Zone Left

The PAC-12 announced an enormous media deal this week that’s worth a reported $22 million per school per year. The Big 10 and SEC have monster TV deals in place that virtually ensure profitability for their member athletic departments for the near future. That’s life on the top of the FBS division, and there’s no doubt that football is the key driver of both revenue and expenses.

This diary is about the other half. The financial straights of the lower tier of FBS, specifically the MAC, Sun Belt, and post Boise State WAC are also largely driven by football. Unfortunately for them, the train has fallen off of a cliff instead of chugging towards the land of monocles and gold toilets.  These schools are reduced to selling home games to artificially increase attendance numbers and playing body bag games to pad revenue.

Specifically, this is about Eastern Michigan football and EMU athletics. What, if any, benefits does the school derive and what are the costs associated with those benefits? Why do they field teams at all on the D-1 level?

College sports have a purpose. The NCAA says that its purpose and the larger point of intercollegiate athletics is to promote things like sportsmanship, integrity, the pursuit of athletic and academic excellence, respect and leadership. These are all good things to promote and I believe athletics can help cultivate those qualities. However, a good club program or the intramural programs that most universities run with student fees can accomplish the same goals and provide much greater access than D-1 athletics. Thus, in my mind, schools must derive some other benefit from D-1 athletics than simply promoting certain values in its athletes—of which Eastern has about 465.

Every FBS school should probably ask itself what benefits it derives from big-time football. It’s a shockingly expensive undertaking, can give the school tons of press (both good and bad), can generate enormous revenue, and can be a significant drain on student funds. It’s easy for the University of Michigan to make a cost-benefit analysis for its football team and athletic department in general. It generates many millions of dollars for the athletic department and is a self-sustaining enterprise. Sure, it’s attached to the school, but it costs the school nothing. The Board of Regents never needs to worry about eliminating a student program to fund football.

Eastern Michigan has a tougher time. Last year, EMU’s athletic expenses were $24.64 million, a whopping 9.2% of the school's General Fund. For a little perspective, there are about 23000 students enrolled at EMU, of which about 2% are intercollegiate athletes. They use their share of the 90.8% of the budget spent on items other than athletics, but 9.2% of the budget is used exclusively to support athletics. Sure, some of that $24 million comes out of TV deals, sponsorship, and ticket sales, but the database shows that to be only about $1.7 million. Everything else comes from the General Fund in some way. By the way, tuition went up 3.8% in 2009-10 at EMU.

However, EMU could still justify athletics if the non-monetary benefits made athletics worthwhile for the school. I think sports teams at U of M make valuable contributions to the student body. Aside from pride, I firmly believe that the Michigan diaspora—I see shirts everywhere—stays engaged with the school in large part due to the visibility of the sports teams. This has benefits for job seeking grads, networking alums, and helps donations to the school. Maybe this is the case at EMU too, but it doesn’t help too much. They only received about $3 million in gifts last year. Even if all of those were directly the result of athletics, there are still almost $20 million that the school gives each year to athletics. People don’t go to games and EMU athletics aren’t on TV unless they’re getting drilling by a Big 10 team in September.

The world has changed. Regardless of why (and let’s not get into it), Michigan doesn’t have money to waste. Why is a public university spending almost 10% of their General Fund on entities that only directly benefit 2% of the student body and don’t produce discernable benefits for the student body, alumni base, or school? Michigan and Michigan State are different. Their athletic departments aren’t a choice of resource allocation for the school. If the department closes, the money disappears. If EMU closes its athletic department, there are over $20 million, by my count, that can be reallocated to improving education, facilities, or even lowering tuition.

Why can’t EMU de-emphasize athletics and expand its club offerings? They could bus to CMU, WMU, Northern Michigan, Toledo, etc and play at a rented high school field on Saturdays. The players could work out at a student gym instead of a team gym. The same could be done with other sports. Just as many students could play, but for millions less. If I was a Regent, I’d ask why.

I've been thinking a lot about oversigning with this year's Signing Day having come and gone. The problem, as I see it, isn't really one of competitive balance. It would be nice to have a level playing field, but I certainly wouldn't be willing to give up Michigan's built-in advantages anymore than an Ole Miss fan would give up oversigning, JUCO stocking, or quaint reminders of a brutal, bigoted past.

*Everything would have been forgiven if you would have picked him! [Ed-M: In fairness to their fans, the Ole Miss base wanted them to have this, but their school wouldn't allow it.]

The problem I see is that big-time NCAA football is largely built around taking physically talented young men, pushing them to perform physically, and developing an enormous support system to ensure they can:

1) Afford to stay enrolled through athletic scholarships

2) Maintain a minimum academic threshold to remain eligible, despite many of the athletes not being anywhere near qualified academically to be admitted through the normal undergrad admissions process

The problem with oversigning is that kids suddenly have both of the items many of them need to complete a degree yanked out from underneath them either mid-career or, in some cases, right before they start school.  Many will drop out and go back to wherever they grew up because finishing a degree isn't conceivable without the support they had as scholarship athletes.

Wow, we're both tools, aren't we?

That said, coaches do need to be able to control their roster. Just because a kid doesn't get expelled from school for cheating on a research paper about research doesn't mean they're pulling their weight. Showing up on time isn't enough for any coach worth his salt, and I've got no problem with that type of player being cut.

With that in mind, here's an easy, no-frills solution that eliminates oversigning, still allows coaches to control their roster, and should help kids get their education:

1) 85 players on scholarship at any time, period. Graduating Seniors fall off after their last game, and incoming recruits count as soon as their LOI is sent in and count through the next football season.

2) Coaches are allowed to make cuts, and they must be finalized on May 31st for the next season. That player can never play for that school again--even off scholarship.

3) Players cut to free a scholarship for someone else may transfer with immediate eligibility to any school that will have them. Conferences could not make bylaws prohibiting movement among conference teams (e.g. Alabama player X could transfer to Auburn instead of getting a medical hardship scholarship).

4) LOIs are still binding for the player, but require the school to provide five years of scholarship, living, and academic support. Players may void the LOI by transferring of their own accord and these transfers would be treated identically to transfers under the current system.  Players cut to make room for another scholarship player still get a full ride, but don't count against the 85 scholarship limit.

5) APR still exists, but players cut to make room for other scholarships still count for the remainder of their career.

6) Grayshirting still exists, but it exact stipulations are detailed on the LOI the school gives the player to sign.

7) Scholarships are only revokable for expulsion or conviction by a court for a non-misdemeanor crime, and the athlete may challenge scholarship revocation for anything short of a felony conviction in arbitration by the NCAA.

8) ADDED! Injuries happen. However, after May 31st, that injured player still counts against the 85 scholarship limit for the year.  If a player, say a certain Freshman QB, goes down after four games, too bad. Medical redshirt policies would still apply for further eligibility, however. This would stop mysterious "injuries" from felling a 3rd string guard if Jadeveon Clowney wanted to delay his commitment until June 1st.

My reasoning is pretty simple. 85 scholarship players are allowed at any time, which makes sense. Everyone on the team counts. This is the obvious step to eliminate the specific problem of oversigning. The rest of the steps are designed to protect the athlete, and to some extent, the program.  

I completely respect coaches wanting to cut certain players, but the ultimate goal should be to give everyone a chance to earn their degree. It's abhorrent that LSU could take a scholarship away from someone after school starts and send them home. My proposal eliminates the incentive to do that. Since the LOI counts through the next season, a better player couldn't commit late and cause a coach to cull his herd. It would also increase the risk for schools that routinely sign marginal students. If the recruit doesn't qualify, the school loses that scholarship for a season.

The rest of the rules are designed to protect student-athletes. Scholarship football players are really special athletes at top schools, and not all will become great players. The money involved in big-time football is big enough that schools can continue to support athletes who get hurt or don't live up to their hype. I choose five years for a degree because players are often forced to take fewer credits in the Fall and need a 5th year to graduate.  

The final, somewhat controversial item might be grayshirting. I don't mind the idea, per se. I'd grayshirt at Michigan before taking a scholarship at CMU, but the details should be stipulated up front.

Thoughts?  What obvious items have I missed?

So, Orson asked the DOD to perform a flyover at his son's first birthday party.  I'm not going to weigh in on the merits of the flyover, but there are some key learning points we can all take from his somewhat flawed request. I deal with this shit at work, and need to let it out. Also might help Hoover over at NROTC get some solid flyovers next Fall.

1.  Flexibility is key.

Here, Orson has some positives and negatives. On the plus side, he's willing to accept any of the military's prominent demonstration teams. However, you'll notice in block 2 that he specifically requests only F-22 Raptors. They aren't based near Atlanta, Orson's hometown, thus requiring added logistical support. Accepting an AC-130 from Hurlburt or JSF from relatively nearby Eglin AFB might make his request more supportable. Perhaps even a T-34C Turbomentor from Pensacola.

 : 

as 

 : 

Kids, the military wants to help, help us help you and give us some flexibility.

Other negatives here: the request must be in at least 30 days prior. Planning is important.

2. Don't obviously lie.

Believe it or not, the people who approve flyovers are familiar with this form. Air Traffic Control approval is needed to fly in Atlanta's airspace--it's got one of the busiest airfields in the country. Honesty matters, regardless of what Jim Carey thought in Liar, Liar.

  NOT A CLASSIC!

3.  Okay, a little lying is okay.

Blocks 11-15, while seemingly innocuous, probably all need to be answered yes to be approved. Check that, the various public relations orders say they MUST be answered "YES."

Block 11. Does the local government approve? It approves by not actively disapproving.

Block 12. YouTube counts. After all, that's how this feedback was obtained:

Those guys aren't pilots anymore--probably.

Block 13. We know it's in the South, but seriously.

Block 14. See Block 13

Block 15. You aren't putting the Monty Burns' sun blocker up, right?

These are creative answers kids. Except 13 and 14. Don't be racist. Seriously.

4.  I think everyone is getting the point, but I've got one final thing to remind you of:

1:35 to a military pilot means either a) 0135 (1:35 am) or b) 0135 zulu (6:35 am on the east coast). Either would be a terrifying surprise.

Kids, anyone can get a flyover for their ridiculous public event. Just remember to fill out the form, give everyone 30 days notice, know someone important in the military aviation rank structure, and give some creative answers to very important questions. Work the system well enough, and you might just get this:

Get into the Air Force Academy and you might even get to see a flyover wearing those stupid hats.

Tim didn't include the full All Big-10 Team for 2010 as voted on by the coaches.  Denard is an honorable mention, presumably because only the coaches vote for the whole team while the media also vote on Player of the Year.  Congrats to all, including David Molk (1st Team), Roy Roundtree, Jonas Mouton, and Mike Martin (2nd Team), and Steve Shilling (Honorable Mention).

Also, Ryan Kerrigan took home Defensive POY, Gabe Carimi (Wisconsin) was voted Lineman of the Year and his teammate James White is Freshman of the Year.

2010 All-Big Ten Conference Football Team
As selected by CONFERENCE COACHES

HONORABLE MENTION: ILLINOIS: Jeff Allen, Nate Bussey, Trulon Henry, Graham Pocic, Tavon Wilson; INDIANA: Damarlo Belcher, James Brewer, Mitch Ewald; IOWA: Christian Ballard, Mike Daniels, Adam Robinson, Ryan Donahue; MICHIGAN: Denard Robinson, Stephen Schilling; MICHIGAN STATE: Edwin Baker, Kirk Cousins, Mark Dell, Joel Foreman, Charlie Gantt, Marcus Hyde, Jerel Worthy; MINNESOTA: D.J. Burris; NORTHWESTERN: Drake Dunsmore, Jeremy Ebert, Brian Peters; OHIO STATE: Devin Barclay, DeVier Posey, Terrelle Pryor, John Simon; PENN STATE: Quinn Barham, Chris Colasanti, D'Anton Lynn, Derek Moye; PURDUE: Ricardo Allen, Dwayne Beckford, Carson Wiggs; WISCONSIN: Montee Ball, Niles Brinkley, Antonio Fenelus, Peter Konz, Bill Nagy, Blake Sorensen, Mike Taylor, Ricky Wagner, Philip Welch, James White, Kevin Zeitler.

Big Ten Sportsmanship Award Honorees: Tavon Wilson, ILL; Tyler Replogle, IND; Ricky Stanzi, IOWA; Mark Moundros, MICH; Kirk Cousins, MSU; Jon Hoese, MINN; Corbin Bryant, NU; Bryant Browning, OSU; Brett Brackett, PSU; Ryan Kerrigan, PUR; Scott Tolzien, WIS.

I'm at the tail end of a great week.  My wife is pregnant with our first child and I'm on vacation visiting business schools.  Obviously, Michigan's Ross is my first choice.  It's a great school, the new building is fantastic (check it out if you haven't been), and its got a unique program that matches perfectly with my desired career path.  I just hit "send" on the application and feel great about my chances.

Unfortunately, that's the problem.  Despite every piece of positive news, I've got a very specific, overwhelming concern--will Obi Ezeh and Jonas Mouton be serviceable Big 10 linebacker this season?  Add to that concerns about running backs, Mike Martin going pro after the season, and the shocking lack of depth in the secondary, and I'm legitimately worried.  I spend my days concocting reasons why UMass's success shouldn't be a concern and why our defense can succeed in the Big 10.  

Let's add another layer.  I don't know a person dedicated or knowledgeable enough with which to watch a game.  Everyone knows Denard Robinson is awesome at this point, but how many can appreciate Omameh destroying Te'o on the long touchdown against Notre Dame?  This isn't an insult to others, but an indictment of my personality.

Brian had the long-standing email asking why he was a fan and why football was important.  I'm starting to ask myself the same question.  Last Saturday, I sat in my house screaming at the TV while the defense struggled.  As my wife aptly points out, I don't take the same joy in watching the offense perform in a way I may never see again as a Michigan fan.  

I always wanted someone like Donovan McNabb to wear the Maize and Blue.  Now that a better player with better coaching (I really believe this) is running around making defenses look stupid, I take little joy in their successes.  I almost broke my laptop when Rudolph scored his touchdown.  When Michigan took the lead and eventually sealed the victory on Crist's throw out of the end zone, I was mildly satisfied.  

My question to you, the fan, follows: why is football important to you?  Why do you love Michigan football to the point of losing your temper, screaming at the TV, and investing your emotional happiness in 20-somethings you'll likely never meet?  

I can't answer my question right now.  I love Michigan football simply because I love Michigan football.  "Why" is completely absent from the equation.  I've got a love of my home state that somehow overrides enormous parts of my logical person and manifests itself in an intense desire to see the Wolverine's football team succeed.  Is it guilt at leaving while the state struggles? Why do I care?  Why do you?  I think this exercise may help those of us that are struggling as the program completes (hopefully) its growing pains and become the ninja football machine we hope for late at night.

There was a post that devolved into a discussion of the of NFL Draft eligibility rules about a week ago.  As I was the person who was largely responsible, I decided to examine Maurice Clarett's situation more closely.  Enjoy.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

NFL eligibility rules, like those of the NCAA, can be a contentious issue.  This is likely because, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with a rule, the rules are somewhat arbitrary.  Since we’re discussing Maurice Clarett here, I’m going to discuss the NFL’s policy that players must be three years removed from high school graduation in order to enter the NFL draft—in other words, they must have completed their Redshirt Sophomore or true Junior season in college football.  Clarett challenged that rule in federal court in 2004, where he first was successful in the Southern District—whose ruling was then reversed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

I want to emphasize that I am not a lawyer, and while the lawyers out there are free to destroy my argument and pick apart my almost certainly incorrect usage of legal terminology, that doesn’t necessarily mean my viewpoint is without validity.  As a reference for the legal issues, I’ve used a summary of the case, which is available at the bottom of the page.

This is a topic I feel very strongly about.  To me, it’s appalling that an adult who is highly qualified for a job is prevented from pursuing that job simply based on his age.  Make no mistake; waiting three years after high school is essentially another way of requiring that NFL players be 20-21 years old on draft day.  Of course, for me to be upset in this case, I must assume that Clarett and Mike Williams would have been drafted (or at least signed as an undrafted free agent) by an NFL team in that draft.  Both were drafted the next year, so I think it’s safe to assume they would have been drafted the season in question. 

My argument isn't about what’s best for the fans, or even for the players, it’s about what should or shouldn’t be legal.  I would love every college player to stay in school for four seasons.  I primarily follow the college game, and the game’s great players are a significant part of why the college game is, to me, the best sport in the world.  However, is it acceptable for the government to allow a private entity to not allow an adult to work in a profession he is clearly capable of pursuing?  I’m not saying the NFL had to draft Clarett and give him a huge signing bonus, but they essentially prevented him from even applying for a job, despite having met all non age-related qualifications.  I’m going to examine if my argument is valid, and whether it’s reasonable to disagree with the court decision the allowed the NFL to deny Clarett entrance into the draft.

Clarett’s lawyers argued that the NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement violated various anti-trust acts by denying eligibility for employment to players “who had not first exhausted all college football eligibility, graduated from college, or been out of high school for five football seasons. Clubs were further barred from drafting any person who either did not attend college, or attended college but did not play football, unless that person had been out of high school for four football seasons.”  The NFL Commissioner was authorized to admit players via “Special Eligibility,” provided three years of college football had elapsed—these are early entrants to the draft.  

The initial case in the Southern District essentially ruled that the Clarett had anti-trust standing; holding that the “’inability to compete in the market’ for NFL players' services is sufficient injury for antitrust purposes.”  The Southern District also found that the NFL’s eligibility rules were “blatantly anticompetitive” in ruling in Clarett’s favor.  The NFL argued that younger players were less emotionally and physically mature, and therefore more likely to fail at the NFL level.  They further argued that younger athletes may attempt to rush their body’s maturation by taking steroids, etc.  These are logical arguments that I’d expect the NFL to make here.

Obviously, the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Appeals Court disagreed with the lower court's ruling.  Their discussion opens by stating, “It has long been recognized that in order to accommodate the collective bargaining process, certain concerted activity among and between labor and employers must be held to be beyond the reach of the antitrust laws.”  This allows unions and employers to negotiate work rules together in good faith—the so-called anti-trust exemption.  This is called a “non-statutory exemption,” which is inferred "from federal labor statutes, which set forth a national labor policy favoring free and private collective bargaining; which require good-faith bargaining over wages, hours, and working conditions; and which delegate related rulemaking and interpretive authority to the National Labor Relations Board."

The Appeals Court systematically struck down each of Clarett’s arguments based on past court rulings and federal labor law.  According to federal labor law, rules for initial eligibility are required in the collective bargaining process, and may make eligibility more difficult for outside parties, which can be used by unions to protect their workers.  Unlike the Southern District, the Appeals Court granted the NFL a non-statutory exemption and allowed them to deny Clarett’s entry into the draft. 

The discussion above is what happened during the process.  Clearly, assuming that the appointed members of the federal court system are accomplished jurists—which is likely the case—intelligent people can disagree here.  I found it interesting that age was not mentioned once in the case summary.  When Clarett initially challenged the NFL, I thought it would be a simple case that would immediately fall in Clarett’s favor.  He was an adult, and it’s illegal to deny someone a job due to age, which I contend is a clear consequence of the time removed from high school eligibility rules.  I was wrong.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states on its website that only workers over the age of forty are protected by age discrimination provisions of federal employment law.  That is clearly why age wasn’t mentioned, however, I’m surprised that was not challenged, especially due to the perishable nature of NFL level football ability.

I’m not going to delve too deeply into the morality issue in this diary.  I obviously fall on the side of allowing an adult to apply for a job he is qualified for, but many others on the board do not in the case of pro football.  I also feel it would have been right for the NFL to allow Mike Williams and Maurice Clarett in under some sort of special exemption.  They did win the initial case, and were forced to spend a year in limbo waiting to be drafted—which may have contributed to Clarett’s eventual problems.  Had he been able to remain in the very structured environment of organized football, those problems may have been mitigated or never appeared.  
 

Feel free to debate below, but apparently, Maurice Clarett, and I, was wrong based on federal law.  Hopefully it was an interesting read.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/369/369.F3d.124.04-0943.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm