Wednesday, July 21, 2010

IN DEFENSE OF REGGIE BUSH: Okay, I lied. This isn't exactly a defense of Reggie Bush.* Bush cheated, and he should give back his Heisman, and the NCAA should actively try to ferret out cases where athletes are breaking its rules, and if athletes break those rules, they should be punished in proportion to the violation, which in Bush's case would have meant permanent ineligibility. Punishment, consequences, yes. Demonization and anger, no.

(It feels like everybody must have an inkling of who Bush is, since the less you know about football, the greater the probability that you know about Kardashians. If you watch neither ESPN nor E!, however, the short story is that when Bush was a standout running back at USC, he took almost $300,000 in "gifts" from an agent. USC has now been sanctioned essentially for not paying close enough attention while Bush was being paid, among other things.)

There is a bargain that a school makes when it hires -- and I use that term intentionally -- athletes who openly and realistically are on the fastest path to professional stardom. What the school gets is a marketable athlete who, in the best-case scenario, can generate millions of dollars in revenue for the school through television licensing, merchandising, and donations. What the athlete gets is a platform to launch his professional career.

That is a ridiculously one-sided deal. Anybody who thinks it is societally justifiable should turn in his Mont Pelerin Society badge. Bush's real job during his USC years was to maximize his return from an extremely valuable but highly risky leisure good (his talent). A cartel with a collective monopsony on the consumption of that good (the NCAA, whose monopsony was created by the NFL's draft eligibility rules) imposed rules capping the price of the good far below a competitive price. Any economist will tell you that that's a recipe for an active black market. It was no more morally wrong for Bush to take advantage of that black market than it was back in the 80s for Russians to arbitrage Levis in their own black market. We like the free market, right?

I, as much as anybody else, actually wish that college sports were more purely amateur. But when colleges recruit kids who they know are only trying to become professional athletes, and when the recruiting pitch is "play one year at Kentucky and go to the NBA" or "talk to our NFL alumni about what USC can do for you," coupled with an implicit promise not to care too much about anything off the field, it's easy to see how someone like Bush would get a mixed message. His only transgression was getting paid 13 months earlier than everybody else wanted him to get paid. That is against the rules, but it's not morally wrong. So lay off the fire and brimstone, Gene Wojchiechowski.

On a related, and clearly dissonant, note: I hate the one-and-done phenomenon in college basketball. I want to root for players who want to be in college, not players who have to be there. The NCAA doesn't think this is a problem, but if it did, I have a quick fix. Instead of giving each school 13 one-year basketball scholarships each year, give it 13 four-year basketball scholarships. If a player only sticks around for a year, the school is stuck with three years when it can't use that scholarship (with exceptions for players who transfer to other schools). Schools would have an incentive to limit (but not necessarily eliminate) reliance on obvious one-and-done candidates. One-and-done players would spread out to a larger numbe of schools, increasing competitive parity, and you might even see a shift of talent to minor league basketball. Yes, this would penalize schools who do a great job developing talent. Yes, it would create barriers for borderline great basketball players to go to college at all. But it would also eliminate travesties like the whole sordid OJ Mayo situation and maybe, just maybe, reduce instances of infuriating dumbasses holding press conferences to announce their college choices.

27 comments:

  1. kevbo nobo9:31 PM

     Amen.  Oh, and F**k ESPN and their whole "hypocacy? what hypocracy?" shtick.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Isaac--your solution to one-and-done is brilliant. I see very little downside; to me, schools that develop talent would be rewarded with victories in the short-term. Would a team like Davidson a couple of years ago trade its deep NCAA tournament run for one year of an empty scholarship vacated by Stephen Curry? It's a question that different coaches might answer in different ways. College basketball would become more for upperclassmen, which makes it a much better game to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That solution is genius, and merits an op-ed.  If nothing else, you should pitch it to Gregg Easterbrook.

    I'd go even farther: a school is entitled to (N + 10) four-year football scholarships, where N = the number of football scholarship athletes who graduated in the last four years (with some cap for N).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like this solution.  I also believe that it's the NFL's and NBA's responsibility for pay for their own credible development systems -- and the NBDL isn't serious enough to count -- rather than forcing academic institutions to subsidize it.  Keep college athletics for the kids with some serious interest in an education, and let the John Walls and Korleone Youngs of the world have a paid pre-professional system that doesn't taint the schools.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ChinMusic10:03 PM

    This is probably intentional and obvious, but that first paragraph is pure Posnanski from the contradictory opening to the explanatory asterisk.

    Your scholarship solution is a brilliant one, though it might also prevent schools from giving scholarships to students who struggle academically since a freshman year failout would be incredibly painful to the program.  But I disagree with your description of the NCAA process as a one-sided deal.  IN some cases, it is very one sided in favor of the school.  But, with more than 5000 D-I (I am not calling it by its real name) football scholarships, the vast majority of the "employees" are getting a free education while they get to prolong their Glory Days or chase their longshot dreams of making it to the pros.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Benner10:45 PM

    The fact that most college athletes aren't interested in one-and-done but in many cases are leveraging their athletic talents to get an education makes the "13 four year scholarships" even more compelling.  For those players who are truly interested in the one year scenario, though, it does make for those same black market incentives that Reggie Bush responded to as expected -- although it might strain credibility if a basketball factory said that a McDonald's all-american was there on stafford loans, pell grants, and work study.  

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:46 PM

    The Posnanski resemblance was unintentional, though I take it as a big compliment.  The asterisk format, actually, was something I stole from Alan Sepinwall's posts. 

    I completely agree with you that in the majority of cases, the athletic scholarships are a fair deal for both sides.  That's why I defined the bad deals as the ones in which the school signs up an athlete who is "openly and realistically on the fastest path to professional stardom."  It's kind of a tautology, I guess. 

    ReplyDelete
  8. isaac_spaceman10:46 PM

    <span>The Posnanski resemblance was unintentional, though I take it as a big compliment.  The asterisk format, actually, was something I stole from Alan Sepinwall's posts.  
     
    I completely agree with you that in the majority of cases, the athletic scholarships are a fair deal for both sides.  That's why I defined the bad deals as the ones in which the school signs up an athlete who is "openly and realistically on the fastest path to professional stardom."  It's kind of a tautology, I guess.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  9. isaac_spaceman11:11 PM

    Re what Benner said, there certainly would be a shift in the black market incentives.  It would shift black market payments away from recruiting for the most part (because payments would increase the risk of hauling in a one-and-done player who comes with a three-year scholarship penalty) and toward retention of upperclassmen (payments might convince the late-first-round kind of players to stay an extra year rather than declaring early).  I hadn't really thought about this, but I think it's better.  I'd rather have pure amateurism, but if you accept the constancy of illegal payments, I like the idea that they work like player options rather than signing bonuses.  

    ReplyDelete
  10. isaac_spaceman11:18 PM

    The NFL and the NBA are businesses, and if it's in their best interest to age-restrict their drafts, then it's hard to see how they could be compelled to act for the NCAA's benefit.  But it doesn't matter, because I think the NCAA likes the NBA's and (especially) the NFL's rules.  Powerful institutions like Kentucky have obviously made the decision that embracing one-and-done can be remunerative.   

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous11:45 PM

    NBA wants its rookies to be well-known and capable of helping bad teams. That calls for a 4-yr college career if possible -- remember how well-known all those Duke guys were.

    (Adam)

    ReplyDelete
  12. A couple of problems.  For one, the players that enter college expecting to leave after only one or two years only make up a portion of the players that actually leave that quickly.  Aside from the five to ten players that are can't-miss prospects coming out of high school, it's difficult to predict which players will become good enough or show enough early potential to attract the attention of the NBA.  And that's not even counting the players that make poor decisions and leave early only to go undrafted.   You would end up penalizing schools that recruit late bloomers whose talent did not become apparent until after they arrived at college, even though those schools thought they were recruiting four-year players.

    It's also likely that we would also see programs facing sanctions under this proposal become more aggressive in forcing their weaker players to transfer to make room for better ones, thus aggravating one of the more frustrating abuses of the current system.  But I don't think that anything short of a robust minor league sponsored by the NBA is going to reduce the number of one-and-done players in college.  These players have to do something after college, and most of them don't have passports.  And even that won't eliminate acts of dumbassery by teenaged boys - no plan can stop that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. calliekl6:06 AM

    I feel like a major problem I have with all of this (as someone who doesn't watch college sports) is the idea that college is the necessary step before going pro. We already have a problem in this country with people requiring college educations for jobs that really don't require them, now we're going to make these guys take up space for 4 years?

    Conversely, I believe that these guys do need some training on how to be an adult who (possibly) makes obscene amounts of money, so that they don't end up broke and living in a car when their career is over.

    My solution (using basketball as the example) is that there should be NBA prep schools, where they teach things like money management, broadcasting, or other random courses, and leave the colleges for what they were originally meant for. The other schools could still have sports programs, but without the crazy funding. The NBA schools would compete, and it would be a true showing of the major talent across the country. It wouldn't be as much of a sham, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Eric J7:01 AM

    My solution has been to expand NBA rosters by 2 or 3 spaces, with those spaces reserved for players under the age of 23, making D-League level salaries. These players would not travel with the team. During road trips they'd stay at the practice facility with a developmental coach, hopefully working on fundamentals. Thus the roster spots wouldn't cost the team much, giving them an incentive to actually be filled. At the end of each season, the player would become a restricted free agent. If they were good enough to take up a primary roster spot on some other team, at a regular salary, they'd have that chance, with their current team able to match any offer.

    ReplyDelete
  15. isaac_spaceman10:54 AM

    The NBA essentially has made clear that it is not going to do anything for the benefit of anybody but the NBA, and for the NBA owners in particular.  It isn't going to expand its rosters or sink more money into the D-league unless something happens in college basketball to force its hand.  If the NCAA saw one-and-done as a problem (and there's no evidence that it does, because the NCAA loves money as much as the NBA loves money and cares about the relationship between education and athletics only a tiny bit more), it would have to focus on solutions that it could implement itself.  The only way for the NCAA to get the NBA to do something would be to implement a system that as a practical matter either postponed the flow of talent to the NBA or that removed college as a development system for elite NBA talent. 

    ReplyDelete
  16. Fred App11:44 AM

    The answer to solving the one-and-done is not in forcing players to play four years, but in  NOT forcing them to play at least one. If you let players like John Wall and Derek Rose go directly to the NBA, then they wouldn't even bother with the charade of playing a year in college ball.

    Instead, you have a system that prevents a kid with no interest in college ball from making millions of dollars, and instead requires him to play for free for a college that makes millions of dollars off him, and doesn't even bother with the pretence of giving him an education.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think you're vastly over-valuing the player contribution to the situation. Many more highly touted high school recruits DON'T make it than do make it. The current system gives players the opportunity to showcase their talents to everyone who might care, and if it doesn't work out on the field (which is the norm) and they don't get drafted, then they have the opportunity to get a free education. That most players don't make full use of that part of the bargain is their own fault and they bear responsibility for the consequences of that decision. The deal is, "come play for our school, giving us the benefit of your on-field abilities and the revenues that come with all the hype. you get a platform to show off for NFL scouts and a good back-up plan if that doesn't work out."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Eric J.12:59 PM

    On a somewhat related matter, I've been thinking that the LeBron, Wade, Bosh axis feels like Step 1 in a larger plan. I think that wheels are turning, ably greased by Ari Emmanuel, and once the lockout hits, we're going to see them try to put together a Player-Owned league. I'm envisioning a basketball version of United Artists.

    I have no idea if such a thing is legally or financially feasible, whether they could establish media contracts, or how many players would be interested in taking the risk. But it's an interesting idea, and there'd be no better time to try it, given that they'd have a certain amount of sympathy and leverage in Washington.

    ReplyDelete
  19. isaac_spaceman2:48 PM

    Fred, I think everybody agrees with the sentiment, but the NBA likes the status quo and will not change its rule.  A solution that requires the voluntary cooperation of a party that is opposed to the solution is no solution at all. 

    ReplyDelete
  20. alex s.3:20 PM

    I think the closest thing to a simple solution would be to allow players to stay in school even if they are drafted.  This system seems to work in baseball and hockey, but it for some reason ($$$) it won't work for basketball and football.  I don't think the NCAA (and colleges) take nearly enough blame in the solutions you've mentioned.  Under current rules, if a player even talks to an agent, he can be bounced out of his scholarship.

    One note on the Reggie Bush affair: as I understand it, a big part of the problem is that it wasn't Reggie that took advantage of his fame, but his parents.  Now think about how much you knew about your parents' finances when you were in college.  I get the argument that Bush may or should have known about this (and there may even be some proof; I haven't been following that closely), but the level of intrusion into people's lives driven by NCAA rules is pretty amazing.  In the future, should all of your family's business deals be run by an NCAA enforcement committee.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ramar4:47 PM

    Under current rules, if a player even talks to an agent, he can be bounced out of his scholarship.  

    That's not quite right - a player can lose eligibility for signing an agreement with an agent or accepting benefits from an agent, but simply talking to an agent would have no effect. 

    And I'm not sure how to enforce rules against payments to players without extending them to the family.  If not, then avoiding the rules would become trivial.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Adlai4:59 PM

    Just chiming in to say, I didn't know who Reggie Bush was until I read this. So the explanation was for me.

    ReplyDelete
  23. isaac_spaceman5:19 PM

    Plus, I don't believe for a second that Bush, or any high-profile star, isn't aware of payments to family members.  If the purpose of the payments is to buy a commitment from the athlete, you'd have to be a tremendously stupid agent to give the gifts without making sure the athlete is getting the message. Bush's family were just bagmen. 

    I don't exactly know why there are different eligibility rules for draftees among the four major sports that have drafts.  I do know that MLB has a relatively college-protective rule (which it can afford to have, since it has a thriving minor league system) that prohibits a team from signing a high-school draftee if the draftee shows up for class at the college to which he has committed.  Basically, you have until the end of the summer after high school to sign them.  After that, they can't be signed and are not eligible to be drafted again until June of their junior year in college.  This is hazy for me, but I think junior-year draftees can be signed at any time until the following year's draft -- teams usually split them up into two categories:  the people they try to sign immediately, and the "draft-and-follow" players, who you try to look at over the course of the next year to get a better sense of their growth before either trying to sign them or throwing them back into the draft pool.

    In football and basketball, unlike in baseball (and, if I recall correctly, unlike in hockey), you have to fill out some paperwork to make yourself eligible for the draft unless you've exhausted your collegiate eligibility.  This protects the leagues by preventing players from forcing the drafting team to bid against the risk of the player staying in school, playing another year, and getting drafted again (elite baseball players use this threat very effectively to increase signing bonuses). The NCAA apparently views the voluntary submission of professional paperwork, as opposed to the involuntary act of being drafted, as an eligibility-affecting event.  Basketball players (and maybe football players, I don't know) are allowed to submit their names and then withdraw them later after getting expert, unpaid, and hopefully impartial advice about where one is likely to be selected. 

    In any event, even a system that let basketball and football players stay in school after being drafted would not solve the problem, which is created by the elite athlete's inability to sell his talent to in an uncontrolled market. 

    ReplyDelete
  24. isaac_spaceman6:20 PM

    Did you let your InTouch subscription lapse?

    ReplyDelete
  25. ChinMusic6:35 PM

    While not helpful for the overall discussion, this issue has a somewhat complicated and interesting history in hockey.  Currently, any college player who is drafted by the NHL can retain his eligibility as long as he does not hire an agent or play for a pro team.  But, the drafting team keeps the players rights until 30 days after he leaves college, thereby eliminating the the player's leverage of threatening to return to school.  The rule used to have an interesting quirk in that 18-year old players could elect to enter the draft, but would lose their eligibility by doing so.  19 and 20 year old players would retain their eligibility even if drafted.  The rule was changed a few years ago to make it consistent for all draftees.   

    Actually, there is an interesting and relevant point here.  Amateur eligibility is solely an NCAA issue.  It has nothing to do with the professional sports leagues as the leagues, in theory, don't care whether a player is eligibile for college, just whether he is eligible for the draft.  I understand draft eligibility varying across sports, but shouldn't it stand to reason that the amateur eligibility rules related to draftees should be consistent across all sports?  

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes, exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous5:00 AM

    Ι am ѕuгe this piece of writing
    has touched all the internet viewerѕ, its
    reаlly really nice article оn buіlding up
    new
    ωebрage.

    My blog post: core training

    ReplyDelete