The Perfect League?: The Sports Economist posts his idea for an ideal professional league. The list is an intriguing one and makes a number of good points. I have a few responses and ideas of my own. Prof. Sauer writes:

[1] The league must be organized such that any team could win a championship, not every year, but at some point over the long run. This perception must exist, and be well founded.

[4] Sloth and indifference must be penalized.

[5] Insuring that the first principle is met requires significant revenue sharing in a league with teams of widely differing profit potential (see the NFL). But extensive revenue sharing promotes sloth and indifference to winning (see the NFL, again), so it must be tempered.

I agree that there must be revenue sharing, especially in the leagues other than the NFL that have such a discrepancy in local television revenues, but it must be revenue sharing with a clear purpose. Like Prof. Sauer says, the goal should be increasing competition so that all teams have a legitimate shot at winning. In order to do this, there must be regulations that ensure the money is used on the team, and not to line the owner's pockets. This is why leagues should not only have salary caps, but also salary floors. Revenue sharing would ensure that all teams will be able to meet the salary floor, while the cap would control outrageous spending and the ability of certain teams to collect All-World teams.



Prof. Sauer's suggestion for how to prevent laziness is a "trap-door," in which the worst teams from each league would be moved to a lower division, and the best teams from the lower division move up, as is done in some international soccer leagues. I think this would be problematic, from both a practical and a fan perspective. First, teams and players will never agree to a system in which one bad league could move them to a "second-tier" league. There are just too many egos for that. However, I concede that this is an ideal, so I also pose a problem for the overall sport. Having such a trap-door would not allow teams to quickly rebound and would eliminate the "worst-to-first" Cinderella stories such as the 1991 Braves and Twins and the 2002 Angels. Dropping the worst teams to a lower division would arguably hurt them more, as their free agents may bolt, other free agents will not sign with them and fans could desert a "minor league" team.



Finally, Prof. Sauer says:

[3] Ambition and success should not be heavily taxed.

I agree that ambition and success should not be heavily taxed, but only the proper kinds of ambition and success. Ambition and success does not have to mean "spend the most." It can, and should, mean, "be the wisest in spending the money you have." I applaud owners that will do everything within the rules to win, but the system should place more controls on ambition in order to re-define success.



I, too, would be interested in hearing any comments from readers on this idea. It certainly is fun to dream.

Bryant Case and Rape Shield Law: The judge in the Kobe Bryant criminal case has ruled that Bryant's accuser must testify in a close hearing on March 24-25. In addition, the judge has ruled that the defense can question the woman about her relevant sex history, including the her sexual activity in the days surrounding the incident. The prosecution says the ruling goes against Colorado's rape shield law, which makes the sexual history of the victim irrelevant. The prosecution plans to appeal the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court.



Contrary to the prosecution, I feel this is the proper ruling in this case. The rape shield law is not absolute -- if the defense convinces the judge that the information could be relevant, the judge should allow the defendant to make the best defense possible. The rape shield laws serve an important public policy, encouraging victims to report incidents of rape and preventing possibly prejudicial information from influencing the jury. However, we must not forget that our system believes in innocence until guilt is proven and the right of defendants to a full defense. If the information is deemed relevant and the judge exercises significant control to ensure that the victim's rights are protected, waiving the rape shield law represents the best method to ensure a fair trial for both sides.



For more, read this earlier post from Alas, a Blog.

Arbitration from a Player's Perspective: Pittsburgh Pirates shortstop Jack Wilson, in the first of his weekly columns, discusses the salary arbitration process and his reasons for going to a hearing with the team (which he won). For more on the arbitration process, read this earlier post.

Looking for a Job in Sports Law?: From the Sports Business Daily:

USOC Seeks Assistant General Counsel



The United States Olympic Committee seeks an Assistant General Counsel to provide legal counsel with respect to the commercial activities of the USOC. Requires undergraduate and Juris Doctor degrees. Admitted to practice in Colorado or ability to obtain membership in reasonable time. Prior experience: corporate governance; negotiation and drafting contracts; licensing; trademark, copyright, trade secrets, or individual publicity rights; or litigation of contractual or commercial disputes. Prior experience representing amateur or professional sports organizations beneficial. Please send resume to Human Resources, U.S. Olympic Committee, One Olympic Plaza, Colorado Springs, CO 80909. Fax to 719-632-2884 or email at hrmailbox@usoc.org. EOE.

Not Part of the Deal: Following the Yankees release of Aaron Boone, a number of writers have analyzed some of the common clauses in baseball contracts. Jon Fogg of the Washington Times lists a number of the prohibited activities, including croquet, lawn darts, bungee jumping and gardening as some of the off-limits activities. Also included in most contracts is a prohibition on basketball, which doomed Boone. He was injured in a pick-up basketball game last month, a game which violated his contract and allowed the team to release him, opening a slot for Alex Rodriguez. While the clauses do not outright void the contracts, violating them changes the agreement from guaranteed to non-guaranteed, meaning the team does not have to pay the player, or keep them on the roster, if they are injured. The clauses, obviously, protect the teams' million-dollar investments from injuries not related to their job.



Other examples of players that have been injured doing prohibited activities include Ron Gant, who was injured in a dirt-bike accident and released from the Braves, Jay Williams, who recently negotiated a buy-out with the Chicago Bulls following a motorcycle accident, and Jeff Kent, who was injured while riding a motorcycle (he said he was "washing his truck). Kent was lucky enough to keep his job, however, he was not re-signed by the Giants at the end of the season.

BCS Announces Changes: The Bowl Championship Series has announced a few changes to be implemented over the next few seasons, including greater revenue sharing with schools from conferences other than the "Big Six" (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, SEC) and the addition of a fifth BCS game. The moves were made in an attempt to prevent litigation by non-Big Six schools over the distribution of money in college football.



But, as Dennis Dodd writes, Does a 5th BCS Bowl Really Matter? And, as at least two ESPN football experts write, these changes don't solve the bigger problems with college football: namely, the lack of a true play-off.



I am not the only person to write this, but I truly believe that a college football play-off will happen in the not-too-distant future. In my system, the top eight teams are seeded, 1 to 8. Of the (now 5) BCS games, one will have the national championship, two will have semi-finals and two will have quarter-finals. The other 2 quarterfinal games will go to top-tier bowls that are not selected as the 5th BCS bowl (the top 3 contenders seem to be the Cotton, Peach and Holiday). The other bowls (i.e. Capital One, Gator, Independence, Alamo, Outback, Liberty, Sun, Music City) will continue to host games that are just as meaningful as they are now.



The first round of the play-off would be the weekend before Christmas. The semi-finals would be on New Year's Day (returning some importance to that day) and finally, the championship would be one week later, probably on a Saturday night. The schedule would be crafted so as not to conflict with the NFL play-offs, and players would be forced to play one extra week. In addition, many schools do not start classes until the second or third week of January, meaning that many teams may not even miss class.



So, we have seven bowl games that would all have huge revenues, because all would be incredibly meaningful. The other bowl games would lose no prestige off what they have now. And fans would have what they crave- a true national champion.

More on Clarett and Early Entry: Skip Sauer at The Sports Economist (a very fine site) responds to my post of yesterday regarding the lack of a minor league in the NBA and NFL, which does not allow players to develop before jumping onto the main stage:

While this keeps their costs down and stacks the NCAA with marketable talent at a near-zero price, it seems a rich reward to dole out to free riders. The NFL's appeal of the Clarett ruling seeks to negate the opportunity for Clarett and Mike Williams to enter this year's draft, citing "tragic consequences." Ahem. You draft Clarett, pay him a few million, and then put his tender talent at undue risk if he's not yet ready? Please court, help me from myself!

In an economic sense, absolutely, Skip is correct. In a free market, if the NFL teams want to draft a young player, pay him millions and hope that he develops into a star, there is no reason to fault the players. If I could get paid millions of dollars to leave school right now, there is a good chance that I might jump at the chance. However, my post was more about the view of a sports fan and the damage that is done (depending on your opinion) to the game when talented, but perhaps less-skilled players begin to dominate. The trend is becoming evident in the NBA and many people fear it could also affect the NFL. While, as one reader points out, there is NFL Europe, teams do not have direct one-on-one connections to NFL Europe franchises, and in most cases, would rather keep players safe on the sidelines and running practice drills than send them off to get injured in Europe.



Also, I am not yet convinced that the NFL's legal argument is a losing one. The district court judge did not, in my view, give enough deference to the league's collective bargaining agreement, which speaks to this issue. The NFL CBA is probably the best in professional sports and should not be tossed aside as it was in the district court ruling. The judge ruled that the CBA does not apply to Clarett, since a labor agreement cannot preclude a person from employment entirely. However, the other way to look at this is that Clarett is not precluded entirely -- he merely has to wait his turn, at which time he will become subject to the agreement, just like every other player in the NFL.



The 2nd Circuit now has the case -- it will be interesting to see how they rule.