NFL (Finally) Takes a Stand on Domestic Violence

Hot off the newswires on this Thursday afternoon is a headline for which many of us have been waiting a long time: via ESPN NFL, "Severe Penalties for Domestic Violence."

The league's new policy -- as announced today by commissioner Roger Goodell -- includes provisions for a mandatory minimum six-game suspension for a first-time offense, with an (appealable) lifetime ban for second-time offenders.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Bryan posted about this very topic earlier this month, but you would have been hard-pressed over the past several months to find someone who agreed with the league's previous policy (or, more fittingly, lack thereof).

In an era in which disciplinary policies across all professional sports are seemingly inconsistent with common sense, this is a long-awaited suggestion that the league has its priorities relatively in order: yes, domestic abuse is worse than smoking weed, and it should finally now be treated as such by the NFL.

Bryan and I are both hoping that this new policy from the U.S.'s largest professional sporting organization helps change the status quo surrounding domestic abuse by athletes. While it has weathered criticism (deservedly) in the wake of the Ray Rice abuse scandal, the NFL's domestic violence problem might not even be the worst in professional sports.

A step is a step. Happy Thursday.

Photo courtesy of Bleacher Report

BuzzFeed and the death of Content

Warning: this is a sickeningly meta post. I apologize. My one disclaimer is I had the following thoughts long before I became a Content creator. I will also credit BuzzFeed with not using slides (looking at you, Bleacher Report).

BuzzFeed is killing the generation of Meaningful Content on the internet. An easy way to measure the value, importance, and influence of content is by the number of page views it receives, ie, its exposure. BuzzFeed figured out people love nostalgia-inducing lists and managed to turn that discovery into an Alexa rank of 110.

I told myself I was going to dedicate 10 minutes of research to post. Research here is defined as reading stuff on BuzzFeed despite my better judgement of giving it clicks. I lasted maybe 30 seconds.

Here's the problem with these lists: the author, in most cases, is not any sort of authority on the subject. If we're ranking things, I could write an article called "15 Best Lighthouses In New England", rank these lighthouses on one criterion without telling the reader what the criterion is (since I don't think I've seen 15 NE LHs, it'd probably be based on the quality of its Wikipedia picture), and then pass it off as fact. I could post a link to the story on Facebook and probably get a good amount of play from it. I didn't add anything to the world though. A good list would have broken down each lighthouse based on importance in shipping routes, age, construction quality, original materials still used, etc., and we would have an article with original research and insights. Unfortunately, readers have been taught to only care about pictures and rankings, so those insights won't even be read.

Interpolation: An example of a bad BF list
"25 Signs You Ran Track And Field In High School" (Google it, I'm not giving them a link)

• I have never stabbed myself or had a teammate stab herself while attaching a bib. To further state a safety pin would cause scarring is absurd.
• Most high school athletes had practice after school preventing them from going to the mall or whatever (ie, this is not a trait unique to T&F).
• Football players wear tights
• Steeplechase is an uncommon event at the high school level.
• Missed classes are not unique to T&F and I didn't miss many in HS
• Point 20: the picture is of the 1500m at USATF National Championships in 2010 (as is clearly stated on the scoreboard). Someone drew OMFG with an arrow pointing to the time over the picture. I'm guessing the idea here was to draw attention to the 3:50.83 and say it was a fast time. Unfortunately, the author seems to think the race is a full mile rather than an atrociously slow 1500.

I could go on, but I wont.

BuzzFeed's list form has polluted other content hosts. The Huffington Post has started pumping out lists ("15 Hacks That Make Instant Ramen Taste Fancy) and sites such as Upworthy have been popping up left and right without actually contributing anything.

As someone who struggles to create content, the amount of crap floating around really gets to me. The major reason this blog gets updated in bursts is because I want everything I write to be worth reading. If I can't come up with something worthwhile to say, I would rather say nothing at all (eg I'm not writing "17 NFL Players With Shocking Skeletons In Their Closets"...cue the Facebook post of "I never expected #12!!!"). Unfortunately, this kills my exposure, so when I do have something to see, no one notices. Luckily for me, I'm not trying to pay the bills as a writer, so I can afford to take a moral high ground and avoid posting clickbait.

But take this a step further. Readers have become so accustomed to list with no content form that a nascent commentator trying to make his break is going to have a tough time gaining readership without stooping to BuzzFeed et al.'s level. This is actually what BuzzFeed is trying to do: they gained huge readership by pumping crap and are now trying to generate content (not quite Content) with a legitimate news section. Though for me, it's hard to take an organization that has an article titled "24 Best Moments From Taylor Swift's New 'Shake It Off' Video" on its front page seriously.

One of the great things about the Internet is the availability of information and opinions. I urge users to exercise judgment with what they choose to click and read. The fewer pageviews a meaningless article receives, the lower the likelihood a similar article gets written in the future. You have the power: use it appropriately.

Bryan is Wrong: Why Pay-For-Play Isn't a Big Deal for College Football

I think paying college football players is a great idea. I think that they deserve the money because, quite frankly, they have earned it. It doesn't seem like too many people disagree with that general sentiment. Where they do disagree, however, is on the impact of pay-for-play on the college football landscape writ large.

In his post on this topic, Bryan went in depth into the guaranteed scholarships that are (hopefully) on their way to becoming the norm in revenue-producing college sports. What I want to focus on are the other revenue streams that could possibly be putting cash in players' pockets during the next decade: stipends and video game licensing funds.

Stipends (also called "full cost of attendance" scholarships) were the main issue on the table at the NCAA Board of Directors' meeting earlier this month at which the board decided to grant the five major conferences autonomy to make their own decisions on certain key issues. The Power 5 schools -- awash in cash as they are from lucrative television contracts in football and men's basketball -- wanted the power to grant stipends because they can afford to. To schools in the NCAA's other five Division I football conferences, on the other hand, that extra $2K-$5K per-year-per-athlete hurts.

Add on top of that the reality that video game revenues are inevitably going to favor the Power 5 schools over their less prosperous brethren.

According to this month's O'Bannon ruling, schools (or conferences, more likely) that successfully negotiate with video game manufacturers to use athletes' likenesses must make $5,000 available (again, per-year-per-athlete) to pay into a trust fund that athletes can access after their eligibility is exhausted.

So tell me who's going to get the better video game deal: the SEC or the Sun Belt?

With these new developments, a highly recruited high school senior considering scholarship offers from two schools -- one in the Power 5, the other not -- is up to $40,000 richer if he takes the Power 5 offer. Sounds like the end of parity in college football. Or at least that's what Bryan thinks.

I think not.

The reality is that there is next-to-zero parity in FBS football right now anyways, and there hasn't been any in a long time. Even the 2007 season -- which Bryan points to as an example of upset-filled football heaven -- contained just one game in which a top-10 team fell to a team outside the current Power 5 (it was Appalachian State). The rest of those so-called underdogs? They're getting the same cut of O'Bannon money that 'Bama is.

But what about App State? Forget about it. App State was just enough of a taste to convince football fans that anything can happen on the gridiron. Those same fans don't seem to have noticed that it's been seven years since App State won in the Big House -- seven years in which we haven't been able to forget that game because we haven't seen anything like it. In reality, App State is the exception that proves the rule.

That's why I think the impact of the two latest Pay-for-Play rulings is overstated: top recruits are flocking to Power 5 schools now just like they always have been (last year's ESPN 300 featured just one recruit who ended up committing to a non-Power 5 school).

Maybe, as has been speculated for years, some of these kids are getting money under the table. Or maybe they just want to play for the schools that have won every FBS national championship since 1985. Makes sense to me.

So, at the end of the day, the rich are getting a little bit richer. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Photos courtesy of Wikipedia and Business Insider

Progress...?

A friend of mine urged me to write about the Ray Rice fiasco (and I'll get to it here). I spent several hour staring at a blank screen attempting to say something new and significant. I had a post written but scrapped it because I didn't like it. I eventually came up with the form and message of this post, gave it another shot, and here's the result:

Thus far, 2014 has been full of significant cultural events in sports. The year started with Michael Sam coming out as gay and subsequently being selected by the St. Louis Rams in the NFL Draft. Sam's jersey is currently the sixth best selling jersey in the NFL--not bad for someone who might not even make the roster. Furthering the message of progress, if Sam doesn't make the roster, it'll be because he can't play, not because he's gay.

In April, the Donald Sterling debacle exploded with the exposure of his viciously racist comments. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver acted quickly and decisively, imposing a lifetime ban on Sterling just four days after the remarks came to light and fined him $2.5 million, the maximum amount allowed by the NBA. Sterling's ban necessitated his sale of the team, and while he tried to appeal the ban, he was stonewalled. Silver's quick action was a stand for what is right rather than hemming and hawing over the legality of banishment for private remarks.

Last week, Becky Hammon was hired as an assistant coach by the San Antonio Spurs, making her the first paid female coach in any of the four major sports (Lisa Boyer was a volunteer assistant for the Cleveland Cavaliers in 2001-2). There's no reason why women can't coach the way men can coach, and hopefully this paves the way to more women on coaching staffs and eventually a female head coach.

Just a couple of days again, Chip Sarafin, a backup offensive lineman at Arizona State, came out as gay. He is the first openly gay FBS football player.

Suddenly, the sports world is starting to look progressive. Good.

One only needs to do a quick Google search of "anti Michael Sam comments" to find ire his announcement raised. Even current NFL players (eg the Dolphins' Don Jones) couldn't keep their mouth shut.

Upon hiring Becky Hammon, Spurs coach Gregg Popovich had this to say: "I very much look forward to the addition of Becky Hammon to our staff. Having observed her working with our team this past season, I'm confident her basketball IQ, work ethic and interpersonal skills will be a great benefit to the Spurs."

Let's compare that language to the language used to describe the Milwaukee Bucks hiring Jason Kidd as their head coach. General manager John Hammond:

"When you list the characteristics that make a successful head coach, you would include leadership, communication and a competitive drive. Jason used all of those traits to become a 10-time All-Star player in the NBA, and has now translated his on-court success to the bench. We welcome him to the Bucks organization and look forward to building a Championship-caliber team with him as our head coach."

Owners Wesley Edens and Marc Lasry:

"Jason is a determined leader, a tough-minded competitor and a great teammate. We believe his focus, vision and intensity will help him work alongside John and David (Morway) to rebuild the Milwaukee Bucks as we aspire to achieve excellence over the next several years. We are excited that Jason will call Milwaukee his new home."

Hammon has a high basketball IQ and good interpersonal skills while Kidd has leadership and competitive drive. Being a "tough-minded competitor" will not cut it to get Hammon a job in the NBA.

I'm not going to continue and crucify Popovich because he probably has 10 press announcements scribbled on napkins that he cycles through and it just so happened this is the one that popped up for Hammon. But there is undeniably a dichotomy in the language to used to differentiate athletes/coaches based on the way they look. Any white wide receiver in the NFL is either a "lunch-pail player", "blue collar", or a "gym rat". Black receivers, on the other hand, are "athletes". When I hear this, I think "well gee, according to the broadcasters, Calvin Johnson is a bum and Wes Welker is about as athletic as I am." Let's set the record straight: anyone in the NFL is an outstanding athlete and 95% of them work their tails off. The 5% of them who are lazy are uniformly distributed across race/ethnicity/background/whatever. Ridding the NFL (and all sports) of this language divide would be better than eliminating the touchdown -> commercial -> kickoff -> commercial -> next series sequence from TV broadcasts.

And, of course, the real motivation for this post: the NFL's pitiful suspension of Ray Rice. Much has been said on this topic, but for some unknown reason, NFL players can't help themselves when it comes to beating up their girlfriends.  From a PR perspective, the League would have been better off not suspending Rice at all. I know I had forgotten basically forgotten about the incident and I think many others had too. But, the public outcry has thrust the NFL's domestic violence issue into the national spotlight and might even effect change in the League's policy.

I have two problems with the proposed changes to NFL policy:

1. Four to six games is not enough. Give me a league full of doped up freaks (suspension for a first time PED offense in the NFL: 4 games) before a league full of wife beaters. Seriously. Spousal abuse is a far bigger issue than PED use with social implications beyond the game. As it stands, the biggest implication for fans for domestic violence punishment is how the abuser's absence will effect their fantasy team. (Just because I can't help myself: let's remember Terrelle Pryror was suspended for the first five games of his rookie season for trading jerseys and memorabilia for tattoos while he was in college)
2. This change is the result of reactionary policy making. The League didn't know its policy was screwed up until implementation and the ensuing public backlash. I struggle to believe the NFL can't find someone to read their policies once a year, find the dinosaurs, and amend them appropriately. This approach of action over reaction would lead to significant social change.

We've come a long way, but we've still much work to do.

Some thoughts on the state of the NCAA

Four year scholarships?

For the purpose of this article, I am only going to consider the case of college football. It's what I know the most about and can speak about most intelligently.

USC decided to move to awarding football and men's and women's basketball players with four year scholarships. To understand the significance of this move, we need to first examine the current renewable scholarship system.

Traditional athletic scholarships (hereon referred to simply as scholarships) are awarded/renewed prior to start of each academic year. Regardless of what peripheral clauses the agreements may have, these scholarships are awarded purely on the basis of athletic performance. The path to renewal is pretty cut and dry: play well. Even if you get thrown off your team for stealing computers, another school will probably give you an offer as long as you're good (Note: I actually don't have a problem granting second chances to players who do boneheaded things like this. I don't particularly like third chances).

Academic performance isn't Cardale Jones's biggest concern

Right off the bat we see academics and athletics at odd with one another: an athlete creates more value for the school (and will thus be rewarded for that value by way of scholarship) by performing well on the field rather than performing well in the classroom. In the documentary Schooled: The Price of College Sports (available on Netflix and highly recommended), Maryland cornerback Domonique Foxworth asserted that given the choice between staying up on a Thursday night to study for a test and compromising his performance on Saturday or going to bed, failing the test, and getting a pick on game day, the language of the scholarship strongly incentivized choosing the second option. A pick in a big spot could be the difference in keeping his scholarship for the next year and not being able to pay for school. But, if he can't dedicate the requisite time to his schoolwork to really be educated, why is he in school in the first place? (Note: NOT HIS FAULT)

This is where four year scholarships come into play. They don't need to be renewed and thus continued enrollment in the university is no longer predicated on athletic performance. If a player is struggling on the field due to off-field issues, he doesn't need to add worrying about his scholarship being revoked to the list of problems. This also means a school honoring a scholarship of a permanently injured player no longer becomes; it's just what is required.

From the athlete's perspective, I cannot find any downsides to a four year scholarship. In a way, it allows the athlete to become more a regular college student. I hope the NCAA moves to this policy in the near future.

UPDATE 8/19/14: University of Maryland announces lifetime degree guarantees for all student-athletes. As it should be.

Pay for play?

The hot topic of the day regarding the NCAA is paying athletes for their services. I have conflicted thoughts on this. On the one hand, athletes are powerful marketing tools and revenue drivers for universities and should be compensated for this. On the other hand, one of the things I love so dearly about college sports is the (blissfully ignorant?) idea that each every team is roughly equal.

Football players are supposedly limited to 20 "countable" hours per week of practice activities in season plus 3 hours of competition¹. When non-countable hours get factored in, that amount of time more than doubles. A quick look at the definition of countable vs. non-countable hours shows why this is the case: travel to/from competition, "voluntary" weight training, training room hours, and several other time sucks are categorized as non-countable.

Let's do a quick weekly hour breakdown for an in-season football player: 44 hours on football, 40 hours on school², and the doctor's recommended 56 hours of sleep. Add those up and we have 140 hours of the 168 in a week blocked off. The point I'm trying to get at it is these athletes are working two full-times jobs: football and school. They cannot reasonably be expected to pickup another job to make a little money for food³ or entertainment. The athletes are compensated for their education but resulting lack of funds from athletic commitment (which generates revenue for the school) preventing a kid from seeing a Sunday matinee with his friends is shame.

The simple argument for paying kids is as such: they generate money and publicity for the universities and the NCAA and should be appropriately compensated.

But...

Unranked Stanford upsetting #1 USC

What I love about college football is that the Jameis Winston makes the same amount of money as Middle Tennessee State's long snapper. While some universities certainly have distinct recruiting advantages over others⁴, one of those advantages is not a contract⁵. Under the current rules, Alabama, despite its best efforts, can't become the New York Yankees. This is one factor that leads to the higher variability of CFB and then we get things like the 2007 season.

App State over #5 Michigan

From an organizational standpoint, I also find equality amongst teammates to be hugely important. One receiver getting paid more than another while the lesser paid receiver was more productive would be a fast track to disaster; similarly, there could be administrative pressure to keep higher paid athlete on the field despite underperformance⁶. College athletics are so refreshing because so much of this, for lack of a better word, bullshit, is non-existent. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of bullshit to go around, but this source of it is dry.

What I see is a necessity for compensation paired with a slightly irrational + emotional desire for no compensation. How can these square? I've discussed this with Fritz and we disagreed slightly.

My plan is give every Division I FBS player (scholarship or walk-on) a certain allowance. I have no idea what is fair. That should be determined by a third party (not some NCAA committee). The players can access a certain percentage of that wage at any point, no questions asked. Another percentage will be doled out in certain intervals (like a pay check). The remainder will be accessed by request through the AD's or coach's office. Anything not spent during the year will be moved to a trust⁷ which will be transferred to the athlete upon graduation. Maybe a certain percentage should be withheld from the start.

Under my system, the quarterback at one school is worth the same as his punter and is the same as the quarterback at any other school in the country. There is no discrepancy among teammates and there is no recruiting advantage between schools vis-à-vis compensation. If a five-star left tackle wants to play for his hometown Western Kentucky Hilltoppers, he's not losing out on anything new by not going to Notre Dame.

Perhaps even more important is this system will teach the athletes personal finance! If a guy blows through his cash in a week, he'll learn the consequences and (hopefully) won't do it again. Fortunately, this mistake won't be back-breaking because it's occurring in a controlled environment. When he's in the real world, he'll be able to make a budget. If he makes the NFL, he'll have a better shot at avoiding becoming one of the money broke players upon retirement⁸. I don't much bad in my plan.

Fritz disagrees with me on part: he thinks each conference should have equal pay, but pay across conferences can vary (eg players in the SEC will be paid more than players in the MAC). As stated, I prefer my plan, but I could live with this too.

I really don't know what the trajectory of pay for play is. But something is going to change soon.

Recent NCAA Violations

Let's have a little fun:

Cake cookies: NCAA violation?

• South Carolina recently self-reported an NCAA violation for "impermissible icing" on cookies. After much debate, the NCAA decided it wasn't a violation. Better safe than sorry on SCAR's part, though.
• Oregon self-reported violations including mini golf and laser tag at team dinners, accidentally responding a recruit's text message, and buying a shaving supplies for a recruit (full list of violations here). I get the violation for buying the shaving supplies: it's slippery slope from a disposable Mach3 to Eric Dickerson's gold Trans-Am (while I'm being a bit sarcastic, there is, without question, a grey area that should be avoided altogether). But the school paying for mini golf is a problem? I guess team building isn't a tenet of the NCAA.

----------------------------------------------------

¹I'm pretty curious how this is defined: is it time only spent competing? I've spent more than 5x the allotted time at a track meet in a weekend but only actually ran for < 40s.
²15 hours of class, 25 hours of schoolwork--this might be a little skewed because they could be doing work in study hall that they count as football time, but I think the 44 football hours is an underestimation.
³Thanks to good old Shabazz Napier, schools can now feed their athletes.
⁴Facilities, academic prestige, girls, coaches, etc.
⁵Let's assume everyone is cheating equally here.
⁶Eg Stephen Drew on this year's Red Sox.
⁷Or whatever.
⁸ESPN has a 30 for 30 on this called Broke. I haven't watched it yet, but every episode in the series is fantastic.