Go, Cats. Go.

The Villanova University Wildcats received one of the four top seeds in the 2015 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament. They went 32-2 and won the Big East championship. Most prognosticators give them an excellent chance to make the Final Four and decent shot to win the national title. Oddly, this makes Villanova only the second or third best team in the tournament nicknamed the Wildcats (behind Kentucky and possibly Arizona). They are one of nine (soon to be ten) Division I schools with the same nickname. For Villanova, a Catholic school located in the suburbs of Philadelphia, the generic Wildcat nickname is a poor fit- perhaps as a result of the process in which it was selected.

The origins of Wildcats at Villanova dates back to a school-wide contest in 1926 and, likely, to a Chicago sportswriter covering a Big Ten football game in 1924.

Villanova adopted the Wildcats moniker after a contest for a suitable name was held and voted on by the student body. As explained in the May, 1926 issue of the Villanova student newspaper The Villanovan: “The name ‘Wildcats’ is meant to convey the fighting spirit, alertness and skill of the animal chosen in vanquishing its enemies. This is the spirit of the Villanova athletic teams…” The school newspaper credits the winning suggestion to one Edward Hunsinger, who is identified as the assistant coach of football. 

Perhaps, though, the story really begins in Chicago two years earlier. The 1924 Northwestern University football team was exceeding expectations. After an exciting game that saw Northwestern fall to the University of Chicago, a Chicago Tribune writer named Wallace Abbey lauded the efforts of the Northwestern squad: “It was the fourth quarter of the annual Chicago-Northwestern grid battle. Football players had not come down from Evanston; wildcats would be a name better suited to [Northwestern coach] Thistlethwaite’s boys.” According to Northwestern’s official website, Abbey’s article inspired Northwestern’s formal adoption of the Wildcat nickname.

Abbey’s article was published on November 16, 1924. The following Saturday, November 22nd, the University of Notre Dame traveled to Chicago to take on the newly minted Northwestern Wildcats. Coached by the legendary Knute Rockne, Notre Dame trotted out the famed “Four Horsemen” backfield. True football historians may also remember Notre Dame’s famed “Seven Mules” linemen. Among these linemen in 1924 was a senior end named Ed Hunsinger.

Did Hunsinger steal the Wildcats name from Northwestern? There is a circumstantial case to be made, but it is impossible to say for sure. For one thing, Northwestern cannot lay claim to being the first Wildcats, as Kentucky has used the name since 1909, Arizona since 1914, Kansas State since 1915, and Davidson University can date its use to 1917. It is not known if Hunsinger actually saw the Abbey article or knew that Northwestern had fully adopted the name. 

The point is not to suggest Hunsinger was dishonest (to be clear, he did nothing unethical), but instead to illustrate that the Wildcats nickname can never be ‘owned’ by Villanova. They were not the first to use the name, nor can it be reasonably argued that there is compelling historical relationship between Villanova and the wildcat. 

Villanova is not obligated to honor the student vote of 1926 forever. It was democratic, but the student body then was starkly different than today. The motivations of those students is a question to consider. Did they consider that the name would remain for going on 90 years? Was it contemplated that the nickname would expand beyond athletics? Did they want a unique, meaningful nickname or did they want one that resembled those of other successful teams?  

It is time for Villanova to consider a new, meaningful nickname that matches the uniqueness of the university. Tradition is tremendously valuable, but it must not be an excuse to resist positive changes. Villanova’s successes as the Wildcats will always remain part of its history. A new nickname can, if chosen carefully, better reflect tradition while offering something unique to the Villanova community. A few possibilities:

1. Villanova has a wonderful history of giving back to the community. Habitat for Humanity programs at Villanova are some of most impactful programs in the country. The Villanova University Hammers honors the young men and women who have answered the call to serve others, while providing a strong image the school’s athletic teams.
2. In the fall of 1968, Villanova became a fully co-educational university. The Villanova University 68s honors the first class of fully-integrated female students. It is a lasting testament that Villanova is made better every day because of its diversity.
3. Villanova was founded by the Order of St. Augustine and is committed to the Augustinian ideals of truth, unity and love. Augustine was ordained and became a Bishop in an area known as Hippo Regius (now part of present day Algeria) and is commonly referred to as Augustine of Hippo. The Villanova University Hippos is a unique name that holds deep meaning to the university.

_____________________
Link to Abbey's article: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1924/11/16/page/25/article/maroons-beat-purple-by-dropkick

(note the article on the same page about Notre Dame and their starting players)

All MLB Team (one player per franchise)

Note: this one is for the baseball nerds...

The challenge:

Create the best possible twenty-five player baseball roster from current major league players by selection no more than one player from each MLB franchise.

Additional ground rules: 

1. The team selected will compete for the remainder of this season and three additional seasons.  
2. Each player selected will receive a contract until the end of this period at a rate approved by management.  At this point, all players will become unrestricted free agents and will give no preference to resigning with your team.  In other words, contracts don't matter, but these players will be gone after the third and final season.  
3. Your franchise will not be allowed to make any trades during this three year period.  
4. Any injured player will be replaced with a faceless replacement level player until the injured player can return.  
5. Your roster will be capped at 25 players.  There will be five MLB franchises who will not have any players represented on your team.  
6. The team will allowed to use a designated hitter.  

This is the team I put together...

Starters (9):

C: Buster Posey, San Francisco Giants, Age 26, Bats: R
The Giants had two very solid candidates to consider: Posey and Madison Bumgarner.  While I would love to have the stud lefty, I couldn't pass up adding the former MVP to my squad.  Posey can also play first base, which will be useful con
sidering how this team must deal with injuries.

1B: Paul Goldschmidt, Arizona Diamondbacks, 25, R
An easy pick as a rising star from a team without a lot of top-tier talent.  Patrick Corbin got some consideration after his insane start to this year, but Goldschmidt is simply too good at age 25 to pass up.

2B: Robinson Cano, New York Yankees, 30, L
Someone will pay Cano a ton of money this offseason and likely lock up his services until well past his prime.  Under these rules, however, Cano is a great pick with huge offensive production from a position where there isn't a ton of talent.  A few years ago, picking only one Yankee would have been agonizing.  Not today.

SS: Troy Tulowitzki, Colorado Rockies, 28, R
Tulowitzki is a great hitter at a premium position.  Picking Tulowitzki closes the door on adding Carlos Gonzalez, but that's a price I'm happy to pay to grab the best shortstop in the league. Tulowitzki was hurt for much of last season, but he is killing it so far this year.  There are many great outfielders in the league, but only one consistently great shortstop, so Tulowitzki is the choice.

3B: Evan Longoria, Tampa Bay Rays, 27, R
Miguel Cabrera is the best third baseman in the baseball, but since I'm giving myself a DH slot, I'm going to put the superior defensive player out in the field.  The price for picking Longoria is losing out on Rays' pitcher Matt Moore.  I also considered David Wright of the Mets here.  The choice came down to Longoria and Matt Harvey or Wright and Moore.  By a hair, I'm taking Longoria and Harvey.

LF: Mike Trout, Los Angeles Angels, 21, R
Another easy choice.  One of the top players in the game and, with the decline of Albert Pujols and the enigma that is Josh Hamilton, our obvious Angel.

CF: Andrew McCutchen, Pittsburgh Pirates, 26, R
McCutchen is easily the most talented player on the Pirates, and despite a relatively slow start, he should be just entering his prime.

RF: Bryce Harper, Washington Nationals, 20, L
Assuming he stops trying to knock down walls with his face, Harper should be one of the best hitters in the league for the foreseeable future.  Further, an outfield of Trout, McCutchen and Harper will not only be great defensively, but each of these guys is athletic enough to play any of the outfield spots.

DH: Miguel Cabrera, Detroit Tigers, 30, R
Tigers Prince Fielder and Justin Verlander are smart, savvy players.  I think both of them would agree that Miggy should be on this team.

Bench (5):

BN1: C- Joe Mauer, Minnesota Twins, 30, L
The left-handed side of my catcher platoon.  I imagine Mauer and Posey splitting the catcher duties to allow both of them to maximize their health.

BN2: 2B- Dustin Pedroia, Boston Red Sox, 29, R
The former MVP has been the most consistent player on the Red Sox over the past several years.  Ortiz is too old, Clay Buchholz has not had enough sustained success and Jacoby Ellsbury is simply not talented enough to be on this team.

BN3: SS- Jean Segura, Milwaukee Brewers, 23, R
This is a surprise even to myself, as I thought Ryan Braun would a lock before I crunched the numbers.    However, the team's depth at outfield and the need to protect against injuries necessitates a player who can backup the injury-prone Tulowitzki.  Additionally, Segura would provide great speed off the bench.

BN4: OF/IF- Chris Davis, Baltimore Orioles, 27, L
This was not an easy choice.  Adam Jones, who plays center for the Orioles, may very well be a superior all-around player.  That being said, Davis is slightly younger, can play first base and outfield (and has played third) and bats from the left side of the plate, which helps balance to what is a very right-handed lineup.

BN5: OF- Giancarlo Stanton, Miami Marlins, 22, R
A great spot for Stanton, who is having a hard time staying healthy for the Marlins.  As the fifth outfielder, this is a good place to roll the dice with someone with his level of talent.

Starting Pitchers (5):

SP1: Clayton Kershaw, Los Angeles Dodgers, 25, Throws: L
Easy.  With the injuries to Matt Kemp and Hanley Ramirez, the young Dodger ace is a no-brainer.

SP2: Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners, 27, R
Felix is still mowing kids down up in the Pacific Northwest.  Just twenty-seven years old, he's as safe a bet as anyone to continue to dominate for the next few seasons.

SP3: Yu Darvish, Texas Rangers, 26, R
For the Rangers, Adrian Beltre warranted some consideration, but Darvish has been spectacular in just his second season in MLB.

SP4: James Shields, Kansas City Royals, 31, R
The Rays were thoughtful enough to move one of their stud pitchers to Kansas City so that I could include a Royal in this exercise.  His past experience pitching "big games" solidifies his spot here.

SP5: Adam Wainwright, St. Louis Cardinals, 31, R
A difficult choice with Shelby Miller available, but Wainwright gets the slight edge due to his playoff experience.

Relief Pitchers (6)

RP1: Matt Harvey, New York Mets, 24, R
Injuries are going to happen to any pitching staff, so I'm going to stash at least two starters in the bullpen to work the middle innings while being ready to slide into the rotation if need be.  The Mets young ace certainly has the talent to do both.

RP2: Chris Sale, Chicago White Sox, 24, L
Seniority matters on this team, so the young guns get stocked in the bullpen until a spot opens up in the rotation or until one of the starters falters.  Sale has proven that last year was no fluke and has continued to dominate in 2013.

RP3: Jeff Samardzija, Chicago Cubs, 28, R
A former reliever, the intimidating Samardzija can regain that mindset and excel when called on in the middle innings. While there may be an adjustment for all of these starting pitchers moving to the pen, I think it's wise to add their superior skill set to the roster as opposed to picking middle relief specialists.

RP4: Aroldis Chapman, Cincinnati Reds, 25, L
Chapman becomes the lefty specialist.  No lefty hitter wants to see this guy come out of the pen.  His unique skill-set bumps Joey Votto off this team, which was one of the toughest omissions.

RP5: Craig Kimbrel, Atlanta Braves, 25, R
A true franchise closer- on this team he's the eighth inning guy.

RP6: Jonathan Papelbon, Philadelphia Phillies, 32, R
Our starting closer.  At 32, doesn't have the ceiling of either Chapman or Kimbrel, but is playoff tested and is still a very effective reliever.

Final roster:

Position players (14):
C: Posey/ Mauer
1B: Goldschmidt
2B: Cano/ Pedroia
SS: Tulowitzki/ Segura
3B: Cabrera/ Longoria
OF: Trout/ McCutchen/ Harper/ Davis/ Stanton

Starting Pitchers (5):
Kershaw/Hernandez/Darvish/Shields/Wainwright

Relief Pitchers (6):
Harvey/ Sale/ Samardzija/ Chapman/ Kimbrel/ Papelbon


Certainly there were some extremely difficult decisions and not all the selected players can lay claim to being the best players on their own teams.  Some of the hardest omissions were Joey Votto, Carlos Gonzalez, Ryan Braun, Matt Moore, Justin Upton, Carlos Santana, Prince Fielder, Justin Verlander, Shelby Miller, David Wright, Stephen Strasburg, Adrian Beltre, Adam Jones and Madison Bumgartner.

With twenty-five slots, five teams were not going to have any players on this team.   Cleveland, Houston, Oakland, San Diego, and Toronto are not represented.

The Electoral Graduate School

I dig electoral maps.  I get a lot of joy out of watching the states turn red or blue.  I love how this extremely important process is broken down into coloring-book form.  Of course, you could argue that recent elections have been so childish and pedantic that a coloring-book outcome is quite fitting.

Leading up to a presidential election, websites and media outlets project the voting in each state and produce predictive electoral maps based on polling and historical trends.  Their work reveals the states where the data suggests a close election result (these states are known as 'battleground states' or 'swing states').  Candidates wisely devote the most resources to these states, as swaying the votes of a small amount of voters could 'swing' the state and all its electoral votes.

This 'Moneyball' approach to campaigning makes a lot of sense.  Citizens in the battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, etc.) are bombarded with political ads and campaign rallies.  When I lived in Philadelphia in 2004, candidate John Kerry seemed to be town every other day in the months leading up to the election.  Conversely, presidential candidates only stop in New York for fund-raisers or to do presidential stuff if they're, y'know, the president.

There is nothing politically relevant about these battleground states.  Folks in Ohio and Florida are not more thoughtful or insightful about their ballots.  Neither state has a population of people that are more 'representative' of the national populace.  It is simply a matter of randomness that these particular states have borders that contain the perfect mix of rural and urban, rich and poor, and liberal and conservative to consistently create a near 50/50 election result.

The focus on appealing to voters in battleground states creates some unwanted consequences:

1. Presidential candidates themselves (and their vice-presidential selections) are more likely to be put forth by a political party if they are from one of these swing states.  Therefore, a superior candidate from a non-swing state may be passed over for a slightly less appealing candidate from a swing state.

2. Candidates are more likely to promise (and follow-through on) programs that will provide a disproportionate benefit to voters in swing states.  As an example, Michigan and Ohio derive many jobs and rely heavily on the auto industry.  So, regardless of whether the auto bailout benefited the country as a whole, candidates know that supporting the bailout would win the favor of voters in these important swing states.

3. Voters in non-swing states cast votes that are very unlikely to affect the final result and therefore have less incentive to vote.  In states like New York, Alabama, California, and Texas, the results are all but locked-in even before candidates are selected.  For these voters, the decision to vote comes down to either a strong desire to express their opinion or a sense of civic duty.  For many, these two factors are not sufficient to overcome the inconvenience or cost of travelling to their polling place.

In my opinion, every potential voter should have the knowledge that their vote could influence the outcome of the election.  A vote from Texas should have the same weight as a vote in Florida.  More importantly, a voter in Texas should have the same motivation to vote as a voter in Florida.  Likewise, candidates should have an equal incentive to reach undecided voters in Texas as they do undecided voters in Florida.

Many argue to abandon the Electoral College in its entirely and simply count the popular vote.  I just do not believe that's practical (or fun).  You only have to remember the 2000 (Bush-Gore) election that called for a recount in Florida.  That recount was a disaster, but at least it was limited to one state.  If that recount had been nationwide, I don't think the final result could have been determined in an acceptable time frame and the financial cost would have been astronomical.

Thus, any proposed Electoral College fix should accomplish two goals: (1) provide all voters with the knowledge that their vote is as likely to affect the outcome as any other vote, and (2) limit the possibility of and contain the damage of a close or disputed ballot count such that the final outcome may be resolved fairly quickly.  

Here are three potential proposals and an assessment of how well they accomplish these two goals:

Plan 1: Allow states to divide their electoral votes based on percentage of votes received.  This accomplishes the first goal.  Ohio's 18 electoral votes are very likely to be split either 9-9 or 10-8 assuming a very close popular vote.  The incentive for a candidate to focus their energy here as opposed to elsewhere is gone.  For voters in non-swing states, they know that their vote may push important electoral votes towards their candidate, regardless of how their state as a whole votes.  Unfortunately, this proposal opens does not fulfill the second goal.  In a state like California, there were roughly ten million votes cast.  Dividing up the states 55 electoral votes, we see that every 18,000 or so votes would yield one electoral vote.  Lawyers for either side could reasonably argue that the ballot-counting was in error by this small amount, greatly increasing the odds that the election will be disputed and that a recount is needed.

Plan 2: Randomly redraw the electoral 'states' and not release the redrawn 'states' until immediately before the election.  The first goal is met for the most part.  Voters in Ohio may be in a redrawn 'state' with parts of Pennsylvania or Indiana.  Or, it could be divided in such a way to only include a small piece of the state.  For certain areas, voters may still believe their vote will not affect the election.  There are certain parts of the country that no redrawing will affect the overall result.  For instance, the areas in and around New York City would be very unlikely to go to a conservative candidate regardless of how the area is delineated, while any area in the Bible Belt would likely go the other way.  The second goal would be mostly accomplished, as the new 'states' should be no more unmanageable than the current states.  However, as voting rules are set out by state law, conflicts will undoubtedly arise if a close race is made up of votes from multiple states.

Plan 3: Randomly pair up the states.  The election would occur as it always does, but with one extra step.  After all votes are cast, each of the 50 states (sorry, DC) are thrown into a hat (not a literal hat, but if a literal hat, definitely one of those Uncle Sam top hats).  Two states are selected at random and the aggregate popular vote of the two states determines where combined electoral votes of the two states are allocated.  For example, lets say that Obama wins Ohio by 30,000 votes and Romney wins Georgia by 90,000 votes.  If those two states are randomly paired up, Romney would win all of Georgia's electoral votes AND all of Ohio's electoral votes.  The selections would continue until all fifty states are paired up.  Crazy, right?  Crazy awesome.  Based on the two part test, this one passes on both counts.  Regardless of how your individual state votes, each vote is important as voters do not know what pool of voters will be included in their count.  Also, recounts are no more likely.  While a recount of dual-state outcome would require two states to conduct a recount, there would only be twenty-five dual-state outcomes as opposed to the current fifty state outcomes.  Plus, every state would have equal recount risk, as opposed to just Florida, Ohio and the rest of the swing states.  The basic fact that all states may face a recount supports our first goal: that each vote is equally likely to affect the final outcome.

Plan 3 will never happen, despite how much I would want to watch the live state pairing selection show (would this be the highest rated show in history?) and the drama that would follow.  But this approach is superior to the current format.  After all, is anything more ridiculous than having a federal election determined by the people of Ohio?

Flip-Flopping on Soccer in America

Today, I had my first chance to watch some of the Euro2012 soccer matches.  When the stakes are high and national pride is on the line, soccer is a joy to watch.  The game is perfectly set up to build drama, test players' nerves, and (best of all) limit television commercial breaks.  Further, soccer does not face the headwinds that other major sports are facing, specifically player concussions and rampant steroid/performance enhancing drug problems.

In the US, professional soccer is clearly a second-class sport.  Unless the national team is making waves in the World Cup, the game is an afterthought.  Die-hard soccer fans cannot fathom how their game only captures the interest of Americans during the World Cup, though there are no shortage of theories:

1. Soccer is considered a foreign sport and we are drawn to more "American" sports.  Rightly or wrongly, this is a hurdle that the sport must overcome.  It has been my experience that American soccer fans are considered "elitist" unless they are immigrants or are first generation American. Meanwhile, soccer is played by a huge percentage of American youths and an even bigger percentage of kids around the world.  So, to follow the logic, you're an elitist if you follow the least elitist sport in the world unless you can prove that you are not, in fact, socially elite.  Americans are awesome sometimes.

2. Americans don't follow soccer because we just aren't very good at it.   I think there's an argument here, too.  We are spoiled by our professional leagues.  The NHL pulls in the best players from Canada and Russia; the NBA grabs the best European players; Major League Baseball attracts the most talented players from the Dominican and Central America; and the NFL employs the finest... um... Samoans. Our best national players need to go to Europe to experience playing against the best competition, giving the impression that American soccer is an inferior product.    

3. Soccer is boring.  No, it isn't. 

4. Too much flopping.  To me, this is the smoking gun. "Flopping" in soccer parlance is the art of dramatically throwing oneself on the ground and writhing in staged agony in an attempt to have a foul assessed on the opposition (typically to draw a penalty shot or a free kick). This is taken to point of absurdity, as players are put on stretchers and carried off the field screaming in agony, only to hop off the stretcher and immediately return to the game with no ill-effects.

American sports fans simply refuse to accept this. We revere athletes that play through injuries, conceal physical pain and never use an injury as an excuse (see Reed, Willis and Strug, Kerri).

As an example, the NBA has been rigorously defending its players against accusations of players flopping in the playoffs. In the recent past, basketball players from Europe and South America have been labeled unsportsmanlike for embellishing fouls. True or not, the insinuation is that players from "soccer countries" are not as physically or mentally tough as their American counterparts.     

European Floption

Americans like to project the image we want onto our athletes: tough, fair and honorable. Flopping represents everything we claim to disdain in our athletes.

If we collectively looked in a mirror (convex would be best), we would see that while we claim to reject flopping, we actually embrace it in other sports and in our every day lives.

American sports fans love when their team wins, of course, but only slightly less enjoyable is making excuses when their team loses- especially when a bad officiating call is to blame. To deride flopping is to rebel against controversy and complaining, which is the very essence of being a sports fan.

The flop is also a cultural norm. Our new favorite past-time (Reality Television) is all about the flop. You say something that might possibly be considered vaguely disrespectful to a non-specific person or persons and, boom, you have an episode of the Kardashians, the Jersey Shore or the entire Bravo! network.

Our politicians are world-class floppers, treating every offhanded comment and gesture as an personal insult and a condemnation of at least one major voting constituency. This is how innocuous comments turn into a "War on Women," a "War on Marriage," or a "War on Algebra" (give it a few months). As 2012 is an election year, expect the flopping to reach epic proportions as we get closer to November. Every time Obama or Romney expresses an opinion, expect to see the opposition writhing on the ground crying foul.

Eventually, I believe that soccer's appeal will take hold in the States. The catalyst may be an extremely strong showing in the World Cup by the American team, a crisis in one of the major US sports, or the entrance of an American team into one of the top European leagues (a New York team in the English Premier League, anyone?). I have no idea when this will happen, but I know that certain media members and fans will be unhappy. These folks will complain about the dramatics, moan about the perceived lack of sportsmanship, and decry the eroding of the American sports ideal... in other words, they'll flop like Americans:

A Hammer for Major League Baseball

I love baseball.  Opening Day of baseball season is one of the best days of the year.  It's tangible proof that winter is over... and winter sucks.

As an affirmed baseball fan, it's my responsibility to defend the sport.  That means that when someone says baseball is boring, I have to insist that it isn't, even though it is.

The season is too long.  Playoff games start too late at night.  The game is too slow for today's short attention spans.  Pitchers and hitters waste too much time between pitches.  Pitching changes and visits to the mound make games last forever.


I happen to agree with this last point.  It irks me that relief pitchers are allowed to throw warm-up pitches from the mound after already warming up in the bullpen.  This would be like me showering and brushing my teeth to go to work, arriving at work, then showering and brushing my teeth again while my co-workers were waiting for me to get started.  Or, in sports terms, stopping a basketball game to allow substituted-in players to shoot practice free throws when that player had just spent ten minutes shooting free throws in a "free throw pen" located next to the court.

In the macro sense, the Major League Baseball's most egregious error has been their inability to really resonate within the sports news cycle.

There is nowhere near enough actual news occurring the in sports world to justify all the sports websites, blogs, tweets and the hundred or so ESPN channels that I pay for... not to mention the sports radio and internet message boards.  Sportswriters are like hungry arctic wolves fighting over a buffalo carcass or a pod of Orcas trying to knock a seal off an iceberg (By the way, I advise you to watch 'Frozen Planet' on the Discovery Channel).  The sports media will beat any story, no matter how mundane, to death.  Then they will revive the story with the clear intention of re-beating it to death.

To today's fan, following their team is as much about following the media coverage as it is about actually watching the game.  While baseball can match football and basketball in the off-the-field drama (free agency, trades, DUIs, steroids and trampoline injuries), the games themselves do not generate nearly enough controversy or arguments.

Football and basketball fans can dissect their coaches, evaluating their in-game decision making and second guessing every failed decision.  Baseball fans have very few opportunities to do the same. Managers set the lineup, handle pitching changes, and put in pinch-hitters or pinch-runners in certain situations.  When these decisions blow up (see Little, Grady and Brenly, Bob), the media and the internet ignite and baseball steals the headlines for weeks at a time.

At its core, baseball is a game of execution.  Pitchers pitch, hitters hit.  The outcomes are dictated by which side executes better.  This is a wonderful set-up, but baseball should take a cue from its counterparts and put more of an emphasis on strategy.

To that end, I propose that MLB throw the biggest wrinkle into their rules since the inception of the Designated Hitter: the "Roving Hitter".  Here's how it would work:

• Under current rules, managers submit their lineup and their complete batting order (consisting of all nine players in a set order) to the umpire and the opposing team before the first pitch of every game.  Per the new rule, the submitted lineup will contain only eight of the nine players in a set order.  The final hitter will be listed as a "Roving Hitter" (dubbed "The Hammer" in honor of Hank Aaron) and will not have a set spot in the order.
• Any of the nine starters (including a designated hitter) can be selected as the Roving Hitter. 
• Managers can send the Roving Hitter up to the plate one time during each turn of the batting order and such hitter will slide in between the previous hitter and the hitter who would naturally follow in the batting order.  Once the eight hitter has completed their at bat, the lineup is considered "turned over" and the Roving Hitter may be utilized again.
• In any inning where the Roving Hitter is inserted into the lineup, the Roving Hitter will maintain that position in the batting order until the inning ends.  Therefore, the Roving Hitter cannot bat twice in an inning unless all eight other hitters come to the plate between his at bats. To that end, managers have the option of holding back the Roving Hitter and not deploying him during a certain turn of the batting order in order to bat him at a later time during that inning.
• The Roving Hitter will be considered to have batted at the moment he steps into the batters box. If a baserunner is picked off during his at bat, the Roving Hitter will be considered spent that time through the lineup and would not be allowed to lead-off the following inning.
• After the Roving Hitter is announced, the opposing team will have the opportunity to change pitchers. 
• If the Roving Hitter is removed for a pinch-hitter, pinch-runner or replacement fielder, the Roving Hitter's spot will become locked into the batting order at the spot where the Roving Hitter last batted.  

Stat-icy

Let's see how this would play out:

The Yankees are playing on the road against the Red Sox during an important September game.  The Yankees submit their lineup with Alex Rodriguez as their Roving Hitter and the Red Sox submit a lineup choosing Dustin Pedroia as their Roving Hitter.  

In the top of the second inning, the Yankees put runners on second and third with one man out.  As the Yankees have not yet deployed ARod as their Roving Hitter, the Red Sox will think twice before intentionally walking the current batter to set up a potential double play, since that will likely bring up the Roving Hitter with the bases loaded. On the other hand, if the Yankees had batted ARod in the first inning, such an option would not exist and the Yankees fans would likely second guess the manager's decision.  

In the bottom of the eighth inning, the Sox are down by two runs and are sending up the bottom of their order (with their Roving Hitter still available).  Knowing that two runs are required to tie the game, will the Sox' manager send up Pedroia at the beginning of that inning?  Does he save Pedroia for a situation where there are runners on base and he could potentially tie the game (and risk losing the Roving Hitter that time through the lineup)?  Or do the Sox consider Pedroia's success facing the Yankees' current pitcher verses facing the Yankees closer in the following inning?

While longtime baseball fans will howl about such a significant change to the rules, this is no more of a change than than the DH rule.  The upside is that while the DH decreases the number of strategic decisions made in each game, the Roving Hitter rule will dramatically increase role of the manager.

From a fan's perspective, this is a win-win-win.

On the field, intentional walks will decrease, overall offense will increase, and every inning will have an increased sense of urgency.

Off the field, statheads will rush to analyze the new rule to a ridiculous degree.  Fantasy baseballers will be all atwitter evaluating how this rule affects their game.  Each manager's decisions will be dissected and will be a constant source of fans' discussions.

The media will be given something meaty to sink their teeth into.  Managers will essentially need to pick their best hitter each game, making some heads expand while bruising some egos.   The Roving Hitters themselves will be put under an extreme microscope.  Contracts for the game's best Roving Hitters will increase dramatically.  All of this will make the game more compelling.

Enjoy Opening Day.  I know I'll be watching... at least the first five innings.

The New New Reality

My dad has seen every episode of Cops.  This is amazing, considering that there have been nearly 1,000 episodes since the show began in 1989.  The show has outlasted two VCRs and TiVo and now gets scooped up on his DVR.

What ya gonna do?  

Cops is a reality show that records police officers as they respond to various situations.  There is no voice-over or narration.  The take-aways of the show are pretty simple: (1) drugs and alcohol cause problems, (2) jumping out of a moving car during a car chase is probably not your best option, (3) people who live in trailer parks address most issues by punching/stabbing their spouses, and (4) police officers are on their best behavior when they know they are being filmed.   

The amazing things about Cops, besides my father's investment in it, is that reality television has gone nearly full-circle since it came on the air.  Popular shows like Survivor, Big Brother and Biggest Loser place ordinary people in extraordinary and contrived situations.  Over the years, these shows have become formulaic.  Every reality contestant has seen every other reality show and such experience influences their behavior. In the end, each season becomes a variation of the previous season.

Reality TVs next big thing is already here.  Why place ordinary people in crazy contrived situations when you can film ordinary people who have already put themselves in crazy situations?  As a bonus, instead of having "contestants" who aspire to stardom, these new reality stars have their own aspirations (usually to make money in the most dangerous way possible).

Below, I've put together a useful ranking of the best of the new reality television world:

7. IRT (Ice Road Truckers)- History Channel

This blog has riveting visual aids!

Synopsis: A bunch of idiots drive trucks through over frozen stretches of the Arctic or narrow, dangerous roads.  The cameras follow these clowns as they drive and explain to the viewers that ice is cold, ice is slippery, and cold and slippery ice is slippery and cold.

Reason to watch: Ice looks cool in HD.

Reason to not watch: The lack of drama.  The big payoff would be a huge crash, but the fact is that crashes just don't happen that often.

Cigarette consumption: Moderate-High.  These people are the opposite of healthy.

Possibility of my doing this job: 10 out of 10.  I like driving.  I like ice.  I like being left alone.  I like the idea of getting use out of my prescription sunglasses.

6. Ax Men- History Channel:

I can't find the top of the boat.

Synopsis: Teams of men in the Pacific northwest and the swamps of the US search for lumber.  Workers operating big machinery try not to kill their co-workers, with limited success.

Reason to watch: The father and son team trying to pull up logs from a swamp.  The father of this team (pictured above) is dumber and has less social graces an inanimate carbon rod.  Also, kudos to the History Channel for computerized graphic simulations that all result in decapitations.

Reasons not to watch: The drama is contrived.  On land, cutting down trees is fairly straightforward and success is just a matter of competence.  Not so in the swamps, where the logging is much more of a roll of the dice.

Cigarette consumption: Moderate.

Possibility of my doing this job: 5 of 10.  Forget about diving in the swamp- I don't trust anyone on these boats to not asphyxiate themselves on their own underpants while I'm underwater.  I could do the tree cutting thing, but only because being pancaked by a tree missile sounds like it would make an interesting obituary.

5. Whale Wars- Animal Planet

"Did you know that so called 'volunteers' don't even get paid?" - Homer Simpson

Synopsis: Where to even begin??  This show follows a group of Greenpeace-type activists as they try to deter Japanese fishermen from poaching whales from the Arctic.  Their methods would be amusing if they were a joke, but in reality their methods are f-n hysterical.  Such methods include throwing stink bombs at massive Japanese whaling ships and pelting said ships with paintballs.

Reason to watch the show: The members of fleet trying to save the whales are seemingly devoid of both basic boating skills and common sense.  This makes any potential "operation" both life-threatening and compellingly pointless.

Reasons not to watch: After about 30 minutes of watching our heroes whine, you actually want to choke a whale to death.

Cigarette consumption: None. Cigarettes cause cancer.

Possibility of doing this job: N/A out of 10.  These folks obliterate the line between success and failure.


4. Bering Sea Gold- Discovery Channel

Synopsis: Treasure hunters in Alaska try to get gold off the floor of the ocean on barges that look like they were made by eighth-graders.

Reason to watch: One of the workers lives in an abandoned school bus, which the narrator casually mentions at every possible opportunity.

Reason not to watch: These guys all have serious drinking problems (and may be sex offenders), a fact that clearly does not disqualify them from almost drowning themselves and their coworkers.  This should be the basis of the show.

Cigarette Consumption: Low to moderate.  Cigarettes get wet when you fall in the ocean trying not to spill your malt liquor.

Possibility of doing this job: 3 out of 10.  Would be zero, but I do want to try mining for gold from a boat made out of a refrigerator box, a hammock, and a volleyball.


3. Gold Rush Alaska- Discovery Channel

Synopsis: Treasure hunters in Alaska try to get gold out of the ground while their machinery falls apart.

Reason to watch: If these dudes were more grizzled, they'd be trying to grab salmon out of a half-frozen river.

Reason not to watch: Unfortunately, these guys only get eight or nine flecks of gold after digging up a hole the size of Dodger Stadium.

Cigarette Consumption:  Heavy, limited only by two-hand operation of back-loader.

Possibility of doing this job: 8 out of 10.  This actually looks like fun, to the point where I would consider doing it if only to grow a neck beard.


2. Storm Chasers- Discovery Channel:

Synopsis: Meteorologists drive special vehicles into the paths of tornadoes trying to get video footage and research data, while arguing like old married couples.

Reasons to watch: The footage is actually quite good, and they have enough tornadoes to keep the episodes moving.  Also, golf ball-sized hail.

Reasons not to watch: The drives into the tornadoes are slightly less amazing when you consider that someone is filming these guys from a different vehicle.  I want to see a show where they follow the video truck called "Storm Chaser Chaser Chasers".

Cigarette consumption: None.... which is probably a good idea considering these guys are sitting in the same car for literally days on end.

Possibility of my doing this job: 4 out of 10.  I think I'd get car sick and tornadoes are terrifying.  At the same time, the science is kind of cool and one guy wears a football helmet for some reason.

1. Deadliest Catch- Discovery Channel

Synopsis: The torchbearer of this genre, this one has everything.  Down-on-their-luck dudes trapped on a disgusting fishing boat and forced to work 36 hours straight without a break.  And they've got crabs.

Reasons to watch: Numerous.  Bon Jovi theme song ("Dead or Alive"!), brutal weather, fistfights, screaming matches, near-death experiences and big rubber sledgehammers used to break up ice.

Reasons not to watch: Will make you feel better about your job, which might not be a good thing.

Cigarettes smoked: Ridiculous.  I feel like the surgeon general might want to get involved.

Possibility of my doing this job: 0 out of 10.  No.  Thanks.  All I needed to see was a "making of" episode where one of the camera men was incredibly seasick for days and said:, "I would kill everyone I know to get off this boat."  I feel you, camera guy.  

How to be an Expert in 2011

Wherever you look these days, there are experts.  There are sports experts, politics experts, terrorism experts, social media experts, financial experts, and I'm sure there are "expert experts" somewhere.  I'm not sure what an "expert expert" would do, only that Sarah Palin would hate them. 

I think it's safe to say that we've reached the point where the word "expert" has lost all meaning. 

The Traditional Expert

Until recently, there were really two ways to become an expert: either be deemed an expert by another expert based on experience or complete some sort of academic sequence (a PhD, for instance) and write high-level academic literature on their selected topic.  Once an expert was identified, the expert would usually teach, write, and offer advice.  Your traditional expert was someone like Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, Henry Kissinger, or Stephen Hawking (trust me, they all have Wikipedia pages). 

Occasionally, they'd show up on the nightly news in a limited capacity to opine on a specific relevant matter.  Having this forum did not make them experts, instead it was their expertise that allowed them to have the forum.

The term "expert" meant that someone is recognized by others in their field as having a very high level of knowledge compared to other top people in that field. 

An Expert Today

With the growth of the internet and the 24-hour-a-day news cycle, this dynamic has been reversed.  Experts are deemed experts because they give opinions.  The only qualification for being an expert these days is to be able to speak or type (and, no, I'm not going to make a Stephen Hawking joke here, but I won't think less of you if you do). 

Experts can make a lot of money.  They are treated as celebrities.  Their opinions matter.  Not a bad deal just for giving your two cents.

Here's a step-by-step approach to becoming an expert in today's world: 

Step 1- Choose Your Field

This is where a lot of would-be experts lose their way.  They set out to be experts in areas like physics, economics, and engineering.  First of all, those things are all complicated and hard.  You need to go to school and work in your profession just to pick up the correct terminology. 

More to the point, you want to avoid any areas where others can prove you wrong.  If I opine that energy does not equal mass times acceleration squared, I'm going to get an argument.  Other experts will want to see my graph-lined paper and have me show my work.  They may determine that I've made a serious error or that I am, in fact, full of shit. 

It is with this in mind that I offer you to stick to the following list of expertise: fashion, investing, fantasy sports, and celebrity gossip. 

These areas have everything you could want.  People are eager to hear about these things, much of it is subjective and nobody cares enough to take the time to argue with you even when you're proven wrong or discredited.

Step 2- Be Right  

A friend of a friend of a friend is a financial planner working in New York.  He actively manages his clients' investments (meaning that he decides on trades and buying and selling investments on his clients' behalf).  At the beginning of the financial crisis a few years back, he admitted that he had no idea what the stock market or any other market was going to do.  His came up with a smart solution.  He divided his clients in half and, unbeknownst to his clients, had half of them long the market (betting that stocks would go up) and half short the market (betting that stocks could go down). 

In sports terms, he had moved from gambler to bookie.  Half of his clients (the ones for whom he had short the market) made a killing.  The other half got ruined.  Without knowing his strategy, these clients who made money believed that his success with their money was the result of the his expertise.  He built trust with these clients and probably got quite a few referrals from these folks.

It's a variation of the old gambling advice scheme: In week 1, I call 200 people and tell half of them to pick the Dolphins over the Bears and tell the other half to pick the Bears over the Dolphins. In week 2, I call back the 100 that got the correct pick the previous week, and tell half of them to pick the Eagles over the Redskins and the other half to pick the Redskins over the Eagles. In week 3, I call back the 50 people who got both correct picks and offer to sell them my week 3 pick.

The lesson here: how you are right is irrelevant, just so long as people think it's because of your expertise.

Step 3- Don't Be Wrong

I don't know how many experts work at CNBC (the 24-hour finance channel), but it's roughly the number of people who have ever appeared on the network minus four.

Most every expert who opines on the network gives their opinion on which stocks will go up in value and and which will go down.  Statistics have shown that even the most revered stock pickers make less than the broad market nearly as often as they beat the broad market. 

(As an aside: Wall Street folk get paid an insane amount of money to be right as often as they're wrong.  Why?  Because people think they're experts, of course.)

So, if an expert says a stock will go up and the stock goes up the next day, he's right.  On the contrary, if that same stock goes down, he's wrong... except when he's right.

Allow me to explain.  Let's say that stock that he said would go up was valued at $50 a share when he made the prediction.  The next day it drops to $48.  A week later, it bounces back to $51 a share.  Tadaa!  The stock has gone up!  By giving a unspecified time frame, the expert can look backwards and declare himself correct.  The expert has willed it to happen with his expertness.

And we're not done yet.  Let's say the stock doesn't bounce back up from $48.  The expert can compare that stock the rest of the market or other similar stocks.  The stock may have performed well relative to other stocks, even if it didn't go up.  The expert has saved you from owning even shittier stocks!   He's some sort of wizard! 

Step 4- Go Big


Earlier this year, the media jumped on as story about a religious leader predicting the rapture for a specific day.  For a long time, I could never figure out why anyone would try to predict the end of the world.  If you're wrong, you're wrong.  If you're right, you're dead.   But now I understand.  He was completely wrong about the rapture and was mocked for about a day by for being wrong, but then most people forgot about the story. 

Now, what happens when another holy man predicts a definite future date as the end of the world?  Who will the media want to talk to?  That's right, the guy who was wrong the last time.  We'll get an opinion and a new "expert" on the end of the world.  And all he had to do was be completely wrong!  Good stuff. 

Step 5- Shoot the Moon

Every ridiculous opinion is a lottery ticket.  If an outrageous prediction sticks, you may get to expert status without passing Go and collecting $200.

This works for any would-be expert.  Pick any college freshman and declare that he'll be the best basketball player of all time.  Pick a random investment and opine that it will triple in value or become worthless.  Declare that Hunt's Tomato Catsup will become the new currency in the Euro Zone.  Speculate that Jennifer Aniston will eat 50 pounds of Twizzlers on her 50th birthday.  Type a blog post about how gay marriage will destroy daylight savings time.  C'mon, it's not like the internet is charging by the word.

Just know that if one of these comes through, you will be the person who correctly predicted the unpredictable.  And even if you get it wrong, you may still get to be an expert. 

Step 6- Profit! 

Moonlight Graham

In difficult times like these, it's useful to step back and remember what is important in life.  In that vein, I've decided to take a moment to file a rant on a 1989 Kevin Costner movie.

Field of Dreams was a cultural and commercial success.  I saw in in the theatre, as my mom took advantage of a promotion whereby you got into the theatre for free if you brought a pillow.   My mom is good like that.

For those who haven't seen it or don't remember the details, Ray (played by Costner) and Terrance (played by James Earl Jones), go on an adventure prompted by Ray's talking corn-field.  Ray builds a baseball field in the corn-stalks on his farm and, again prompted by the talking corn, drives to Boston to take Terrance to a Red Sox game.  Did I mention that there are ghosts playing baseball on the field?  No?  Well, they are. 

Anyway, Ray finds Terrance, they go to a Sox game, and the Fenway Park scoreboard tells them to find a baseball player named Moonlight Graham, who played one game in 1922 and never got an at-bat: 

(Off topic, but this scene freaked me out when I first saw it.  Every time I looked at a scoreboard, I said a little prayer that it wouldn't show me an eerie message.  Being 10 years old is terrifying.)

So, Ray and Terrance drive to Minnesota and learn that Moonlight is not-so-much alive anymore.  This is of no matter to Ray, who promptly visits 1972 to have a chat with Moonlight (who is an elderly local doctor). 

Upon leaving Minnesota, they pick up a hitchhiker: a wide-eyed young baseball player named Moonlight Graham.  They bring him to Ray's cornfield, where famous dead professional baseballers are having a rousing game of ball.  Moonlight gets into the game, realizing his dream.  He comes up to bat and hits a sacrifice fly to center in his only plate appearance.  Immediately after, Ray's daughter chokes on a hot dog, Moonlight steps from the field, transforms back into the weathered doctor, saves Ray's daughter, then walks into the corn and disappears.  So, if you're scoring at home, Moonlight has gone from dead, to old, to young, to old, and back to dead in about an hour of screen-time. 

Now, I have no problem with any of this.  As the credits roll, Ray has saved his farm and gets to play catch with his deceased father- a rather solid ending.  The baseball scenes are authentic looking, the parts of the movie that are supposed to be funny are funny, and the actors do a great job in the movie (except maybe for Ray's wife, who is excruciating).  In fact, the movie got an Oscar nomination for best picture, and this was back before every movie got a nomination.

My issue is that they haven't addressed Moonlight's statistical deficiency.  As seen in the clip above, the scoreboard at Fenway  stated that Moonlight had one game, but no at bats.  Ray and Terrance clearly state their intention to remedy the fact that he has no at bats.  He comes to bat in the movie, and flies out to the outfield, scoring the runner from third base.  It's a sacrifice fly- get it? he sacrifices himself!- but a sacrifice fly is not counted as an official "at bat" under the official scoring rules of baseball!    This has driven me crazy since I first saw the movie. 

I've tried to reconcile this with the baseball rules.  Maybe a sacrifice fly counted as an at bat in 1922?  Nope.  Nor did it count as an at bat in 1989 (when the movie came out).  At certain points, the official rules did count this as an at bat, but those times were short-lived (prior to 1908 and between 1940-1954).  Since we're told that most of the players on the field were banned from baseball in 1919, it seems quite unlikely that they'd be playing using the rules of either era. 

The players in Ray's field were most likely not keeping any statistics outside of each team's run total, but since the characters expended so much effort to get Moonlight his one "at bat", this is a huge oversight. 

Next week I'll break down the jurisprudence of Night Court, to see if I can suck all the fun out of that too....

Karate School.



The S&P downgrade of the Federal Government

I've been a (moderately) active investor since I've had two nickels to rub together (circa 2006).  Between then and now, I've watched the market be relatively stable, crash, stabilize, crash again, bounce, and crash again while I'm typing this.

Today's drop can be directly attributed to Standard & Poor's (S&P) downgrading the federal government's credit rating, from AAA (the highest) to AA+ (the second highest). 

This has rattled investors, who have started indiscriminately selling stocks to put their money into cash. 

However, I would argue that this sell-off has much more to do with fear and confusion than it does to do with any sort of financial reason.

Note to Government: Stop doing anything.

The one thing I have learned from investing is that federal government action = stocks go down.  Obama talking about the economy = stocks go down.  Congress doing anything = stocks go down.  Congress does nothing and it shows up on the news = stocks go down.

The debt ceiling debacle has smacked the economic recovery in the face.  We can handle the fact that our elected officials are corrupt or that they're imbeciles.  But we never realized how badly their idiocy could fuck us until the country was brought to the brink of default for political reasons.

What the hell is S&P and what is its function? 

Standard & Poor's has a super-important sounding name.  S&P is the name of a stock index that shows up on the news along with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the NASDAQ.  It has the word "Standard" in it.  Is it a government agency?  What sort of power does it have?

Well, S&P is actually a private company, owned by McGraw-Hill.  Yes, McGraw-Hill the book publisher. 

Its function is as a "ratings agency."  A ratings agency is a company that rates (assesses the ability of borrowers to pay back loans) debts that are for sale.  In the federal government's case, the government issues bonds to raise money.  A government bond is an IOU from the government, stating that they will repay the IOU plus interest.  A downgrade of the federal governments rating means that S&P believes that there is a higher likelihood of the federal government electing to not pay back their IOUs. 

S&P rates all sorts of bonds, from straight corporate bonds to bonds backed up by assets (such as mortgages).  For the record, a whole lot of loans that rating agencies (including S&P) said had virtually no chance of going bad did just that during the financial crisis.  Investors who relied on the ratings and thought they were being conservative were hit hard.  S&Ps inflated ratings were most likely caused by either (i) not knowing what they were doing, or (ii) refusing to give bad ratings to the bond issuers, who coincidentally were paying the rating agencies to produce the ratings.  S&P was nice enough to lower their ratings during the financial crisis, thus throwing more gas on the fire that they helped to start.

What does the downgrade actually mean? 

The interesting dynamic here is that the federal government can print money.  It can literally turn on a printer and produce bills.  It's like lending someone on a beach a bunch of sea-water and telling them that they need to pay you back a bucket of sea-water every month.  That borrower can always get more water- the only risk to the lender is that the borrower refuses to do so.  Likewise, the question is not whether the government can pay its debts, but instead the question is will the government refuse to pay its debts.

Essentially, the downgrade is directly tied to the government's inability to get things done.  If one of the two parties is willing to use government default as leverage to get its way, it naturally follows that eventually the other side will refuse to budge.

So, what's the end result?

Investors are selling their shares and getting out of the market.  In a different time, the market might having other investors coming in to the market to buy stocks at a discount.  After the financial crisis, investors know that just because a stock is cheap, it can still get cheaper (much, much cheaper). 

Americans have no real faith in the government to address the nation's financial problems.  If the debt ceiling debate (which was, at best, an egregious waste of time and resources) could almost sink our economy, what faith should we have in government to actually make progress?  The financial rules are constantly in flux and Washington's indecision is causing corporate America to sit on its collective hands.  Companies are incentivized to hold their money until there is more clarity (such as figuring out where this extra $1.5 trillion in budget cuts are going to come from).  The economy was stuck in neutral, and now our government has attached a trailer to it. 

So, when you hear Republicans blaming Democrats and vice versa, know that the problem is not that either party's plan was neccessarily better, but that no one knows if they can stop bickering long enough to repay the pail of water every month. 

As for S&P, they aren't telling us anything we don't already know.  The timing, however, could not be worse.   Gas, meet fire. 

In conclusion, what we have here is on-going failure on behalf of our elected officials.  And the downgrade?  That's just a non-trustworthy private company telling us that idiots (Congress) will continue to act like idiots, which should not be a surprise to anyone.

Would you rather?

On a recent trip,  a game of "Would you rather?" broke out with my family.  Some gems...

- Would you rather lose vision in one eye or have everyone in Canada tear their ACLs?
- Would you rather never sleep in the same room twice or attend every single event at your local church for the rest of your life?
- Would you rather say the opposite of every statement you make, wait a beat, and say "Not!" or eat every meal from gas station kiosks (clarification: not the nice mini-marts, but those bullet-proof glass booths with the slot that you push your money through)?
- Would you rather never drive faster than 25 miles per hour or wear a giant Styrofoam cowboy hat every waking minute of your life?
- Would you rather say everything you ever say loudly into a megaphone or have to try to hug every person you have a conversation with?

The Higher Education Bubble

I was golfing with a college friend of mine the other day and he mentioned a fund-raising event he went to at our Alma Mater. There, the president of the school projected that tuition would continue to rise at a rate of 8.5% annually. Perhaps this doesn't sound too awful, but compounding the increases is a bitch...

2011-12 tuition: $40,000
12-13: $43,400
13-14: $47,089
14-15: $51,091
15-16: $55,434
16-17: $60,146
17-18: $65,259
18-19: $70,805
19-20: $76,824
20-21: $83,354
21-22: $90,439
22-23: $98,127
23-24: $106,467
24-25: $115,517
25-26: $125,336
26-27: $135,989
27-28: $147,548
28-29: $160,090

For a child born today, entering college at age 18:
29-30: $173,698
30-31: $188,462
31-32: $204,482
32-33: $221,863

Total: $788,805

Keep in mind that this is for tuition only and does not include living expenses or various other "fees" that colleges like to tack on to the bill.

My friend noted that he was trying to put together a savings plan for his one year-old son. To which I replied, "What's the point?" How much money do you reasonably have save each year to save for both college tuition and retirement? And is it at all responsible to pay for college over saving for retirement? And if you have multiple children, what percentage of people are going to have $1.5 million saved for their children's colleges? Finally, what entity (in the post-financial crisis world) would be crazy enough to lend a college student upwards of half a million dollars to get a bachelors degree?

Honestly, I tried answering these questions until I got dizzy and decided to consider the ramifications of home-schooling my future children through medical school.

Unless wages rise dramatically over the next decade (and there's little reason to believe that will happen), we can expect to see dramatic changes in the behavior of American students at some point in the next 15 years.

It is my belief (and a google search of "higher education bubble" will show I'm not alone in this belief) that America's higher education- colleges & grad schools- are a bubble that will eventually burst. I can't say when this will happen, but as the above tuition chart shows, it may come sooner rather than later.

Look at the parallels between higher education and the housing market bubble:

1. Belief that the item has an almost mythical value. (See: American dream of home-ownership vs. America's dream of a college education)
2. Irrational belief that the items value will always increase. (See: "Historically, housing has never gone down in value." vs. "College educations pay for themselves many times over in a lifetime")
3. Tax treatment that inflates the affordability of the item. (See: Deductible home loan interest payments vs. student loan interest deduction)
4. Easy credit to purchase the item. (See: Housing Loans of 2004-2007 vs. student loans backed up by the government, ability to defer interest until graduation, and availability of federal loans at a low fixed rate- which are admittedly not that low right now)
5. A rapid increase in cost that dramatically outpaces average incomes (See: Historical housing prices vs. 8.5% annual increases in tuition)

The housing bubble burst when banks became unable to sell the loans that were on their books and stopped offering refinancing on adjustable rate mortgages. Homeowners, who were relying on refinancing to avoid the increased payments, began defaulting on their mortgages. This threw into doubt the ideas that housing always goes up in value and that housing is a 100% safe investment. Suddenly, people who were overextended on their debts were no longer able to rely on the banks to prop them up. New home buyers couldn't get loans to buy homes, a glut of foreclosed homes and houses bought for investment flooded the market, and the deteriorating employment picture kept most other home buyers on the sidelines. Housing prices got crushed and are finally starting to stabilize after price drops of well over 50% in some areas.

This is the final major characteristic of all bubbles. Once they burst, things unravel very quickly.

I see two scenarios for the bursting of the higher education bubble. Let's tackle them like an episode of 'Mega-Disasters':

Scenario 1: The short wait-list.

It's a warm spring day in Chesterfieldtownport, Connecticut. The dean of admissions for a small liberal arts school is downloading the applications of candidates to start in the fall of 2018. The college has had a minor drop of in applications the previous two years, but nothing drastic. Tuition is $72k a year and the average salary for graduates is hovering about $41,000 a year with 55% finding work within 6 months of graduation.

Something seems off. There's only 2300 applicants for a class of 1850 students. She tries to redownload the applications. She calls her IT department. The IT department contacts the digital application hub. The number is correct. Only 48 paper applications are in-hand. The admissions board moves quickly through the applicants. Only 1100 students merit acceptance based on the prior year's standards. The entire wait list from early applications is accepted. After much argument, the standards are relaxed. 1500 are accepted under the new standards.

The application numbers are leaked to the press, becoming national news within hours. Other colleges are revealed to be suffering the same drop-off in applications. The public universities reap the windfall, as in-state applicants double across the country. The state schools (with in-state tuition about half that of private schools) become extremely competitive and become harder to get into than all but the most prestigious private universities.

The small liberal arts college takes a massive reputation hit. Only 950 students send in deposits for the 2018 school year. Many sophomores and juniors decide not to return to school. The school lays off staff and non-tenured professors. Classes jump in size, the school's ranking plummets. By 2022, the college is closed.

Scenario 2: Don't send us your poor.

It's the late summer of 2019. At the south's Big Private University, orientations are being planned, dorms painted and the basketball court polished. Over 3400 freshman are expected to arrive in the coming weeks.

Suddenly, the financial aid office's telephones start ringing. By the late afternoon, the office has left a voicemail message to contact them by e-mail. Over 5000 e-mails arrive that day. Sallie Mae, citing a huge number of student loan defaults, is suspending its loan program. The company is owed $9 billion in delinquent loan repayments and may need government intervention to continue operations. Citibank soon suspends their loan program, citing concerns about delinquencies and the need for an 'internal audit' to assess the risk they're taking on these loans.

All students receiving financial aid are notified that their loan money is not going to arrive in time for the fall semester. Big Private allows these students to withdraw for a semester without academic penalty due to financial hardship. Over 5500 students take this option. No one at the school will say it, but there's no guarantee this loan money will ever return.

Once the belief system of college as an American birthright and as an unrivaled investment ceases to hold consumers (and that's what college students are- consumers) captive, the entire system will need to be reanalyzed. Like with housing, college will again begin to be assessed like any other major purchase. Schools will need to focus on supplying value and on showing that to potential students.

After the bubble bursts, the gap in education may be filled by private companies, who cherry-pick the most talented students to start 'apprenticeships' at their companies. Likewise, on-line colleges will likely become more of a mainstream option and more accepted as a reasoned alternative to traditional colleges. Finally, colleges may start allowing for public service to count for school credit. In this way, students can gain life skills, help their community, and reduce the cost of tuition by replacing classroom work with service.

On inflation...

Future historians will look back at the last few years of economic upheaval with great interest. Whether it's historically known as the Great Recession (as some pundits are trying to coin it), or some other moderately clever name, it will serve as a great example of how very large social systems are not immune to catastrophic meltdowns.

In this post, I'd like to focus on the idea of inflation and specifically how governments are using inflation as a tool to address the stumbling economy.

What is inflation?

To most Americans over a certain age, "inflation" is a scary word. It is associated with price spikes, as in the recent fluctuations in gas prices, and is universally used as an explanation for any increase in prices (regardless of whether or not such price increase has anything to do with systematic inflation).

In actuality, inflation is an economic term used to refer to a broad increase in prices of goods. This is usually calculated by assessing the prices of a certain basket of commodities (fuel, wheat, coffee, produce, metals, etc.) over the passage of time.

How does this play out?

Another way to look at inflation is to think of it in terms of cash. If you have $1,000 under your mattress, you can take the money out from under your mattress, go to ShopRite and buy $1,000 worth of goods. If you wait a year (keeping the $1,000 under the mattress) and go to ShopRite then, a positive inflation rate will mean that you can buy less than you could had you gone the year before. In other words, you're $1,000 is worth less than it was a year earlier.

With this in mind, the kneejerk reaction is to decide that inflation is a bad thing and that the best result for individuals would be if the price of those goods had gone down (in effect, making that $1,000 worth more money after sitting under the mattress for a year).

However, while there may be satisfaction in walking out of the store with the same amount or more goods than the year before (as a reward for you saving that money for an extra year), the negative effect of the decrease will likely outweigh any benefits.

For example: let's say you have a student loan to repay. You have the loan at a fixed rate of interest and pay $200 every month. If, after a year, inflation has made your dollar worth less money, the fixed loan payment is essentially discounted. Whereas a year ago, that $200 could have bought you 25 pounds of coffee at WholeFoods, you can only buy only 22 pounds today. So, instead of paying back your lender a value of 25 pounds of Whole Foods coffee, you're now only paying them the equivalent of 22 pounds of coffee.

Yes, there's a piece that's missing. In order for this to benefit individuals, income must rise at the rate of inflation. If that WholeFoods coffee gets more expensive and your income has not risen, you're just going to have to go without that extra three pounds of Arabic Blend. However, if your salary keeps pace with the price of coffee, you've benefited by getting the discounted loan payment.

So, what exactly is the government doing?

The federal government is between a rock and a hard place (as are a lot of Americans and their businesses).

The government needs money to fund both its on-going operations as well as the massive stimulus packages they have funded over the past two years- not to mention the other gazillion dollars of debt it had before. The simple solution (and one that they have been utilizing) is that the federal government can literally print money and introduce more money into the country's money supply. Logically, this should result in inflation. The money supply is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government, so each additional dollar does not increase the overall value of the money supply, it simply dilutes it. The existence of additional currency should lower the value of each dollar in the economy.

Printing money has several benefits. For one thing, the US is in debt (have you heard about this?) and its debt is in American dollars. Ergo, by printing more money, the government is decreasing the value of its debt payments while simultaneously creating dollars to pay back that debt.

For comparison, consider the plight of Greece, who is at risk of defaulting (not being able to pay back) their federal debt. Because Greece uses the Euro and the Euro is used by almost every country in mainland Europe, they lack the power to print Euros or devalue their currency. Other countries that are not in debt and are net creditors (meaning they lend money to other countries), do not want to devalue the currency because it would devalue their savings and devalue the money that it is owed. As a result, the entire Euro area is under strain because of the competing interests of the member countries. The US, by sitting ever-so-firmly in the debtor category, has no such conflict of interest.

Secondly, by devaluing the currency against other currencies, Americans selling their goods abroad benefit. If McDonald's is selling a cheeseburger in Paris for 3 Euros and those 3 Euros are now worth 6 dollars instead of 5, McDonald's is earning an extra dollar on each cheeseburger sale. This allows McDonald's to be more competitive abroad, earn more money and (in theory) allow them to hire more employees and expand their operations.

What are the risks?

The main risk of printing so much additional currency is hyper-inflation. Hyper-inflation is a sudden, significant increase in prices. The easiest way to explain this possibility is to imagine that the world loses faith in the value of the American dollar. Other countries and businesses become nervous that the additional printed US currency will significantly devalue the American dollars that they are receiving for their goods. Suddenly, they begin requesting higher prices for their goods, to cover their risk in holding American dollars. Prices spiral upwards, the American government is forced to pay a large premium to borrow money and this combination of factors causes the whole system to collapse.

Thus far, inflation has remained under control. Investors have seen the US as a "safe-haven" to park their savings, as the history and the size of the United States suggests that the dollar will retain most of its value. To be more accurate, the US dollar is simply the least-bad option. The dollar has fallen in value against certain currencies, notably the Canadian Dollar and the Australian Dollar, but has held its value against the Euro and the British Pound (mostly because those currencies are facing their own challenges).

The problem that has popped up has to do with the lack of increases in wages. A high unemployment rate combined with stagnant wages has decreased the purchasing power of Americans. The savings on your loan payments (because of inflation) are of no benefit when you are making the same or less money than the year before. As a result, people have been cutting back on purchasing and going without, which has hurt the sales of businesses. Businesses, in turn, are not able to expand or hire, since their sales are stagnant or decreasing. Further, the high unemployment rate has put downward pressure on wages, since unemployed workers are willing to take less money to find employment.

As inflation persists (even at moderate levels) the decrease in wages and high unemployment is magnifying the effect of inflation.

What is the opposite of inflation?

Deflation is the opposite of inflation. Again, this may seem like a boon in the short term, but it's extremely problematic.

To use the previous example, imagine if the money you left under your mattress is worth more in a year than it is now simply by virtue of time passing. This creates an incentive is to keep the money under your mattress, as holding cash has become a form of investment. Now, both individuals and companies are inclined to hoard their money, as opposed to either investing or spending it. For a non-profitable company, it would be a realistic option to suspend operations and simply retain their free cash, knowing it will increase in value.

Likewise, those who are in debt will further burdened by their loan payments. Since it's likely that wages will fall in a deflationary environment, these payments will become that much more onerous.

The result could be a "deflationary spiral" where prices decrease, investments decrease, wages decrease and employment decreases. The wage and employment decreases will result in a decrease in purchasing power, which which lowers demand, which lowers prices, which will exacerbate the decrease in wages and employment even further. Thus, a spiral is created.

Fun with the North Korea Official Website

Imagine designing a website for your company. The company has been getting terrible press lately, and you wish to refute that negativity while reinforcing the company's mission statements and corporate culture. Now, imagine your company is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and your task is to build a website that portrays the country in the best light possible. Doesn't seem too difficult, except that you cannot write anything (factual or otherwise) that does not reinforce the greatness of North Korea. Also, you must constantly reinforce that the country's leader is all-knowing, all-powerful and without fault. Did I mention that the website is not in your native language?

This is a dizzying task, and has been handled with enthusiasm (and possibly fear), by the Foundation of the Korean Friendship Association. The result, in all its glory, can be found here: http://www.korea-dpr.com/

Some background: the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-il, has God-like status and authority- picture a mix of George Steinbrenner, King Henry VIII and Gozer the Gozarian. Kim Jong-il's father, Kim Il-sung, was the first leader of the country and-despite the omnipotent status he maintained- still managed to die in 1994. Since then, North Korea has steadfastly held on to the teachings of Kim Il-Sung (let's call him "PapaLeader") under the rule of his son ("SonLeader").

Within North Korea, the government is able to control dissidence and discord by controlling all sources of media. The internet is banned. Television, radio and newspapers are controlled by the state. Visitors are searched for, among other things, any information about the world outside of North Korea.

The state pushes four main messages to its people:

1. PapaLeader and SonLeader are omnipotent, powerful, benevolent geniuses. Countless inventions, methods and breakthroughs have been credited to the rulers.

2. SonLeader is the only thing standing in the way of annihilation from outside aggressors.

3. Other countries, notably South Korea, the US and Japan, wish to invade North Korea, rape its women and steal its rotary phones.

4. Speaking or acting in a way that is contrary to SonLeader is frowned upon. Quite frowned upon.

Not surprisingly, these themes show up all over the NK website. As it's targeted towards an outside audience, the themes are twisted slightly:

1. PapaLeader and Son Leader are still omnipotent, powerful, and benevolent geniuses.

2. North Korea's military is crazy-good, enormous and will fight to the death and possibly more than that to keep out foreign aggressors, especially the asshole Americans.

3. Other people (who are not North Korean) totally love North Korea and think SonLeader is awesome and cool (and not fat at all).

What you end up with is a myraid of fluff pieces on the perfect leaders and various other propoganda about the greatness of NK and the awfulness of its enemies, all pushing the basic themes:

PapaLeader and SonLeader are omnipotent, powerful benevolent geniuses.

If American politicians are vying to be the "candidate you'd like to have a beer with", then PapaLeader and SonLeader are the rulers who will briefly take time out of their busy days of omnipotence to tolerate the presence of the unwashed masses:

The objective of politics is to bring love for the people into bloom, ardent love and trust in the people make them patriots and the revolution starts, socialist politics is , in essence, benevolent politics-this is Kim Jong Il’s out look on politics. Kim Jong Il’s love for the people reaches evey corner of the country And is permeated in all the wealth and creations. He pays deep attention to every item needed for people’s living ranging from the basic condiment, like salt, to shoes,cosmetics water and heating ,not to mention foods. Wherever you go in Korea ,you can easily find the working places and families which Kim Jong Il visited.

Yes. Wherever you go in North Korea you can find these people Kim Jong Il has visited. On an unrelated note, you cannot go anywhere in North Korea.

North Korea's army is crazy-good, enormous and will fight to the death (if not more than that).... and America sucks.

As it is targeted towards western readers, the military angle projects a jittery confidence in NK's military:

The defense industry of the DPRK has been enhanced to such a standard that it can manufacture military hardware powerful enough to frustrate any moves of aggression of the imperialists boasting of their military technology and to shatter their strongholds. The country has also prepared its nuclear deterrent against the imperialist nuclear threat.

Under the leadership of Chairman Kim Jong Il the DPRK will add more brilliance to its dignity as an invincible military power no enemy, however, formidable, dare challenge.

Anyone want to take a guess as to who these "imperialists" are? Here's a hint from the site's "news" feed:

Sixty years have passed since the most furious war after World War II, the Korean War (1950-1953), ended. During the three years, the US, which unleashed the war in an ambition to dominate the Korean Peninsula and the Asian continent, committed outrages unprecedented in the history...“Regard Koreans as animals. Kill them without mercy thinking as if you are killing animals.” This was an order of [US General] MacArthur at the beginning of the war.

MacArthur went on to say, "America has jealousy towards Korea and are stupid".

The websites extols NK's many military victories, among them a certain triumph over Japan which occurred in August of 1945:

Korea's liberation was due to the 20 year long armed struggle led by the great leader President Kim Il Sung,a gifted military strategist and ever victorious iron willed brilliant commander.His protean guerrilla tactics smashed Japanese imperialism.The anti Japanese armed struggle was a model for anti colonial anti imperialist struggles.

Hmm... what else happened in Japan in August 1945?

Other people (who are not North Korean) totally love North Korea and think that SonLeader is cool and smart (and not fat at all)


The authors of this site want readers to know that their country is loved and admired by people around the world (emphasis mine):


April 15th known as ’Day of the Sun’ to the Korean people mass celebrations will Take place in Pyongyang and other cities in the DPRK.These will be colourful and vibrant. Throughout the world from Lima to Tokyo meetings, seminar and events will take place.

Why is Kim Il Sung known as the sun of Korea because is is deeply respected and seen as the guiding light and inspiration.Comrade Kim Il Sung is deeply revered not only by the Korean people but the world people.You can see this clearly by visiting the International Friendship Exhibition in the scenic Myohang mountains in the north west of Korea.Here exhibited are some 36,000 gifts sent to the great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung by different people throughout the world,everyone from humble workers To state and party leaders has gifts exhibited there.You will see the train sent by Chairman Mao Zedong of Peoples China and the bullet proof car sent by Stalin as well gifts from the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Col Qaddafi , Yasser Arafat and many others.Various international revolutionary leaders have praised the great leader comrade Kim Il Sung...


Celebrations from Lima to Tokyo? From Peru to Japan? Half this website is dedicated to bashing Japan's policies and rehashing the 20 year war with Japan. And what do you you have to do to get a gift from Qaddafi? And what did he send? A box full of radio static? A canteen filled with fingernails?


That's just a taste of what's up there. I implore you to go on and poke around yourself.