Few things are as American as laying down a few bucks on a football game. But, oddly enough, sports gambling is illegal in all but four states—Delaware, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon.

We already have state lotteries, horse tracks, and casinos. Betting can make sports more popular (when’s the last time you heard of someone going to a horse track just to watch the action?). The government could use some revenues, and more than half the country supports legalized sports gambling. Thus, when New Jersey legalized sports gambling, the only real case against it was existing federal law. There’s now a constitutional battle going on over whether people should be free to gamble, and The New Yorker’s James Suroweicki excellently makes the case in a recent piece:

The ban on sports betting does exactly what Prohibition did. It makes criminals rich. People still gamble, after all: the National Gambling Impact Study Commission estimates that more than three hundred billion dollars is bet on games annually. Legalized sports betting would bring in significant tax revenues for the states—Drazin estimates that Monmouth Park could take in a billion dollars in bets in its first year—and it would leave cops and prosecutors free to go after crimes with real victims. As for the concern that legalization would encourage shady behavior, the truth is that legal and regulated betting makes it easier, not harder, to spot things like point-shaving. One of the biggest college point-shaving scandals of the past twenty years was uncovered when Vegas bookies noted unusual betting activity on certain games and reported it to the authorities.

Rose says that the 1992 law is “plainly unconstitutional,” and Drazin expresses confidence that it will be overturned. But, even if it’s not, Congress should amend the law, and make it possible for states that want to legalize gambling to do so. As Rose notes, “Gambling has typically been a state issue, not a federal one.” And, while states’ rights has been used as an excuse to justify plenty of bad policies, the idea that certain matters are better handled at the state level remains an important one. Overriding states’ rights and insisting on national legislation makes sense in many circumstances—but not when one state’s decision has no obvious negative effects on other states or on the national economy. There’s an obvious parallel here with the current wrangling between the federal government and states that have legalized marijuana. If New Jerseyans want to be able to place the occasional bet on an N.F.L. game, or Coloradans want to be able to get high, the rest of us should let them. There’s no need to make a federal case out of it.

For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that there’s a definite downside to betting. In his most recent column, ESPN’s Rick Reilly shed light on the potential evils of gambling:

For millions of Americans, March Madness is not so much about March as it is madness.

Take a former stockbroker from New York we’ll call Fred (not his real name). For him, March Madness was about waking up, shirt soaked in sweat, already down $40,000 by Sunday morning of the first weekend. It was about taking 10 mg. of Ambien every night and still not being able to sleep. It was about tricking his parents into investing $30,000 into his “business,” when the money really was going to bookies.

I encourage you to read the rest of his story—it illustrates the dangerous downside of legalizing sports gambling. Nonetheless, the arguments against legalizing sports gambling seem a lot like government paternalism. The country is moving away from opposing issues on merely moral grounds (e.g., gay marriage, marijuana), and sports gambling seems like a domino soon to fall. A decent number of you reading this broke the law through a recent bracket pool or friendly Super Bowl wager, and I’m guessing you’re fine with others doing the same.

NPR has just put up its March Madness bracket—only it’s for the Vatican, not the NCAA.

NPR’s Vatican Bracket

Go ahead and vote, if you feel so inclined. I’m looking forward to finding out who’s among the Elite Ecclesiasts.

The question of whether or not Major League Baseball should expand its instant replay rules to cover more than just homeruns has been an intensely argued debate for quite some time, and understandably so. Surely, the stakes for both sides of this argument are not inconsequential. Many fans of baseball think back in dismay to 2010 when a blown call by umpire Jim Joyce cost Armando Galarraga a perfect game, and they ask how this could possibly be justified given our ability in the modern day to do an instant replay. Yet on the other hand, many fans of baseball feel resistant to instant replay because of the human nature of the game.

Joining this debate, Julian Atehortua, a sophomore at Harvard and Crimson editorial writer, wrote an op-ed on February 26 arguing against expanding instant replay in Major League Baseball. As I understand them, the three main arguments for his position are that 1) instant replay is not inherently fair; 2)  baseball has not been moving toward a fairer system; and 3) sports ought to be controlled by human nature. While having made his arguments passionately and intelligently, I remain unconvinced and wish to make the case that instant replay can be expanded in a sensible manner to enhance the game of baseball.

The Fairness of Instant Replay

The number one argument in favor of expanding instant replay in baseball is undoubtedly the fact that supporters believe it will add fairness to the game. Atehortua, however, finds instant replay not to be “inherently fair,” claiming that “[t]he better team does not necessarily win every game, nor does the lesser team necessarily benefit from instant replay.”

Reading this, I cannot help but feel that Atehortua should be more careful about how he defines fairness in baseball. Fairness is certainly not about making sure that the better team, whatever that may mean, wins every game. Nor does fairness mean “benefiting” the “lesser team.” Fairness with respect to instant replay is about making better judgments on the closest and most difficult plays. The dichotomy between “better team” and “lesser team” is irrelevant. The real dichotomies are fair ball or foul ball, safe or out, homerun or not homerun, etc. These are specific instances within a game in which one player or team has the advantage during a play over another. And with this being the case, instant replay really can add some fairness back into the game.

Fairness vs. Excitement in Baseball

One of the most interesting and thoughtful examples that Atehortua brings up is the fact that the MLB has not been moving, as of late, to a fairer system of baseball. The example he gives is the fact that the MLB, before the 2012 season, expanded the number of teams that make it to the playoffs from eight to ten, adding a new wild card in each league. This effort to help teams with worse records make it to the playoffs results in a toss-up game between the two wild card teams in each league. Atehortua argues that this cannot possibly make baseball more fair, and I couldn’t agree more. After all, how can resting a team’s playoff fate on the outcome of a single game after a 162-game season add more fairness to baseball?

I do, however, disagree with Atehortua’s conclusion. He correctly argues that the MLB’s motivation for adding this new rule is that it causes more excitement because of the uncertainty of which team will make it to the next round. But he goes too far in suggesting that expanding instant replay will lead to less excitement, which doesn’t seem to be a priority for MLB officials.

From my own personal experience and general observations of sports fans, instant replays can actually be very exciting. Consider every time a team makes a challenge in the NFL, a league twice as popular in America as the MLB. During these times, more than most during the game, viewers and fans are on the edge of their seats, anxious to hear what the call is. Indeed, the couple of minutes that are taken to review the play add suspense and capture the uncertainty of the moment in a way that instant calls do not. This is not to say that instant calls are not also exciting, because they are in many circumstances. The point is, instant replay cannot be categorically dismissed as not exciting. As other sports with instant replay demonstrate, instant replay can add plenty of excitement to the game.

Human Nature

Finally, and perhaps most characteristic of those who oppose expansion of instant replay in baseball, Atehortua suggests that baseball has a human aspect to it that is essential to the history and character of baseball. While a very respectable and understandable position, this argument does not encompass and appreciate what ought to be the truly revered aspects of human nature in sports.

Atehortua says, “We want our competitions to reflect the best and worst of human performance.” But what are these competitions and the nature of human performance about: the players or the umpires? The instant replay debate causes many to focus on the performance of the umpires, when really the game is about the competition between two teams. The purpose of umpires is to have qualified, unbiased individuals make judgement calls during the game related to the performance of the players in accordance with the rules of the MLB. In cases like in 2010 when Jim Joyce admittedly made a bad call costing Galarraga a perfect game, not having instant replay shifts our focus to individuals–umpires–who are clearly not part of the competition. We should respect umpires, their expertise, and proper role in making judgments during games. This does not mean that in extreme circumstances we should not prevent close, or obviously bad, judgment calls obscure the true purpose and spirit of the game.

Furthermore, if we conclude that instant replay really does rid an essential aspect of humanity from baseball, is that also true of the NFL, NHL, and NBA which each have forms of instant replay? It seems as though there is still plenty of humanity demonstrated in these sports. Indeed, the humanity is demonstrated in the actions and performance of the players, not the referees.

As a final note, Atehortua suggests that the role of umpires as “impartial arbiters does not imply they be correct.” On this point, I agree. However, like judges, who are also imperfect, umpires are fact-finders and arbiters of the rules. Surely we cannot say that in all cases, namely when a play is extremely close, that umpires feel very comfortable with the information they have, which is limited to what they saw with their eyes in a matter of seconds. It seems as though special circumstances like these merit more fact-finding so as to achieve a more accurate judgment. Maybe the judgment is still unsatisfactory to a majority of the fans and viewers, to team managers, etc., even after instant replay. That’s acceptable because, as Atehortua put it, we cannot expect that umpires be “more than simply human.” But at least upon review of the call in these cases, everyone can say that they had their day in court. That seems to be the most reasonable and just solution to this problem that has afflicted baseball now for some time.

Conclusion

Overall, I am in favor of expanding instant replay in baseball. But I, like so many other supporters, believe that there are concerns and limitations which ought to be taken into account. For one thing, baseball is already incredibly long, with an average time of almost three hours. Nobody wants games to last longer, and many are justifiably concerned that instant replay may add more time to the length of the game. Another concern is the slippery slope argument, which begs the question of what kinds of plays and how many plays will not be subject to instant replay if expanded. These are real issues which the MLB should address in any plans to expand instant replay. But these challenges are not insurmountable.

Instant replay rules, like those that exist in the NFL, NHL, and NBA, are very limited in nature and are applicable to the most important calls in a game. Perhaps each team can be limited in the number of challenges they get. Or perhaps only umpires will have the right to review a call if there is a lot of uncertainty. There are so many ways in which instant replay can be limited and be made a reasonable and exciting, not intrusive, part of baseball. Again, other professional leagues that use instant replay are great role models for how this can be achieved.

At the end of the day, baseball is a sport with a lot of rich history, character, and unique qualities. Expanding instant replay will not change these facts, nor should these facts foreclose the possibility of enhancing baseball in this way. In the 21st Century, we possess the technology to rid bad calls from our beloved game of baseball and reinforce the fairness of the game, which has now been challenged by so many in light of unfortunate calls in extreme circumstances. MLB officials can come to a common sense and balanced solution to this problem. I say, let’s re-”play ball!”

I find this recent feature by the Harvard Crimson immensely interesting, as a sports fan, and as someone who grew up in team locker rooms. I think people underestimate how much of the homophobia in our culture is– if not born– incubated and perpetuated in high school locker rooms. In particular, the casually homophobic language that is pervasive in our society (if to a lesser degree at Harvard), is commonplace in that realm.

Teams are about unconditional love for your teammates, about loyalty, and about brotherhood (or sisterhood). And yet there is this persistent contradiction where they are also incredibly unsafe spaces for LGBT youth. The fact that that environment selects out many questioning kids only makes it worse for those that stick around.

I tend to take issue with plenty of things the Crimson publishes, but this is well done and important for athletes and nonathletes, gay and straight.

Big news out of Chicago today, and, no, I’m not talking about Obama For America Headquarters. I’m talking about Hallas Hall.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Jay Cutler is voting for the only politician that measures up to his considerable standards of social aptitude: Mitt Romney. It is unclear if the notoriously likable Cutler’s endorsement will be able to shift historically blue Illinois into the Romney camp. If it does, Jay will have a shocking electoral success to go along with his multi-touchdown game against the Tennessee Titans yesterday.

This news could end up having unforeseen negative effects on the Romney/Ryan ticket, however, as Wisconsin is considered more in play than Illinois, and recent polls show that fans of the Bears’ rival Green Bay Packers are shifting momentum to the Obama/Biden team. Romney made an emergency trip to Wisconsin today in attempts to assure Wisconsin voters that their players are “just the right height,” and that he expects to see some change in the NFC North division after election day.

“If there’s one thing my career in the private sector has taught me, it’s how to spot a comeback” said Romney, flanked by his son Tagg and wearing a hat made of Gouda cheese. “And I expect the Meat-Packers to come roaring back to win the division.”

The President could not be reached for comment on the breaking development, but David Axelrod expressed regret at losing the support of the player he says he most looks up to in appearing annoyed and apathetic.

Vice President Joe Biden congratulated Cutler on his taste in women and told him that the criticism Cutler has endured in the past over his toughness is a “bunch of stuff.”

Michael Lewis’ 2003 best-selling novel Moneyball has redefined the legacy of Oakland Athletics manager Billy Beane. In movie form, Beane had the dubious honor of being played by Brad Pitt (Peter Brand, who was played by Jonah Hill, wasn’t so lucky) but has seen his team struggle since the rest of the league caught up to his tactics. The lessons of statistics guru Bill James that Beane used as an advantage over the rest of the league have been popularized. Terms like Weighted On-Base Percentage (wOBA), Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR), and Wins Above Replacement (WAR) are popular not only in league front offices but in ESPN discussion forums, as the statistical revolution has redefined the lexicon of the average fan. ERA and batting average are now considered archaic terms, replaced by the more modern metrics of OPS+ and FIP.

For the first time since 2006, Beane’s team won its division this year. Down by four games in the standings with five to play, the Athletics swept the Rangers in the last three games of the season to take the crown in thrilling fashion. This Athletics team has redefined the definition of Moneyball, and a closer look at this team shows that it epitomizes the Beane small-market philosophy better than any other, including all of his previous teams.

The 2012 Athletics opened the season with a payroll of $55.3 million, the second lowest in the league and nearly a quarter of the New York Yankees, whose $197.9 million payroll dwarfed the rest of the league. In 2002, the $39.6 million of the Athletics seemed like less, but after adjusting for inflation is about $50.7 million, meaning that over the ten year span the team got an additional $4.6 million to work with. By contrast, after adjusting for inflation over the same time frame, the Yankees added $36 million, the Red Sox $35 million, and the Phillies added $100 million to their payrolls.

This coincided with an increase in average player salary of nearly $1.1 million dollars, meaning that over a roster of twenty-five players a given team was expected to contribute nearly $28 million more to its roster. Consequently, to adjust to the modest increase he was given in payroll by his owner, Beane had to pursue bigger bargains and find more inefficiencies in a market that saw him competing against smarter, better educated general managers. Read More…

Imagine NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell as Governor, NFL Owners as state senators, referees as police officers, and suddenly you have the situation facing some states. The comparisons continue on to an unprecedented degree: Goodell’s family has deep Republican connections, everyone loves the police and referees until they interfere with their lives, Wisconsin seems to care more than anyone else.

In case you follow football even less than I do, the NFL referee union held a lockout in hopes of gaining a roughly three million dollar pension plan (the NFL is a nine billion dollar business). As most refs also have regular jobs, doing so was not a particularly large burden on their income. Roger Goodell, like he has since becoming commissioner, took a strong stance and started hiring everyone from high school to fired lingerie league refs. These refs were a little out of their league so to say, culminating with a blown call that changed the outcome of last Monday night’s game. Vegas claimed to have lost in the range of two-hundred million dollars on the call, and the regular refs soon got their way.

Pondering as less of a football fan and more of a political junkie, the situation represents a time when policy issues have large, noticeable effects—for once, a large portion of the American electorate even seemed to care. President Obama and Representative Ryan even agreed! But this begs the question: Do Americans see the issue as an important union being denied a modest pension, or a business being kept from making necessary decisions? Furthermore, how will this affect public opinion on union rights?

Stephen Brashear AP

No scientific polls have been conducted, but the general consensus is that public opinion came down on the side of the union; interviews from nearly every news source have showed typical Americans enraged with the owners, and even Scott Walker tweeted mild support for the refs. A quick scan of NFL blogs supports this conclusion; realistically, no one seems mad at the refs. Union advocates painted this as an example of greedy businesspeople making an extra buck at the expense of workers and products; anti-union leaders have been quiet on the issue, though they would have a good argument against part-time workers receiving pensions.

Read More…

NFL fans across the country rejoice today as referees from the NFLRU officiate the first slate of games since reaching a deal with the league to end the lockout that thrust replacement refs into the spotlight.

This Wednesday, Jim Lehrer will moderate the first presidential debate of the general election. Lehrer is experienced and respected, and at least one political operative is grateful that voters won’t have to deal with poor decision-making or unbalanced officiating from the moderator’s chair. From Politico:

“He’s the Ed Hochuli,” Chris Lehane, who worked in the Clinton administration and served as Al Gore’s campaign press secretary, said, comparing Lehrer to the respected NFL referee. “He really is the ultimate referee, the ultimate umpire: someone who is perceived by the public as being genuinely objective.”

Hochuli, of course, is known not only for his professionalism, but also for his incredible fitness, and is trending after uttering the best quote of the entire lockout: “As soon as I heard the rumors today, I got down on the floor and started doing pushups.”

There’s no word on what Lehrer said when he first heard he would be moderating this debate, but it may have been something along the lines of, “Sure, what else is new?” He has moderated 11 in his career so far.

Harvard professor Roger Porter–who teaches the popular Government 1540: The American Presidency–is as excited to see Lehrer back in action as many fans are to see Hochuli back in stripes. Porter said Thursday that he wishes Lehrer would moderate every debate, citing his exemplary fairness and pointing to the fact that Lehrer goes so far as to refrain from voting.

Both Lehrer and Hochuli will try to fade into the background this week and let the players and pols shine. Be sure to check back later in the week for the HPR’s analysis on who did a better job.

UPDATE: Consensus on the debate seems to be that Lehrer swallowed his whistle last night and in general turned in a poor performance. We’re going to have to give this one to the guy in the white hat.

Stephen A. Smith is uncomfortable, and I’m not sure why.

The Charlotte Observer recently published an editorial cartoon depicting Carolina Panthers Quarterback Cam Newton– who has recently been criticized for pouting on the sidelines– wearing a Hello Kitty t-shirt. The cartoon plays off of Newton’s signature celebration, where he mimes Clark Kent ripping open his shirt to reveal the Superman “S.” The cartoon doesn’t strike me as particularly funny, but I (at least think I) get the point. It’s making fun of Newton for being a bit of a baby, and implying that if you present yourself as a team leading “Superman” when things are going well, you should show some composure when things are going poorly.

Stephen A. Smith seems even more emotional than usual, and certainly more serious. He repeatedly states that the cartoon made him “uncomfortable,” and implies that there is some element of racism here. He also makes a heartfelt statement asserting that only African Americans are qualified to determine if something is racist towards an African American, and that white people don’t get to tell black people how to feel.

I’m white, and I won’t tell Smith– or anyone else– how to feel. But I have to admit, I really don’t understand the basis for his discomfort here.

It’s possible that I’m missing something (let me know in the comments). There are no real stereotypes in play here to my knowledge. NFL Quarterbacks are mercilessly criticized all the time. Jay Cutler is consistently mocked for being the most disinterested-looking athlete ever. Tom Brady is deemed a pretty boy. The list goes on. Read More…

Robert Kindman contributed statistical analysis to this article.

Now that Stephen Strasburg is officially sitting out the rest of the season, the only use we have for him is to speculate about what impact his shutdown will have for the future of the Nationals. Baseball being first and foremost a business, it is worth investigating what kind of impact the decision will have on the National’s bottom line.

Two statistics are of primary importance. First, Strasburg brings in about $225,000 of extra revenue per home start.  Second, a World Series win could be predicted to add $38 million to the National’s revenues for the following year. Now, the question is, does it make financial sense to sit Strasburg and potentially miss out on this World Series for the sake of increasing your chances in the future? The answer isn’t what you think.

History has shown that once the playoffs begin, the results are essentially random because of the small sample size, giving each of the eight teams roughly a 12.5 percent chance of winning. On the average playoff team, having a dominant ace to start the playoffs gives a bump to your chances.

But the Nationals are in a unique situation in that they have arguably the deepest and most potent rotation in baseball. Using the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) statistic, Strasburg has added about five wins to the Nationals’ record this season as compared to what a theoretically average player would. But the Nationals have five starters, including Strasburg, who all have strong WARs. Read More…

Stephen Strasburg’s season is over. Baseball fans will be deprived of the joy of watching baseballs fastest fastballs, sharpest curve balls, and most devastating changeups for the rest of the season. This while Strasburg’s Nationals are fighting to secure their first first place finish ever. What makes this event especially unbearable is that Stephen Strasburg is not injured, and is by all accounts in the best shape of his life. Rather, for the first time in any major sport in recent memory, a first place team will willingly bench its best player unconditionally for the end of the season and the playoffs.

This bizarre move is part of an ambitious and potentially groundbreaking strategy. Pitching, more than any other position in sports, remains a complex mix of athleticism, mental focus, and essentially voodoo. Modern science has availed us of high-speed video and biomechanical analysis, methods of studying pitchers that have yielded a thousand theories and proof for just about all and none of them. Pitchers should long toss, or they should throw weighted balls; they should run sprints, and they just have to rub this cream on this area. This incredible uncertainty surely makes pitching a terrible investment. “If you want to make one good major league pitcher, start with 5 prospects,” the saying goes. Teams are willing to let most pitchers throw as long as they are effective and then dispose of the corpses when they are no longer useful.

But most pitchers are not Stephen Strasburg. Most pitchers don’t draw 20,000 extra fans for their major league debut, and 6,000 extra fans every time they pitch. Most pitchers don’t cause a $1.5 million merchandise revenue spike in anticipation of their major league debut. Read More…

A friend recently confessed that many of his most intense emotional experiences have occurred while watching football — the European kind, to be clear. I am not a sports fanatic by any standard, and I doubt sporting events could ever provoke within me a comparable degree of passion. Yet I know my friend’s sport-induced hyper-emotions are by no means uncommon. Moreover, they might even provide the key to understanding a phenomenon that has baffled me, one that relates to the 2012 London Olympics.

The presence of the upcoming Games is impossible to ignore in the city. The Underground walls are plastered with posters urging Londoners to prepare both mentally and practically for the hordes of tourists, journalists and athletes soon to flood the already overcrowded megalopolis. Not only are we encouraged to take alternate public transport routes, the mayor and private companies like Proctor and Gamble are asking the public to volunteer to make the city look its best for the tourists and spectators.

The general attitude towards the upcoming Games is one of excitement. Aside from the inconveniences that are expected to arrive alongside the crowds, the event seems to be provoking fairly little criticism or discontent in the media and general public. Yet, it’s not as if there’s nothing to complain about. The Games could be, to put it mildly, a bit of a contentious topic. Read More…

Another season of Major League Baseball is in full swing, and the voting for the 83^rd annual All-Star Game is open both online and in all 30 ballparks across North America. Fans can vote online a maximum of 25 times per e-mail address until June 28 for starting position players, a system one MLB.com columnist deems “an exercise in global, participatory democracy” with an “enormous” electorate. Beyond the nine starting position players, the players themselves vote for backup All-Star players and team managers select several players of their choosing to ensure that at least one player from each team is represented for parity reasons.

Some may say, “Who cares? The All-Star Game doesn’t even matter.” On the surface, the statement has some merit—the MLB All-Star Game merely determines which league will claim home field advantage in the World Series in October and is largely hoopla and fanfare. Delve a bit deeper, however, and it becomes clear the All-Star Game is critical at the individual player level. Simply being named to the All-Star roster is a defining characteristic of a player and a sticking point in future contract negotiations.

To put it plainly, All-Star nominations translate to higher player salaries in the long run by demarcating expertise—be it in salary arbitration hearings or free agent contract negotiations (or even marginal salary bonuses of hundreds of thousands of dollars for some). Just ask agent Scott Boras how convenient it is to tack that little tidbit onto his clients’ résumés when seeking another gargantuan contract. By extension, therefore, All-Star Game nominations have at least an indirect impact on the labor market structure of MLB and it is worthwhile to look at alternatives to make player selections more democratic in a modern sense. Read More…

As a Chicago Bulls fan whose formative years coincided with the Jordan years, I love Steve Kerr. Playing basketball growing up, I was a short white kid who could shoot, so I naturally looked up to Kerr. He is up there with Reggie Miller and Ray Allen as one of the best pure shooters in recent memory, and he describes himself in a recent piece for Highbrow Sports wannabe Grantland as “a slow [short] white guy” who “can’t begin to identify with any college freshmen whose lives would be affected with a higher age limit,” because he wasn’t nearly good enough to leave for the NBA after his freshman season.

In that Grantland piece, Kerr writes like a white guy who can’t identify with talented black kids, and, worse, like an NBA shill.

I believe the NBA would best be served by raising its age requirement to 20 years old. Fans and critics have assorted opinions about morals, ethics, education, fairness, and law, but to me, this really comes down to a single issue: Would the NBA’s business be stronger by raising the age requirement? I say yes for the following six reasons.

It makes sense for NBA Commissioner David Stern to boil the issue down to that one question. For Steve Kerr, a respected analyst and former player, to do so is breathtaking and disappointing.

I’ve written on the age limit before, and I’m in one of the camps that Kerr dismisses: I think that a situation where players either enter the draft out of high school or spend three years in college makes the most sense for the players, college basketball, and the NBA.

Kerr’s argument is so open to moral criticisms that I won’t bother detailing them, but suffice it to say that ignoring issues that I brought up in my article like athlete choice and exploitation is idiotic.

I will put forth a critique on Kerr’s own terms though: the NBA’s bottom line. It’s very possible that raising the age limit would be a myopic move by the NBA. Ultimately, businesses that treat their employees (and especially their talent) fairly and respectfully are businesses that succeed. The NBA can, and probably will, continue to make decisions that disrespect and exploit young players. That won’t always be the case. And when the bargaining environment changes and the players have more power, neither Kerr nor the league will be able to ignore these issues in favor of the bottom line, because these issues will be the bottom line.

In 1954, French-born historian Jacques Barzun wrote, “Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball.” Baseball, once regarded as our nation’s pastime, has always been a representation of American culture and the values of hard work and opportunity for mobility. As a result of the steroid era, however, baseball has lost some of its integrity, and it no longer seems to represent the true American spirit of equality and meritocracy that it did in the past. The 2012 baseball season is under way, along with a brand new playoff format waiting in October. Rather than have one wild card in each league go straight to the first round best-of-five-game series, each league will now have two wild cards that will face each other in a one game playoff to determine which team advances to face off the division winners in a five game series. Does this new format help restore fairness, opportunity, and integrity to the game of baseball?

Fresh off of one of the most exciting finishes ever in the regular season, Major League Baseball simply could not restrain itself from having a similar finish to every season. Unlike teams in the NFL, NHL, or NBA, baseball teams play an extraordinary amount of regular season games in a season—162. Why such a long season? Unlike other sports, the outcome of a single baseball game can be mostly due to chance, which is why teams in the same league play each other at least 6 times and up to 19 times in the regular season. Since the overall talent of a single team is not fully exposed in a single game, one game would be too small of a sample size to determine any sort of true superiority. Thus, a 162 game regular season is without a doubt enough games to determine which teams are better than others. The rationale for the long season makes the one game playoff incomprehensible.

Read More…