The National Labor Relations Board ruled recently in favor of a group of athletes from Northwestern University, granting them the right to form a union and, thus, demand better working conditions (read: get paid).
The Northwestern decision will certainly cascade across the country, spilling to private school campuses at first and ultimately across publicly-funded universities thereafter. The ruling opens up a whole new realm of excitement in this continuing debate. It will be fun, for instance, to see traditionally non-union folks quickly switching to pro-union views when their non-union school of choice begins getting pummeled by their pro-union rivals. It happens. Getting beaten down by rivals is the whole reason Duke University ended segregation on its campus--years after Martin Luther King was assassinated, just FYI.
But being pro or anti union isn't the real issue in this case. The real issue is whether or not college athletes are employees or students. The schools, of course, argue the players are students. They are, after all, called student-athletes, not athlete-workers.
Proponents of the schools' point of view will further point out the athletes are getting paid via room and board, tuition and a first-rate education. There is ample evidence, however, many of the athletes in college are not only not getting an education but are not in any way remotely fit to be considered college students academically. So the student argument is, at the very least, flawed.
Certainly the athletes aren't employees insomuch as the sweet lady at the counter at the Registrar's. The athletes do undoubtedly help generate revenue and esteem for the college. Kids at North Carolina, for instance, are certainly there in part because of UNC's basketball program and a possible off-chance sighting of Michael Jordan.
Florida State, for instance, has produced in the past 10 years, more football national championships than Harvard University. It has also produced more Rhodes Scholars than Harvard in that span. Which one is the reason random people across the country buy Seminoles T-shirts and hats?
A large school, a BCS school if you will, can generate $200 million in tuition each year. Any collection of 80-90 students might generate $600,000 of that. The 85 scholarship football players at Texas, LSU, Alabama and similar schools can generate between $60-80 million on their own. Yet NCAA rules are constructed in a way that people must treat the athletes and day-to-day students 100% the same. But they aren't the same. The athletes, in fact, are disadvantaged in many ways. I can buy a group of college kids a pizza or offer them a ride across campus to their next class. I can't do that with scholarship athletes. College kids can earn their own pizza or car to drive themselves across campus by working on or off campus jobs. Scholarship athletes can't. ESPN analyst Greg Anthony owned a business while a student at UNLV. The NCAA found out and gave him a choice: abandon the business or abandon his scholarship.
And then there's the argument about money corrupting college sports. First, that ship has sailed. Second, most people are arguing in favor of a stipend, not payroll. It's not unreasonable to suggest these athletes earn enough to say, buy a pizza or have some gas to put in their car, buy a plane ticket home for the holidays or similar things of that nature.
As for the corruption, there is currently no counter-balance for it, which is why it exists. I'm reminded of a scene from the old TV show Three's Company where a character, posing as a police detective, tries to assert his morality in the face of a mobster, telling the kingpin, "the law is the law..." The mobster produces a wad of cash, replying, "how does a hundred bucks sound?" The morality stance shrivels as the character snatches the cash, responding, "a lot better than what I just said." And that's what you have with cases like Reggie Bush and the so-called Cash and Carry scandal while he was at USC. On the one hand, the money for things he wants and needs. On the other, a glowing angel, urging him to do right. That's a no contest for the average 19-year old. As a result of the scandal, Bush was stripped of his Heisman, USC forfeited its National Championship (but not the money it earned as a result), future USC teams paid a price in the loss of scholarships and head coach Pete Carroll was roundly punished with a job in the NFL and a Super Bowl ring...wait...
And there's a bigger question to ask: Why are the schools resistant? ESPN routinely pays major conferences billions of dollars for TV rights to their games. Where is that money? You don't know and the schools and conferences aren't going to tell you. The highest paid public employees in states like Alabama, Kentucky or Florida are almost always college football or basketball coaches--and it's not even a closed contest, frankly. People don't know that Cal has the top school in the country for civil engineering but probably know it's where Jason Kidd or Aaron Rodgers went. South Carolina is the top college in the nation for International Business. More people know that it's where Jadeveon Clowney played. The Big House is on the campus at Michigan, which is also the nation's top school for business management. It is athletics, not academics, that is putting these schools on the map and putting students it their classrooms.
So think then, about how preposterous an idea it is for college athletes to want to unionize. They generate vast amounts of revenue, nobody is monitoring their academic aptitude to any great degree, they assume the majority of the risk and take the brunt of the discipline in the face of scandal, they create the public face of the University and provide a major reason attracting other students to the campus and people still begrudge them for trying to do something to improve their existence? If fighting to improve this situation isn't the point of having a union, I'm not really sure what unions are for. And as for the other element of unions, seems to me the athletes have more than paid their dues.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Silver Mettle
As the NBA season this year is coming to a close, analysts are already looking forward to next season and some potential changes. One of the key changes being considered by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is whether or not the league should extend the minimum age limit to play in the NBA from 19 to 20. Another is how, if at all, the NBA D-League should be restructured.
The solution to me seems obvious. The NBA should borrow the model in place with baseball and hockey. Major League Baseball has a developed minor league system, as does the NHL. Players can be drafted into either professional sport directly out of high school. If they are good enough to play at the major league level, they play. If not, they play in the minor league system where they develop their skills, earn a living and, with luck, eventually ascend to the major league level.
The players, of course, can also choose to play college baseball or hockey (or Juniors Hockey, which is pretty much college hockey sans the schoolwork) and enter the draft at a later date. In the case of college baseball, players aren't eligible for draft until after their junior season. This helps baseball programs with their recruiting and development and, with recent examples of Evan Longoria, Buster Posey and Max Scherzer, doesn't seem to hurt player development or draft interest--in fact, recent high-rounder Gerrit Cole was drafted in the first round as both a high schooler and college player, so...
At any rate, the NBA could rescind the age limit, expand the number of rounds in the draft, connect D-League teams more directly to NBA affiliates and allow high school players to enter the draft. The occasional Kobe or LeBron could play immediately, others with promise that want to earn a living for a year or two prior to ascending to the league could do so and the rest could commit to college for three or more seasons. This would allow coaches to develop their programs over time and we'd have far more situations with veteran-led teams, like George Mason some years back or Mercer this year, creating added excitement in March Madness.
Certainly the absence of Jabari Parker, Julius Randle or Andrew Wiggins would hurt their respective teams, but it's doubtful in any given year the loss of a half dozen players of this caliber would hurt college basketball as an institution.
In time, as has been the case with college baseball, many college basketball players would come to understand their future in professional basketball is unlikely and be more encouraged to stay a fourth or fifth year and graduate or pursue post-graduate degrees. Then we, as fans, could benefit far more over the course of time from their educations, than simply rooting for these players a few years while wearing Carolina blue.
And think of the benefit to the D-League. If the Kings, for instance, drafted Jabari Parker and felt he wasn't quite ready, think of the interest that would create for Reno's games, where he would play and develop. Seems like a win-win, plus an extra win, scenario. If Silver wants to leave his own stamp on the NBA and get out of the shadow cast by David Stern, this is a move that would certainly do it.
The solution to me seems obvious. The NBA should borrow the model in place with baseball and hockey. Major League Baseball has a developed minor league system, as does the NHL. Players can be drafted into either professional sport directly out of high school. If they are good enough to play at the major league level, they play. If not, they play in the minor league system where they develop their skills, earn a living and, with luck, eventually ascend to the major league level.
The players, of course, can also choose to play college baseball or hockey (or Juniors Hockey, which is pretty much college hockey sans the schoolwork) and enter the draft at a later date. In the case of college baseball, players aren't eligible for draft until after their junior season. This helps baseball programs with their recruiting and development and, with recent examples of Evan Longoria, Buster Posey and Max Scherzer, doesn't seem to hurt player development or draft interest--in fact, recent high-rounder Gerrit Cole was drafted in the first round as both a high schooler and college player, so...
At any rate, the NBA could rescind the age limit, expand the number of rounds in the draft, connect D-League teams more directly to NBA affiliates and allow high school players to enter the draft. The occasional Kobe or LeBron could play immediately, others with promise that want to earn a living for a year or two prior to ascending to the league could do so and the rest could commit to college for three or more seasons. This would allow coaches to develop their programs over time and we'd have far more situations with veteran-led teams, like George Mason some years back or Mercer this year, creating added excitement in March Madness.
Certainly the absence of Jabari Parker, Julius Randle or Andrew Wiggins would hurt their respective teams, but it's doubtful in any given year the loss of a half dozen players of this caliber would hurt college basketball as an institution.
In time, as has been the case with college baseball, many college basketball players would come to understand their future in professional basketball is unlikely and be more encouraged to stay a fourth or fifth year and graduate or pursue post-graduate degrees. Then we, as fans, could benefit far more over the course of time from their educations, than simply rooting for these players a few years while wearing Carolina blue.
And think of the benefit to the D-League. If the Kings, for instance, drafted Jabari Parker and felt he wasn't quite ready, think of the interest that would create for Reno's games, where he would play and develop. Seems like a win-win, plus an extra win, scenario. If Silver wants to leave his own stamp on the NBA and get out of the shadow cast by David Stern, this is a move that would certainly do it.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Not Included
It's almost time for the biggest "who really cares" event in sports, the NIT. At one time, the NIT was a prestigious tournament, but these days people more frequently joke that NIT stands for "Not Invited Tournament" or "Not Included Tournament."
Decades ago, there would be some debate over which team was the true national champion, the winner of the NIT or the winner of the NCAA Tournament. Now, about all the NIT champion can lay claim to is to show the NCAA Selection Committee that they should have been included in the Big Dance.
Of course, I'm not so certain the NIT champion can make that claim alone. The NCAA Tournament used to only include conference champions, hence the importance of conference tournaments and the inclusion of so-called AQ or automatic qualifier teams. Too many quality teams, it was argued, were left out of the NCAA Tournament, which is what fueled the NIT/NCAA champion debate. The Tournament field was expanded several times to include 68 teams as of today. This, the argument holds, should be enough to ensure everyone who has claim to the national title is included. But as the NIT bracket plainly shows, this isn't the case. Do any of the NIT teams have any claim on the national crown? Probably not. They do, however, have more of a claim to it than teams included in the March Madness bracket.
I can't even begin to reconcile how Cal Poly, a team that was both sub-.500 overall and in Big Sky competition, deserves a berth at the Big Dance...and yet, there they are, with a 13-19 record and, as of this moment, as good a chance to win the national championship as Florida or Kansas. Except, Cal Poly has to play a so-called "play-in" game, meaning they have one extra win to compile in order to cut the nets down in Arlington after the Final Four. That seems fair. Except it isn't fair. The idea behind seeding is that top-seeded teams should, theoretically, have a somewhat easier path to the Final Four, making success in the regular season meaningful. But...then...a pair of #12 seeds and #11 seeds are also involved in "play in" games. Why should NC State or Iowa have a tougher path to the Final Four than Eastern Kentucky? Sure, EKU plays a tougher team in the opening round but they have to win fewer games to reach the Final Four.
But back to the original point about the NIT. Isn't the purpose of March Madness to crown a national champion? Ha ha, the basketball pundits claim, if only football had an awesome tournament like us. Indeed. But why not have a tournament that includes the 68 best teams in the country? Surely there will still be some snubs and debate, but some cases are not up for debate.
#15 seed American University lost to USF and St. Mary's, two teams in the NIT. #15 Wofford lost to NIT teams Georgia and Minnesota (by 20 or more in each game). Cal Poly was able to advance to Big Dance because it went 1-2 against UC Irvine. The "1" in question just happened to come in the conference tournament.
And conference tournaments are another thing. After the expansion of the field, the value of winning (and therefore even playing) a conference tournament became pointless. And yet there they are, still be contested to this day. In fact, not only do these meaningless conference tournaments still exist, conferences that never had tournaments before have since added them. And why would that be? While you think about it, I will simply say, this blog post is brought to you by Coke Zero, Hyundai and our friends at Buffalo Wild Wings. Have you figured it out yet?
I guess it really doesn't matter much one way or the other, as long as there are 68 total teams...unless you're Cal Poly...or UC Irvine...or SMU or Green Bay or Georgia or St. Mary's or...
Decades ago, there would be some debate over which team was the true national champion, the winner of the NIT or the winner of the NCAA Tournament. Now, about all the NIT champion can lay claim to is to show the NCAA Selection Committee that they should have been included in the Big Dance.
Of course, I'm not so certain the NIT champion can make that claim alone. The NCAA Tournament used to only include conference champions, hence the importance of conference tournaments and the inclusion of so-called AQ or automatic qualifier teams. Too many quality teams, it was argued, were left out of the NCAA Tournament, which is what fueled the NIT/NCAA champion debate. The Tournament field was expanded several times to include 68 teams as of today. This, the argument holds, should be enough to ensure everyone who has claim to the national title is included. But as the NIT bracket plainly shows, this isn't the case. Do any of the NIT teams have any claim on the national crown? Probably not. They do, however, have more of a claim to it than teams included in the March Madness bracket.
I can't even begin to reconcile how Cal Poly, a team that was both sub-.500 overall and in Big Sky competition, deserves a berth at the Big Dance...and yet, there they are, with a 13-19 record and, as of this moment, as good a chance to win the national championship as Florida or Kansas. Except, Cal Poly has to play a so-called "play-in" game, meaning they have one extra win to compile in order to cut the nets down in Arlington after the Final Four. That seems fair. Except it isn't fair. The idea behind seeding is that top-seeded teams should, theoretically, have a somewhat easier path to the Final Four, making success in the regular season meaningful. But...then...a pair of #12 seeds and #11 seeds are also involved in "play in" games. Why should NC State or Iowa have a tougher path to the Final Four than Eastern Kentucky? Sure, EKU plays a tougher team in the opening round but they have to win fewer games to reach the Final Four.
But back to the original point about the NIT. Isn't the purpose of March Madness to crown a national champion? Ha ha, the basketball pundits claim, if only football had an awesome tournament like us. Indeed. But why not have a tournament that includes the 68 best teams in the country? Surely there will still be some snubs and debate, but some cases are not up for debate.
#15 seed American University lost to USF and St. Mary's, two teams in the NIT. #15 Wofford lost to NIT teams Georgia and Minnesota (by 20 or more in each game). Cal Poly was able to advance to Big Dance because it went 1-2 against UC Irvine. The "1" in question just happened to come in the conference tournament.
And conference tournaments are another thing. After the expansion of the field, the value of winning (and therefore even playing) a conference tournament became pointless. And yet there they are, still be contested to this day. In fact, not only do these meaningless conference tournaments still exist, conferences that never had tournaments before have since added them. And why would that be? While you think about it, I will simply say, this blog post is brought to you by Coke Zero, Hyundai and our friends at Buffalo Wild Wings. Have you figured it out yet?
I guess it really doesn't matter much one way or the other, as long as there are 68 total teams...unless you're Cal Poly...or UC Irvine...or SMU or Green Bay or Georgia or St. Mary's or...
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Sermon on the Mount
It happened again. It seems to happen every year around this time. Mount St. Mary's upset their way to a conference tournament championship and earned a bid to March Madness as the automatic qualifier (AQ) from the Northeast Conference despite their 16-16 record. They are the latest in a continuous string of .500 or sub .500 teams to reach the Big Dance.
And Mount St. Mary's isn't the only so-called AQ team in this tournament. Many of these will be the only team from their conference to advance to the NCAA Tournament. The inclusion of these Cinderella schools is part of what gives March Madness its charm. Giving a team like Mount St. Mary's a chance to take down a team like Villanova or Duke is part of what draws fans to the tournament.
But the tournament is, at the end of the day, a process to crown a national champion, not a reward for a solid season. And even if it is a reward, many deserving teams are left out because the bracket is obligated to include these AQ teams.
Shouldn't the tournament selection process be about including the top 68 teams in the country, without consideration of automatically qualifying? The penalty paid by a team like Cal, for instance, isn't that they didn't have a good season, it's that they didn't have that same season while playing in the Horizon League or the Patriot League.
Take a potential bubble team, BYU. If the Cougars are excluded and Mount St. Mary's remains, it's hard to argue that the top 68 teams made it to the tournament. BYU, after all, played the Mountaineers this season and pummeled Mount St. Mary's by 32 points.
And BYU isn't alone. Other teams wringing their hands nervously before the final selection is announced include schools like Iowa, Pittsburgh and Colorado. Each of those teams is in the top 50 in RPI ratings, which is a bit like the basketball version of BCS standings. Coastal Carolina, Eastern Kentucky and Wofford, in comparison, are all in the tournament by virtue of their AQ status. None of them are in the top 100 in the RPI. In fact, Coastal Carolina isn't even in the top 200 in the RPI.
How do you think that would work for football? The playoffs are Florida State, Ohio State, Texas...and for kicks, Mount Union.
Surely if Cal defeated Florida, it would still be an upset, so that aspect of the tournament's charm isn't lost. And isn't Pittsburgh vs. Arizona a far more intriguing first-round match up than Kansas vs. Stony Brook?
And so what of these Cinderella schools? If not for the AQ process, how will they make it? Play better schools and beat them...at least some of the time. Part of the reason teams like Maryland and NC State might be left out is they played an entire season's-worth of games, week in and week out, against Duke, UNC, Pitt, Clemson, Syracuse, Virginia and on and on and on. But is Cal or Iowa or Colorado better than Stony Brook or Georgia State? Probably on most nights. So what sense does it make that these better teams be left to watch the tournament while teams that aren't as good get a chance to play in it? Perhaps teams will start migrating to different conferences for other reasons. I doubt, however, anyone wants to see Boston College be the Colonial League champions for the next 23 years in a row.
Friday, March 7, 2014
An App for that
In the process of finding a new job, I've learned a lot about the job market and how it works. Think of it this way: if you were going to break into a bank, you'd probably learn everything you could about it-when it opens and closes, its resources, the size and type of vault, the security system and the fastest route from said bank to the Cayman Island, which is apparently the preferred destination of villains throughout the world.
That's been me. I've been trying to break into the workforce. I've researched, studied, examined...I've dangled from the ceiling dressed up like Tom Cruise, all the while a stream of groovy mod music playing in the background (binka binka binkbink, binka binka binkbink, doodle doo, doodle dee, doodoot).
And here's what I've learned to date about why there are evidently so many jobs, so much political push to get people back to work and yet so very many people out of work for several months (if they are lucky) and several years in most cases: People in charge of hiring are not that bright and the application process is ridiculous.
Here's an example: A friend had a recent discussion with a living, breathing HR manager. There was an issue over what qualified as "major coursework." His logic-ahem, hem-followed that, since this friend had yet to complete a thesis, having finished every other class in a Master's program, the "major coursework" could not be considered. Yes, anyone who has ever graduated from college knows that until you graduate, you've never taken any classes. I've taken a CPR course but the guy hasn't signed my certificate yet, ergo I'm not equipped to save a life. That's HR logic.
In another example, a job was open where there were a series of automated check boxes to determine qualifications. A hundred boxes, check 99 as "yes" and one as "no" and the program came back saying, "sorry, you're not qualified."
Navy Seal job application: Military background, yes. Super human fitness levels, yes. Proficiency with various weapons systems, yes. Master marksman, yes. Completed extensive skydiving and scuba training, yes. Stealth operations expert, yes. Highly trained, highly motivated patriot willing to die for his country, yes. Been to San Diego before, no. Sorry, you don't qualify.
But what do you expect when so many jobs have so-called resume filters that seek out keywords in resumes, automatically disqualifying those without enough key buzzwords? The average employer, a career counselor explained, will spend less than one minute reviewing your resume. OK, fair enough. A recent job I applied for had a counter where you could see the total number of people who had applied for that specific job. In this case, it was 341. That's 341 minutes to review resumes. That's just under six hours. That's one whole work day, an hour for lunch and an hour of being unproductive-coffee break, bathroom break, talk to a co-worker. So your HR manager doesn't have one day to spend finding a dozen applicants to interview? That's what a resume filter is for? And with most other jobs, the number of applicants is smaller. Combine that with the fact that 99% on a test equals a failing grade and no wonder so many applicants are still out of work.
Here in Sacramento, however, there is an even more troubling problem. The largest employer in Sacramento County is the State of California. The problem with the State isn't resume filters, it's the opposite. To apply for any State job, an applicant has to fill out a paper job application. A paper job application--as if you're going to apply for a job with the State, Miller's Outpost, Kay Bee's Toys and then hit the food court later. What is the point of a resume? Everything you could possibly want to know about an employee is on the resume-experience, education, training, awards, references. Worse still, the State keeps track of how you heard about the opening. I've never not checked the "Internet" box. Two other options are "Advertised in..." as if people still pay for classified ads. The worst one is the "jobline" notice. Jobline. Really? Let me see what jobs are open: chiiick, tick tick tick, chiiiick, tick tick tick tick, (that's the sound of a rotary dial phone, just FYI). Let me call the jobline before I grab some lunch at the soup kitchen. Hopefully this New Deal idea will take hold soon. I think it might be easier to send my resume in via carrier pigeon. I don't want to overwhelm the State with a technology overload.
Finally, there's the e-mail inquiries that make no sense. An e-mail I got once noted the job in question was in a city some distance from my current home. Would you be willing to relocate, the HR woman wanted to know. No. I applied for a job in Los Angeles because I wanted to make more work for you. Ha ha, my plan worked. How about let me worry about it. Sir, we'd like you to play for the Philadelphia Eagles...hmm, but it says here you're located in California...
And that's how my career in the NFL ended.
Now then, I'm off to the City. I understand they're building a span across the Golden Gate. Hopefully my ox cart can get me there in time to fill one of the openings.
That's been me. I've been trying to break into the workforce. I've researched, studied, examined...I've dangled from the ceiling dressed up like Tom Cruise, all the while a stream of groovy mod music playing in the background (binka binka binkbink, binka binka binkbink, doodle doo, doodle dee, doodoot).
And here's what I've learned to date about why there are evidently so many jobs, so much political push to get people back to work and yet so very many people out of work for several months (if they are lucky) and several years in most cases: People in charge of hiring are not that bright and the application process is ridiculous.
Here's an example: A friend had a recent discussion with a living, breathing HR manager. There was an issue over what qualified as "major coursework." His logic-ahem, hem-followed that, since this friend had yet to complete a thesis, having finished every other class in a Master's program, the "major coursework" could not be considered. Yes, anyone who has ever graduated from college knows that until you graduate, you've never taken any classes. I've taken a CPR course but the guy hasn't signed my certificate yet, ergo I'm not equipped to save a life. That's HR logic.
In another example, a job was open where there were a series of automated check boxes to determine qualifications. A hundred boxes, check 99 as "yes" and one as "no" and the program came back saying, "sorry, you're not qualified."
Navy Seal job application: Military background, yes. Super human fitness levels, yes. Proficiency with various weapons systems, yes. Master marksman, yes. Completed extensive skydiving and scuba training, yes. Stealth operations expert, yes. Highly trained, highly motivated patriot willing to die for his country, yes. Been to San Diego before, no. Sorry, you don't qualify.
But what do you expect when so many jobs have so-called resume filters that seek out keywords in resumes, automatically disqualifying those without enough key buzzwords? The average employer, a career counselor explained, will spend less than one minute reviewing your resume. OK, fair enough. A recent job I applied for had a counter where you could see the total number of people who had applied for that specific job. In this case, it was 341. That's 341 minutes to review resumes. That's just under six hours. That's one whole work day, an hour for lunch and an hour of being unproductive-coffee break, bathroom break, talk to a co-worker. So your HR manager doesn't have one day to spend finding a dozen applicants to interview? That's what a resume filter is for? And with most other jobs, the number of applicants is smaller. Combine that with the fact that 99% on a test equals a failing grade and no wonder so many applicants are still out of work.
Here in Sacramento, however, there is an even more troubling problem. The largest employer in Sacramento County is the State of California. The problem with the State isn't resume filters, it's the opposite. To apply for any State job, an applicant has to fill out a paper job application. A paper job application--as if you're going to apply for a job with the State, Miller's Outpost, Kay Bee's Toys and then hit the food court later. What is the point of a resume? Everything you could possibly want to know about an employee is on the resume-experience, education, training, awards, references. Worse still, the State keeps track of how you heard about the opening. I've never not checked the "Internet" box. Two other options are "Advertised in..." as if people still pay for classified ads. The worst one is the "jobline" notice. Jobline. Really? Let me see what jobs are open: chiiick, tick tick tick, chiiiick, tick tick tick tick, (that's the sound of a rotary dial phone, just FYI). Let me call the jobline before I grab some lunch at the soup kitchen. Hopefully this New Deal idea will take hold soon. I think it might be easier to send my resume in via carrier pigeon. I don't want to overwhelm the State with a technology overload.
Finally, there's the e-mail inquiries that make no sense. An e-mail I got once noted the job in question was in a city some distance from my current home. Would you be willing to relocate, the HR woman wanted to know. No. I applied for a job in Los Angeles because I wanted to make more work for you. Ha ha, my plan worked. How about let me worry about it. Sir, we'd like you to play for the Philadelphia Eagles...hmm, but it says here you're located in California...
And that's how my career in the NFL ended.
Now then, I'm off to the City. I understand they're building a span across the Golden Gate. Hopefully my ox cart can get me there in time to fill one of the openings.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Poll Position
I've been studying the NCAA basketball polls lately. This is why, I've decided, they call it March Madness. No, not because of the thrills or the excitement of tournament basketball; no not because Santa Clara or Valparaiso or George Mason just upset some major powerhouse; and no, not because of "OMG, did you see that buzzer beater?"
I've concluded March Madness is derived from trying to comprehend NCAA polls. Duke University, just as an example, lost a game earlier this year and improved six spots in the polls. A guy is lying on a sandy beach, drink in hand, island breeze, a friend notices: Frank, what gives? This? I lost everything!
I'll spell it out again: Duke L-O-S-T and went up in the polls. But the ridiculous logic doesn't end there. Sticking with the Devils for a moment, Duke is ranked, as of this moment, fourth in the nation. They are currently in fourth place in the ACC standings. They are ranked ahead of Virginia. Virginia is the ACC champion. The Cavaliers can start a team comprised of math professors in their next game if they want. There is nothing they can do to avoid being the ACC champions. They've lost two fewer games than Duke, four fewer conference games and the pollsters still have Duke ranked ahead of them.
Oh, but Duke beat Virginia, remember? Yes, but Virginia didn't lose to Notre Dame, Wake Forest or North Carolina, remember?
Brand recognition certainly seems to have a major role in polls. A big part of the reason the 25-3 Aztecs aren't ranked higher than #10 is because many of the pollsters have no idea where the State of San Diego is. I mean, it's not a real state. How can it be a real school?
And it's not just basketball. Football is just as bad. I mean, consider the logic of developing a system meant to remove the human element in polling that is created by averaging three different polls-two of which are created by human votes. And we've already established that human voters think that playing well and losing equals going up in the polls. Humans, much as with politics, shouldn't be allowed to vote on such things.
And it's not unprecedented, either. Dan Le Batard, a sports writer and ESPN contributor, recently had his Baseball Hall of Fame voting privileges revoked for allowing users on the website deadspin.com determine his most recent HOF ballot.
This Hall of Fame is something special for the fans...how did this dude get in here? Oh, he was voted on by the fans...how dare they! And why not? Baseball writers are doing a better job? Nnng...we're not voting for Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds because we don't like what they did...nnnng. Fantastic. Baseball's Hall of Fame is now being guarded by the cast of Mean Girls. "Stop trying to make Bonds a thing. He's not going to be a thing." (Mean Girls...check it out on Netflix.)
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to deciphering this basketball poll... hmm, #4 Duke plays #14 North Carolina this weekend. If Duke loses, they should probably slide from #4 to #3 and if they win...hey, looks like we've got a new national champion! Sorry Wichita State. It was never going to be you. There's just not enough brand recognition in a bundle of wheat.
I've concluded March Madness is derived from trying to comprehend NCAA polls. Duke University, just as an example, lost a game earlier this year and improved six spots in the polls. A guy is lying on a sandy beach, drink in hand, island breeze, a friend notices: Frank, what gives? This? I lost everything!
I'll spell it out again: Duke L-O-S-T and went up in the polls. But the ridiculous logic doesn't end there. Sticking with the Devils for a moment, Duke is ranked, as of this moment, fourth in the nation. They are currently in fourth place in the ACC standings. They are ranked ahead of Virginia. Virginia is the ACC champion. The Cavaliers can start a team comprised of math professors in their next game if they want. There is nothing they can do to avoid being the ACC champions. They've lost two fewer games than Duke, four fewer conference games and the pollsters still have Duke ranked ahead of them.
Oh, but Duke beat Virginia, remember? Yes, but Virginia didn't lose to Notre Dame, Wake Forest or North Carolina, remember?
Brand recognition certainly seems to have a major role in polls. A big part of the reason the 25-3 Aztecs aren't ranked higher than #10 is because many of the pollsters have no idea where the State of San Diego is. I mean, it's not a real state. How can it be a real school?
And it's not just basketball. Football is just as bad. I mean, consider the logic of developing a system meant to remove the human element in polling that is created by averaging three different polls-two of which are created by human votes. And we've already established that human voters think that playing well and losing equals going up in the polls. Humans, much as with politics, shouldn't be allowed to vote on such things.
And it's not unprecedented, either. Dan Le Batard, a sports writer and ESPN contributor, recently had his Baseball Hall of Fame voting privileges revoked for allowing users on the website deadspin.com determine his most recent HOF ballot.
This Hall of Fame is something special for the fans...how did this dude get in here? Oh, he was voted on by the fans...how dare they! And why not? Baseball writers are doing a better job? Nnng...we're not voting for Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds because we don't like what they did...nnnng. Fantastic. Baseball's Hall of Fame is now being guarded by the cast of Mean Girls. "Stop trying to make Bonds a thing. He's not going to be a thing." (Mean Girls...check it out on Netflix.)
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to deciphering this basketball poll... hmm, #4 Duke plays #14 North Carolina this weekend. If Duke loses, they should probably slide from #4 to #3 and if they win...hey, looks like we've got a new national champion! Sorry Wichita State. It was never going to be you. There's just not enough brand recognition in a bundle of wheat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)