Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Monday, June 4, 2007
New sports law scholarship
New this week:
William B. Gould, Globalization in collective bargaining, baseball, and Matsuzaka: labor and antitrust law on the diamond, 28 COMPARATIVE LABOR LAW & POLICY JOURNAL 283 (2007)
Casey N. Harding, Casenote, Nickel and dimed: North Carolina court blocks Carolina Panthers’ attempt to avoid payment of workers’ compensation benefits to injured athletes, 28 NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL LAW JOURNAL 241 (2006)
Gary P. Quiming, Comment, Playing by the rules of intellectual property: fantasy baseball’s fight to use Major League Baseball players’ names and statistics, 29 UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI`I LAW REVIEW 301 (2006)
Sunday, June 3, 2007
David's Revenge? Teams Suspect Stern Rigged NBA Lottery to Punish The Tankers
Ian Thomsen of Sports Illustrated reports on the most recent meeting of the NBA competition committee--a meeting held in Orlando last Tuesday and one that Thomsen calls "the most important competition committee meeting in years." The four-hour long meeting was chaired by Commissioner David Stern and attended by representatives from 29 of the 30 teams. Apparently things got testy when the topic turned to tanking, as Thomsen writes that there are "suspicions among some league executives and coaches that Stern rigged the results of the lottery." According to these suspicions, Stern somehow manipulated the ping-pong balls so as to punish the three teams (Grizzlies, Celtics, and Bucks) that were alleged to have purposefully lost games:According to people who were there, the big issues were the alleged tanking of regular-season games, the mess created by last week's lottery and the rule prohibiting players from leaving the bench during on-court altercations that resulted in the suspensions of the Suns' Stoudemire and Boris Diaw during the West semifinals.As often as I criticize David Stern, I am going to defend him here. I feel confident saying that the lottery was not rigged and there was no conspiracy. Stern may be powerful, but short of telekinetic powers, I strongly doubt that he could or would have rigged the lottery, particularly given that an independent lottery firm--albeit one hired by the NBA--actually conducts it. The results were certainly unfortunate for the three teams with the three worst records, but that is the nature of a lottery where no team--including the team with the worst record--has a likely chance of landing either of the first two picks.
Stern admitted the league has created a perception that the worst teams have been losing on purpose over the second half of the season in hope of improving their position in the lottery. He said the fans don't like it, and he added that he was open to suggestion on how to redress the perception.
There are suspicions among some league executives and coaches that Stern rigs the results of the lottery -- in this case to punish the three worst teams (Memphis, Boston and Milwaukee, who came out of the lottery Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the draft) for contributing to the perception of late-season tanking. To deal with the conspiracy theories, the league spelled out during the committee meeting how the lottery machine works and how it would be practically impossible to fix the outcome. (I've been in the closed room during the lottery, and the NBA mechanism is a lot like the Powerball or other lottery machines that you see on television.)
Amid the discussion of tanking spoke up former Memphis coach Tony Barone, representing the Grizzlies in place of team president Jerry West (whose absence was seen by some as a statement of protest), to make an impassioned defense of his team's play. He was adamant that the Grizzlies hadn't been tanking games and he responded forcefully and sincerely to the insinuation.
As to the fact that the three neediest teams were shut out of the top three picks, Stern again said that he was open to suggestion for a better system.
As to whether teams intentionally tanked games, I guess it depends on how one defines
"intent." I'll consider the Celtics, since I follow them more closely than I do any other NBA team.1) Did Coach Doc Rivers set out to lose games? Probably not, as I do not think his conscious object was to see his team lose games, particularly given pride and a weakened hold on his job. But did he experiment with lineups in ways that he would not have had his team been competing for a playoff spot? Probably, perhaps because he wanted to evaluate players for next season or because he was trying to catch lightening in a bottle, and by doing so, he likely knew there was a substantial risk that his team would lose more games.
2) Would Paul Pierce have played through elbow and foot injuries had his team been in playoff contention instead of being shut down with a few weeks left in the season? Probably, especially given his reputation for playing hurt. But was he really 100% and covertly kept out by GM Danny Ainge so that the team would lose more often? Probably not.
3) Could Al Jefferson have played through a minor knee injury in April rather than sit out a week? Probably. But was he "kept out" to ensure additional loses? Probably not.
I guess I would call it "passive tanking" which might reflect the "reckless" mens rea in criminal law: being aware that certain behavior poses a substantial risk of causing harm, but having other, possibly acceptable, intentions for the behavior. That may not comprise laudable conduct, but it's not as egregious as is generally implied by the word "tanking."
For related coverage on Sports Law Blog and The Situationist, check out:
- Vindication or Unfairness in Last Night's NBA Draft Lottery? (5/23/07)
- The Situation of the NBA Draft (4/24/07)
- Tanking: The Fan's Perspective (4/21/07)
- Ryan Gomes and "The Hunt for a High Draft Pick" (4/14/07)
- Why Does Tanking Occur in the NBA but Seemingly Not in Other Leagues? (4/9/07)
- The Pursuit of Crappyness: Are NBA Teams Tanking Games for Greg Oden and Kevin Durant? (4/5/07)
- Throwing Games and the NBA Draft Lottery (4/16/06)
Redesign the lottery so that the real drawing happens live on international TV. Seeing grim men in suits arrive in the TV studio with the envelopes all ordered by some secretive behind-the-scenes process does not help perceptions.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Random Thoughts on Various Subjects
1. RON PAUL
Dr. Paul is kicking ass in polls and on the internet. So, why doesn't he get more press?
The mainstream media is beholden to mainstream candidates. They are more ready to fawn over the undeclareds like Fred Thompson and Al Gore than they will over a person of substance like Ron Paul.
I can't wait for the next GOP debate.
2. LINDSAY LOHAN
This bitch needs to OD and die. Christ.
3. CINDY SHEEHAN
Got sold out by the Democrats and hung up the crusade. Aside from Ron Paul, there isn't a person in DC with the balls to oppose this war. Everyone agrees that the war is a clusterfuck, but no one will go on record to be against it or vote to end it. Sad sad shit when you consider that 70% of the American public agree that Iraq was a mistake.
4. TB
The Andrew Speaker case is a strange one. The bottom line is that the fucker had a drug resistant case of TB. He knew it. And he spread it not giving a fuck about the harm to others. I'm sorry, but that makes the guy a grade-A dick in my book.
Some in the libertarian community may disagree, but I think a disease like Speaker has is a threat to others. I know he didn't ask for it, but it doesn't matter. I just know what I would do in his situation. I would protect others by turning myself in to the proper authorities. Life is a bitch, but that's the way it is.
Thanks to Mr. Speakers lack of ethics in this matter, a whole lot of other people are afraid right now because they might have the same shit Speaker has. There ought to be a law against this sort of thing.
5. CHAVEZ
People are seeing Venezuela's Hugo Chavez for what he really is--a communist dictator who will violate people's freedoms.
The Left esp. in the USA secretly admires Chavez, and they root for him. These people are idiots. Communism and socialism are failures, but these shit-for-brains cocksuckers can't be troubled with the facts. And if you dare to disagree, Chavez will shut you down.
Leftists champion free speech--their free speech. But once they get in power, they do not hesitate to silence opponents. Chavez has already done this. Trust me, folks, this is the tip of the iceberg. Chavez will be putting people in prison and doing all sorts of other bullshit before long. You can count on it.
5. IDIOT OF THE WEEK
This week's award goes to Danny Glover for having his lips pressed firmly to the ass of Hugo Chavez. Glover praises Chavez. How can this fool say he is a champion of human rights? Danny Glover is a shithead.
Link.
6. TRUE SHIT
The middle name of President Harry Truman was just the letter 'S.'
Source.
Dr. Paul is kicking ass in polls and on the internet. So, why doesn't he get more press?
The mainstream media is beholden to mainstream candidates. They are more ready to fawn over the undeclareds like Fred Thompson and Al Gore than they will over a person of substance like Ron Paul.
I can't wait for the next GOP debate.
2. LINDSAY LOHAN
This bitch needs to OD and die. Christ.
3. CINDY SHEEHAN
Got sold out by the Democrats and hung up the crusade. Aside from Ron Paul, there isn't a person in DC with the balls to oppose this war. Everyone agrees that the war is a clusterfuck, but no one will go on record to be against it or vote to end it. Sad sad shit when you consider that 70% of the American public agree that Iraq was a mistake.
4. TB
The Andrew Speaker case is a strange one. The bottom line is that the fucker had a drug resistant case of TB. He knew it. And he spread it not giving a fuck about the harm to others. I'm sorry, but that makes the guy a grade-A dick in my book.
Some in the libertarian community may disagree, but I think a disease like Speaker has is a threat to others. I know he didn't ask for it, but it doesn't matter. I just know what I would do in his situation. I would protect others by turning myself in to the proper authorities. Life is a bitch, but that's the way it is.
Thanks to Mr. Speakers lack of ethics in this matter, a whole lot of other people are afraid right now because they might have the same shit Speaker has. There ought to be a law against this sort of thing.
5. CHAVEZ
People are seeing Venezuela's Hugo Chavez for what he really is--a communist dictator who will violate people's freedoms.
The Left esp. in the USA secretly admires Chavez, and they root for him. These people are idiots. Communism and socialism are failures, but these shit-for-brains cocksuckers can't be troubled with the facts. And if you dare to disagree, Chavez will shut you down.
Leftists champion free speech--their free speech. But once they get in power, they do not hesitate to silence opponents. Chavez has already done this. Trust me, folks, this is the tip of the iceberg. Chavez will be putting people in prison and doing all sorts of other bullshit before long. You can count on it.
5. IDIOT OF THE WEEK
This week's award goes to Danny Glover for having his lips pressed firmly to the ass of Hugo Chavez. Glover praises Chavez. How can this fool say he is a champion of human rights? Danny Glover is a shithead.
Link.
6. TRUE SHIT
The middle name of President Harry Truman was just the letter 'S.'
Source.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Arizona to Waive Sales Tax to Attract 2009 NBA All-Star Game?
Later this summer, NBA Commissioner David Stern will announce which city will succeed in its bid to land the 2009 NBA All-Star Game. The game has come under controversy of late, with this year's game in Las Vegas drawing rebuke for attracting, in Bill Simmons' words, "so many gangbangers and troublemakers" (an observation vehemently challenged by Jason Whitlock when he spoke at Harvard Law School in April). Next year's game will be played in New Orleans, a city still recovering from Hurricane Katrina and one that some commentators and players are said to be uncomfortable with the All-Star festivities being held.But the All-Star game is still a major attraction, particularly because it is a weekend long affair that generates significant revenue and attention for the host city and its businesses. Just consider that for all of the problems in Las Vegas, All-Star weekend attracted over 85,000 visitors and created nearly $91 million in local economic impact. That impact in part derives from the type of person who is able to attend the game: someone who can afford to pay between $1,000 and $6,000 for a game ticket.
And the city of Phoenix wants its turn at those benefits in 2009--so much so that some state lawmakers are seeking to pass a waiver of the state sales tax charged on tickets for the game and its associated attractions (Arizona has a 5.6% sales tax, with no exception for food or prescription drugs). Matthew Benson writes about this in today's Arizona Republic. The waiver, which is supported by Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, is said to be worth between $300,000 to $400,000 to the NBA and its sponsors who buy the tickets. Some believe that the NBA won't select Phoenix without the waiver, particularly because the city just held the game in 1995 and the NBA likes to "spread the wealth" when it comes to All-Star city selections.
There are at least two core arguments against the proposal, however.
1) A State Sales Taxes is Not a Comparative Disadvantage: 45 out of the 50 states have a sales tax of some sort, and the only states without one are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon. Although I grew up a mere 15 minutes from the New Hampshire border, I just don't see Manchester or Salem or Nashua landing the game, nor do I see the NBA turning to Anchorage, Wilmington, Billings, or Helena. Sure, Portland Oregon would be viable, but wasn't landing the first overall pick good enough news for them? (in fairness, Paul Gerald of the Willamette Week Online wrote a good piece today entitled "Ill-Starred: Why Portland Never Gets an All-Star Game"--Portland has never hosted the game. But they will be hosting Greg
Oden for the next 15 years, so I can't feel too sorry for them).2) Waiving the Sales Tax for an NBA All-Star game Benefits the Rich: Ken Cheuvront, an Arizona state senator, draws parallels between a All-Star Game sales-tax waiver and the big-dollar incentives offered by municipalities hoping to lure retail developers: "It seems absolutely ridiculous. I don't support it. I don't think it's good public policy. The tickets sell out anyway." And as Benson writes in his article, the NBA controls most of the tickets, and they tend to go those with a lot of money--those who presumably least need the sales tax break.
What are your views? Would waiving the sales tax for the NBA All-Star game--but not for groceries or prescription drugs--be a sell-out to the rich and privileged or would it be good business policy to attract an event that will generate revenue and attention and that might not otherwise occur?
Kevorkian
Jack Kevorkian left prison today after eight years of incarceration. He is a hero.
Religious fuckheads believing they know the will of Almighty God will excoriate Kevorkian for his "crimes." But his only crime is assisting people in a decision they made to die a painless death. As a libertarian, I believe people have the right to die. It is right to do with your own body as you wish, and if your own body does not belong to you, then nothing does. The Religious Right and other such busybodies need to learn to mind their own goddamn business.
What was done to Jack Kevorkian was an injustice. The man never hurt anybody. He didn't deserve this.
