NBA Draft.net | Michael McCann Interview

Michael McCann Interview
By: Aran Smith
3/17/04



Michael McCann

Michael A. McCann is a visiting scholar/researcher at Harvard Law School and author of the critically-acclaimed law review article "Illegal Defense: The Irrational Economics of Banning High School Players from the NBA Draft." As discussed in Illegal Defense, Michael McCann proposes what is now being regarded as the McCann Theory: "Banning premiere high school players from the NBA Draft would be irrational, both for those players and for the NBA, since those players are self-selected and almost always exceptionally talented, and since the NBA's economic system provides incentives for them to seek entrance into the NBA as soon as possible. In turn, since those players are often the most talented, they tend to develop at a higher and faster rate than other NBA players, and thus their earlier arrival - and longer stay - ultimately benefits the NBA and its fans. At the same time, those high school players better off going to college tend to go to college because the NBA's economic system provides incentives for them to do so. In short, then, high school players have proven to be the best group of players entering the NBA because the NBA's economic system dictates that very outcome."

Holding degrees from Georgetown University and the University of Virginia School of Law, Michael McCann has been quoted in numerous news outlets, including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and MSNBC.com. He has also published articles in Yale Law School and Virginia Law School law reviews, and, on April 19th, he will be speaking at the University of Virginia School of Law on his article and Clarett v. NFL.

1) Some observers believe that you have written one of the most influential sports & economics law review pieces in years, and that your article will significantly impact the upcoming labor negotiations between the NBA and the Players' Association. What role do you expect to play in these upcoming negotiations?

Michael McCann: I'll play whatever role I'm asked to play, and I'd be honored to do so. As with most collective bargaining negotiations, prospective employees often have no one at the bargaining table, so illuminating their interests is important to ensure the protection of their career opportunities. In this case, those prospective employees are premiere high school basketball players.

2) Is it fair then to describe the McCann Theory as the theory that young athletes should skip school and earn as much money as soon as possible, otherwise they would be acting irrationally? Also, how will your theory impact the future of pro sports?

Michael McCann: Well, I would phrase my idea a little bit differently. For one, it should be stressed that the vast majority of young athletes should not only stay in school, but they should take school very seriously. This is true because only a tiny fraction of young athletes will ever earn a dollar playing sports; instead, their grades and their commitment to working hard in school will likely play the greatest predictor in how well they'll do in life.

That said, I hope my article reveals a fundamental flaw in the common belief that premiere young athletes are better off having their economic opportunities denied rather than enabled. These athletes are fundamentally different from all other young athletes, not only because they possess the ability to earn income playing sports, but because that ability is 1) worth so much more to them than any of their other abilities, and 2) only available during a relatively brief period of their lives.

Look at it this way: Since the ability to play pro sports is one that typically lasts no longer than 10 years, every year which that ability is not utilized is roughly equivalent to any one of us not working for at least 4 or 5 years, since most of us will be working for about 50 years. In other words, it's extremely costly, particularly given the risk of serious injury - at any moment in any game - that can obliterate one's ability to play pro sports, thus transforming a premiere athlete into, at best, a normal athlete who can't earn an dime playing the game.

Also, I hope that my article demonstrates that the very economic systems collectively-bargained by leagues and their players' associations often encourage such premiere young athletes to pursue employment at a young age, rather than creating incentives for them to avoid such employment.

Taken together, then, declaring pro at the earliest possible age is often in the best interest of premiere young athletes, as well as logically consistent with the objectives set forth by the collectively-bargained economic systems in which they seek to participate. So, for those premiere young athletes, to do otherwise would indeed be irrational.

3) For our readers, if you could define the McCann Theory in a brief statement, what would you say?

Michael McCann: Well, however it's now being labeled, this is how I would define it: Banning premiere high school players from the NBA Draft would be irrational, both for those players and for the NBA, since those players are self-selected and almost always exceptionally talented, and since the NBA's economic system provides incentives for them to seek entrance into the NBA as soon as possible. In turn, since those players are often the most talented, they tend to develop at a higher and faster rate than other NBA players, and thus their earlier arrival - and longer stay - ultimately benefits the NBA and its fans. At the same time, those high school players better off going to college tend to go to college because the NBA's economic system provides incentives for them to do so. In short, then, high school players have proven to be the best group of players entering the NBA because the NBA's economic system dictates that very outcome.

4) What inspired you to write the article and develop this theory? Was it an academic project, or personal interest? Also, how long did it take to complete the article?

Michael McCann: I initially came up with the idea right before the 2001 NBA Draft. At the time, I had read a number of newspaper stories criticizing the ability of high school players like Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, and Eddy Curry to participate in the Draft, and how their participation was somehow harmful to both them individually and to the NBA. These stories would often say something to the effect of, "for every Kobe Bryant, there are two or three Korleone Youngs" and how history showed that high school players tended to fail in the NBA. I was honestly struck by the fact that no one seemed willing or interested to challenge this assertion, and I was curious to see if it was indeed correct. After conducting preliminary research, I soon realized that this assertion was woefully wrong, and, in all likelihood, had only become accepted as fact because it was repeated and repeated until it became recognized as such.

The actual opportunity to write the first version of the article did not arise until January of 2002. At the time, I was in my final year as a student at the University of Virginia School of Law, and I was enrolled in a sports law course taught by Donald Dell, who was the founder of ProServ and is now senior vice president of Clear Channel Communications. Although the course required an examination, Donald was intrigued by the topic, and allowed me to write a paper for him. After several months of research and writing, I published the first version of the article in the Virginia Sports & Entertainment Law Journal in the summer of 2002.

After I was invited to join Harvard Law School's Visiting Scholar/Researcher program last fall, I decided to write an updated and enhanced version of the article and re-publish it with the Virginia Sports & Entertainment Law Journal. This second version features new analysis, as well as a series of graphics and charts. I was particularly interested to see if the reader could grasp the article merely by observing its' pictorial content; I have become increasingly convinced of the value of graphical displays in written works.

Both versions of the article took extensive amounts of time; taken together, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 to 300 hours. Admittedly, I tend to belabor over small details, so I spent a significant amount of time maximizing the article's presentation style, as well ensuring the precision and accuracy of its content - I imagine I was something like a movie director before he completes a film. While the article indeed took a long time to complete to my satisfaction, I firmly believe it was time well spent.

5) Critics of your theory claim that a player like Korleone Young is a prime example of why a ban on high school players makes sense. How do you respond?

Michael McCann: You're right - many people regard Korleone Young as a "failure" because he was a second round pick in 1998 and only played one season in the NBA. Well, first off, bear in mind that at age 19, he earned $289,750 to play in the NBA. Had he never earned another dollar playing basketball, he could have returned to college at age 20 with plenty of money in the bank - and certainly more money than any 20 year old that I knew in college.

Instead, however, Young has continued to play basketball professionally over the past five years, earning between $50,000 and $100,000 per year to live abroad and play two or three basketball games a week for eight months of the year.

Now, let's compare Young's earnings to the median salary for single males in the United States ($31,267), or the median starting salary for college graduates ($41,000). Or, how about we compare his 30 hour work week schedule for 8 months of the year to that of the average American, who works an average of 43 hours a week, 11 months a year.

In other words, although Young enjoys neither the fruits of an NBA career nor the rewards of a college education, he works substantially less to earn considerably more than does the average American. And, to top it off, he gets to play basketball while doing it. Now, how is he a failure?

6) Okay, how about Taj McDavid - how does he fit your theory?

Michael McCann: I know - we've all read the unfortunate story: Taj McDavid went undrafted in the 1996 NBA Draft, and returned home to Williamstown, South Carolina, where he lives with his parents in their mobile home, refuses to answer the phone, and can often be found playing pick up basketball.

However, construing McDavid's plight as some kind of warning to today's premier high school basketball players seems to ignore a very important fact: Unlike all of those players, Division I college basketball programs did not pursue McDavid. For one, he would have been academically ineligible to play his first season, though had he been recruited, a college could have simply red-shirted him for one season, thus allowing him time to overcome his academic failings. Yet, strikingly, not even one Division I college basketball program expressed interest in offering him an athletic scholarship. It should come as no surprise, then, that NBA teams, European teams, and minor league teams were not interested in him either. And, none of this is startling, since McDavid, who only played in South Carolina's third best high school basketball conference, excelled against inferior high school basketball players.

On a more basic level, then, if McDavid was not good enough to play Division I college basketball, then declaring for the NBA Draft came at no expense: He only lost the eligibility for something which he was already incapable of obtaining.

Let me put it this way: McDavid's declaring the NBA Draft had the same practical effect on his Division I basketball career that my declaring for the NBA Draft after high school would have had on my Division I basketball career. And I was a back-up point guard on a high school intramural team.

7) Kobe Bryant is now the focus of a major criminal proceeding. Are his legal troubles the result of not going to college?

Michael McCann: It's interesting that when Kobe Bryant was 22 years old, he was praised for his uncanny maturity, such as helping out the Los Angeles Big Brothers and Big Sisters club. Yet, at 26 years old, the fact that he did not go to college suddenly explains all of his legal troubles. It's preposterous, really. Think about it: How can not going to college explain how a player with a squeaky clean image from ages 18 to 25 would suddenly run into trouble at age 26? The reality is that more recent factors or circumstances have intervened and changed his behavior, to the extent that he is actually guilty of any crimes.

I don't know. It seems that many smart people are latching onto less meaningful factors in Kobe Bryant's past in order to conveniently explain his current situation. But if they took the time to really think about it, it just wouldn't add up.

8) The NBA is a private league, and some might argue that as a private company, it has the right to implement whatever rules it sees fit, including some type of age ban. Considering that basketball players could play professionally in the minor leagues or in Europe, couldn't high school players banned from the NBA but not interested in attending college play instead in those other venues for a couple of years and still earn a good income?

Michael McCann: First off, you're right - the NBA is an unincorporated association comprised of privately-owned teams. And because it is such an entity, the NBA can already unilaterally impose rules as it sees fit. However, there is an important catch: According to federal antitrust law, many of those rules would fall under its scrutiny, rather than had they been collectively-bargained with the players' association, in which case they would not fall under the comparatively restrictive antitrust laws. I regard antitrust laws as critical to our economy, because they preserve sufficient economic competition in the market place, and prevent monopolistic behavior by a dominant entity.

Now, regarding the ability of 18 and 19 year old American basketball players to earn comparable income outside of the NBA, sure, those players could earn income playing in the CBA or abroad. But the financial difference between playing in the NBA and playing in those venues isn't really a matter of apples and oranges.

It's more like apples and Tic-Tacs.

Look, the average NBA player salary is about $4.9 million, the minimum salary is $367,000, and top players sign contracts for about $15 million a season. How well do the stars in the International Basketball Association do? How about a maximum salary of $100,000. Now, the American Basketball Association is a little bit better - it pays an average salary of roughly $200,000. So how about playing in Europe? You'll probably do a little bit better there than in minor league basketball, particularly if you are a star player, but you certainly won't be making anywhere near NBA money. Plus, the disparity becomes enlarged when endorsement opportunities are considered: Would LeBron James have secured endorsement contracts worth $110 million if he was playing for the Thames Valley Tigers in England instead of the Cleveland Cavaliers?

Also, let's look at this a little bit deeper: With any age ban, how are the affected players actually better off if they opt not to go college but instead play in the minors or abroad? That is, if the NBA is genuinely interested in their welfare, why would they propose a plan that would either essentially ship off 18 year old kids to foreign lands for two years, or keep them in the U.S., but then deprive them - and their families - of 80-90% of what they would have earned had they been able to play in the NBA?

9) Some media critics find that the NBA is no longer enjoyable to watch. Do you agree with that, and, if so, are more high school players in the NBA the cause?

Michael McCann: I have heard that from some, but I very much enjoy watching the NBA, especially as I follow the development of young stars like LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, and Tracy McGrady. Plus, despite the perception that the NBA has become less enjoyable to watch, the numbers tell a vastly different story. In fact, according to Commissioner David Stern, television ratings, attendance, merchandise sales, and gate receipts are all up from the 2002-03 season. I suspect much of that has to do with fans' natural gravitation towards young phenoms, just like when basketball fans gravitated towards Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan when they were younger players. Also, just take a look at the effect LeBron James has had on local television ratings for Cavaliers' games: Some estimates indicate an increase of close to 200% from the 2002-03 season.

Now, to the extent that the game has changed for the worse over the past 5-10 years, I would argue that much of that has to do with visually unappealing (though largely successful) coaching schemes, particularly the defensive-focused/slow-down-the-pace strategies that have been employed by the likes of Pat Riley, the Van Gundy brothers, Jim O'Brien, and Hubie Brown. Plus, the NBA's Board of Governors recently voted to allow zone defenses, which, as we have too often seen in college, can enhance the play of mediocre players at the expense of star players, thus creating a diluted product. Actually, if you are interested, there is an excellent account of the incorporation of zone defense in the NBA and related phenomena by Walter Sun of MIT.

10) How do you respond to the common belief that with so many high school to NBA players, the NBA is being populated by less respectful and mature players?

Michael McCann: Actually, I find it rather remarkable that, when compared to a number of NBA players with college degrees (e.g. Latrell Sprewell; Damon Stoudamire; Ruben Patterson), NBA players without college educations have been, by in large, a model group of citizens. On that point, let's turn to some of the facts, rather than popular generalizations. Specifically, of the 29 high school players who have declared for the NBA Draft, only Ellis Richardson, DeShawn Stevenson, and Kobe Bryant have had criminal charges brought against them, and in the case of Stevenson, those charges were subsequently dropped.

Quite the opposite, in fact, many of the 29 players have been praised for their work in the community. For instance, Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry have worked with underprivileged children in Chicago, while Al Harrington has been an active member of a group of Pacers who visit elementary schools and read stories to students.

Plus, teams can make lives easier for high school to NBA players, just like the Minnesota Timberwolves did with Kevin Garnett by arranging social outings for him with local college basketball players.

Also, to be perfectly blunt, what exactly is the "value" of a college education when Division I college basketball players are often expected to spend at least 40 hours a week practicing, lifting weights, attending team meetings, traveling, and playing? I know that when I was in college, school rules explicitly discouraged students from working more than 10 hours a week because doing so was thought to interfere with our studies. Yet, at the same time, our peers on the basketball team were expected to put in about 40 hours of work a week - or about 4 times the maximum number of hours that the rest of us were encouraged to work. So, by implication then, the studies of basketball players must have been determined to be about 4 times less important as those of non-basketball players. And this not unusual - I suspect this phenomenon occurs at just about every Division I college, be it in basketball or football.

11) Particularly in light of the holding in Clarett v. NFL, do you feel that the NBA and NFL should employ different rules for age entrance, especially considering that an injury is more likely to end a career of an 18 year old playing football rather than basketball?

Michael McCann: While I agree that an 18 year old playing in the NFL is more likely to suffer an injury than an 18 year old playing in the NBA, I think we should look more deeply into the issue. That is, it's not really so much an "age" issue as it is a physical-preparedness issue. And, to be honest, the NFL already recognizes that in two distinct ways. Let me explain this point in some detail.

First, let's take the ability the ability of current amateur football players to request an "NFL Evaluation," in which NFL personnel directors project their draft potential. This very type of evaluation was requested by Maryland defensive tackle Randy Starks prior to declaring for the 2004 NFL Draft. Likewise, Arizona State quarterback Andrew Wyatt recently decided to return for his senior year after consulting with the NFL regarding his likely draft prospects. I suspect there are countless other examples of amateur football players engaging in consultations with NFL officials prior to declaring (or not declaring) for the NFL Draft. Interestingly, this type of engagement appears similar to that employed by the NBA and its Director of Scouting Marty Blake, who provides such advice to amateur basketball players (including high school players). Moreover, I imagine that there are myriad informal channels (e.g., contacts between high school/college/NFL coaches and scouts) that provide similar sources of advice for amateur football players.

So, wouldn't an arbitrary 18 year old age ban seem inapposite with the extensive efforts already employed by the NFL and its teams to provide individualized advice to amateur players? Sure, amateur players can always decline the advice, but I suspect most (and their parents and confidants) give it serious consideration. This seems especially true if a hypothetical is employed: Say a top high school football player sought an NFL Evaluation and was told that he would not be drafted, would it then be rational for him to declare for the NFL Draft rather than play for Miami or Syracuse or some other great college football program? I think if we look to the history of the NBA and high school basketball players, the answer is no: High school basketball players have proven to be the best age cohort to enter the NBA simply because they have the most to gain if such evaluations are correct (i.e., extending career earnings curve and access to unrestricted free agency sooner) and the most to lose is such evaluations are wrong (i.e., forfeiting a college scholarship and the opportunity to play Division I college basketball - if they sign with an agent). For these reasons, the draft market (both for players and teams) already provides far superior evaluations than could any arbitrary measure.

But there is a second reason to consider: The extraordinarily extensive pre-draft evaluations of those players eligible to be drafted. That is, to the extent an amateur player eligible for the NFL Draft is cognitively/psychologically prepared to play in the NFL, the significance of being 18 years of age (or having a high school diploma) is superseded by the extensive cognitive/psychological evaluations conducted by NFL personnel prior to the draft.

Moreover, pre-draft screening interviews, along with professional back-ground checks and review of high school and combine tapes, provide additional insight into the player's cognitive/psychological capabilities - and such insight is uniquely tailored to measure the ability of that player to succeed in the NFL. In effect, then, these pre-draft evaluations already provide a ban of players - of any age - unfit to play in the NFL. In fact, such evaluations do a substantially more thorough and more refined job of screening job applicants than could any arbitrary ban (e.g., high school diploma or 18 years of age), simply because NFL teams have a uniquely lucrative market incentive to do so, whereas an arbitrary ban could only, by definition, provide an inherently less accurate proxy.

Look at it this way: If the U.S. Government conducted these types of tests to determine whether certain individuals under the age of 18 possess the requisite maturity to vote, then we simply wouldn't have an 18 year floor rule for voting - Why would we have a proxy if we can employ the real thing? We wouldn't.

Now, to the extent such arbitrary rules would be needed to protect individuals under 18 (or individuals without a high school degree) from physical injury, I would argue along these same lines: The extraordinarily extensive pre-draft evaluations should weed out those players deemed by NFL teams to be physically incapable of playing in the NFL, since they wouldn't be drafted. Now, I imagine someone reading this transcript is going to say, "Look, if those evaluations are wrong, then some kid could get killed getting tackled by Ray Lewis or Warren Sapp etc." In response, I would say that NFL teams have market incentives to only play those players physically fit. For one, they'll lose games unless they play their best players - and not their best players of tomorrow, but their best players of today. Second, because they have invested resources in developing their younger players, it would be irrational to risk losing them to serious injury since it would waste the investment. Along those lines, that's why there are collectively-bargained alternative methods (e.g., practice squads or seasonal player allocations to NFL Europe) to develop such ripe players.

Taken together, then, these two procedural safeguards provide substantially more accurate evaluations than would inherently less accurate proxies, such as an age floor or a high school diploma. Equally important, these two procedural safeguards already exist because NFL teams have an extreme competitive incentive to accurately project the professional abilities - including maturity - of amateur players.

12) Many people are unwilling to publicly discuss this aspect of the age debate, but how does race play a role?

Michael McCann: Race is always hard to measure, because to the extent that it is misused, it is usually based on motive and intention, which can often be camouflaged by pretext. That said, it is troubling that much of the public outcry towards 18 year old NBA rookies has been directed towards African-Americans in that group rather than their European counterparts. Also, to be perfectly honest, I find it both unfortunate and reflective of larger, underlying social issues that while 18 year old Canadian kids can play in the NHL without much apparent concern about their maturity, many express grave worry about the prospect of 18 year old African-American kids playing in the NBA.

13) What has been the reaction to your piece?

Michael McCann: I have generally received very favorable reactions, and I'm very grateful to each person who has contacted me to share his or her opinion. I hope I continue to receive such feedback. I've also been interested to see how many people now plan to further research and write about my article topic, or even apply my thesis to other sports. Perhaps there is a new area of study emerging, and I'd be honored if that is the case. For instance, Jeff Feinstein of the George Washington University Sports Management Program plans to study the lifestyles of both premiere high school players at private boarding schools and premiere college players, and then compare these two groups with respect to their degree of preparedness for life as an NBA player.

14) Let's turn to several other issues in basketball. Do you see the NBA expanding into Europe or South America?

Michael McCann: For a number of reasons, I really don't, at least not in the next 5 to 10 years. For one, the NBA would need consent from the Players' Association, and I suspect many players would be leery of such extended travel for games.

Second, I wonder which, if any, foreign cities could sustain an NBA franchise over a 10-15 year period? Sure, for the first season or two, many fans in, say, London or Mexico City would be intrigued by having their own team, largely because it would be the "new thing." That novelty, however, would likely wear off after a couple of years, especially when the team is not playing well. Just ask the Vancouver Grizzlies. Sorry - I mean the Memphis Grizzlies. Then it comes down to whether these franchises could generate and preserve interest amongst sports fans in markets dominated by either more established sports (e.g., soccer) or existing-and quite successful-basketball leagues (e.g., FIBA).

Third, it may be difficult to attract players to play for those teams. I remember when Kenny Anderson refused to play for the Raptors and when Steve Francis refused to play for the Grizzlies - only because they didn't want to go to Canada. Would more players feel that way if they were traded to the Mexico City Fuego or the London Bombers? Probably.

Fourth, and this is a bit more speculative, but with the globalization of pro sports, and with the ability of more and more people to watch American sports on television and to follow them on the Internet, is it possible that foreign NBA fans could just as easily become fans of current teams, rather than needing their own franchises? I honestly don't know, but I think it is a point deserving further exploration.

All of that said, the NBA deserves enormous credit for attracting so many fans abroad, and, in a larger sense, expanding the sport of basketball. For the reasons I just mentioned, however, that popularity probably does not yet equate to a sound business decision to place an NBA franchise abroad.

15) I understand that you are diehard Celtics fan. How do you feel about the Danny Ainge Era?

Michael McCann: Tough question. I applaud Danny Ainge for pursuing a clear vision: Create an up-tempo basketball team in the mold of the Sacramento Kings. And though I admired former head coach Jim O'Brien's remarkable ability to take a lottery-talent team into the playoffs two straight years, his unyielding reliance on three pointers and slow-down defense did not make for a particularly entertaining product. So, on the surface, Ainge appears to have the right strategy to restore fan interest in a franchise that has been mired in its past glory, and, to be honest, has been stuck on a lost track since the day Larry Bird retired.

However, I'm not sure that Ainge has most-effectively translated his vision onto the court. For instance, by selecting (through Jerry West) Marcus Banks with the 13th pick in the 2003 Draft, Ainge secured the up-tempo point guard he was seeking. However, did Marcus Banks warrant such a high selection? I found it interesting that until it became known a few weeks prior to the Draft that Ainge was interested in Banks, many publications had projected Banks as a late first or even second round pick. Perhaps not surprisingly, he has struggled a great deal this year. I also question of the wisdom of proclaiming Banks the starter before the start of training camp. Granted, talented point guards often struggle during their rookie seasons and then blossom after a few years - and as a Celtics fan, I should already know that after watching the emergence of Chauncey Billups in another team's uniform. I just hope that Banks' talents really warranted such a high draft pick, though.

Also, take the Antoine Walker trade to Dallas. While I was not opposed to the concept of trading Walker, I would have hoped to receive more compensation for a 27 year old All-Star (and the second best Celtics player over the last 10 years) than Raef Lafrentz's large contract and questionable knees. Just how does a player with chronically-balky knees really fit into an up-tempo offense? Granted, Jiri Welsch has been a very pleasant surprise, and the Mavericks' first round pick this year, which the Celtics received in the deal, is looking more like a pick in the 20-23 range rather than 27-30. But I still think the Mavericks made out best in that trade.

The one deal that I really liked, yet the one that has been most often ridiculed is the Eric Williams, Tony Battie, and Kedrick Brown trade for Ricky Davis, Chris Mihm, and Michael Stewart. First off, too many people seem obsessed with Ricky Davis' regrettable decision last year to go for a triple-double on his own basket. It was a bad decision, no doubt, but I think some people need to let it go, and forgive him.

I'd rather look at Davis and the trade this way: If Ricky Davis had no particular reputation as a person, then there is no way the Celtics could have obtained him for so little in return. I mean that - ask yourself this question: How many 24 year olds have already averaged 21 points, 6 rebounds, and 5 assists per game in the NBA? I suspect very few, probably fewer than 10. And, interestingly enough, that list does not include either Lamar Odom or Richard Jefferson - neither came close to doing it. So, the logical inference is that, at the time of the trade, Davis' market value was significantly lower than it would been if he had no reputation, and, thus, if his reputation were to improve from below-average to average while a member of the Celtics, then his market value would escalate dramatically - even if his playing ability were to remain constant.

And, you're right, I do watch the Celtics very closely. And in my opinion, since he joined the team, Ricky Davis has been as much of a team player as have any of his teammates. He dives for balls. He hustles. And, contrary to public opinion, he generally doesn't take selfish shots; interestingly, in fact, he's shooting 48.2% from the field with the Celtics, while his more lauded teammates Paul Pierce (39.9%) and Jiri Welsch (43.4%) have either clearly taken more bad shots or aren't as adept at shooting.

Here's the bottom line: If Davis continues to mature as a Celtic, then Ainge would have pulled off a steal, because Davis' value as a trading commodity would have gone way up from the time when he was obtained. And that's smart front office work: Identify and isolate variables that diminish a player's market value, but are actually unrelated to his talent or work ethic - so that diminishment is a bonafide market inefficiency worth exploiting.

16) You are a distinguished graduate of Georgetown University. How do you feel about the current state of Georgetown men's basketball program?

Michael McCann: Very disappointed, in short. It appears that recruiting has become unimportant, and I no longer feel that the program is fully committed to providing students, alumni, and fans an elite Division 1 team. How can any credible Division 1 team lose to a St. John's team with only five scholarship players? It's embarrassing, really, especially when in the last 20 years, this program has featured dynamic players like Allen Iverson and Alonzo Mourning. How they have fallen so quickly, and so far, is a mystery to me.

Also, since the Hoyas play in the spacious MCI Center rather than at an on-campus facility, I believe the home court advantage is mostly lost in the sea of empty seats. Expensive as they may be, I hope the University explores ways to bring the team back on-campus.

17) What are your career plans following the conclusion of your scholar position at Harvard Law School? Do you expect to continue to write about economics and sports law? And, how do you follow up such a highly-regarded work like Illegal Defense?

Michael McCann: Ideally, I would like to become a tenure-track law professor engaged in the study of law and economics, antitrust, health law, sports law, and international law, among other areas of the law. So, yes, I would like to remain involved in the study of sports law/sports economics, or perhaps engaged in the practice of it.

I am currently writing an article on obesity-related class action lawsuits and nutritional labeling requirements, and I'm working very hard to ensure that it is also well-received.

18) So, if a sports team, league, or sports agency/law firm called you tomorrow and offered you a position, you wouldn't accept it?

Michael McCann: Oh, I would certainly give it serious consideration. While I very much enjoy the pursuit of scholarly works, the prospect of being involved in pro sports, either from a business or legal standpoint, would be very appealing and worthy of exploration.

Below is Michael McCann's 88 page Law Article:
Illegal Defense: The Irrational Economics of Banning High School Players from the NBA Draft

Click here to E-mail Michael McCann