Category Archives: Blog

“I want to start my own foundation”

As we head into draft season for the NFL, NBA, MLB, and others, we will soon be hearing the well-intentioned enthusiasm from many newly drafted professional athletes who have “made it” after years of hard work that they want to give back and “start their own foundation.”

Sounds great, right? Well, the intention of giving back is, without a doubt, the type of behavior from athletes that should and must be celebrated. Yet, in recent years, a number of professional athletes have faced public scrutiny and criticism for starting foundations that fall far short of their stated missions.

Callum Borchers of the Boston Globe wrote a piece titled, “In non-profit game, many athletes post losing records.” He highlighted a number of athletes that had received public admiration for their named charities that were shockingly bad when examined for their efficacy.

The Boston Globe piece and other similar stories should serve as an alarm to athletes and their advisors that philanthropy should be encouraged but requires expert guidance and support to ensure it is done well. As Jenny Goldstock Wright of Wishbone Consulting Group (an organization that specializes in supporting athlete philanthropy) shared with me in a recent conversation, philanthropic endeavors are complex and require a deep understanding of why the athlete wants to give back until you reach a level of understanding that allows you to truly evaluate what type of philanthropic tool will best meet that goal. Starting one’s own foundation is often not the best answer.

Rather, a thorough assessment followed by effective process and guidance by a trusted, competent, experienced professional in this space is critical.  It is unreasonable to expect a young, gifted, athlete to have comparable prowess to their sport talent in establishing philanthropic entities unless they’ve spent similar time developing this craft as they do to their sport.

The hope is that the desire to give back can be encouraged while the pitfalls of doing it poorly (the classic example of starting your own foundation, naming friends and family to the board, and hosting gold tournaments comes to mind) can be mitigated with proper support.

Athletes do have the ability to make substantial impact on the world. Let’s support them in ensuring that their generosity does the good that they set out to do when they first say “I want to start my own foundation” by asking why. Then the true work can begin.

Philanthropy: The Road to Heaven Is Paved With Good Will

The philosopher Immanuel Kant made a distinction between good intentions and good will, effectively explaining why the road to hell is paved with the former. No one who hosts a party wants a guest, who has had one or two too many, to wrap his car around a telephone pole on the way home. But the test of good will comes when the host has to decide whether he will pay for her guest to take a cab, allow him to sleep on the couch, or take away his keys. The latter can be a real socially awkward pain in the butt, but there is going to be hell to pay if your guest comes to harm because you did not confront him.

Most athletes who set up philanthropic organizations have good intentions. They genuinely want to share part of their good fortune and help others. But, as many recent news stories attest, it often goes horribly wrong. Hiring practices come under scrutiny, very little of the money ends of serving the worthy goal, the athlete ends un in PR hell, or even in trouble with the IRS. The athlete, who started out with the best of intentions, comes to regret the day he decided to help out, and at the same time serves as a warning to other athletes who may be considering whether to launch such a venture.

The difference between good intentions and good will, according to Kant, is that the latter requires summoning all the resources at one’s disposal to realize a goal. Again, think of the host paying for in inebriated guest’s cab fare. The problem. on the case of athletes, is that they are often not sufficiently educated about how to be a good philanthropist. They may not understand that you cannot hire family members or that there are complicated tax codes, or even that there is a big difference between charity and philanthropy.

Athletes certainly would be wise to educate themselves before they enter into such an endeavor, but the sports leagues and unions ought to think long and hard about how they can aid athletes in this educational process. These organizations should all have information on their websites about the dos and don’ts of philanthropy. They should consider adding a staff member that would be available to athletes for consultation. And they should consider creating an accreditation process, much like the one that some unions have for player agents, that would help steer athletes away from crooks and towards firms that specialize in setting up philanthropic programs.

Obviously, there would be a cost to setting up such an educational and licensing system, but ti would be a tremendous benefit to these athletes, who often lack the time to do all the research from ground zero, and it would save these leagues and unions a lot of unwanted bad publicity.

We love lionizing athletes, but we are also quick to tear them down. In a lot of instances, they have the latter coming because they have made very poor life choices. But, in the case of charity and philanthropy, that’s not true. They usually do have the best of intentions. They just lack the nous to turn them into good will. And that is where the leagues and unions should step in to aid that transition.

Doing so would be good for the athletes, good for the leagues, good for the unions, and good for society.

–Ken Pendleton

Do Coaches Bear Enough of the Risk that Comes with Recruiting High-Risk Student-Athletes?

The University of Oregon recruited Brandon Austin despite the fact that he had been suspended for the season by Providence College last December. It is important to note that basketball coach Dana Altman claims he did not know that Austin had been linked to a sexual assault investigation until March and that Austin’s former coach Ed Cooley apparently informed him that the suspension related to a university matter rather than a criminal one. I say apparently because Cooley claims he was far more vague: “(Altman) asked me why he was leaving and I said he needed to talk to Brandon, and that I wasn’t at liberty to talk about an ongoing campus investigation.” Finally, Altman inferred that the suspension did not relate to a criminal matter because Providence did not want Austin to transfer.

Altman’s reasoning may or may not have been sound, but he faced the same dilemma that lots of college coaches do: Should you take a chance on a talented player even though there is a yellow flag? The problem is that this decision making process is overwhelmingly stacked in favor or erring on the side of being incautious.

First, let’s acknowledge the obvious. Coaches are judged more by whether they win games than by whether their players graduate or behave well, or even passably. But the problem runs much deeper. The benefits of recruiting a high-risk player far exceed the risks. The player that pans out on the court helps your team win, rise in the rankings, qualify for or advance in the postseason. The player who ends up being more trouble than he is worth gets dismissed from the team and his scholarship gets replaced. Coaches get almost all of the benefits that come with recruiting high-risk athletes, but, with rare exception, only a fraction of the costs entailed by allowing them on campus.

How can we change the calculation? Can and should we make it more difficult for coaches to recruit such athletes? The answer, in short, is, yes, we can, but it is harder to determine whether we should.

The key to changing the underlying reasoning is forcing coaches to incur more costs. Imagine if a coach was not allowed to replace a scholarship for four years unless a student-athlete suffered a career-ending injury? the coach couldn’t recruit a new player if she or he failed out, was kicked off the team, or put in prison. Or what if there were strict rules about how long athletes had to be suspended. Four football games or ten basketball games against conference or postseason opponents for the first misdemeanor conviction, a year for the first felony, and a two strikes and your out policy? I strongly suspect that coaches would take far fewer risks than they now do and that as a result there would be far fewer troubling incidents.

Sounds simple, but there are a number of potential problems. First of all, coaches often don’t know whether a prospect has a troubled past. The criminal records of minors are usually sealed and the people who might be in the know, such as a high school coach, have a vested interest, and perhaps a legal obligation, to remain silent. Second, there is a legitimate question about whether someone’s conduct as a minor, unless it rises to the level of being prosecuted as an adult, should be allowed to impact that person’s recruitment. And third, socio-economic issues would have to be weighed, just as they were the NCAA strengthened admission standards in the early 1980s. There would probably be fewer troubling incidents on campuses, but there also would probably be fewer opportunities for the most disadvantaged. Finally, it is not at all inconceivable that there would be racism, that is, some coaches might shy away from recruiting African-Americans precisely because they would conclude it was inherently risky. The innocent might be painted with the same racist stroke as the guilty because of deeply held stereotypes.

In conclusion, we have a problem because the current rules encourage coaches to wear rose-tinted glasses when they are considering whether to offer a scholarship to a student with a yellow flag. And we can definitely change that calculation, making the price to be paid for getting it wrong as high as the reward for getting it right. But we need to be very careful about considering the consequences that would come with adding the rules proposed above.

–Ken Pendleton

SCI Founder, Joshua Gordon, Discusses University of Oregon Global Ambassador Course in Conjunction with the 2014 IAAF Junior World Championships

A select group of UO students will serve as ambassadors for this summer’s 2014 Junior World Track Championships —the first time the event has been held in the United States or on any university campus.

“I am just really excited to interact with people my age from different countries and cultures,” said Negina Pirzad, one of the student ambassadors and a Pathway Oregon student majoring in journalism and international studies. “I hope I can build some friendships along the way, help out as much as I can during the events … and just embrace the whole track atmosphere in Eugene, but on such a great scale.”

The selection of the students chosen to be ambassadors was competitive; each will serve as a host for the more than 2,500 athletes from 212 countries to help ensure things run smoothly for the international athletes.

Student ambassadors are receiving both academic and practical training. The academic courses provide theoretical and skill-based foundations and are paired with learning experiences outside the classroom to complement the academic component.

The spring term course the ambassadors currently are enrolled in is Global Sports Business and Society. The curriculum will help shape the students’ preparation through a study of the history, politics, economics and sociology of international sport.

The course also will focus on skills related to cultural competency and conflict management, which will prepare ambassadors to better understand and resolve any challenges that arise during the event.

The summer course is meant to prepare students for the experience immediately before the event. They will learn skills in hospitality, working in both a sporting and international environment and effectively communicating with the athletes.

During the event, student ambassadors will be assigned to a particular country or region based on language abilities. Students will serve as campus tour guides, provide support as assistants or friends and connect athletes to Global Oregon and TrackTown USA.

“From a faculty perspective, it’s a rare opportunity for students to be involved in an international sporting event — that just happens to be here in Eugene, Oregon — and provide a deep service learning opportunity that few students in the world can experience,” said Joshua Gordon, a UO law professor who is teaching Global Sports Business and Society.

“Given the quality of the students involved, I have high expectations for how well they will show the UO to the rest of the world,” said Gordon.

Many UO Ambassadors are multilingual, which should help put the international visitors at ease as the ambassadors guide them around campus throughout the event.

“I wanted to become an ambassador because I saw it as a chance to put my language skills and cultural knowledge to use,” said Pirzad, who speaks English, Arabic, Farsi and French.

Watch this video created by Global Ducks to learn more about this year’s student ambassador program.

– by Sarah MacKenzie, Public Affairs Communications intern

Silver’s Sterling Problem

Donald Sterling bought the San Diego Clippers in 1981. By 1982, the NBA knew it had a serious problem, after Sterling fell behind on paychecks and violated the collective bargaining agreement by forcing players to fly coach. He was also caught on tape saying that his team needed to finish last so that they could draft Ralph Sampson. In 2009, Sterling agreed to pay $2.725 million to settle a suit, filed by the Justice Department, alleging that he refused to rent to minority families and drove them out of his apartment buildings. He reportedly claimed that African-Americans smelled and that Latinos drank took much.

Why, it seems fair to ask, did the NBA take so long to fine or suspend Mr. Sterling? Why didn’t they take every step to compel him to sell the Clippers, long before now. Why did they back off from forcing him to sell in 1982, when they first seriously considered taking exactly that action? Major League Baseball compelled Marge Schott to sell her majority interest in the Cincinnati in the late 90s, after she made anti-semitic and racist remarks. The NBA already had a relevant precedent: former Cleveland Cavalier’s owner Ted Stepien. Like Starling, Stepien was a disaster on the court and in the front office (there is actually a rule named after him that limits a franchise’s latitude to make trades). And he publicly stated that the NBA should try to make sure that more than 50% of the players were white in order to appeal to white fans.

David Stern helped usher Stepien out of the league, but he proved endlessly accommodating to Sterling–for reasons that remain largely unexplained.

Whatever the reason, Stern’s successor as commissioner, Adam Silver, now has to clean up a toxic mess that could have easily been avoided. So far he has done a masterful job. His decision to suspend Sterling sine die has placated the players, who were threatening to boycott playoff games, and most of the owners seem to accept the idea that there is no pace for Sterling in the NBA. Mark Cuban was worried that stripping Sterling of ownership on the basis of a private conversation could lead to a slippery slope, but he later expressed unreserved support for Silver’s actions.

Convincing Sterling that he should sell his franchise, quickly and contritely, is going to be Silver’s big challenge.

Selling immediately would make financial sense. The Clippers will lose lots of money, fast, if Sterling refuses. Coach Doc Rivers will leave. Any players out of contract will leave. The ones under contract will do little more than show up and do their job, and probably continue publicly condemning Sterling. The local cable network and sponsors will pull out or demand contract renegotiations.  And the fans will stop attending, or even watching, once the Clips start to lose regularly.

Selling makes financial sense, but there are lots of reasons to think Sterling will not cooperate. He rarely sells his assets, which probably helps explain why he, of all people, has the longest tenure of any NBA owner. He loves litigation. He was a very successful attorney and he has already shown that he is willing to stare down the NBA. The NBA assessed a $25m fine when he moved his franchises from San Diego to LA, but reduced that number to $6m after the threatened an anti-trust suit. And it is not at all clear that his primary motive for owning the Clips is profit.

Mind you, he is very shrewd businessman, who balanced the books all those hapless years, and he hates to part with even a thousand dollars. At the same time, he turned down a $90m offer to relocate his franchise to Anaheim because he didn’t want to endure the additional drive-time from west LA and a $200m offer from Nashville because he likes having HIS team in LA. He also likes the prestige that comes with owning a major sports franchise, even if it has been the most futile franchise of them all.

The above leads me to conclude that he is going to try to save face, as he defines it, by taking a very hard business line. He is not going to sell the franchise below what he perceives to be full market value and he will actually use his sullied reputation as a bargaining chip. “Refuse my terms and I will drag this out in court and you, the NBA, can deal with all the negative publicity that comes with the Clips being the most dysfunctional franchise in league history. Ya, I would lose a lot of money, too, but I am willing to gamble that you cannot stomach the negative impact that my continued ownership will have on the league as a whole.”

His gripe with V. Stiviano was that her public association with African-Americans undermined his credibility with the company he keeps. His goal in this negotiation, in my view, will be to salvage what he sees as his reputation in their eyes by cutting a great business deal–a deal that allows him to claim that ended up calling the shots.

–Ken Pendleton

SCI Founder, Joshua Gordon, to Speak at PAADS Summit in NYC

SCI Founder, Joshua Gordon, will be presenting along with John Zinsser at the Professional Association of Athlete Development Specialists (PAADS) Summit at Major League Baseball’s headquarters in New York City on Friday May 2, 2014.

What is the Athlete Development Summit?

The Athlete Development Summit (ADS) was a concept first created by the NFLPA and hosted by the NFL in 2002. In conjunction with the NBA, it was expanded to include additional leagues and experts in the field of athlete development. Since then, the ADS has evolved into an annual conference attracting many of the leaders in athlete development from major sports organizations around the world. The ADS provides athlete development specialists with a forum for connecting with representatives of a wide variety of organizations in the profession and sharing best practices and ideas in the field of athlete development.

Previous ADS conferences have also included a diverse array of speakers and topics. Among these speakers were David Stern, Commissioner of the NBA, Dr. Jim Loehr of the Human Performance Institute, Mike Whan, Commissioner of the LPGA, and Kenneth Shropshire, a founder of the Wharton Sports Business Initiative at the University of Pennsylvania.

Below is an abstract of the presentation and bios on both speakers.

From the Front Page to the Mundane: How an Ombuds Can Help Athletes, Teams, and Organizations

Conflict naturally and regularly occurs. But, when denied or unaddressed—whether with self, another person, or one’s team or organization, it detracts from performance. Just like an injury, early attention fosters an easier recovery with far less negative impact and cost. Sports carries tremendous pressure to perform at an exceptionally high level amidst numerous internal and external stressors that threaten an individual’s and a team’s ability to achieve peak performance.

Situations like the locker room culture issues raised by the Miami Dolphins situation and numerous coach bullying allegations at institutions such as Rutgers, Oregon State, and Boston University provide high profile examples of how unattended concerns can derail seasons, careers, and the goodwill earned by individuals and organizations. These situations incur substantial direct and indirect costs and have undeniable impact on winning.

Similarly, there are numerous, less glamorous external stressors that interfere with athlete performance and development. These strains of the games include relationships, financial concerns, safety and security, transitions, logistics, self-doubt, vices and distractors, and a myriad of other factors that prevent teams and individuals from success on and off the field.

Where is a safe place for an athlete, coach, or administrator to turn when they need guidance or support in dealing with issues they face? How do teams and organizations ensure that there is a culture that fosters trust and winning?

Organizational ombuds programs support an individual who wants to deal with a concern before it becomes a larger issue. They offer a distinctly different approach to conflict management that would well serve the sports community.  Future-oriented, team-centered and reliant on individual accountability, ombuds programs share common traits of athletic success.

Defined by its core characteristics of independence, neutrality, informality and confidentiality, organizational ombuds programs create a safe space for participants to raise issues, consider options, plan responses and practice activities. Ombuds provide support to better address issues and concerns, while preserving relationships, reputations and value. Often referred to as an internal conflict coach, ombuds help those who voluntarily access a program to help themselves obtain better outcomes and peak performance. University and corporate ombuds programs have demonstrated high value from generating creative and enduring solutions to intractable conflicts, by providing a zero barrier, low risk mechanism to accessing support. Properly designed and executed, ombuds programs could also benefit leagues, teams, and individual athletes. They provide a natural connector to athlete development specialists, coaches, along with team and league administrators.

Unlike any other conflict management system, participants will learn how ombuds programs work and what components enable an ombuds program to deliver exceptional results. Participants will identify the elements they want to build upon for success and will discuss a series of hypothetical applications of how the ombuds concepts can support these. The active participant in the session will gain a fundamental understanding of ombuds programs and how they are best suited to support the well-being and advancement of a committed athletic organization. The team or organization provides a safe system for understanding its risk factors better and preventing similar issues from persisting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the Presenters:

Joshua A. Gordon is  conflict management professional for more than twenty years, Mr. Gordon is an experienced mediator, facilitator, educator, and organizational capability builder. Mr. Gordon specializes in sports related conflict management building on a history of contexts that have included business-to-business, organizational change, energy, environmental, real estate and housing, family, and gang-related conflict and disputes. He especially appreciates and enjoys complex, multi-party conflict that requires non-traditional solutions to impasse.

Mr. Gordon has developed creative organizational solutions to ensure competitive success for a number of teams and leagues from collegiate through the professional levels. He has presented to audiences that have included individuals and teams from the NCAA, NBA, NFL, MLS, NRL, MLB, USATF, USTA, PGA, LPGA, and ATP.

Mr. Gordon founded the Sports Conflict Institute (SCI) after previously directing the Competition Not Conflict (CNC) project at the University of Oregon School of Law Appropriate Dispute Resolution Center. Mr. Gordon sees the importance of supporting competitive goals in athletics through understanding, preventing, and resolving destructive conflicts that occur both inside and outside the lines. His goal is to ensure that SCI serves as a resource center and provides a range of services to help optimize performance. He is dedicated to minimizing destructive costs of conflict in sports, by looking far below the tip of the iceberg, and fostering the positive value sports can provide to athletes, coaches, supporters, and administrators.

Mr. Gordon has created a number of cutting-edge conflict management tools and curriculum, including, the Play-By-Play Model™, Outside the Box / Inside the Ring™, Stop Bully!™, Sports Conflict Observations Tools (SCOTs)™, and myriad others. He takes a systemic approach to problems that arise in sport through the use of powerful assessment instruments and interventions designed to specifically address the challenge at hand.

Mr. Gordon has a track record of bringing innovative solutions to problems in sports. Examples include establishing one of the first sports ombuds programs in the country; facilitating the introduction of digital trainers to promote cognitive skills associated with competencies such as high-speed decision making, emotional regulation, and feedback mechanisms to Oregon Football, Softball, and Baseball in coordination with Axon Sports; and developing positive reward and accountability systems for Oregon Football program including testing against 500+ cases to ensure behavior outcomes consistent with Coach Chip Kelly’s values, expectations, and goals.

Mr. Gordon has trained thousands of students in mediation, negotiation, and conflict management. As part of the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, he Instituted mediation and conflict resolution training programs in school systems throughout Massachusetts and was a member of the Conflict Intervention Team designed as first responders to gang violence.

Mr. Gordon continues to teach undergraduates and graduates at the University of Oregon in Eugene, OR on courses related to sport & society, sports conflict management, law, and dispute resolution. He is the negotiation coach for the ABA Moot Court Negotiation Competition where he has successfully coached multiple teams to the National Competition, including the 2013 ABA National Champion which then competed in the International Negotiation Competition as the United States representative.

In addition to his career in conflict management and dispute resolution, Mr. Gordon is a competitive runner with recent Masters All-American performances in the mile, 3K, 5K, and 10K distances. He competes as part of the University of Oregon Running Club, Team 2XU, and the Bowerman Athletic Club with consistent top 1% finishes.

Mr. Gordon received his Juris Doctor from Suffolk University Law School, both his Master of Arts and a Graduate Certificate in Dispute Resolution from the University of Massachusetts Boston, and his Bachelor of Arts in Psychology / Sociology with an Certificate in Criminal Justice from the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

John W. Zinsser believes anyone facing a challenge, who wants help, deserves it. Senior Practitioner with the Sports Conflict Institute, LLC and co-founder of Pacifica Human Communications, LLC, he has supported Fortune 500 corporations, U.S. government agencies, and private institutions to consider, implement, assess and improve organizational ombuds programs. Whether as consultant, researcher, Columbia University professor, activist citizen or award winning ombuds, he continuously raises his voice for the capacity and value of organizational ombuds. His most recent article, “Prepared to be Valuable: Positioning Ombuds Programs to Assure Their Worth,” co-authored with Andrea Schenck, will appear in the upcoming issue of the Journal of the International Ombudsman Association. His Master’s degree in conflict resolution from Antioch University featured a thesis demonstrating ombuds to be the most valuable form of conflict management in the non-union work environment. He is a graduate of Kenyon College, where he lettered in Lacrosse. He has competed in world championship level yacht racing.

 

The Search for Commitment: Why Coaches and Parents Should View Punishment as a Last Resort

In 1959, American sociologists John French and Bertram Raven published a seminal article dividing power into five categories: Legitimate power came with the job description of holding a certain position in an organizational hierarchy. Power could also come from having expertise, the ability to dole out punishment or rewards, and the cultivation of social relations (what French and Raven call referent power).

The six years I have spent trying to step-parent have taught me that there is a big difference between having legitimate power and having power because I give my step-daughter an iPhone 4s or summarily cut off texting privileges. Truth be told, I have resorted to what French and Raven call coercive power every now and then, but I view doing so as a last resort because it reflects my failure to cultivate more constructive forms of power. I say constructive because I get my way, and I would like to think I use coercion for only the most just reasons, but this form of exercise presupposes that I have otherwise failed to convince her to behave differently. I have ended up settling for compliance and in the process undermined whatever legitimate power comes with being a step parent.

It strikes me that coaches fall somewhere between being parents and step parents. Like the latter, they usually have the power to meet out rewards and punishments; most importantly, they get to decide who plays and who sits. But   that power will not be seen as legitimate unless it is accompanied by some combination of expertise and referent power. The coach who is only armed with carrots and sticks can compel players to follow his orders, but he will never engender the kind of commitment that is necessary for a team to win consistently over time.

On many occasions I have tried to explain to my daughter that I have three weapons available to get her to do household chores. I can use negative or positive reinforcement, she can trust my judgment, or we can talk about the issue until we reach a consensus about what the house should look like and what is fair to ask of all of us. I would be lying if I said that she prefers the third option, but the very gesture of offering it goes a long way towards improving our relationship and legitimating my power as a parent.

Coaches are probably in a better position than step parents. Players are usually better disposed towards them (though there is always the possibility that their loyalty is with the previous coach), but that legitimate power has to be backed up by either expertise of referent power.

Expertise has gotten many a socially awkward or unskilled, or otherwise impersonal coach over the hump. Paul Brown, Tom Landry, Dean Smith, and Bill Belichick spring to mind. But the younger the player, the more referent skills matter: the exercise of this form of power can take the form of charisma, loyalty, enthusiasm, integrity, compassion, empathy, or having a good sense of humor, to name just some. It does not mean being extraverted; it means finding a way to connect to the players on a personal level.

Finding a way to do this is the key to transforming compliance into commitment. Just as most kids know that they should do chores, most players understand that someone has to sit, and that that someone may very well be them. But it is a lot easier to swallow that medicine if you believe your coach has a compass that isn’t solely aimed at winning and the basis of his power is more than rewards or coercion.

–Ken Pendleton

Apocalypse, Not Now: Would Unionization Really Entail Radical Change for College Sports?

At the end of the day, after the various courts have had their say, the relationship between the NCAA and football and men’s basketball players at the largest institutions is going to take one of three forms. The NCAA may be allowed to continue to make unilateral policy decisions, which means student-athletes would still have no formal voice. Athletes may win the right to collective representation and bargaining. Or the courts may rule that the NCAA is a cartel guilty of price fixing and allow high school athletes to sell their services in an open market.

In the wake of the recent regional NLRB ruling that football players at Northwestern University are employees with a concomitant right to unionize, the NCAA has clearly set its sights on appealing and decrying what they envision as radical change. Pac 12 commissioner Larry Scott claimed unionization could lead to a funding shortfall for non-revenue sports, possibly even jeopardizing Title IX, and argued that legitimate concerns about health care and making financial ends meet would degenerate into greed: “Any unionization effort that I’ve ever seen in pro sports, it’s not just about health care and work conditions, I mean they’re going for a big slice of whatever’s available . . .” Striking an even stronger tone, NCAA president Mark Emmert described unionization as “grossly inappropriate” and warned it “would blow up everything about the collegiate model of athletics.”

Really? Even looking at this from the NCAA’s point of view, I am not at all sure that unionization is tantamount to apocalypse–especially compared to the free market alternative.

Yes, unionization entails that student-athletes would have to be explicitly recognized as stakeholders, which means that management would lose a lot of its prerogative. “Trust us” would have to give way to, “Negotiate with us.” And it is possible that athletes could demand a much bigger slice of the pie, or even, God forbid!, strike.

But there are a lot of reasons to think that the changes would end up being far less radical.

First of all, 18 to 22-year-olds would not be easy to organize. The militant wing of the student population is not normally well represented in the athletic community. In fact, most of them are far more used to following their coaches’ orders than questioning them, let alone organizing.

Parallels with organizing graduate teachers and researchers are instructive. I can assure you, from first hand experience, that it is really difficult to organize graduate students. Unlike athletes, they are taught to question authority and are more politically aware. But–like athletes–they are only going to be at a university for a few years, don’t have time for union activities, and are reluctant to endanger their professional futures by agitating. Securing additional pay and benefits is less important than investing in their chosen field of study. Finally, having the right to collectively bargain has not resulted in huge pay increases for grad assistants; the real gains have been limits on the hours spent teaching or researching and securing health care coverage–both of which Scott acknowledged were problems for student-athletes that need to be addressed.

There is one other hugely important lesson to be learned from this comparison. Universities negotiate with graduate unions despite the fact that they are not classified as employees. At the University of Oregon, for example, the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation is afiliated with the American Federation of Teachers and the AFL-CIO–but they are not legally classified as employees. They don’t have a right to worker’s compensation or retirement benefits. Student-athletes might be classified similarly, especially if the hours spent on athletics were kept below a .5 FTE.

The other concerns expressed by Scott are also less threatening than they appear. First of all, the NCAA is already considering covering the full cost of attendance for some student-athletes, which means the basic budgetary problem is not going to be impacted by unionization: the funds to pay athletes a few more thousand dollars a year are going to have to come from somewhere.

More to the point, why would funds have to be diverted from the non-revenue sports? Why couldn’t they come at the expense of the facilities arms race or coaches salaries? The NCAA could pass bylaws that compel athletic departments to fully fund X number of non-revenue sports and ratchet up the criteria for what counts as Title IX compliance. In other words, the idea that we can have football or women’s soccer, but not both, is a false dichotomy. Coaches could still sell their services at full market value, but their salaries might decline, or at least level off, if the vast majority of funds were already obligated to other line items.

There is one other viable option, that comes without any budgetary dilemmas. The NCAA could allow athletes to capitalize on their marketability while they are in college. There would need to be some restrictions (you don’t want your star player shilling for a strip joint), but why not let them retain registered agents or do commercials for a local pizza joint? There would be no cost to athletic departments, fewer under the table payments, less hypocrisy, and the NCAA would at least be partially addressing the charge that they are a price-fixing cartel.

Management is particularly loathe to relinquish prerogative. Hell, that’s probably half the reason to go into management. But the ostensible point of having power is to serve the ends that define your institution. The NCAA seems committed to doing everything in its power to maintain the status quo, but they may very well find that major change is inevitable, and that treating student-athletes as collectively represented stakeholders can be reconciled with the NCAA’s mission a lot more easily than the free market.

The threat of unionization is overstated, but unleashing free market forces might really blow up everything about the collegiate model of athletics.

— Ken Pendleton

Will SEC Dominance Increase With A Four-Team Playoff?

If the college football recruiting evaluation services are accurate, which over the long-haul they usually are, Tennessee had a heck of a day on Wednesday. The Vols, who have raced through coaches while racking up five losing seasons since 2008, signed the seventh best recruiting class in the country.

The problem is that Tennessee’s recruiting class ranked only fifth in the SEC, behind Alabama, LSU, Texas A & M, and Auburn. What’s more, Georgia and Florida, who compete with them in the East division, finished eighth and ninth.

In other words, Tennessee would top their conferences recruiting rankings if they were a member of the Big 12 or the Pac 12, and they would place second if they were in the ACC or Big Ten–but they find themselves in a dog-fight for fifth in the SEC.

The fact that seven of the top nine classes come from the SEC–the same conference that has captured seven of the last eight BCS titles (and came within seconds of making it a run of eight)–suggests the biggest is just getting bigger. The SEC already has the most fervor, the biggest stadiums and TV contracts, and the most local talent to recruit–and all this recent success is translating into an unprecedented ability to recruit elite players from other regions.

Is this good for the long-term health of college football, especially when it is about to embark on a four-team playoff, where a huge share of the additional billions of revenue will go to the conferences of the teams that qualify?

Consider the final regular season rankings for teams that would have been playoff-eligible the past eight seasons:

2006: Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, LSU

2007: Ohio State, LSU, Oklahoma, Georgia

2008: Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama

2009: Alabama, Texas, TCU, Cincinnati

2010: Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Wisconsin

2011: LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma St., Stanford

2012: Notre Dame, Alabama, Florida, Oregon

2013: Florida State, Auburn, Alabama, Michigan State

Let’s add up the number of participants by current conference affiliation that would have been invited to a playoff, assuming that Condalisa Rice and her fellow selection committee members would have ranked teams like AP:

SEC: 14

Big 12: 7

Big Ten: 5

Pac 12: 3

ACC: 1

Other: 2

The SEC would have earned 14 of the 32 bids, twice as many as the second-place Big 12.

And, remember, the SEC appears to be getting even stronger. And it is already far richer. Bret Bielema left Wisconsin, which he helped turn into one of the most successful programs in the Big Ten, for Arkansas, a middling program in the SEC, in part because he could spend 50% more money on assistant coaches.

The coming playoff figures to make the financial playing field even less level.

The best solution might be to go to an eight-team-playoff, with the five major conferences getting automatic births and conferences being limited to a maximum of two bids. This would foster greater parity for four reasons:

(1) The five major conferences would be guaranteed a greater share of the playoff loot every season. By the way, the value of the conference championship games would also rise dramatically because they would effectively become play-in games. Finally, as it stands coaches are loathe to  schedule games against tough out-of-conference opponents because the downside of losing is far greater than the upside of winning, A win does not make the conference schedule any less imposing, but a loss could cost a team a tournament invitation even if they win their conference. ln other words, teams might schedule more tough inter-conference match-ups under an eight-team format because they would know that conference success would gain them an automatic bid.

(2) Since the SEC would be limited to two spots, the other at-large teams would often come from other conferences. The SEC would end up with a smaller percentage of entrants then it will using a four-team format.

(3) This format would save the selection committee the difficult dilemma it figures to face with schools from the smaller conferences. As it stands, they will either have to exclude undefeated teams, like Boise State and Cincinnati were in 2009, or include them despite the fact that they faced subpar competition. There will be a lot less controversy about selecting one of these teams if the major conferences are guaranteed at least one place.

And (4) the fact that each major conference would have at least one participant every season, and often two, might stem the recruiting migration to the SEC. In part, elite student-athletes choose the SEC because they know they have the best chance of playing for the national title–even at a school that has suffered recent hard-times like Tennessee–but that would not be true if the conferences were represented more equally.

Let’s be clear: the SEC is not at fault for being so successful. But we really need to ask whether college football is at risk of becoming a regional sport. And, if it is, the NCAA, the other major conferences, the smaller conferences–and even the SEC–would be wise to consider taking structural steps to promote greater competitive balance.

–Ken Pendleton

The Existential Meaning of the Super Bowl

The Dallas Cowboys’ Duane Thomas did his level best to put the Super Bowl in perspective. Having grown weary of a seemingly endless stream on inane questions, he finally posed one of his own: “If it’s the ultimate game, how come they’re playing it again next year?”

Thomas rushed for 95 yards on 19 carries in Super Bowl VI and was, as Hunter S. Thompson commented, ‘the whole show’ in the Cowboys’ 24-3 demolition of the Miami Dolphins.  Sport Magazine did not award him the MVP Award because he was boycotting the media. He did, however, consent to one brief post-game interview. After CBS’s Tom Brookshire asked, “Are you really as fast and as elusive as you seem?” Thomas simply said, “Evidently.”

Thomas’s comments suggest that actions speak louder than words, even if there is a PR cost, and that there is no such thing as a final climax. Perhaps Thomas read the existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who argued that life is absurd and that there are no final victories.

The Frenchman argued that there are three forms of bad faith, all of which athletes would do well to avoid.

The first is what he called bad faith in-itself, which is the attempt to define one’s self by past achievements or failures. Sartre turned down the Nobel Prize for literature in 1964, and the loot that comes with it, because he believed a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution. Sportsmen like to wax on about how playing well is more important than winning or losing, but I will not hold my breath waiting for someone to refuse one of those gaudy Super Bowl rings. Luxuriating in an achievement may sound appealing, but Sartre warns that doing so may well lull that person into complacency.

Letting past failures define you is also an example of bad faith in-itself. The Brooklyn Dodgers lost the World Series to the New York Yankees in ’41, ’47, ’49, ’52 and ’53, but they never conceded that the fates favored the Yankees, and they finally won their first Series ever in ’55.

Of course, they lost to the Bronx Bombers in ’56, prompting one of the great headlines ever: “Wait Till Last Year.”

The same sense of perseverance defined the Denver Broncos, who finally won their first Super Bowl after four failures. Too bad about the Minnesota Vikings and the Buffalo Bills. Sartre might have warned that past failures are certainly no guarantee of future success, either.

More importantly, bad faith in-itself suggests that the future is always open. Bad habits can be transformed into dedication or dedication can degenerate into contented laziness. Peyton Manning has arguably been the most consistently excellent quarterback in NFL history, but, like everyone else, he will have to prove his worth again next season. And if he plays poorly Sunday, the what-have-you-done-for-us-lately chorus will be in full voice.

The second existential sin is what Sartre calls bad faith for-itself, which is the mistake of presuming that you have already changed before actually having done so, for example, you have no right to call yourself a recovering alcoholic until you have abstained from drinking for a long spell. In sports, you see this every offseason when some fading player signs a free agent contract and asserts that he has rediscovered his passion for the sport he plays. That may prove to be true, but Sartre’s point is that you have no business proclaiming profound change until you actually go out and live it. New England running back Stevan Ridley might get over his fumbleitus, but we—and more importantly, he—should remain skeptical until he protects the ball for a couple of seasons..

The final form of bad faith is what Sartre calls being for for-itself-in-itself. This is the mistake of thinking that the final chapter has been written while the game of life, or one’s career, is still in progress. This may sound paradoxical, but Sartre claims, “We are condemned to be free.” We have no choice but to think about what we are going to do next. This is why one of the first questions Manning will be asked if the Broncos win is, “Do you think you will repeat next season?” The present, Sartre rightly points out, instantly becomes the past. And you have no choice but to angst over your future plans.

Thomas was right: There is no such thing as the ultimate game, either on or off the field, Life may indeed be absurd, but we play season after season—with all the hype we can summon—because there is still the possibility of being thrilled by victory or agonized by defeat.

–Ken Pendleton