« Paper of Record | Main | Comments - Three Strikes »

February 28, 2007



I think I'm against the "three strikes rule"... although I reserve the right to be convinced otherwise.

Two reasons:

Point one: Efforts like these reduce the supply of labor (i.e. kick out bad players... in the end, there are less players in the pool). On the surface, this might benefit the players (less supply, constant demand). This could drive up wages (for those allowed to play). But... the owners compete against each other. If they are all competing for the same players, there is no incentive to drive up wages. (every team will have 3 superstars instead of 4). As long as there enough supply to ensure parity, wages stay constant and the owners benefit from better PR. The only people who suffer are those who "strike out."

Point two: What scares me about "three strikes" rules are that they fail to recognize the police state that many public schools have become. How many more public schools have cops (or sheriff's deputies) in them to police the halls than they did 20 years ago? Truency, hall fights, contraband possession: these things used to be handled by principles and school administrators. Now, these things go straight to the police. Think of the "school" type infractions that can lead kids to have a criminal record before they even graduate. Sure, those records can get expunged when they turn 18. But do you think NFL criminal background checks wont look for them?

"Well," you might ask, "then people were just getting off easy before. 20 years ago kids were breaking laws but didn't pay the price. " True. But, law enforcement don't patrol _every_ school. Private schools don't have cops. Some public schools do. And which public schools are more likely to have them?

So I'm not sure if this is going to benefit current players. It will minimally benefit the owners. And it will make the negative consequences of the policing of public schools more pronounced.

The comments to this entry are closed.