MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on March 30, 2015, 07:30:23 PM
-
A March Madness Underdog: Free Enterprise
The ESPN analyst and former Duke star on why players should be paid and how to overhaul the ‘exploitive’ NCAA.
By Allysia Finley
Updated March 27, 2015 6:44 p.m. ET
Bristol, Conn.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/allysia-finley-a-march-madness-underdog-free-enterprise-1427493090
March Madness—the manic three-week tournament that culminates each college basketball season—may be the most celebrated vernal rite in the U.S. other than Easter. Last year’s games averaged 10.5 million viewers, with more than 21.2 million fans tuning into the championship between the universities of Connecticut and Kentucky.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) will rake in about $800 million from the broadcasting rights to this year’s tournament—a more than 500% increase from two decades ago. Yet this represents a mere sliver of the nearly $12 billion in revenues that flow annually through college athletic programs—principally, men’s football and basketball.
“This is a multibillion-dollar business. It’s professional in every way except in how the athletes are treated,” asserts ESPN’s pre-eminent college basketball analyst, Jay Bilas, who played center for Duke from 1982 to 1986. The straight-shooter doesn’t waste time getting to his point: “When you are profiting off someone else while restricting them from earning a profit, that’s exploitation.”
Decked in a warm-up suit and Los Angeles Dodgers baseball cap (he would change into business attire for “SportsCenter” an hour later), Mr. Bilas sat down with me at ESPN’s headquarters to discuss the future of the NCAA and college basketball. When not calling games or analyzing them, the Duke grad practices commercial law, a background that underlines his views about the governing body of college sports. To wit, the NCAA has become unwieldy and inequitable, to the detriment of basketball. His solution? Make the NCAA operate more like the free market and less like an overfed government bureaucracy.
The chief debate in college sports is whether players should be paid. Current and former college athletes led by ex-UCLA basketball forward Ed O’Bannon have sued the NCAA under the Sherman Antitrust Act for selling the use of their names and likenesses to broadcasters and videogame makers without giving players a cut. Under the pretext of preserving amateurism, the NCAA prohibits college athletes from earning compensation tied to their performance.
Mr. Bilas thinks the rules are hogwash. “No other student on any campus is restricted from earning whatever they can earn in whatever area they can earn it,” he notes. That includes techies, musicians and actresses like Emma Watson, who earned millions for playing Hermione Granger in the “Harry Potter” movies while attending Brown University.
Federal judge Claudia Wilken ruled last August that colleges could put money into trusts for players, payable when they leave the team. But she held that the NCAA could cap the amount at $5,000 per player annually. Last week the Ninth Circuit heard the NCAA’s appeal, though a ruling isn’t expected for at least several weeks.
Mr. Bilas praises Judge Wilken for smacking down the NCAA’s “industrywide wage restriction,” but he says the ruling is “flawed” in some respects and the $5,000 cap “arbitrary.” To be clear, he emphasizes, “I’m not advocating and never have that athletes should be paid. It might be a distinction without a difference to some, but what I’m saying is that it shouldn’t be disallowed.”
Under Mr. Bilas’s ideal system, college athletes would be paid what the market deems them to be worth. They could earn remuneration from the colleges and cash in on endorsement deals like their professional counterparts. Critics of that idea, including the NCAA, argue that this would corrupt college sports. President Obama last weekend weighed in on the debate by declaring that compensating athletes would “ruin the sense of college sports” and create “bidding wars” for players. The fear is that deep-pocketed programs will be able to buy up the best players, which would make smaller colleges less competitive.
Mr. Bilas scoffs: “What they are calling a ‘bidding war,’ the rest of the world calls business,” he says. “What most reasonable economists would say is: ‘No, actually, if these universities could pay, the smaller, lesser universities would have better opportunities. They could marshal their resources.’ ” For example, he says, Wichita State can’t compete for players with the University of Kansas. However, if colleges could pay, Wichita State might be able to offer the Jayhawks’ third recruit a better salary and poach him.
Mr. Bilas argues that schools are, in a sense, already competing like this. There are no restrictions on coaches’ compensation. “Should we not have nicer facilities at the bigger schools because the smaller schools can’t afford them?” he asks. Point taken.
Across the landscape, outlays for coaching and facilities have risen astronomically as revenues have soared. Consider the University of California, Los Angeles, whose athletics department generated $84 million in 2013. The university spent $31 million on coaching staff. Football coach Jim Mora earned $3.25 million, four times what the head coach made in 2006. Last year UCLA completed a $136 million renovation of its Pauley Pavilion basketball stadium. In contrast, only $11.6 million was spent on scholarships—across all sports.
Median revenues at the top 120 NCAA Division I programs doubled to $56 million in 2012 from 2004. More than a dozen college-sports programs gross over $100 million a year. Mr. Bilas predicts that the pot will continue to expand. “Nobody could imagine when I was a kid that people would be paying $100 for a ticket to a college-football game—and they’re doing it,” he says.
But he stresses that his beef isn’t that the raw totals are too high; it’s that the ban on paying players skews the market and misallocates resources. For instance, some college basketball players might not bolt for the NBA after one year if they could get paid. “It’s a huge distortion because they don’t pay their primary revenue drivers, which is the players,” he explains. “The NBA doesn’t pay as much for coaches” or “build the facilities that college builds.”
Further, he argues that the compensation ban encourages rather than deters corruption. Many universities, such as Syracuse and the University of Southern California, have been sanctioned by the NCAA because athletes received money under the table. “Right now a player is prohibited from having an agent,” Mr. Bilas says. “That means the only contact an athlete is going to have is with unethical ones because the ethical agents are on the sidelines.”
Under the Bilas system, colleges and athletes would negotiate contracts that could include a noncompete clause, to induce players to stay for their full college terms, and a behavior clause in case they run afoul of the law. Athletes could unionize if they want, as football players at Northwestern University last year sought the approval of the National Labor Relations Board to do.
“The rest of the world operates in a free market. It’s really not that big of a deal. It’s amazing how we can all handle this free-market system, but the athletes can’t,” Mr. Bilas exclaims. Opponents of paying athletes, he says, act as if “the world is going to spin off its axis, that dogs and cats are going to be living together—all these doomsday scenarios.” The real reason why the NCAA is fighting the free market, he says, is that “they don’t want to lose control of the money.”
This brings us to the structure of the 105-year-old institution, which may be due for a revolution or constitutional convention. “A couple of years ago, the NCAA spoke with such pride about reducing the rule book by a few pages,” Mr. Bilas says, “but it’s still bigger than the phone book”—407 pages for the Division I manual. The result is a bloated and intractable bureaucracy.
Case in point is college basketball, which spectators and analysts including Mr. Bilas have criticized for its slow tempo and low scoring. Teams have averaged 67.1 points this season through Feb. 22—a 60-year nadir, according to Sports Illustrated. Average possessions per 40-minute game have fallen by 6.5% since 2002. Average attendance has been declining for the past seven years and dropped last season to a record low. Broadcasting revenues have increased, but that is in part because there are more televised games.
Mr. Bilas faults the unduly long 35-second shot clock in the college men’s game. In women’s college basketball, the shot clock is 30 seconds. In the NBA and international leagues, players have 24 seconds. “The game is not adapting. Every other game has adapted,” says Mr. Bilas. “The international game just put in a rule that if you get an offensive rebound, the shot clock doesn’t reset to 24. It resets to 14 because you don’t have to bring the ball up.”
College basketball needs a commissioner like the pros have, he says, rather than just sundry committees with diffuse responsibilities. As Alexander Hamilton observed, there is energy in the executive. Mr. Bilas would also bar coaches from sitting on the rules committee. By his telling, the NCAA presents a classic case of regulatory capture, with coaches tailoring the rules to their liking.
He also recommends that the NCAA leave academics alone. “The NCAA is an athletic association. What they should be doing is staying in their lane and administering athletic competition. They’re not an accreditation service,” he says.
OK, but doesn’t the NCAA have an obligation to prevent the kind of egregious, systematic cheating that spanned two decades at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill? In 2011, it was revealed that the head of the African and Afro-American Studies department had conspired to give thousands of students, including many athletes at risk of losing eligibility, credit for no-show classes. “Now, there may have been athletic benefits . . . but are we really going to ask coaches to monitor the conduct of academic departments?” Mr. Bilas asks. “Shouldn’t chancellors, presidents and provosts be responsible for that?”
Too often, Mr. Bilas argues, the NCAA plays the name-and-shame game and throws the book at rulebreakers to promote its self-image—which in his opinion is a sham—as a high-minded institution. Earlier this year, Syracuse was punished mainly because athletics department staff members improperly assisted a few basketball players with their course work. The NCAA suspended basketball coach Jim Boeheim for nine games, vacated 108 wins since 2004 and eliminated 12 scholarships over the next four years. “There were clearly rules violations,” says Mr. Bilas, but “the penalties were disproportional.” He likens the episode to “saying I was speeding, and I admit that I was speeding, so we’re going to deem that a felony, and you’re going to spend 10 years in jail.”
As for the argument that colleges are failing to provide students with a marketable education, Mr. Bilas believes that it is “up to each individual to get an education. Where I think the exploitation comes from is when you are running a multibillion-dollar business and everyone gets their fair-market value except the athlete.”
Mr. Bilas’s least controversial opinion may be his prediction that the undefeated Kentucky Wildcats will win the tournament. But like his other views, this pick seems logical.
Ms. Finley is an editorial writer for the Journal.
-
Bilas pushes paper for a livin'. Sounds par for the course, hey?
-
This is spot-on and I love the international rule.
Case in point is college basketball, which spectators and analysts including Mr. Bilas have criticized for its slow tempo and low scoring. Teams have averaged 67.1 points this season through Feb. 22—a 60-year nadir, according to Sports Illustrated. Average possessions per 40-minute game have fallen by 6.5% since 2002. Average attendance has been declining for the past seven years and dropped last season to a record low. Broadcasting revenues have increased, but that is in part because there are more televised games.
Mr. Bilas faults the unduly long 35-second shot clock in the college men’s game. In women’s college basketball, the shot clock is 30 seconds. In the NBA and international leagues, players have 24 seconds. “The game is not adapting. Every other game has adapted,” says Mr. Bilas. “The international game just put in a rule that if you get an offensive rebound, the shot clock doesn’t reset to 24. It resets to 14 because you don’t have to bring the ball up.”
-
This is spot-on and I love the international rule.
Case in point is college basketball, which spectators and analysts including Mr. Bilas have criticized for its slow tempo and low scoring. Teams have averaged 67.1 points this season through Feb. 22—a 60-year nadir, according to Sports Illustrated. Average possessions per 40-minute game have fallen by 6.5% since 2002. Average attendance has been declining for the past seven years and dropped last season to a record low. Broadcasting revenues have increased, but that is in part because there are more televised games.
Mr. Bilas faults the unduly long 35-second shot clock in the college men’s game. In women’s college basketball, the shot clock is 30 seconds. In the NBA and international leagues, players have 24 seconds. “The game is not adapting. Every other game has adapted,” says Mr. Bilas. “The international game just put in a rule that if you get an offensive rebound, the shot clock doesn’t reset to 24. It resets to 14 because you don’t have to bring the ball up.”
Seems like there is support to go to 30, hopefully for next season. Also really like that international rule of a lower reset for offensive rebounds. Nothing as lame as Bennett Ball where missing and getting the rebound is better than making it cause you can milk another 35.
-
It's worth a try. College hoops needs help. Getting tougher and tougher to watch. This year, I suffered through a handful of MU games and that was about it. Started to watch other games...but quickly lost interest.
-
Other international rules I would adopt....
*No timeouts unless it is a dead ball.
*Once the ball hits the rim, it can be touched by a offensive or defensive player.
Also the college game should adapt the NBA sized lane.
-
Jay Bilas for NCAA commissioner? It would be a great way to start intelligent reform, so...
It ain't gonna happen
-
Then all you'd need to do is make it so anyone buying cable TV can decide on a wide variety of different sports channel packages or decline sports channels completely, and America would again be a great country.
-
Then all you'd need to do is make it so anyone buying cable TV can decide on a wide variety of different sports channel packages or decline sports channels completely, and America would again be a great country.
Forget buy....we should make them all FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
-
Be careful what you ask for with the shot clock. If you speed up the game more, you make it more and more like the NBA which is a no thank you for me. Furthermore, you reduce the chances for upsets because the small ball and slow ball can work to a better degree with a 35 shot clock then a 30 or 24. More possessions reduce the chances for a lesser team of talent to win.
I don't see widening the lane as a benefit with the lack of quality post players in college anyway. Makes is next to impossible to get an offensive rebound on a free throw miss as well.
For the love of Jesus, please don't adopt the NBA rule where you can advance the ball to half court on a timeout. Lamest rule in all of sports.
-
Be careful what you ask for with the shot clock. If you speed up the game more, you make it more and more like the NBA which is a no thank you for me.
Maybe for you but not the rest of the country. As the story above says, all college basketball ratings are at a 7 year low. But the NBA ratings are going up. The public likes the NBA game more than the college game.
The final two minutes of a college game is PAINFUL! ... the timeouts, the FTs, the ref having to look at the replays. It can take 30 minutes to finish a game!! If nothing else they have to adopt rules to end the constant standing around at the end of the game. Throw the ball in, start the clock and finish the game!!
-
I'll never understand why coaches get so many timeouts in basketball (college and pro). The end of games can be unbearable and it's the reason I've heard from casual fans as to why they don't watch it more.
-
I'll never understand why coaches get so many timeouts in basketball (college and pro). The end of games can be unbearable and it's the reason I've heard from casual fans as to why they don't watch it more.
More timeouts. More advertisements. More money.
-
Football does just fine with three timeouts.
-
I'll never understand why coaches get so many timeouts in basketball (college and pro). The end of games can be unbearable and it's the reason I've heard from casual fans as to why they don't watch it more.
18 timeouts + reviews = intolerable.
-
More timeouts. More advertisements. More money.
Not if the constant stoppage of play drives fans away.
-
Football does just fine with three timeouts.
But there are way more natural breaks in the action (i.e. after every score, after every change of possession) in a football game than in a basketball game.
-
Best way to increase scoring is to officiate the games tighter. You're going to have to bite the bullet with some foulfests for a couple of seasons until everyone gets used to it. The other thing is for officials to err more on the side of the offense on block/charge calls. It is much more exciting to watch defenders try to block shots than to just jump in a driver's way. Heck, we were as guilty as anybody during Buzz's early years. Anybody trying to run through the lane against us would get bounced around like a superball.
I remember when Georgetown got good in the 80s I didn't like them because I thought they got away with an excessive amount of hacking. What they did then would be considered mild by today's standards.
Also, strength and athleticism are gradually overtaking skill in the college game. Not sure what can be done about that. Skillful players who lack elite athleticism are having more and more trouble getting free to make shots.
-
Football does just fine with three timeouts.
Football basically has a 30 second timeout after every play! TOs in football are usually just to manage the clock. The game takes over three hours and they are actually playing football (snap to tackle) for less than 15 minutes.
-
And there's something like 18 fouls per game in college basketball plus four TV timeouts per half. Plenty of time to rest and the pg can run over and talk to coach when free throws are being shot. Why do coaches need five timeouts? They just save them for the last two minutes and call them every possession. And along with fouls at the end, that's part of the reason the average person doesn't want to watch it.
-
And there's something like 18 fouls per game in college basketball plus four TV timeouts per half. Plenty of time to rest and the pg can run over and talk to coach when free throws are being shot. Why do coaches need five timeouts? They just save them for the last two minutes and call them every possession. And along with fouls at the end, that's part of the reason the average person doesn't want to watch it.
I agree with you that there are too many timeouts in college basketball. But really, who is watching a close game for 2 hours and turning it off in the last few minutes because of a lot of timeouts? Or deciding not to watch the next one for that reason?
As I get older, I do find myself bored and turning off games in all sports when I don't particularly care who wins. I find the lengthier timeouts and breaks between innings and the incessant in-game hyping of the next crappy sitcom growing more and more tiresome. All sports are purposely making their product less desirable in search of milking every penny now.
-
Football does just fine with three timeouts.
Plus replay challenge timeouts (that if won, don't take away from the three timeouts). Plus booth replay reviews. Plus the outdated and stupid two minute warning. Plus more injury timeouts than any sport. Plus 40 seconds to run a play.
-
I agree with you that there are too many timeouts in college basketball. But really, who is watching a close game for 2 hours and turning it off in the last few minutes because of a lot of timeouts? Or deciding not to watch the next one for that reason?
As I get older, I do find myself bored and turning off games in all sports when I don't particularly care who wins. I find the lengthier timeouts and breaks between innings and the incessant in-game hyping of the next crappy sitcom growing more and more tiresome. All sports are purposely making their product less desirable in search of milking every penny now.
Sports are becoming more and more difficult to sit through. The only thing worse than watching these timeout fests on TV is being inside the arena or stadium. Go to a Packers game. Seems like all you do is watch players stand around on the field waiting for the commercial breaks to end. Very tedious. Each sport has its time issues. Baseball, basketball, and football. All more enjoyable to watch years ago.
Unfortunately, TV dollars rule all...and that ain't gonna change. So expect more breaks in the "action."
-
Maybe for you but not the rest of the country. As the story above says, all college basketball ratings are at a 7 year low. But the NBA ratings are going up. The public likes the NBA game more than the college game.
The final two minutes of a college game is PAINFUL! ... the timeouts, the FTs, the ref having to look at the replays. It can take 30 minutes to finish a game!! If nothing else they have to adopt rules to end the constant standing around at the end of the game. Throw the ball in, start the clock and finish the game!!
Please point out where in that article it says tv ratings are at a 7 year low. It says ATTENDANCE is down to a 7 year low. Part of that is the inclusion of more DI schools, which have smaller gymnasiums and bring down the average. Some of that is because so many games are on television that people choose to stay home.
The final two minutes are painful, but that is easily fixed without adjusting some of the other rules.
SOME of the public likes the NBA game. Some of the public likes the college game. Do not assume that basketball fans like both versions. We've done many studies over the years when I headed up sports at DTV on cross over of NBA and college basketball fans. You would be surprised how man people like one and not the other. So if you make one game more like the other which they don't like, you risk alienating those fans as well. Everything in moderation.
The last 2 minutes of a college game is actually better than the last 2 minutes of a NBA game in my view. The refs can go to the monitor in th NBA, too. Timeouts an issue in the NBA, too. Except the NBA still gives two free throws to the best players in the world, which is mind boggling. You could eliminate that from college hoops, but that's a major strategic concept removed if you go down that path.
And NBA ratings were down last year....by quite a bit. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/04/nba-regular-season-wrap-multi-year-lows-for-nba-tv-partners/
-
Forget buy....we should make them all FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Gosh darn it, you've convinced me!
-
Please point out where in that article it says tv ratings are at a 7 year low. It says ATTENDANCE is down to a 7 year low. Part of that is the inclusion of more DI schools, which have smaller gymnasiums and bring down the average. Some of that is because so many games are on television that people choose to stay home.
The final two minutes are painful, but that is easily fixed without adjusting some of the other rules.
SOME of the public likes the NBA game. Some of the public likes the college game. Do not assume that basketball fans like both versions. We've done many studies over the years when I headed up sports at DTV on cross over of NBA and college basketball fans. You would be surprised how man people like one and not the other. So if you make one game more like the other which they don't like, you risk alienating those fans as well. Everything in moderation.
The last 2 minutes of a college game is actually better than the last 2 minutes of a NBA game in my view. The refs can go to the monitor in th NBA, too. Timeouts an issue in the NBA, too. Except the NBA still gives two free throws to the best players in the world, which is mind boggling. You could eliminate that from college hoops, but that's a major strategic concept removed if you go down that path.
And NBA ratings were down last year....by quite a bit. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/04/nba-regular-season-wrap-multi-year-lows-for-nba-tv-partners/
Correct, Attendance, not ratings. My bad.
I agree with what you are saying that shortening the shot clock is a taste thing. I would like more possessions per game and more of an up and down game. That is my preference.
But, as you note the real problem is the end of the game (or half) is the painful part. Too many stoppages, too much standing around. More basketball, less commercials (or t-shirts on parachutes if you're at the game).
Play basketball in the last two minutes. Not calling endless time-outs, video reviews standing around waiting for FTs and the like.
-
Correct, Attendance, not ratings. My bad.
I agree with what you are saying that shortening the shot clock is a taste thing. I would like more possessions per game and more of an up and down game. That is my interference.
But, as you note the real problem is the end of the game (or half) is the painful part. Too many stoppages, too much standing around. More basketball, less commercials (or t-shirts on parachutes if you're at the game).
Play basketball in the last two minutes. Not calling endless time-outs, video reviews standing around waiting for FTs and the like.
Only way to solve that is you have a max amount of timeouts in the last 5 minutes, regardless if you haven't used them. Get rid of the bonus and force into the double bonus....I think that's a bad idea. Changing the shot clock from 35 to 30 in the last two minutes only increases in theory one possession, but I don't think in reality it really will. In the last two minutes how often do you see a team going the full 35 in the last 2 minutes? They're either down and need to score fast, or the they are up and the other team is fouling them to try and get the ball back.
To me, all games in all sports at the end are long. Bring in the relief pitcher, put in the pinch runner or pinch hitter, timeouts in football, stop the clock to move the chains, run patterns that go out of bounds to stop the clock, timeouts, fouling in basketball, etc. Hockey is the exception, but even there that is where you will see 75% of timeouts in the final minutes of a game....each team only gets one.
-
To cut down on fouling near the end of the game the player gets 3 shots rather than 2 say in the last 2 minutes of the game.
-
To cut down on fouling near the end of the game the player gets 3 shots rather than 2 say in the last 2 minutes of the game.
Three shots to make 2? The old NBA rule? Ugh
Or just 3 shots?
I don't like either one, but curious what you mean.
-
To cut down on fouling near the end of the game the player gets 3 shots rather than 2 say in the last 2 minutes of the game.
I don't see how that will cut down on fouling.
The incentive to foul in that situation is to stop the clock. That incentive will be there whether the foul results in two or three FTs.
I suppose it could lead to a game being out of reach sooner, and therefore lead to less fouling in the last 30 seconds or so. But it would also lessen the chance for a dramatic finish. I don't see how that makes the game better.
-
1. No timeouts after a made field goal.
2. 3 timeouts per team (meaning 14 timeouts per game max. instead of 18)
3. 30 second shot clock.
There, I fixed the game!!
-
Three shots to make 2? The old NBA rule? Ugh
Or just 3 shots?
I don't like either one, but curious what you mean.
Three shots to make 3.
-
Jay Bilas has the right idea. The NCAA is exploiting athletes, pure and simple. Time to pay them. Period.
The game is fine. But too many of the best athletes are turning pro and with the increased number of Division 1 schools, the talent is far more diluted than it used to be.
-
Jay Bilas has the right idea. The NCAA is exploiting athletes, pure and simple. Time to pay them. Period.
The game is fine. But too many of the best athletes are turning pro and with the increased number of Division 1 schools, the talent is far more diluted than it used to be.
Mark Cuban was on CNBC today. He was asked about "drafting Kentucky Freshman." He said he "hated it" because they are "not ready" and then said he like to see the NBA revise the Collective Bargaining Agreement to "keep them in school longer."
-
Jay Bilas has the right idea. The NCAA is exploiting athletes, pure and simple. Time to pay them. Period.
The game is fine. But too many of the best athletes are turning pro and with the increased number of Division 1 schools, the talent is far more diluted than it used to be.
exploiting....goodness. They are not being exploited...453,000 athletes play each year under the NCAA umbrella. People continue to focus on the .001%.
-
exploiting....goodness. They are not being exploited...453,000 athletes play each year under the NCAA umbrella. People continue to focus on the .001%.
Well some are obviously being exploited while most hit the societal jackpot and get a scholarship to play a sport that basically nobody will pay to watch. So ~448,000 athletes get to reap the benefits of the revenue that they did nothing to help generate.
-
exploiting....goodness. They are not being exploited...453,000 athletes play each year under the NCAA umbrella. People continue to focus on the .001%.
When Bilas says NCAA tournament is a crapshoot or agrees with you on anything else, you use his viewpoint to support how wonderfully right you are. When he says athletes are being exploited and probably should be paid, which you disagree with, he can't possibly be right.
Got it.
-
When Bilas says NCAA tournament is a crapshoot or agrees with you on anything else, you use his viewpoint to support how wonderfully right you are. When he says athletes are being exploited and probably should be paid, which you disagree with, he can't possibly be right.
Got it.
Correct. I can think for myself, as can others including Bilas. I'm wrong at times, he's wrong at times, you are wrong at times. No one is all knowing. No one should be agreeing with everyone all the time.
I think people in this country have a preverse way of playing the word exploit. How much did Sam Dekker's initial contract just go up because of his "exploitation" the past two weeks. Give me a break on the exploitation crap, it does a disservice to the word and to actual people that truly are exploited.
Got it.
-
Correct. I can think for myself, as can others including Bilas. I'm wrong at times, he's wrong at times, you are wrong at times. No one is all knowing. No one should be agreeing with everyone all the time.
I think people in this country have a preverse way of playing the word exploit. How much did Sam Dekker's initial contract just go up because of his "exploitation" the past two weeks. Give me a break on the exploitation crap, it does a disservice to the word and to actual people that truly are exploited.
Got it.
Got it.
And now we all can confidently say the NCAA tournament is NOT a crapshoot because it doesn't matter than Bilas and Al and Bobby Knight say it is!
-
Well some are obviously being exploited while most hit the societal jackpot and get a scholarship to play a sport that basically nobody will pay to watch. So ~448,000 athletes get to reap the benefits of the revenue that they did nothing to help generate.
Define exploited to me and explain how they are exploited.
Before you answer, I will remind you they receive a free education, free tutoring, free food, free shelter, free clothing, access to some of the best coaching in the world, access to alumni networks that 99% of regular students couldn't dream of getting, and access to show off their wares to future employers in their sports...for free.
How are they being exploited and if that is exploitation, then I truly feel bad for people that are truly exploited in this world.
-
Define exploited to me and explain how they are exploited.
Before you answer, I will remind you they receive a free education, free tutoring, free food, free shelter, free clothing, access to some of the best coaching in the world, access to alumni networks that 99% of regular students couldn't dream of getting, and access to show off their wares to future employers in their sports...for free.
How are they being exploited and if that is exploitation, then I truly feel bad for people that are truly exploited in this world.
UNC players were steered to classes that didn't exist just to keep them eligible.
Were they forced at gunpoint to take those classes? No, they were not. But they were 18-21-year-olds, and they listened to adult authority figures who were telling them to take those classes. Why were those mentors and advisers, who were supposed to have the kids' best interests at heart, steering them to those classes? Because the kids in no uncertain terms were there to play basketball, not to get an education. (Lots of UNC football players were steered into those sham classes, too.)
The adults -- and it quite likely came from Roy, and possibly from above him-- all but guaranteed those "student-athletes" wouldn't be students. All so Roy could finally win the title that had eluded him forever.
A few of those basketball and football players went on to riches in pro sports, but most did not. Nor did those non-pros get an education, which theoretically is what a university is for.
You do not feel this was exploitation?
I know that is just one example, but only a naive person would think UNC is the only place stuff like that happened. And it almost surely is still happening on many campuses.
As for the scholarship, a student who earns a full ride to a university for being a saxophone savant can earn money playing saxophone for the symphony in that town even while also saxophoning for the university. The editor of the MU Tribune used to get a full ride (and maybe still does) but also could sell his/her work to the Journal and Sentinel. As Bilas correctly says, athletes are unjustly denied such a basic right to monetize their skills during their time at a university.
Although I think that's a form of exploitation, I am not in love with the term "exploitation." Because you are right, Chicos, the word conjures up images far worse than what is going on in college athletics.
As with most things in life, there are degrees. It's gray, not black and white.
-
Got it.
And now we all can confidently say the NCAA tournament is NOT a crapshoot because it doesn't matter than Bilas and Al and Bobby Knight say it is!
You can define it any way you want. Some call it a crapshoot, some do not. I put up the interview of the DePaul Prof of Mathematics who basically said either point of view is correct depending on what you mean by crapshoot.
-
UNC players were steered to classes that didn't exist just to keep them eligible.
Were they forced at gunpoint to take those classes? No, they were not. But they were 18-21-year-olds, and they listened to adult authority figures who were telling them to take those classes. Why were those mentors and advisers, who were supposed to have the kids' best interests at heart, steering them to those classes? Because the kids in no uncertain terms were there to play basketball, not to get an education. (Lots of UNC football players were steered into those sham classes, too.)
The adults -- and it quite likely came from Roy, and possibly from above him-- all but guaranteed those "student-athletes" wouldn't be students. All so Roy could finally win the title that had eluded him forever.
A few of those basketball and football players went on to riches in pro sports, but most did not. Nor did those non-pros get an education, which theoretically is what a university is for.
You do not feel this was exploitation?
I know that is just one example, but only a naive person would think UNC is the only place stuff like that happened. And it almost surely is still happening on many campuses.
As for the scholarship, a student who earns a full ride to a university for being a saxophone savant can earn money playing saxophone for the symphony in that town even while also saxophoning for the university. The editor of the MU Tribune used to get a full ride (and maybe still does) but also could sell his/her work to the Journal and Sentinel. As Bilas correctly says, athletes are unjustly denied such a basic right to monetize their skills during their time at a university.
Although I think that's a form of exploitation, I am not in love with the term "exploitation." Because you are right, Chicos, the word conjures up images far worse than what is going on in college athletics.
As with most things in life, there are degrees. It's gray, not black and white.
You are proving my point I made the other day. You are taking the corner of corner cases and extrapolating. How many kids playing in the NCAA tournament are going to the NBA? 25? Maybe? How many of them are realizing a dream come true by playing in it? 90%?
You can always find examples that are extreme. Even the UNC example may have come down to a few kids, but until we know all the information we don't know yet. Plenty of UNC kids have said it's absolute crap, while a few others have remained silent. I have no doubt that UNC pulled some nonsense based on what has been discovered so far. Question is, to whom and for how many?
For every UNC there is a Butler that actually made kids go to class the DAY OF THE NCAA FINAL they played in. Think about that. Of course that is never talked about.
I just think exploitation is such a charged word it is ridiculous to throw out in this context. I also think Jay does a tremendous disservice in his column when he says things like "the NCAA raked in $800 million last year"....with the number of idiots we have in this country, how many of them think that is $800 million profit free and clear? A crapload, I guarantee it. What Jay doesn't say is where does 94% of that money go? Right back to scholarships, running championships, insurance program for athletes, etc, etc. Him leaving those key things out shows what an agenda he has on this issue, because he doesn't want the reader to know where all that money is going. It's dishonest by him.
-
You are proving my point I made the other day. You are taking the corner of corner cases and extrapolating. How many kids playing in the NCAA tournament are going to the NBA? 25? Maybe? How many of them are realizing a dream come true by playing in it? 90%?
You can always find examples that are extreme. Even the UNC example may have come down to a few kids, but until we know all the information we don't know yet. Plenty of UNC kids have said it's absolute crap, while a few others have remained silent. I have no doubt that UNC pulled some nonsense based on what has been discovered so far. Question is, to whom and for how many?
Agree. It's almost surely more than you think it is and less than I think it is!
For every UNC there is a Butler that actually made kids go to class the DAY OF THE NCAA FINAL they played in. Think about that. Of course that is never talked about.
Well, yes it is talked about ... or you wouldn't have known about it. Here we come to what defines "news." It shouldn't be news that college kids go to class. It definitely is news when a major university -- The Pride of The South -- invents fake classes and steers athletes to those classes for the sole purpose of keeping them eligible, winning games and making money. And it wasn't an isolated case; it is documented as having gone on for a decade! I like to think you are aware of which is bigger "news."
I just think exploitation is such a charged word it is ridiculous to throw out in this context. I also think Jay does a tremendous disservice in his column when he says things like "the NCAA raked in $800 million last year"....with the number of idiots we have in this country, how many of them think that is $800 million profit free and clear? A crapload, I guarantee it. What Jay doesn't say is where does 94% of that money go? Right back to scholarships, running championships, insurance program for athletes, etc, etc. Him leaving those key things out shows what an agenda he has on this issue, because he doesn't want the reader to know where all that money is going. It's dishonest by him.
And coaches' salaries. And assistant coaches' salaries. And "academic advisers'" salaries. And building of sports cathedrals. And it all feeds upon itself. Gotta spend the money because it's a non-profit. My wife is a nurse and it's the same thing. It's a non-profit, so the hospital CEO makes $7 million and they build facilities they don't need ... but even the nurses who get recognized as the best get 1.5% raises. Which is another form of exploitation. Although, again, I do agree with you that "exploitation" is a charged word and probably isn't the best to describe any of this. Bilas was just saying what he thinks is true -- as are you, as am I.
-
I think I am in the extreme minority but is anyone else getting a little tired of Bilas' know it all way of presenting on a topic?
I know most people think the man can do no wrong but I am getting sick of Bilas. If he stuck to announcing the games I would probably be okay with him but I am tired of his act.
-
Define exploited to me and explain how they are exploited.
Before you answer, I will remind you they receive a free education, free tutoring, free food, free shelter, free clothing, access to some of the best coaching in the world, access to alumni networks that 99% of regular students couldn't dream of getting, and access to show off their wares to future employers in their sports...for free.
How are they being exploited and if that is exploitation, then I truly feel bad for people that are truly exploited in this world.
Exploitation - The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
The NCAA is a wage fixing cartel made up of institutions that have agreed to not pay any players. The whole purpose of the NCAA is to enforce these rules, because without oversight the institutions would obviously break these rules in order to attract the best talent. This talent is clearly more valuable than all those free things you mentioned above, and I believe it is unfair to deny them this value. I believe the institutions do it to keep the money in their control.
Isn't it common knowledge that large amounts of money are currently being funneled to recruits and players at many big time schools? The value of good players to these institutions is apparent. So while it might not be an African diamond mine, it's still exploitation. The degree of immorality associated with the exploitation does not change that fact.
-
The NCAA is a wage fixing cartel made up of institutions that have agreed to not pay any players. The whole purpose of the NCAA is to enforce these rules, because without oversight the institutions would obviously break these rules in order to attract the best talent. This talent is clearly more valuable than all those free things you mentioned above, and I believe it is unfair to deny them this value. I believe the institutions do it to keep the money in their control.
Every word of this is so true. It is pretty funny to hear an ultra-conservative, free-market Republican like Chicos arguing that these workers -- and that's what the athletes are -- shouldn't be allowed to compete for whatever wages they merited on the open market. That's capitalism defined, for crissakes!
-
Every word of this is so true. It is pretty funny to hear an ultra-conservative, free-market Republican like Chicos arguing that these workers -- and that's what the athletes are -- shouldn't be allowed to compete for whatever wages they merited on the open market. That's capitalism defined, for crissakes!
Not that I want to get into a political debate but if you argue Chicos' conservative leanings don't mesh with his stance on the NCAA, couldn't one argue that if a person has liberal leanings on economics (and thus a believer in the redistribution of income in fiscal policy), that is the opposite of saying I want all of the money to go to a small percentage of athletes and screw all of the athletes in non-revenue sports?
Seems like one could argue hypocrisy in both sides of this one.
-
Exploitation - The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
The NCAA is a wage fixing cartel made up of institutions that have agreed to not pay any players. The whole purpose of the NCAA is to enforce these rules, because without oversight the institutions would obviously break these rules in order to attract the best talent. This talent is clearly more valuable than all those free things you mentioned above, and I believe it is unfair to deny them this value. I believe the institutions do it to keep the money in their control.
Isn't it common knowledge that large amounts of money are currently being funneled to recruits and players at many big time schools? The value of good players to these institutions is apparent. So while it might not be an African diamond mine, it's still exploitation. The degree of immorality associated with the exploitation does not change that fact.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/d4/d4c7ed99c07a00c53309d835d78316a8cc36af60107131bed123b3f056b5e5bf.jpg)
-
Not that I want to get into a political debate but if you argue Chicos' conservative leanings don't mesh with his stance on the NCAA, couldn't one argue that if a person has liberal leanings on economics (and thus a believer in the redistribution of income in fiscal policy), that is the opposite of saying I want all of the money to go to a small percentage of athletes and screw all of the athletes in non-revenue sports?
Seems like one could argue hypocrisy in both sides of this one.
I am fiscally moderate.
And I have never once said that only the revenue-sports athletes should get a piece of the pie. Cross country and volleyball athletes also are full-time workers.
I do not pretend to know exactly how the money should be divvied up. I just believe what's taking place now doesn't seem equitable.
-
Every word of this is so true. It is pretty funny to hear an ultra-conservative, free-market Republican like Chicos arguing that these workers -- and that's what the athletes are -- shouldn't be allowed to compete for whatever wages they merited on the open market. That's capitalism defined, for crissakes!
Not a Republican, don't believe in a free market because it doesn't exist...it's t-shirt slogan, not reality. It's like saying all people are equal...no they aren't...are you 6'10", can you ride a horse to a win at the Kentucky Derby, can you program in Machine language and cook a souffle while juggling a soccer ball 50 times on your head?
Ironic your overall statement since I am supporting a NCAA position that is anything but capitalistic.
What else you got?
-
Exploitation - The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
The NCAA is a wage fixing cartel made up of institutions that have agreed to not pay any players. The whole purpose of the NCAA is to enforce these rules, because without oversight the institutions would obviously break these rules in order to attract the best talent. This talent is clearly more valuable than all those free things you mentioned above, and I believe it is unfair to deny them this value. I believe the institutions do it to keep the money in their control.
Isn't it common knowledge that large amounts of money are currently being funneled to recruits and players at many big time schools? The value of good players to these institutions is apparent. So while it might not be an African diamond mine, it's still exploitation. The degree of immorality associated with the exploitation does not change that fact.
They aren't treated unfairly. They are given a $200K education...a person with a college education on average makes almost $1M more than someone without. So now we're up to $1.2M
Free clothes, free room, free food, free tutoring, free coaching from some of the best coaches in the world, free auditions for their next gig. What's all of that worth? In some cases....millions. Sam Dekker sure has been exploited the last two weeks.
They are treated fairly in so many ways. It's obscene to say they are exploited when there are people in this world truly exploited. OBSCENE.
And in your belief that it is so unfair, how are you going to make it fair? Does the starting guard make more than the starting forward? How about the bench player, who all of a sudden hits a winning 3? Does the guard at Duke get more "fair" treatment than the guard at North Dakota? How about the ladies?
Life is so unfair for these guys....so terribly, terribly unfair....the exploitation....off the charts....all that money that should be going to THEM, because each year we watch the NCAA tournament specifically to watch THEM!! No, that's right, we shut down the televisions when these guys graduate because it was really ONLY about them that we watched. And if not enough big school powerhouses are in, we definitely don't watch. Syracuse isn't in this year, yet ratings are off the charts....so by and large that means Syracuse players shouldn't get one dime....right? Afterall, they weren't exploited and it didn't impact the viewership audience one bit.
-
I am fiscally moderate.
And I have never once said that only the revenue-sports athletes should get a piece of the pie. Cross country and volleyball athletes also are full-time workers.
I do not pretend to know exactly how the money should be divvied up. I just believe what's taking place now doesn't seem equitable.
Based on 100's of posts here, that I find to be one of the more interesting statements ever stated here. I'd like to know your "moderate" positions on fiscal policies, they seem to have eluded me over the last 5 years. ;)
-
Based on 100's of posts here, that I find to be one of the more interesting statements ever stated here. I'd like to know your "moderate" positions on fiscal policies, they seem to have eluded me over the last 5 years. ;)
If I shared that, it would be on the Politics board. Better shared in person over a beverage or two, though.
Just not going to get sucked into arguing for the sake of arguing. But nice try.
-
If I shared that, it would be on the Politics board. Better shared in person over a beverage or two, though.
Just not going to get sucked into arguing for the sake of arguing. But nice try.
Would love to have the beer with you....seriously would. I think it would be fun. I don't bite, but I do have a small penis (Sultan) so don't expect much from me there.
I'd like to continue the conversation, but I have a front and backyard to mow and edge before my wife returns from central California with in-laws in tow.
I do, however, hope to take an hour or so off today between finishing my taxes and the yardwork, to watch the women's tournament and the exploitation going on there.
-
They aren't treated unfairly. They are given a $200K education...a person with a college education on average makes almost $1M more than someone without. So now we're up to $1.2M
Free clothes, free room, free food, free tutoring, free coaching from some of the best coaches in the world, free auditions for their next gig. What's all of that worth? In some cases....millions. Sam Dekker sure has been exploited the last two weeks.
They are treated fairly in so many ways. It's obscene to say they are exploited when there are people in this world truly exploited. OBSCENE.
And in your belief that it is so unfair, how are you going to make it fair? Does the starting guard make more than the starting forward? How about the bench player, who all of a sudden hits a winning 3? Does the guard at Duke get more "fair" treatment than the guard at North Dakota? How about the ladies?
Life is so unfair for these guys....so terribly, terribly unfair....the exploitation....off the charts....all that money that should be going to THEM, because each year we watch the NCAA tournament specifically to watch THEM!! No, that's right, we shut down the televisions when these guys graduate because it was really ONLY about them that we watched. And if not enough big school powerhouses are in, we definitely don't watch. Syracuse isn't in this year, yet ratings are off the charts....so by and large that means Syracuse players shouldn't get one dime....right? Afterall, they weren't exploited and it didn't impact the viewership audience one bit.
You can keep your head in the sand and pretend that they are fairly compensated, but I'll take the decades of recruiting violations and suspensions for extra benefits as a pretty obvious indicator that they are not anywhere close to being compensated what the free market would determine to be their value.
Of course they all aren't worth the same. Their value would be determined during the recruiting process and they would take the best offer a school would be willing to pay them. Just because it's a college sport doesn't mean we have to automatically go to some communist system where everyone gets paid the same. It should be like every other professional sport where the most sought after players sign the most valuable contracts. They should also be able to do whatever endorsement deals they want on the side.
On the flip side, the players in sports with no revenue aren't even worth the cost of the paper their scholarship is printed on. Why has society determined that a cross country runner deserves a scholarship for participating in a sport that their school loses money in? If you like the current system because you're a communist then just tell me because that would at least make sense.
-
On the flip side, the players in sports with no revenue aren't even worth the cost of the paper their scholarship is printed on. Why has society determined that a cross country runner deserves a scholarship for participating in a sport that their school loses money in? If you like the current system because you're a communist then just tell me because that would at least make sense.
But but but MU82 said I'm a Republican and capitalist. Which is it. So confusing.
The NCAA and the schools that make up the NCAA have determined there should be equal footing as much as possible. Same goes for the NFL....funds are distributed equally. They want to level the playing field as much as possible. What you are proposing would destroy college sports, not just for revenue sports but obviously for non revenue sports.
When it comes to sports, I'm as socialist as it comes.
-
But but but MU82 said I'm a Republican and capitalist. Which is it. So confusing.
So your response is to take something someone else said and ask me to defend his reasoning? You're going to have to do better than that Mr. Bail Bonds.
-
But but but MU82 said I'm a Republican and capitalist. Which is it. So confusing.
The NCAA and the schools that make up the NCAA have determined there should be equal footing as much as possible. Same goes for the NFL....funds are distributed equally. They want to level the playing field as much as possible. What you are proposing would destroy college sports, not just for revenue sports but obviously for non revenue sports.
When it comes to sports, I'm as socialist as it comes.
Since there is no cap on how much money the haves can pour into their facilities, recruiting budgets, or coaching salaries, the current system certainly isn't leveling the playing field for the have nots very much. I'm also not sold on equal dispursements of money since NCAA units are handed out based on tournament performance and conferences negotiate television contracts on their own. Maybe if the NCAA took full controll of all television contracts and truly dispersed that money equally among all member institutions your dream scenario would be reality.
-
So your response is to take something someone else said and ask me to defend his reasoning? You're going to have to do better than that Mr. Bail Bonds.
I'm hoping you can provide clarity for all of us. In one sense I'm identified as a Republican (wrong), capitalist free marketer and yet I've advocated for this socialist POV for the NCAA, the NFL, MLB, etc for years. Hoping you can clarify for me.
I do have another question for you. Since there are no minor leagues for football or basketball and these players are being developed at 100% cost from the university, when they make it to the pros should they have to reimburse the school for their development costs? Or should the universities pay for all that as they do today AND also pay the student athlete?
-
Since there is no cap on how much money the haves can pour into their facilities, recruiting budgets, or coaching salaries, the current system certainly isn't leveling the playing field for the have nots very much. I'm also not sold on equal dispursements of money since NCAA units are handed out based on tournament performance and conferences negotiate television contracts on their own. Maybe if the NCAA took full controll of all television contracts and truly dispersed that money equally among all member institutions your dream scenario would be reality.
That's different than paying players. Yes, you can build the biggest, nicest stadium ever and that cost is paid for by the university and their advocates. From a recruiting perspective, if I read you correctly, this would not be capped. Spend what you will, sky's the limit to acquire that player. The NFL doesn't even have this. The NBA and MLB now have a luxury tax deterrent to prevent such craziness.
If I also take your thinking to its logical conclusions, why aren't we compensating high school players? Fans go to the high school football games or basketball games, they are charged $5 to $15. It is free to go to the soccer games, volleyball, track, women's basketball, etc. Clearly the money is being earned by the high school players (because of course people aren't going to simply support the school, regardless if the team sucks or not). Why aren't we giving them a cut?
Maybe we can all agree on one thing.....though I doubt it. The word EXPLOITED is over the top. They are compensated today, now whether you believe it is enough is another story, but there are people that are truly exploited and the NCAA men's basketball and or men's football players don't fit that bill.
(https://blogs.state.gov/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/contributed_images/2010_0621_child_labor_conference.jpg)
(http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/002/082/561/Texas_display_image_display_image.jpg?1333213573)
(http://hockeygods.com/system/gallery_images/12691/normal.jpeg?1408729545)
-
If I also take your thinking to its logical conclusions, why aren't we compensating high school players? Fans go to the high school football games or basketball games, they are charged $5 to $15. It is free to go to the soccer games, volleyball, track, women's basketball, etc. Clearly the money is being earned by the high school players (because of course people aren't going to simply support the school, regardless if the team sucks or not). Why aren't we giving them a cut
Football and basketball at the high school level generally operate at a deficit so there aren't any profits to share with the players. Simpleminded, silly analogy.
-
I'm hoping you can provide clarity for all of us. In one sense I'm identified as a Republican (wrong), capitalist free marketer and yet I've advocated for this socialist POV for the NCAA, the NFL, MLB, etc for years. Hoping you can clarify for me.
I do have another question for you. Since there are no minor leagues for football or basketball and these players are being developed at 100% cost from the university, when they make it to the pros should they have to reimburse the school for their development costs? Or should the universities pay for all that as they do today AND also pay the student athlete?
They could try to negotiate some kind of rights or transfer fee in the contract with the player that the NFL or NBA team would have to pay, but I doubt any players would agree to it. I think all the revenue generated from the backs of the player would be compensation enough for the university. That's what the university would have to decide when they decide how much to pay for a player in order to maximise their return on investment. Right now that isn't a decision they don't have to make which they absolutely LOVE.
-
That's different than paying players. Yes, you can build the biggest, nicest stadium ever and that cost is paid for by the university and their advocates. From a recruiting perspective, if I read you correctly, this would not be capped. Spend what you will, sky's the limit to acquire that player. The NFL doesn't even have this. The NBA and MLB now have a luxury tax deterrent to prevent such craziness.
If I also take your thinking to its logical conclusions, why aren't we compensating high school players? Fans go to the high school football games or basketball games, they are charged $5 to $15. It is free to go to the soccer games, volleyball, track, women's basketball, etc. Clearly the money is being earned by the high school players (because of course people aren't going to simply support the school, regardless if the team sucks or not). Why aren't we giving them a cut?
Maybe we can all agree on one thing.....though I doubt it. The word EXPLOITED is over the top. They are compensated today, now whether you believe it is enough is another story, but there are people that are truly exploited and the NCAA men's basketball and or men's football players don't fit that bill.
(https://blogs.state.gov/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/contributed_images/2010_0621_child_labor_conference.jpg)
(http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/002/082/561/Texas_display_image_display_image.jpg?1333213573)
(http://hockeygods.com/system/gallery_images/12691/normal.jpeg?1408729545)
Well then your reasoning of not paying players is flawed. You said you like it because you want to see the universities competing on an even playing field. Right now it appears to be like most any industry where all the businesses are competing without restriction in every aspect of the industry with the lone exception of compensation for the labor. In that regard they have all colluded together to keep labor prices low. That is wrong and a clear exploitation of the labor.
I know you desperately want the definition of exploitation to be amended to include some type of human atrocity, but you'll need to take that up with the dictionary companies. There's two cases in the courts right now dealing with the type of exploitation we've been discussing in this thread. I'm pretty confident the courts will decide what the NCAA is doing is exploitative.
If the high school football industry starts pulling in millions or billions of revenue dollars, then it will probably become necessary to see if the players deserve a slice of that pie. Until then, Mr. Bail Bonds, let's not worry about it.