THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

whats espn and everyone else doing with that money? if they’re making heaps of cash, thats one thing, but if theyre just breaking even and all proceeds are going back to Little League, then I’m fine with it. i dont feel bad for the child laborers either. i would have paid all my allowance money to have my games televised on espn back when i labored in little league.

I don’t understand the criticism.  Are they exploiting the kids?  It’s on TV because people like to watch it.  If a certain number of people didn’t like to watch it, it wouldn’t be on TV. Of course, most of what is put on TV presumably makes money. It would be nice if they donated any profits to LL, but if they don’t, I have no problem with that…

I agree with #1 and #2.  What I find is odd, is that online gambling sites are giving odds and taking bets on the Little League games.  Even the regional games.

I have no idea why so many people tune in (I don’t) but it looks like the LLWS telecasts have an average rating (0.7) that’s competitive with the College World Series (1.0 ESPN / 0.8 ESPN2).  And LLWS is consistently ahead of CWS if you look at just the final game.

By way of reference, Sunday night baseball is at 1.9 this year.

I’ve been on vacation the last week.  I gotta tell ya, whomever is complaining about this, isn’t at home channel-surfing and seeing how awful the potential alternatives are during the middle of the day during the week. 

If you’re a die-hard sports fan, there’s really not enough live action sports entertainment on basic cable or network TV. 

I’d rather watch Little League kids play baseball and remember how fun that was than watch reruns of some drunken housewives arguing about Botox.

Whether Tango (or anyone else in particular) likes to watch it is irrelevant.  If there is enough of an audience, it will be broadcast.  If there is something unethical or untoward (those are probably not the right words) about broadcasting it, please educate us, rather than just telling us that it is not “appropriate” or that it is boring to you…

I’m with 1 and 2 also.

When I was 11, our All-Star team won all kinds of tournaments. We were a truly great team. But it’s the 12-year-old team that has the path to the LLWS. My 12-year-old team had lots of internal strife. We fell apart and went almost nowhere.

I can’t tell you how long it bothered me that I never got to play on ESPN.

It’s not exploiting the kids. The kids aren’t being forced to play baseball. Sure, someone’s making money off it, but who cares? The kids would be playing baseball regardless (or, who knows, maybe they wouldn’t get a chance to if not for ESPN’s presence).

People like to point out that it’s not right to show a kid cry on TV or something. Again, who cares? Sometimes kids cry when they lose. If a 12-year-old is going to be ruined because someone saw him cry after a heartbreaking moment, someone’s not parenting very well.

It should be a non-issue. The LLWS is fun, but even if you don’t think it’s fun, it’s hardly a bad thing.

JD, I seriously disagree with you.  A 12 year old’s tears are something a parent should have to deal with.  A 12 year old’s tears being forever remembered on YouTube is a completely different matter.  Just because a kid is moderately good at baseball, there’s no reason the cameras have to focus on that.

"If a 12-year-old is going to be ruined because someone saw him cry after a heartbreaking moment, someone’s not parenting very well. “

This is an ignorant thing to say.

JD/7 wrote: “The kids aren’t being forced to play baseball.”

But that’s not the issue. It’s not that they’re being forced to play, but the *conditions* under which they’re forced to play that are a problem: they’re being forced to play baseball on ESPN, and they’re being forced to do it for free while ESPN presumably turns a profit. Because they can’t play in the tournament unless they agree to do so in front of cameras, and they can’t play in the tournament unless they agree to perform labor (because it becomes labor as soon as they start playing in front of ESPN’s cameras) for ESPN.

“Sure, someone’s making money off it, but who cares?”

You mean, considering that most of these kids will never sign a professional contract and most of these parents have already blown thousands of dollars in getting their kids to this point, while ESPN profits from that investment? Hmm, lemme think about that one…

“The kids would be playing baseball regardless”

And I would be writing even if I weren’t paid for it, (and, in fact, I often write without being paid for it) but when I’m performing a service that benefits someone else monetarily, I appreciate it when they pay me. (And when I see job ads that asks that I write for someone for free, because i ‘love it’ or some bullshit like that? No, no thanks.)

There was a great TV movie about the NHL during Gordie Howe’s time. (*)

One of the superstars of the time, Hall of Famer Ted Lindsay, was one of the players trying to organize the union.

Anyway, in the movie, he says something like: “Sh!t, I’d play this game for free if I had to.  But if someone is going to make money off my a$$, then I want my half.”

I’m all for capitalism when it’s appropriate and I’m all for socialism when it’s appropriate.  But I have no idea what you call what’s happening with LLWS or NCAA.  Oligarchy?  I’m sure someone can come up with a better term.  And I’m more surprised at the laissez-faire attitude by a majority of commenters here.

Now, presumably, the money is going to the Little League of America (or whatever it’s called).  Much like Hockey Canada gets a substantial share of the money that involves its junior (or even higher, I think Olympics too) competition.  But it sounds to me that from some commenters that even if that were not true, that it would be no big deal.

(*) Another great scene here was with Gordie Howe, the indisputable Gretzky/Jordan of his day.  The GM would call him in, and give him a blank contract (or so the movie version goes).  And the GM told him that he’s the best player in the league, and he can fill in whatever amount he wants.  And Gordie, being the timid off the ice (though a bull on the ice) would always give himself a modest 1000$ raise each year.  By the end, even though the GM promised him he’s the highest paid player in the league wasn’t even the highest paid player on the team.

yeah to me it all hinges on what kind of contract ESPN has with Little League. So I googled around and found this: http://www.littleleague.org/media/newsarchive/2007stories/07espn_contract_1-07.htm

doesn’t sound like ESPN is getting rich off little leaguers. it would be nice if someone put the pdf of the actual legal document up but this looks more like a win/win to me. the LLWS is going to happen no matter what, why not take the money and exposure from ESPN? And if ESPN is getting rich, then Little League needs a new person to negotiate when this contract is up. There are plenty of cable channels that would broadcast this if it was a money maker.

But I have no idea what you call what’s happening with LLWS or NCAA.

Haven’t we had this conversation here before? The NCAA has two sports that make money*: football and basketball.  Football is the primary source of revenue for an athletic department and basketball chips in a little, too. Those two sports provide the funds for every other program the athletic department has. I don’t think this is something most people get. If you start paying the athletes in football and basketball, you have two college sports and it just happens to be all male, which is in direct violation of Title 9.

* some universities have another sport or maybe even two that generates a profit, but it’s quite small. I believe UW hockey turns a profit, Iowa wrestling turns a small one and so on. For the most part, it’s football and a little profit from basketball. Without football, there is no athletic department.

Let’s take a look at the University of Iowa, which ranked 5th in athletic department profit in the Big Ten in 2009 according to the great work Kristi Dosh has done. They profited $14,299,406. $26 million of that profit was football alone. Basketball, if I recall correctly, was around $9 million so all other sports lost $21 million (almost as much as their football program profited).

OK, let’s say the athletic department keeps 50% and pay 50% to the 600 athletes. I believe Iowa has about 400 athletic scholarships, but there are many other positions on rosters that are walk-ons. Baseball, for example, has only 11.5 scholarships, but a roster over 25. We have to pay all athletes an equal amount because Title 9 requires it. This means that each athlete at the University of Iowa would be paid about $12,000 per year. I’m fine with that. Now the student has to come up with $18,000 per year to pay for school because there will be no more scholarships if we’re paying them.

Iowa’s athletic department profit ranked in the top 20 nationally. I want to say they ranked 14th or 16th, but I could be wrong on that. About 15 schools could pay their athletes more than Iowa while 100 would pay them less, most of them would pay them $0 because their athletic department makes $0.

The interesting thing with this is that the university comes out more ahead than they currently are.

I believe Texas is tops in the nation at around $50 million profit. This means they could pay their athletes $42,000 per year. $30,000 for school and they get $12,000. Ohio State was a top 5 and they profited $31.8 million. Their student athletes get $26,500 and then only have to come up with about $3500 to attend school.

Even if we say Iowa profited another $10 million because of their football program in ways that don’t show up in the athletic department, we’re still talking about the university making more money paying the athletes than they currently are.

Can we put to rest this lie that the kids aren’t well compensated? They get paid about $30,000 per year, which is more than they’d get if they were actually paying the athletes. Unless you want to suggest that we get rid of Title 9 and allow only the two sports that are worth having, there is no argument that these kids are being exploited. If you increase Iowa’s profit back to $35 million which it was before we paid for all the sports that don’t make money and have only 100 athletes, we’d still pay them $175,000 and remember, Iowa is one of the most of profitable athletic departments in the nation. The University of Illinois would be able to pay about $100,000. Syracuse would be able to pay their athletes roughly $25,000, which isn’t even the value of a scholarship. University of Pittsburgh, 15,000. The Big East would be gone. Most of the ACC would be, too. Half the Big 12. Probably a third of the Pac 12. All athletic scholarships for women would be gone.

Is that a better situation than what we currently have?

Yes, of course, there’s a better solution. Or at least, an alternate solution.  And it’s one that is practiced in Canada: sever the relationship between the pre-pro sports from their schools.

But, let me get back to your point: the athletics department is not required to be funded by the athletic competition.  And if it is required, then it does not need to be disproportionately funded.  You are saying that you prefer the social nature of the funding, that you take a substantial portion from the football programs, and subsidize almost all the other sports.

Furthermore, the one place where there is a free market aspect, coaches, is completely ignored.  The coaches, not the players, are being compensated fairly.

In addition, while the student-athletes, overall, are being fairly compensated, it is still a subsidy of the great football players who generate the income to the other student-athletes who don’t.

The whole thing is a social setup, which doesn’t necessarily make it bad, but at the least let’s not the hyprocritical capitalists turn a blind eye to it.

I don’t know anything about Title IX, though I presume it’s some law to make sure there’s equal access or whatever to all races, genders, sports, and whatnot.  Whatever.  I’m not debating the law, but only justice.

Now, back to Canada: major junior leagues is where the kids go.  There is not tying of the players to their schools.  Most of them are still in high school.  There is college hockey, but that is not really where you find the future pros.  However, major junior hockey is not big business, so there’s no real push to make sure the players are fairly compensated.

NCAA football is more like a minor league, and so, the more comparable is the AHL in hockey.

Let’s just agree that NCAA has managed to create a minor league system for the NFL, while not trying to compensate each player relative to his actual talent.

In this respect, it’s very much like MLB’s pre-arb system.

i think baseball has the ideal situation re: college athletes in the US. the high school grad has a choice, college scholarship or pro contract. the problem with football is the NFL won the right in court to age discriminate, making the NCAA a de facto minor league. I agree this is not ideal. The solution, however, is not to pay college players. That will never happen so it is moot. the solution is for some enterprising agents and investors to get together is create an independent league that will give pre NFL players the exposure they are looking for while compensating them with more than a priceless education (which i say only semi-facetiously). they should also start this league in the spring, otherwise it is destined to fail like the UFL (no one goes to JV high school games). if i had inherited a fortune this would be very high on my list of projects.

Let’s just agree that NCAA football and basketball have created a minor league system. Let’s not pretend that the majority of other sports the university sponsors act in that way.

Take the black and yellow off the Iowa football team and take them away from Kinnick Stadium where they sell out every home game and you’ll be lucky to sell 10,000 seats. All the players on the team will wish they had a college to go play football at.

On top of that, you’ve now thrown away thousands of scholarships, closed athletic departments entirely, forcing many universities to increase the cost of attendance, and all for what? So the athlete can make $25,000 whereas he was getting $30,000 in a scholarship?

The kids in the minor league baseball system make nothing. That’s exactly how much they’ll make playing in the system you suggest. They will make less than what their scholarship is worth, will not have an education to fall back on, and the cost of attendance for everyone else increases, which further decreases overall attendance.

I’m all for changes that would somehow better benefit the athletes, but your suggestion is not one of them. It makes it worse for everyone else, including the athlete.

The best solution for this is for the NFL to lift their age requirement for getting into the NFL. That way the kids who are good enough at that point can go directly to the NFL. Though I imagine that’s very, very few of them.

It is not justice to enact something that provides no greater benefits to the person you’re trying to help while providing lesser benefits to thousands of others. That is something I’d expect the US Congress to pass.

15—you’re absolutely right. The issue isn’t even with the NCAA, but rather the NFL. They can somehow discriminate in a legal way and the NCAA gets blamed for this. However, the league you suggest will also fail.

The only way for minor league football to succeed is for it to be very similar to baseball. In other words, we have to accept that thousands of people would be unwilling to get an education because athletic departments would be closed, but allow or mandate that NFL teams begin a minor league system much like baseball.

Because as long as there is NFL and college football, nothing else is going to succeed unless you bastardize the game. You have to get rid of college football entirely, which would also force NBA teams to start a minor league system. As long as you have college football, students and alumni are going to attend games and donate money when the new league would be in need of it.

I agree with Ken that baseball’s setup is the ideal one, in that the player can choose to get a huge signing bonus or go to college.

That the NFL has managed to get an age restriction is beyond belief for me.

david - i respectfully disagree regarding your opinion of the viability of my kick ass spring football league. i would divulge more details as to why but i am holding on to my dream and it’s proprietary corporate strategy for just a little while longer.

Basically, the innocence has been commercialized.

There’s not a lot of innocence left in the LLWS.

We might as well view it as “pre-teen semi-pro” baseball.

Seriously, the teams are pre-selected so the kids can practice as a team year-round ... the kids likely play in multiple leagues per year (pay leagues), and on and on.

The BEST part of having the teams on television is how it affects the coaches. I coach a lot of all-star and travel games for kids about this same age, and I notice a complete LACK of yelling by coaches during these televised games. That’s about the complete opposite of what I normally see. There’s also much less hassling of umpires, which seems to be the head coach’s main job in non-televised games.

I saw a LL game where the coach argued with the umpire on a non-call of a runner “interfering” on the fielder on a batted ball.  Basically, the runner ran in front of the fielder who was trying to field the ball.  No contact was made.

Regardless of whether the umpire is right or wrong, how long should the coach have to argue with the umpire?  There’s no way the ump is going to reverse himself, so what’s the point here other than gamesmanship?  The kids are standing around waiting for the coach to finish.

I’d think the limit should be 20-30 seconds there, or around the time the next batter has to get to the plate.

Asked another way: how old should the kids be for the coach to take it seriously enough to argue for 2-3 minutes?

FYI:

http://www.baseball-rules.com/FAQs.htm

by the way, from what i understand the nfl restriction specifically is that to be drafted it must have either been 3 years since you graduated high school or you must have finished 3 years of college. it’s not predicated on age, per se, which is why Louisville d-lineman Amobi Okoye was drafted at age 19. he had emigrated from Nigeria at the age of 12 and was able to start college at 16, where he played as a true freshman. he graduated at the age of 19 and was drafted 10th overall by the Houston Texans.

the reasoning behind the rule is that younger athletes are not physically prepared to enter the NFL and the rule is for their own protection. since Okoye was able to prove himself physically capable of competing by virtue of over 3 years of NCAA level competition, he was eligible for the draft.

i to not buy that reasoning one bit and believe it to be the NFL’s cynical attempt to keeping the status quo.

How much of it is the player’s union? What benefit could they have be limiting the age in the way that they do?

good question. im not sure what the union’s stance on the suit was. doesnt sound like that’s necessarily disagree with the NFL. lowering the age wouldnt add jobs or increase payroll but it would mean the nfl would spend more money on less vetted athletes. im guessing they sat the legal battle out, but thats just a guess.

My thinking was that these players generally try to protect the veterans so adding younger players may mean a quicker end to careers. I’m not sure if that’s necessarily true as I think the number of guys ready to enter the NFL at age 18 or 19 is pretty small, but it’s reasonable to assume those guys would replace the 35 and 36 year olds on their last leg. Those 35 and 36 year olds may also make more money than the teenager.

It would at least be interesting to see which side is more in favor of the age restriction. If it’s the player’s then I feel a lot less sympathy for the younger players who could enter the NFL.

#3 - the online betting shops are NOT taking serious money on little league games, the amount they take is basically so small that it might as well be $0

#27. Does it matter how much money they are taking ($100 per game)?  I’m not interested in how much money can be won or lost, I am more interested in the fact that they take bets on LLWS games.

I’m not really sure what your point is.
vr, Xei