I watched LSU and came up wanting

Well I finally got a chance to see LSU tonight (albeit sans super-frosh Tyrus Thomas), as they eked out a win at South Carolina 64-61, and, well, I wasn't overly impressed. Here's what I liked and disliked about the 21-7 LSU Tigers.

- With all due respect to Tennessee's Chris Lofton, Glen "Big Baby" Davis is the SEC Player of the Year. He is a brute force down low, and he showed that with 24 and 10 tonight. As an added bonus, he has a move called the "Wilt Chamberneeze" (courtesy to whoever ESPN's sideline reporter was). Combine all of this with the fact that he has a cool nickname, and he is the SEC Player of the Year.

- I think LSU is susceptible to quick teams that can shoot the 3. In the post, they are extremely tough, but I think they can get beat on the break. South Carolina hit 10 3's tonight, and at least 25% of their total points came on the fast break. I also think LSU can be susceptible to teams that play a zone, because they don't shoot the ball that well from 3-point land. Coming in, they only had 3 people with at least 5 threes on the year, and only one that had at least 20 (Darrel Mitchell with 68). They were 5 of 13 tonight.

- After coming up with that formula to beat them, it dawned on me that they matched up with a team like that last year in the NCAA Tournament, when they fell to UAB 82-68. Maybe this doesn't mean anything, or that I'm still bitter because I picked LSU to the Sweet 16 last year, but I found it interesting.

- Let me add it's very possible that they are twice as good with Tyrus Thomas, who is averaging 12.7 points and 9.3 rebounds per game, but was out with a sprained ankle. All I know is, I don't think the LSU team is capable of making a deep tourney run. They'll probably be a 3 or 4 seed, so I don't see them falling in round 1, but I could definitely foresee a 2nd round loss. But another thing to keep in mind is that LSU is very young, with 7 freshmen. They have a very bright future.

- A final basketball note, props to ESPN Classic, which showed last year Arizona/Oklahoma St. tourney game, which was very good. Arizona won 79-78 on a shot from Salim Stoudemire, and I have to say I enjoyed watching it. Tomorrow afternoon they are showing last year's Louisville/West Virginia Elite Eight game, which was extremely entertaining, but I have to work, which is unfortunate.

What to read:

I don't have muchh to say right now (although I may have something up later about LSU), so I'll just give you some links of things I enjoyed:

Villanova forward Curtis Sumpter will take a medical redshirt and return next season. This is big for Villanova, because they will be losing Randy Foye and Allen Ray next year.

Phoenix Suns GM Bryan Colangelo is leaving Phoenix to take the same position in Toronto. This should be great for Toronto, because Colangelo has done very well in Phoenix.

Kyle Whelliston of ESPN breaks down some of the Mid-Major Conference Tourneys that are taking place this week.

Stewart Mandel of SI on how Matt Doherty has made the most of his shot at FAU.

Deadspin invites you to take part in their NCAA Tournament Preview.

Sweaty Men Endeavors remarks about how Detroit has 10 technical fouls in the last 3 games... including one on Rasheed Wallace for laughing.

Kevin Antcliff wonders just how good the NBA is right now.

Joe Lunardi's Bracketology is always a good read.

Lack of AI? Culture Bias and U.S Olympic Basketball

In a baffling move, Allen Iverson--who is the NBA's 2nd leading scorer and is 8th in assists per game--has been left off the U.S. Olympic team. Iverson had repeatedly expressed a desire to represent his country and to be on the team, which is directed by Jerry Colangelo and coached by Mike Krzyzewski. The team will be announced this Sunday and will include 22 NBA players, 2 college players, and 1 high school player. And no Allen Iverson. I don't care who else is on the team: Iverson should be on it. Just check out his stats from this season and where he ranks in the NBA:

Ranks #2 in Points Per Game(33.0)	Ranks #8 in Assists Per Game(7.3)
Ranks #3 in Steals Per Game(2.06)	Ranks #1 in Minutes Per Game(43.5)
Ranks #5 in Minutes Played	Ranks #3 in Field Goals Made
Ranks #5 in Steals	Ranks #2 in Free Throws
Ranks #7 in Efficiency Ranking	Ranks #8 in Assists

But perhaps more impressive than his stats is his reputation for being the toughest player in the league. The guy is no taller than 6'0 (and my brother Bill, who is 6'0 and has stood next to Iverson, swears that Iverson isn't taller than 5'11), weighs no more than 185 pounds, and yet he fearlessly drives to the hoop all the time, unafraid of being mauled by guys a foot taller and a 100 pounds heavier. He also plays hurt all the time, and doesn't worry about his contract or suffering further injury. In other words, he plays exactly how coaches tell their players to play. He is a warrior and an inspiration for how the game should be played.

So why then was he left off? Could it be the tattoos? The rap music? The "thug" appearance? Clearly, not selecting Iverson badly undercuts the legitimacy of the selection process. But more importantly, think about the underlying message it sends: it repudiates this "culture of merit"/Horatio Alger society that we like to believe exists in our country, that we tell others exists in our country, and that would presumably be reflected in how we chose our Olympians. Just the opposite, actually, Colangelo and Krzyzewski's decsion seems emblematic of the paternalism epidemic sweeping men's basketball. Hopefully the rest of the world doesn't take notice.

Why We Love Sports

Every once in a while, it's important to take a step back and remember why we all love sports in the first place. It's not because we like to see rich players and even-richer owners bickering over millions of dollars. Sports is so much bigger than the pros. It's so much bigger than age limits, salary caps, free agency, steroids and pre-game shows. Sports is about passion, about playing for the love of the game. It's about ordinary people creating extraordinary moments. And that's what makes this story so incredible. Click on the link and watch the video. You will not be disappointed.

Thanks to SportsProf for the link to DaveSez, who had the original post.

UPDATE: I have fixed the link to the video. If it doesn't work, then click here for a number of other videos with the story.

The Many Faces of Sports Law: Immigration

Immigration law is not a topic we normally cover on this site, but it can have a profound impact on sports. After 9/11, a number of colleges had difficulty getting return visas for their foreign students, including those recruited to play sports. And for the Olympic Games, where citizenship is key, immigration law can be of the utmost importance. Just ask Ben Agosto and Tanith Belbin, the US ice dancing pair that won the silver medal. One of the first thank yous they delivered was to their lawyers.

Without that legal team -- led by Barney Skladany of the Washington office of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and assisted by Paul Virtue of Washington's Hogan & Hartson -- Agosto and Belbin would have been forced to sit out their second Olympic competition in four years.

Belbin, a native of Canada, had a citizenship problem. Although she and Agosto had skated for the United States 32 times in national and international competitions, only American citizens can be on the U.S. Olympic team.

She came to Detroit to train with Agosto in 1999, earned her status as an alien of "extraordinary ability" in November 2000, and received her green card in early 2002. But she faced a five-year residency requirement, which meant she wasn't eligible for citizenship until 2007. She and Agosto needed a miracle by Dec. 31, 2005, to make the U.S. Olympic team.

(Coyle, "Akin Gump Wins Olympic Race with the Clock," Natl. Law Jrnl., 02/28/06). The rest of the article details the process the team used to expedite citizenship, including an assist from Michigan senator Carl Levin.

Will Stephen A. Smith shut up?

Earlier on this blog, I expressed my wishes that Skip Bayless would just shut up. Today, I express the same sentiments toward Stephen A. Smith.

While I (and most everyone else) have thought this many times over the past few months, this is specifically in regards to his article yesterday in the Philadelphia Inquirer, "As a black man, Cheeks watches his step." Let's take a look. (Smith's quotes in blockquote)

Maurice Cheeks is a black man.

Thanks Stephen A. I had no idea.

Under normal circumstances, this would mean absolutely nothing. But if you are a head coach in the National Basketball Association, and you are perceived as the warden of an asylum run by the players, this is something you can ill afford.

Especially as a black coach in the NBA.

Well, if you didn't know Cheeks was a head coach in the NBA, Smith told you twice. So that's helpful.

Smith apparently also subscribes to the Scoop Jackson School of Broadcasting, which calls for as much vague and cryptic writing as possible.

Here's the dirty little secret talked about amongst African Americans in the sports world: While the numbers are proliferating, methodically erasing the need to make an issue out of the paucity of black coaches in the game, it hasn't changed the unwritten standard attached to their job description.

Most coaches are hired to win basketball games. Black coaches are hired to do so while keeping players under control.

If this were not true, you still wouldn't see many black coaches in this game.

Let's ask Jim O'Brien about this. He coached for one year in Philly, led them back to the playoffs, and was fired for the effort. I didn't hear Smith complaining about that one though.

Cheeks was brought here to be something Jim O'Brien wasn't: a winner with a personality.

The onus placed on Cheeks was not just to win basketball games and ingratiate himself with the Philadelphia community. It was, and still is, to keep the players happy, so we wouldn't hearing about how Billy King is entertaining the idea of accepting expiring contracts just to start anew.

So let me get this straight, Smith complains that Cheeks was brought in to win and have personality, with his main complaint seeming to be that for Cheeks, winning alone is not enough. But he makes no mention of the fact that these were the exact same conditions for O'Brien, who won and was fired after one season.

Also, I think the reason King is entertaining the idea of accepting expiring contracts is because Philly has won exactly one playoff series since 2001, and their core is starting to get old. It has nothing to do with the coach.

But that's only as long as there's a vision for a future. A plan in motion that includes the right coach, capable of manning the ship. Translation: Keeping the players in check.

Is Cheeks the right guy? This question has been asked, albeit not by me.

That, in itself, is a problem he needs to fix. Now!

First of all, let me say I haven't heard of too many thoughts about the Sixers firing Cheeks, although since Smith writes for a Philadelphia paper, I guess I can give him the benefit of the doubt. However, (winning) coaches around the league are in jeopardy of losing their jobs. This is probably Rick Adelman's last year in Sacramento, and all he has done is lead the Kings to the playoffs the last 7 years. Jeff Van Gundy has been catching heat in Houston, and he's led Houston to the playoffs the last 2 years. Both of those coaches are white, by the way.

As a Philly fan, I like Cheeks. I don't want him fired, and I don't think he'll be fired. But what's Smith trying to prove here? That he can make racial claims? Too bad that a so-called "national reporter" has to resort to sensationalism in his writing.

I'll definitely watch my step the next time I think about reading a Smith article.

NBA Age Limit and Questioning "Business Reasons"

Last week, Greg posted on David Stern's recent comments about the new NBA age limit. Stern said the new limit was "a business issue" and nothing else. He noted that it would be better for the NBA that amateur players develop in college, and that NBA scouts could better assess their talent while college, and, after playing in college, these players could more immediately make contributions when entering the NBA. To illustrate this point, he cited Celtics rookie Gerald Green, a high schooler taken with the 18th pick in last year's draft who hasn't played much and has bounced back-and-forth between the NBA and NBDL.

In light of Stern's reasons, I found it interesting to read that the 20th player selected in the same draft as Green -- Julius Hodge, a 21-year old college senior from NC State -- has, like Green, barely played this season and, like Green, has bounced back-and-forth between the NBA and NBDL.

So let's apply the Stern 3-Part Test:

1) Did Hodge develop his game in college? Against other college players: yes; against NBA players in games, practice, or summer league: no.

2) Were NBA scouts better able to assess his talent? Apparently not.

3) Did Hodge make an immediate contribution when entering the NBA? He's averaging 1 point per game on 36% shooting--and he's now off to play for the Austin Toros of the NBDL.

So I wonder: maybe it's not about a player's age, but rather others' ability to measure his talent? I mean, why would NBA scouts, with all of the information they had obtained from watching Hodge play college basketball (and at a major program), pick him so high? How come he hasn't made an immediate impact after doing so well in college and for so long in college? Wasn't he great in March Madness? Wasn't he great in the conference tournaments? As Dick Vitale would say, wasn't he awesome baby??!! In fact, Vitale actually did say that.

And if the NBA business model is really enhanced by amateurs playing in college, then how come there have been so many college juniors and seniors who were drafted high but ended up playing poorly in the NBA? Rafael Araujo, Trajan Langdon, Ed O'Bannon, Mateen Cleaves, Kirk Haston, Brandon Armstrong, Dahntay Jones, Marcus Haislip, Reece Gaines, Marcus Banks--this list could go on and on and on. These players were twenty-one, twenty-two years old when they entered the NBA. They had played three or four years of college where they had excelled. They had attracted the interest of NBA scouts who gobbled up all that "college basketball information." Would an arbitrary age floor of 19 or 20 years of age have stopped any of them from being drafted? Nope. Too bad the NBA couldn't create a rule that protects itself from drafting poor players, because that is what it really needs.

The other thing is this: don't automatically nod your head when commissioners, CEOs, and other managers cite "business reasons" as a justification for a move. "Business reasons" does not mean the reasons are correct, intelligent, or even legal--think of all of the companies that have failed in this country: they likewise made "business decisions," but they weren't good ones. And some of them--like MCI WorldCom or Adelphia or the scores of companies that have violated labor and antitrust laws--also made decisions based on "business reasons" that were illegal, even though it took us a while to figure that out. "Business reasons" can also be a purposefully ambiguous phrase that veils other, more socially-nefarious reasons. We sometimes don't pick on up these problems because when a business says that it is doing something to "maximize profits" or for "maximum efficiency," we tend to accept that reason without further inquiry--and businesses know that, so they can get away with a lot of stuff, at least for a while. Sometimes a healthy dose of skepticism toward corporate behavior isn't the worst thing. Businesses are not always right, and they are not always good or law-abiding.

And going back to the NBA Draft, again, despite the popular and appealing rhetoric, it's not about age and it's never been about age; it's about talent, and scouts' ability to assess it. Age is just a proxy, and it appears to be a poor one in the NBA. Any good CEO would tell you that.

Connecticut vs. Villanova, Part 2

In the first meeting, Villanova beat Connecticut 69-64. This time, Connecticut came out on top 89-75.

Through about 30 minutes, I almost thought I was watching the first game. It was tight, then Connecticut built up a little lead, and Allan Ray went on a mini-run by himself to put Villanova up 54-53 (very close to last game). In the first meeting, Villanova got ahead and never looked back. This time, Connecticut countered with a 13-2 run, and took a 66-54 lead, which was too much for Villanova to overcome.

I think Marcus Williams is the best PG in the nation right now. He controls the game even without scoring, with 10 points and 12 assists. For the year, he averages 10.5 PPG and 8.3 APG. He is quick enough to beat his man off the dribble, and always finds the open guy in a position to score. It's fun to watch a pure PG as good as Williams play.

Also for Connecticut, Rashad Anderson is the 6th man of the year in college basketball. He's not really good at creating his own shot, but he hits key shots from the outside, but more importantly, he's great at knocking down a 3 with a man in his face. I don't know how many times I've seen Williams come down on a fast break, kick it to Anderson in the corner, and Anderson knocks down a 3. He hit 5 3's today, and wound up with 17 points off the bench.

The biggest difference in this game than the last was that Connecticut was too much inside, and Villanova didn't get quite as much from Will Sheridan. He had 9 points and 11 rebounds, but I'd bet he also got blocked at least 5 times, a lot of them from Hilton Armstrong, who had 8 blocks. And even though the guards for Villanova had decent scoring nights, they weren't all that efficient, and couldn't really get anything in the lane because of Armstrong, Josh Boone, and Jeff Adrien.

My preseason pick to win it all was Villanova, however, slowly but surely I'm starting to turn in favor of Connecticut. They've got great balance, a great PG, athletic wings, and they play great defense, especially down low. I think either Villanova or Connecticut would be my pick to win it all, but I'm not sure which one right now. Both are great teams, and hopefully we'll get to see them quare off again, maybe in the Big East Tournament or even the NCAA Tournament. Both of these teams have that capability.

The day that was in college basketball

Lots and lots of action on Saturday. Some bubble teams got big wins which may put them over the hump, Texas showed why they were the best team in the Big 12 in a big way, and as I talked about in my last post, we had a record set. Let's jump right in:

- #1 Duke beat Temple 74-66 on the back of Shelden Williams, who had 23 points and 12 rebounds. But what I found most interesting about this game was how Temple played JJ Redick. They made sure someone was tightly on Redick all the time, even within their zone. They made other guys beat them, which they had a tough time doing. From experience, I've sorta been in JJ's shoes, where it looked like Temple was face-guarding him, and this is frustrating as an offensive player. You have to work extra hard to get open to get the ball, and once you do, there's one or two guys on you so you don't get a good shot. It clearly hampered Redick, as he was 3-10 with 11 points. Definitely something to keep watch for, because Duke is not good enough to go far without Redick. Food for thought:

Paulus: 3-6 FG
Dockery: 1-4 FG
Nelson: 3-8 FG
Melchionni: 1-3 FG

And this was getting wide open looks because of all the attention on JJ. Duke only won by 8 against Temple, who is now 15-11. This is something to watch for, because if you want to beat Duke, you either have to A) get Shelden Williams in foul trouble or B) shut down Redick. This may be a way how.

- #7 Texas estabslished that they are in fact the best in the Big 12, as they stomped a very good and very hot Kansas team 80-55. The only thing that concerns me for Texas was Daniel Gibson's performance - 6 points and 4 fouls in 23 minutes. Sometime in the tourney, they're going to need him to carry them, and if he doesn't play better, they can't win it all.

- In the SEC, Arkansas beat Tennessee 73-69 in a game that should get Arkansas into the tourney, especially since this one was played in Tennessee, and the Vols were #3 in the RPI before the game. Ronnie Brewer continues to impress, as even though he only had 9 points, he also had 9 assists and pulled down 5 rebounds. As Ken Pomeroy calculates, Arkansas was 22 in the nation in pythagorean winning percentage before the game, so they could be dangerous.

- A dandy between NC State and Boston College, as BC prevails 74-72 in 2 OT. Craig Smith had a nice day with 18 points and 14 rebounds, and the NC State balanced attack was there as usual, as their leading scorers had 16, 14, 12, and 10. I like both of these teams and think both are capable of making the Sweet 16, and maybe even the Elite Eight in the right bracket. Both are well coached and they are balanced, which is nice.

- Two good Big 10 teams won today, as Illinois beat Iowa 72-58 in Champaign, and Ohio St. beat Michigan 64-54 in Columbus. I like Illinois a little more come tourney time because they play some of the best defense in the nation and because Dee Brown is capable of controlling games by himself, but Ohio St. could be very dangerous if they are hitting shots from the outside. They didn't do that today, but got a very solid performance from Terrence Dials, but if they want to make a run, they need the outside shooting to consistently be there.

- One NBA note, because I have to give the Sixers some love after beating Chicago 108-102. However, I'm not complimenting them because they beat Chicago, but it was how they did it that was impressive. Consider this: Michael Bradley, Steven Hunter, and Kevin Ollie started, and Shavlik Randolph was their leading rebounder. And they won an NBA game. Incredible. On another good note, from the numbers, Iguodala looks to have carried the momentum he got during the All-Star break into the season, scoring 20 points tonight.

Is it March yet?

Congratulations to J.J. Redick

Before I make a post about the Saturday that was in college basketball, let me congratulate J.J. Redick, who became the ACC's all-time leading scorer on Saturday.

Redick only shot 3-10 and had a season-low 11 points in a win vs. Temple, but the 11 points brought his career total to 2,590, breaking Dickie Hemric's 51 year-old record.

So congratulations to J.J. Redick for a great feat.

Knicks Debut of Steve Francis; Close finish in Minnesota

First game in New York for Stevie Franchise, or rather, Stevie Franchise-Killer, and well, let's just say that things could have gone better. NY only lost to New Jersey 94-90, but that was a lost closer than the game actually was, but for a 35-21 4th quarter advantage for New York. Let's check the six-headed monster at the PG/SG position.

Steve Francis - 33 minutes, 16 points
Stephon Marbury - 36 minutes, 6 points
Jalen Rose - 28 minutes, 18 points
Jamal Crawford - 13 minutes, 0 points
Quentin Richardson - 33 minutes, 4 points
Nate Robinson - DNP

Well that could have gone better. Rose played well, Francis was ok, Marbury, Crawford, and Richardson were mainly ineffective, and Robinson DNP. I will give Isiah some credit, this team is just randomly throw together, they are almost fun to watch. If they play together for more than 3 weeks before Isiah makes some changes, and they get on somewhat the right page, it could be fairly exciting.

I was impressed by Channing Frye. 20 points and 8 rebounds in only 27 minutes, so he was pretty fun to watch. Nenad Krstic for New Jersey also impressed, shooting 11 for 11, and showing good range on the jumper. If he can consistently put up good games, and VC decides for sure that he still wants to play there (and not tank) and not come up with any phantom injuries, they could give the Heat a decent series in round 2.

In the other exciting game of the night, Denver beat Minnesota 102-101 in overtime. But it was how the game ended that made it fun to watch. With Denver up 99-95 with about 15 seconds left, they did everything in their power to lose the game.

First, Mark Blount hit a jumper. 99-97. Denver inbounds the ball to Carmelo Anthony, who tries to dribble through KG and Trenston Hassell. Hassell winds up with the steal, throws and alley oop to KG. 99-9. Timeout Denver. They have trouble getting the ball (they still had two timeouts left), and K-Mart tries to throw one to Andre Miller in the backcourt, but it was painfully short. Ricky Davis steals it, pulls up for a jumper, scores it. 101-99 Minnesota. Timeout Denver, and they again have K-Mart throwing it in. He tosses it to Carmelo in the corner, who is guarded tightly by Trenton Hassell. So Carmelo shoots it over him from downtown, and drains it. KG misses a final shot, Denver wins 102-101.

Great game for Carmelo Anthony, with 30 points, 8 boards, and the game-winner that was about an 8 on the difficulty level.

My only complaint about the game was FSN constantly showing Mark Madsen. He did not play tonight, but every timeout or commercial break or really any decent Timberwolves play, they would show Madsen on the bench dancing. Every time. It was painful to watch.

NFL Franchise and Transition Players

Only 6 players as per ESPN. Here they are and my thoughts:

John Abraham - NY Jets - Hard to say if he'll actually wind up with the Jets, as he's been involved in lots of trade rumors. According to the Delaware County Times, the Eagles 9among other teams), might be interested in Abraham, who wants to get out of New York. So I like the decision to franchise Abraham if they can get something for him. Abraham is a franchise player.

Jeff Backus - Detroit Lions - Backus is solid and at age 28 he should still have a couple years left. Good deal for Detroit. Backus is a franchise player.

Nate Clements - Buffalo Bills - Clements is one of the top corners out there from what I can see, so I like this deal. Only had 2 INT but that's because people didn't throw at him. Clements is a franchise player.

Deshaun Foster - Carolina Panthers - I really like Foster, but his health is a concern. He only played 4 games in 2004, and only had a handful over 200 carries last year. In addition, they still have Nick Goings and Eric Shelton (their 2nd round pick last year) coming back from injury. Foster could be making over $5 million next year, which seems like a lot from him. Foster is a transition player.

Steve Hutchinson - Seattle Seahawks - Really like this. Hutchinson was the 3rd or 4th most important player to that offense, after Walter Jones, Matt Hasselbeck, and maybe Shaun Alexander. $6 million a hefty amount, but Hutchinson is real good. Hutchinson is a transition player.

Brian Williams - Minnesota Vikings - If he plays like he did last year, this is good. In 2004, Williams struggled a lot, which caused the Vikings to sign Fred Smoot. Last year after Smoot went down with an injury, Williams stepped in and played superbly, and was a key reason for the Vikings turnaround. If he does come back, having Williams or Smoot (whoever doesn't get the starting job) might be the best Nickelback in the NFL.

By the way, rules for franchise and transition players, again from ESPN:

Franchise players must be offered the average of the top five salaries at their position or 20 percent over their 2005 salary. Franchise players (unless they are exclusive) can negotiate with other teams, but any team signing a franchise player would have to compensate the players' former team with a pair of first-round draft choices if the offer is not matched. If a player is named an "exclusive franchise" player, they can't talk to any other teams.

Transition players must be offered the average of the top 10 salaries at their position for the club to maintain rights of first refusal. There is no draft-pick compensation if a transition player ends up signing with another team.

Brooklyn Law Review Article: It's Not About the Money

I have posted on SSRN an updated version of my forthcoming law review article: It's Not About the Money: The Role of Preferences, Cognitive Biases, and Heuristics Among Professional Athletes, 71 Brooklyn Law Review __ (forthcoming, 2006). The article applies two law and economic approaches to sports contract-making: the rational actor model (i.e., athletes have economic and other employment preferences and pursue them) and behavioral economics (i.e., cognitive errors affect athletes' employment preferences in ways that they do not appreciate). I conclude that behavioral economics in sports contract-making appears far more salient than many presume. I would welcome any comments by e-mail (mmccann[at]mc.edu).

Also, you may download the article for free from the abstract linked above. The download only requires an SSRN account, which is free (and which provides you with access to thousands of interesting articles, papers, and drafts).

Odds & Ends

A few quick notes.

- All of this trade talk, and the best we got today was a four-team deal that included stars such as Earl Watson, Reggie Evans, Ruben Patterson, and Vitaly Potapenko. Should help Denver, because they didn't really need Watson with Miller & Boykins, and Evans is a very good rebounder. I doubt it'll have much of an effect though.

- Really good finish in Cincinnati, as Villanova pulls it out 74-72. Great play and execution on an in-bounds play in the final seconds that gave them a layup. We used to run the same play in high school, and it always worked there either. Radny Foye was awesome, scoring 25 points and grabbing 15 rebounds, and he's a guard.

I was also impressed with the Bearcats, who played a very good game, led by Eric Hicks and his 21 point, 9 rebound game. Even though they lost, this should help Cincy in their bid to secure and at-large berth in the tourney. They are 18-10 right now, and end the regular season with two tough homes. They are at Seton Hall (another team fighting for its life) on 2/28, and home against West Virginia on March 4th. They need a split to feel good about themselves, or they'll have some work to do in the Big East Tournament.

And speaking of the Big East Tournament, how great will that be? I wish all 16 teams would make it, because now it looks like Notre Dame may very well miss out despite playing some very good basketball, but this should be extremely exciting.

- According to a report, Zygy Wilf apparently told Daunte Culpepper that a trade is not in the works for him, which if you've read my stuff, you know I think this is a good thing. Daunte's still got loads of talent, and I'm excited to see what he can do under Brad Childress.

Don't Tell Me The Results!

I am a big fan of technology and the Internet age -- the rise of cyberspace has allowed me to publish this blog, makes everyday tasks much easier and provides hours of online procrastination. But the instant gratification, Need to Know Now!! culture that it has spawned is often problematic. The latest example -- the results of the Olympics.

An hour ago, I grew bored at work and decided to check out the New York Times homepage, as I had not read today's issue. What am I greeted with? A banner headline telling me the results of tonight's figure-skating competition. What?? Now that I knew the result, I checked out ESPN -- same thing. CNN/SI -- same thing!! Why do these Internet news sites insist on making it impossible to go through the day without knowing the results of competitions that will be shown that night. Well, I thought, perhaps they are trying to scoop the rival NBC network by taking away the drama from tonight's broadcast. But, when I visited NBCOlympics.com, guess what I found? A banner headline telling me the result! And NBC wonders why its ratings are so low.

Now, I have no problem with news sites featuring stories about the competitions, including the results, posted in real time. Many people want to know, and they should be able to. But a lot of people don't want to know. Should the major news organizations not respect this desire?

It would not be hard for new sites to have a link on the homepage that says, "Dramatic Result in Ladies Figure Skating! Click here for results!" Putting this on the page, rather a banner headline with the result, would allow the sites to maintain the "We are the fastest" bragging rights, while still allowing some fans to watch the broadcast in suspense. It seems to me that part of the responsibility of the news media is not only to satisfy the public's thirst for knowledge, but also to respect the public's desire not to know, at least for six hours.

One news site has it right. ABCnews.com has a link that says "Get the results here first" without spoiling the ending. You can keep up with the day's latest news, and you maintain the option of learning the results of events that will be televised tonight. If they continue this, then I guarantee that during the next Olympics, ABC news will get my business. Other sites won't, until they respect my right not to know.

Incidentals Matter: Antitrust Class Action Filed Against NCAA

My thanks to Penn State/Dickinson Law School 2L Bobbi-Sue Doyle-Hazard and Attorney Chris Callanan for alerting me of the media coverage concerning an important federal antitrust lawsuit filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint was filed by several former Division I-A athletes who represent a class of thousands of former and current Division I-A men's football and basketball players. They seek to prohibit the NCAA from precluding member colleges from offering athletic scholarships up to the "full cost of attendance" (meaning all of the actual costs of attending college). Presently, scholarships may cover tuition, room, board and required books but not incidentals, such as phone bills, laundry, school supplies, and travel expenses. Particularly for players from lower-income families, "incidentals" can prove quite costly. In fact, according to the NCAA's own statistics, incidentals for basketball and football players average about $2,500 a year--for families hovering around the poverty line (which, for a family of four, is one that earns just under $19,000 a year), $2,500 obviously means a lot.

In terms of antitrust law, the complaint primarily concerns Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act: the plaintiffs contend that these NCAA rules comprise an unlawful restraint of trade by denying men's basketball and football players of the billions of dollars in revenue they generate for the schools and conferences in which they play. The suit also alleges that this revenue should at least pay for the "full cost" of attending college. This argument follows the observation that Division I-A men's football and basketball seem to provide a economic windfall for just about everyone--the schools, conferences, coaches, sneaker companies, television networks, ad agencies, merchants, videogame companies--everyone, that is, except for the persons who actually generate the market interest: the basketball and football players. This is a topic, among others, that Joe Rosen and I address in our forthcoming essay in the Case Western Reserve Law Review.

How will this case resolve? I suspect we'll see a settlement, along with the NCAA assenting to cover more of the incidentals. The NCAA can't afford to lose this case: the lawsuit applies to 144 colleges, and if back compensation for "full cost" is imposed, around 20,000 affected athletes will receive an estimated $117 million in unreimbursed incidental expenses. Plus, NCAA President Myles Brand has previously enunciated a need to move closer to "full cost," so doing so now--even when threatened by litigation--would not likely appear contradictory.

For two excellent media accounts of this lawsuit, take a look at Mark Alesia's "Lawsuit: NCAA Should Pay 'Full Cost'" in the Indianapolis Star and Doug Lederman's "Court Challenge on Athletic Aid" in Inside Higher Ed. For more reaction from legal scholars, check out Hanno Kaiser at Antitrust Review and Josh Wright at Truth on the Market. And for analysis from a seasoned litigator, check out Tom Kirkendall's post on Houston's Clear Thinkers.

Engendering Change in the Olympics

I admit it. I watched Olympic Ice Dancing. Perhaps this makes me less of a man, but there are two things working in my favor. One, I watched it with my wife. Two, I like Tanith Belbin. As I watched it, though, I couldn't help but thinking -- are we far off from seeing a male couple out on the ice?

The Olympics, like most sports, are divided by gender. And often they are divided according to traditional gender roles and stereotypes. Ice Dancing is one man and one woman. Synchronized swimming is female-only. Ski jumping is restricted to men. Softball is restricted to women. But as gender roles and ideas of sexuality change over time, how will this affect the composition of Olympic sports?

Bill Mays knows that change will not come overnight. Mays made history in 1996 when he became the first male to compete in the US national championships of synchronized swimming. He also competed with his partner, a female, in future national championships and the 1998 Goodwill Games. His attempt to compete in the 2004 Olympics in Athens was denied, however, when swimming's international governing body (FINA) did not petition for mixed duet synchronized swimming to become a sport.

Why, though, should there have to be a mixed event? Is there some reason why men cannot compete against women in this sport? I can find no gender requirement in FINA's rules for synchronized swimming. And it does not seem that a male would have any great advantage over a female in a sport that values artistry as much as strength. Besides some possible teasing about competing in a "woman's sport," what harm is there if males compete?

The same is true for ice dancing. Is it inconceivable to see an all-male or all-female dancing pair? For now, the answer is yes. Rule 500(2)(b) of the International Skating Union rules state that a pair shall be comprised of one man and one woman. But is this rule based on anything other than tradition or views of what is "normal"? A pair of men would not seem to have a great advantage in ice dancing, which features footwork, artistry and some lifts, but no jumps. It might seem a little odd at first to see two men in sequin jumpsuits dancing in tandem to 'Bolero', but so did Billy Jean King defeating Bobby Riggs.

As traditional notions of gender and sexuality break down, will sports evolve to reflect changing attitudes? Or, is it possible that sports will lead the world into these changes, much like Jesse Owens and Jackie Robinson paved the way for greater racial equality in this country? Change may be slow in coming, but don't be surprised if you see a man swimming in sync or two men dancing on the ice in the not-too-distant future. And after a while, such an idea might not seem odd at all.

Deja vu all over again!

As I mentioned about a week ago, it was only a matter of time before Isiah Thomas made another bad trade. Well, we didn't have to wait long, and Thomas did not disappoint, as he traded the expiring contract of Penny Hardaway and 20 year-old Trevor Ariza for Stevie Franchise.

Talent wise, Francis is the best player of the group. In every other area, this trade makes absolutely no sense for the Knickerbockers. Let me count the ways:

1) I get this is no longer of consequence, but it screws them over as far as the cap is concerned.
2) They basically have 5 shoot-first PG/SG in Francis, Stephon Marbury, Nate Robinson, Jalen Rose, and Jamal Crawford. How can these guys get along both on and off the court, and why push the young guy with solid potential in Nate Robinson even deeper on the depth chart? This is not a move that will get the Knicks anywhere near the playoffs, so what's the point?
3) The underrated bad part, in my opinion, is giving up Ariza. I understand he's in Larry Brown's doghouse, but he's 20 years old, very athletic, and defensive-minded. He was an effective player last year. He is solid.

And the critics agree.

Chad Ford of ESPN says that he now realizes Isiah's plan is to come out with the best player of each trade, regardless of contracts, chemistry, personnel, etc.
John Hollinger of ESPN says the Magic come out as big winners.
Marty Burns of SI likes the deal for the Magic.
Tony Mejia of CBS Sportsline doesn't know what Isiah is doing.
Mike Kahn of FoxSports wonders what the point of the deal is.
Dan compares them to a Mid-Major team "that has talented guards who can shoot and run but they are incapable of recruiting big men."

I'll leave you with an interesting observation from Chad Ford:

It makes you wonder whether Isiah really played on the same team Joe Dumars did in the late '80s. Dumars looked at his years playing with the Pistons and came to the conclusion that chemistry, work ethic and guys who could fill a particular role were the foundation of a contender. Isiah came to the opposite conclusion.

How many bids for the MVC?

Speculation has run rampant lately about the Missouri Valley Conference and the amount of bids they will get in the NCAA Tourney. At this point, I'd say they're guaranteed 3, and could get as many as 5.

However, a lackluster showing at the BracketBusters probably didn't help. For example:

Wichita St. lost at home to George Mason.
Southern Illinois lost at home to Louisiana Tech.
It took Northern Iowa 2 OT at home to beat Bucknell.

Now, in the defense of the MVC, George Mason, Louisiana Tech, and Bucknell are very solid teams that all have a good chance to make the tourney, especially GM and Bucknell. However, the top teams struggling at home is not exactly what the MVC was looking for.

Another thing that will hurt is Southern Illinois losing tonight to Evansville, who is last in the MVC. Not a good sign for a team looking for a tourney bid.

However, things still look good for 5 bids, at least according to ESPN Bracketologist Joe Lunardi. He explains it better than I can, so read that article if you get a chance.

For the record, here's the RPI's of the top 5 teams in the MVC:
Northern Iowa - 22
Wichita St. - 24
Missouri St. - 26
Creighton - 30
Southern Illinois - 36

My guess? I've got the MVC for 4 bids and at least 1 or 2 wins in the tournament among them. My money is on Northern Iowa, Wichita St., Missouri St., and Creighton getting a bid. We'll find out in 3 weeks.

Mental Illness and Leadership Positions

Benedict Carey of the New York Times has a fascinating piece on the apparent prevalence of mental illness among U.S. presidents. (Carey, "West Wing Blues: It's Lonely at the Top," N.Y. Times, 2/14/2006). According to a new study by the Duke University Department of Psychiatry, almost half of American presidents from 1789 to 1974 suffered from a mental illness at some point in life, and more than half of those presidents struggled with their symptoms — most often depression — while in office. According to the study, their illness was typically evidenced by excessive consumption of alcohol. Yet the study identifies a hopeful slant that works to combat the common stigma of mental illness: if people with mental illness can function at the presidential level, then perhaps we shouldn't so summarily dismiss or ostracize those with mental illness.

But reading this piece made me wonder about whether we might find a similar trend among coaches, and particularly among pro coaches or college coaches in high-pressure/high-profile situations. Just speculation on my part, but I suspect that coaches and presidents may share some of the same personality traits -- high ambition, tireless work ethic, an exaggerated sense of self-critique -- so it seems at least plausible that they might share in a hyper-tendency to suffer mental illness. It would certainly make for an interesting study, if such a study hasn't already been conducted. Moreover, if we found evidence that coaches were similar to presidents in suffering from mental illness, then think about the powerful social message that would send about how we should regard the employment capabilities of the mentally ill. And lastly, I wonder: might there be something endemic about "leadership positions" that attracts certain personalities, and do those personalities share the same positive and negative traits regardless of the type of leadership position they hold?

Barry Bonds to retire after 2006?

Well, one day after Barry Bonds told the USA Today in a phone interview, "I'm not playing baseball anymore after this. The game [isn't] fun anymore. I'm tired of all of the crap going on. I want to play this year out, hopefully win, and once the season is over, go home and be with my family. Maybe then everybody can just forget about me.", he clarified that statement.

He told MLB.com "If I can play [in 2007], I'm going to play; if I can't I won't, If my knee holds up, I'll keep on going. I'm playing psychological games with myself right now. I don't want to set myself up for disappointment if things don't work out this season."

Some, such as Gene Wojchiechowski of ESPN can't wait to see him go. Myself, I hope he sticks around. Sure, he's got a big ego, and is absolutely terrible with the media, especially amid steroid speculation. But, he's fun to watch. He's a great hitter, incredible eye at the plate, and one of the best players ever. In 40 years, no one's going to remember that he was awful with the media, they're going to remember that he was one of the top players ever. Which is why I hope he sticks around for a little while longer.

Stadium Security: Necessary or Invasive?

Chris Graham of the Augusta Free Press has an extensive piece on the legal implications of new techniques in stadium security. The article also addresses a recent preliminary injunction imposed by a state judge in Florida prohibiting officials at Raymond James Stadium -- home of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- from conducting searches (the case is now being heard in federal court). (Graham, "At What Price Security?," Augusta Free Press, 2/20/2006). I was interviewed for the story. Last October, Greg wrote an outstanding post on this topic and the constitutional implications of pat-downs and other searches.

Here are some excerpts from Graham's story: (I debate the issue with a lawyer at the ACLU):

"I think since 9/11 we've become more tolerant of intrusions on our property and person - that we recognize that times have changed, and that we have to give up some of our personal freedoms to ensure security," said Michael McCann, a professor at the Mississippi College School of Law and a regular contributor to The Sports Law Blog.

That has generally been the case in sports venues across the country in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But there has been something of a blowback that has gotten going in recent months - with suits filed against stadium authorities in Tampa Bay and San Francisco related to patdown searches of fans attending NFL games in those two cities.

"The immediate legal issue is our Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures," said Rebecca Steele, the director of the ACLU of Florida's Tampa office, which is acting on behalf of a Tampa Bay Buccaneers' season-ticket holder to challenge the patdown-search policy at Raymond James Stadium.

"The law is really pretty clear - that a suspicionless patdown search is presumed unconstitutional unless certain exceptions exist. What we said, and the court agreed, is that those exceptions just don't exist here," Steele told The Augusta Free Press . . .

McCann, for his part, agrees with Steele that "there's a limit that we don't want to cross where it gets too invasive."

"But I think there's a general consensus that times have changed, and we've been more fortunate than anything else that we've only had 9/11," McCann told the AFP.

"Sporting events, perhaps more than any other venue, would appear to be a prime target for a terrorist strike. And one terrorist strike in a stadium could change everything - be it a bomb, be it any type of attack," McCann said.

"The fact that we haven't had that type of event is a tribute to the security," McCann said.

Does stadium security go too far? Is it unnecessary? Does it deter? Is it really about teams not wanting to be sued later? And if God-forbid a terrorist group struck at a sporting event, how would that change the world of sports? Would people still go to games?

NBA All-Star Game

After a long weekend of festivities, the game finally arrived. And it didn't disappoint.

The first half was a little up-and-down, with very little flow or intensity at all, as the West stormed to a 70-53 lead. The highlight of the first half was when Shaquille O'Neal missed a free throw by throwing it off the backboard and basically throwing an alley oop to himself, which I found amusing. Other than that, it was fairly low-quality, although still entertaining.

The second half got much better, as the East played much better. Now, whether that was because, as LeBron said, "I think Charles Barkley kick-started us. He said at halftime the game was over." Or maybe it was because the 4 Pistons and Paul Pierce came on midway through the 3rd, caused some turnovers (with the help of Tony Parker), and picked up the intensity of the game. Either way, it ended up with a 122-120 victory for the East.

The MVP of the game was LeBron James, who scored 29 points and grabbed 6 rebounds, including shooting very well from the outside, and blocking/fouling McGrady on the last shot for the West.

The biggest mystery of the night was Tracy McGrady, who has apparently been plagued by personal problems of late. He looked like he was having no fun at all out there even playing in front of his home crowd and scoring 36 points. Very strange.

All in all, a pretty entertaining game, and a nice end to a nice weekend, including the Rookie Challenge, the Slam Dunk Contest, the game, and lots of Sir Charles and "The Jet." Another reminder to me about why the NBA All-Star game and weekend far surpasses all other professional sports' all-star games.

Bye Bye Ricky

So much for Ricky Williams being a changed man after his "sabbatical" or "religous experience," or whatever you want to call it. Williams failed his fourth drug test, which means that he's suspended for the year. And since he'll be either 29 or 30 when he comes back, there's a very good chance that this will effectively end his career.

Williams ran for 743 yards and 6 TD in 12 games last season while splitting time with rookie Ronnie Brown, so he was an effective player even with the time off. With Williams gone, this will obviously place more of a burden on Ronnie Brown, who was very good last year, and has the potential to be a great player, with skills running and catching the ball. However, this is still a blow to the Dolphins, not only because he could play for them, but because they could have potentially gotten something for him in a trade. As it is, bye bye Ricky, who is suspended for a year.

Slam Dunk Contest, Etc.

All-Star Saturday night, including Shooting Stars, the Skills Challenge, the 3-Point Shootout, and the most entertaining, the Slam Dunk Contest. My thoughts on the whole night:

- Charles Barkley: "The best dunk ever being decided by a white man. This ain't right." [about Ernie Johnson]

- This whole night was made infinitely more entertaining by EJ, Chuck Bakrley, Kenny Smith, and Reggie Miller. Sir Charles in particular made me actually laugh out loud more than once.

- That being said, Magic Johnson is just awful. He almost ruined the dunk contest. For example, durin the first round of Nate Robinson's misses, he said, "He should just dunk. Stop trying for the fancy one, let's just move on." Next round, twice as many misses, "This is great for the fans. Keep going Nate, we all want to see this." And then of course he had to get dramatic, "This shows to all you little people out there, you can play in the NBA, and if you can jump high enough, you can even be in the Slam Dunk Contest." Thanks Magic. I guess we didn't learn that from Tyrone "Mugsy" Bogues or Spud Webb.

- What was Josh Smith doing with the tape? Anyone know his reasoning behind that?

- In my mind, Andre Iguodala deserved the win. For one, he didn't take 10 minutes to complete a dunk (granted, Robinson's dunks were very nice). Also, he had the best dunk of the night, where he came from behind the backboard, had to dunk, and put it in. Great dunk. His bounce, behind-the-back dunk was also quite awesome. He should have won in my opinion. Of course, I'm a Philly fan, so I could be biased.

- Robinson jumping over Spud Webb was really, really cool, and a great dunk.

- If anyone watched "The Greatest Dunk Ever" before the night's festivities, my vote would have been for Jason Richardson's "bounce reverse windmill" jam was 2003. That was just awesome.

- The other events were kinda boring. The Shooting thing was kinda cool, but it was too quick. The Skills was kinda dull, and the 3-Point Shootout wasn't really dramatic at all, and the shooters weren't very good. Where was Kyle Korver?!?

- All in all, I can thank Sir Charles and Kenny "The Jet", along with Nate Robinson and Andre Iguodala for a very entertaining night. Only thing left is the actual game itself, which is Sunday night!

NBA All-Star Weekend

Now for the all-star game that I do like and has entertaining things, unlike the Pro Bowl. The weekend started off last night with the Celebrity Game and the Rookie Challenge. Andre Iguodala was the star of the night, as he put a show in the Rookie Challenge, won by the Sophomores won 106-96. On the night, Iggy had 30 points, including 9 dunks.

On Saturday night, the main attractions are the Slam Dunk Contest and 3-Point Contest. The two main competitors in the Dunk Contest are Josh Smith and the aforementioned Iguodala, who says he has some tricks up his sleeves for tonight.

Tomorrow night, we have the All-Star game itself, which does actually get pretty entertaining in the 2nd half when they start to actually try some defensively. So check it out if you get a chance, and I can guarantee it will be more entertaining than the Pro Bowl, although that's not really saying much.

Wouldn't You Have to Be Drunk to Wear This?

Now that Mike has convinced me never to buy food at a fast-food joint (2/18) or ballgame (2/11) again, perhaps something a bit more irreverent is in store. As it turns out, you can be "drunk as a stump," but you shouldn't drink when you're a tree:

The Stanford Tree has been felled for bad behavior.

Fifth-year senior Erin Lashnits, who dressed as the rowdy mascot for the university's irreverent band, lost her Tree privileges Thursday after her blood-alcohol content was measured at 0.157 at a basketball game against Cal. That's not only too drunk to legally drive but too high to be a responsible Tree.

To avoid possible disciplinary problems with the school's athletic department or administration, the band decided to give her the ax.

If Lashnits becomes a lawyer, she will almost certainly have to include this incident on her bar application. That should make for an interesting explanation...

Hold the Blood, Please: More Concerns for Food Security

We all complain that food at ballgames costs too much. A fairly disgusting hot dog can run up to seven bucks, and clearly-microwaved nachos can cost three or four dollars. So some of us try to get around those prices by bringing in our own food.

We now learn that there might be another good reason to do so, at least if we assume that what I call "food security" is of similarly low-levels at ballparks and fast food restaurants:

A woman who said she found blood smeared inside her bag of french fries is suing McDonald's Corp. for at least $10,000. Lora Davis, 42, said she was eating the last several french fries that came with her Happy Meal when she noticed the blood.

"At first, I felt disbelief," she said. "Then fear." Davis bought the meal at the drive-through window of a Gastonia, N.C., McDonald's on Nov. 26, 2004, and ate it at her office desk.

When she found the blood, she said, she called the fast-food restaurant and spoke with an apologetic assistant manager. The person later called back and said the blood came from an employee who had suffered a cut. A regional manager later told Davis the unidentified employee had been fired.

An attorney for Davis said attempts to reach an out-of-court settlement have been fruitless so far. A McDonald's official declined to comment Wednesday on Davis' case because her legal claim is active.

Davis said she continues to have her blood tested, though she has not suffered any illness. She said she stopped eating out for six or seven months. "I get sick when I think about it," she said.

Why a 42-year old woman would order a Happy Meal is another matter, however. Any bets on whether she's also a Harry Potter fan?

Jim O'Brien v. Ohio State University: Materiality, Honesty & Breach of Contract

Doug Lederman of Inside Higher Education explores Judge Joseph T. Clark's holding in O'Brien v. Ohio State University (Ohio Court of Claims, 2006). (Lederman, "Court Win a Rule Breaker," Inside Higher Education, 2/16/2006). The case concerns a breach of contract claim: O'Brien alleges that Ohio State breached his employment contract by firing him after learning of O'Brien's past NCAA recruiting violations. Specifically, back in 1998, O'Brien gave (or, in his words, "loaned") $6,000 to Alex Radojevic, a 21-year old, 7'3 center from Serbia and Montenegro, in order to help pay for Radojevic's father's funeral. O'Brien never bothered to report this "loan"--which, unsurprisingly, was never repaid, even though Radojevic was selected 12th overall in the 1999 NBA Draft, after which he immediately signed a multi-million dollar contract with the Raptors. O'Brien felt that it wasn't important enough to mention, since he was doing it out of charity, and that he suspected that the NCAA would rule Radojevic ineligible anyway, since Radojevic had likely earned income playing basketball in Europe. And that is exactly what happened: the NCAA would later rule Radojevic ineligible because he had earned income playing hoops in Europe.

But when O'Brien told his athletic director about the loan six years later, he was fired. O'Brien sued the school for $9.5 million in lost wages and other damages, contending that Ohio State couldn't discharge him until the NCAA had ruled on the violation. Although Judge Clark held that O'Brien did, in fact, violate NCAA rules, that violation--giving $6,000 to a potential recruit--wasn't sufficiently serious to warrant his dismissal. O'Brien's contract with Ohio State did not specify that an NCAA violation could trigger a termination of the contract, and absent that specific language, Judge Clark reasoned that Ohio State could not terminate it. A future hearing will determine how much Ohio State owes O'Brien in damages.

Duke Law Professor Paul Haagen and I were interviewed for Lederman's article:

Experts on college sports law had mixed assessments of potential impact of the Ohio State decision.

Michael McCann, an assistant professor of law at Mississippi College School of Law and a contributor to Sports Law Blog, characterized as “interesting” Clark’s conclusion that a “clear NCAA violation by Jim O’Brien” does not constitute a material breach of his employment contract. He added: “By implication, the judge seems to be diminishing the importance of NCAA recruiting rules, and the idea that a rule violation should not constitute a material breach could — in theory — create deleterious incentives for coaches when recruiting players.”

Paul T. Haagen, a professor of law at Duke University, took a narrower view, saying the case in no way “goes to the authority of the NCAA to regulate or of the authority of Ohio State to regulate” college sports or the behavior of coaches. “This is not judicial activism,” he added. “This is what judges are supposed to do — using basic contract law to decide whether” Ohio State followed the contract it had with O’Brien. ("Whether the judge got it right from a factual standpoint,” he said, “is a different matter,” on which he did not offer a judgment.) But the lesson for Ohio State and other colleges, he said, is that “institutions should be incredibly careful about putting themselves in a position in which a judge, doing what a judge is supposed to do, will hold them liable for things they believe with good reason — whether or not it’s sufficient reason — that they need to do.”

Should we really believe O'Brien when he says that the $6,000 gift to a potential recruit wasn't important enough to mention to his employer? Or that he actually thought that Radojevic was going to be ruled ineligible by the NCAA, but that he still wanted to give him $6,000 anyway? Maybe O'Brien was genuinely moved by Radojevic's plight--his father had just died, after-all, and the family apparently had little money. Plus, Radojevic was 21-years old and not 17-years old, so a suspicion that he had earned compensation playing hoops in Europe wasn't implausible. But even if we believe that O'Brien knew all of this, it still doesn't explain why he would keep the "loan" a secret for six-years or why his charity would just happen to go to a 7'3 center (there is no apparent evidence that O'Brien was otherwise charitable). As to the significance of the employment contract's lack of specificity, you can expect, as Paul Haagen notes, that we'll now be seeing more carefully-tailored deals between colleges and coaches.

Daunte on the block?

Well, the latest news from Minnesota is that Daunte Culpepper can be had for a 2nd round pick... which I find to be incredibly stupid. Although Daunte says he is focusing on rehab and not the trade talks, this really can't be good for his mindset. The Star Tribune cited an "anonymous source" as saying that the Vikings were looking around, trying to find Daunte's trade value.

Of course, you could say Daunte has brought a lot of this on himself with the boat scandal, as well as demanding more money this offseason after the nightmare that was his last season, namely 6 TD, 12 INT, and a season-ending knee injury that leaves him a question mark for the start of next year.

My view? I really hope they hold on to him. What's their backup plan? Brad Johnson? He's 38 years old and has a weak arm. He's not an awful option for maybe one more year, but after that he'll probably about be done. Philip Rivers? He'd probably cost more to get than we'll get for Daunte, and he's completely unproven. The draft? That's even more of a crapshoot.

The Vikings already traded Randy Moss last offseason, and that didn't work out so well. For the most explosive WR maybe ever, they essentially got a WR at the #7 pick, since Napoleon Harris ended up being useless. Do we really want to make the same mistake and trade the franchise player two years in a row?

Please Vikings, have some common sense here. Keep Culpepper.

Mike Davis to resign at the end of the season

Mike Davis announced today that he will resign at the end of the season, and much like I wrote about Missouri fans after Quin Snyder resigned, I don't think you'll find too many Indiana fans that are upset about this.

Apparently, according to what Davis told the players, the stress and pressure on his family that came along with the job was a little too much. It was not, I guess, because he wasn't a very good coach. Indiana's record is currently 13-9, including 5-6 in the Big Ten, and they fell out of the top 25 this past week for the first time all season.

Although Davis did reach the NCAA Finals in 2002, that was basically with all of Bob Knight's players, such as Tom Coverdale, Jared Jeffries, Jeff Newton, etc. With his own players, the results have been less than impressive.

Davis also suggested that the reason that the fans never really embraced him was that he's not an Indiana alum. Again, I guess this had nothing to do with the fact that he wasn't really a good coach, and never had much success with his own players.

Renegotiation of NFL Contracts: Comparing Chad Pennington and Terrell Owens

Rick Karcher brings up a good point about the Jets efforts to renegotiate Chad Pennington's contract:

When I read this story, I couldn't help but think about the irony between the Jets-Pennington situation and the Eagles-Owens situation, which really highlights the impact of non-guaranteed contracts in the NFL.

Rick is right. And think about: while Terrell Owens was widely lambasted as greedy and selfish when he sought to renegotiate his contract last year-- "If he is so unhappy with this contract then why did he sign it?", the Jets are somehow seen as rational economic actors who deserve our understanding. Why are we more comfortable when a team seeks to lower a contract value than when a player seeks to do the very opposite? Aren't they fundamentally doing the same thing: looking out for their best economic interests? Or is it just about TO?

David Stern on the Age Limit

I really like Bill Simmons. His story is the dream of many bloggers -- start a website doing something you love, then get hired by a major company to do that same thing (only for a paycheck!). And now, in addition to columns on sports movies and gambling, he has begun doing some very interesting interviews. This week, he has one with David Stern. The chat covers a wide range of topics, including conspiracy theories ("the frozen envelope") and the WNBA ("It's probably the last and best shot for a successful women's professional sports league.").

But the most interesting segment (in my opinion) was Stern's take on the age limit. In a nutshell, the NBA went for it because it is good for business:

This was not a social program, this was a business issue. There was a serious sense that this was hurting our game. Having an 18-year-old player not playing, sitting on the bench, is not good for basketball. If we could have these kids develop for another year, either (A) they'd see that they weren't so good, and we'd see that they weren't so good, or (B) they would get better, and when they came, they would be able to make a contribution. And that would improve the status of basketball.

****

. . . [P]eople were killing us for it, they were saying, "Oh, the basketball's terrible because the players are too young, they don't have the requisite skills, they don't have this, they don't have that." Actually, some do, some don't, a year later they're going to be better, [plus] the opportunity to send them down, like a Gerald Green, to get minutes so the team could say, "You know what, he looked good. He got his rhythm back, he got his confidence back, he got to play a few minutes." That was the whole idea. This last collective bargaining agreement was about basketball and about player reputation. It wasn't about the money."

Granted, Stern's argument does not address the potential antitrust problems of the age limit (I think- 5/25/04, as does Prof. Gary Roberts - 4/7/05, that there is not a concern; Mike thinks there is - 2/7/06).

But it does respond to Mike's excellent points regarding whether -- as a matter of policy -- leagues should have age floors. It is true that age limits will harm the interests of certain players (i.e., Frank Gore and Randy Livingston), but at the end of the day, if the NBA as a whole is not healthy, all of the players will suffer. Stern has a duty to maximize not only the growth and revenue of the NBA, but the popularity of basketball as a whole. By doing so, he ensures that hundreds more young men -- economically disadvantaged and otherwise -- will have an opportunity to make millions of dollars playing a game they love.

A-Rod or Pujols?

With MLB season right around the corner, there's one question on everyone's mind... who should be the #1 pick in fantasy baseball? Ok, it's not on everyone's mind, but there's a lot of people that are wondering. And the decision basically comes down to one question, A-Rod or Pujols?

This question was addressed by Brandon Funston of Yahoo, and he came to the conclusion that A-Rod was the top choice. And I have to say, I agree with this.

Both players are basically in their prime. A-Rod's older, but he's not slowing down any. Funston makes a point to mention lineups, and this is a good point... do you want Johnny Damon and Derek Jeter hitting in front of you or David Eckstein and Junior Spivey? A-Rod should have more RBI opportunities.

But the biggest factor, I think, is their positions. Yes, there are some good, young 3B (David Wright is a stud already, and I believe Migeul Cabrera is moving back to 3B this year), but on the whole, hitting is easier to find from a 1B than a 3B. And this is what set A-Rod apart in my book.

Conclusion: Pujols is the better hitter, A-Rod is the better fantasy value.

From the Land of Mike Dukakis to the Land of Trent Lott . . .

If you are in Massachusetts or Mississippi (my two favorite states!), you are in luck tomorrow, as there are two excellent events open to the general public:

1) At Harvard Law School, former Yankees pitcher Jim Bouton will present on the topic of "Saving Our National Pastime: Baseball, Labor and the Politics of Stadium Construction." The event is being hosted by the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School, and will take place from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in Langdell Hall North. Last fall, Bouton published Foul Ball: My Life and Hard Times to Save an Old Ballpark. It should make for a very interesting discussion. For more information, please contact Jason Anastasopoulos of Harvard Law School.

2) At Mississippi College School of Law, Professor Todd Zywicki of George Mason University School of Law (and of the excellent Volokh Conspiracy) and I will have a discussion on the topic of "Obesity in America: The State's Right to Pass Laws Requiring the Restaurant Industry to Provide Nutritional Information to Consumers." The event is being hosted by the Federalist Society, and it will take place from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 PM in Room 151.

Todd and I have separate law review articles on-point:

Todd J. Zywicki, Debra Holt, and Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Obesity and Advertising Policy, 12 GEORGE MASON LAW REVIEW 979 (2004)

Michael A. McCann, Economic Efficiency and Consumer Choice Theory in Nutritional Labeling, 2004 WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW 1161 (2004)

Larry Hughes done for the year; NBA trade talks

News today is that Cleveland's biggest free agent pickup Larry Hughes might be done for the rest of the regular season... with a broken finger. Hughes had surgery on January 6 and was supposed to miss 6-8 weeks, but it's not recovering as qucikly expected, so he will miss an additional 8-10 weeks, which seems a little excessive for a broken finger, but maybe that's just me. But maybe I'm just upset because this hurts my fantasy team. Hughes was averaging 16.2 points, 4.2 rebounds, and 3.9 assists per game this year.

Also in the NBA, trade talks are heating up. The Sonics and Paper Clips made a swap of Chris Wilcox and Vladamir Radmanovic. I like the deal for both teams. Radman's outside shooting should help LA, while Wilcox is a young, athletic big guy. My only concern is that Radman is a free agent at the end of the year, and Donald Sterling is still the owner of the Clippers, so that could get interesting.

Also a couple of rumors floating around right now, both involving the Orlando Magic. One potential deal involves Orlando and the New York Knicks, which involves some combination of Steve Francis and possibly Kelvin Cato to the Knicks for Penny Hardaway's expiring contract, Jamal Crawford, and maybe Trevor Ariza.

However, Kelvin Cato is also part of a rumored deal between Orlando and Detroit, which would send Darko Milicic and Carlos Arroyo to the Magic for Kelvin Cato and the Magic draft pick, a deal that is interesting on many different levels. Ian over at Sweaty Man Endeavors wrote about this in much more detail.

Either way, should be a very interesting time before the deadline. Because we all know there is one guarantee in the NBA: Isiah Thomas will make a bad trade. I'm interested to see what it is this year.

Michelle Kwan and the Risks of Marketing Olympians

Darren Rovell of ESPN has an engaging feature on how Coca-Cola and Visa have largely centered their Olympic advertising campaigns around figure skater Michelle Kwan, who withdrew from the Olympics a few days ago. (Rovell, "There Will be Some Awkward Moments for Coke, Visa," ESPN.com, 2/13/2006). Coca-Cola is especially affected by her decision, as aside from featuring her in several television advertisements (which will still be run in prominent time slots), Kwan's image is all over Coca-Cola's in-store promotions. Rovell describes the risk of marketing Olympic athletes:

The problem with marketing Olympians is that they come out of nowhere, and by the time they win a gold medal, they are forgotten, absorbed by the NBA playoffs or a horse making a run at the Triple Crown. With that in mind, it's easy to see why Kwan was the best marketing bet of the Olympics. People know her, she has that golden smile, and over the course of her career she has upheld a squeaky clean reputation.

Although I agree that it's a tad embarrassing to center an ad campaign around an Olympian who unexpectedly drops out before the games begin, I suspect Michelle Kwan may have received more attention--and far more favorable press--by dropping out than had she competed and not placed among the medal winners. And the same might true even if she had won the bronze or the silver. When she announced her decision to withdraw from the Olympics, it seemed as if she was on the cover of every sports page, the lead story on every television sports news show, and the most visible headline on every major sports website, and at least of the coverage that I actually read, she was portrayed in almost superhuman/ultra-courageous terms, similar to how we regard national heroes from centuries ago. In fact, the coverage was so overwhelming that I suspect some readers, and especially those interested in the Olympics, may have been wondering: What about all the other Olympians? Why are we focused on the one Olympian who isn't competing?

So maybe this will work out for Coca-Cola and Visa after-all. Certainly, Michele Kwan may be the most famous and admired U.S. Olympian who has never won a gold medal, and that would seem like a pretty good person to center an ad campaign around. Really, does anyone not like her? Talk about winning by losing!