heisman trophy winners

The Heisman trophy is the most prestigious award in college football. It goes to the best player in the nation. Because of this, many would think that the Heisman trophy winner is bound for NFL stardom. Looking at recent winners though, that's not the case at all.

Cam Newton looks to be the real deal, but it's too early on him. It's also too early to call Mark Ingram and Sam Bradford busts, but they've been disappointing so far. However, the last very successful NFL player that won the Heisman trophy was cornerback Charles Woodson in 1997. And before that, the most recent successful quarterback is Vinny Testaverde in 1985. I think this is because the Heisman is now so frequently won by quarterbacks. From 2000-2008, ever Heisman winner was a quarterback. Quarterback is the toughest position to transition to, because there are so many different variables that lead to success as a quarterback in the NFL. First, many quarterbacks in college use the spread formation to spread the receivers over the field, which allows for quarterbacks to put up big passing numbers. This formation isn't utilized as much in the NFL. Quarterbacks also must be able to make much harder throws into tighter windows with athletes being much bigger and faster. They also need to be able to create chemistry with new receivers and a new offensive line.

I was surprised at first to see how separate success in college and success at the professional level are, but looking at it further, it isn't that surprising. Positions such as O and D line are much easier to predict, as the position doesn't change much from level to level, however those guys will never win a Heisman trophy.

college lacrosse

Lacrosse has been known as the "fastest sport on two feet," but recently, this term seems to be losing it's relevance. There are a few reasons for this. The first is the newly placed importance on specialists. This includes offensive middies, defensive middies, and fogos (face off, and get off). Because it's rare for a midfielder to play two ways, transition isn't as emphasized anymore. Many teams would rather settle the ball down, and get the right personnel on the field instead of pushing the ball from defense to offense with their defensive midfielders. Another reason is the new technology in lacrosse sticks that make it very difficult for defenders to take the ball away. Because of this, defenders are less aggressive, and instead stay in more and play position defense instead of trying to take the ball away. Last year, the University of Virginia won a national championship in part by implementing a zone for the first time under coach Dom Starsia. The zone defense was packed in, making the offense be deliberate on when and where to attack.

Many in lacrosse have asked for a shot clock, similar to the professional league, major league lacrosse. The MLL uses a 60 second shot clock, from the start of a possession. I don't think this is the best option for college, however. For one, the professional game is different. There are 2 point shots, and no "box" in which the offensive players have to keep it in in case of a stall. The professional players are also the best players in the world, and can handle the game moving at such a fast pace. The urging for a shot clock in college lacrosse started picking up steam last year when the University of Maryland shockingly upset Syracuse University by sitting on the ball for most of the game, so Syracuse couldn't get up and down the field like they wanted to. Again in the championship game, Uva sat on the ball, killing the clock at the end against Maryland. I don't think a straight 60 second shot clock is the best option, but instead a shorter shot clock, maybe around 45 seconds, that will be called after the refs call a "stall" warning. In lacrosse right now, thee ref calls a stall warning when the offensive team isn't making an attempt to go to the goal, for an arbitrary amount of time. It is up to the refs when to call a stall. When this happens, the offensive team has to keep the ball within the "box," theoretically making it easier for the defense to extend, and pressure the ball to get it back. The box is still big enough for players to maneuver without the defense taking the ball though, as those two games show. So instead, I propose when the ref calls a stall, the team has another 45 seconds to get a shot on goal. After that is a turnover. This will keep the game moving very fast, because teams will be forced to go to the goal, and if they commit a shot clock violation, the other team immediately picks up the ball and runs down the field for a transition situation. This rule will get lacrosse back to the way it was prior, high scoring and fast.

competitive balance in baseball

Moneyball, the book that was recently turned into a movie discussed competitive balance in baseball, a sport without a salary cap. Because there is no salary cap, there's nothing from stopping the rich teams from spending as much as they want, while the poor teams are left scrambling to find players others might not have wanted. In fact, this is exactly what happens with teams like the Yankees spending much more than poor teams like the Oakland Athletics. To start the 2012 season, the Yankees have the highest payroll at $197,962,289, while the Athletics are 2nd to last at $55,372,500.

With other sports like basketball, football, and hockey all using the salary cap to try and maintain competitive balance, many wonder why baseball doesn't implement a similar system. However, I don't think that the lack of a salary cap affects competitive balance much in baseball. This is mainly because predicting future success is so hard. Baseball used to only have one year contracts when the reserve clause  prevented players from entering free agency. This was because teams thought it was physically impossible to guarantee health and performance in the future. Why would I give you a contract for next year if you might have major arm surgery this year? This has clearly gone long, long away, but the concept is what keeps a balance in baseball. There are countless contracts that teams pay huge sums of money, and the players don't perform up to expectations. Poorer teams don't find themselves giving huge contracts that could cripple their franchise. So even though the Yankees might be paying A-Rod $30 million this year, that doesn't mean he's going to earn it. It just means the Yankees signed a contract that was way too big, predicting A-Rod to continue his incredible career, and that hasn't worked out for them.

Failure to predict the future is what is keeping baseball competitive. Poorer clubs are forced to give out smart contracts that won't cripple them. A-rod, Jeter, and Hiroki Kuroda, are making as much as every player on the Athletics, but these players won't perform at a much higher level. This is why baseball isn't in dire need of a salary cap.

The state of college athletics

Recently, Dave Berri, the author of Wages of Wins wrote a piece on freakonomics.com about salaries in college sports. As the article states, in 2008, the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) collected an astonishing $4.4 billion of revenue. In the state of New Hampshire, the University of New Hampshire hockey coach Dick Umile is the highest paid state employee. Even considering all of this, college players aren't paid to play, which has become a widely debated topic in recent years.

People against paying athletes often site two main arguments: some college's can't afford paying athletes, only further distorting competitive balance, and athlete's are already payed through scholarships. I don't think the first point is valid. As Berri states, college coaching salaries are ridiculously high. Nick Saban, the football coach at the University of Alabama makes $5.62 million per season, while two time super bowl champion Tom Coughlin of the Giants makes $5.25. The reason that colleges pay their coaches so much is because they don't have to pay the students, and the front office. If college players started being paid, the coaches salaries would simply go down. Also, the current college system doesn't foster competitive balance anyway. All the top players commit to the top schools that are already financially capable of giving them a scholarship.

The people in favor of paying players point to how much revenue these players are generating for the university. These people argue that the university shouldn't be able to profit so much off of these students while they don't see any of it. Another possible positive of paying players, is it would provide an incentive for staying in school longer before going pro.

Personally, I don't think athletes should be paid. Clearly, different athletes generate different amounts of revenue for the school. The star quarterback is going to bring in more than someone on the bench. Getting colleges into bidding wars for teenagers could be a slippery slope. Getting a free education in itself is a lot of money. Also, two sports (football, and basketball) are generating most of the revenue for the NCAA. Only compensating athletes in these two sports would be unfair, but at the same time, many sports are already losing money. Paying these athletes would only exacerbate this problem.