Weekly Blog Recap (5/4)

Here is a rundown of all of the content on the blog from the past week:

(4/28) What Went Wrong With Draft Day?
Assistant Editor Stephen Rosen analyzes the movie Draft Day and explains what he thinks the movie lacked. Was the movie an accurate portrayal of the normal war room of each NFL team? Read to find out.

(4/29) NHL Stanley Cup Finals Prediction
Featured Blogger Stephen Dreznick predicts a rematch of last year's Stanley Cup Final matchup. Will the Blackhawks be crowned yet again? Read for an in-depth look into the projected rematch.

(4/30) Event Recap: Becky Sendrow '02
We finally got around to posting Editor-in-Chief Max Fogle's recap from this great event last semester. Becky Sendrow discussed her career as a Sports Broadcasting Agent at Creative Artist's Agency (CAA). Sendrow spoke of representing clients such as Michelle Beadle, Nomar Garciaparra, and Ephraim Salaam. Read to find out more as well as her valuable advice.

(5/1) All Hail the NCAA's Arcane Rules
Is it time for the NCAA to take a step back and realize certain rule changes are necessary in college athletics? In light of the recent Mitch McGary incident, Stephen Rosen expresses his concern over the current rules.

(5/2) Event Recap: Jim McFarland (4/16/14)
ILRSBS played host to NFLPA Executive Committee member Jim McFarland earlier this semester. McFarland discussed topics such as player health and safety, the NFL concussion lawsuit settlement, college athletics, and race and inequality in football. Read to hear his unique insight.

(5/3) Blogger Roundtable: Best Second Round NHL Series
We rounded up the bloggers for the weekly roundtable. This week's question? Which second round NHL playoff series is the best? Read to see how each blogger chose.

Also, check out our Contributor's Page to get to know our staff. Contact information, career plans, and their sporting interests are all there.

Event Recap: Jim McFarland (4/16/14)

On Wednesday, April 16th, the ILRSBS hosted NFLPA Executive Committee member Jim McFarland. McFarland played college football at Nebraska University and enjoyed a six-year career in the NFL., and has spoken to the club on one previous occasion.  He graduated from Cornell Law School in 1980 and has been practicing as an attorney ever since.

In 2007, McFarland was named to the NFLPA former players Board of Directors, and in 2010, he was made a former player representative on the NFL Executive Committee. He spoke with the club about the myriad of problems facing the NFL, the NFLPA, the NCAA, and athletes everywhere.

McFarland wished to share his opinions, and hear those of club members, on many of the important issues facing professional and collegiate sports, particularly football. His experiences as a collegiate and professional football player, member of the NFLPA, labor and employment lawyer, and state senator allowed him to speak with distinction on many prominent controversies.

On Player Health and Safety

McFarland illustrated the change in philosophy regarding head injuries, sharing his personal experiences of concussions during his playing career.  He spoke about a particular occasion, where after being rendered unconscious on a kickoff, he returned to play later in the same game.

While McFarland was able to achieve off-field success after his playing days, and remains mentally sharp decades later, he laments the physical, mental, and emotional ailments affecting many of his teammates and opponents.  McFarland was critical of the NFL's response to these issues, pointing out the NFL's distribution of the "Greatest Hits" series at a time when the League was issuing suspensions and fines to players who initiated dangerous plays.

But the NFL was not solely to blame, as the NFLPA had also not done enough to protect its players, according to McFarland. In answering a club member's question, McFarland noted the difficult position the Union often finds itself when defending players against suspensions for dangerous plays. He said that although the NFLPA has a legal obligation to grieve complaints on behalf of its members, they also represent the players seriously injured by illegal hits. This issue, along with other similar contradictions, made the Players Association work very difficult.

On the NFL Concussion Lawsuit Settlement

McFarland discussed all aspects of the disputed settlement of a lawsuit between former players and the NFL.  While lawyers from both sides agreed to a $765 MM settlement, a judge has held up the agreement for further investigation.  Concerns about the settlement include whether there will be enough money to meet the needs of all who would qualify for benefits.

McFarland said that the settlement was good for the NFL, in that it would avoid costly litigation and even greater potential damages in a class action court battle.  Also, with no admission of guilt, the League could finally put the issue behind them.  The settlement would also benefit many former players who need benefits sooner rather than later.  The immediate help that the agreement would provide would help ease burdens now for ex-players struggling with health or financial difficulties.

But McFarland worries that the deal will fall short of providing substantive help to all that deserve it over the long-term.  He was skeptical of the incentives of the lawyers who negotiated the deal, stating that "one-third of $765 MM is  lot of money".

On College Athletics

McFarland stated his interest in the union organizing campaign at Northwestern. While he is mixed on the role of unions in college sports, the collective action taken by players is yet another sign of the flaws of the NCAA.  He also wondered how unionization could meet the needs of students in other sports, as well as those in public schools, especially in anti-union states.

He noted that a professional may be more appropriate for certain schools with large fan bases. But on the whole, McFarland preferred the "Ivy League system", where scholarships are awarded on the basis of financial need rather than athletic prowess.

On Race and Inequality in Football

McFarland left the audience with a question regarding race in football.  He stated that the current  racial dynamics of the sport were "something to think about". When he began his professional playing career, McFarland said the league was approximately 50% African-American players.  The number has gone up dramatically since then, and he wonders what that says about our athletic and educational systems.  If you removed the positions of center, long-snapper, quarterbacks, kickers, and punters, African-Americans would make up 92% of the NFL players.

Again, we’d like to thank Jim McFarland for taking the time to speak with members of our club. It was an incredibly informative and insightful discussion, which we all truly enjoyed and appreciated.

All Hail the NCAA's Arcane Rules

Mitch McGary will never wear Michigan Maize again

Friday April 25th the NCAA ended Michigan’s 2014-5 NCAA basketball chances likely ended. Also the NCAA found a new way to blow up twitter and blogs with its arcane rules. The NCAA suspended Mitch McGary for a year effectively forcing him to declare for the NBA Draft. Mitch McGary was an pre-season All American who missed all of last season because of a back injury. He passed 5 drugs tests over the course of the year and failed the 6th. The issue was that the NCAA administered the 6th drug test. The NCAA’s punishment for a failed drug test at a championship event which is what the Sweet Sixteen is considered when McGary failed the test and was forced to suspend for the year.

If Michigan had caught McGary smoking weed in a university drug test one that occurred just two weeks before the NCAA one, the University of Michigan policy is to suspend him for 10% of the season which is effectively 3 games and a week of activities. Michigan’s policy is considered strict by NCAA standards. If McGary’s test had occurred on April 16th and not March 28th, 19 days later then McGary would have been suspended for just 6 months making him eligible for the season and not a year.

To recap: If McGary fails his test 2 weeks earlier, he misses a week and 10% of his games, if he fails 19 days later a change in NCAA policy means his suspension would have been just 6 months and he could play for Michigan next year. Yet McGary got caught in the middle and the NCAA is all but forcing his hand to go to the NBA. The NCAA does not even require teams to test for weed, yet when they do it’s a year punishment. I am sorry, but if you were protecting your student athletes, NCAA, you would have reversed the decision on appeal and not tried to force out McGary.

He smoked weed one time, he understands the mistake he made and now his college career was effectively ended. Marshall Henderson, got a 3 game suspension for being arrested for possession of weed and cocaine, this was after numerous failed drug tests that forced him to transfer 3 different teams in college, yet the University of Mississippi and not the NCAA caught him and they got to determine the punishment. How does that make any sense? Why is everyone not held to the same standard?

This is the NCAA’s critical problem: the rules are inconsistent. It is not just that Marshall Henderson can be pulled over for weed and cocaine possession and get 3 games and McGary smokes weed once, and gets a full year suspension, but coaches can leave a school and break their contract with ease and players cannot. Last week, Kansas St. announced that would not release Leticia Romero from her scholarship. Leticia Romero wanted to transfer after Kansas St. fired their women’s basketball coach Deb Patterson, the women who had recruited Romero. Romero decided the new coach did not fit her style and wanted to leave. Under NCAA rules, if a university does not release a transferring athlete from their scholarship when they choose to transfer, they cannot receive financial aid initially at their next school.

Yes, the coach can leave a university without repercussions, but a student-athlete cannot. The NCAA took a small step to fix this injustice saying that from now on transferring players will not lose a year of eligibility when they transfer if they already redshirted, but it does not stop a university from blocking that transfer. Kansas St. was unhappy with their coach and fired them, the players were unhappy with that decision and could not leave. This is a hypocrisy that are the NCAA rules.

I am sorry Mitch McGary. I am sorry Leticia Romero. I wish the NCAA would change their rules and become a place of logic and reason. You guys are both stuck with horrible rules that do not benefit you.  These are the reasons why there is talk of players trying to unionize. They have no voice. The NCAA recently announced rule changes that are supposed to help benefit the athlete which is awesome. It would have been nice if the athletes had a say in these rule changes.

The players are left voiceless and the rules are arcane. How can you have rules that say that failing a drug test on the Sunday of the Big Ten Tourney when Michigan gave him his drug test meant he would be suspended a week plus 3 games, but if he fails on Thursday at the NCAA tournament the punishment shoots up to a year? How can you freely allow coaches to break contracts and leave schools, but tell the players that signed with those school for those coaches, that they must stay at the school and even if they can get the school to allow them to leave, they must sit out a year before becoming eligible? The NCAA needs to look at itself in the mirror and realize that mistakes are being made and they are at fault.

Mid-Major Conference Tournaments: The Solution

This is Part II of a two-part post on mid-major college basketball tournament reform.  To read Part I, click here.  
The all-important question then becomes what can a mid-major conference do to ensure that their distinguished team has the best chance of making it through the conference tournament? I would argue that one of the most significant ways that a conference can do this is through implementing a tournament format that rewards the most successful teams.

The format used in the America East during the 2012-2013 season is a perfect illustration of a conference doing the complete opposite.By allowing the highest bidding school to host the tournament and play all of the games up until the final (which is then played at the highest remaining seed) on their home floor, the conference was allowing teams to buy arguably the most influential advantage in all of college hoops that doesn’t concern talent of players and coaches- a raucous home crowd. In my opinion, this runs contrary to the spirit of college athletics, and to the credit of the America East leadership, the format has been changed to a campus sites model for the 2014-2015 season.

 It is my contention that all traditional mid-major conferences that generally do not have access to at-large bids should adopt this campus sites model that has already been put in place by the likes of the Northeast Conference and the Patriot League. One of the most basic principles in Division 1 college basketball is that teams win more often at home than on the road. Looking at the Summit League for example, in an analysis of 388 conference games, the home team won 61.60% of the time. In the Sun Belt, an analysis of 594 conference games concluded that the home team won 63.30% of the time.

This data provides backing for the assertion that home teams win mid-major college basketball games, and by implementing a campus sites format (in which the team with the higher seed as determined by season performance plays before their home crowd), conferences are doing their part to provide a safety net to teams who have demonstrated their ability to represent their conferences successfully all year long.

Neutral site models and formats similar to the one used by the America East in the 2012-2013 season, simply do not do this. The question then becomes why should mid-major conferences want their best team to represent them in the NCAA Tournament? The truth is that conferences have every incentive to get their best representative to the massive audience of the NCAA Tournament.

Economically, it pays for conferences to send teams that have a chance to sneak a win or make a Cinderella run. While first round and play-in game losers bring conferences $1.9 million under the NCAA’s Revenue Distribution Plan (teams get compensated for every game they compete in), teams that make a run in the tournament can earn up to $9.5 million for their conference if they make the Final Four (and if a team loses after the first round but before the Final Four, it can be anywhere in-between $1.9 and $9.5 million).  This revenue can and does go a long way for mid-major conferences.

Using the America East as a representative example, there are 19 other sports that the conference and member schools must find a way to fund (because nearly all of the other sports are either revenue neutral or lose money). When it comes down to it, if a conference can find ways to get their best team into the NCAA Tournament, it can make operating the rest of the conference that much easier. Additionally, in order to capitalize on the potential for licensing deals in merchandizing and TV, mid-major conferences need to build a brand.

With that said, it’s impossible for a conference to build a brand that is recognizable to the casual college basketball fan if its one team is losing in the first round of the Tournament every year. Networks aren’t lining up to secure contracts with conferences like the America East, especially if the best teams aren't the ones representing the conference on a consistent basis.  

Let’s face it, brands are built in March. The Colonial Athletic Association and the Ivy League weren’t awarded national television contracts with NBC because they have a history of losing in the first round of the Tournament (granted the IVY League doesn’t have a conference tournament, but I believe that is taking things too far and is an issue for another article). On the contrary, it’s historic runs deep into March by the likes of VCU (in 2011) and Cornell (in 2010) that attracts networks to conferences, and it’s this kind of history that attracts the casual viewer and builds name recognition.

Only once a known brand is established can a mid-major conference like the America East ascend in the ranks of college basketball. While it can be argued that teams control their own destiny and as such the best teams will make it through these conference tournaments, sometimes things go awry. No team is perfect, and conferences need to do their part to reward the best teams for their demonstrated success.

At the end of the day, it is in the best interests of mid-major conferences to see their best team advance to the NCAA Tournament.  This means that it is critical that they set procedures for their conference tournament that promotes positive outcomes for the best team, and I am of the opinion that a campus sites model is one of the most effective ways to do so.

This is Part II of a two-part post on mid-major college basketball conference tournaments. Click here for Part I.

Mid-Major Conference Tournaments: The Problem

This is Part I of a two-part post on mid-major college basketball conference tournaments. Check back tomorrow for Part II.

As University of Albany standout Mike Black drove down the lane in a 59-59 game with under 5 seconds to play in the semi-finals of the America East Men’s Basketball Tournament, with a chance to play in the all hallowed NCAA Tournament on the line, I knew exactly what was about to happen. The #4 seeded Great Danes of Albany were about to upset my #1 seeded Stony Brook University Seawolves and move on to the conference finals for a shot at the bright lights of the big dance.

Black scored with 2.4 seconds to play to put the Danes up 61-59, which would end up being the final score.  I wondered how the conference leadership could possibility allow this to come to fruition; it seemed unreal to me that a team with a 9-7 conference record at the time (Albany, who held a 22-10 record overall) could possibly be in a position to host and beat a team that only lost 6 games the entire season (Stony Brook held a 14-2 conference record and a 24-6 record overall).

What good reason, I said to myself (and anyone that would listen to me for that matter), would the conference have to select a tournament format where one team, regardless of seed determined by season performance, gets to play in front of their home fans in every game up until the final? The answer I came up with?

There aren’t any.

The plight of the 2012-2013 Seawolves is a familiar one in the world mid-major college hoops. In any given year, there are two or three teams from lower ranked conferences (think the America East, the Summit League, or the Patriot League) who fall prey to a system that, simply put, does not reward excellence. The sad reality for teams in conferences sitting near the bottom of Division 1 college basketball is that regular season performance just does not matter. Save a near undefeated campaign or a top 50 RPI (which may or may not get you an at-large bid for teams at this level) the only way into the NCAA Tournament for teams in the bottom 10 or 15 conferences is through one’s conference tournament.

While clearly not the most “fair” system, it is the standard and it needs to be embraced (because it’s just not going away anytime soon). The truth of the matter is that 8 out of the 10 members of the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee are athletic directors or commissioners from high major conferences (perhaps one could make the argument that the West Coast Conference Commissioner should be considered a mid-major representative and that number is really 7, but I would argue that the perennial success of WCC teams like Gonzaga, BYU, and St.Mary’s in the sport of men’s basketball dictates otherwise).

Until the ratio of high-major to mid-major representatives on the committee draws closer to 1:1, there is going to be a natural tendency for these committee members representing conferences like the ACC, BIG TEN, and the PAC 12 to give at-large bids to mediocre, high major bubble teams (i.e. Minnesota in 2012-2013, with an 8-10 conference record) over successful mid-majors like Stony Brook.

I’m not saying that a team like Stony Brook would have necessarily performed equal to or better than Minnesota if given a shot in the NCAA Tournament (because Minnesota did end up beating a very good UCLA team in the 2013 tournament), I’m merely saying that it’s impossible to know how they would have performed because mid-major teams aren’t given proportional opportunity relative to high major teams.

This profound disparity of opportunity does not mean that mid-major conferences aren’t given a chance to shine under the bright lights of the big dance. This places a substantial burden on conferences to make absolutely certain that they are doing everything in their power to get their best team through their conference tournaments.

This is Part I of a two-part post on mid-major college basketball conference tournaments. Check back tomorrow for Part II.

The Age of Recruitment

It seems like every month a new story is published about a middle schooler committing to a Division 1 college football or basketball program. Whether it be the thirteen year old quarterback from Delaware named David Sills that committed to University of Southern California in 2010, or the seven year old Argentine soccer prospect named Leonel Angel Coira that signed with Spanish club Real Madrid in 2011, professional and college teams are reaching out to recruits at younger ages in order to benefit their teams in the long run. Unfortunately, this has negatively effected these adolescents' social and educational development.

Whether it be to have positive publicity or  a competitive advantage over their competitors, professional and more importantly in America, college sport programs are putting more emphasis into their recruitment process. In a lucrative industry known as Division I college football, coaches spend a majority of their off season football related activities recruiting high school and even middle school prospects, as well as close to 10% of their in-season activities on recruitment. The pressure for big name  college programs to crack a top 10 recruiting class directly relates to how well the teams are expected to perform over the next couple of years.

If a well respected program such as Notre Dame fails to attract four and five star recruits to its program, its shortage of talent could result in dwindled performance, which in the long run could have financial consequences to it. Due to these potential program-altering repercussions, college coaches look towards improving recruiting as the first and foremost way to turn their programs in the right direction. I am willing to bet that the Ole Miss Rebels football team (University of Mississippi), which under first year head coach Hugh Freeze produced a top 5 recruiting class, begins to shift from a mediocre 6-6 doormat to a major SEC power player over the next couple of years.

With the increasing importance of recruitment, college and professional programs are reaching out to teenagers at younger ages, to both many successes and failures. Many current NBA and NFL all stars were highly touted NBA prospects even as underclassmen in high school. Brandon Jennings left his hometown of Compton, California to play for high school basketball powerhouse Oak Hill Academy in  Virginia before his junior year. At this point, he was already rated as the top player in the class of 2008 according to ESPNU 150, and he has turned out to be a skillful scorer in the NBA.

Freddy Adu at age 14

On the other hand, there have been many instances of failure while recruiting athletes at young ages. For example, Freddy Adu became a professional soccer player when he signed with MLS club DC United at the age of 14, and was quickly hailed to be the next Pelé. After years of struggling and moving from league to league, Freddy Adu has clearly not lived up to his original hype. In my opinion, Adu's downfall was due to him not taking the proper time to develop his skills, as well as the pressures that go along with being labeled a prodigy at such a young age.

Another example of an early recruitment failure is the case of Michael Avery, a basketball player who committed to the University of Kentucky in eighth grade. He was offered a scholarship by then Kentucky basketball coach Billy Gillispie in 2008, and the offer became a controversial national headline. After Gillispie was fired in 2009, Avery rescinded his commitment, and he ended up committing to Sonoma State, a division II program. 

While early age recruitment opens opportunities for young athletes to ascend in the world of sports, its potential effects on social development can be severe. When teenagers dedicate there lives to one specific thing such as a sport, they are hampered from exploring new interests and developing a full persona away from the sports stage. Additionally, many students who have a full time sport-centered schedule are home-schooled. Studies on childhood development have concluded that learning in isolated environments is potentially damaging to a child's development of social skills such as empathy and awareness of diversity. While it is difficult to quantify all of the potential negative effects of focusing all of one's efforts on a specific sport, it is by no means unreasonable to state that they are readily apparent. 

While recruiting at earlier ages has proved effective for many college sports programs, it has put further pressure on adolescents and families to strive to great lengths to maximize exposure. There is no end in sight for early age recruitment to end, but adults in the sports industry must prioritize children's needs before their own professional amelioration. 

Blogger Roundtable: The Future of the NCAA

What will the NCAA look like in five years? We gave our thoughts, so now it's your turn.  Answer our poll at the top of the blog and then leave a comment at the bottom of this post explaining why. 

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has never faced the instability it faces today.  The governing body for college sports is under assault from all angles.  Current student-athletes are demanding increased and more direct compensation and increase economic rights (such as the ability to use their name and image).  Former Division I football and basketball players have an ongoing lawsuit against the NCAA over the use of images in the popular video games (the players have already settled with EA Sports for $40 Million). 

With the visibility of under-the-table payment and other suspect recruiting tactics increasing its highest levels in decades, coaches and administrators are even proposing "pay-for-play" models.  Some in college athletics, do not agree about the role of the NCAA.  Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney expressed his view stating “If athletes want to professionalize themselves, then professionalize themselves... but why is it our job to be the minor leagues for professional sports?" NCAA President Mark Emmert stated "a lot of change" is ahead for his organization.

So we asked the question, "What will the NCAA look like in five years?"  Here is what our bloggers had to say:

Stephen Rosen (Lead Editor)

In the next five years, the NCAA will no longer be the governing body for football. Currently the Football Bowl Series (Division 1A Football) is the only sport the NCAA does not control the playoff for and soon it will not regulate the sport at all. The closer and closer the colleges move to four 16-team conferences, the closer they will move away from the NCAA as its regulatory body. The NCAA has consistently been inconsistent in its punishment of schools and players and its only time until the schools realize their association with them is not necessary to truly maximize their profits. As for the other sports, only basketball has a chance of surviving as an independent sport outside of the NCAA due to its large revenue steam, but it will most likely be kept in as part of the NCAA's current structure. By leaving the structure of the NCAA, the possibility would arise where new rules where players could get paid for playing for college football while other student athletes in other sports may not be equally compensated.

Adam Malz (Featured Blogger)

In five years, the NCAA will have a drastically different landscape. Of course next year starts the four team playoff system in college football which should certainly kick up some new debates, but I think that in five years this playoff system with expand to fit eight teams. Another major difference in the NCAA will be in regard to conferences. We have recently seen schools from all across the nation swapping conferences and moving around with every university trying to find the “perfect fit” for them. In reality it comes down to where they can make the most money off of their best sports. The next five years is sure to contain much more of this mixing and matching that seems to be the new cultural norm around the NCAA.

Matthew Hakimian (Featured Blogger)

In five years, Division I football and basketball student athletes will finally be monetarily compensated after years of being exploited by the NCAA. The BCS will cease to exist, as the playoff system will be an absolute hit; eight teams will have the right to make their claim as the greatest college football team in the nation. The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament will further expand to a whopping 96 teams, with a entire full rounded added to March Madness. Both sports will feature just four powerhouse conferences: the ACC, Big Ten, SEC, and Pac 12. With the AAC (former Big East) and the Big 12 folding or losing prominence, each conference will contain around 20 schools

Joshua Goldstein

Due to the NCAA's growing revenues from various television and advertising contracts, I believe that there will be some sort of supplemental payment plan for student athletes in five years. I don't believe that athletes will have set contracts with the NCAA, but rather there will be pay plans in which students receive a small portion of their university's revenues from television contracts and merchandise sales.

What will the NCAA look like in five years? We gave our thoughts, so now it's your turn.  Answer our poll at the top of the blog and then leave a comment at the bottom of this post explaining why.