Cheerleader Boots Save Rookie: Indians rookie pitcher Kyle Denney was the victim of a random shooting yesterday, as a bullet pierced the side of the team bus and hit him in the calf. Luckily, his injury was not so severe, as the cheerleader boots he was wearing slowed the bullet down.



What?



Yes, apparently as part of a rookie hazing ritual, Denney was wearing a USC cheerleader uniform, including tall white boots. This is perhaps the first time that a hazing ritual has prevented further injury. No word on whether the rookie covered in shaving cream was injured.

Read More

Baseball in DC: To no one's surprise, baseball will announce today that the Expos will be moving to the Washington DC area. ESPN's Jayson Stark has a report on what concessions the league offered Peter Angelos so he would not take legal action to prevent the move. Hopefully, this will revive a franchise that at one time was competitive, but has been a doormat since the 1994 strike.



What does this mean for baseball in Canada? So far, the Toronto Blue Jays have remained a viable team, though not one in competition. Canada is even having trouble holding on to its hockey teams, so it should be no surprise that other professional sports are struggling to make it economically. It will be interesting to see if in the absence of hockey, the Blue Jays and Raptors can build up a stronger fan base in Toronto.



But the most pressing issue now is of course the name of the new team. Many people have suggested going back to Senators, which has been the name of previous Washington, DC baseball teams. Personally, I don't like the name. I have some suggestions, but I want to hear others. So, if you have a suggestion email me or post a comment.



My thoughts:

Lobbyists

Interns

527's

Porkbarrelers (think of all the mascot possibilities!)

Read More

American Indian Names: Really a Problem? This article once again describes the Iowa state policy against playing any college team that has an American Indian as its mascot. I say once again because I have noted this policy before.



But again, I must point out the hypocritical nature of this policy. From my earlier post:

But what is ironic is that the University of Iowa is nicknamed the 'Hawkeyes.' I wondered what that referenced, so I looked it up. From Portal Iowa: "The 'Hawkeye State' was first suggested by James G. Edwards as a tribute to Indian leader Chief Black Hawk." So, Iowa, the leaders in the anti-Native American name movement, have a Native American nickname. [H]ow can Iowa possibly get away with such moral grandstanding? And how has no one in Iowa picked up on this?

These questions remain. Is there anyone in Iowa who can help me answer this?



There is also the question of whether or not American Indian nicknames truly present a problem. According to this survey by the Annenburg Public Policy Center (hat tip: Gregg Easterbrook), only 9 percent of American Indians in this country oppose the practice, as opposed to 90 percent that do not find it offensive. That is quite a discrepancy.



I agree that there should not be a tyranny of the majority in this country. That is why decisions like Brown v. Board and Loving v. Virginia were important; the courts stood up and said, "It does not matter what the majority says, this policy violates the constitution and norms of human decency." But it is important to note that the Supreme Court did not take this action when the split was 90/9. By the time the Court ruled, its decision went against the majority, but public opinion was split much more evenly.



Adopting a rule based on such minimal opposition threatens creating a tyranny of the minority, where a small segment of the population dictates policy for the remainder of the country. There is another word for this: elitism. Anytime a small group tries to dictate policy on the basis that "it knows better," democracy is being subverted. The American Indian peoples suffered a great injustice at the hands of white settlers hundreds of years ago. But the majority of the group now seems to be saying: we have more important issues to address than the name of a sports team. Policymakers in Iowa would be advised to heed this lesson and lift its hypocritical restriction.

Read More

This should be illegal... Are you kidding me? Someone please confirm this as a joke so that I can sleep at night. Does this not at least constitute child abuse in some way?



Hat tip: College Basketball Blog

Read More

Williams Loses Arbitration, But May Win Free Agency: An arbitrator has ruled that former Dolphins running back Ricky Williams breached his contract when he suddenly quit the team before training camp this summer. As a result, Williams must repay the team $8.6 million in bonus money he was paid under his contract.



But there is an interesting twist to this story. According to the Miami Herald, if Williams were to file bankruptcy, he could not only avoid paying the Dolphins most of the money he owes, but would also become a free agent in the process. The only risk is that he would lose most of his assets other than his primary home, but there are indications that he would have to sell these assets anyway to pay the team. See below for more, but basically, the bankruptcy proceeding would result in all claims between Williams and the team being settled, including the remaining three years on Williams' contract, allowing him to sign with another team.



The NFL, obviously, is concerned, but the law may not be on their side in this case:

NFL Management Council attorney Dennis Curran declined to comment Thursday, but another source said "the NFL would obviously fight such an attempt," and it would be terrified of other players filing bankruptcy to get out of contracts. [Miami attorney Jim] Fierberg, who has worked on bankruptcy filings involving former NFL cornerback Dale Carter and former Dolphins receiver Tony Martin, said the league likely would lose.



Fierberg noted the 1990 bankruptcy filing of singer James Taylor, who had a contract with Polygram Records dissolved by the court. Although a bankruptcy court can disallow a filing if it's not in "good faith," NFL contract rules would not supersede bankruptcy law. "Bankruptcy law and the Constitution predates the NFL and even the Green Bay Packers," he said.

I will keep a close eye on this matter, as it could have incredible implications on sports contracts.



Update: A further clarification of this strategy from someone knowledgeable about bankruptcy:

Bankruptcy allows the rejection of contracts in many cases including executory contracts, personal services contracts and leases. The idea is that frequently burdensome contracts keep people or a business from gaining a “fresh start” and this is one of the key policy ideas behind bankruptcy. He will have to pay some damages for breaking the contract. A twist to all this is that a Third Circuit case just came down that says you can’t file bankruptcy strictly to take advantage of certain provisions in the bankruptcy code unless you are experiencing some financial distress. My guess is his owing all this money will get him through the financial distress hurdle but otherwise he would run into a good faith problem as a good faith filing is a requirement of bankruptcy protection.

And since this case would arise out of either Florida (11th Circuit -- where the team is) or New York (2nd Circuit -- where the league is headquartered), it is unlikely that 3rd Circuit precedent would have an impact on the case.

Read More

A Deterrence Analysis of New Federal Penalties for Unscrupulous Sports Agents



This probably won't be on the agenda for Thursday's debate between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, but sports agents will now violate federal law (in addition to NCAA rules and, if applicable, state laws) should they lure student-athletes into unknowingly signing contracts that forfeit their remaining collegiate eligibility. The law, which was co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) and U.S. Rep (and former Nebraska football coach) Tom Osborne (R-NE) and signed by President Bush last Friday, holds that violators could be fined up to $11,000 for each offense. Specifically, agents are now 1) forbidden from providing inaccurate information or items of value to an athlete or his family before signing a contract; and 2) required to provide written notice to the player that he can forfeit his NCAA eligibility if he signs a professional contract.

I find the amount of $11,000 to be an interesting and likely appropriate sanction, especially if we consider the notion of deterrence. Here's why: This law appears primarily designed to avoid instances of where agents persuade unprepared college athletes (i.e., those not likely to be drafted or to be drafted late) into renouncing their remaining collegiate eligibility. Now, for a moment, consider that most agents receive about a 4% commission for representing an athlete in signing a contract.



In light of these two ideas, let's consider this hypothetical:



At the end of the 2004-05 college basketball season, Craig Smith, a junior and starting power forward for the Boston College Eagles, contemplates declaring for the 2005 NBA Draft. However, before making his decision, he receives feedback from Marty Blake, the NBA's Director of Scouting, that while he is a good pro prospect, he most likely would not be drafted or perhaps be a late 2nd round pick and is thus better off staying at BC for his senior year and then entering the 2006 NBA Draft. Smith, though, also receives feedback from several agents interested in signing him, and they tell him that Blake is being much too conservative with his projections, and that NBA teams have told them that Smith is a definite early 2nd round pick with a pretty good chance of cracking the end of the 1st round--and thus 1st round guaranteed millions. Plus, with a talented agent representing him, Smith's chances of being a 1st round pick escalate considerably, or so he is told.



Quantitatively then, consider the disparate odds presented to Smith:



According to Marty Blake, Smith has a . . .

0% chance of being selected in the 1st round

20% chance of being selected in the 2nd round

80% of not being drafted

But according to prospective agents, Smith has a . . .

55% chance of being selected in the 1st round

40% chance of being selected in the 2nd round

05% chance of not being drafted

So how would Smith decide? Well, if he were to give equal weight to both Blake and the prospective agents, then he would internalize his odds as follows:

28% chance of being selected in the 1st round

30% chance of being selected in the 2nd round

42% chance of not being drafted

But do you really think that Smith would give equal weight to Blake and prospective agents, particularly if multiple agents are pursuing him and only repeating what the others have said? In fact, it would seem that agents competing with one another for Smith's services would have an incentive to present the most optimistic projection, so that a snow-ball effect of sorts occurs, with each subsequent agent presenting a rosier and rosier picture. So, even assuming that others close to Smith (e.g, his head coach, Al Skinner) agree with Blake, it appears that the more often he is told by prospective agents that he should declare, the more likely he would feel confident in his draft prospects.



In short, then, I don't think Smith would give equal weight to what Blake and prospective agents are telling him, so the odds might be better distributed if we assumed Smith gives 2x as much weight to the agents than what he gives to Blake:

37% chance of being selected in the 1st round

33% chance of being selected in the 2nd round

30% chance of not being selected

Granted, this analysis is completely based on my assumptions. And no, I don't know Craig Smith personally. For all I know, he might rather go to medical school after college than the NBA. But assuming he is like most NBA prospects, I don't think this scenario is too far-fetched. And assuming it's about right, I suspect Craig Smith would declare for the 2005 NBA Draft because 1) he perceives the most likely outcome to be him being drafted and 2) if drafted, he is most likely to be a first round pick.



Or so he thinks.



So what does this have to do with the $11,000 amount? Well, agents typically receive a 4% commission for representing players in contract negotiations. So what would be the commission for an agent who represents a 2nd round pick in the NBA Draft? Well, almost all 2nd round picks sign non-guaranteed contracts for the minimum, which this year is $385,000. And 4% of $385,00 is $15,400--or just a few grand more than would be the new penalty for knowingly providing an amateur athlete with false information. On the margins, then, this law should discourage opportunistic agents from misrepresenting a player's chances of becoming a 1st round pick: If the agent misrepresents to an amateur player that he is a sure 1st round pick, and then that player falls to the 2nd round, that player would only sign a contract that provides the agent with a slightly greater commission than the amount of fine that could be imposed (at least theoretically) on the agent. And if that player isn't drafted, then the agent could really lose out.



The bottom-line is that an amateur basketball player who has remaining eligibility should probably stay in school unless he is certain of being a 1st round pick, in which case I would likely advise him to go pro (since he would be signing a guaranteed, multi-million dollar contract and thus transferring risk of future injury or poor performance from himself onto a pro team), and I explain that concept in my law review article Illegal Defense: The Irrational Economics of Banning High School Players from the NBA Draft.



And this law, if utilized, should make that premise more likely.

Read More

Hamm Protects Gold Medal in Front of CAS: In a 12-hour hearing in Switzerland, Olympic gold medalist Paul Hamm defended his all-around gymnastics title in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. A three-member arbitration panel heard arguments from South Korean gymnast Yang Tae-young that a judge's error cost meant that he should have won the gold medal instead of Hamm.



I have discussed before the problems with this, but it is worth going into again. Procedurally, the Koreans did not file their protest in the time permitted by the rules. If you file a lawsuit after the statute of limitations has lapsed, the case will be dismissed. The rules are there for a reason and must be followed.



But, even more importantly, on-field calls cannot and should not be reviewed after the competition has ended. Judges, like umpires and referees, are humans and mistakes will be made. During a quarterfinal match between Jennifer Capriati and Serena Williams in the US Open, the chair umpire awarded a point to Capriati, even though Williams had won the point. Capriati went on to win the match. Did the officials make a mistake? Yes. But can you imagine anyone changing the result of that match as a result? No, because once a competition has ended, the results have been tallied and medals have been awarded, nothing other than fraud should change the outcome.



In addition, what many reports of this incident have missed is that the judges also missed a deduction that should have been taken during Young's routine. An NBC television commentator noticed the defect in the routine, but the judges did not. If that had been scored correctly, Young would have finished fourth, out of the medals, even with the proper starting value. So even if the routine were to be re-scored, Young should lose.



But the arbitrators must make a stand in this case. Appeals must be limited to rulings on off-field conflicts, such as drug tests. Life is not fair and judges are not perfect. But what happens on the field must stay on the field, or results can never be final, and the spirit of competition will be rendered meaningless.

Read More