The sports world has time; here are some uses for it

Garth Meyer, Whitman County Gazette | Aug 27, 20200

Now that college football season is gone for half of the United States, representing the most significant hit to the sports world during COVID-19, it suggests – since we’re still in this – perhaps sports administrators should use part of this time to look at what has been underlined by the past six months.

Sports mean something to a society. Even to non-fans, who benefit from the social element and residual effects of a nation’s shared experience.

So a few things to look at, how about, with the extra time:

James Harden trade from the OKC Thunder: Put together a group and study it. Why specifically did this “need” to happen and what addition to the system might counter it the next time? When Harden was traded, just off the young Thunder’s appearance in the 2012 NBA Finals against the second year of the LeBron James-Dwayne Wade-Chris Bosh Miami Heat, the league was staring at a billion-dollar rivalry. It was Built vs. Bought, the core of Durant-Westbrook-Harden obtained in the draft against the notorious “super-team” assembled from free agency in Miami.

These two teams would have likely met two or three more times in the Finals, drawing the kind of vast fan interest leagues would kill for. The kind the NBA enjoyed for Fundamentals vs. Flash, or Celtics-Lakers (of the ‘80s).

Instead, Harden was traded, late NBA Commissioner David Stern had little to say and it was all “inevitable” because of “money.”

Paying college football players: Isn’t the heart of American sports now college football?

College basketball is down to three weeks of true national interest each year, the NFL is ruthless, the NBA is mired in over-sponsorship and player movement, Major League Baseball has only had instances of relevance this century, etc. The question is why? Why has college football continued to carry much of its fan interest while so many other sports have dwindled? The answer has to come down to meaning. The game still means something because the majority of its players are genuine college students playing for their universities. That has a charm to it that professional sports, or the too-many one and two-year players and transfers of modern college basketball can’t offer anymore.

If college football players are paid, advocates might get to say their point about 17-year-old tennis players held sway, but it would be a blow to the country.

If you pay the players, the meaning diminishes by 60-70 percent. It’s so much less interesting. And loss of meaning translates into loss of revenue. The alumni connection is watered-down, not to mention everything else.

College students playing college football is intrinsic and engaging. College students paid to play college football is vaguely depressing.

Elleby insurance: For college basketball, what about taking a percentage of NCAA-licensed sales or something and put it toward an insurance pool for each conference to tap into to offer star players a reason to stay for another year? WSU this year is a prime example. They just lost Pac-12 star C.J. Elleby after his sophomore season, for a probably-chance to make it in the NBA. What if the NCAA/WSU could have offered an insurance policy that would pay, say $10 million, if he returned and had a career-ending injury?

Whether Elleby would have taken an option like this or not, WSU is out a young star, dropping them back into another year of (promising) rebuilding, while if they could’ve kept their 20-year-old leader, they had a clear path to win a lot of games next year. All of that translates into fan interest, ticket sales and merchandise. It would be worth it for the NCAA/universities to spend money on this.

Drafted into mystery: Call in the psychologists and sociologists to look at this; why is it that on NBA/NFL draft day we see jubilation at the achievement of a hard-won dream and then three years later, the same player is really unhappy at the difference between $16 million and $18 million per year to live out that dream; or just as often, $23 million and $26 million. Why is this, exactly?

Pay-level is certainly an indicator of respect in professional sports but at some point, a player’s self-worth has to be channeled elsewhere, at least partially, so general managers and owners can keep a team together, which leads to bourgening fan interest when we know who plays for who.

In addition: How about getting the advertising off the playing surface of every field/court? It’s too much. Get the sponsor patches off of NBA jerseys, added last year. Find another revenue source or have the heart to say no. If you have to have sponsor patches to pay some semi-known player $28 million a year, then pay him $27 million instead and get the Motorola ads off the uniform.

If you can’t keep the player under those circumstances, see above and call the psychologists and sociologists again.

Conclusion: Any society needs shared, meaningful experience. Not shared, sporadic, soulless experience, but the consistent, real thing.

Addressing some of the above, in the world of sports, may help with this in the U.S.

A reminder was seen on a T.V. screen in the early nights of the pandemic, ESPN Classic showing old World Series games. The channel-flipping image of Alejandro Pena taking the mound in a crisp 1988 Dodgers uniform in an American stadium with no ad or billboard at eye level looked like a functioning society.

What we have now does not.

And we have some time on our hands to address it.

So how about we?

Garth Meyer

Reporter