions that can literally cost them either millions of dollars or a college career.