Why Professional Sports Drafts Are Evil - II

Tonight, the NBA Draft Lottery will be conducted during Game 2 of the Eastern Conference Finals. The futures of many a franchise will be determined...by ping pong balls. Millions will tune in to see where their team will draft this summer, and I have to ask, how does this make any sense whatsoever?

So, who does the draft system hurt? I told you earlier that some of my answers might surprise you. The most obvious answer is the players. I made the case in Part I that the entry draft system is unfair to players. There is no need to rehash here.

Who else is hurt by the current draft system? American sports franchises themselves are often hurt by the archaic system they embrace. John Q. American has been duped by a notion even more insidious than that of playing pro sports being a privilege, one that has provided the backbone of the unfair draft system since it's inception. That would be the competitive balance argument. I was once a big proponent of the competitive balance argument, but no longer. Why? It is an argument that simply does not stand up to logic.

The first problem with the competitive balance argument is that you can not force competitive balance. Yes, the NFL has achieved its much-desired parity, but not all leagues have seen the same "success". One reason? City and market size discrepancies between franchises. To put it simply, a team in New York has a financial competitive advantage over a team in Cleveland. Why? Large-market teams are able to lure players due to the additional income that can be earned through endorsements in a more populous metropolitan area.

A second problem with competitive balance is that of limited resources, particularly players talented enough to play at a high level, especially when necessary physical characteristics are taken into account. For instance, there is a very short supply of very tall people with NBA-caliber skills. The NBA cannot snap their fingers and create more Tim Duncans or Shaquille O'Neals. So, if a team is lucky enough to have the ping pong balls bounce their way so that they acquire a player of this caliber, they have an advantage over everyone else whose ping pong balls did not bounce in a fortuitous fashion.

The competitive balance argument has been used for decades to justify the draft systems employed by the American sports leagues. The worst teams from a given season are given the first choices for the next entry draft. The thought being that the worst teams get first dibs on the best new players. There are a couple of problems with the logic behind this policy.

First, leagues reward franchises for futility. Rewarding franchises with the best players, especially franchises the languish year after year in last place, makes no sense in any other system. It only makes sense in the closed cartel system of American professional sports, because logic dictates that there is only one direction to go from the bottom. However, there are franchises in every league that show that the draft system doesn't help them. If it did, they wouldn't be the dregs of their sport every year.

In a few of the leagues (NFL, NBA) the system also fosters a culture of tanking - just one example of how the current system hurts fans. What is tanking? Tanking occurs when a team realizes it has no chance of competing, and knowing that having a terrible season means a better chance at a higher draft pick, the team does not do everything in its power to win. This is often done with no regard whatsoever for season ticket holders who pre-pay for their seats and are stuck having to watch an inferior product. This can actually affect a team for more than one season, which brings me to...

Rebuilding. Under the current system, in most of the American sports leagues, it takes time for a team to acquire enough talent to compete at the highest level. Under the current draft system, teams get to select one player in each draft round (barring trades), during which each team in the league gets to make a pick. In a league with 32 teams, a team is theoretically going to be able to acquire one of the top 32 players in the first round, and so on.

Here is the problem: not all drafts are created equally. You have heard the phrase "a once-in-a-generation talent". Let's go back a few years and look at the emergence of LeBron James. James was the consensus #1 pick coming out of high school, and any team in the NBA would have drooled at the prospect of signing him. However, only a select few teams that had terrible seasons that particular year had any shot at him due to the draft system. So, if a team was bad, but just not quite bad enough, tough luck! Wouldn't a better system be to have an open signing period? All potential entrants to the leagues would be free agents. Sound crazy? It is a system that works in Europe and it could work here. Under the current system, middle of the road franchises exist in a type of limbo, and I argue that they are punished for doing the right thing. How? Let's look at the Philadelphia 76ers of recent years. They have had just enough talent in most seasons to eke into a playoff spot (not so much this year, but I digress). They try hard to win as many games as they can, which is the ethical thing to do, since people are paying (save your jokes!) to see the games and expect an honest effort. They have had a zero per cent change of winning a title and have very little chance of landing impact players in the draft due to their middling draft position. The only way the Sixers can acquire the talent necessary to compete is through free agency, or by tanking.

A better system would be to allow a true free market for entrants to one of the respective leagues. It would be better for players, it would be better for teams and it would be better for fans. One big roadblock to change is that the drafts (mostly the NFL) themselves have become big business. However, it would not be difficult to make an open signing period an event on par with the draft.

As a fan of the Sixers or another middling team, wouldn't you relish the idea of being able to go after multiple missing pieces from the newly-eligible rookie crop? Don't you think the Sixers, if they had the salary cap room, would like the option of making offers to the players they like best instead of hoping a player they like will drop to them on draft day? Don't you think the players would like to have the ability to have some control over their destiny and career path? An open system would be better for everyone involved - players, teams and fans.

9/11 a National Holiday? It's Not Necessary

For years there have been calls from everyone from politicians to the everyman to make September 11th a national holiday in the United States. I get it. September 11, 2001 was one of the darkest days in our nation’s history. The attacks on that day took the lives of thousands of innocents – many of whom died in horrible ways. The attacks also provided an opportunity for true heroes to step forward in efforts to assist the victims, and in the case of Flight 93 – a chance to (we think) stand up, face our attackers and to foil their plans.

The argument for making 9/11 a national holiday is fairly simple. We should never forget. But do we need a national holiday to remember 9/11/2001? The answer, quite frankly, is no. The horror and heroism of that day are well documented. No one is going to forget 9/11/01.

In reading (often sensationalized) news vignettes and Facebook posts in recent days, it has saddened me to see that there is a huge part of 9/11 that is being completely ignored – that of the messy aftermath represented by our government’s response to the attacks and victims of the attacks that still suffer today.

There are many things to be proud of when we think of 9/11. The country came together (as long as you weren’t an Arab-American, mind you) in a way never-before-seen in my lifetime. Instead of fear, a collective nationalism arose across the land. However, that groundswell of nationalism was used by our government to launch a crusade in the form of a completely unjustified invasion of Iraq (the “weapons of mass destruction" intelligence fiasco is well documented) and a war in Afghanistan that is no closer to being resolved today than when our troops first arrived.

Three thousand innocent Americans were killed on 9/11. So our government in turn launched campaigns which have claimed the lives of over 300,000 in Iraq and civilian body counts in Afghanistan estimated in the tens of thousands. It should be noted that it has been verified that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. These numbers are skirted or ignored by most people in the U.S. Why? The terrorists hurt us. We wanted revenge. The terrorists were Arabs. Killing Arabs, including those who had nothing to do with terrorism, government or military, is now okay.

I have to tell you that a lot of bad came out of 9/11. Not just the lives lost in the planes, the towers and the Pentagon. And a lot of it was OUR doing. We started wars where hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. You see, to me, innocent American lives aren't the only ones that matter. They don't count more than those from a third world country run by a dictator. Life is life. White, brown, Arab, Caucasian, Muslim, Christian… The suffering of any innocent is an affront to humanity. No one can control who they are born to or where that happens to be. Too many people used 9/11 to prop up their long-held racism and xenophobia - and that is sad.

So much is being said about the heroes of 9/11 – mainly those lost while responding at the World Trade Center. But what about the rescue workers who got sick and wasted away after being exposed to the aftermath at Ground Zero? What about those who were allowed to wither away to nothing because they lost their health benefits and couldn’t afford treatment? Why is there no talk about this? Is this how we treat our heroes?

I am not insensitive to the events of 9/11. I cry when I see the footage from that day – when I think of what it must have been like to lose family, when I ponder what it must have been like to be on the floors above where the planes hit the towers and to be facing certain death. I remember the fear I felt that day and how much it burned when footage of celebrations in the Arab world were shown. But you know what? What have we learned? Have the thousands of deaths taught us anything? I am not so sure that they have.

I have one last argument against the national holiday idea. What if they had hit us again? What if we are hit again in the future? Are we going to have a national holiday every time terrorists strike the United States? Will there not be heroic acts during future attacks? I guess a big mental block for me is that while we mark a solemn day in our history, we also bring notoriety to the acts themselves. The terrorists succeeded in killing many Americans and greatly changing the way we operate and think. The date September 11 is permanently stamped as a day that will invoke a wide gamut of emotions for generations to come, if not forever. There is no need to make it a holiday because we will never forget. Now, we just need to learn from it.

A Case For Relegation In American Sports - A Paper

The original title of this paper, "An Analysis of Cartel Practices of American Professional Sports Leagues and a Viable Alternative Solution" would not make for a useable blog post title. Written for a class at St. Joseph's University in the Spring of 2009, the paper makes a case for introducing the European model for professional sports leagues in the United States. I attempt to do this by debunking some of the most widely-used arguments that are used to keep the anti-trust exemptions in place that allow American professional sports leagues to operate as cartels - such as the ridiculous competitive balance argument. 

It was my hope that Major League Soccer would choose a different path than its fellow American professional league cartels.  I, and many others, have been disappointed to see MLS follow the anti-trust exemption route.   I look forward to reading what you think about my stance. 

"An Analysis of Cartel Practices of American Professional Sports Leagues and a Viable Alternative Solution" by Vincent Blando - April 2009

Entrepreneurs who wish to enter franchises into major American professional sports leagues face obstacles that do not exist in any other industry.  Regardless of how wealthy a potential ownership group may be, how foolproof the business plan, how powerful the groundswell of support from a given locality for a new team, professional sports leagues are unaffected unless they are cultivating buyers for a team that is for sale or for an expansion franchise designated for a predetermined locale.

Professional sports leagues in the United States operate in closed systems, or cartels, which allow the leagues to function outside antitrust guidelines that all other industries in the country must follow.  Thanks to an antitrust exemption granted to Major League Baseball in 1922, professional sports leagues in the United States have been permitted to operate as monopolies which incorporate practices not found anywhere else in the country.  Leagues are able to determine the number of franchises competing within their frameworks and tacitly control the expansion of the total number of league teams. They are able to implement earning limitations on their players and in most cases dictate where entry level players must begin their careers.  Almost all of the leagues in the United States grant their teams monopolistic geographical territories that can not be encroached upon by other franchises in the league.  Professional franchises have been able to leverage the emotional support of their fans to negotiate sweetheart deals for publicly-financed arenas by using the threat of moving to a different city.  Often, fans in geographical areas inhabited by long-moribund franchises have no recourse but to support poorly-run operations because they are the only game in town.

 

The current cartel system benefits franchise owners at the expense of players, fans and municipalities: “In [American] professional sports, clubs are organized into leagues that function as cartels to protect the monopoly franchises and the territorial rights of the owners” (Adams, 1997).  That is not to say that players do not often make a lot of money or that most fans do not enjoy the games.  However, professional sports in the United States is big business, and thus should be treated as such: “The myth of sport as primarily entertainment has been laid to rest along with such delusions as the loyalty of players to the team and the athlete as a sexually faithful, drug-free role model for American youth. Sport is a business whose product is entertainment” (Rosenberg, 1986).  A study conducted by the European Sponsorship Association in 2006 concluded: “over thirty billion dollars was spent on sponsorship worldwide in 2005, with eighty-five percent of those expenditures involving sports properties” (Fortunato, 2007).  Why then are professional sports leagues given so much leeway to operate as they do?  One reason has been unwavering support from American courts.  There have been numerous challenges to the status quo, all of which have been unsuccessful: “Between 1922 and 1980 more than seventy bills were introduced to remove professional sport’s antitrust exemption; none succeeded” (Rosenberg, 1986).  The major professional sports leagues in the United States have achieved a state that is optimal for the success of a cartel: “A cartel must design an organizational structure that is not only immune to entry by outsiders, but also subversion by insiders. Obtaining explicit government legitimization for its activities is an ultimate desideratum; obtaining assurance of benign neglect by the antitrust agencies is a workable ‘secondbest’ option” (Adams, 1997).  A record of seventy-plus victories against zero defeats in antitrust litigations would suggest that the leagues have achieved cartel success as defined by Adams.

The closed system of operation implemented by sports leagues is strictly an American phenomenon.  The major sports leagues have only one tier, populated by a set number of teams.  Once granted entry to the league, a team is secure of its place.  To gain entry, teams must either pay an exorbitant expansion fee to the established league owners or purchase an existing franchise (Grow, 2006).  The limited number of teams for each league is set by the design of league aficionados, who leave viable markets purposely uninhabited.  This serves to drive up the value of individual franchises, and to give owners leverage over the political leaders of their teams’ current municipality.  This practice negatively affects a large portion of the American population: “Millions of sports fans in medium-sized cities and occasional major metropolitan areas are precluded from watching a local sports team at the major league level, although an unrestrained market might well support such teams” (Ross, 2001).

The establishment of geographical monopolies also harms fans as well as taxpayers who have no interest in sports: “Fans have no choice but to endure inferior quality teams caused by local mismanagement…Many taxpayers who are not sports fans must pay, or forego city services that would otherwise be funded, because state and local governments provide massive subsidies to retain or attract artificially-scarce franchises” (Ross, 2001).

The antitrust exemption was granted to Major League Baseball in 1922 in order to give league owners the power to openly work together to protect their product: “Although each team is a separate business, the product requires the activities of two teams, preferably ones that are equally matched so the outcome is uncertain. Hence there must be explicit coordination…baseball was granted an exemption…in recognition of the need for collusion among teams” (Leifer, 1990).  The exemption was granted so teams could work together to establish centralized schedules, establish a shared rule set and to screen potential players.  However, the exemption has been used by leagues to implement a host of other control measures using arguments based on a supposed need for competitive balance which include “limiting the size of rosters, revenue sharing, the reverse draft, and the reserve system” (Leifer, 1990).  Major League Baseball and National Hockey League franchises enter into agreements with minor league teams to develop their players, while the National Football League and the National Basketball Association draft their players primarily from American college programs.  All four leagues force all prospective players to make themselves available to an amateur entry draft, which allow franchises to take turns selecting players for their teams (Leifer, 1990).

The competitive balance argument is the backbone for American professional sports leagues defenses during antitrust litigation: “The ‘competitive balance argument’ maintains that, because predictable outcomes will reduce fan interest and therefore profitability, professional sports leagues require special treatment under the antitrust laws that recognizes their ‘strong and unique interest in maintaining competitive balance” (Mehra, 2006).  While there is some truth to the competitive balance argument, it is not without flaws.  The first flaw in the argument is that it is virtually impossible to create a perfectly level playing field.  One league-implemented control actually serves as an example for why competitive balance measures are inconsistent: “League restrictions on entry protect the territorial monopolies of existing teams. These…monopolies vary in population size…and thus vary in the potential support they can give a team” (Leifer, 1990).  For instance, a team in New York City has a financial competitive advantage over a team based in Cleveland based solely on the populations of the respective geographic regions.  Even with controls in place that direct the best talent to struggling teams and which cap what a player can earn in salary, large-market teams are able to lure players due to the additional income that can be earned through endorsements in a more populous metropolitan area.

Another flaw inherent to the competitive balance argument for professional sports leagues is that of limited resources, particularly players talented enough to play sports at a high enough level to satisfy the fans.  This problem becomes more acute when necessary physical characteristics are taken into account: “Perhaps unsurprisingly…the key factor limiting competitive balance in the NBA is that there is a short supply of very tall people, and an even shorter supply of those with NBA-caliber skills. The NBA cannot simply make more Shaquille O’Neals” (Mehra, 2006).  The competitive balance argument, as to how it relates with maintaining fan interest, was tested greatly during the Michael Jordan era in the NBA.  Jordan’s Chicago Bulls teams won six league championships in eight years, usually while well established as the clear betting favorite to win the titles.  Even with the Bulls playing at such a dominant level, television ratings were never higher nor have those numbers been approached since.  There was little doubt as to who would win the championship during this era, yet people tuned in anyway to see the game played at its highest level.

On the other end of the competitive balance argument spectrum are American franchises which serve as perennial doormats to the rest of their respective leagues.  There are numerous examples of teams in all four of the major American sports leagues that languish in last place season after season despite the best efforts of competitive balance controls.  Fans living within the geographical regions monopolized by these teams are victimized by a lack of alternatives.  Anyone in these areas that wishes to see a league game must pay for tickets, thus rewarding franchises that are poorly run: “Freedom from competition also means that individual club owners can behave in notoriously inefficient ways, guaranteed a permanent place in a monopoly league and enjoying league policies dictated by a board on which they have an equal vote” (Ross, 2001).  Owners of poorly-run franchises, especially in cases where they are guaranteed large payouts from league-negotiated television contracts and revenue sharing, have little incentive to improve their product: “fans have no choice but to endure inferior quality teams caused by local mismanagement” (Ross, 2001).

Adoption of the European model of professional sports leagues would solve many, if not all of these problems.  Most professional sports leagues around the world operate in an open format, allowing teams to earn their way to the top tier of their respective leagues by virtue of the automatic promotion and relegation system.  This is especially true in Europe.  European leagues do not recognize territorial rights.  Many teams operate within mere kilometers of one another and still enjoy vast followings.  An entrepreneur who wishes to enter their team into a European professional league must simply register the team, have players to play the team’s matches and to provide a home field for the team to host its games.  The team is automatically entered into the league’s lowest tier, and can earn its way to the top flight with a few years of sustained success.  The English football (known in the United States as soccer) league is made up of five tiers, with the highest tier known as the English Premier League (Cain, 2005).  Teams earn their place both positively and negatively through their performance in a given season.  The top three teams in each of the lower four tiers automatically moves up to the next-highest tier, taking the places of the three bottom teams which are relegated down to the next-lowest tier (Ross, 2001).

The English Premier League serves as an acceptable model for comparison to American major sports leagues: “For one it [the EPL] is among only a few leagues outside of North America that are truly on similar  financial footing, in terms of club valuations and revenue” (Mehra, 2006).  As with the four major sports leagues in the United States, The EPL is widely recognized as the top league for its sport in the world today and attracts a world-wide following.  How does a very successful league outside of the United States cope with competitive balance?  It has been widely accepted in recent years that there is an elite group of three or four clubs that have a realistic chance to win the League championship.  Some years, there is a favorite so prohibitive, that the odds for the team to win the championship are staggering by American standards: “In August 2006…the Indianapolis Colts, the team deemed most likely to win…the Super Bowl, were offered at 5:1. These odds imply…a 17% chance of winning…Meanwhile, the Premier League favorite was Chelsea, offered at 4:9…roughly a 70% chance” (Mehra, 2006).  The Premier League has been a huge success despite it appearing to be significantly imbalanced.  This would seem to refute the competitive balance argument: “predictable results have not thwarted the Premier League in rivaling North American sports leagues when it comes to money”.  The English model demonstrates that there is an alternative methodology for success outside of the cartel and monopolies mold.  It is puzzling that with such a high-profile example of alternate practices, that there has yet to be a successful legal challenge to the antitrust exemptions enjoyed by the American professional sports leagues.

The implementation of the European open system would benefit American sports fans in a number of ways: “The ability to enter would…benefit millions of fans in markets now not served by major league clubs, or under-served by limits on the number of teams in the league” (Ross, 2001).   Relegation in an open system serves a purpose outside of providing accountability and added motivation to poorly-performing franchises.  It also adds to the entertainment value of the product: “It [relegation] would increase the incentive for current major league teams to invest in quality player talent, in order to avoid relegation. Second, it would provide a new aspect of each competitive season, as fans not only follow close races among the league leaders but races among the lesser teams in the league to avoid relegation” (Ross, 2001).

The United States is a nation that loves professional sports.  The four major sports leagues enjoy great support from fans and firm backing from the American political and judicial systems. Competitive balance should no longer be accepted by the courts as a valid argument in defense of closed cartel systems in American professional sports leagues.  The revenues generated by the major sports leagues is so high that the argument that sports serves primarily as entertainment also no longer passes muster.  The antitrust exemption that allows professional league franchise owners to operate their cartels should be revoked, and professional sports treated as any other business.  A lot has changed since 1922, and the only parties that truly benefit from the current system are team owners and league executives.  An open system would greatly lower the incidents of municipalities being held hostage and forced to shower teams with huge tax subsidies to finance new playing venues in order to keep their teams in place.  The artificial scarcity created by American sports leagues is not permitted in any other industry.  Professional sports leagues in this country wield power over its employees, most notably the players, which other industry leaders could only dream of.  Regardless of the astronomical salaries many athletes earn, the current system is not fair to them, it is not fair to the fans and it is not fair to taxpayers.  Implementation of the European open league system would fix much that ails the American professional sports establishment.

REFERENCES

Adams, Walter (1997).Monopoly, Monopsony, and Vertical Collusion: Antitrust Policy and Professional Sports. Antitrust Bulletin. Fall 1997. Vol 42, 721-748.
 

Cain, Louis P (2005).Similar Economic Histories, Different Industrial Structures: Transatlantic Contrasts in the Evolution  of Professional Sports Leagues. The Journal of Economic History. Vol 65, No 4, 1116-1147.
 

Fortunato, John A (2007).Reconciling Sports Sponsorship Exclusivity With Antitrust Law. Texas Review of     Entertainment & Sports Law. Vol 8:33, 33-48.
 

Grow, Nathaniel (2006).There's No "I" In "League": Professional Sports Leagues and the Single Entity Defense. Michigan Law Review. Vol 105, Iss 1, 183-209.
 

Leifer, Eric M (1990).Inequality Among Equals: Embedding Market and Authority in League Sports. American Journal of Sociology. Volume 96 Number 3, 655-683.
 

Lopatka, John E (1997).Antitrust and Sports Franchise Ownership Restraints: A Sad Tale of Two Cases. Antitrust Bulletin. Vol 42, Iss 3, 749-792.
 

Mathias, Edward (1999).Big League Perestroika? The Implications of Fraser V. Major League Soccer. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Vol 148 Issue 1, 203-238.
 

Mehra, Salil K (2006).Striking Out "Competitive Balance" In Sports, Antitrust, and Intellectual Property. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. Vol 21:4, 1500-1545.
 

Rosenberg, Edwin (1986).Simple Problems, Simple Solutions. Society. May/June 1986, 24-27.
 

Ross, Stephen F (2001).Antitrust Options to Redress Anticompetitive Restraints and Monopolistic Practices By Professional Sports Leagues. Case Western Reserve Law Review. Vol 52:133, 133-171.
 

Vrooman, John (1997).Franchise Free Agency in Professional Sports Leagues. Southern Economic Journal. Vol 64, Iss 1, 191-220.

World Cup Thoughts - United States

I have been following soccer since my early childhood, when my father would throw shoes at me when my movements would disrupt his shortwave radio signals while he tried to follow Italian Serie A broadcasts on our front porch in Overbrook, West Philadelphia. Sunday mornings were spent experiencing both wonderment and fear as I tried to listen to the static-y Italian broadcast for news of Napoli's fortunes while dodging my Dad's size 10s. My Dad and I joke about this era, as I make fun of this time in our lives by verbally recreating those front-porch broadcasts - "Inter-Juventus uno-zero. Napoli-Pisa, uno-zhhhhttkkkkphhht". We laugh at the memory of shortwave static even with the scars of shoes hurled at rapid pace at my head and neck still feeling fresh two-plus decades later.

I have drifted in and out of love with the sport known as football the world over in the past two-plus decades. The harshness of relegation was tough for me to swallow as a kid, but as an adult I see the European relegation system as one of the salves for American sports ills. That said, from the 1982 World Cup, won by my father's mother country Italy, until today's matches, the World Cup has been stop-everything-else-in-its-tracks important to me. I recently received one of the finest compliments I have ever been given by one of the best friends I have ever had when she posted the following to my Facebook wall: "FYI, I still can't watch World Cup matches w/o thinking of you. You totally got me into the sport during the summer of '98, and for this I am forever grateful. Hope all’s well".

Football (world football, not the NFL) is the world's game. While I am a big fan of American sports, soccer/football has always been a favorite pursuit for me. Over the past 16 years and four World Cups, American soccer has become an increasingly more powerful player on the world stage. During the 2010 World Cup, I argue that the American national team has shown the world that it is not all that far away from being able to compete with the world elite.


Today, the U.S. had a most disappointing result. The Americans fell behind Ghana 1-0 very early in the match. The Americans dominated the second half, and quite frankly, should have won. However, the U.S. gave up a goal early in overtime and could not equalize. The American run ended in the Round of 16, and Ghana advances. Normally, this is a situation where I would bemoan an incredible lost opportunity. The U.S. should have won the match versus Ghana. The U.S. soccer supporting public should be celebrating and readying for a quarterfinal date with Uruguay. Sadly for us, this is not the case. But instead of attacking the U.S. side for its failing today, I am going to focus on some positives.

First, during today's second half, the U.S. side was dominant. There was no shortage of skill or class during the second 45 minutes of the match. The passing of the American side was beautiful and the chances that were generated were truly world-class. During the second half of today's match the United States national soccer team looked as good as it EVER has on the world stage. I can honestly say that they played at a level where I honestly felt that they could play with anyone on the planet. I have no reservations about making this statement whatsoever.

For anyone who knows me as a longtime Italy loyalist, take note. I will always root for the Azzurri, but just as I stated before the Cup, my loyalties are first to the USA and then to Italy. If the USA ever plays the Italians from here forward, my support will go unequivocally to the red, white and blue - just as it did during the current Cup.

To critics of the American brand of football (soccer), I give you this. The American sporting spirit never quits. A two goal deficit to most sides is unassailable. Not so for the Americans. I always thought that American sporting thought needed to evolve to succeed on the world football stage. I was completely wrong. The 2010 American World Cup side showed that it was unfazed by an early goal. It showed the world that the U.S. team does not quit. The Americans showed throughout the Cup that they will attack and fight until the final whistle, regardless of the score. And you know what? It was not just a matter of effort. American players such as Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey, Jozy Altidore, Michael Bradley and Benny Feilhaber performed at a level that even the staunchest critics would have to give credit to.


I look online at headlines announcing that the U.S. is not ready to play with the rest of the world. This is wholly inaccurate. The U.S. is closer to playing against the rest of the world today than it was when it reached the quarterfinals in 2002. Come 2014, the world will be on notice, because the Yanks are coming and they will be intimidated by no one.

http://www.twitter.com/PhillyVince

Why Professional Sports Drafts Are Evil - Part II

My good friend Rob has told me many times that blog entries should be short and to the point. While I respect his opinion on publishing matters, this is one of my entries that does not follow his formula. I can't help myself. Sometimes I get fired up and I just keep talking. Or typing. So, to the four of you that will read this, I salute you for your patience and your time.

Tonight, the NBA Draft Lottery will be conducted during Game 2 of the Eastern Conference Finals. The futures of many a franchise will be determined...by ping pong balls. Millions will tune in to see where their team will draft this summer, and I have to ask, how does this make any sense whatsoever?

Who does the draft system hurt? I told you earlier that some of my answers might surprise you. The most obvious answer is the players. I made the case in Part I that the entry draft system is unfair to players. There is no need to rehash here.

Who else is hurt by the current draft system? American sports franchises themselves are often hurt by the archaic system they embrace. John Q. American has been duped by a notion even more insidious than that of playing pro sports being a privilege, one that has provided the backbone of the unfair draft system since it's inception. That would be the competitive balance argument. I was once a big proponent of the competitive balance argument, but no longer. Why? It is an argument that simply does not stand up to logic.

The first problem with the competitive balance argument is that you can not force competitive balance. Yes, the NFL has achieved its much-desired parity, but not all leagues have seen the same "success". One reason? City and market size discrepancies between franchises. To put it simply, a team in New York has a financial competitive advantage over a team in Cleveland. Why? Large-market teams are able to lure players due to the additional income that can be earned through endorsements in a more populous metropolitan area.

A second problem with competitive balance is that of limited resources, particularly players talented enough to play at a high level, especially when necessary physical characteristics are taken into account. For instance, there is a very short supply of very tall people with NBA-caliber skills. The NBA cannot snap their fingers and create more Tim Duncans or Shaquille O'Neals. So, if a team is lucky enough to have the ping pong balls bounce their way so that they acquire a player of this caliber, they have an advantage over everyone else whose ping pong balls did not bounce in a fortuitous fashion.

The competitive balance argument has been used for decades to justify the draft systems employed by the American sports leagues. The worst teams from a given season are given the first choices for the next entry draft. The thought being that the worst teams get first dibs on the best new players. There are a couple of problems with the logic behind this policy.

First, leagues reward franchises for futility. Rewarding franchises with the best players, especially franchises that languish year after year in last place, makes no sense in any other system. It only makes sense in the closed cartel system of American professional sports, because logic dictates that there is only one direction to go from the bottom. However, there are franchises in every league that show that the draft system doesn't help them. If it did, they wouldn't be the dregs of their sport every year.

In a few of the leagues (NFL, NBA) the system also fosters a culture of tanking - just one example of how the current system hurts fans. What is tanking? Tanking occurs when a team realizes it has no chance of competing, and knowing that having a terrible season means a better chance at a higher draft pick, the team does not do everything in its power to win. This is often done with no regard whatsoever for season ticket holders who pre-pay for their seats and are stuck having to watch an inferior product. This can actually affect a team for more than one season, which brings me to...

Rebuilding. Under the current system, in most of the American sports leagues, it takes time for a team to acquire enough talent to compete at the highest level. Under the current draft system, teams get to select one player in each draft round (barring trades), during which each team in the league gets to make a pick. In a league with 32 teams, a team is theoretically going to be able to acquire one of the top 32 players in the first round, and so on.

Here is the problem: not all drafts are created equally. You have heard the phrase "a once-in-a-generation talent". Let's go back a few years and look at the emergence of LeBron James. James was the consensus #1 pick coming out of high school, and any team in the NBA would have drooled at the prospect of signing him. However, only a select few teams that had terrible seasons that particular year had any shot at him due to the draft system. So, if a team was bad, but just not quite bad enough, tough luck!

Wouldn't a better system be to have an open signing period? All potential entrants to the leagues would be free agents. Sound crazy? It is a system that works in Europe and it could work here. Under the current system, middle of the road franchises exist in a type of limbo, and I argue that they are punished for doing the right thing. How? Let's look at the Philadelphia 76ers of recent years. They have had just enough talent in most seasons to eke into a playoff spot (not so much this year, but I digress). They try hard to win as many games as they can, which is the ethical thing to do, since people are paying (save your jokes!) to see the games and expect an honest effort. They have had a zero per cent change of winning a title and have very little chance of landing impact players in the draft due to their middling draft position. The only way the Sixers can acquire the talent necessary to compete is through free agency, or by tanking.

A better system would be to allow a true free market for entrants to one of the respective leagues. It would be better for players, it would be better for teams and it would be better for fans. One big roadblock to change is that the drafts (mostly the NFL) themselves have become big business. However, it would not be difficult to make an open signing period an event on par with the draft.

As a fan of the Sixers or another middling team, wouldn't you relish the idea of being able to go after multiple missing pieces from the newly-eligible rookie crop? Don't you think the Sixers, if they had the salary cap room, would like the option of making offers to the players they like best instead of hoping a player they like will drop to them on draft day? Don't you think the players would like to have the ability to have some control over their destiny and career path? An open system would be better for everyone involved - players, teams and fans.

One For the Diehards

On Friday May 27th, I was headed to South Philly with my family for the Phillies game. It was Teacher Appreciation Night, and since both my wife and Mother-In-Law are teachers, this has become a bit of an annual tradition for us. All week, I was dreading the traffic to the game. Not only were the Phillies playing, but the Flyers were set to host Game 4 of the NHL Eastern Conference semifinals at the Wachovia Center. After the Flyers went down 3-0 to the Bruins in the series by mid-week, I found myself allowing cautiously optimistic traffic thoughts to enter my head as we made our way down the Blue Route towards I-95.

Upon our arrival to the sports complex, I saw a ton of Flyers fans making their way across the parking lots towards the Wachovia Center. NHL playoff games are very exciting, and have provided some of the most fun I have ever had at a sporting event. But with the Flyers in a 3-0 hole, I did not envy my fellow Philadelphia Flyers fans who were holding tickets, not one bit. Something about watching dozens and then hundreds of Flyers fans making their way to Game 4, most dressed in their orange and black Flyers finery, filled me with a mixture of sadness and pride.


I felt pride because I knew the sea of orange wouldn't give up without a fight, and that they would, at the very least, send the Flyers into the offseason with a much-deserved positive sendoff after upsetting the Devils in the first round with a team depleted by injury.

I felt sadness because of what appeared to be sad devotion to what seemed like a lost cause. I wondered what kind of energy would be in the building with the Flyers facing a seemingly insurmountable deficit to a team that it really should have been showing better against. I felt sad for folks who might have scored tickets for their first ever playoff game, as the game's outcome was destined to be rendered meaningless in the near future. My sadness was misplaced, because boy, was I wrong.

There is a contingent of Flyers fans who have been accused through the years of being incapable of dealing with reality, whose undying devotion to the team has earned them the moniker "Stepford Fans". These fans believe in the Flyers ability to overcome any obstacle or deficit. There were a couple radio personalities who believed, as I did, that it was not impossible for the Flyers to come back against the Boston Bruins. Though, as I walked into Citizen's Bank Park for the Phillies game, I was just thankful that I hadn't paid to sit through the Game 4 to find out.

As everyone knows by now, the Flyers won Game 4 in overtime, and didn't stop winning until they earned a berth in the Eastern Conference finals by beating the Bruins four games in a row. It was a comeback for the ages, and Philly fans will talk about it for a long time. But I am happiest for the diehards who pulled on their orange jerseys that Friday night. Those fans who had more faith than I did, whether they saw the game live in South Philly or at their neighborhood bars. This was a win for the Stepfords. It was a win for the kids who hold onto hope because they don't know how darned-near-impossible it is to win four games in a row while facing elimination.

To the Flyers, and to all Flyers fans who held out hope that our team could do what most thought impossible, my hat is off to you. Thanks for reminding me that great things can happen even when backs are placed firmly against the wall.

To Taze Or Not To Taze? Is That Really the Question?

Okay, so I am jumping in on this subject in a not-so-timely fashion. Sometimes I think it better to let the noise die down a bit on an issue that everyone is yelling and screaming about, and then weigh in when tempers have calmed and people are more willing to listen. They may not care anymore, but they are more likely to listen...


So, last week Philly sports fans were in the "spotlight" yet again after some young knucklehead ran onto the field and was zapped with a tazer for his trouble. I am usually the biggest critic of using excessive force, but not this time. Was it wrong to taze a 17-year-old kid who seemingly posed no threat to the players on the field? I will not call it wrong, though the tazing should have come much earlier in the proceedings.

The Philadelphia Phillies have achieved rock-star status in this town. This level of adulation is known to spur some crazy behavior from devotees (for more information on this, see any public appearance by Justin Bieber). Add alcohol to the equation and the likelihood of something crazy happening skyrockets. Pro athletes are well-paid, often coddled, but they are also very vulnerable while on the field of play to the aforementioned crazy behavior. Fans do not belong on the field. The potential for something bad happening is too great to turn a blind eye to the issue. If tazing people is what gets this dangerous trend to stop, then so be it.

I thought the tazing to be a bit extreme at first, but the more I thought about it the more okay with it I became. Attending pro sports events is not inexpensive, and I sure as heck do not pay my hard-earned money to watch drunken goofballs streak onto the field and elude ill-prepared security personnel for however long. I thought giving this kid the el zappo treatment would serve as a deterrent to other would-be idiots. However, the very next night, another genius does the same thing - but with no tazing. Talk about your mixed messages...

Instead of calling for an end to tazing of fans that run onto the field, I am actually going to expand the list of those deserving the tazer treatment. First, I would like unintelligent hecklers tazed every time they yell something vulgar, stupid or both. If you can't heckle without cursing, you get tazed. If you continue to scream at an opposing player, telling him that he "sucks" after he has hit a home run and made a diving catch in right field, automatic tazer.

Can we start zapping grown men who scream out a player's name repeatedly while they warm up hoping the player will toss them a ball? There is just something inherently wrong with guys in their 20's and 30's screaming like little girls for a warm-up ball. It's annoying, and not only should these clowns be tazed, but they should turn in their man cards as well. Please leave the pleading and begging to the young girls and kids.

I would also like to taze any scumbag who leaves glass bottles from their tailgates in the parking lot for people to run over after the game. In fact, this violation calls for a double tazing and a severe mollywopping. Having a couple cold ones before the game? Great. But clean up after yourselves. Violators deserve a couple extra volts for this offense.

Let's get a couple extra tazer darts ready for the ownership group of the Phillies. The club seems destined to allow Jayson Werth to leave as a free agent at season's end. Many fans are likely to go berserk when Werth ends up in Boston, and I do not blame them. Are there financial realities in place that keep the Phillies from spending like the Red Sox and Yankees? Yes. But this ownership group could bite the bullet for a year and go over their $140 million self-imposed payroll ceiling while waiting for other big-money contracts to expire. Now, whether or not Werth deserves the massive payday he is headed for is another debate. However, he is an emerging superstar and has a great rapport with the fans. Sometimes, that is worth digging a little deeper in order to keep something like that.

Lastly, can we have the Hollywood hotshots behind the new Karate Kid movie tazed? I am willing to perform this tazing personally. I hate the fact that Hollywood has seemingly run out of innovative movie ideas. I have been bemoaning the release of this movie since first hearing the rumors of its development almost a year ago. Why? The Karate Kid was a classic. After seeing the preview for the new version, the story would seem to vary wildly from the original. So why call it The Karate Kid?!? Are you telling me that you can't think of another martial-arts inspired name? It makes me sick. At least they waited for Pat Morita to be in the ground so he could spin in his grave before rolling this project out. Rest in peace, Mr. Miyagi, though I know it will now be harder for you to do so.