What started off as a way for IBM employees working in Japan back in 1976 to enjoy an American past-time, football, has become a really big deal.

According to IBM's Tumblr page, IBM's employee football team, called Big Blue, now ...

includes cheerleaders, a professional stadium and a nationally televised audience. It all started in 1976, when a handful of new IBM Japan employees gathered together and decided to start a team. By 2001, they not only had an undefeated record, but also reached the top division.

In fact, American Football has become a big deal in Japan. The country's so-called X League was founded in 1971, just a few years before IBM joined.

Today there are so many teams that the league has multiple divisions. Teams can be made up of a company team (all players must be employees) or club teams (open to anyone via try-outs). X League players are often so good that they have reportedly been recruited to play for pro teams like the Japanese National Team, which competes in the American Football World Cup.

IBM's Big Blue team didn't finish 2014 on top. It lost its playoff game to the Fujitsu Frontiers who won the X League for the first time ever, and then went on to win the national championship bowl, beating a university team.

However, the Big Blue team is still a popular one with its own website, its own Facebook page, its own mascot (mascots are very popular in Japan) and its own fan club.

And like many a pro U.S. team, the Big Blue cheerleaders are also popular, featured on the team's website, with their own Facebook page, and a calendar of promotional appearances, too.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Floyd Mayweather spends his millions

The 2015 NBA Draft Lottery ended Tuesday night, and the results are in. Take a look below to see where your favorite team ended up:

1. Minnesota Timberwolves

2. Los Angeles Lakers

3. Philadelphia 76'ers

4. New York Knicks

5. Orlando Magic

6. Sacramento Kings

7. Denver Nuggets

8. Detroit Pistons

9. Charlotte Hornets

10. Miami Heat

11. Indiana Pacers

12. Utah Jazz

13. Phoenix Suns

14. Oklahoma City Thunder

The Timberwolves, who had a 25% chance of getting the first pick in the draft, ended up lucking out, while the New York Knicks fell to fourth, in the upcoming draft. The Lakers, who were in danger of missing out on the lottery altogether, safely climbed to the second spot.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Kobe Bryant Is The Hardest-Working Player In The NBA

On Tuesday, the NFL owners approved the much anticipated change to the league's point-after-touchdown rule, with owners voting 30-2 to move the 1-point attempt to the 15-yard line and allow the defense to score on turnovers.

The move was made to add excitement to what has become an anticlimatic play. By leaving the 2-point conversion at the 2-yard line, however, the NFL did not go far enough, and there is little reason to think there will be much of a change.

There are two huge reasons to think we won't see decidedly more 2-point attempts during the 2015 season.

1. The math still doesn't favor going for 2 points.

The biggest argument for moving back the line for extra-point kicking attempts is to decrease the number of points a team is expected score over the long term by going for one instead of two.

According to Dean Blandino, the NFL's chief of officiating, teams make 93% of 33- or 34-yard field goals. Using that data, a team's expected points would average out to 0.93 points per PAT over the long haul. It is unclear, however, which seasons Blandino is using to reach the 93% figure.

In 2014, NFL kickers made 34 of 35 field goals (97.1%) when the line of scrimmage was the 15-yard line, and they made 84 of 88 (95.5%) when the line of scrimmage was between the 14- and 16-yard lines. That translates to 0.96 to 0.97 expected points per extra-point attempt.

And those numbers come from field goals. There are reasons to believe the rate will be even higher on PATs (teams won't be rushed, the kicker can pick his spot between the hashmarks, etc.).

Therefore, even if we use Blandino's number (0.93 expected points), at best it is about the same as the 2-point conversion (0.95 expected points). If we use 2014 data and consider the points the defense can now score, the expected points when going for one is still higher than going for two. This means the 1-point try is still enough of an automatic kick that coaches will go for one even if they were able to look long-term, which brings us to the second point ...

2. In the moment, it is much safer to go for 1 point.

Even if there is an advantage to going for two points over the long haul (and it doesn't look as if there is), the NFL is the king of small sample sizes, and things often don't have enough time to "even out," so to speak, especially over the course of a single game in which a team may score only two or three touchdowns.

A team can be expected to make about half of its 2-point conversions, but that doesn't mean a team will necessarily convert one if it attempts two. Sure, a team might score two now, or maybe it will make two next time. But even with the longer 1-point PAT a coach can still be reasonably certain he will get one point this time and one point next time, making it easier to make coaching decisions in the meantime.

In other words, it is easier to coach to the known than to the unknown.

This doesn't mean we won't see more 2-point conversions. Some coaches may have their own internal data that, depending on their offense and their kicker, suggests the difference in expected points may be great enough to warrant going for two more often than not.

I am looking at you Chip Kelly.

But for most of the NFL, it is still going to be business as usual.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How LeBron James spends his money

I want to share my mistakes and my takeaways with New Millionaires and those who aspire to be millionaires.

I'm not just speaking about athletes.

There are those that become instantly wealthy, such as lottery winners, or those that inherit unexpected riches.

I want to talk about what I did wrong and what I should have done instead, right from the start.

I've still got a great deal to learn, but I hope this effort will help you bypass some of the stress, scarred relationships, and most important, the financial burdens I endured when I first came into instant wealth. 

A wise man once said that making money is easy but keeping it is hard. Let this be a guide and provide wisdom as you transition through life after becoming a New Millionaire. 

New Millionaire

1. Synonymous with New Money Millionaire and Newborn Millionaire.
2. One who goes from being broke to being a millionaire overnight.
3. One who becomes the CEO of a corporation before he or she is ready to do the job (Young Silicon Valley Multimillionaires).
4. Someone who comes into their fortune with undeveloped instincts for how to assess people's real motivations and interest in them; ill-prepared for the shark attacks.

The craziest thing about being a millionaire is that once you spend that first dollar, you are no longer a millionaire.

I grew up on the philosophy, "If you're going to have problems, you might as well have problems with money." I thought money was a safe haven. 

That's what I'd been taught from a young age.

Once I signed my first contract in 2002, problems that seemed so monumental before were a lot easier to digest. 

By my junior year of college, I started spending like I could already count on the million [from the contract].

I did what every other good student-athlete did: spend, spend, spend.

Superman Syndrome 

1. Belief that one is so strong that he or she can stand up to anyone, at any time.
2. Puffing up one's chest to match one's ego. 
3. Characterized by flying girls out every weekend, hitting the clubs multiple times a week, having four or five cars in your name and the motto, "If you can't pop tags, it's not worth wearing." (Meaning it had to be brand new before I could even think about putting on any shirt.)
4. Of, or pertaining to, Phillip Buchanon during his New Money Millionaire phase.

Money was the medicine that cured the boredom disease. 

How much was I worth at twenty years old? I was valued at millions of dollars after a strong spring football showing during practices.

By the end of 2001 I had about forty or fifty pairs of sneakers — Jordans, Air Maxes, or whatever shoes I wanted at the time. All of my money was being spent on nice clothing like collared shirts, slacks, and fancy athletic apparel.

I could fix monotony very easily with Jet Skis or a shift in time zone — a little trip to the Cayman Islands or Belize.

My first year in the NFL I was a newborn baby. With the Oakland Raiders, I didn't have a mentor to lean on during certain difficult situations.

The team had a lot of superstars, so everybody was doing their own thing. You had to look out for yourself because those veterans were on a different level.

In a college the locker room is a brotherhood; in the pros, it's all about business.

I was asking for advice from people who didn't know any better than I did. It's like asking the guy next to you in class to help you with your homework because you didn't understand a concept taught in class. 

You think he's smarter than you, but he's probably not. Better to just ask the professor during his office hours, wouldn't you think? 

The thing I wasn't doing was distinguishing between Newborn Millionaires and Self-Made Millionaires.

Self-Made Millionaire

1. One who starts from zero and gradually transitions from having no money to becoming a prodigious accumulator of wealth through arduous work efforts, dedication, ability, fiscal responsibility, and a little luck.
2. Understands the meaning of the dollar rather than just spending it. 
3. Millionaire status, in this case, is stable and sustainable. 
4. Of, or pertaining to, Bill Gates, Sara Blakely, Puff Daddy, 50 Cent, Warren Buffet, Dr. Dre, and Oprah.

What I first failed to realize is that self-made millionaires remain millionaires, and sometimes become billionaires, because they learn to invest wisely and manage their money. 

I missed that piece of the equation. While the self-made millionaires were calculating how to grow their money, I was calculating how to blow my money.

Part of it had to do with the world of what I call "Fun Friends." 

Please pay close attention to the following definition.

Fun Friend

1. On call at all times and down for anything. 
2. Helps you spend money, not grow your money. 
3. Viewed as the hired clown; whether you laugh at him or with him, there for entertainment purposes.
4. Synonymous with Hype People. 
5. The devil on your shoulder that doesn't recognize limits. 
6. If you're lucky, in rare cases a Fun Friend can also be a true friend. 

When you enter this new world, there are plenty of Fun Friends that suddenly pop up around you during your downtime. Sometimes too many.

They're spending your money, and they're encouraging you to keep spending!

Do I believe people were genuinely happy for me when I made it? Yes, certainly. 

They were under the false assumption that I would support them forever. Sadly, very few people had my best interest in mind, and those that did were genuinely happy to see another kid make it out of the hood. 

The rest were a very sad lot, especially as I look back over the past decade. I decided to call them "Adult Abusers."

Adult Abusers

1. Influential adults in a person's life that manipulate or exploit the person who has recently come into money.
2. See a person who has recently come into money as a form of life support; cutting off their money is like turning off their oxygen.
3. Of, or pertaining to, childhood friends, parents, grandparent, aunts, uncles or other family members. This is only a partial list.

First, they start with seemingly altruistic motives. They get involved in your financial life with the reasoning that they're going to protect you from all those outside predators in the business world. They're going to look out for your money.

I had a phone conversation with my uncle that I will never forget. After the usual pleasantries, he asked me for money. I told him I wasn't going to give him any more. 

He blurted out, "You wipe your a— with $10,000 on any given night, so why you making a big deal about giving me money?" 

I kept my composure, and I just kept telling him that I was turning off the spigot. No more money.

Soon after the draft, my mother old me that I owed her a million dollars for raising me for the past eighteen years. Well, that was news to me.

Please do not think I'm being ungrateful or cheap. I had already followed the unwritten rule of any NFL New Money Millionaire: I bought my mother a house.

I also advised her to sell the old one I grew up in when I put a new roof over her head, but my mother had other plans.

So then it occurred to me that I had to start thinking smarter by opening up my mind to life after football.

Pro teams sign you because they have a specific use for your skills and talents. As soon as you don't fit with their program, they will do whatever it takes to make you feel unwanted or uncomfortable. 

And when the winds of discomfort begin to blow, you worry about your next job and your next paycheck.

The team needs you and you need them — those are the circumstances that make your window of opportunity possible. 

But just as quickly as that opportunity is given, it can be taken away. If only for this reason alone, it's a good idea to consider a signing bonus or even a first contract as nothing more than Head-Start Money.

Head-Start Money

1. Known as "turnkey money"; will start the engine but won't keep the engine running without appropriate maintenance.
2. A windfall that involves money that has a foreseeable end. 
3. Money possibly obtained through lottery, inheritance, or professional contract.

If you're in the business of growing and saving money, you have to put a system of checks and balances into play and spend less than you earn.

You need an alert on your smart phone. You have to budget, especially in the area of recreational spending.

If you're a competitor, use it to your advantage.

Start competing to be on top financially — be the one who saved the most, the one who has more assets than liabilities, the one who has identified the best mentor.

When helping friends financially, use the Wall Street Approach and not the Street Approach.

Street Approach

1. Quick to hand out cash without a written receipt or a signed contract.
2. Trusting the borrower to do the right thing with no formal structure of accountability.
3. Banking on a person's word and loyalty. 
4. Borrower thinks you owe them for something, so he or she doesn't have to pay you back.
5. Borrower doesn't think he or she has to pay you back because you have money and he or she doesn't.

On Wall Street everything is recorded: There is a paper trail for all transactions. It's in black and white. 

This is the same approach I learned to use when dealing with loans. That means drafting up a simple contract between yourself (in my case, Bank of Buchanon) and the borrower. 

The Street Approach would be handing out cash — $500 here, $1,000 there — and banking on the word and loyalty of your borrower.

Always do things the Wall Street way.

The bottom line

The bottom line is this: everyone may start from a different place, but it's where you end up that counts.

It's not that hard to understand that people can be handed the same amount of money and all run through it at different speeds. 

How quickly you learn is up to you. It is all about how you manage the Head-Start Money you are given. 

Head-Start Money doesn't last forever, nor are you guaranteed a set length of time to live life comfortably.

Excerpted with permission from New Money: Staying Rich by Philip Buchanon.

SEE ALSO: How to become a millionaire by age 30

Join the conversation about this story »

Matthew Dellavedova was not one of the 60 players taken in the 2013 NBA Draft. In fact, he wasn't even invited to work out at the NBA Draft Combine in Chicago.

Yet, as the Cleveland Cavaliers get set to play the Atlanta Hawks in Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals Wednesday night, Dellavedova has become just as, if not more, valuable to his team than any of the 13 point guards taken in 2013 draft.

Out of the 13 point guards that were drafted, three have played primarily in the D-League, three play professionally in Europe, four are backup point guards playing in limited capacity on losing teams, two are starters, and only one is playing significant minutes on a conference finals team: Dennis Schroeder on the Hawks.

Dellavedova's former college coach at St. Mary's, Randy Bennett, told Cleveland.com's Terry Pluto that he believed the 6'3" point guard from Australia should have been drafted, "I'm telling you, he was a better player than some of those guys drafted ahead of him.”

Well, Dellavedova is certainly proving that now. After going undrafted, the Cavaliers signed him to a two-year $1.3 million contract, which pays him just $816,000 this season.

After averaging only 19 minutes in his first two regular seasons, Dellavedova has proven to be invaluable during this year's postseason — playing significant minutes due to a hobbled Kyrie Irving.

Out of the Cavaliers' nine-man rotation (not including Kevin Love who is injured, and Mike Miller who has played in only three games this postseason), Dellavedova is second in both field goal and three-point percentage, at 46.5% and 39.3% respectively. He has also played admirably on defense, which was the biggest criticism against him leading up to the draft.

In the Cavaliers' Game 6 series-clinching victory over the Chicago Bulls last week, Dellavedova not only led the team in points with 19, shooting 7-11 from the field and 3-6 from behind the arc, he also held Derrick Rose to just 14 points, shooting 44 percent and missing all three of his three-point attempts.

Coach David Blatt told USA Today's Jeff Zillgitt why he's so valuable:

"First of all he understands his role and where his opportunities are. He has no fear. He makes the right plays. He defends his man every moment he's on the court. He knows who he's playing with. He knows where the ball should go. He feeds off the opportunities that are created by him for the other guys. When you ask specific pick-and-roll actions, he makes plays. He competes. That kid's a competitor. He's not where he is without being a competitor."

With Irving still slowed by an injury, Dellavedova will be huge against the Hawks.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This simple exercise will work out every muscle in your body

Patrick Sweeney is a runner who took a trip from his home near the beach in Los Angeles and traveled to Boston, on foot.

We first came across Sweeney's story at RedBull.com, where he talked about his run for their Adventure series. We reached out to Sweeney, who provided Business Insider with some photos and more details of his adventure.

The decision to run across the country was not completely random. Sweeney made the trip to raise money for the 100 Mile Club, a program that encourages children to run 100 miles at school in a single academic year, roughly three miles per week.

Sweeney says he planned his route the same way most of us plan a trip across town: He used Google maps, only he put it in "walk" mode.

According to Google maps, the trip was 3,355 miles, starting at Sweeney's home near the beach in Los Angeles and ending at the Boston Marathon finish line, a race he has run three times.

Sweeney completed the trip in 114 days, at an average of 29.4 miles per day, or a little over a marathon each day. According to Sweeney, he started out doing a marathon (26.2 miles) per day, but eventually upped that to 40 miles per day.

Sweeney can run a marathon in two hours, 37 minutes, something he says he can do "indefinitely."

Even more amazing, Sweeney occasionally ran without shoes. And when he did wear shoes, he typically wore Luna sandals. According to Sweeney, they are what he calls "minimalist footwear," based on what is worn by Mexico's Tarahumara Indians, the subjects of the book "Born to Run."

While the idea of running more than 3,000 miles in nearly four months may sound boring to some, Sweeney's trip was not without some crazy moments.

"You find so much garbage along the way, but you find gems, too — literally," Sweeney told RedBull.com. "I actually found a diamond engagement ring in a jewel box. My theory is the guy got rejected and chucked it out his car window."

At another point, Sweeney was running by a yard and heard a gunshot, he said. When he turned to see what it was, there was a guy holding a gun and staring at the runner. Sweeney speculates it may have just been a warning shot, presumably because a scraggly looking fellow was a little too close to the guy's house.

Sweeney did look a lot different at the start of his trip.

Along the way, Sweeney often slept in the RV of some friends who acted as his support team. However, he occasionally had to get creative, including in one town where the mayor offered Sweeney a tornado shelter to sleep in.

After 114 days and 3,355 miles, the equivalent of 128 marathons, Sweeney finally reached his destination, the Boston Marathon finish line.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Intense video captures skateboarders speeding down a road in the Alps

NBA writer Chris Sheridan was heavily criticized for writing a post about Minnesota Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor's wife, Becky, on Tuesday after the NBA draft lottery.

Becky wasn't allowed to represent the team at the lottery because of the NBA's new "no family" rule. Sheridan complained about this in a post.

"One year after Mallory Edens captivated us all at the NBA draft lottery, a new NBA rule deprived us of a close-up look at the trophy wife of Minnesota Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor," he wrote.

Edens, the daughter of Milwaukee Bucks owner Wesley Edens, represented the team at last year's lottery.

Sheridan's post got creepier from there, concluding:

Taylor has his trophy wife. Edens will one day be somebody's trophy GF.

[Sixers GM Sam Hinkie]? He'll be the one with the stockpile of Larry O'Brien trophies. And his legacy will last longer than our memories of the comely Ms. Edens and the equally lovely Mrs. Taylor.

The NBA media world was appalled. But the best response was from Edens herself, who called Sheridan out on Twitter for the inherent sexism in his post:

Nothing more to say after that.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 12 awesome facts about WWE superstar Brock Lesnar

The Golden State Warriors beat the Houston Rockets 110-106 in Game 1 of the NBA's Western Conference Finals thanks in large part to Stephen Curry, who scored 36 points and added six rebounds and five assists.

But the highlight of the night came after the game when Curry brought his daughter with him to sit on his lap during the post-game press conference, adding a much-needed spark to an otherwise cliche-filled expedition.

The two-year-old Riley popped out of nowhere.

She waved to the media members.

At one point she even told her daddy to be quiet before yawning herself.

Here is an adorable highlight reel put together by the NBA.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Cristiano Ronaldo spends his money

The Golden State Warriors took Game 1 of the Western Conference finals over the Houston Rockets 110-106.

After trailing by 16 in the second quarter, the Warriors rallied back, thanks in part to a "small-ball" lineup that featured two point guards in Stephen Curry and Shaun Livingston, two wings in Klay Thompson and Harrison Barnes, and the 6'7" Draymond Green playing "center."

The lineup isn't new for the Warriors. Green often acted as the lone big man throughout the regular season, with one such lineup with him at center totaling 102 minutes.

With a small lineup capable of spacing the floor and switching assignments on defense, the Warriors baffled the Rockets in the second quarter, reeling off a 21-6 run in just over five-and-a-half minutes. In 12 minutes in Game 1, the combination of Curry, Livingston, Thompson, Barnes, and Green outscored the Rockets by 15, shooting 50% from the field.

Interestingly, Houston found similar success in going small once they had to remove Dwight Howard because of a knee injury, foul trouble, and matchup issues with the Warriors' small lineup. One of Houston's best lineups featured 6'9" Josh Smith as the lone big man, surrounded by Jason Terry, James Harden, Corey Brewer, and Trevor Ariza. Though they only played three minutes together, they scored nine points and got two steals in that short period of time.

Part of the success of the small-ball lineup for the Warriors was the way it baited the Rockets into trying to take advantage of their size. Dwight Howard had three turnovers during this stretch by forcing post-ups and trying to will his way to the basket over the smaller Green. On one occasion, Thompson made a great help play to steal the ball from Howard and get a fast-break layup on the other end:

Another time, Green, one of the best defenders in the NBA, simply held his own and forced an offensive foul:

On offense, the lineup's spacing give players room to operate within the three-point line. Here, Klay Thompson gets mismatched on the bigger Josh Smith and uses his speed to break down the defense. When Howard has to help, it leaves Livingston open. Nobody else is available to help:

Brewer can't help off Barnes, Harden can't help off Green, and Terry can't help off Curry:

The small-ball lineups work in a similar way for the Rockets, though head coach Kevin McHale is a little more hesitant to use them than Warriors coach Steve Kerr.

Josh Smith is crucial to the Rockets in the same way Green is to the Warriors: He can defend several positions, space the floor respectably, and he's nimble enough to create on his own or find shooters if the help defense arrives.

Here, the threat of James Harden shooting the three-pointer causes Golden State's defense to jump just the slightest. Harden finds Smith rolling to the basket where he meets little resistance from Golden States' defense:

Livingston provides pretty good help defense on Smith, but Smith just blows by him for the lefty layup. Elsewhere, Barnes sticks to Ariza, Thompson sticks with Harden, and Curry sticks with Brewer. If Livingston had totally shut off Smith's lane to the basket, Smith could have had Terry open on the elbow for a three-pointer:

As Kerr noted after the game, the success of these lineups creates an interesting chess match:

"Well, you know, with our small lineup, we can spread the floor pretty well, put Draymond in the middle as the screener for Steph and then find shooters on the perimeter. It really stretches people out. Houston does the same thing. They like to play small. So it was an interesting chess match because they like to go small, we like to go small. We like to have [Andrew Bogut] on the floor for defense, they like to have Dwight on the floor for defense, and it kind of went back and forth. But in the end neither Dwight nor Boges played a lot of minutes, so it became a small game."

McHale said after the game that he prefers a bigger lineup, but with Dwight Howard getting hurt in the first half, injuries limited him, and the Rockets had to go small.

Like Kerr mentioned, both teams can excel at either going small or using their big men for defensive purposes. Going forward it will become a strategic competition. Will both teams enter a shootout with two prolific, small-ball lineups? Or will one team try to counter small lineups by going big and hoping they can overwhelm the other team with size? If they choose the former, it could practically eliminate the effectiveness of Howard and Bogut.

The Rockets and Warriors will have to decide whether their offenses are benefiting from the spacing the small lineups provide, and whether they're better off abandoning their big men in favor of more efficient scoring. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Floyd Mayweather is impossible to beat

The Philadelphia 76ers dream scenario at the 2015 NBA Draft Lottery didn't come true Tuesday night.

While the 76ers did get the No. 3 pick, they missed out on the Lakers' pick, which was top-five protected (it landed No. 2), and the Heat's pick, which was top-10 protected (it landed No. 10).

Had those picks fallen outside of the top five and the top 10, respectively, the Sixers would have taken home three lottery picks this year.

However, that doesn't mean the 76ers forfeit the rights to those picks. In 2016, the Sixers will once again have the chance at several first-rounders, some of them possibly falling in the lottery.

The Sixers will once again have their own pick, and barring a free agency spending spree and big turnaround next year, it figures to be a lottery pick once again. 

The Lakers pick that was top-five protected this season will only be top-three protected next year. With the No. 2 pick in this year's draft, the return of last year's No. 7 pick Julius Randle, and lots of cap space, the Lakers figure to be better next season, meaning it's unlikely that their pick will fall in the top three. In a crowded Western Conference, however, the Lakers still might not be good enough to make the playoffs, so it seems likely that the Sixers will get that pick, even if it's later in the lottery.

• Lands top 3: Lakers pick
• Lands outside of top 3: Sixers pick

Similarly, the Miami pick is still top-10 protected next season. Miami nearly made the playoffs this year before falling apart at the end of the season. They, too, could benefit from the No. 10 pick in this year's draft, plus the return of Chris Bosh, who missed the final two months of the season with blood clots in his lungs. The Heat figure to contend once again for a playoff spot, and if they make it, that pick will fall out of the top 10 and transfer to the Sixers.

• Lands top 10: Heat pick
• Lands outside of top 10: Sixers pick

Philadelphia also made another crafty move at this year's trade deadline by taking on JaVale McGee's salary for an extra draft pick, which comes from the Oklahoma City Thunder and is top-15 protected in 2015-16, according to ESPN's Brian Windhorst. It's less certain, but if the Thunder return to championship form next year, they'd likely be a high seed and get a pick in the late 20s. If it lands outside of No. 15, the Sixers get it.

• Lands top 15: Thunder pick
• Lands outside of top 15: Sixers pick

While the 76ers get criticized for so blatantly tanking, their plan of collecting assets is borderline genius. They're hardly spending money during these seasons, and if they draft right, they'll come away with cheap, talented young players, plus cap space to fill in the rest of the holes.

The 2015 draft wasn't Philly's year, but 2016 could see them go home with four first-round picks.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Cristiano Ronaldo spends his money

The Los Angeles Dodgers were the highest-paid team in U.S. sports in 2014 with players making an average of $8 million in salary, according to the folks at Sporting Intelligence.

However, the Dodgers were not the highest-paid team in the world.

Soccer club Paris Saint-Germain of France's Ligue 1 is the new highest-paid team in the world with their players making an average of $9.1 million in 2014, replacing England's Manchester City.

Here are the 20 highest-paid sports clubs in the world in terms of average player salary. There are nine soccer clubs, six baseball teams, and five basketball teams:

1. Paris Saint-Germain, Ligue 1— $9.1 million (average pay per player)

2. Real Madrid, La Liga— $8.6 million (average pay per player)

3. Manchester City, English Premier League— $8.6 million (average pay per player)

4. Barcelona F.C., La Liga— $8.1 million (average pay per player)

5. Los Angeles Dodgers, MLB— $8.0 million (average pay per player)

6. Manchester United, English Premier League— $8.0 million (average pay per player)

7. Bayern Munich, Bundesliga— $7.7 million (average pay per player)

8. Chelsea F.C., English Premier League— $7.5 million (average pay per player)

9. New York Yankees, MLB— $7.3 million (average pay per player)

10. Arsenal F.C., English Premier League— $7.0 million (average pay per player)

11. Brooklyn Nets, NBA— $6.2 million (average pay per player)

12. Detroit Tigers, MLB— $6.2 million (average pay per player)

13. San Francisco Giants, MLB— $6.2 million (average pay per player)

14. Liverpool F.C., English Premier League— $6.0 million (average pay per player)

15. New York Knicks, NBA— $5.9 million (average pay per player)

16. Washington Nationals, MLB— $5.7 million (average pay per player)

17. Boston Red Sox, MLB— $5.7 million (average pay per player)

18. Los Angeles Clippers, NBA— $5.3 million (average pay per player)

19. Sacramento Kings, NBA— $5.1 million (average pay per player)

20. Denver Nuggets, NBA— $5.0 million (average pay per player)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This simple exercise will work out every muscle in your body

NBA players are the highest-paid athletes in the world with the average player making $4.6 million in the 2014-15 season, according to data provided by Sporting Intelligence.

Of course, the NBA has a huge advantage with its small rosters. Just 448 NBA players split $2.1 billion in collective salaries. Meanwhile, NFL players collectively made $3.6 billion in 2014. However, that was divided among 1,684 players for an average salary of just $2.1 million, fourth among the major North American sports leagues.

Here are the 17 highest-paying professional sports leagues based on average player salary with more than half (9) being soccer (association football) leagues.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Floyd Mayweather is impossible to beat

As Ryan Tannehill signs a new contract for $25 million guaranteed and Russell Wilson continues to negotiate a potentially record-breaking deal with the Seattle Seahawks, all is quiet on the Andrew Luck front.

Luck is eligible to negotiate a contract extension with the Colts, but the team has decided to push back talks until at least the summer of 2016. As ProFootballTalk's Mike Florio notes, the Colts have a history of making their quarterbacks play out their entire contracts, so Luck might not actually get a deal until 2017.

This helps their cap situation in the short term. In 2015 he'll still be playing under his rookie salary of $3.4 million. In 2016, he'll make a little over $16 million on a his fifth-year rookie option— which is still less than he's worth on the open market. By waiting as long as possible to give him a long-term deal, the Colts also protect themselves against the possibility that he'll get a career-altering injury in the next two years.

The downside of waiting to give Luck the extension, though, is significant: In all likelihood, Luck is going to be worth much more, and have much more leverage in 2017 than he does now.

Luck is going to be a fascinating test case for how high individual NFL salaries can go.

Salaries for quarterbacks are going through the roof right now. Eight of the NFL's nine biggest QB contracts in terms of guaranteed money were signed in the last two years. Jay Cutler, of all people, got $126 million with $54 million guaranteed. If the last few years has taught us anything, it's that the price of a franchise quarterback is racing upward. When news of Tannehill's $96 million contract (total potential value) came out on Tuesday, Colts punter Pat McAfee joked that Luck was going to get so much money he'd buy the whole team:

Luck is better and younger than a guy like Cutler and he has still only played three NFL seasons. He's already worth Cutler money in 2015. What's he going to be worth when he hits his prime in 2017 and the benchmark for what top quarterbacks are worth is even more inflated?

Giving Luck $120 million now would hurt, but it won't hurt as bad as giving him whatever the new going rate for a top-five quarterback is two years from now ($150 million? With $75 million guaranteed? How high can these go?).

Barring an injury, Luck is sitting pretty here. If the Colts really do make him play out his rookie deal and pay him in 2017, he'll have some leverage. If the Colts don't give him an offer he likes, he can simply force them to use the franchise tag, which starts at the average of the five highest-paid quarterbacks in the league, and explodes upwards from there with each successive season. Florio ran the numbers on what it'd take to keep franchise-tagging Luck starting in 2017:

"If, for example, Luck’s franchise tender is $20 million in 2017, it would cost the Colts $24 million to keep him in 2018 and $34.56 million to keep him in 2019.  That’s $78 million over three years.  With the Colts likely to use the exclusive tender on Luck, those numbers could be as high as $25 million, $30 million, and $43.2 million — equating to $98.2 million over three years."

At that point, giving him a long-term deal that made him the highest-paid player in NFL history is actually a cheaper option when it comes to annual cap hits.

NFL rules prevent Luck from hitting the open market and really seeing what he could get in a bidding war. But he's still going to get his money, and the Colts' waiting game is only driving up his price.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How LeBron James spends his money

The Miami Dolphins recently agreed to a $96 million contract extension with quarterback Ryan Tannehill.

On the surface, the extension looked like a huge overpay for a young, still-developing, but largely average-to-date quarterback in Tannehill.

However, when breaking down the details of the extension, it's actually a great move for the Dolphins. Only a fraction of it is fully guaranteed, and the way it's structured buys the team extra time to evaluate Tannehill while maintaining the flexibility to reward him with higher pay if he earns it, or move on if he doesn't.

CBS's Jason La Canfora broke down the extension, noting that in the next two years, the Dolphins are only giving Tannehill a slight pay raise under the extension. According to La Canfora, Tannehill was set to make $18.2 million over the next two seasons — the final year of his rookie deal (2015) and a fifth-year option worth $16.2 million in 2016 that the Dolphins had already picked up.

Danny O'Neil of ESPN 710 Seattle argues that it's best to think of Tannehill's extension in stages. In Stage One, the 2015 and 2016 seasons, the Dolphins are basically paying Tannehill an extra $7 million more than what they had already agreed to.

With the extension, Tannehill receives $21.5 million in guaranteed money upon signing. As La Canfora notes, Tannehill's previous $18.2 million for 2015 and 2016 was only guaranteed for injury. The new $21.5 million gives him guaranteed money right away with a little extra bonus. In March of 2016, the Dolphins also have a $3.5 million option to pick up on Tannehill, bringing his pay over the next two years to a total of $25 million. After that, it's basically a year-to-year contract with no guaranteed money.

The extra money the Dolphins are giving Tannehill in Stage One buys them the greatest competitive advantage of the extension. In 2017, Tannehill has a $14.5 million option, which the Dolphins can choose to pick up or not. If they opt not to, they'd move on from Tannehill. If they do pick up the option, they'll grab Tannehill at a rate La Canfora describes as "well, well below what the exclusive franchise tag figure would be by that time." By 2017, when Tannehill is 29, entering his sixth season and the theoretical prime of his career, he'll be making more than $10 million less than the exclusive franchise tag, which La Canfora estimates will be about $25 million.

By the time Tannehill enters Stage Three of the deal in 2018, he'll have made slightly less than $40 million over three years — far from an overpay.

The bulk of the money comes in the backend of the contract, which the Dolphins are not locked into. Tannehill the ability to earn about $57 million between 2018-2020, about $19 million per season, which is still about an average rate for a top quarterback. If the Dolphins deem Tannehill hasn't made sufficient progress from 2015-2017, they also can opt out of the contract and move on without having to pay the big money in the final years of the deal.

La Canfora states, "This is essentially a deal that purchased one additional year of Tannehill's service time than what Miami already had the rights to, and then is a separate contract on the back end where, following 2017, the Dolphins could go year to year with him depending on his progress."

The Cincinnati Bengals and San Francisco 49ers have structured similar contracts with Andy Dalton and Colin Kaepernick. For quarterbacks below the top tier, this type of deal gives teams control over whether they want to move on from the quarterbacks or lock them in on a year-to-year basis at competitive rates.

The Dolphins basically bought themselves an extra year to evaluate Tannehill after 2016. If they like the way he's developing, they can reward him in the last three years of the deal, and if his progress has stalled, they can cut ties.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Floyd Mayweather spends his millions

Four months after the New York Knicks traded him to the Cleveland Cavaliers as a tax on Iman Shumpert, J.R. Smith scored 28 points in a 97-89 Game 1 win over the Atlanta Hawks in the Eastern Conference finals.

With Kevin Love hurt and Kyrie Irving playing on roughly 0.75 legs, Smith became Cleveland's only viable scoring option other than LeBron James. He delivered in Game 1, draining eight three-pointers, three of which came during a two-minute stretch at the beginning of the fourth quarter that saw Cleveland extent its lead to 18 points. 

He was scorching:

At this point, it's hard to view the Smith/Shumpert trade as anything other than a no-brainer. In light of what Smith did to the Hawks in Game 1, the idea that there was risk in giving up nothing for Smith feels absurd.

But there were risks. Smith has had a litany on- and off-court issues in his time in the NBA, and his tenure with the Knicks had gotten so bad that they were willing to give up Shumpert just to get Smith off the team. As ESPN's Brian Windhorst wrote in a great article after Game 1, the decision to trade for Smith was a torturous one for the Cavs, and it even necessitated a cosign from LeBron himself.

Windhorst reports that the team's front office spoke to LeBron about taking Smith from the Knicks before pulling the trigger on the trade, and LeBron reassured them that he was on board.

"Get him here, and I'll take care of it," LeBron said he told the Cavs before the trade.

Windhorst gave some insight into LeBron's thinking:

"To James, the character issues weren't just secondary, they didn't matter. He saw a chance to grab the type of shooter he loves to play with, one with a quick release and endless confidence. James has been striving to get guys like this as teammates for a decade or so now. The Cavs needed talent at that position and Smith was a talent and a contemporary whom James felt he could relate."

LeBron said of the move (via ASAP Sports):

"For me, as a leader of a team, you always just want to try to give someone an opportunity. With the talent this guy presents, I knew the man he was, and I didn't really care about what everybody else thought about him. Obviously, our front office, they have the last say so, and for me, they have the last say so, but when they made it and said they were going to do it, I was definitely all for it. I felt like, for me, we were getting a great piece, not only on the floor, but off the floor, as well, because I'd known him before he even got to this point."

Windhorst reports that the Cavs even got permission from the Knicks to talk to Smith before the trade and explain that he couldn't mess up on or off the court in Cleveland.

The trades for Shumpert, Smith, and Mozgov saved Cleveland's season and turned them into an offensive juggernaut in March and April. The Cavs were 19-16 when they made the trade, and finished the regular season 34-13 before making a run to the Eastern Conference finals. And while the Cavs never thought they'd need another scorer back in January, the injuries to Love and Irving have made Smith more important than anyone could have expected.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How LeBron James spends his money

Bryce Harper is having a breakout season and is an early candidate for National League MVP, but he wasn't around for the end of the Nationals' big series against the Yankees after getting ejected in controversial fashion.

An official reason for the ejection has not been given yet, but Harper explained after the game that he was ejected for not getting back into the batter's box, even though he was already in the batter's box.

The incident came in the third inning with the Nationals trailing 2-1. The first pitch to Harper appeared to be a little low but was called a strike. Harper disagreed with the call, but did so without leaving the batter's box, simply stepping back with one foot. After the game, Harper claims he simply asked umpire Marvin Hudson, "Don't you think that was a little low?"

At this point, according to Harper, Hudson told Harper to "get in the box" even though Harper never left the box. This led to some yelling back and forth between the Nationals' dugout and the umpire.

Harper had stepped out of the box during this back and forth. He said after the game, "I don't need to be in the box when [Hudson] is chirping at [Nationals manager Matt Williams]."

Harper admits he was taking his time getting in the box after the exchange. He did eventually go back to the box, but the argument between Hudson and Williams escalated. Hudson removed his mask and walked towards the dugout. Harper left the box a second time.

During the argument between Hudson and Williams, Harper tried to show the umpire where he was when he first disagreed with the call, indicating that he was in the box.

At this point, Harper was ejected.

It is unclear if Harper was ejected for being out of the box or for arguing. However, according to the new pace-of-play rules, being out of the box when a batter is supposed to stay in the box is not supposed to be penalized during the game. Rather, players are subjected to warnings and fines after the game.

Hudson told the media after the game, "he didn’t like the pitch, and I let him have his say going and coming. The dugout didn’t like it, and one thing led to another and I had to run him. I had to eject him."

Harper expressed his frustration after the game, saying "I don't think 40,000 people came to see [Hudson] ump tonight," and "maybe he just had a bad morning, maybe he didn't get his coffee."

When asked after the game if he could explain the ejection, Williams responded, "I can't explain, I don't think there is anything there that warrants getting thrown out of the game right there."

After the game, Nationals' officials were described as "steamed" about the ejection, saying Hudson "baits players," according to Barry Svrluga of the Washington Post.

We have reached out to Major League Baseball for comment and will update when we hear back.

Here is the full video.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Floyd Mayweather is impossible to beat

Three months after he won a Super Bowl in his lone year in New England, Darrelle Revis is going after his old team.

Revis, who spurned the Patriots in free agency to return to the New York Jets, gave his first extended take on Deflategate, speaking with the New York Daily News' Manish Mehta Wednesday.

He criticized the Patriots and their "history of doing stuff," saying:

"Everybody's blowing it up because it is Tom Brady. I understand that. But if [the NFL] feels he did the crime, or he did something and they want to penalize them, then that's that. [The Patriots] have a history of doing stuff. You can't hide that. ... Tom was there when they did that stuff in the past."

In 2007, when Revis was a rookie with the Jets, the Patriots were caught videotaping the Jets' defensive coaches' signals. Revis believes Spygate and the Patriots' dubious history can't be ignored. He told Mehta:

"New England's been doing stuff in the past and getting in trouble. When stuff repeatedly happens, then that's it. I don't know what else to tell you. Stuff repeatedly happened through the years. You got SpyGate, you got this and that and everything else. Obviously in those situations in the past, they had the evidence. So they did what they needed to do."

Revis isn't the only one who has brought up the Patriots' recent history. NFL’s executive vice president of football operations, Troy Vincent, acknowledged the NFL considered the Patriot's prior violation of league rules — such as Spygate — when determining their Deflategate punishments for the club. Here's what he wrote in a letter explaining the punishment:

"Here, there are several factors that merit strong consideration in assessing discipline. The first is the club’s prior record. In 2007 the club and several individuals were sanctioned for videotaping signals of opposing defensive coaches in violation of the Constitution and Bylaws. Under the Integrity of the Game Policy, this prior violation of competitive rules was properly considered in determining the discipline in this case."

The Patriots, who recently chose not to appeal their suspensions, were docked a 2016 first-round draft pick, a 2017 fourth-round draft pick, and were given a $1 million fine. The NFL also suspended Brady for four games. Brady, however, is appealing his suspension.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Floyd Mayweather spends his millions

After building an 18-point lead early in the fourth quarter, the Cleveland Cavaliers nearly blew their Game 1 win over the Atlanta Hawks.

While the Hawks are one of the best defensive teams in the NBA and put the clamps on the Cavs' offense in the midst of J.R. Smith's explosion from three-point range, a big part of the Cavs' problems was LeBron James' stagnant offense.

This has been a theme throughout the playoffs: With Kevin Love out for the season and Kyrie Irving hobbled, LeBron is forcing isolations — one-on-one plays with no ball movement — and it's crippling Cleveland's offense.

After Cleveland got off to a red-hot start to the fourth quarter, scoring 11 points in two minutes thanks to Smith, LeBron took over and not for the better. Over the final 10 minutes of the game, the Cavs scored 14 points, four of which were free throws in the final seconds when the Hawks were forced to foul.

During that span, James went three-for-nine from the field, had one turnover, and nobody on the Cavs, including James, registered an assist.

Part of this was the Hawks' defense, with forward Paul Millsap pressing James at half-court, baiting him into going one-on-one and eating up precious seconds off the clock. Years ago, this would be a nightmare for Atlanta — James would be too quick for the 6'9" Millsap, able to blow by him and attack the basket himself or set up other shooters. 

However, at 30 years old, LeBron has lost a step, and several fourth-quarter possessions went like this:

Or this, where James eats up more than half the shot clock without a pass:

And while he's gifted enough to score on this play, nobody would count this as a good possession:

Worse yet are possessions like this, where James uses the entire shot clock and then dumps the ball off on a teammate who has to create something out of nothing with the clock running down:

James knows this is a problem. After the game, he told reporters:

"In fourth quarter, I played way too much isolation basketball, one‑on‑one basketball, a lot of defenses set, and I was letting the clock run down way too much. I just had to take the shot or I was giving it to my guys late in the shot clock, and they couldn't do nothing with it besides shoot it or turn the ball over. So I will do a better job. I'll probably watch the game over again tonight, as I try to get my body ready for Game 2. So it starts with me."

While it's encouraging that James is aware that he played one-on-one too much, this wasn't a one-game problem. According to NBA.com/Stats, James is leading all players in isolations in the playoffs. He has a league-high 102 isolation possessions, eight more than the second-closest player, James Harden, and 58 more than the third-closest player, Jamal Crawford. Nearly one-third (32%) of James' possessions have been isolations.

And LeBron hasn't been efficient in these plays. He's averaging just 0.77 points per possession on isolations, ranking him in the 19th percentile of all players. His field-goal percentage is down to 33%, and his effective-field-goal percentage, which weights three-pointers versus two-pointers, is 34.5%. 

Another indication that James is going one-on-one too often is the number of dribbles he's taking before a shot. According to NBA.com/Stats, 30% of LeBron's shots come after seven or more dribbles. 

Earlier in the playoffs, Tom Haberstroh wrote an ESPN Insider article about LeBron's tendency to isolate. He discussed it with Bill Simmons on the "B.S. Report," saying:

"[LeBron's] averaging 11.2 isolations per game, according to Synergy Sports video tracking, which is more than every other player in the NBA by far ... And the problem, Bill, here is he's not athletic enough to do that. He might've been able to pull that off in Cleveland five years ago, but this 30-year-old LeBron doesn't have the athleticism to just power through guys, turn that corner, and get up. So, it's inefficient, and it's just bad to watch, and if you're a teammate, standing in the corner and watching LeBron go one-against-three, like he did against Chicago, that's gotta be kind of deflating."

In LeBron's defense, the options are limited. The Cavs lost their most important floor-spacer in Love, and Irving looks like he shouldn't even be playing. Wednesday night, Irving clearly had no lift on his jump shot, leading his open looks to end up like this:

So with no Love and a hobbled Irving, the Cavs' next best option is J.R. Smith, which is an uncomfortable notion for any team competing for a championship.

This puts a ton on LeBron's shoulders. So naturally, he'll feel that at times that he has to carry the team. This is where LeBron's awkward relationship with David Blatt comes into play. Blatt could attempt to run more creative, fluid plays, but LeBron has shown that he has the power to overrule his coach when it comes to play calling. 

James could rely on a number of different plays that are more efficient than his isolations. For instance, he's averaging 0.80 points per possession and 44% shooting on post-up plays. Against a small Hawks team, James would be wise to post up and try to overpower Atlanta's defenders, much like he did against Chicago. He's also been slightly more efficient as a pick-and-roll ball-handler, averaging 0.73 points per possession with a 41.2% effective-field-goal percentage.

The Cavs are limited in what they can run without a fully healthy squad, but relying on James to take on an entire defense by himself isn't the answer. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We tried cryotherapy — the super-cold treatment LeBron James swears by

Just a week before the FIFA presidential election, two reform candidates who opposed Sepp Blatter have pulled out of the race. 

Dutch football executive Michael van Praag withdrew his candidacy and threw his support behind Prince Ali bin al-Hussein of Jordan. 

Luís Figo, the Portuguese legend who played for many of Europe's biggest clubs, also dropped out. In a post announcing his decision on Facebook, Figo unloaded on FIFA in remarkable fashion.

He called the election "a plebiscite for the delivery of absolute power to one man," Blatter.

He basically called the election process a sham designed to keep Blatter in power:

Does anyone think it's normal that an election for one of the most relevant organizations on the planet can go ahead without a public debate? Does anyone think it's normal that one of the candidates doesn't even bother to present an election manifesto that can be voted on May 29? Shouldn't it be mandatory to present such a manifesto so that federation presidents know what they're voting for?

That would be normal, but this electoral process is anything but an election.

This (election) process is a plebiscite for the delivery of absolute power to one man - something I refuse to go along with.

That is why, after a personal reflection and sharing views with two other candidates in this process, I believe that what is going to happen on May 29 in Zurich is not a normal electoral act.

And because it is not, don't count on me.

Blatter, who has been president since 1998, is widely expected to win the election in a landslide. He's so confident that he'll be reelected that he didn't even bother publishing a platform. 

Figo said that he witnessed corruption first hand during the election.

"I traveled and met extraordinary people who, though they recognized the value of much that had been done, also concurred with the need for change, one that cleans up FIFA's reputation as an obscure organization that is so often viewed as a place of corruption," he wrote. "But over the past few months I have not only witnessed that desire (for change), I have witnessed consecutive incidents, all over the world, that should shame anyone who desires soccer to be free, clean and democratic."

He also referred to the organization under Blatter as a "dictatorship."

Here's Figo's Facebook post in full:

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how soccer superstars Ronaldo and Messi match up

A Duke University professor who left online comments about "the blacks" and "the Asians" on a New York Times op-ed article has landed himself in hot water with allegations that he is racist.

Jerry Hough's comments immediately garnered outrage and backlash, but he isn't backing down. He sent Business Insider the response he had just given one of his critics in an email.

A concerned mother wrote to him to say she might not send her daughter to Duke because he was an awful person, Hough said.

Not one to miss an opportunity to clarify his position, he furthered his argument with a comparison to people of Polish and Italian descent as a model for overcoming racism. "Poles and Italians were called races, and there was a lot of mutual hostility between them," Hough said. "Poles were subject to the most humiliating of jokes about their stupidity."

He pointed to Pope John Paul II and Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski as examples of men who he felt rose above stereotypes of "stupidity" and "drunkenness" to find worldwide acclaim.

"His experience provides lessons for blacks, too," he said of Krzyzewski.

Most pointedly, Hough used the fact Krzyzewski's daughter married an Italian to show that people of Polish descent embraced integration.

That statement echoes sentiments in his original comment on the Times article that black people lacked the desire for integration and that black-white dating was virtually nonexistent.

Hough also explained to the concerned parent that 2016 would be his last year of teaching at Duke. He added with a touch of humor, "Your daughter can avoid me next year."

He attempted to clarify that he was not a racist and that as a disciple of Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1950s he was disappointed in the lack of progress he had seen.

But harkening back to his comments on the Times article, he did not distance himself from his unpopular ideas, instead continuing to compare different racial and ethnic groups to the African-American experience.

He wrote about Japanese internment camps in the 1940s and the prejudice Asian-Americans experienced, referring to Eleanor Roosevelt, "who publicly called them the yellow races."

"The Japanese who were imprisoned did not come out saying that they could not rise because of the prejudice and the scars of the camps," Hough said. "They and the Chinese rose."

Hough's original comments on the Times editorial, titled "How Racism Doomed Baltimore," opined that Asian-Americans were more successful than African-Americans because "they didn't feel sorry for themselves, but worked doubly hard."

His comments have drawn critique from Duke administration. Vice president for public affairs Michael Schoenfeld said "the comments were noxious, offensive, and have no place in civil discourse," according to the Duke Chronicle.

But in a nod to free speech and professorial autonomy, Schoenfeld also said "at the same time, as noted in the Faculty Handbook, every faculty member at Duke has a right 'to act and to speak in his or her capacity as a citizen without institutional censorship or discipline.'"

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here are the 11 smartest boarding schools in America