Bowl Teams Fail in the Classroom

Exhibit 3,293 as to why we should view NCAA basketball and football as cost-free minor league systems for pro leagues, and not as academic experiences for their participants:

This year's bowl-bound college football teams are struggling to meet the NCAA's new academic standards, with 41 percent falling below minimum requirements and almost half lacking a 50 percent graduation rate, according to a survey released Monday.

Developed last year, the NCAA's new academic standard awards APR points based on how many scholarship student-athletes meet academic eligibility standards. A cutoff score of 925 means an estimated 50 percent of those student-athletes are on track graduate.

Starting this year, NCAA schools that regularly fall below the 925 score can lose scholarships, face recruiting restrictions and miss postseason play.

In a dry run of the system last year, more than 90 percent of Division I teams across all sports had passing scores. According to Richard Lapchick's report, only 33 of the 56 bowl-bound teams -- 59 percent -- got above the 925 cutoff.

Dr. Richard Lapchick of the University of Central Florida conducted this analysis. As we discussed in March, he conducted a similar study of DI basketball teams (and 43 of the 65 teams in the 2005 NCAA Tournament failed to graduate even half of their players). Lapchick now notes that schools are simply taking in football players who cannot do the work (see: University High School). They likely do so because those students will make a lot of money for those schools (which explains why DI basketball and football players spend between 40 and 50 hours a week playing games, traveling, attending team meetings, working-out, and practicing, all the while their classmates are often precluded from working more than 20 hours a week: those players don't generate revenue for their schools when they are in the classroom, so they are encouraged to be out on the field instead).

No wonder why some premiere athletes want to skip college and go to the pros: instead of being unpaid pros in college, they can be well-paid ones in the pros!

Read More

NCAA Shoe Deals: Just Wear It!

An interesting dispute emerged as the Arkansas State University basketball team began its season at the end of October. The school, like many other schools in today's NCAA, had just signed a contract with Adidas as the exclusive supplier for its sports teams. Ever wondered what would happen if a player tried to refuse to wear the school's designated shoe brand?

Enter senior guard Jerry Nicholas who was forced to sit out the first week of the season because he refused to wear Adidas. Earlier in his career, Nicholas sustained a serious injury wearing Adidas shoes. He felt that he was risking further injury by wearing Adidas. At the very least, he was not comfortable competing in Adidas shoes. The school took the position that in order to play, Nicholas would have to wear Adidas. Nicholas held firm. He threatened to sue the school. Perhaps sensing a public relations issue, Adidas, began to intervene sending an athlete care specialist from the company to work with Nicholas to find an Adidas shoe he would be comfortable with.

Ultimately, the sides resolved the dispute with Nicholas wearing a shoe approved by Adidas. It is unclear whose shoe Nicholas is wearing. The logo is obscured, but one can be sure its not Adidas! With the issue resolved, Nicholas and his team can get on with the business of playing basketball.

Along the way, Nicholas and his school received much coverage and criticism that neither wanted or needed. In a column defending Nicholas' decision Matthew V. Roberson notes that the player received criticism from the likes of Dick Vitale for not following his coach's and school's rules. Many felt that Nicholas was acting the spoiled brat who simply wanted to make a fashion statement. Nicholas' argument, well articulated by Mr. Roberson, is that Nicholas, for whatever reason, did not feel comfortable in Adidas shoes. He suffered a serious injury playing in them and whether or not he was scientifically correct, there was doubt in his mind. Why would his school want to feed into its player's insecurity and doubt?

The school received the expected criticism for placing its financial interest above the well being of one of its players. The real criticism should lie in allowing the dispute to get this far when an obvious solution existed. Was the school concerned that it would not be able to get any of its players on board with its new sponsor's products? Did the school agree to a contract with language that made no exception for athletes with medical or other conditions? Did Adidas insist that every player comply without exception?

Typically, schools resolve these issues as Arkansas State ultimately did. The player can use another brand but must cover the logos. In professional sports and in the Olympics, the Federations and Leagues license manufacturers to permit them to arrange for players to use their equipment in the Federation or League event. In that case, everyone gets paid. In the NCAA, the athlete can never get paid, but so long as competing logos are obscured, what's the harm? Are shoes an integral part of a basketball uniform?

If the Nicholas-Arkansas State dispute had reached a courthouse it would have been interesting. Could an NCAA school compel one of its athletes to use product dictated by a contract to which the athlete might be a beneficiary, but is not a party? With the continued growth of collegiate sponsorship and the increasing prevalence of athletes asserting their rights, we might soon see the issue play out.

Read More

NOW READING--Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

I'm also to the end of AS, and it is a great book. It will change your thinking about capitalism, collectivism, work, pride, etc.

 

I don't agree with everything that Ayn Rand taught, but I certainly don't disagree with everything either. I think she had something important to say, and I think the world would be a better place than what it is if everyone read her work.

 

I've already read The Fountainhead which is also very good. What I took from that book was that work should be something you care about passionately, and you pursue it as much as you can striving for excellence.  OTOH, I think it is also fine to compromise your values for the sake of the customer. Rand would howl at this, but all I can say is that Frank Lloyd Wright's chairs were good to look at but you can't sit in them.

 

Where I really disagree with Rand is that you she seemed to want to replace public tyranny with private tyranny. She even held mock courts and "excommunicated" people from her circle. That's not what an open society or the free market mean to me though she was certainly free to do what she wanted within the confines of her own company.

 

I disagree with Rand's dogmatism. This doesn't mean I accept all the subjectivity coming from the left or academia. I believe in an objective reality that can be perceived, but I also believe that authority should be questioned. Rand didn't seem to accept this. It was her way or the highway, and I'm not down with that.

 

 

Read More

Professor Gregory Bowman on Trade with China & Implications for Professional Sports

My colleague Professor Gregory Wells Bowman has a provocative op-ed piece in today's Jackson Clarion Ledger. Greg--who practiced international trade law at Baker and McKenzie in D.C. before joining the faculty of Mississippi College School of Law in 2004--addresses U.S. trade with China, and argues that whether we like it or not, the U.S. will not have a significant impact on China's trade policies in the long term. He notes that as China continues to develop a middle class, Chinese consumers will replace U.S. consumers as the primary purchasers of Chinese goods. Couple that fact with the fact that many non-U.S. companies can provide products and technology as good or better than ours, and we can see why the U.S economic influence over China will only dissipate in time.

Greg concludes his op-ed piece with this legal and policy directive:

[M]any U.S. trade policies do not deter Chinese development, but rather simply divert business abroad. In fact, if we eased our current controls on China, we would have greater export trade with China, and that would help our cause in trade discussions with China . . . the U.S. must stop trying to play international trade cop with China and accept that we cannot rig the game in our favor. Only then will we be able to formulate an international trade strategy with China that can maximize our interests.

The op-ed piece pertains to sports in a number of ways. For instance:

* If the United States adopts less restrictive trade policies with China, will professional sports leagues enjoy greater autonomy in pursuing Chinese fans?

* Will a growing Chinese middle class mean more profitable sports leagues in China--and thus, would more American basketball players not good enough for the NBA find playing in China an attractive option?

* How about recruitment of premiere Chinese athletes -- we remember the intense negotiations required with the Chinese government to allow Yao Ming to play in the NBA -- will a more harmonious trade relationship between the nations encourage greater reciprocity between Chinese and American sports associations?

There are many other questions as well. Also, if you are interested in international trade, be sure to check out Greg's publications on SSRN.

Read More

Florida AG's Office to Investigate University High School

Bill McCann alerts me to an investigation by the Florida Attorney General's Office into University High School for criminal fraud. As we discussed on Tuesday, students at the Miami-based University High tend to receive preposterously high grades (exams are untimed and open book; assignments contain the answers in the back; students do not take classes), and many high school athletes have taken advantage of that setting in order to meet the requisite GPA for NCAA scholarship eligibility.

Basically, star athletes who can't cut it at their local high schools transfer to University High, where they suddenly obtain the kind of grades one would expect of Dartmouth's or MIT's incoming class. And then they matriculate to a college with a premiere football program and generate significant revenue for that college.

It's nice to see the Florida Attorney General's Office promptly responding to the New York Times exposé, but it's disappointing that schools like this even exist, and it makes you wonder why there aren't more stringent entry rules for prospective schools. I wonder how many of these "schools" are out there?

Also, why are these colleges taking University High grads? I thought college football players were supposed to be "student-athletes" and not "athletes"?

Oh, yeah, they take them so they can make a lot of money for the college. Sorry to ask such a rhetorical question!

Read More

Uncle Charlie

I became an uncle this week. It hasn't changed my life a whole lot except I'll have to buy at least one Christmas gift each year now. For my brother Jason, I expect the whole world has changed.

 

I have a good reason for not having kids myself. I'm selfish. I want to spend all the money I make on me and not braces, school clothes, and college funds. This is all just corollary to my decision to never marry. I want to live like Hugh Hefner. I may not have Hef's money, but thanks to Viagra, I know my golden years will be more golden than I ever imagined.

 

The cool thing about being an uncle is that you get to spend time with a kid, but you don't have to change diapers, yell at him, or watch as he smashes your car into a tree during a drunken night with his shithead teenage friends. Ahhhhh, the joys of parenthood. . .

 

The upside of my bachelor lifestyle will be that I'll probably have a fair amount of cash when I croak. This makes Reid Dalton Broadway and his siblings my likely heirs. Hopefully, they'll be well into middle age when they collect.

 

Congrats to Jason and Amy for bringing a new life into the world.

Read More

Red Sox Want Their Ball Back

The Boston Globe reports this morning that lawyers for the Boston Red Sox filed suit yesterday seeking ownership of the baseball closer Keith Foulke threw to 1B Doug Mientkiewicz last October to clinch the World Series.

You may recall that Mientkiewicz actually kept the ball after the game was over, refusing to turn it over to the Red Sox. Mientkiewicz and the Sox reached an agreement that the Sox would get the ball temporarily but it would be returned to Mientkiewicz at the end of the year unless ownership had been resolved.

Well, ownership has not, in fact, been resolved and the Red Sox are claiming that they own the ball, essentially because Mientkiewicz was a team employee.

So, who's ball is it? Lucinda Treat, GC of the Sox, spoke to my sports law class last spring, and made a great case that the ball belongs to the Sox (essentially because he was a team employee). However, Mientkiewicz did have actual possession of the ball. It will interesting to see how this plays out.

One other group who may have a claim: the St. Louis Cardinals (Lucinda actually brought this possibility up when she discussed the issue) . . . since the clinching game was, in fact, played at their stadium.

Read More