Big Money in College Sports: How Is It Spent?

The answer to this question was reported in Inside Higher Ed yesterday. The Knight Commission, a body that provides oversight of NCAA activities, put forth this chart (click to enlarge, see bottom chart):

Illinois is barely in FBS Quartile I. This means (roughly speaking) that 34% of revenues are spent on salaries of coaches and staff. Facilities get 21% of the pie, and athletic aid to student-athletes receives 10%.

How much does the school receive? About 2%, assuming that Illinois is typical.

This imbalance will be harder to maintain as state universities, such as the University of Illinois, cut and reorganize academic units while the athletic side spends lavishly on salaries and facilities.

How College Athletics Could Save the Nation

Suppose current polls hold up, and Hillary Clinton wins by a near-landslide. Further suppose that after the election, Donald Trump refuses to concede and doubles down on his narrative that the voting booths are rigged, thus making Clinton an illegitimate president-elect.

Would Alabama secede from the nation?

Hold that thought for a moment. Alabama has the #1 college football team in the nation—not in Alabama, but the nation. How long could a secession conversation go on without the NCAA weighing in by stating that it is an association of American universities? If a state secedes, it’s no longer in America; and its state university cannot compete in college athletics.

If you’re still reading, we can agree that this is totally absurd … until we think about the on-going transgender-bathroom controversy in North Carolina. Now seriously, a year ago could we imagine that a North Carolina law would bar transgender choice of a bathroom, and as a consequence, the NBA would drop Charlotte for the All-Star game, and the NCAA and the ACC would drop North Carolina venues for championships?

A year ago, I would have rated that possibility in realm of the absurdly improbable.

A lot of unpredictable events in politics and sports have occurred in a short time. Perhaps we’re on a path where people will need to choose between passion for a college championship and remaining in the United States.

Union Rule: Show Up for Work, or No More Work

Do unions protect lazy, irresponsible workers? The union for theater stage workers operates a hiring hall for productions and trade shows. The union has this rule: If it’s your turn to work, and you are a no-show twice, the union fines you $150 fine. You must pay up to be put back on the list. A third no-show gets you a $200 fine—and after that, you’re permanently kicked off the union’s work list.

A member sued the union, claiming the policy violated its duty of fair representation.

The NLRB ruled in favor of the union, saying that it wasn’t unreasonable for the union to craft such a policy to make sure the workers it refers show up to their jobs. The NLRN cited the union's interest in having a good reputation for supplying reliable labor to employers. The case is International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada, case number 27-CB-093060, before the National Labor Relations Board.

Dead Man Suing NHL

Lawsuits in behalf of dead people are common. Thus, it is somewhat puzzling that the National Hockey League is opposing the addition to the plaintiff class of Larry Zeidel, who was diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) after he died. His addition to the lawsuit would serve to represent a class of players diagnosed with brain diseases.

The NHL is arguing that former players do not have good cause to their dead colleague, who died in 2014, because the players could have known as long as 18 months ago that he had been diagnosed with CTE.

Zeidel’s diagnosis could not be confirmed until after he died and his brain was autopsied.

Justice Ginsburg’s Next Controversy Is Days Away… Ruling on Pro-Trump, Tom Brady’s Appeal

If Tom Brady were Joe Lunchbox, his appeal of an arbitration award would not have won him personal face-time with Judge Richard Berman, who oafishly interfered with the NFL-NFLPA process for hearing grievances. But Judge Berman needed his 15 minutes of fame, which he ingloriously earned—only to be reversed with klieg lights blaring from the Second Circuit.

Now, the Tom Brady and Ruth Bader Ginsburg circuses are on collision course. Brady, a polarizing cheater, is pro-Trump; Ginsburg, a polarizing Supreme Court Justice is anti-Trump. And wouldn’t you know it—she’s assigned to hear emergency appeals from the Second Circuit.

So, one can now expect that Brady’s lawyers—who have endlessly tried his case in the media, to fairly good effect— have a new Trump-card to play—recusal of the biased Justice.

At the end of this wasteful scrum, look for two losers to increase their losses by August: Tom Brady and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Sad to see such talent wasted on their egos.

Reporters Who Goad People to Defame? Recalling Muhammad Ali’s Experience before a Labor Arbitrator

Howard Cosell (ABC TV) contacted Muhammad Ali for an exclusive interview after the Ali-Wepner fight. In classic form, Cosell goaded and prodded Ali to fulminate. Ali obliged with a torrent of controversial criticism against the referee. For the interview, Ali was paid $5,000 and was a member of AFTRA, a union that represents TV and radio performers and employees.

The referee sued Ali for defamation. Ali’s attorney’s fees soared to $193,353. He demanded arbitration seeking payment of his fees from ABC. The arbitrator ruled for Ali, in these terms:

“In the instant case, I note Mr. Cosell has publicly stated that his relationships on air with Ali were consistently designed to ‘challenge him’ so that Ali would ‘bang back.’”

One lesson that is relevant today: If a news reporter goads a public figure to make defamatory comments during a paid interview, the reporter and broadcasting company share responsibility for the harmful message.

Definition of Ridiculous: 21 Scientists File Brief in Tom Brady’s Deflategate Arbitration

Should we have a national referendum on Tom Brady’s four game suspension for participating in a scheme to deflate the Patriots' game balls? Now comes word that 21 physicists and engineers have taken time from their professional pursuits to write a brief to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that questions the science behind an engineering firm’s analysis of the actual game balls.

The gist is reported in Law 360: “The professors said that NFL game balls frequently lose pressure because of the temperature difference between the locker room, where they’re filled, and the playing field, and that the league is aware of this phenomenon. They said Goodell’s data accounted for a natural pressure loss, and then assumed Brady was responsible for the balls losing pressure beyond that. But, he never defined how much air Brady is allegedly responsible for releasing, and an NFL report suggested it could have been as small as 0.14 pound per square inch gauge, which the professors said was too small to infer any tampering.

“To us as scientists, an increment of pressure loss as tiny as 0.14 psig is too small to constitute proof of tampering. It is well within any reasonable margin of error, based on our assessment of the league’s measurements,” the proposed brief said. “The very existence of any increment, moreover, was divined through assumption. The data necessary for any bona fide scientific analysis was never collected.”

I’m not a scientist but the facts show that EVERY game ball on the Indianapolis Colts' side of the field were within the NFL’s legal parameters, and EVERY game ball on the New England Patriots’ side of the field was below the NFL’s legal parameters. To my fellow professors, please apply your talents to more pressing problems where your expertise can be more useful—and keep out of labor disputes, please.