Two phenomena about attending professional sporting events fascinate me (and not in a good way): how excited adults become when team personnel give away t-shirts and how excited adults become when there is a possibility that they may be appearing on TV in the crowd. I can see why kids and teenagers would become overjoyed by both prospects, for they don’t know any better. But, adults? Honestly, is a lousy $5 t-shirt – a t-shirt that likely won’t fit you and that likely wouldn’t be worn more than twice even if it does somehow fit you – really worth jumping up and down like a fool when the t-shirt cannon or t-shirt sling shot comes out? Is it really worth fighting another adult over that t-shirt?
It blows my mind even more what some young and inebriated college –aged women will do for a t-shirt as well (NSFW), but that’s a far different discussion.
With t-shirts, at least there’s a tangible benefit (though it’s a quite lame one), but I have no idea what is so enthralling about appearing on TV as a face in the crowd. Is there some secret memo that I missed detailing how a grand prize will be eventually awarded to one lucky fan that has appeared on TV in the background of a ball game? I don’t know whom I find more annoying and pathetic: the people who are on their cell phones and start going ballistic when their friends on the other end tell them they are on screen or the 100 fans who start waving and looking for the camera whenever the action in the game come nears them. Someone needs to let these fans know a little secret: the only people who get excited about seeing you on TV are people who see you all the time in real life: your friends and family. No one else cares one bit that you were one of ten fans waving for the camera when your team’s first baseman caught a pop-up in foul territory right near where you were sitting. Not a single other person.
I have a little more respect for the people who make signs with the purpose of appearing on TV. First off, if you’re appearing on TV due to a sign, you actually get some significant time on screen, usually in the range of five to ten seconds and often with a close-up. In contrast, foul ball waivers get a second or two on the screen and they are just one fan among many others. But more importantly, TV producers generally don’t show the banal signs, so it requires some creativity to make it onto a telecast due to a sign, and in many cases, the signs are actually funny or witty. Except, of course, when the sign is ridiculing an admitted or widely-suspected steroid users for steroid use, and then even the lamest sign makes it on the telecast. But, as with college-aged girls going wild, that is a story for a different day.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
George W. Bush's Views on Nation Building, circa October 2000
I started to write a post two weeks ago about these comments from then Gov. Bush from one of the 2000 Presidential debates, but I couldn't get my thoughts organized. But I just came across the clip on You Tube while trying to find instances of Bush speaking idiotically during the 2000 campaign for my post on Obama earlier tonight.
One thing that has irked me about this quote and what has happened in Iraq is that the media has not asked Bush about this. Particularly after his Administration's rhetoric about the purpose of the Iraq War shifted from finding and destroying Iraq's WMDs to creating a beacon of democracy in the Mid-East, the press should have hounded him about his comments from that debate.
The other thing about those comments is that I think they show how little Bush in 2000 understood the world. It boggles my mind that he couldn't envision a scenario in 2000 under which he would think it'd be in the best interest of our country for the United States to engage in "nation building". And, unfortunately, the events of the last seven plus years have proven that Bush's understanding of the world has not improved sufficiently since 2000.
One thing that has irked me about this quote and what has happened in Iraq is that the media has not asked Bush about this. Particularly after his Administration's rhetoric about the purpose of the Iraq War shifted from finding and destroying Iraq's WMDs to creating a beacon of democracy in the Mid-East, the press should have hounded him about his comments from that debate.
The other thing about those comments is that I think they show how little Bush in 2000 understood the world. It boggles my mind that he couldn't envision a scenario in 2000 under which he would think it'd be in the best interest of our country for the United States to engage in "nation building". And, unfortunately, the events of the last seven plus years have proven that Bush's understanding of the world has not improved sufficiently since 2000.
If You'd have Told Me that 2008 would be the Year. . .
If even as recently as two years ago, you would have told me that a major political party in our country would nominate a black man to be President in 2008, I wouldn't have believed you. But, tonight, that effectively happened, and I'm absolutely thrilled.
For about a year and a half, I've believed that Obama would make the best President among all the candidates. While I also believe that Hillary Clinton would make a good President, I think that Obama will be better able to build consensus for and gain passage of key parts of the Democratic Party's agenda, including enacting universal health care and getting our troops out of the disaster that is the Iraq War.
Aside from my partisan predilections, I believe this election is Obama's for the taking. There are eight key factors that favor him and make him the favorite for November in my estimation:
1. Unlike for Republicans, it's crucial for Democratic Presidential candidates to be effective communicators (see Bush vs. Dukakis, 1988; Bush vs. Clinton, 1992; Bush vs. Gore, 2000; Bush vs. Kerry, 2004). The core beliefs and tenets of the Democratic Party are more difficult to express and convey to voters than those of the Republican Party. Just think of how Democrats think about taxes versus how Republicans do. It doesn't take an imaginative or effective communicator to say, "I'm going to cut your taxes." But it does take an effective speaker to explain well why you don't advocating cutting taxes unequivocally. Barack Obama is by far the best communicator among national political figures. I think he's even better than Bill Clinton mainly because Obama doesn't start off with 25-40 percent of the audience predisposed not to believe a word he's saying as is the case for President Clinton.
2. The country is sick of George W. Bush. I think Obama and my fellow Democrats can make an effective case that a McCain Presidency would be Bush part 3.
3. The country is eager to get out of Iraq. As you may be aware, John McCain is not eager to leave Iraq.
4. The country isn't particularly excited about John McCain. Yes, most people in the country respect and like him, but most people don't feel passionately about his candidacy.
5. The Republican party isn't excited at all about John McCain. The base will not be energized by him nor will they be energized by the opportunity to campaign against Hillary and Bill Clinton.
6. The country is genuinely excited about Barack Obama (aside from rednecks and bigots, that is).
7. Most members of my party are extremely excited about Barack Obama. I'm not too worried about bitter Hillary supporters. I just can't imagine that too many people who are ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton would somehow choose John McCain over Barack Obama. When push comes to shove, the views of the hard core Hillary supporters are not all that different from those of Senator Obama, while they are dramatically different from those of Senator McCain.
8. The media is in love with Barack Obama. Despite what happened with the Rev. Wright incident, the mainstream media is rooting for an Obama Presidency.
I don't see anyway that any of these eight factors will change between now and November.
The only X factor is Obama's race (and related issues, such as lingering suspicions among the ignorant that Obama is Muslim). I am hopeful and optimistic that the majority of white working-class and middle-class voters in swing states will examine the candidates on their merits, on their positions and policies, and on their visions for our country. I think that enough will ultimately decide to vote for Obama, and they will help elect him as the 44th President in the history of our nation and the first non-white man ever to lead our country.
For about a year and a half, I've believed that Obama would make the best President among all the candidates. While I also believe that Hillary Clinton would make a good President, I think that Obama will be better able to build consensus for and gain passage of key parts of the Democratic Party's agenda, including enacting universal health care and getting our troops out of the disaster that is the Iraq War.
Aside from my partisan predilections, I believe this election is Obama's for the taking. There are eight key factors that favor him and make him the favorite for November in my estimation:
1. Unlike for Republicans, it's crucial for Democratic Presidential candidates to be effective communicators (see Bush vs. Dukakis, 1988; Bush vs. Clinton, 1992; Bush vs. Gore, 2000; Bush vs. Kerry, 2004). The core beliefs and tenets of the Democratic Party are more difficult to express and convey to voters than those of the Republican Party. Just think of how Democrats think about taxes versus how Republicans do. It doesn't take an imaginative or effective communicator to say, "I'm going to cut your taxes." But it does take an effective speaker to explain well why you don't advocating cutting taxes unequivocally. Barack Obama is by far the best communicator among national political figures. I think he's even better than Bill Clinton mainly because Obama doesn't start off with 25-40 percent of the audience predisposed not to believe a word he's saying as is the case for President Clinton.
2. The country is sick of George W. Bush. I think Obama and my fellow Democrats can make an effective case that a McCain Presidency would be Bush part 3.
3. The country is eager to get out of Iraq. As you may be aware, John McCain is not eager to leave Iraq.
4. The country isn't particularly excited about John McCain. Yes, most people in the country respect and like him, but most people don't feel passionately about his candidacy.
5. The Republican party isn't excited at all about John McCain. The base will not be energized by him nor will they be energized by the opportunity to campaign against Hillary and Bill Clinton.
6. The country is genuinely excited about Barack Obama (aside from rednecks and bigots, that is).
7. Most members of my party are extremely excited about Barack Obama. I'm not too worried about bitter Hillary supporters. I just can't imagine that too many people who are ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton would somehow choose John McCain over Barack Obama. When push comes to shove, the views of the hard core Hillary supporters are not all that different from those of Senator Obama, while they are dramatically different from those of Senator McCain.
8. The media is in love with Barack Obama. Despite what happened with the Rev. Wright incident, the mainstream media is rooting for an Obama Presidency.
I don't see anyway that any of these eight factors will change between now and November.
The only X factor is Obama's race (and related issues, such as lingering suspicions among the ignorant that Obama is Muslim). I am hopeful and optimistic that the majority of white working-class and middle-class voters in swing states will examine the candidates on their merits, on their positions and policies, and on their visions for our country. I think that enough will ultimately decide to vote for Obama, and they will help elect him as the 44th President in the history of our nation and the first non-white man ever to lead our country.
Notes from a Grateful Boston Sports Fan (Part 1)
On the eve of the first NBA finals in 21 years to feature my favorite basketball team, I figured that it'd be a good occasion to express how lucky I feel to be a Boston sports fan. The past few years of being a Boston sports fan have been incredible.
We experienced riches almost this good in the mid-80s, when all four major professional sports teams played in at least one final championship series or game (yes, even the Bruins were in the Stanley Cup finals in 1988), but it was nowhere near as successful as this era has been, with three Super Bowl and two World Series championships for Boston sports teams. Moreover, as 11- or 12-year old kid, I couldn't fully appreciate how special it was to witness the Celtics compete in four straight NBA finals, the Red Sox make it to the World Series, and the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl. Although, I should add, that I understood at the time and for the next 18 years how awful it was for that ball to go through Buckner's legs.
Since the current era of Red Sox popularity began in the late 1990s, I as a Boston sports fan have experienced remarkable joys. I witnessed the most dominant pitcher in the history of baseball in his prime, with Pedro's utter brilliance in 1999 and 2000. Take a look at Pedro's stats from 2000, and then remember that he was doing this amid a dramatic offensive explosion across baseball that was partially caused by steroids, which, by the way, were not against the rules of Major League Baseball at that time, no matter what the mainstream sports media, your local sports radio talk show host, or your old friend from high school who loves Phil Mushnick tries to tell you.
This included seeing in person perhaps one of his top two or three pitching performances ever when I ventured to Camden Yards for a Red Sox-Orioles game on a beautiful spring night in May 2000. This experience also made me aware of the growing national popularity of the Red Sox, as more than half the crowd that night were fellow Red Sox fans. Numerous "Let's Go Red Sox" and, my personal favorite, "Yankees Suck" cheers erupted throughout the upper deck in left field. Bill Simmons even pointed out in his Red Sox book that this was the night that the Boston sports media started to understand that something major was going on with the popularity of the Red Sox, as it was the first road game where Red Sox fans drowned out the home town fans and took over a visiting stadium.
Among the other legendary Pedro performances that I had the good fortune of watching (unfortunately only on TV) were his six-inning, no hit, no runs allowed relief appearance in game 5 of the 1999 ALDS versus the Indians, his domination of the vile New York Yankees in game 3 of the 1999 ALCS, and his striking out of the first four straight batters he faced in the 1999 All-Star game, three of whom in my opinion belong in the Hall of Fame (Barry Larkin, Sammy Sosa, and Mark McGwire). I will also remember with fondness the way he never backed down from a hitter and pitched with a mean streak equal to that of Bob Gibson. This in turn led to one of the most amusing scenes on a baseball field in the last few decades, with Pedro tossing a charging Don Zimmer to the ground by his bald head during a brawl in the 2003 ALCS caused in part by Pedro's penchant for hitting Yankee batters.
We experienced riches almost this good in the mid-80s, when all four major professional sports teams played in at least one final championship series or game (yes, even the Bruins were in the Stanley Cup finals in 1988), but it was nowhere near as successful as this era has been, with three Super Bowl and two World Series championships for Boston sports teams. Moreover, as 11- or 12-year old kid, I couldn't fully appreciate how special it was to witness the Celtics compete in four straight NBA finals, the Red Sox make it to the World Series, and the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl. Although, I should add, that I understood at the time and for the next 18 years how awful it was for that ball to go through Buckner's legs.
Since the current era of Red Sox popularity began in the late 1990s, I as a Boston sports fan have experienced remarkable joys. I witnessed the most dominant pitcher in the history of baseball in his prime, with Pedro's utter brilliance in 1999 and 2000. Take a look at Pedro's stats from 2000, and then remember that he was doing this amid a dramatic offensive explosion across baseball that was partially caused by steroids, which, by the way, were not against the rules of Major League Baseball at that time, no matter what the mainstream sports media, your local sports radio talk show host, or your old friend from high school who loves Phil Mushnick tries to tell you.
This included seeing in person perhaps one of his top two or three pitching performances ever when I ventured to Camden Yards for a Red Sox-Orioles game on a beautiful spring night in May 2000. This experience also made me aware of the growing national popularity of the Red Sox, as more than half the crowd that night were fellow Red Sox fans. Numerous "Let's Go Red Sox" and, my personal favorite, "Yankees Suck" cheers erupted throughout the upper deck in left field. Bill Simmons even pointed out in his Red Sox book that this was the night that the Boston sports media started to understand that something major was going on with the popularity of the Red Sox, as it was the first road game where Red Sox fans drowned out the home town fans and took over a visiting stadium.
Among the other legendary Pedro performances that I had the good fortune of watching (unfortunately only on TV) were his six-inning, no hit, no runs allowed relief appearance in game 5 of the 1999 ALDS versus the Indians, his domination of the vile New York Yankees in game 3 of the 1999 ALCS, and his striking out of the first four straight batters he faced in the 1999 All-Star game, three of whom in my opinion belong in the Hall of Fame (Barry Larkin, Sammy Sosa, and Mark McGwire). I will also remember with fondness the way he never backed down from a hitter and pitched with a mean streak equal to that of Bob Gibson. This in turn led to one of the most amusing scenes on a baseball field in the last few decades, with Pedro tossing a charging Don Zimmer to the ground by his bald head during a brawl in the 2003 ALCS caused in part by Pedro's penchant for hitting Yankee batters.
However, a Pedro memory that I will not think of fondly is his 8th inning of game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. Most of you will remember this as the Grady Little game, where Red Sox manager Grady Little let Pedro start the 8th inning when he was clearly fatiguing (this was despite the fact that the Red Sox front office instructed Little to take out Martinez after he threw 100 pitches because they had statistical evidence that Pedro's effectiveness deteriorated dramatically after he threw 100 pitches) and let him continue to pitch in the 8th inning after he gave up two hits. This poor decision led to the Red Sox giving up a 5-2 lead, with the ultimate heartbreak coming in the bottom of the 11th inning off the bat of Aaron Boone. I have little doubt that the Sox would have won that game had Grady Little put in Mike Timlin at the start of the 8th inning.
The heartbreak nearly continued the following fall, with the Red Sox falling behind to the Yankees 3 games to none in the 2004 ALCS, including suffering an embarrassing, seemingly demoralizing rout in game 3. What happened over games 4 through 7 in the ALCS is the stuff of legend and needs not bear repeating here. But needless to say, demons were exorcised, curses were upended, jinxes were crushed, and the natural order in the baseball world was turned upside down over those ensuing four games. And I couldn't have been any happier with that result. The dream became even sweeter a week later when the Red Sox captured their first World Series victory in 86 years. I'm not exaggerating when I say that one of the five best moments of my life was when Edgar Renteria grounded out to Keith Foulke to end game 4 of the 2004 World Series. It was a moment of pure joy and elation, and one that I will cherish for the rest of my life. I smile every time I think about it. Every time.
Celebrating that World Series victory was particularly special as well. That night I went out to a Red Sox bar in Georgetown to celebrate with my buddy Wertman. The bar was filled with several hundred Red Sox fans. It was a common sight to see someone giving high fives and hugs to random people throughout the bar. In a "it's a small world" moment, I gave a victory cigar to a fellow Red Sox fan not knowing who he was. Later on I ran into the younger brother of one of my friends from high school. The next thing I knew, my friend's brother and the guy whom I gave the cigar came up to me to tell me that the cigar recipient was my sister's 9th grade boyfriend.
The celebration continued a few days later when I flew home for the Red Sox's victory parade, where I joined an estimated one million fellow Red Sox fans along the streets of Boston to yell, scream, and cheer as the World Champs rode by in duck boats. I remember fondly waiting with anticipation for the parade to come near and finally hearing the crowd about a half mile away erupting when the Sox reached them. I remember seeing the first duck boat up close with Johnny Damon leaning out the front waiving. I remember seeing Manny, Papi, Pedro, and Schilling pointing into the crowd. And I remember trying to yell my hardest and loudest when I saw Theo Epstein roll by.
I know that the emotions I felt were also felt by millions of Red Sox fans across the world. Many fellow fans also used the moment to connect with loved ones who had passed away, with thousands throughout New England putting balloons, victory flowers, and other World Series memorabilia on the graves of the recently and long-lost siblings, parents, and grand parents who never had the opportunity to experience a Red Sox World Series Championship.
To top it all off, just three years later, the Red Sox emerged as the best team in baseball in April, held that position throughout the season, staved off elimination by winning three straight must-win games against the Cleveland Indians in the ALCS, and swept the Colorado Rockies to win their second World Series Championship of the decade. To Red Sox fans used to perpetual agony, it was almost an embarassment of riches.
What makes this all so great as a Red Sox fan is that the Red Sox are well positioned to contend for the World Series for the foreseeable future. They have the resources (financial and organizational) to acquire and develop elite talent that are unmatched by all but one team in the sport (the vile New York Yankees). This should allow them to be one of the five best teams for at least the next two or three seasons, and be one of the five best teams five to eight out of the next ten seasons. I wouldn't be surprised if in ten years, I will be able to write about another one or two World Series Championships.
On that uplifting note, I'll end this post. More to follow on this theme tomorrow.
Go Sox. Yankees Suck. Long Live Theo.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Not Okie Dokie
Count me officially worried about Hideki Okajima. Even last year in the post season, he didn't look nearly as good as he did during the regular season. He almost cost the Red Sox Game 4 of the World Series by giving up a crucial two-run home run in the 8th inning that made it a one run game.
After tonight, he truly scares me (he gave up 4 runs, giving the Orioles the lead). Let's hope he turns things around pronto.
After tonight, he truly scares me (he gave up 4 runs, giving the Orioles the lead). Let's hope he turns things around pronto.
What Year is This?
On Friday morning, on my way to work, I spotted a sight that I have not seen in more than two decades: someone wearing bleached jeans.
A mere 14 hours later, I spotted another sight that I haven't seen since 1987: the Boston Celtics making it to the NBA Finals.
This got me thinking: Am I in a time warp?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
A New Salvo in the War of the MSM vs. Blogs
By now, you've no doubt seen stories from the mainstream sports media besmirching blogs. So far, however, most of the ire I've seen has been directed toward sports fans with their own blogs, with the mainstream media most often portraying bloggers as losers living in their mother's basement who know nothing about what they write, whereas the mainstream media has the credentials and expertise required to write about sports. Never mind that numerous blogs routinely point out idiotic and unfounded things that these credentialed "experts" write and say, the most famous including Deadspin, The Big Lead, and Fire Joe Morgan.
Never mind that people whom the mainstream sports media would consider bloggers publish some of the most interesting analysis on professional baseball, such as the folks at Baseball Prospectus, Hardball Times, and Baseball Analysts. Never mind that these "bloggers" are conducting cutting-edge research, including work based on the results of PITCHf/x that could advance by dramatic margins our understanding of baseball. I'd be shocked if even one person reading this knows what PITCHf/x is, and how cool it is for the study of pitching and hitting. PITCHf/x is the name of the system that MLB started using in every park last season to track each pitched ball's speed and trajectory. All this data is available for free. So, you can study with precision what makes a Josh Beckett fastball so different from a Kyle Farnsworth fastball (both are thrown in the mid- to upper-90s, but Beckett's is eminently more difficult to hit). You can study with precision which pitches by speed, by location, and by trajectory are hit more often, are hit for more home runs, are swung on and missed more often, etc., etc. This is exciting stuff. Do you think the mainstream sports media writes about this? Nope.
Never mind that another great baseball blog is Sabernomics, which happens to be written by a professor of economics at Kennesaw State University. I wonder if Kennesaw State knows they've tenured a man who still lives in his mom's basement? Why pay attention to idiots like that? Why give credence to a yahoo like that who has no credentials and has no expertise.
The latest salvo in this war between the mainstream media and bloggers appeared today on Slate. Pat Jordan, a former minor league pitcher in the 1960s (I believe) and sports journalists since the 1970s, wrote a piece trying to explain why modern professional athletes no longer trust journalists, detailing some of his experiences writing profiles of the leading stars in the big three professional sports in the 1970s versus today. He has some interesting anecdotes about Tom Seaver, Deion Sanders, and the aforementioned Josh Beckett, and I'd recommend taking a look at the story just for those tidbits alone.
However, the section of his article that inspired my post tonight was when Jordan offered his complaints about pro athletes who have their own blogs. Jordan wrote:
Oh, sure, some celebrity athletes make a feeble stab at letting their fans know them through their blogs (Schilling, Bonds). But those blogs are essentially self-aggrandizing and masturbatory. They reveal nothing genuine about the writer, as an objective magazine profile would.
I have no idea what Bonds' blog is like, because I've never read it. But, I have read Schilling's blog several times. And while it may be self-aggrandizing, it certainly isn't feeble. After nearly every game in which he pitched last season, Schilling wrote a detailed post describing which pitches he threw in key situations and why he threw such pitches. Prior to the advent of blogging and athletes having their own websites, this type of insight was unavailable to fans. Also, Schilling used his blog to explain in detail the shoulder problems that have left him shelved for the entire baseball season so far. He has used his blog to explain why he supports John McCain for President. He has used his blog to answer questions from fans as well, some of which focused on baseball matters, others on his ownership of a video game software development company. In sum, they have given his readers direct access to Schilling and his thoughts. So to say that his blog reveals nothing genuine is just ridiculous.
Never mind that people whom the mainstream sports media would consider bloggers publish some of the most interesting analysis on professional baseball, such as the folks at Baseball Prospectus, Hardball Times, and Baseball Analysts. Never mind that these "bloggers" are conducting cutting-edge research, including work based on the results of PITCHf/x that could advance by dramatic margins our understanding of baseball. I'd be shocked if even one person reading this knows what PITCHf/x is, and how cool it is for the study of pitching and hitting. PITCHf/x is the name of the system that MLB started using in every park last season to track each pitched ball's speed and trajectory. All this data is available for free. So, you can study with precision what makes a Josh Beckett fastball so different from a Kyle Farnsworth fastball (both are thrown in the mid- to upper-90s, but Beckett's is eminently more difficult to hit). You can study with precision which pitches by speed, by location, and by trajectory are hit more often, are hit for more home runs, are swung on and missed more often, etc., etc. This is exciting stuff. Do you think the mainstream sports media writes about this? Nope.
Never mind that another great baseball blog is Sabernomics, which happens to be written by a professor of economics at Kennesaw State University. I wonder if Kennesaw State knows they've tenured a man who still lives in his mom's basement? Why pay attention to idiots like that? Why give credence to a yahoo like that who has no credentials and has no expertise.
The latest salvo in this war between the mainstream media and bloggers appeared today on Slate. Pat Jordan, a former minor league pitcher in the 1960s (I believe) and sports journalists since the 1970s, wrote a piece trying to explain why modern professional athletes no longer trust journalists, detailing some of his experiences writing profiles of the leading stars in the big three professional sports in the 1970s versus today. He has some interesting anecdotes about Tom Seaver, Deion Sanders, and the aforementioned Josh Beckett, and I'd recommend taking a look at the story just for those tidbits alone.
However, the section of his article that inspired my post tonight was when Jordan offered his complaints about pro athletes who have their own blogs. Jordan wrote:
Oh, sure, some celebrity athletes make a feeble stab at letting their fans know them through their blogs (Schilling, Bonds). But those blogs are essentially self-aggrandizing and masturbatory. They reveal nothing genuine about the writer, as an objective magazine profile would.
I have no idea what Bonds' blog is like, because I've never read it. But, I have read Schilling's blog several times. And while it may be self-aggrandizing, it certainly isn't feeble. After nearly every game in which he pitched last season, Schilling wrote a detailed post describing which pitches he threw in key situations and why he threw such pitches. Prior to the advent of blogging and athletes having their own websites, this type of insight was unavailable to fans. Also, Schilling used his blog to explain in detail the shoulder problems that have left him shelved for the entire baseball season so far. He has used his blog to explain why he supports John McCain for President. He has used his blog to answer questions from fans as well, some of which focused on baseball matters, others on his ownership of a video game software development company. In sum, they have given his readers direct access to Schilling and his thoughts. So to say that his blog reveals nothing genuine is just ridiculous.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
More on the Exploitation of NCAA Athletes
As I indicated in the inaugural post of I've Got an Idea that I Want to Share, Division I mens college basketball players are not being adequately compensated for the revenues that they generate for their colleges and universities. Among my many problems with the current system is that individual players are marketed by their schools for profit without compensating those player in any way. Today, as part of my travels, I saw further proof of this upon a visit to City Sports at Gallery Place when I saw a Georgetown basketball jersey for sale featuring the number 55. Over the past three seasons, Georgetown's best and most popular basketball player has been Roy Hibbert, a 7' 2" center. Anyone want to take a guess what number he wore? Yes, astute reader, he wore the number 55.If you click on the photo above, you will see that the jersey sells for $75.00, of which Roy Hibbert will receive exactly $0.00. For sale beside the Hibbert jersey was a jersey for the Washington Wizards featuring the number 0. Gilbert Arenas, the Wizards' best and most popular player, happens to wear number 0. So, the numbers on these jerseys are not coincidences. The popularity and acclaim of both men are being utilized for financial gain, and only one of them is being compensated for it. I guess those are just one of the breaks when you're an "amateur" like Hibbert and one of the benefits when you're a "pro" like Arenas.
Noooo!!!
One of the most ignominious fashion trends of the 1980s may be coming back in style. Yes, docksiders soon may be en vogue again.
Today, I dropped by Urban Outfitters, a store that most would agree helps set fashion trends and/or is a harbinger of what is considered stylish, and low and behold, they were selling brown docksiders. They were ugly in the 1980s and they are ugly now.
I implore the hipsters and trendsetters of the world to unite and forgo the docksider now and forever.
Furthermore, I give any of you permission to kick me right in the nuts if you ever see me wearing docksiders for any reason other than the shoes being part of a costume. Just wind up and kick me as hard as you can. Hopefully, when I'm doubled over in sheer agony, I will notice what's on my feet and realize the error of my ways.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Chicken Parm
Why, oh, why does every single lunch place in downtown DC make its Chicken Parm sandwiches with chicken that hasn't been breaded? Unbreaded chicken, tomato sauce, and melted mozzarella cheese is not chicken parm. Why is it that every pizza and sub shop in Massachusetts realizes this and never makes this mistake, and every lunch joint in the District of Columbia does?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Sam Cassell = Eric Gagne
I feel the same way about Sam Cassell as I felt about Eric Gagne last season when he was on the Red Sox: nothing good can possibly happen when he is in the game. Both were in-season acquisitions that arrived in Boston to much acclaim and aspirations, and both sucked beyond belief. During the MLB playoffs, I nearly threw numerous hard objects at my beloved hi-def TV whenever Gagne entered the game, and Cassell is on the verge of prompting a similar reaction anytime he's on the court. Sam Cassell, a purported point guard, takes a shot whenever he has sliver of an opening, regardless of how much time is left on the shot clock, regardless of what play has been called, regardless if the Celtics are in decent position to rebound if he misses (and he will), and regardless if the Celtics need to kill time off the clock. For a veteran reported to have great basketball IQ and the making of a future head coach, he makes terrible decisions and appears to have no shame about his ball hogging and shot chucking ways. Fortunately, it looks like Doc Rivers has seen the light, given how little Cassell played in the second half tonight. Let's hope that Doc keeps this up and keeps Cassell off the court.
The Wisdom of the War on Drugs
Just as I don't think enough people question the fairness of making Division I college basketball and football players de facto professional athletes without compensating them adequately, I think too few people think about the costs and downsides that result from our country's War on Drugs.
This study from the Pew Center on the States is a few months old, but it offers some stunning findings: 1 in 100 adult Americans is in prison or jail; 1 in 9 African-American men between 20 and 34 is imprisoned or jailed; the number of people imprisoned in the U.S. (population of 300 million) is 50 percent greater than the number of people imprisoned in China (population of 1.3 billion); the U.S. imprisons its citizens at a greater rate than every other country in the world, including autocratic, draconian nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran (here's the link to the full study). As the Pew Center indicates, the main cause of these staggering statistics is the War on Drugs.
Just think about those numbers for a second. And, while you're doing so, remember that we're the land of the free. Remember that our country wants to live free or die. Think about all the financial resources that are devoted to the criminal justice system largely because of the War on Drugs that could be spent elsewhere: on education, on health care, on job training programs, on providing free or affordable day care for the working poor who have children, on developing more sustainable environmental practices, (I'll even throw a bone to any conservatives reading this) on transforming our military so that it can better counter asymmetrical threats, and on and on (by the way, the Pew study found that $55 billion per year is spent by the federal and state governments on jails and prisons).
Think about the human cost. Five, 10, 20 years, and even more of people's lives are being wasted in prison, and for what? Think, too, about how violent prison is and about what prisoners are subjected to while incarcerated. Now also remember that they can contribute little, if anything, to society while they are locked up. Certainly many have talents and skills that they would be able to employ were they free. And remember that many have children from whom they are separated while they are locked up. (Yes, I know that these prisoners were aware that their drug activities subjected them to possible imprisonment and that they should be held responsible for their actions, but I also think there are structural causes beyond their control -- such as slavery, segregation, and the terrible public education systems of most big cities -- as to why people from certain demographics and from certain neighborhoods are incarcerated at above average rates.)
Is there anyway to view the numbers from the Pew study and say that our War on Drugs is a success? Even if you agree with imprisoning people for non-violent drug offenses, do you really think it's a success when 1 in 100 adult Americans find themselves behind bars as a result?
Perhaps if the War on Drugs were resulting in the eradication of illegal drug use, it'd be worth the cost to maintain the existing drug law regime. But, do we have any indication that illegal drug use is close to being eliminated? Do we have any indication or reason to believe that in 10, 20, or even 30 years that illegal drug use will be eradicated? I think it'd only be wishful thinking to answer yes to either of these questions.
I think that the War on Drugs is a miserable failure, with tremendous costs that result in few benefits, and I think it's time for our nation to have a serious and honest debate about our drug laws. I don't know whether we should remove all prohibitions on drug use or simply alter the way we punish non-violent drug offenders. But, regardless of what we do, it's clear that what we're doing now is not working.
This study from the Pew Center on the States is a few months old, but it offers some stunning findings: 1 in 100 adult Americans is in prison or jail; 1 in 9 African-American men between 20 and 34 is imprisoned or jailed; the number of people imprisoned in the U.S. (population of 300 million) is 50 percent greater than the number of people imprisoned in China (population of 1.3 billion); the U.S. imprisons its citizens at a greater rate than every other country in the world, including autocratic, draconian nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran (here's the link to the full study). As the Pew Center indicates, the main cause of these staggering statistics is the War on Drugs.
Just think about those numbers for a second. And, while you're doing so, remember that we're the land of the free. Remember that our country wants to live free or die. Think about all the financial resources that are devoted to the criminal justice system largely because of the War on Drugs that could be spent elsewhere: on education, on health care, on job training programs, on providing free or affordable day care for the working poor who have children, on developing more sustainable environmental practices, (I'll even throw a bone to any conservatives reading this) on transforming our military so that it can better counter asymmetrical threats, and on and on (by the way, the Pew study found that $55 billion per year is spent by the federal and state governments on jails and prisons).
Think about the human cost. Five, 10, 20 years, and even more of people's lives are being wasted in prison, and for what? Think, too, about how violent prison is and about what prisoners are subjected to while incarcerated. Now also remember that they can contribute little, if anything, to society while they are locked up. Certainly many have talents and skills that they would be able to employ were they free. And remember that many have children from whom they are separated while they are locked up. (Yes, I know that these prisoners were aware that their drug activities subjected them to possible imprisonment and that they should be held responsible for their actions, but I also think there are structural causes beyond their control -- such as slavery, segregation, and the terrible public education systems of most big cities -- as to why people from certain demographics and from certain neighborhoods are incarcerated at above average rates.)
Is there anyway to view the numbers from the Pew study and say that our War on Drugs is a success? Even if you agree with imprisoning people for non-violent drug offenses, do you really think it's a success when 1 in 100 adult Americans find themselves behind bars as a result?
Perhaps if the War on Drugs were resulting in the eradication of illegal drug use, it'd be worth the cost to maintain the existing drug law regime. But, do we have any indication that illegal drug use is close to being eliminated? Do we have any indication or reason to believe that in 10, 20, or even 30 years that illegal drug use will be eradicated? I think it'd only be wishful thinking to answer yes to either of these questions.
I think that the War on Drugs is a miserable failure, with tremendous costs that result in few benefits, and I think it's time for our nation to have a serious and honest debate about our drug laws. I don't know whether we should remove all prohibitions on drug use or simply alter the way we punish non-violent drug offenders. But, regardless of what we do, it's clear that what we're doing now is not working.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Follow Up to O.J. Mayo
Here's a snippet from a chat (ESPN Insider subscription required to view) that the ESPN reporter who uncovered the payments to O.J. Mayo did yesterday on ESPN.com. Notice how she avoids discussing the thrust of the question and instead focuses only on his characterization that this episode is a "non-story".
shane, huntsville alabama: I like that it's perfectly allright for everyone involved in amateur athletics to make money off of it (Coaches, Universities, Conferences, the NCAA, etc) except the players. This is a nonstory.
Kelly Naqi: It's not a non-story if you're breaking NCAA rules and using a credit card that represents a sickle cell foundation charity to give clothing, meals, and electronics to a star college athlete. If you're going to play at an NCAA member institution, you must abide by the rules of the NCAA.
Not to get all Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. on everyone here, but what moral obligation do O.J. Mayo and other college athletes have to obey unjust rules? As Shane from Huntsville, Alabama points out, everyone involved in major college athletics makes money from it except for the people who matter most, the athletes themselves.
shane, huntsville alabama: I like that it's perfectly allright for everyone involved in amateur athletics to make money off of it (Coaches, Universities, Conferences, the NCAA, etc) except the players. This is a nonstory.
Kelly Naqi: It's not a non-story if you're breaking NCAA rules and using a credit card that represents a sickle cell foundation charity to give clothing, meals, and electronics to a star college athlete. If you're going to play at an NCAA member institution, you must abide by the rules of the NCAA.
Not to get all Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. on everyone here, but what moral obligation do O.J. Mayo and other college athletes have to obey unjust rules? As Shane from Huntsville, Alabama points out, everyone involved in major college athletics makes money from it except for the people who matter most, the athletes themselves.
Monday, May 12, 2008
The Inaugural Post
Ah, my first blog post . . . I have a couple of goals with this new endeavor. My main goal of starting a blog is to have an outlet to share my thoughts and ideas about the events of the day, while also providing a glimpse at some of the more entertaining developments in my life and that of living in a decent sized city that also happens to be our nation's capital. Having a blog will enable me to do so without having to send unprompted emails to friends who may or may not be interested in reading my missives. With a blog, you, my friends, can come check out what I'm thinking and doing at your leisure and your own volition. I'm also going to try to carry my camera with me as much as possible. Living in a city like Washington, D.C. always presents me with the opportunity to witness strange, funny, interesting, or heartbreaking scenes. I'll share these photos on this blog. (Just on Saturday afternoon alone, I saw two or three things that would have made great photos and topics of discussion for a post. For instance, I came across a protest in front of the Scientology building near Dupont Circle, with about 50 college-aged kids wearing Guy Fawkes masks or other identity hiding costumes. It was quite a scene.)
So with that intro over, let me delve into the meat of my first post. There are several major story lines in sports that I think the media just gets completely wrong. How they cover the topic along with their underlying biases result in bad reporting and even worse commentary. In no particular order, I think the media overlooks and/or ignores the nuance of the issue of the use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs by elite athletes. I think the media is too worried about their own standing and protecting their own turf to discuss rationally and logically the phenomenon of sports blogs. I think that the majority of sports columnists do not have an open-mind about the analysis of the sports using statistics and other objective measures. I think that the majority of the sports media does a poor job of explaining why professional athletes are paid as well as they are and that this reporting has served to foster resentment between fans and players. Lastly, I think the media overlooks the inherent corruption of and injustice promulgated by the NCAA. When the media does report on this corruption, they focus on minor incidents that are manifested by the inherent corruption and injustice and ignore the fundamental causes of these incidents.
Today, we have another example where corruption has been exposed in a major college program for one of the two major NCAA sports. For those of you who are unfamiliar, O.J. Mayo, a basketball player for the University of Southern California who has declared himself eligible for the N.B.A. draft after completing his freshman season, is alleged to have received about $30,000 in cash and gifts from a sports agency in violation of NCAA rules. ESPN broke the story yesterday morning, and touted it on its website all day. One ESPN columnist even wrote today that the USC men's basketball program should receive the "death penalty," meaning the team should be banned from competing for a year or more, because of this scandal. A brief listening to sports radio this morning and a viewing of today's Pardon the Interruption resulted in me hearing other similar sentiments about how unscrupulous USC is and "even if he didn't know" Mayo was on the take, that Tim Floyd (USC's head coach) should have known and should pay for Mayo's transgressions.
Let's get a couple of things out of the way: I agree that it's likely that O.J. Mayo broke NCAA rules. I agree it's likely that O.J. Mayo knew he was breaking NCAA rules. I also think it's likely that Tim Floyd and other USC officials knew that Mayo was receiving gifts in violation of NCAA rules.
But let's take a step back and look at the system as a whole for the NCAA's major college basketball programs. First, regardless of the propaganda promoted by the NCAA and its institutions, players are players first and foremost and students at best second (if at all). The demands on their time for attending practice, weightlifting, studying the playbook, watching game films, and playing in games (including travel to away games) are considerable and comparable to the amount of time that a professional basketball player spends on his job. It's not hard to imagine that the average Division I player devotes at least 6-8 hours per day to his sport.
Second, a considerable percentage of the players are attending college only to play basketball, with the hope of eventually becoming professional players. Many have no interest in the classes they're taking, nor in acquiring a degree. Many of these players would not have been admitted to the schools they attend were it not for their basketball ability, and a number of these players do not even come close to having the ability to succeed at the schools they attend. I'm not trying to put down these players, because quite honestly, only a select few people in general have the ability to succeed at institutions like Stanford, Duke, Georgetown, all three of which are among the top 25-50 universities in our country and also happen to have elite men's college basketball teams. (By the way, as further proof that I'm not putting down these players, I don't think I would have been admitted to any of the three schools I just listed had I applied to them. Nor do I think that there aren't a number of players who are qualified to attend the schools they attend, are able to succeed at their school, and are interested in their courses of study and in acquiring a degree).
Third, and most importantly, Division I men's college basketball is a de facto professional sport that generates hundreds of millions of dollars for colleges and universities and for college basketball coaches each year.
Let's look at what the colleges and universities make, starting with their profits from the NCAA men's tournament. In 1999, the NCAA sold the rights to broadcast its annual men's basketball tournament for 11 years starting with the 2003 tournament to CBS for $6 billion (see this New York Times article for the exact details). That's not a typo. That's BILLION with a B. That's $545 million per year on average. That's essentially pure profit, as it can't cost more than $10-$20 million per year to run the tournament. Even if my estimates are way off, say by a factor of five, and it costs $100 million to run the tournament, that's still more than $400 million in profit on average per year.
Major men's college basketball programs also generate additional millions in revenue per year through a number of other ways: TV and radio deals for regular season games, TV and radio deals for conference tournaments, ticket sales, merchandise sales (more on that to follow), and concessions at games. While most of the merchandise highlights the school only (such as a t-shirt that has only the school's name or mascot on it), some merchandise features star players (such as not only having the school's name or mascot, but also having the star player's name or number on the back of a jersey).
Head coaches of major programs often receive salaries of more than $1 million per year. One high profile coach reportedly turned down an offer to coach at his alma mater for $3.5 million per year with a $6 million signing bonus. Head coaches are also often compensated to sums of $100,000 or more per year through peripheral activities due to their status as a head coach of a major college basketball program, such as running basketball camps in the summer, having their own TV shows during the season, writing books, and speaking at corporate events.
What sort of compensation do the players receive as a result of these millions and millions of dollars they generate per year? Their compensation is free tuition and room and board. The only choice they have in the matter is from what college and university they receive that tuition and room and board.
Now some of you are probably thinking that you would have been delighted to have received a full scholarship with room and board and are thinking that such a deal is worth $30,000 - $50,000 per year. Well, if you're thinking that, you are overlooking a few things. First, the monetary value of any in-kind compensation such as free tuition varies from recipient from recipient. Imagine if you were paid for your current job in the form of gift certificates to Starbucks equal in value to your current salary. Would you be satisfied with this arrangement? Say you make $75,000 per year. Would $75,000 in Starbucks gifts certificates be worth $75,000 in cold hard cash to you? If it would be, you are absolutely insane (by the way, resolving this problem of the varying value of in kind compensation to each person is why humanity developed the concept of money and did away with the barter system). Now, remember that for a number of the players, the educational opportunity presented by the scholarship is only a secondary or tertiary priority. So that in turn makes the true value of the scholarship less and less for them.
Or, thinking about it another way, the easiest way to put a monetary value on the scholarship for each player would be to ask him how much he'd be willing to pay to attend that school only as a student. I bet quite a few players would answer with amounts well below the listed tuition price for their school.
Let's do some quick and rough math. There are 341 Division I men's college basketball programs, with 13 full scholarships per program. Let's be more than generous about how much the average player values his free tuition and room and board and say that such remuneration is the equivalent of $50,000 per year. $50,000 x 13 x 341 = $222 million. If we do the math with a still (in my opinion) overestimated value of the tuition and room and board at $40,000 per year, the total cost becomes $177 million. With a much more realistic valuation of $20,000 per year, the total is $89 million. As noted above, the NCAA Tournament alone generates $500 million or more in profit per year. I have no idea how much money is generated by the other revenue streams, but it's likely more than $100 million per year.
More importantly, elite players like O.J. Mayo generate revenues for their school at a far greater rate than the average player, thus exacerbating the inequity of the situation. O.J. Mayo made USC a high profile team last season, after it largely had been off the radar since the days of Harold Miner. He led USC to the NCAA tournament. One thing that sabermetric research in professional baseball has shown is that making the playoffs has a considerable impact on a team's bottom line. I can't imagine the same is not true for teams making the NCAA tournament (i.e. the increased exposure from the tournament leads to more applications, increased donations, additional merchandise sales, and more lucrative local TV and radio deals in the future).
Someone like Mayo is exploited even further as the school he attends often sells merchandise capitalizing on him. For example, I studied at American University's Washington Semester Program during the spring semester of 1996, which coincided with Allen Iverson's final season at Georgetown. Throughout that spring, I saw tons of kids around the city aged 8 -17 wearing Georgetown gear that had the number 3 on the back. Today, I rarely see kids that age wearing Georgetown gear. And if I do see them wearing it, it never has a number associated with it. Any guesses who wore 3 in 1996? Any guesses why those kids were wearing Georgetown gear then and why they aren't wearing it now? If you answered "Allen Iverson" to both questions, you, my friend, are quite astute. How much of this money that Georgetown made directly because of and only because of Allen Iverson did Allen Iverson receive? Here's an answer: the next time you see a penny on the ground, stop and pick it up. Once you've done that, you'll have made more money than Allen Iverson did on Georgetown merchandise sold because of him.
This discrepancy in compensation to the players versus the revenue they generate is the big scandal. This discrepancy is the fundamental cause of the corruption. From it flows all the minor scandals. These players are exploited worse than major league baseball players were before the days of Marvin Miller and Curt Flood (this post is already huge, so I'll refrain from going into the matter of how little freedom players have to transfer from school to school without penalty, akin to how pro baseball players were beholden to the team that signed them and had to accept being traded without recourse prior to Curt Flood's protest, but trust me there are plenty of parallels between the two causes). This discrepancy is not hard for the players to see, and, in this context, it should be no surprise when college basketball players accept gifts and cash from shady sports agents in violation of NCAA rules.
This discrepancy should not be hard for the media to see either. But, the only sports writer that I've come across who realizes this is King Kaufman from Salon.com. Instead, sports columnists take the easy way out and just pounce on a particular player/coach/program for being corrupt and they ignore the larger issue.
I'll save for another day my idea to help fix this problem. Peace out.
-- 2 M.F. White
So with that intro over, let me delve into the meat of my first post. There are several major story lines in sports that I think the media just gets completely wrong. How they cover the topic along with their underlying biases result in bad reporting and even worse commentary. In no particular order, I think the media overlooks and/or ignores the nuance of the issue of the use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs by elite athletes. I think the media is too worried about their own standing and protecting their own turf to discuss rationally and logically the phenomenon of sports blogs. I think that the majority of sports columnists do not have an open-mind about the analysis of the sports using statistics and other objective measures. I think that the majority of the sports media does a poor job of explaining why professional athletes are paid as well as they are and that this reporting has served to foster resentment between fans and players. Lastly, I think the media overlooks the inherent corruption of and injustice promulgated by the NCAA. When the media does report on this corruption, they focus on minor incidents that are manifested by the inherent corruption and injustice and ignore the fundamental causes of these incidents.
Today, we have another example where corruption has been exposed in a major college program for one of the two major NCAA sports. For those of you who are unfamiliar, O.J. Mayo, a basketball player for the University of Southern California who has declared himself eligible for the N.B.A. draft after completing his freshman season, is alleged to have received about $30,000 in cash and gifts from a sports agency in violation of NCAA rules. ESPN broke the story yesterday morning, and touted it on its website all day. One ESPN columnist even wrote today that the USC men's basketball program should receive the "death penalty," meaning the team should be banned from competing for a year or more, because of this scandal. A brief listening to sports radio this morning and a viewing of today's Pardon the Interruption resulted in me hearing other similar sentiments about how unscrupulous USC is and "even if he didn't know" Mayo was on the take, that Tim Floyd (USC's head coach) should have known and should pay for Mayo's transgressions.
Let's get a couple of things out of the way: I agree that it's likely that O.J. Mayo broke NCAA rules. I agree it's likely that O.J. Mayo knew he was breaking NCAA rules. I also think it's likely that Tim Floyd and other USC officials knew that Mayo was receiving gifts in violation of NCAA rules.
But let's take a step back and look at the system as a whole for the NCAA's major college basketball programs. First, regardless of the propaganda promoted by the NCAA and its institutions, players are players first and foremost and students at best second (if at all). The demands on their time for attending practice, weightlifting, studying the playbook, watching game films, and playing in games (including travel to away games) are considerable and comparable to the amount of time that a professional basketball player spends on his job. It's not hard to imagine that the average Division I player devotes at least 6-8 hours per day to his sport.
Second, a considerable percentage of the players are attending college only to play basketball, with the hope of eventually becoming professional players. Many have no interest in the classes they're taking, nor in acquiring a degree. Many of these players would not have been admitted to the schools they attend were it not for their basketball ability, and a number of these players do not even come close to having the ability to succeed at the schools they attend. I'm not trying to put down these players, because quite honestly, only a select few people in general have the ability to succeed at institutions like Stanford, Duke, Georgetown, all three of which are among the top 25-50 universities in our country and also happen to have elite men's college basketball teams. (By the way, as further proof that I'm not putting down these players, I don't think I would have been admitted to any of the three schools I just listed had I applied to them. Nor do I think that there aren't a number of players who are qualified to attend the schools they attend, are able to succeed at their school, and are interested in their courses of study and in acquiring a degree).
Third, and most importantly, Division I men's college basketball is a de facto professional sport that generates hundreds of millions of dollars for colleges and universities and for college basketball coaches each year.
Let's look at what the colleges and universities make, starting with their profits from the NCAA men's tournament. In 1999, the NCAA sold the rights to broadcast its annual men's basketball tournament for 11 years starting with the 2003 tournament to CBS for $6 billion (see this New York Times article for the exact details). That's not a typo. That's BILLION with a B. That's $545 million per year on average. That's essentially pure profit, as it can't cost more than $10-$20 million per year to run the tournament. Even if my estimates are way off, say by a factor of five, and it costs $100 million to run the tournament, that's still more than $400 million in profit on average per year.
Major men's college basketball programs also generate additional millions in revenue per year through a number of other ways: TV and radio deals for regular season games, TV and radio deals for conference tournaments, ticket sales, merchandise sales (more on that to follow), and concessions at games. While most of the merchandise highlights the school only (such as a t-shirt that has only the school's name or mascot on it), some merchandise features star players (such as not only having the school's name or mascot, but also having the star player's name or number on the back of a jersey).
Head coaches of major programs often receive salaries of more than $1 million per year. One high profile coach reportedly turned down an offer to coach at his alma mater for $3.5 million per year with a $6 million signing bonus. Head coaches are also often compensated to sums of $100,000 or more per year through peripheral activities due to their status as a head coach of a major college basketball program, such as running basketball camps in the summer, having their own TV shows during the season, writing books, and speaking at corporate events.
What sort of compensation do the players receive as a result of these millions and millions of dollars they generate per year? Their compensation is free tuition and room and board. The only choice they have in the matter is from what college and university they receive that tuition and room and board.
Now some of you are probably thinking that you would have been delighted to have received a full scholarship with room and board and are thinking that such a deal is worth $30,000 - $50,000 per year. Well, if you're thinking that, you are overlooking a few things. First, the monetary value of any in-kind compensation such as free tuition varies from recipient from recipient. Imagine if you were paid for your current job in the form of gift certificates to Starbucks equal in value to your current salary. Would you be satisfied with this arrangement? Say you make $75,000 per year. Would $75,000 in Starbucks gifts certificates be worth $75,000 in cold hard cash to you? If it would be, you are absolutely insane (by the way, resolving this problem of the varying value of in kind compensation to each person is why humanity developed the concept of money and did away with the barter system). Now, remember that for a number of the players, the educational opportunity presented by the scholarship is only a secondary or tertiary priority. So that in turn makes the true value of the scholarship less and less for them.
Or, thinking about it another way, the easiest way to put a monetary value on the scholarship for each player would be to ask him how much he'd be willing to pay to attend that school only as a student. I bet quite a few players would answer with amounts well below the listed tuition price for their school.
Let's do some quick and rough math. There are 341 Division I men's college basketball programs, with 13 full scholarships per program. Let's be more than generous about how much the average player values his free tuition and room and board and say that such remuneration is the equivalent of $50,000 per year. $50,000 x 13 x 341 = $222 million. If we do the math with a still (in my opinion) overestimated value of the tuition and room and board at $40,000 per year, the total cost becomes $177 million. With a much more realistic valuation of $20,000 per year, the total is $89 million. As noted above, the NCAA Tournament alone generates $500 million or more in profit per year. I have no idea how much money is generated by the other revenue streams, but it's likely more than $100 million per year.
More importantly, elite players like O.J. Mayo generate revenues for their school at a far greater rate than the average player, thus exacerbating the inequity of the situation. O.J. Mayo made USC a high profile team last season, after it largely had been off the radar since the days of Harold Miner. He led USC to the NCAA tournament. One thing that sabermetric research in professional baseball has shown is that making the playoffs has a considerable impact on a team's bottom line. I can't imagine the same is not true for teams making the NCAA tournament (i.e. the increased exposure from the tournament leads to more applications, increased donations, additional merchandise sales, and more lucrative local TV and radio deals in the future).
Someone like Mayo is exploited even further as the school he attends often sells merchandise capitalizing on him. For example, I studied at American University's Washington Semester Program during the spring semester of 1996, which coincided with Allen Iverson's final season at Georgetown. Throughout that spring, I saw tons of kids around the city aged 8 -17 wearing Georgetown gear that had the number 3 on the back. Today, I rarely see kids that age wearing Georgetown gear. And if I do see them wearing it, it never has a number associated with it. Any guesses who wore 3 in 1996? Any guesses why those kids were wearing Georgetown gear then and why they aren't wearing it now? If you answered "Allen Iverson" to both questions, you, my friend, are quite astute. How much of this money that Georgetown made directly because of and only because of Allen Iverson did Allen Iverson receive? Here's an answer: the next time you see a penny on the ground, stop and pick it up. Once you've done that, you'll have made more money than Allen Iverson did on Georgetown merchandise sold because of him.
This discrepancy in compensation to the players versus the revenue they generate is the big scandal. This discrepancy is the fundamental cause of the corruption. From it flows all the minor scandals. These players are exploited worse than major league baseball players were before the days of Marvin Miller and Curt Flood (this post is already huge, so I'll refrain from going into the matter of how little freedom players have to transfer from school to school without penalty, akin to how pro baseball players were beholden to the team that signed them and had to accept being traded without recourse prior to Curt Flood's protest, but trust me there are plenty of parallels between the two causes). This discrepancy is not hard for the players to see, and, in this context, it should be no surprise when college basketball players accept gifts and cash from shady sports agents in violation of NCAA rules.
This discrepancy should not be hard for the media to see either. But, the only sports writer that I've come across who realizes this is King Kaufman from Salon.com. Instead, sports columnists take the easy way out and just pounce on a particular player/coach/program for being corrupt and they ignore the larger issue.
I'll save for another day my idea to help fix this problem. Peace out.
-- 2 M.F. White
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
