Highlights from MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

On Saturday, I was a panelist at the 2010 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, which is hosted by ESPN and which has become (in my opinion) the biggest annual event for sports professionals. I spoke on the "Performance Enhancement: Will Future Athletes be Formula One or NASCAR?" panel.

My panel included Phoenix Suns president of basketball operations and general manager Steve Kerr, ESPN The Magazine editor-in-chief Gary Belsky, and several other excellent panelists. It was an awesome discussion. I could detail points of our discussion and audience questions (which included a question asked by Indianapolis Colts team president Bill Polian), but ESPN's Kevin Arnovitz already does, and quite well, in his column on the panel.

For a review on the entire event, check out Henry Abbott's excellent recap.

Academic papers were presented at the event, and one will clearly attract a good deal of interest. University of Chicago Professor Tobias Moskowitz and Sports Illustrated senior writer Jon Wertheim have co-written a paper on the presence of omission bias among referees. The paper is titled, “Whistle Swallowing: Officiating & the Omission Bias”.

As Kevin Arnovitz details in his recap of the paper, an omission bias in this context refers to a referee's willingness to make an incorrect call rather than make an incorrect non-call. Brian Robb of ESPN's Celtics Hub also has an extensive piece on the paper, which will be part of a book that Moskowitz and Wertheim publish in the near future.

The Flying Hotdog Lawsuit: Coomer v. Kansas City Royals

Over on Torts Prof Blog this morning, I have a guest post on the relationship between "game presentation", where teams and stadium operators try to keep fans entertained at every moment during the game (e.g., firing t-shirts up into the crowd during timeouts), and tort law.

I pay particular attention to Coomer v. Kansas City Royals, a lawsuit which centers on a Royals fan who was hit in the eye by a hotdog thrown by the Royals' mascot, Slugger.

Here's an excerpt from the post:

* * *

We all know the expression, “It’s all fun and games till someone loses an eye.” Who would imagine that a hotdog could cause such an injury? According to Coomer, a hotdog indeed caused him a serious eye injury. He claims that he was a mere “few feet away” from Slugger when Slugger’s errant, behind-the-back throw led to Coomer’s left eye getting hit by a hot dog. Coomer suffered a detached retina and other eye damage. Coomer’s complaint doesn’t address how he could have been seated six rows up from third base yet only a “few feet” from Slugger, who was atop the third base dugout (maybe Slugger ventured up into the crowd or Coomer took a stroll down to field level, though the complaint doesn’t state so).

Coomer claims that as an invitee, he was owed the highest protection of safety, and that the Royals, through their employee—the unnamed artist performing as Slugger—failed to exhibit the requisite care. Coomer has also filed a battery claim.

The baseball rule, which was premised on dangers from actual baseball play, arguably should not apply to game presentation, which is about entertaining when play does not occur.

* * *

To read the rest, click here.

The Washington Wizards Dumped Jamison, Butler, and Haywood. Can they Dump Arenas and his Contract?

I have a new column up at the Huffington Post that takes a close look at the question on the minds of the Washington Wizards and their fans: Can the team terminate Gilbert Arenas' contract? An excerpt is included below. You can find the full column here. Also, for those looking for quick sports law updates throughout the day, you can follow me on twitter here... (Note: Link is now fixed)

So, the $80 million question comes down to this -- was the "egregious nature" of Arenas' conduct "so lacking in justification as to warrant" a league-imposed 50 game suspension and the termination of his contract?...The closest precedent we have for this case is the infamous choking incident involving Latrell Sprewell.

For the Wizards to terminate Arenas' contract, they would likely have to convince David Stern (and perhaps an arbitrator) that Arenas' conduct was more egregious than Sprewell's. Would they have a compelling argument? Perhaps. Let's compare the two. Arenas violated a specific written NBA rule prohibiting the possession of guns on NBA property (on a team that changed its name from the Bullets to the Wizards to avoid an association with gun violence). Sprewell violated a rule that was so obvious ("don't choke your coach") the NBA did not feel the need to write it down. Arenas compounded the situation by joking about the incident on twitter and in a pre-game team huddle on the court. Sprewell, after being wrestled away from his coach by his teammates, retreated to the locker room to cool off, and then returned to the court 20 minutes later to throw a punch at Carlesimo (and was later charged with reckless driving and served three months under house arrest during his suspension). Arenas had a prior gun offense -- he was suspended in 2004 for failing to properly register a gun. Sprewell had a prior fighting offense -- two years before the choking incident, Sprewell fought with his teammate Jerome Kersey. After the fight, he threatened to return with a gun (fret not, he only returned with a two-by-four).

Fame and Infamy

In comments to my post about Roger Clemens, Ed Edmonds poses an interesting question:

Hasn't Jackson's banishment from baseball actually served to keep him in front of the baseball public for so many years? Does the average fan know as much about Tris Speaker, Nap Lajoie, Honus Wagner (if not for the baseball card) as they do about Jackson? Perhaps Rose can make more money selling his autograph because the controversy keeps his name before the public.

Ed is onto something about Rose remaining in the spotlight (and able to make money) because of his banishment--at least from 1989 until 2004, when he could play the aggrieved victim of unfair treatment (remember his Jim Gray interview at the 1999 World Series). That all ended when he published his book in 2004 and admitted (although without really apologizing for) what everyone already knew. He has rarely been heard from since.

Jackson remains relevant today because he is a singular figure, based on a combination of his greatness and his banishment. He remains more relevant than the other seven banned Black Sox because he was the best player and the only one unquestionably left out of the Hall of Fame because of the ban. He remains more relevant than his other Hall-worthy contempories (Lajoie, Wagner, et al.) because we still have something to talk, argue, and make movies about--whether he did anything wrong and whether the ban should be lifted and he should be redeemed with induction to the Hall (or at least a chance to play in an Iowa cornfield).

Will we remember Rose 90 years from now more because he has been banned than we will remember Hall contemporaries (say, Reggie Jackson or Tony Perez)? Maybe. Will we remember him more than if he just were let into the Hall? Maybe. One distinction could be between record-holders and "other" Hall-of-Famers. Rose was nowhere near the best player of his (or any other generation) or even the best hitter, but he does hold a significant career batting record. So perhaps, even without gambling, we would remember Rose more than we do Perez, just as we remember Ty Cobb more than we do Lajoie.

Settlement between MLB Properties and Upper Deck

Maury Brown at the BizofBaseball blog is reporting that MLB Properties and Upper Deck have settled their recent trademark infringement lawsuit. The terms of the settlement are detailed here, but in short Upper Deck has effectively agreed to cease its accused conduct in the future, and agreed to pay MLB Properties "significant" damages for its unlicensed 2010 products. Ethan Orlinsky, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Major League Baseball Properties declared the settlement to be a "clear and decisive victory" for MLB. Based on the initial details of the settlement, I would have to agree.

Some thoughts on Roger Clemens

Journalist Jon Pessah talks about the legacy and current limbo status of Roger Clemens, based in part on recent conversation Pessah had with the should-be future Hall-of-Famer. In a sidebar, Pessah gathered comments about Clemens from a range of baseball watchers, including Mike and me.

New Sports Law Scholarship

Recently published scholarship includes:

Sean W.L. Alford, Comment, Dusting off the AK-47: an examination of NFL players’ most powerful weapon in an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL, 88 NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW 212 (2009)

Jeffrey Benz, Common issues in international sports arbitration, 10 PEPPERDINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW JOURNAL 165 (2009)

Kristan Bryant, Note, Take a knee: applying the First Amendment to locker room prayers and religion in college sports, 36 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY LAW 329 (2009)

Christian Dennie, Tebow drops back to pass: videogames have crossed the line, but does the right of publicity protect a student-athlete’s likeness when balanced against the First Amendment?, 62 ARKANSAS LAW REVIEW 645 (2009)

N. Jeremi Duru, This field is our field: foreign players, domestic leagues, and the unlawful racial manipulation of American sport, 84 TULANE LAW REVIEW 613 (2010)

Virginia A. Fitt, Note, The NCAA’s lost cause and the legal ease of redefining amateurism, 59 DUKE LAW JOURNAL 555 (2009)

Michael Gerton, Note, Kids’ play: examining the impact of the CBC Distribution decision on college fantasy sports, 11 TEXAS REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS LAW 153 (2009)

Mike Leach, A legal education applied to coaching college football, 42 TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW 77 (2009)

Michael Lenard, The future of sports dispute resolution, 10 PEPPERDINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW JOURNAL 173 (2009)

Richard H. McLaren & Geoff Cowper-Smith, The Beijing Summer Olympic Games: decisions from the CAS and IOC, 10 PEPPERDINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW JOURNAL 69 (2009)

Matthew J. Mitten, Judicial review of Olympic and international sports arbitration awards: trends and observations, 10 PEPPERDINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW JOURNAL 51 (2009)

Jennifer A. Mueller, Note, The best defense is a good offense: student-athlete amateurism should not become a fantasy, 2009 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & POLICY 527-560

Chad M. Oldfather & Matthew M. Fernholz, Comparative procedure on a Sunday afternoon: instant replay in the NFL as a process of appellate review, 43 INDIANA LAW REVIEW 45 (2009)

Christopher Pruitt, Debunking a popular antitrust myth: the single entity rule and why college football’s Bowl Championship Series does not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, 11 TEXAS REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS LAW 125 (2009)

Scott Rosner & Deborah Low, The efficacy of Olympic bans and boycotts on effectuating international political and economic change, 11 TEXAS REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS LAW 27 (2009)

John Ruger, From the trenches: the landscape of sports dispute resolution and athlete representation, 10 PEPPERDINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW JOURNAL 157 (2009)

Michael S. Straubel, Lessons from USADA v. Jenkins: you can’t win when you beat a monopoly, 10 PEPPERDINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW JOURNAL 119 (2009)

Geoff Varney, Note, Fighting for respect: MMA’s struggle for acceptance and how the Muhammad Ali Act would give it a sporting change, 112 WEST VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW 269 (2009)

Jeremy A. Wale, Adequate protection of professional athletes’ publicity rights: a federal statute is the only answer, 11 THOMAS M. COOLEY JOURNAL OF PRACTICAL & CLINICAL LAW 245 (2009)

Adam Wasch, Children left behind: the effect of Major League Baseball on education in the Dominican Republic, 11 TEXAS REVIEW OF ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS LAW 99 (2009)

Maureen A. Weston, Doping control, mandatory arbitration, and process dangers for accused athletes in international sports, 10 PEPPERDINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW JOURNAL 5 (2009)

Dr. Glenn M. Wong, Kyle Skillman & Chris Deubert, The NCAA's Infractions Appeals Committee: Recent Case History, Analysis and the Beginning of a New Chapter, 9 VIRGINIA SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT LAW JOURNAL 47 (Fall 2009)

Brian P. Yates, Whether building a new sports arena will revitalize downtown and make the team a winner, 17 UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI BUSINESS LAW REVIEW 269 (2009)