The sports agent issue is a symptom of a larger problem:  The over-regulation of America.  Instead of addressing the questions that big-time college sports raises and seeking a free market solution, we pile on rules on top of rules and rules to enforce the first set of rules.  What we need is to look for is analogies and fortunately we have one:  Recruiting of high school athletes.

When a college coach wants to talk to a high school star, the rule is to first speak with that star’s coach.  It is crucial to the system to have openness and the coach ought to know what is going on.  (It is true that most HS players are minors too but that does not prevent this being used by analogy for college.)  The value here is transparency and integrity.

Agents ought to have to first talk to the coach.  That gives the coach a heads-up on what is going on.  It is true, 99% of all college players are not going to play a professional sport.  However, major college sports is a business.  The one percent is the issue here.  So, we need a series of rules:  Agents talk to the coach and register their intention to speak with the player.  Agent contracts ought not invalidate amateur status when the contract is for the future after school and there is no compensation from the agent to induce the contract.  All the activities and contracts are available for appropriate review by the media.  Players are paid or given jobs by the university or boosters as long as it is a real job (and I am not even sure about that requirement as long as the money is not funneled from the school through the booster for the fake job) and there is disclosure.

All the major actors in the drama of big-time college sports would know the score.  The coach knows what players are being pursued by agents or signed with agents.  The agent can act openly.  (I am concerned that the authority of the coach could be undermined by pesky agents asking for special favors for their clients.  But I think the coach has inherent authority to take care of this situation on the field.)

This is too simple an idea for anybody to adopt it.  “It would violate amateur sports, Sandy!”  I do support amateur sports:  That’s why pros should not be in the Olympics.  But we do not have real amateur sports in major college football or basketball (and to some extent baseball); we have unpaid minor leagues instead.  So, let’s look at it from a free market focus and usually the right answer will arise.

NCAA, the ball’s in your court.

“We wear them out around here about that stuff. Everything’s coming back positive about the investigation. I’m not sure it’s finished or not. But I think we do everything by the book, and I’d be disappointed if I found something that we don’t because we educate them and we meet with the families and we do everything we can.”

I think an idea worthy of consideration is proposed by Jim Tanner from the prestigious law firm of Williams and Connolly LLP.  Tanner suggests taking the agent issue out of the shadows and have a “controlled access” between agents and players, limits on meals, and disclosure requirements.  Tanner also recommends a new regulation on agent-athlete relations and players being paid a stipend to better resist temptation.

I agree about the controlled access.  I am not sure about the regulation.  It might be helpful for there to be a NCAA eligibility rule that all agent contracts have a right of rescission (say ten days) where the contract can be voided without losing eligibility provided any funds to the athlete or family are returned.  There should be disclosure.

Banning contacts with agents does exactly what Tanner fears – the ethical agents are at a competitive disadvantage:

Many coaches and schools have a blanket prohibition on all athlete-agent contact until the season is over. But a total ban leads to a perverse result: The most ethical agents abide by the rules and stay away, while unscrupulous agents operate in the shadows, currying favor with student-athletes and their families in violation of school policies.

The ultimate solution may end up being some sort of recognition that big-time college sports is really a business and the players ought not be in effect unpaid interns for the pros.

The issue is stark:  Preseason games are a necessary evil.  They are necessary to build up the team and get real game practice.  The games also give a team the opportunity to evaluate second and third string players and new signees.

But players can get hurt in preseason games:  Here’s an article about the Hall of Fame game where there were several injuries.

I personally do not like the 18 game season.  It’s too long.  Brennan sums up the matter nicely:

The possibility of increased injuries in two more games among a generation of players who already have become the walking wounded has to be discussed. The players also understandably are concerned about how the prospective increased revenue would be shared between themselves and the owners. Everything from bigger roster sizes to the meaning of a two-game preseason to the future of OTAs — organized team activities — should be a topic of conversation.

Expanded season would also either bring the NFL before Labor Day or the Super Bowl would interfere with NASCAR and even Olympics.  What about those teams out of the playoffs or have already done all they can:

Then there are the issues of lengthening a season some already find too long, especially if a team has clinched, or is long since out of the playoff chase. The league can backload the schedule with division games, but nonetheless, some of those January regular-season games would not only be cold, but lonely.

One NFL player in this AP article made the prevailing suggestion:

“I would vote to eliminate two preseason games and then keep it at a 16-game season because the longer you’re out there playing, the more your body breaks down,” Chicago Bears tight end Desmond Clark said. “When you get into December, you’re like walking zombies. You can’t feel your joints.”

Here’s the solution for the preseason without the 18 game schedule:  Make the preseason count in the standings, BUT only as a tie breaker.  Let head-to-head be the first tie-breaker, then if they go to the second one, let that be the preseason record.

This would not break down the salary structure, it would keep the calendar the same, but make the necessary preseason games count for something in the season.  The last two pre-season games would be as they should be – tune ups for the season and they may be significant:

Suppose the Saints and Falcons are favored to contend for the division title in 2014.  (Note to Falcons:  Forget it!  Saints rule!)  Coming into the last preseason game for the Saints, the Falcons have a 3-1 record.  The Saints are 3-0 with one game to play.

That game will be a barn-burner because if the Saints win, they get that second tie breaker throughout the season.  The Falcons would have to beat the Saints twice in the regular season to negate that tiebreaker.

Social Security is popular but unsustainable. Its commitments over the next 75 years exceed its expected revenue by $5.3 trillion (http://tinyurl.com/29nclg7). Politicians know this, but pander anyway.

He caught Senator Harry Reid being less than upright about this issue:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused Sharron Angle, who’s challenging Reid’s re-election bid in Nevada, of “raiding” the Social Security trust fund because Angle has talked about phasing out Social Security. There are two problems with that statement — as Reid must know: First, there never has been a trust fund! Your FICA tax payments were not saved or invested. Social Security transferred them to current retirees. Second, in return for IOUs, Congress raided Social Security’s budget surplus every year and spent like any other tax revenue.

Now the days of surplus are over. Unless benefits are cut and the retirement age is raised, the deficits will only grow. When Social Security passed in 1935, most Americans died before age 65. There were many workers and few retirees. Ten years later, there were still almost 42 workers for each retiree. Five years afterward, the ratio slipped to about 17 to 1. Now it’s 3.4 to 1. Thirty years from now, the ratio is projected to be 2 to 1 (http://tinyurl.com/7zpktt).

Stossel suggests it is time for “partial privatization”; and I agree. Stossel also cites Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute to show that the stock crash of 2008 would not have hindered investment in a privatized system:

Obama is just wrong. For one thing, under the privatization plans backed by the Cato Institute and others (http://tinyurl.com/28t2xju), retirees and near-retirees wouldn’t have been affected by the 2008 stock-market decline. Only younger workers would have diverted some of their money from government to capital markets. They would have had time to recover (unless government continued to screw up and cripple the private sector).

Second, even with the 2008 decline, the picture is not nearly as bad as Obama implies. Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute ran the numbers (http://tinyurl.com/2wqtdd7) for a hypothetical worker who retired in 2008, right after the market crash, after a career under a partially privatized Social Security program.

But let’s call “privatization of Social Security” something else:  Choice for young adults.  The system is unsustainable; everybody knows it.  Many Democrats have decided to use this issue to scare seniors.  I think it’s despicable.  We must all get together and solve the problem and help all Americans – seniors and younger adults as well.  The best plan is the Paul Ryan roadmap but it may not be perfect.  But something must be done.

The latest Rasmussen poll shows Paul with a ten point lead.  This may be an outlier but Paul appears to be slightly ahead.  Turnout may tell the day.  We need Rand Paul in the Senate.

She [Pelosi] famously discounted the Tea Party as an “astroturf” movement, directed by the Republican Party. She couldn’t process the idea of a genuine grass-roots revolt against big government. That kind of thing just doesn’t happen in San Francisco. If Pelosi were to star in a sci-fi movie, it’d be “The Speaker from Another Planet.”

Welcome to the Ron Paul Planet, Speaker Pelosi!  Say hello to John Dennis!

Dennis’ position on the issues are great.  He’s a solid non-interventionist:

The Constitution is clear on who bears the responsibility of the power to declare war, i.e. the Congress. I am strongly opposed to Congress passing resolutions granting the President the authority to use force. Unless there is an imminent attack, the Congress should never disregard its Constitutional obligation over the war power. A decision to declare war requires debate, a process that clarifies the country’s situation and leaves a clear conscience whatever decided.

As a country we should welcome trade with all countries, resolve our outstanding disputes with countries considered unfriendly and have diplomatic relations with all.

I support ending both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and withdrawing our troops as safely and quickly as possible. I am concerned with the current U.S. timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. The final exit of December 2011 creates the realistic possibility of U.S. troops being drawn back into battle should civil war(s) break out.

On taxes and spending, he’s in the mainstream of RP supporters like me:

I propose the Federal government:

• Dramatically cut federal spending immediately, including abolishing the Department of Education.

• Effectively abolish the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture. Any Constitutionally appropriate functions may be moved to the DOJ or DOI.

• Abolish capital gains taxes

• Drastically cut, with an eye toward ending, the income tax

• Unwind and end both wars within 6-12 months

• Federal budgets must have a surplus

I especially like this comment on the income tax:

The premise of an income tax, that government has a right to the fruits of your labor, is antithetical to a free society. An income tax implies that a government owns you and allows you to keep a portion of what you make.

This reminds me of the famous comment made by Ambassador Alan Keyes in the 2000 GOP primaries (I voted for Keyes in the VA primary and met him during the campaign) that the income tax turned the people into “tax serfs”; that the government owns us and our money.

Dennis also is against the Federal Reserve, for the Second Amendment (and against any international treaties to curtail that right), and takes a stark position on inflation and personal liberty:

It is clear that the Federal government can not continue in its current financial direction. If it does, there will be a dollar crisis within the next few years. And once the dollar collapses, it cannot be reversed. Try to imagine our country, which is now heavily dependent on imports for basic necessities (e.g. oil), trying to survive the financial restructuring that goes along with a collapsed currency.

I support:

• The Bill of Rights, and in the context of privacy and personal liberty, especially the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.

I oppose:

• Warrantless wiretaps.
• The creation of extra-judicial systems to deal with enemy combatants.
• Waterboarding and other forms of torture.
• I believe our government must respect the 800 year foundation of the law embodied in the principle of habeas corpus.

I am not sure the nation is ready for this formula but certainly spending must be sharply cut for the nation’s economic health to be restored over the long term.

John Dennis is endorsed by Ron Paul:

Said Dr. Paul, “John Dennis is truly committed to Liberty, personal freedom, fiscal discipline and a more sensible foreign policy. I am very happy that John has decided to run for Congress and wholeheartedly endorse him.”

I am glad that the people in the Bay Area have a choice for Congress.  Speaker Pelosi will be hard to beat but is not exempt from defeat because of her position.  Ask Tom Foley!  Go John Dennis Go!

Here’s the story from the Richmond Examiner.

Almost time for preseason football.  GEAUX SAINTS!

The Baroness asserted that there was no weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.  Then she said (I am trying to write this from the video best I can):

“It’s highly significant.  By 03/04 we were receiving an increasing number of leads to terrorist activity from within the UK and our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people, some of them British citizens, not a whole generation, a few among a generation, who saw our involvement in Iraq on top of our involvement in Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam.  *  *  *  Although the media had suggested [that the various terrorist attacks in the UK were a surprise that UK born persons were involved] that is not the case.  Because, really, there has been an increasing number of British-born individuals,…attracted to the ideology of UBL and saw the West’s activities in Iraq and Afghanistan as threatening their fellow religionists…”

Baroness Manningham-Buller also stated there was a Iraqi jihad brought about by the West’s invasion.  She also said that while the overthrow of Saddam Hussein prevented his regime from using weapons of mass destruction against the West but it did not prevent such an attack from other avenues.  She also stated that while quick strategy to improve the lives of the Iraqi people after the military victory might have reduced the terror threat, there was a clear increase of the terrorist threat against UK targets:

“…the focus was not foreigners, the rising and increasing threat was the threat from British citizens,…Al-Qaeda had not focused on the UK [until after the Iraq invasion].”

There could be the motive of the Tories seeking to hurt the Labour regime and former PM Tony Blair.  But, the Tories strongly supported Blair in both wars!  So it is still significant.  Besides, Baroness Manningham-Buller seems like a credible witness without an axe to grind politically.  She even admitted she did not specifically advise the PM [Blair] about her concerns prior to the war.  So how does this relate to Ron Paul?

Let’s go back to 2007.  The First South Carolina debate.  the mini-debate between Cong. Paul and former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.  Here’s some pertinent items from the Council on Foreign Relations site (yes I am quoting the enemy!  But it helps Ron Paul!) transcript:

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.

We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

 Many laughed and sneered at Paul’s assertion of blowback.  But it appears that he was right again.  Intervention has risks.  It can and should only be used when it is in the national interest.  Liberty and the Ron Paul R3volution are on the march!  Be  encouraged.  Every day more and more come to our position.  Is it 2012 yet?  I can’t wait for that exploratory committee to be formed.

Also Johnson is a serious candidate; a former governor with a stellar record of cutting spending and personal liberty.  He could be President if he had to serve. 

I say this due to the ronpaul.com web site’s poll for who will be VP.  Go vote there.