Paying the Players: The Revenue Argument

Now that we have covered the basic needs and living costs of a student athlete, it is time to jump into what, in my opinion, is the biggest argument for paying the players.  The argument is simple: players bring in far more money to their schools than what their scholarships cover and therefore should be receive additional money for their hard work.  It would make a lot of sense too, if everything was really just that simple; however, the numbers are far more complicated.

Let’s get one thing out of the way, college football is a profitable business…well, for most schools.  Forbes did a great study on profit margins for ND and all BCS conferences to examine just how much profit is being made.  Below are the average profits from each conference in just football from 2009-2010:

Big Ten ($10.7m)

SEC ($8.2m)

Big 12 ($7.0m)

ACC ($2.6m)

Pac-10 ($1.8m)

Big East ($982k)

Notre Dame makes over $34 million in profit on it’s football program.  Other big individual profit schools are Georgia at over $52 million, Penn State at over $50 million, and Michigan & Florida check in at just over $44 million.

While those are some rather huge numbers, this little tidbit also appears in the Forbe’s ND article:

A report from the NCAA indicates that only 14 Division 1 schools broke even or made money in their athletic department last year without institutional support, and only 6 schools did it in each of the years from 2004-2009. Which means that most of the schools you’ve seen turning a profit in my series have been doing so with the aid of monies from outside the athletic department. For example, University of Virginia and Georgia Tech indicated to me they received upwards of $12 million and $4 million a year, respectively, from student activity fees. That is considered direct institutional support. In fact, the average amount of institutional support received by athletic departments went up from $8m in 2007-2008 to $10.2m in 2008-2009.

So once you place all of the other programs into the financial equation, you have the reality that, overall, schools loose money from their athletic endeavors.  14 schools out of the 120 total in FBS means that just barely over 10% of these schools are turning a profit.

Now, that quote does mention that schools overall do turn profits thanks to “institutional support”.  One of the sources mentioned above are student activity fees–yes, that means money that students pay (beyond just their tickets) are going to fill the gap that athletic programs leave.  A USA Today study had the following to say on the subject:

[A]s drops in ticket sales, declining endowments and other issues have translated to increased dependence on subsidies at Division I public schools, USA TODAY found in its most recent examination of college athletic finances.

About $1.8 billion in student fees and university funds went to cover gaps in athletic operating costs at those schools last year, the newspaper found. The analysis was based on thousands of pages of inflation-adjusted NCAA athletic data reported since 2005, from open-records requests to hundreds of Division I public schools.

With many states making recession-driven cuts in higher education funding, school subsidies for athletics are starting to become a target. Last week, the Iowa board of regents instructed its three schools to make plans to “substantially reduce or eliminate” support of athletics from tuition and taxpayer dollars; Northern Iowa had been planning to tap booster funds to finance a new deal for Jacobson.

So tuition, student fees, booster funds, and in some cases, even tax dollars all fall under this umbrella of “institutional support” to balance the budget and, just to note, ticket sales and concessions do not fall under this umbrella as they are considered revenue from athletics.

Granted, some schools will likely see a financial boost in upcoming seasons.  The Big Ten, SEC, Big XII, and Pac 12 have all inked new TV deals or, in the case of the Big Ten, already have their own network.  New independent BYU will have its own TV network as will the Texas Longhorns.

Despite these increases though, we won’t be able to have any hard data on how much this will balance the budget for some schools until a year or two from now.  Just because the money is being pumped in, doesn’t mean schools won’t pump it right back out for new facilities or other athletic expenses like say the ever increasing salaries for head coaches and their staff.  And don’t think for a second it won’t happen either.  More “free money” means more spent to attract recruits and that race will indeed escalate spending so schools can stay competitive.

So on top of all of this, how is it wise to add in new player salaries into the budget?  Not to mention, if we are truly paying players that only bring in actual profit, how can the NCAA justify the practice of paying players at only certain schools, and only for one or two sports at most?  And if they were to allow such a practice, how do you control and or cap the salaries?

And that’s just the logistical issues off the top of my head.  Have fun trying to get a kid go to class and stay academically eligible when they are now making money for playing sports.  That’s a whole other Pandora’s Box that will fly wide open.

Not to mention players in the bigger revenue sports already see increased benefits than other athletics.  They get more issued gear, they have the nicer facilities, they stay in nicer hotels, they take chartered flights, and, in the case of football, they get to take advantage of free gifts from bowl games.  As an example, as just a football manager (that didn’t even work the actual game), I received a free ticket to the Fiesta Bowl, free sweatshirt, free shirt, and a free pair of shorts.  I know managers that worked the game got some more stuff, and the players got the full BCS bowl swag package that made my $200-300 gift seem like nothing.

The bottom line though is that the “simple solution” of paying the players simply based on the money they bring in, isn’t that simple at all.  With college’s already needing to use additional funding beyond just athletic revenue, the numbers just don’t quite add up and could very well cause college athletics to create a bigger red line on quite a few balance sheets.  Athletes in big revenue sports already receive additional benefits; however, the revenue argument alone simply isn’t enough, in my opinion, to be the sole justification of paying the players.

Paying the Players: What Does a Scholarship Cover?

If we are to examine the issue of paying the players in the NCAA, we should start at the beginning: what do their scholarships cover?

Athletes caught in the scandal crossfire often also use the excuse that they “had” to do it, citing many times that their scholarship doesn’t cover basic living costs.  Why this argument even sees the light of day is beyond me, but let’s go ahead and take this step-by-step.  We will specifically focus on section 15 of the NCAA bylaws for most of this.  If you want to play along, you can find an entire PDF here.

First, let’s examine what a scholarship can cover and the limits placed on them as outline in bylaw 15.01.6:

An institution shall not award financial aid to a student-athlete that exceeds the cost of attendance that normally is incurred by students enrolled in a comparable program at that institution (see Bylaw 15.1).

Let’s follow the dots here.  Bylaw 15.1 states:

A student-athlete shall not be eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletics if he or she receives financial aid that exceeds the value of the cost of attendance as defined in Bylaw 15.02.2. A student-athlete may receive institutional financial aid based on athletics ability (per Bylaw 15.02.4.1), outside financial aid for which athletics participation is a major criterion (per Bylaw 15.2.6.4) and educational expenses awarded per Bylaw 15.2.6.5 up to the value of a full grant-in-aid, plus any other financial aid unrelated to athletics ability up to the cost of attendance. (See Bylaw 15.01.6.1, 15.01.6.2, 16.3, 16.4 and 16.12.)

As that bylaw states, here is the definition of “cost of attendance” as defined by 15.02.2:

The “cost of attendance” is an amount calculated by an institutional financial aid office, using federal regulations, that includes the total cost of tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation, and other expenses related to attendance at the institution.

Just so we are perfectly clear, here is the NCAA definition of “room and board” as outlined in bylaw 15.2.2:

An institution may provide a student-athlete financial aid that includes the cost of room and board, based on the official allowance for a room as listed in the institution’s official publication (e.g., catalog) and a board allowance that consists of three meals per day, even if the institution’s maximum permissible award allowance for all students represents a lesser cost figure.

And if the athlete decides to live off campus, that’s covered in 15.2.2.1:

If a student-athlete lives and  eats in noninstitutional facilities, the institution may provide the student-athlete an amount equal to the institution’s official on-campus room allowance as listed in its catalog, the average of the room costs of all of its students living on campus or the cost of room as calculated based on its policies and procedures for calculating the cost of attendance for all students.  The institution also may provide the student-athlete an amount that is equivalent to an on-campus 7-day or 21-meal board plan or the cost of meals as calculated based on its policies and procedures for calculating the cost of attendance for all students, excluding those meals provided as part of the training table.   Meals provided on the training table shall be deducted at the regular  cost figure from such a student-athlete’s board allowance.

And hell, if the university in question doesn’t even have dorms, a dining hall, or a training table, they are covered by 15.2.2.1.3:

If an institution does not provide an official dollar amount for room and board in its catalog and does not have on-campus student room and board facilities, the figure provided to student-athletes for off-campus student room and board shall be the amount determined by the institution’s office of financial aid as being commensurate with the average cost a student at that institution normally would incur living and eating in off-campus facilities.

Finally, to cover all of our bases, let’s cover the case of partial scholarships.  As 15.1 states, there is another bylaw, 15.02.4.1 that covers exactly what a player is allowed to receive, and it’s just not an athletic scholarship:

The following sources of financial aid are considered to be institutional financial aid:

(a)  All funds administered by the institution, which include but are not limited to the following: (Revised: 1/11/94 effective 8/1/94, 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97)

(1)  Scholarships;

(2)  Grants;

(3)  Tuition waivers;

(4)  Employee dependent tuition benefits, unless the parent or the legal guardian of a student-athlete has been employed as a full-time faculty/staff member for a minimum of five years; and (Revised: 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 10/31/02 effective 8/1/03)

(5)  Loans. (Revised: 10/31/02 effective 8/1/03)

(b)  Aid from government or private sources for which the institution is responsible for selecting the recipient or determining the amount of aid, or providing matching or supplementary funds for a previously determined recipient; and (Revised: 10/31/02 effective 8/1/03)

(c)  For the student-athlete recruited by the institution, financial aid awarded through an established and continuing outside program (e.g., National Football Foundation) for the recognition of outstanding high school graduates in which athletics participation may be a major criterion, as outlined in Bylaw 15.2.6.4. This aid counts against an institution’s sport-by-sport financial aid limitations and also against the individual’s full-grant-in-aid limit. (Revised: 10/31/02 effective 8/1/03)

Now, yes I realize that is a load of nothing but quotes from the NCAA manual.  The point of this though was to make it very clear that any student athlete on a full ride has all of their basic needs covered, even if they decide to live off campus, or even if their school doesn’t have proper facilities such as dorms or a dining hall.  The bylaws are written in such a way to ensure that any time a school cannot provide meals per diem can be given as well.

Want an example of per diem by the way?  As a student manager at Notre Dame, since the dining hall was closed in the summer, I got a check every week: just over $200 (for roughly $30/day).  I don’t even spend that NOW on food.

Of course, all of this doesn’t even take into account the other benefits that athletes receive.  Every athlete will receive athletic gear and gym clothes.  Many schools offer special academic advising services and tutoring.  Training tables are becoming the norm for many athletic programs.  Some schools will allow athletes to stay in special dorms that would be premium housing in comparison to a regular dorm…this list could go on and on.

Finally, if an athlete is on a partial scholarship, the NCAA does allow for them to take loans just like any other student can, and usually is forced to do.  That excuse doesn’t fly as well.

But what if a student athlete is really struggling, can’t afford gas, and somehow, through all the above bylaws, still needs more assistance?  Well, 15.01.6.1 covers such extreme circumstances:

The receipt of monies from the NCAA Special Assistance Fund for student-athletes (see Bylaw 16.12.2) is not included in determining the permissible amount of financial aid that a member institution may award to a student-athlete.

Further examination of Bylaw 16.12.2 states:

A student-athlete may request additional financial aid (with no obligation to repay such aid) from a fund established pursuant to a special financial need program approved by the Leadership Council to assist student-athletes with special financial needs. The institution may provide reasonable local transportation in conjunction with financial assistance approved under this program.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit, I have no idea how hard getting this assistance would be or what the limits are to obtain it (hell, I didn’t even know it existed until I researched this).  If this fund is hard to get for students truly in need, then the fault should like squarely on the NCAA and its member institutions for placing their players in such a hardship.  However, it is clear that the NCAA has at the very least tried to plan out for these hardships.  If players really are struggling, than work should be done to make these funds more accessible, or better educate their players on how to get such assistance.

The fact is, there is no student-athlete on a full ride that is going to be starving and homeless.  Players do not need pay in order fulfill their basic needs, there are plenty of avenues available to them.

Paying the Players Series

Agents, pay to play, free cars, free houses, memorabilia for tattoos…the list can go and on in this seemingly unending stream of recent scandals in college sports.  There is no doubt that there is a severe lack of institutional control all over college sports, and I’m not talking about the universities found guilty of violations, I’m talking about the NCAA itself.

The NCAA is only able to handle these issues after the fact, and seemingly arbitrarily at that.  Look, as a ND fan, I enjoy the USC sanctions as much as anyone, but as of right now, the majority of the people suffering are the kids that did nothing wrong.  Reggie Bush still has his high-dollar NFL contract, and even though his Heisman was stripped, he still has his Super Bowl ring.  Pete Carroll skipped town to sneak the below-.500 Seahawks into the NFL playoffs.  Hell, if we even go back to the Pony Express scandal, it sure looks like Craig James is doing quite well, he’s still (somehow) employed by ESPN (and helped destroy another coach’s career as well).

More recently, Ohio State is bracing themselves for their own fate at the hands of the NCAA.  The same thing will happen there.  Tressel may or may not ever get a coaching job again, but, even if his name is forever mud, he can easily retire very comfortably.  And Pryor?  He can rid off into the supplemental draft and grab himself an NFL contract and avoid all retribution at the hands of the NCAA.  Again, the teammates left behind will suffer.

There is no doubt the NCAA has major issues: the system itself is broken.  However, the “solution” that seems to continue to be tossed around to fix the problem might be the worst idea possible and that’s paying the players.  I even saw on Twitter today that the ‘Ol Ball Coach thinks it is a good idea as well.

That is what prompted this series of posts.  Personally, I am completely against the idea, and this series will examine the issue and upon conclusion, attempt to examine possible solutions for this major issue.  In my mind, the only real way to make some serious progress will be to get past the idea of paying the players and try to get to the real root of the issue.

I have no real schedule for how often these posts will happen or how many I will make.  I tried to do one initial post on this and my research has already lead to ideas for a handful of shorter posts instead of a long novel.  Keep an eye out for them, it should be a rather interesting discussion.

Jerry Jones’ New Reality

Imagine you are Jerry Jones (yes, I know that is a scary thought, but just go with it).  You have awoken this morning to a very hallowing reality: you officially own the worst franchise in the DFW area based on recent performance.  Not only that, you promised that the Cowboys would make a Super Bowl appearance, a home Super Bowl appearance no less.

The fans believed it, the national media bought in, and the Cowboys went on a 1-7 face-plant that led to the firing of head coach, and now national laughing stock, Wade Philips.

You start to think back to how your whole world started to crash down.

Your next door neighbors, the Texas Rangers, a team you likely laughed at as you built your gigantic Death Star next to their stadium, started doing what your team couldn’t: win, and win in the postseason.  While you still had refused to fire Phillips from patrolling your sidelines, your beloved Cowboys were being embarrassed on Monday Night Football.  To add insult to injury, they also broke Tony Romo in half.  And then your fans, the fans you have always counted on to fill your seats, buy your merchandise, pay for your overpriced parking and concessions, starting chanting something that damn near gave you a heart attack:

“LET’S GO RANGERS!!!”

For the first time ever, the Rangers were at the forefront of everyone’s sports mind.  The Cowboys, “America’s Team”, took  a backseat to the Rangers and their little Ballpark in Arlington.  And after their run ended, you could still hear talk about how soon spring training would come up again while you were introducing Jason Garrett as your new head coach.

Sure, firing a Cowboys coach mid-season for the first time ever grabbed headlines and the national attention that you crave, but you still had mumblings of those other sports that were growing louder and louder.

Then your mind fast-forwards to the moments you believed hosting the Super Bowl would save you.  Sure, your season was a nightmare, but your stadium, your masterpiece of over-extravagance, would take center stage.  The whole world would be in awe of your stadium wonder and how great future Super Bowls would be there.

Then your nightmare grew exponentially.

Sure, you couldn’t control the weather and how ill-prepared DFW was for the ice and snow that seemed to be God’s cruel joke against you, but you couldn’t believe the negative reaction that got.  All those “hardened” northern writers were apparently shocked that winter could exist here, but hey, they probably think everyone rides a horse here too right?

But then the game happened…well really, “temp-seat-gate” happened and all of a sudden everything you did again was overshadowed by failure, failure with your name attached to it.  You knew deep down that no one would remember this game, just this ticket disaster in which fans cursed your name as they were turned away from your stadium.

Your mind comes back to today and you think about the other sports franchises in the area.  The Mavericks are fighting to hold down a 2-seed for the NBA playoffs.  The Stars, a team whose incompetent owner completely handcuffed them (seriously, Hicks is nothing like you because you at least pay the bills on time right?), came within just a single win of clinching a playoff birth no one expected.  Hell, even that soccer team in Frisco, FC Dallas, damn near won the MLS Cup.  And those damned Rangers had their World Series run, but now they are the best team in baseball looking to go 10-1 this afternoon.

The Cowboys, your pride and joy, were the 9th worst team in the NFL.  Normally, despite such a season, you would believe the media here would be examining your draft pick twenty different ways, but the main stories are the Stars falling short and the Rangers making a historic opening season run.

Hell, you wonder if there will even be a season.  You are on the inside of the lockout mess, you know how bleak the outlook is.

This all has to be someone else’s fault right?  You put together enough talent to win.  So what if people kept on talking about your supposed weaknesses in both trenches, you had the QB, the star WRs, Felix freakin’ Jones (you do love your Razorbacks), and Ware could play defense all on his own right?

Your mind races, you remember Wade.  Only a bumbling fool could’ve messed that up.  After all Garrett went 5-3 when he took over.  You take a deep breath, you know things will be ok.  Another star skill player with that number 9 pick will surely put you over the top with your new coach.

You completely forget that the Ranger game is on this afternoon and start channel surfing.  You finally see something to make you smile, a football commercial.

But wait…you don’t remember signing off on this.  You keep watching it talk about winning football coming back to Dallas.  “Of course it will!” you say to yourself.

Then you realize it is a commercial for the new arena league football team coming to town, the Vigilantes.

A thrown remote, a cracked 72-inch plasma, and several expletives later, you don’t know what to do.  You are sick to your stomach and your blood is boiling.  Then your Blackberry buzzes and its  a text from your son wondering if you just saw the Rangers take an early lead on the Tigers.

As your Blackberry creates another divot in your plasma, you keep telling yourself “it isn’t your fault Jerry, it isn’t your fault.”

The sad part is, you believe it.

Is Michael Young Really the Teammate We Thought He Was?

It’s surprising how much can change in a day.

First we go from Michael Young requesting a trade, John Daniels and Nolan saying they’d attempt to accommodate Young if it would help the team, to Michael Young saying his time with the Rangers is done.  Well, “done” is probably being far too nice in this situation.

As Evan Grant broke last night, he was ever so willing to scorch the earth:

“I’ve kept a low profile out of respect for the team, the coaching staff, my family and the fans because I didn’t want to put anybody on an unnecessary roller-coaster,” Young said in a brief phone conversation. “Now, I think it’s important to address the inaccurate portrayal that is being painted. The suggestion that I’ve simply had a change of heart and asked for a trade is a manipulation of the truth.”

“I want to be traded because I’ve been misled and manipulated and I’m sick of it,” Young added.

However, he declined to reveal details of how he was misled or manipulated.

“That would be unproductive for everybody, particularly my teammates and coaches,” he said. “I know the truth and Jon Daniels knows the truth and I will sleep well.”

Young wasn’t done talking either.  Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports got the following:

“To suggest that there was just a couple of weeks off and I had a change of heart in terms of what position I wanted to play is inaccurate,” Young said.

“I’ll be the first to admit that I was not particularly keen on the idea of being a DH. But I did agree to do it. I wanted to put the team first. I wanted to be a Ranger. But in light of events that happened in the process, I got pushed into a corner one too many times. I couldn’t take it anymore.”

And, as Lone Star Ball pointed out, it’s hard to believe that this is the same person that said this just six weeks ago:

Young has agreed to become the Rangers’ primary designated hitter and “super utility” infielder. He expects to get playing time at all four infield positions, including first base, where he has never previously played.

The willingness to put the needs of the team first is not a new development for Young. He came up as a second baseman, was moved to short, and more recently, moved to third to make way for Elvis Andrus.

For Young, the desire to remain with the Rangers is a larger factor than the desire to have things his own way.

“This is where I want to play,” he said Wednesday in a teleconference. “I’m willing to make a pretty big sacrifice to do that.”

That sacrifice has a quick shelf-life it seems.

But forget six weeks ago, let’s try two years ago.  Many people seem to forget that Young was not exactly willing to move from SS to 3B in order to make room for Elvis.  No, instead, Young demanded to be traded.  He didn’t understand the logic of giving a kid his spot as he was coming off a Gold Glove season; furthermore, Young had already offered to move positions when the Rangers were exploring trading A-Rod for Soriano.  Why do it again?

First off, offering to move from 2B to SS is hardly a sacrifice.  Sure, it is a position he wasn’t all too familiar with, but SS is a much higher profile position as far as the infield is concerned.  Hell, just look at the money the two positions make.  Young moved to SS fulltime in 2004, and at the end of the 2002 season, 2B made an average of $3.2MM and SS made an average of $4.1MM (source), nearly a full million dollar difference.  Young’s last season at SS was 2008 and during that season 2B averaged $3.5MM and SS averaged nearly $5MM (source), a widening gap of now $1.5MM.

Michael Young also went on to win his only Gold Glove under this new spotlight as well, despite a very subpar UZR of -4.2 that year.  I’ll spare a huge sabremetrics lesson (if you want that, go here) but a UZR of zero is average at a position, anything plus is above average, and minus is below average at the position, meaning Young won the Gold Glove as a below average SS.  In comparison, Andrus had a UZR of 12.1 and 0.1 his past two years.

So, yes, the move was hardly a sacrifice.  And it paid off huge as Young inked a 5-year, $80MM contract in 2007.  The Rangers have only signed two contracts worth more money: A-Rod and the newly signed Adrian Beltre.

Now came the move to 3B, the one he didn’t want.  Despite the fact Elvis is obviously the SS of the future and a clear upgrade defensively over Young, Young did not want this move.  In fact, once he was told this would happen, he requested a trade.  Now, the rumor was that new president, Nolan Ryan, had a sit down with Young and had a heart-to-heart, after which he supposedly resended the trade demand.

However, take a look at the quotes that are often forgotten from this period of time:

Jon Daniels on Young tonight:

“We’re not looking to trade him and have no plans to. We plan on him being a big part of our ballclub going forward.”

…

Young is upset that he wasn’t given a choice about the position switch, saying, “My hand’s been forced with this one.”  He says he’s “adamant” about not playing third base.

…

According to Rosenthal, Young was “absolutely livid” that the Rangers would request such a move just months after he was awarded his first Gold Glove (the award was not supported by his advanced statistics).  The team was hoping to clear a spot for top prospect Elvis Andrus, but now they’ve got a real problem on their hands.

Well now, doesn’t this seem familiar?  JD says Young won’t go anywhere, Young is upset at moving positions and even claims that his hand has been forced.

So now we fast-forward to 2011 and have the same damned situation on our hands.  Except this time, the Rangers actually went to Young first on a move to DH before they signed Beltre.  Reports littered the radio that Young would definitely move to DH should the Rangers sign Beltre and he later confirmed that after his signing.

Much like Andrus, Beltre is a clear defensive improvement, and a more proven one than that.  Michael Young’s career UZR/150 (an average UZR rating, per 150 games) over two years was an abysmal -7.5 (his career UZR/150 at SS wasn’t much better either, -10.2). Beltre on the other hand, over nine years at 3B has an UZR/150 of 15.3.  There is absolutely no comparison defensively.

Much is made that Beltre is a “contract year” hitter and that Young’s batting numbers are clearly better; however, over his career, Beltre’s slash line (AVG/OBP/SLG) are rather comparable.  Young sits at .300/.347/.448 and Beltre at .275/.328/.462.  So the Rangers give up a bit of average for a little more pop; however, when you consider the amount of runs that Beltre will save by his defensive play, the offensive “hit” the Rangers take will more than even out.

The sabremetric analysis agrees as well.  WAR (wins above replacement), which estimates exactly what it sounds like it does: how many wins does a player give above a replacement, gives the tale of the tape as Young at 25.6, and Beltre at 50.8.  There is no question the Beltre signing is a huge improvement for Texas.

But the Rangers, recognizing that Young’s bat is still an asset, wanted to keep him on as a primary DH role.  Apparently, the signing of former Angels C/1B/DH, Mike Napoli, changed everything and caused Young to rethink his new role.

However, this just doesn’t make sense.  Napoli, while a great addition, is not quite an every day player yet in this lineup.  His career slash line is .251/.346/.485; however, against lefties, he boasts a .287/.391/.537, giving the Rangers a much needed potent bat against lefties.  Napoli’s role is easily that of a bench player or selective starter against lefties with Young on the roster.  His slash against righties, .208/.329/.467, does not justify stealing ABs away from Young on an everyday basis.  With JD saying 1B was Moreland’s job to lose, the logic speaks more to Moreland losing ABs against lefties with Napoli getting those starts at 1B.  Napoli would also see playing time as a backup catcher as well as a constant go-to power bat off the bench.

But taking away from Young’s playing time? I just don’t see it.  If Young was agreeable to his role as DH with Beltre, he should be no less agreeable with Napoli on the roster.  Add in the fact that Kinsler is practically guaranteed to miss a quarter of the season as usual, and Young still gets considerable time in the field beyond just the occasional sub.

It’s probably time we start calling a spade a spade.  If Young does this kind of crap in any other major baseball market, he’d be crucified.  For some reason, it seems some Ranger fans are willing to give Young a pass simply for being a “team player” for so long.  As I’ve shown previously in this post, Young hasn’t exactly been the shining example of a selfless teammate as he is often made out to be, and this latest demand for a trade is no better and it isn’t just his recent quotes that are doing damage, it’s his timing.

If Young really had a problem with being a DH, he should’ve requested a trade after the Beltre signing.  That way, we could’ve resigned Vladdy as DH, allowing Napoli to be the needed insurance should he hit another late-season skid.  Instead, Young has waited until he was signed.  And now that the Rangers have also lost out on Manny and Thome, Young knows there are no more free agents that can easily replace him in the DH role.

Of course, by scorching the earth now, Young has severely crippled the Rangers’ hand in trade discussions.  Originally, JD said he’d attempt to accommodate Young’s demand “only if it helped the team.”  This is the best way you can publicly handle a player wanting to leave as it keeps your bargaining position somewhat strong.  JD is basically saying “yes, I’m looking for a move, but I’m not moving Young without helping the club.” However, by scorching the earth, Young has become a pain that we need to get rid of which severely lessens his trade value.  Other teams will use this to their advantage to not only offer less value in players, but also attempt to make the Rangers eat more of Young’s huge contract.

The timing and ferocity of Young’s comments makes this seem like a calculated move.  It seems clear to me that Young has some serious issues with JD, not only from his quotes, but again, his timing.  Picking now as his time to no longer stay silent is a clear shot to cripple JD’s planning and negotiation efforts.  It’s as if Young is saying, “here is what I think of you and your plan for the future of the Rangers” and then shoots JD the finger.  And of course attempting to subvert the efforts of the GM also hurts the Rangers as a whole.

So is Young really the selfless teammate he’s been projected as?  Based on his history and his recent actions, I seriously doubt it.  Young simply can’t handle the Rangers placing him in a role that best suits the team.  While his move to SS was his call, it earned him a huge contracts and a bigger role with the team.  However, when JD saw better defensive replacements for Young and wanted him to move for the good of the team, Young has resisted vigorously.  JD wouldn’t be doing his job if he wasn’t looking to improve the Rangers at every spot, regardless of any veteran tenure.

I’m upset that Young will likely no longer be a Ranger, but I’m more upset by how he is handling it.  If you have problems with JD and how the Rangers handled your situation, fine, keep it to yourself.  Don’t go to the media and insinuate that the front office is full of a bunch of backstabbing bastards that only wanted to “mislead” you.  Seriously, hinting that JD won’t be able to sleep at night is ridiculous.  Young was still going to be a major part of this team and still the face of the franchise; however, that clearly isn’t what he wanted.  No heart-to-heart with Nolan will salvage the situation this time.

It’s an absolute damned shame that this is the way Young’s tenure here will end.

The Annual BCS Sucks Post

It’s that time of year once again to slam the awful postseason system that continues to plague college football: the Bowl Championship Series.  It’s funny, I have written one of these every year that this site has been in existence dating back to three seasons ago.  First it started with my playoff solution to our current system (which I still think could work).  Last season, I managed to put together two different posts about this laughable system.  The first showed how the BCS could manipulate matchups to their liking as they pitted Boise State and TCU against each other instead of playing both against the “big boys”.  The second showed how the college football postseason is filled with non-competitive games and how now 60% of all FBS teams earn the “special honor” to play in a bowl game.

And this year, yet again, the BCS has provided me with new examples of how this system is a pathetic joke to determine a champion.

Thanks to the BCS’ new bitch flagship network, ESPN, we have been beaten over the head repeatedly that every week matters.  In the end, the only weeks that mattered were those played by Oregon and Auburn.  Ok, I take that back, Boise State’s loss to Nevada mattered too, but only because it completely knocked them out of the BCS picture.  Make no mistake though, had they stayed undefeated, there would be no way in hell they would’ve made the title game over Oregon or Auburn and had they even stayed undefeated, it likely would’ve meant that one non-AQ school would’ve been left in the cold.

This year, TCU is the shining example that the “every week matters” mantra is total bull.  Before, we were all fed the load of crap that the non-AQ schools could never get into the title picture because of their preseason ranking.  Along with that lie, we were told that if such a school were to be ranked high to start, an undefeated season would surely place them in the title picture.  Coming into the 2010 season though, TCU had that high ranking, coming in at #7 in the coaches poll and #6 in the AP poll, yet somehow could only claw their way up to a #3 in the final BCS rankings.

If every week matters, then that must mean Oregon and Auburn were clearly ranked above TCU and held on; however, this is not the case.  The teams initially ranked head of TCU were Alabama, Ohio State, Florida, Texas, Boise State, and Virginia Tech, all of whom lost at least one game this season.  Oregon was able to leapfrog TCU to #2 starting at #11 in both polls, and Auburn was able to claim the #1 spot starting all the way down at #23 in the coaches and #22 in the AP poll.

Where does any of this make sense? TCU never lost, yet watched two teams move to the front over them.

Of course, the tired excuse of “strength of schedule” was pointed as the culprit for why TCU could never eclipse Oregon and Auburn in the rankings.  Many figured that Wisconsin would expose this very fact during the Rose Bowl, yet they feel to TCU.  To expand on this further, the BCS conferences, whom have the “better schedules” are preforming like total crap in the bowl games.  Right now, the only BCS conference that has a winning record is the Big East (3-2), whom is considered to be weakest of all BCS conferences to begin with.

[EDIT 1/4/10: Danger of writing posts the day before…the Pac-10 has a record of 2-1 at the time I published this. This also includes a BCS win.  This would be the only “strong” conference in my opinion to have winning bowl record thus far.  Apologies for the oversight (unless you wish to count Utah’s loss in the Pac-10 column, which would make the Pac-10 2-2 and the MWC 4-0!]

The Mountain West Conference on the other hand, has outdone everyone, coming in at 4-1 in bowl play, including TCU’s Rose Bowl victory.  And those other three wins weren’t all against non-AQ opponents either.  Two of those wins were against BCS conference opponents: Wisconsin and Georgia Tech.  Another one of those wins was against a Navy team that was 9-3 coming into the Poinsettia Bowl.  The “worst” win was BYU’s lopsided victory over UTEP (C-USA).  The only loss came against a non-AQ opponent: Boise State who still finished #10 in the final BCS rankings and defeated a Utah team that finished #19 in the final BCS standings.

Of course, then follows the circular argument that BCS conferences are playing better opponents and thus do not have as good of a record as the MWC.  However, thus far the majority of bowl games have only been mediocrity against mediocrity and thus, I argue that the MWC has as much of an even playing field as any other BCS conference in bowl play.

In this wonderful system, TCU will finish 13-0 and hope that the AP has the balls to vote them #1 for a national title split instead of getting their justified shot at the winner of Oregon or Auburn.  While BCS pundits and supporters will note how much TCU cares about their victory and how much it means to them are correct, it doesn’t hide the fact that they still got screwed over.  TCU is happy with the slice of cake they were allowed; however, anyone believing that they are 100% satisfied are completely out of their minds.

It is no wonder that teams are jumping ship from the Mountain West Conference to BCS conferences.  Their treatment by the BCS is downright absurd.  Utah will be transferring over to the Pac-10 and TCU will be heading to the Big East.   To add on, BYU will be moving on as an independent football program.  Thanks to the BCS, the MWC has been forced to watch their strongest members jump ship.  Anyone thinking that the MWC’s newest member, Boise State, isn’t possibly looking to find a home in a BCS conference as well is out of their minds.

It is absolutely disgraceful that teams even feel a slight need to do this.

Even with the jump though, I don’t believe much will change.  Even had TCU been in the Big East conference this season, I don’t see their fate being any different.  We would still be hearing about how weak their conference schedule was since the next best Big East team would have been this year’s “champ”, 8-4 (and unranked) UCONN, who was spanked by an OU team that did not even play a good game themselves in the Fiesta Bowl.

Speaking of UCONN, that brings me to my next point.  It’s laughable that they were even allowed to play in the BCS as is the Big East in general.  Hell, we should really toss the ACC into this discussion too because they are even worse.  Since the BCS was in place, the Big East is 6-7 in BCS bowl games and their conference has produced zero at-large bids, meaning all their BCS appearances are from their champ as contractually obligated.  Now while 6-7 isn’t too awful, you have to keep in mind that three of those wins come from now departed (and now awful) Miami, so taking those wins away you are looking at 3-7, ouch.  The ACC has been even worse, going 2-11 in BCS bowls and, like the Big East, have produced zero at-large teams.

In comparison, the MWC has gone 3-1 and the WAC has gone 2-1.  The MWC’s sole loss has come at the hands of Boise State, meaning that against the “big boys”, non-AQs are now 5-1 in BCS bowl play.

So when the BCS pundits come rolling in saying that it is a joke the NFL has a sub-.500 team in the playoffs, they can rightly shove it.  That does nothing to show that their postseason system is worth a damn.

Unlike the BCS, the Saints season will not end if they crush the Seahawks.  They will get the chance to, get this, play for the title despite not being one of the top two records in the NFL.  Also to note, unlike the BCS, the NFL doesn’t exclude all but two teams to play for their title as well.  The top two teams in each conference get their bonus in a bye week, but they still have to earn the right to play for the Super Bowl just like all the other postseason bound teams.

When the NFL season ends, no one says “man, if only X team could play the winner of the Super Bowl”. It doesn’t happen, period.  This isn’t the first time 10 win teams have missed the playoffs due to a division winner having a worse record.  It’s just how it goes in the NFL, and guess what, it means that every week matters during the regular season as just one more win could have been the difference.

The only time I can recall there being any actual dispute of the NFL champion was when the AFL was in existence.  However, eventually the NFL had enough common sense to merge and crown an undisputed champion every year.

But no, teams will bust their ass year in and year out, and for some unlucky one loss or non-AQ team, their reward is usually to play Big East or ACC fodder that will end their season no matter how well they play.  Even worse is a team that remains undefeated and watches their season end unblemished, only to be sitting at home when another teams raises a trophy that they never got the right to play for.  For some reason, FBS football is the only sport that allows this to occur year in and year out with no real change.

And somehow, it continues to sign multi-million, multi-year contracts with major television networks to keep it going.  We are three BCS games in thus far and only one hasn’t been a lopsided victory: the one with the non-AQ team.

It is truly the best scam in sports today.