I am extremely honored to be amongst the highly intelligent and motivated contributors to Jason Peck’s 2010 Sports and Social Media Predictions, and I really wanted to publish a post about it earlier in the week when the predictions first came out, but I also wanted to thoroughly read through the entire docket before writing about it, and I could not do that until now.  I was very quiet about it, but this week were Final Exams, and in law school, studying and taking those exams consumes quite a bit of time.  Anyway, the tests are beyond me, and I can now return to focusing on my business and the business of sports.

So about Peck’s compilation of sports and social media predictions (an embedded downloadable copy may be found at the bottom of this post)…first of all, I love the cover page.  It is creative and aesthetically pleasing.  A few notes based on my readings are below:

• Brian Gainor mentions that 2010 will be defined by the rise of online video and photo sharing.  I personally believe that online video is going to expand tremendously.  From video calls on your phone, to video conferences on the computer, and especially the eventual ease of recording a video and instantly uploading it to social services.  He mentions Flip Video cameras.  I am actually about to unwrap one that I just received in order to do a special Holiday Product Review of it on the blog.  I have a feeling I am going to get good usage out of that little “toy”.
• Dan Beeman says that teams and leagues will attempt to build their own online communities.  I think they need to tread this water carefully.  If they do create unique communities, they will need to be heavily integrated with the big boys (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube).  The key is not trying to defeat them, but instead, how to work with them.
• I won’t comment on my own piece.  Instead, I ask that you leave your comments on this post.
• The Blogs With Balls guys see a consolidation of independent voices in the blogosphere.  I sure hope not.  This site has never become a part of a larger entity, even though there have been some pretty lucrative offers on the table.  Independent voices are needed…isn’t that the main reason why blogs started and became popular in the first place?
• I just really like this passage from Espree Devora: “Surf brand means you’re a surfer right? No, not necessarily. You must establish your brand to stand for something. A cause. Something bigger and selflLESS than selling a pair of board shorts.”
• Joe Favorito sees a shift to localization from the shotgun approach being applied today.  Perhaps that is the route for the lesser known public figures, but not the case for a LeBron James.
• J.W. Cannon sees more red tape coming in the future.  Athletes will be limited to what they can say and do by regulations and PR entities.  How does that affect what I said in my piece?
• Lewis Howes makes a good point: sports entities do not only need to be involved in social media in 2010, they need to find new, creative ways to be involved.
• Pat Coyle says there will be more buying and selling of inventory on social media by teams in 2010, but no crazy boy band money just yet.
• I like Peter Robert Casey’s note that social media will be integrated into athletes’ marketing and sponsorship campaigns.  We are already seeing it done with entities like Danica Patrick.  I think it will only expand in the next year.
• Rob Katz makes a great reference to Geoffrey Moore’s argument in Crossing the Chasm.  The mainstream adopters have joined the early adopters on these social media networks.  Now it’s time to figure out how to make it a successful venture for all involved.
• Russell Scibetti notes that social media engagement is time consuming.  Thus, measurement is necessary to make sure that there is value behind that engagement.
• Ryan Stephens is brilliant when he says that strategies must include more than just slapping a sponsor’s logo on a Twitter page.  It’s all about creativity and integration.  What does the brand specifically like about the athlete it wants to sponsor?  How can that athlete use that particular “likeness” to benefit the brand?  Another good point – it’s not only about the number of Twitter followers you have.
• Steve Cobb discusses the power of contests.  Here is a good way to make an athlete sponsorship more fun than just slapping that logo on his page.  And the athletes can then promote the contest to their followings as well.  I disagree about Ustream’s growth among athletes, though.  This is one area where I think sports agents will wise up and tell their clients to stay away.  It takes a very particular athlete to be able to handle live streaming effectively.  Most athletes aren’t suited for it.
• Trevor Turnbull turns the discussion away from ROI and talks about people, relationships, and trust.  Maybe social media is not how you make the money, it’s how you develop the relationships that will make you money.
• Ty Ahman-Taylor talks about how tweets fall short of capturing the full experience of a game, but at least those updates are better than nothing (if you are not at the game or in front of a TV).

Today I had a chance to check out the first day of the 2009 College Sport Research Institute (CSRI) Conference in Chapel Hill at the Friday Center. It was great hearing about some of the major issues in college sports and meeting some very interesting people. I especially enjoyed meeting Tim Newman (TimNATC on Twitter), who is the Sport Management Program Coordinator at York College of Pennsylvania, and Jeremy Bloom, who gave a great keynote speech from the perspective of a world-class skier and former college/pro football player who was denied two years of collegiate football eligibility because he accepted endorsements in skiing (that was the only way he could afford the costs of competing).

Here are some notes I took from some of the panels today.

Panel 1 – Special Admit Limbo: How Low Can You Go

The discussion centered around the criteria and amount of student-athletes who are admitted into various schools on a sports scholarship, even though they may not meet the minimum academic requirements for that specific school. Pellom McDaniels (Assistant Professor in the History Department at Univ. of Missouri-Kansas and former NFL defensive end) kicked off the discussion by saying that schools need to be selective in choosing who to admit, but careful that they don’t lump special needs athletes into a category where they don’t see their potential. John Blanchard (Senior Associate Athletic Director, UNC-Chapel Hill) said that the US is the only place in the world where athletics and higher education are so closely tied together and that “this is a question no one wants to talk about publicly.” Carie Leger (Director of Academic Support Programs for Athletes, NC State) mentioned that higher education requirements (during the time that athletes are in school) have led to improved graduation rates. Richard Lapchick (Endowed Chair and Director, DeVos Sport Business Program, Univ. of Central Florida) said that this isn’t a new problem and that another big concern should be the disparity between graduation rates of white athletes vs. black athletes (30% higher for white athletes from teams in this year’s Men’s NCAA Basketball tournament).

I was especially interested in how various universities treat “special admits.” At UMKC, McDaniels said athletes aren’t treated any differently than other students in the admissions process–there’s no specific process just for athletes. Blanchard and Leger mentioned that their schools have certain thresholds that athletes must meet to be admitted, but Lapchick said most schools do not operate like this. Lapchick gave the example that 95% of the football players at Univ. of California-Berkley are special admits, compared to just 2% of the general student body, and 94% of football players at Texas A&M are special admits, compared with 8% of the student body.

The APR has changed things to some extent in that coaches don’t want to risk admitting a large number of these athletes, since they risk losing scholarships if their graduation rates suffer. I think a lot of the discussion was good, but the bottom line is that if a coach really wants a “special admit” athlete to come to his/her school, it’s probably going to happen–especially at bigger schools where the coaches have a lot of influence. What do you think?

Panel 2 – ESPNification of College Sport

This panel had a catchy headline, but the discussion really centered around how college sports are being commercialized and how various players (not just ESPN) are using college sports content to generate revenue.

Amy Perko (Executive Director, Knight Commision on Intercollegiate Athletics) said the main issue relates to how various games and content are packaged and sold, and the lines between college and pro sports are becoming more and more blurred. Can universities pull back control of their content and how it is packaged from media companies?

Leonard Moore (Associate Professor of History and Assistant Vice President, Division of Diversity and Community Engagement, Univ. of Texas-Austin) said this is really about how media companies are promoting and exploiting black athletes, specifically male football and basketball players. He referred to National Signing Day as “ESPN’s annual trip to the hood.”

Burke Magnus (SVP for College Sports Programming, ESPN) said the discussion should focus on the balance of what’s good for athletes and what’s good for media companies. Danny Green (valuable member, UNC TAR HEELS, NATIONAL CHAMPIONS) was present to offer his perspective on some of the issues, and Jay Bilas (basketball analyst for ESPN) had some really interesting thoughts on the tension between academics and athletics and commercialism and amateurism.

Some of the discussion centered around whether or not ESPN and other media companies are negatively impacting college sports by televising certain events at certain times. The bottom line is that a media company is never going to say no to access; it should be up to the universities and conferences to establish limits to ensure that sports aren’t over-commercialized. But it’s tough for these players to say no to the money…

Another issue that was discussed was the control that the NCAA has over players’ images, names and likenesses. The NCAA is clearly profiting off certain players and allowing others to make money off them. For example, the NCAA lets players’ numbers and likenesses be used in video games, but won’t let actual names be used, even though everyone essentially knows who these players are. Jay Bilas had the perspective that pure amateurism doesn’t exist anymore, and I tend to agree with him on this. If this is true, should certain players who generate a lot of revenue receive extra benefits, such as not having to pay for insurance against injury? In the very least, I think universities should cover the full cost of attendance, instead of just the cost of a scholarship. What do you think?

Keynote Speech – Jeremy Bloom

Jeremy is a great speaker and is very passionate about his feelings towards the NCAA. And for good reason. He was denied the final two years of his eligibility in college football because he accepted endorsements for skiing. He put forward a great argument about the lack of transparency in the NCAA how the NCAA system is broken. The NCAA makes massive amounts of money off athletes but still considers them amateurs. He stated some of his ideas for improvements and how to help fix the system. Some of these included:

• funding scholarships at the cost of attendance
• taking revenue and putting it in a medical insurance fund for players
• expanding on funds to help former student athletes go to grad school
• giving star athletes special benefits

I don’t have enough knowledge on this subject to comment thoroughly but I do think that something isn’t right when the NCAA, which wouldn’t exist without student athletes, takes a percentage of all dollars generated but doesn’t cover the full cost of attending college for athletes who get scholarships. This is in addition to some other issues which make you wonder if the NCAA really is concerned with what is best for student athletes.

Panel 3 – The College Sports Arms Race – Is There An End In Sight?

This panel focused on discussion of the so-called college sports arms race (paying coaches more, bigger budgets, building new facilities, etc), whether or not this is a problem, and how to deal with it.

Dick Baddour (AD, UNC-Chapel Hill) said that by calling this an “arms race” we assume two things that aren’t necessarily true: 1) this is a new issue and 2) it’s negative. Baddour said that 15 years ago UNC’s athletic budget was 5.4% of the total budget for the university, and today it still makes up about the same percentage.

Robert Malekoff (Professor and Coordinator of Sport Studies, Guilford College) noted that there are many similarities in the way athletic departments operate and the way universities as a whole operate. It’s wrong to look at college sports spending and this “arms race” in a vacuum.

Kelly Mehrtens (AD, UNC-Wilmington) posed an interesting question. “Is it just about athletics?” At the end of the day, it’s about trying to attract the best. From an athletics standpoint, schools do what they can to attract the best coaches and players and from an academic side, they want to attract the smartest students and faculty.

Andrew Zimbalist (Robert A. Woods Professor of Economics, Smith College) noted that revenue and expenses of both FBS football teams and overall universities have grown at roughly the same rate from 2004-2006. He noted that the salaries of coaches from the top 32 FBS football teams and top 30 basketball teams are similar to their NFL and NBA coach counterparts, even though these pro teams generate much more money than college teams. So, coaches are essentially getting paid much more than they’re really worth.

Merhtens said there’s no way to really put a ceiling on coach salaries, and most people tended to agree with that. It would take an act of congress or the NCAA asking for antitrust exemption for them to be able to regulate this.

Most panelists agreed that they don’t see this arms race stopping anytime soon, and it’s not just a D1 issue. Some universities have tried to justify increased spending by saying they operate independently and are profitable. But most panelists agreed that it’s almost impossible to figure out how many athletic departments are actually profitable (The NCAA says six are), due to differences in accounting practices.

—–

There were some great discussions and ideas presented today at the CSRI Conference. The majority of these discussions focused on issues facing sports at the D1 level, probably because that is the level that gets the most visibility. But it’s important to remember that D2 and D3 schools exist, and they make up a large portion of college sports as well. A lot of the issues discussed don’t have as much relevance to the lower levels. That doesn’t mean they’re not important, but we should remember that you can’t over-generalize too much when throwing around issues in college sports, since some of these only affect certain schools, players and levels.

Football

• D-Rov doesn’t think the AFL will ever come back [The End Of The Arena Football League?].
• The NFL seems to have instituted a very liberal fining policy [NFL players’ tab for fines up 22% over last season, union says].

Sports Business

• SBJ released some new rankings.  Condon and Boras can be found on the back-end of the list [50 Most Influential people in sports business 2008].
• Jason Peck gives us a shout out in this solid piece [Sports and Social Media in 2009 - My Predictions].

Baseball

• A nice distraction from studying for final exams.  If you do not get them all, you should probably pick a new industry [Major League Teams].
• Yeah, but hindsight is 20/20 [Tony's Top 5 worst pitching contracts in baseball].
• More players flood the free agent market [Non-Tendered Players Become Free Agents].

Basketball

• Bonzi hoping to boost his image in China [Former NBA bad boy Bonzi Wells lands in China].

Hockey

• The NHL’s way of saying, Happy Holidays! [NHL roster freeze begins Friday].

Sports Agents

Honestly, a sports agent’s work is really never complete. There are not enough hours in a single day to accomplish everything that a sports agent could potentially do for his clients. In today’s business, a sports agent has new duties, which include: find endorsements, organize charity events and set up meet-and-greets with potential love interests. Book travel arrangements, arrange financial services and put a spin on controversy. Besides finding the endorsements, the rest is done free of charge…talk about pro bono work! As an agent, you now must also wear some other hats, those being: life coach, business advisor and wish granter. If you are not willing to add these jobs to the traditional role of being an agent, then it is time to find the door. You are replaceable, bottom line. There are too many hungry, greedy, starving agents out there looking to poach your clients the second you slip. Do everything you can to meet what the profession currently demands of you and then think outside of the box to do even more.

For instance, Jason Peck brings up the idea of adding transparency to your business. Advantages include your potential clients knowing more about you at the outset, creation of trust, and others valuing your honesty. All three elements sound good to me. Peck gives a shout out to Dynasty Athlete Representation as being the only sports agency that he knows of that is in the business of blogging. And I will agree with Peck that most of my success thus far with Dynasty stems from the fact that I decided to start this blog and make my agency transparent. I have nothing to hide, and I believe that there is a lot of equity in this blog other than the money obtained from the sponsors located on the right sidebar of this page. This is my way of thinking outside of the box to bring a new element to the business of sports representation. It allows me to stay abreast of current sports agent issues, build connections with others in the industry, promote my clients, and much more. How will you shift the balance of power in this profession?

By the way, go ahead and friend Dynasty on MySpace.

When will the social network bubble burst? Has it already been popped? I do not really know anybody who uses any social friending site other than Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace or possibly Plaxo, on a frequent basis. That surely has not deterred CAA, MLB Advanced Media, and a company called Pequot Ventures to form a new youth sports social network. WePlay.com is geared towards athletes between the ages of 6-16, their parents, and their coaches.

WePlay.com’s mission: to enable and enhance the joy of sports for kids, families, coaches and fans both online and on the field. What the hell does that mean? Oh wait…read down a couple of paragraphs on the press release: young athletes can create profiles, blogs and fan clubs, play games, connect with friends and create a highlight reel. How innovative! Children are already doing all of this on MySpace.

Their business platform is to find revenue in advertisements on the WePlay.com site (how innovative…sarcasm). It seems like 5,000 new social networks sprout up every day with this same goal in mind. Create a social network for a niche group of people, don’t make them pay to be members, and make money off of advertisements. My guess is that most of the sites fizzle out after making pennies. Why do CAA, MLB Advanced Media and this Pequot group believe that WePlay.com will be any different?

For one, Derek Jeter, Peyton Manning, LeBron James, and Tony Parker are among its athlete founders. Will the endorsement of those athletes and whatever equity they have in the venture be enough to make it successful? It seems that their backing has allowed WePlay.com to generate a bunch of buzz thus far, even making a story on SportsAgentBlog.com! But what about longterm? When the hype dies in a week, will the site survive?

It definitely has strong financial backing behind it. The site has already been financed with $4.5 million dollars. Personally, I do not care how much money you have behind something, if the idea stinks and is not innovative, it is destined to fail (or at least not be profitable). Like my colleague Jason Peck over at Take a Peck, I took WePlay.com for a short test drive. I understand that it is only in Beta, but I was thoroughly unimpressed. I agree with Jason, it is early on in the game for WePlay.com and I should wait a little while before I get too critical. But from what I see as their mission and their original product, I think this is a wrong move by all parties involved in its success (however, there is no loss to the athletes that do not invest any money into it).