NCAA Paying College Athletes...

With the Final Four starting today, it seems like a good time to spew my thoughts on paying college athletes.  Notice: this is not the hashed-out version of my rant, just a glimpse.

In short, I'm against it. The big money maker is football.  Programs such as Nebraska, Alabama, Florida and USC can bring in millions of dollars.  On top of that, television contracts with such schools adds more dough to that pile.  The common argument in favor of paying athletes is that they are part of the product that sells, so they should get a cut. Otherwise, they are just free labor. Well, for one, no they aren't (free education and room/board).  Also, free labor (when not forced) is called "volunteering".  They don't have to do it.

Let's look a bit closer.

• No one is forcing athletes to compete in college.  They are free to pursue other scholarships, grants, etc if they so choose
• Other scholarship students (let's say in engineering) do not enjoy free marketing and promotion. Athletes, especially in football and basketball, have their skills displayed on TV
• College athletes are on scholarship*, they get a free education as their payment.  IF they leave school early, that's their loss
• Athletes are in no position to demand anything. A university offers an opportunity for students...students...to compete athletically.  Just because some organizations pay people to play a sport, doesn't mean colleges are suppose to do the same

Now, if the proponent argument contains a notion that since a lot of money is being made, then it should be shared, I would agree.  But why does it have to go to the athletes?  Why not stipulate that a large % of revenue goes back to the school--for scholarships, buildings, overall improvement--or to the community, which no doubt shares the burden of student life?  Maybe allocate a good portion to education and research?  How immoral would that be....?

It's a ridiculous argument to say that football (for example) makes so much money and the athletes get none of it is wrong. If they don't like it, they can leave. A retort might state, "well, how else will they get an education?"  Please, how many leave early anyway?  And, is money THAT important?  Athletics, especially team sports, teaches a whole lot more than just how to make money. 

Bottom line for me:  athletes do get paid.  They get free education, learn lessons while competing, and receive free marketing.  And they can always refuse to do so.

* It should be noted that most student-athletes probably receive partial or no scholarship, but they make it work.  Perhaps a bigger slice of the revenue should go to them?

What's More Important: Definitions or Beer?

What is a gypsy brewer?  How do they differ from regular brewers? Should they be held with the same regard as regular brewers?  These questions have come up, either directly or indirectly, in a recent blog from a brewer in Massachusetts. A gypsy brewer (or contract brewer) is one who uses other breweries' equipment to brew his/her beer.  Mikkeller is probably the most commonly known one, but there are many others. So why are they getting some heat?

The gist is that gypsy brewers are not real brewers since they do not brew the beer themselves and/or are not present when their beer is brewed. They do not own brick and mortar localities and rely on the talents of others for brewing their recipes. Financially, they have not invested or risked as much as those regular brewers, which makes them seem as just trying to get a piece of the pie with less effort.

These are opinions, based on facts.  It is a fact that gypsy brewers use equipment that is not theirs (or the bank's). It is true that sometimes they are not present when their beer is brewed. The opinions rise from there. 

But what is also true is the common claim, by brewers, that beer isn't beer until the yeast has done it's job: brewers make wort, yeast makes beer.  So, who are the real brewers?  Ok, so this is nitpicking a bit.  Yet, I think it's important to acknowledge the whole process before rendering opinions of absolute labeling.

Of course, we could look at new technologies and ask ourselves who the brewers really are. Push button computer software can follow the progress of the brewing cycle and make minute changes when need to follow a recipe. Some software can even be overseen and controlled off premise: that is, by the brewer from his/her couch at home. In this case, is the brewer still a brewer?

My answer is, who cares?  What's the deal with the focus on definitions of such trivial scale? Sure, I can understand the difference between sweating all brewing and picking up wort. I'm not saying brewing and gypsy brewing are the same. My question is why should it matter? Maybe giving credit where credit is due is the underlying issue.  If so, then perhaps labels on the bottles/cans can provide satisfaction.  I'm sure they are options to consider.

The bottom line for me is that if you admonish some beers for being "contracted", then you are missing some great beer.  AND doing disservice to those who actually did sweat all day making the wort. It's still great beer, those who worked on it got paid, and the yeast finished it off.

Craft Brewing: Cease and Desist

Now, before you get your hops in a bunch, I'm not suggesting the craft brewing industry stop what it's doing and discontinue its rapid growth.  Quite the contrary.  This little post aims to help (even a wee bit) the craft brewing industry by highlighting a small, yet worrisome problem: Cease and desist letters.

With this boom in craft beer comes the increasingly complicated task of each brewery naming a beer, creating artwork, and the business of branding.  Problem is, craft breweries are small and, thankfully, quite numerous. Their economic footprint rarely goes beyond a county, and as such attention to the aforementioned tasks is a bit lacking. That is, a small brewery in South Carolina has little means or motivation to research if a certain name (say, "Hopolicious IPA") is being used by another brewery across the country in Oregon. If a trademark was filed by the Oregon business, the its infringement can cause quite a stir.  To many people, it is difficult to justify trademark infringement against a small company thousands of miles away that is not in the same market, and does not plan to be.

But as a business, the Oregon brewery has a concern, and every right to defend its brand.  If it chooses not to pursue an infringement grievance, then it can be shown later on that it does not really care about its brand.  With that, another brewery years later (perhaps one in Oregon) can claim naming rights that this brewery might already have. In other words, protect the brand now to stave off future challenges--which may come from much larger, macro breweries.  Protecting a trademark is necessary, and understandable.

Unfortunately, the methods used for protection can incur damages. For one, a cease and desist letter from a lawyer is impersonal, which is anathema to craft brewing. For the most part, brewers are not business managers. If they encounter a problem, they like to handle it personally. Getting attorneys involved is seen as steely and cold.  It seems aggressive, and brewers do not react well to these perceptions (who would?).  In the age of social media the reaction can be swift, intense and ugly.

Still, legal counsel may be needed…just not right off the bat. For one thing, legal counsel is expensive. It can be slow and confusing. It takes control of the situation out of the hands of the parties involved. Probably the most unnerving is the fact that adjudication, if it comes down to that, is one-sided and the decision of one person: the judge. Who knows how a case will turn out? 

But options exist between not challenging infringement (doing nothing) and going to court. Personal contact is recommended first.  This can be easy, or rather challenging. If the latter, then many go directly to "lawyering up", but they don't have to. Mediation, facilitation and conferencing are options that are becoming more readily available to craft brewers.  These methods are cheaper than legal/court fees, quicker and retain control of the situation to the parties.  It's a good idea to at least give them a chance. Legal counsel is not refused or negated by these methods, so that is still an option if needed.

The hope is that name, branding, trademark dispute can be settled amicably, efficiently and effectively, while maintaining and strengthening relationships and perhaps create new ones.  There is no backlash to these approaches, whereas a cease and desist letter can (and has) create a firestorm or two.