Sounds like a stretch, but if you think a little deeper about it you’ll see some similarities. For those not familiar with baseball before free agency, it was like permanent indentured servitude. As late as 1969, players were bound to a team for life by what was known as the “reserve clause.” Simply put, a player was a team's property unless the team chose to trade him or release him. A player’s first big-league team would usually be his last. In 1970, Kurt Flood changed all that when he challenged major league baseball’s reserve clause, clearing the way for free agency and the ultimate bidding war for talent we find ourselves seeing today. Tenure is generally seen as a really good thing by the academic side of a university, while administrators often struggle with the fixed expense structure it creates during times of declining enrollments and revenue. Putting these perspectives aside, I offer an alternative perspective that, if accepted, may make both sides switch to the other’s point of view. If we think of tenure like the reserve clause in baseball before free agency, then administrators should love it! It keeps salaries low for professors, as they are less likely to jump ship for a higher paying position at another university unless it comes with the tenure they’d be giving up. Academics often enter the field of teaching to gain tenure and have the job security few other professions offer. Like the reserve clause held down salaries in baseball, tenure has a similar effect in higher education. Just imagine if professors who were universally loved by their students, a pleasure for senior administrators to work with, and who produced the best student outcomes could shop their talents on the open market in an industry that sought to acquire the best talent? Top educators would see their salaries skyrocket, and if economic theory held true, the entire industry would see increased wages.