Contract Negotiations

I have been reading many articles from the NBA and NFL about athletes who are asking for new contracts before the current contracts are done and saying they will not honor contracts to the new city if they are dealt by their existing teams.

I think all professional sports needs to have a standard, CBA-approved system by which a contract may be disputed. Outside of that system, a player should have to honor their contracts. These contracts are legally-binding agreements between the team and the player for services to be rendered by the player to the team.

Here are the steps I would institute in any professional sport in order to minimize this issue and (try to, at least) maximize the value that a player gets for the contract:

1. If a player decides to retire, hold out, or in any other way not play while under a current, valid contract, their contract terms are suspended until such time that they decide to play. At that point, the  original contract kicks back in and they either play for that team and that contract or they go through the CBA-approved dispute process (and are legally bound by the decision made during the process).
2. The dispute process will involve three arbiters who are hired by the sport's management, the sport's player's association, and one outside, neutral party. A majority agreement either positively or negatively will approve or deny the contract issue(s) in cases of a dispute. Once a ruling is made, the dispute is final and both sides agree to honor it.
3. Contracts will be for between one and four years, maximum. Rookie contracts will be for four years and veteran contracts (players who have been in the league a minimum of four seasons) can be as short as one.
• The younger the player, the longer the contract to help maximize the team's value for that player. The older the player the shorter the contract, so the player can try to get the maximum value for their play the longer they play (although both sides, if mutually agreed, can sign longer-term contracts if desired).
4. All contracts will have reasonable positive and negative incentives for both the team to play the player and for the player to play his best in order to maximize the value of the contract.
• I realize this is a tricky one, but I think "reasonable" is the key here. No incentives should be based on a snap count (too easy for the team/coach to decide to sit the player so they do not hit that incentive).
• Some incentives should be roughly equivalent to the "Franchise tag" in football; if you play equivalent to a top 5 player at your position, X incentive kicks in. If you play like a top 15 player at your position, Y incentive kicks in. If you are voted to the Pro Bowl (or equivalent, depending on sport), Z incentive kicks in. (Basically, you should get paid more if you play "above your contract," at least as an inherent increase to your following season's pay if not a bonus to that season.)
• Alternately, if you play in the bottom 5, 10, or 15 of your position, you should maybe be penalized (i.e., the team gets to keep a percentage of the pay for your position, or your salary for the following season goes down a tier, or similar).
5. Create a tiered veteran's minimum scale based on a block of years and/or a percentage increased based on quality of play.
• For example, the year blocks could be 5, 10, 15, and over 15 years. Five years is $250,000 minimum (this would be based partly on the sport, partly on the CBA for that sport, and partly on what the market can bear; consider all the numbers I put here as examples only), 10 is $350,000, 15 is $450,000, and over 15 is $550,000 minimum. However, if you are in the top 50% for you position, it is +10%. If you are top 25%, it is +20%. If you are top 10%, it is +35%. Top 5% would earn an additional +50% on that value (not including other performance incentives).
6. Some incentives could be based on aggregate goals for the position. For example, the sport could determine a baseline average for each position for things like offensive and defensive production and then base some bonuses and penalties on the player being a certain amount or percentage over or under those baseline statistics. Penalties can apply if the player is below those averages.

I'm sure others can come up with other, meaningful, and fair ways in which a team and a player can maximize profits and minimize disputes. It seems to me that highly incentivized contracts and a dispute resolution system that is binding are the first step.

Do you agree or disagree with my hypothesis and (generalized) plan to solve it? If not, how would you do it? Do you have any additions to these rules?

NBA Refs

I argue that the NBA has the worst officiating of any professional sport, especially in North America. When it added a third on-court official, the refereeing actually got worse. How about, instead of fining players and coaches for pointing out what every fan knows to be true (i.e., that the NBA officiating is so horrible), the NBA simplifies its rules and cleans up the officiating? I know, I know, what a novel concept.

Here are some suggestions:

Right now, on approximately 8 out of 10 plays, the official who is completely blocked off from actually seeing whether a foul was committed is usually the one that blows the whistle. He assumes a foul must have been committed because he heard a sound or saw some movement by the shooter that suggested a foul. New rule: if you don't actually see an actual foul, you don't call it.

Also, frankly, the rules have gone too far toward allowing "act of shooting" calls to grant the person with the ball a foul shot. Let's make it so that if you aren't actively/currently in the act of shooting (i.e., the ball is in your hands and they are actively moving forward in a shooting action), then it is not an act of shooting foul. No more "two steps without dribbling," no more throwing your arms wildly forward after you hear the whistle and faking the ref into giving you a foul shot. Getting to the free throw line should be a rare and special occurrence, not a contest between the superstars to see who can get there the most in a game.

Oh, and let's actually use a rule that is on the books and make it more prevalent and important: the person who initiates the contact is the one on whom the foul is called. I hate watching a basketball game and Hubie Brown, Marv Albert, Mike Breen, or another announcer talks about the shooter "leaning into" the defender or trying to "draw contact" and getting a whistle. The rules state that the person who initiates the contact is the one who committed the foul. No more charging straight ahead, leaping into the air and into a defender, and it is the defender's fault for being in the way. If this rule was used and applied properly, more charges would get called and NBA players wouldn't feel the need to "flop" in order to get a call in their favor.

Also, let's expand the existing "hand is part of the ball" rule to say "the hand and forearm, up to but not including the elbow" is part of the ball and any incidental contact is considered part of the ball. Also, "the feet and lower legs, up to but not including the knees" is considered neutral territory, like the court, and incidental contact does not constitute a penalty. No more having two players running down the court and their feet get tangled and it is a foul on someone. I think most refs can determine if a player is kicking at another with intent as opposed to just stepping on a foot and taking a tumble.

If two people are on the ground wrestling over the ball, or someone is trapped on the sideline, they cannot call a timeout. If you are wrestling for the ball, there is always some, even minor, doubt as to who has possession of it, so no time out can be called. If you are trapped on the sideline by a defender, possession of the ball is starting to be in doubt (as you may not be able to escape, thus giving the ball to the other team either via the shot clock or by stepping out of bounds) and you should not be allowed to call timeout. Timeouts should only be called when possession is without doubt and only by the team with the ball (TV and referee timeouts are the only exceptions to this).

The NBA wants exciting games to draw the fans in. They want to make money. During the season, the refs call the game one way which allows for a lot of offense and higher scores. But when the game gets to the playoffs, they call it differently and much more defense is played. Yet more people watch the playoffs than watch individual games during the season. This is partly because there are so many games (82 during a regular season) that each individual game means very little but mostly because individual game in the playoffs have so much more meaning and value. It also shows that fans don't mind watching exciting, defensive games. So, let's bring the defense back into the league and allow the contests to be decided on the court, not by arbitrary calls by an official.

These are my suggestions. How would you fix the officiating in the NBA?

Dear David

Dear David Stern,

I am a lifelong fan of the NBA and the Lakers in particular. My parents were Lakers fans when I was small and, even though now I live on the east coast of Canada and rarely get to see the Lakers play due to either scheduling or the time the games start, I am still a fan. I look forward to their getting into the playoffs, because it assures me a number of games I can watch (even if it is really late at night here).

But, Mr. Stern, you have a serious, serious problem. Most of my friends here are not big sports fans, but are willing to watch and learn. And many of them, my wife included, hate watching the NBA because of the *ahem* inconsistency of the refereeing.

Okay, I'm glossing that over and putting a shine to it: they, and I, HATE the reffing in your sport.

The NBA trumpeted how much better the refing would be when it added the third ref. All I saw was the number of bad calls go up by about a third. When watching a game, especially using my much-loved TiVo, I watch the replays or make my own and watch not nearly as often for whether a foul was actually commited, but rather which of the refs called it. And nine out of ten times, the ref who is completely blocked from seeing the play is the one who whistles the supposed foul. Now, in most cases, he has the body of the defender in his way and can't possibly see if that swipe made contact. Go ahead, Mr. Stern, watch ANY game and do this and you'll see that I'm right.

Next, while watching that game, listen to the announcers. With the exception of the horrible Jeff Van Gundy, most of your announcers and color men are very good. But, as we watch replays of the "fouls" committed and the color guys explain them, for the most part they are a) writing fiction and it is obvious they are trying to justify a call rather than truly explain it or b) they talk about how one player (almost always the offensive player) "draws" or "creates" contact by leaping into a defender. I've read the rules for your sport, Mr. Stern, and any time a player is the one creating contact HE is the one who should be whistled for the foul. The vast majority of charging calls and "and ones" in the NBA should be offensive turnovers or fouls on the offensive player -- but that is not how you want the games called, so you fine anyone who points it out.

I still shudder over Reggie Miller's most famous shots: he would leap into the air and kick out his legs and literally kick a defender in the chest, arms, or legs, which should be an offensive foul every single time, yet he ALWAYS got the call in his favor and got an and-one.

Some other rules that you should watch and see just how badly your refs call are:

1. The hand is part of the ball. So each of those times the fans watch a replay of an offensive player sweeping the ball through the defender's arms and getting slapped on the hand you have a) an offensive player committing a foul by initiating contact and b) a defender usually hitting the ball and hands, which are legal. Either way, it should either be a no-call or an offensive foul, yet it is always called on the defender.

2. A defender who holds his ground with his arms raised and/or who leaps straight up is following the rules for defenders. Yet about ninety percent of the time that defender is called for a foul against an offensive player who leaps directly into him. I was pleasantly surprised to see some nice no-calls in games 5 and 6 of the Lakers' series versus the Thunder, but that is not the norm by any means. In nearly all cases, the defender is whistled for the foul even though he stood his ground and did not initiate contact.

3. The act of shooting. This rule is designed so that, if the offensive player is in the act of shooting when the foul occurs, he gets the result of the shot plus a foul shot or he gets two foul shots if the shot is missed. However, we have refs allowing players to throw, flick, lob, etc. the ball vaguely in the direction of the basket, often well after the whistle has sounded, and get the "and-one." This needs to stop. If you are truly 'in the act of shooting,' great. But refs need to stop allowing foul shots after a pivot and a step and a flick of the ball generally in the direction of the basket (which just as easily could have been a pass).

I have some suggestions that can help the refs call a better, more consistent game:

1. Instruct them only to calls they actually SEE, as opposed to those they assume happen and are blocked off from seeing. If they don't actually see a foul, keep the whistle in your pocket and don't call anything. Allowing the game to be played is much more exciting and allows for more scoring than a whistle every time down the court for the stupidest, smallest, most ticky-tack of calls (I give you all of game 6 of the Jazz/Nuggets series).

2. Revisit the rules for defense and allow defenders to follow them without being called for fouls.

3. Instruct the refs to call the player who initiates contact with another player, regardless of if that is offensive or defensive.

4. Remind refs that, just because a player falls down doesn't mean that a foul was committed. Feet get tangled, wet spots on floors, even players paying too much attention to what their coach is screaming at them from the sidelines have all caused players to fall down... none of which is a foul according to your rules.

5. Replay. Have a booth official whose job is to review out of bounds, flagrant fouls, jump balls, last second shots, etc. to ensure that the right team has the ball, the right player(s) are jumping it, etc. No more than 10 seconds per review should be enough. Have this guy in charge of three-second calls, too, not the guys on the court.

6. Allow refs to overrule each other. If the ref who couldn't see a play calls a horrible foul, allow the ref(s) who didn't see and was in position to overrule the other.

Mr. Stern, I love basketball. It is fast-paced and exciting to watch. But the obvious biases shown by the refs for and against certain players and teams, the egregiously bad calls in any game, and the inconsistency of the rules followed by the refs make it hard to truly just sit back and enjoy the sport. It also makes it hard to grow your fan base and bring it to regions where another sport is king, as fans don't like fighting the refs. Bad calls will happen, of course, in any sport. But most sports work very hard to make sure that the refs stay in the background and don't decide games. Yet in the NBA many fans and a lot of new people think that the refs decide games. This image hurts your reputation as a sport and draws fans away from it.

No matter how much you fine players, coaches, and media personnel, the fact that you have had to go so draconian to keep these comments at bay indicates the level of problem you have with this aspect of your sport. It has to stop.

Hopefully, you will consider these ideas and make improvements in your sport. I really want to love watching basketball again, rather than sit fuming at the refs and arguing with friends over the bad calls made in every game.


Sincerely,

John