Earlier this week was a detailed post. Today a specific example of one problem with lazy poll voters in college football: the margin of victory. Quite simply, margin of victory in itself is a relatively useless bit of information. Every game is unique.
Using margin of victory creates hilariously ridiculous constructs.
For example, margin of victory is one of the few things that people who rank a team like Boise State over a team like Missouri or Auburn can point to as evidence for why Boise State is a 'better' team. Well, here's a little fun comparison. Colorado is either the second to worst or worst team in the Big 12 (that will be decided when CU plays KU). This Colorado team beat Hawaii 31-13, an 18 point spread.
That's the same Hawaii that's tied for first in the WAC, Boise State's conference.
Now, Hawaii and Boise State have both played Louisiana Tech, another WAC team. Hawaii won by 20 points, and Boise State by 29. Using margin of victory, that makes Boise State look a little more impressive than Hawaii. How much more impressive does that make them look than Colorado? Then, if you learn that Missouri beat Colorado by 26 points, how would you compare Boise State and Missouri? This sort of exercise wouldn't suggest that Missouri and Boise State are roughly equal teams. It would suggest that Colorado and Boise State are roughly equal teams, with Missouri being notably better.
Now, I don't think Missouri is significantly superior to Boise State; I think they're pretty evenly matched teams, actually. But if you're going to apply concepts other than wins/losses and strength of schedule, then you have to be prepared to accept that sometimes, the additional factors can make things even more bizarre. If you subtract Colorado's 18 point spread from Boise State's points, that makes their margins of victory look a lot less impressive.
Expecting schools like Michigan State, Missouri, or Auburn to post point spreads remotely close to Boise State (or Oregon, for that matter, whose only game against a team with a winning record so far is Stanford) is comical.
Fortunately, the season is long enough that if the Spartans, Tigers, and Tigers continue winning, they will jump Oregon and Boise State. But particularly with Boise State, the question is, why wouldn't they already have jumped them? They've got the same record. They've beaten better opponents. And margin of victory looks pretty similar when the games in question are actually analyzed. All three of the Big 12/SEC/Big Ten undefeateds have shown they can win by over 20 points. They just can't do that regularly against top opponents.
After all, just look at the score from the Boise State - Virginia Tech game. Boise State won by a whopping three points, less than Michigan State's ten point victory over Wisconsin, less than Missouri's nine point victory over Oklahoma, and less than Auburn's seven point victory over LSU. Both the human pollsters and the computers agree that Virginia Tech is not as good as Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and LSU.
I think it's highly unlikely that all three of these teams remain undefeated. But at least one of them might, and it will be really interesting at that juncture to hear why people place Oregon, Boise State, and/or some one-loss team (say, Alabama) ahead of them.
10/26/2010
machines smarter than humans, again
I was prepared for this to be a slow, sad sports season, really. The Chiefs and Rams are coming off of horrific stretches. The Big 12 is saying farewell to Nebraska, heading east, and Colorado, looking west. And there are More Important Things, from the economy and midterm elections to new phases for family and friends. Not to mention that I'm behind on computer games.
But dang nabbit, something is in the water this fall. After a hot summer, this fall has been fantastic. Missouri's NFL franchises are 7-6. That's a winning record; better seasons for both teams have already been assured and we're less than half way through this season!
The Missouri Tigers have also won 7 games. Without losing any. To top it off, the Spartans are undefeated as well, while the media darlings of Alabama and Ohio State have both lost a game already.
And that's where this all comes to a head. The silly season of incoherent poll voters is in full swing. For all the incessant yacking and yammering about how awful the BCS is, the main problem is that the human polls account for twice as much weighting as the computers. (human) Pollsters that do things like looking at prior years instead of the current year. Or assign present values based upon what they believe will happen in the future instead of what has already happened up to this point. Or apply different criteria to different teams. It's truly bizarre, and this season demonstrates the madness in several ways, particularly looking at the most basic things in sports: the win-loss record and strength of competition.
In years when there is lots of chaos caused by few or no teams with unblemished records, the challenge becomes how do you rank teams that have lost games. But the first half of this season is comprised of something rather straightforward: There's an undefeated team in the Big 12, the SEC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10, the Mountain West (which has two), and the WAC. It's pretty simple. This is the absence of chaos; it's called order. These are the teams you talk about first, before looking at the bigger picture. And when you start actually looking at 2010's undefeated teams, I'd argue it becomes pretty clear that there are four teams that have distanced themselves from the pack. None of them, by the way, have the names of Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, or Boise State. Nope, the top tier of teams for the first half of the 2010 season are, in alphabetical order, Auburn, Michigan State, Missouri, and TCU.
In order to rank a team above those four, some other consideration has to come into play. And in order for that to be legitimate, that consideration has to be applied to all teams. That's the key point: consistency. The computers bring it in spades. The polls, well, sometimes I'm not sure what they're smokin'.
Here's how the BCS computers rank the top four teams:
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
Here's the Harris and USA Today polls:
1. Oregon
2. Boise State
3. Auburn
4. TCU
To demonstrate the overwhelming stranglehold of the humans over the BCS - even though all you'll hear in the media is pundits decrying the horrible choices of the computers - is to look at the combined rankings. Oregon and Boise State remain in the top 4.
And this leads us to the natural question: what consideration is being applied equally to reach this kind of disparity by teh humanz? The computers think the SEC leader should play the Big 12 leader for the national championship, with the Big Ten and Mountain West leaders being the runners up. The human polls don't put either Auburn or Missouri in the top 2, and they don't include Missouri or Michigan State in the top 4 at all!
Poll voters aren't just not biased against Boise State and Oregon. They're rabidly biased in favor of them, to the point of crowding out the real story lines of the first half of the season. In fact, there's such a drop-off after my top four teams, that the computers handle this in an interesting way. They put one-loss Oklahoma at number 5. And one-loss LSU ties Boise State for sixth, then Oregon at number 8.
Then there's the matter of one-loss teams. There's no way around the human stupidity of ranking Alabama so highly. None. When Missouri loses to Nebraska, then you can rank Alabama higher - but that loss hasn't happened yet! It's not just Missouri that's slighted by Alabama bias, though. Every one loss team suffers. You see, not only is Alabama not on some semi-pro uberwonderseason, but they haven't even put together the best first half of the season among one loss teams. Their loss at South Carolina is worse than Oklahoma's loss at Missouri, or Wisconsin's at Michigan State, or Ohio State's at Wisconsin, or Stanford's at Oregon, or Florida State's at Oklahoma, or LSU's at Auburn, or Oklahoma State's loss to Nebraska. In fact, what's remarkable about Alabama's loss compared to other top one-loss teams is how badly they got beat by a lesser team than the victors of all those other one-loss teams.
Oh, but it's the quality wins you say, not the losses? Ah, interesting. What teams have Oregon and Boise State beat again (this year) to warrant placing them ahead of Auburn, Missouri, Michigan State, and TCU? Uh-huh. And then when we look specifically at Alabama, they haven't beaten anybody with fewer than two losses. Wisconsin has beaten Ohio State. Nebraska has beaten Oklahoma State. Oklahoma has beaten Florida State. Heck, even Stanford's win over USC is as high a quality as any victory on Alabama's schedule so far.
The computers recognize this, too, and rank Alabama accordingly: at number 12. Alabama is a great team, one of the best in the country. They just don't belong in the Top Ten until they beat Auburn and LSU - which, as of now, they haven't done - and until Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wisconsin, and Ohio State lose more games - which, as of now, hasn't happened, either.
So if it's not being undefeated, and it's not the quality of wins, and it's not the quality of losses, how are pollsters making decisions? Is it the conference?
Well, TCU is in the only conference with two unbeaten teams, and other schools like Air Force and San Diego State are playing competitively, too. That's all the more reason to rank them ahead of Boise State. The Big 12, meanwhile, is putting on a conference finale for the ages. Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma State are all quality programs. In the Embarrassment of the Season Bowl, Colorado beat Georgia. Heck, Baylor is bowl eligible, Texas is simply middle of the pack, and Kansas managed to beat Georgia Tech. In the Big Ten, meanwhile, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Iowa all look very solid. Oh yeah, Michigan has a guy who can make headlines. It's also interesting that Iowa is ranked so much more highly by humans than machines; why wouldn't the Big Ten love be going to Michigan State, first and foremost? And Illinois beat the same Penn State team Alabama did. In a bizarre twist, the SEC luster isn't rubbing off on the conference's undefeated team, or even the team it beat. Rather, it's the third best SEC performance of the first half, Alabama, hogging all the (human) headlines.
After all, we can't have preseason prognosticators bothered by how the season actually turns out. I mean, imagine if the World Series wasn't the Yanks and Phillies? How could Texas and San Francisco even be worth talking about?
Unfortunately, this post has to be this long, because it's absolutely necessary to point out the inherent contradiction which the humans can't shake: it simply can't be that Boise State and Oregon are having great years while it is also true that Alabama is having a great year. The second half of the season could very well play out differently, particularly with possible losses for Missouri at Nebraska, Michigan State at Iowa, Auburn at Alabama, and TCU/Utah. But as we mark the roughly halfway point through the season, it needs reminding in all the biased pundit hype that so far in the 2010 season, the computers are smarter than the pollsters. The problem with using coaches to rank these things is that coaches have a far more important demand on their time - coaching. There's no evil conspiracy here, just an unfortunate problem with relying so heavily on the human polls. Fortunately, there's a simple solution. Have the computer rankings account for half the score, rather than 1/3.
So, here's where I place things. I will re-arrange accordingly after my higher ranked teams actually lose and the lower ranked teams actually win. And remember, the computers will adjust, too. They have no pre-season prediction egos to feed. That's probably why the media blathers on about how horrible the machines are. Change is scary.
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
5. Oregon
6. Boise State
7. Utah
8. Oklahoma
9. Wisconsin
10. Ohio State
11. LSU
12. Alabama
13. Nebraska
14. Florida State
15. Oklahoma State
16. Stanford
17. Arizona
18. Mississippi State
19. Iowa
20. Baylor
21. South Carolina
22. Arkansas
23. Virginia Tech
24. Miami
25. San Diego State
But dang nabbit, something is in the water this fall. After a hot summer, this fall has been fantastic. Missouri's NFL franchises are 7-6. That's a winning record; better seasons for both teams have already been assured and we're less than half way through this season!
The Missouri Tigers have also won 7 games. Without losing any. To top it off, the Spartans are undefeated as well, while the media darlings of Alabama and Ohio State have both lost a game already.
And that's where this all comes to a head. The silly season of incoherent poll voters is in full swing. For all the incessant yacking and yammering about how awful the BCS is, the main problem is that the human polls account for twice as much weighting as the computers. (human) Pollsters that do things like looking at prior years instead of the current year. Or assign present values based upon what they believe will happen in the future instead of what has already happened up to this point. Or apply different criteria to different teams. It's truly bizarre, and this season demonstrates the madness in several ways, particularly looking at the most basic things in sports: the win-loss record and strength of competition.
In years when there is lots of chaos caused by few or no teams with unblemished records, the challenge becomes how do you rank teams that have lost games. But the first half of this season is comprised of something rather straightforward: There's an undefeated team in the Big 12, the SEC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10, the Mountain West (which has two), and the WAC. It's pretty simple. This is the absence of chaos; it's called order. These are the teams you talk about first, before looking at the bigger picture. And when you start actually looking at 2010's undefeated teams, I'd argue it becomes pretty clear that there are four teams that have distanced themselves from the pack. None of them, by the way, have the names of Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, or Boise State. Nope, the top tier of teams for the first half of the 2010 season are, in alphabetical order, Auburn, Michigan State, Missouri, and TCU.
In order to rank a team above those four, some other consideration has to come into play. And in order for that to be legitimate, that consideration has to be applied to all teams. That's the key point: consistency. The computers bring it in spades. The polls, well, sometimes I'm not sure what they're smokin'.
Here's how the BCS computers rank the top four teams:
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
Here's the Harris and USA Today polls:
1. Oregon
2. Boise State
3. Auburn
4. TCU
To demonstrate the overwhelming stranglehold of the humans over the BCS - even though all you'll hear in the media is pundits decrying the horrible choices of the computers - is to look at the combined rankings. Oregon and Boise State remain in the top 4.
And this leads us to the natural question: what consideration is being applied equally to reach this kind of disparity by teh humanz? The computers think the SEC leader should play the Big 12 leader for the national championship, with the Big Ten and Mountain West leaders being the runners up. The human polls don't put either Auburn or Missouri in the top 2, and they don't include Missouri or Michigan State in the top 4 at all!
Poll voters aren't just not biased against Boise State and Oregon. They're rabidly biased in favor of them, to the point of crowding out the real story lines of the first half of the season. In fact, there's such a drop-off after my top four teams, that the computers handle this in an interesting way. They put one-loss Oklahoma at number 5. And one-loss LSU ties Boise State for sixth, then Oregon at number 8.
Then there's the matter of one-loss teams. There's no way around the human stupidity of ranking Alabama so highly. None. When Missouri loses to Nebraska, then you can rank Alabama higher - but that loss hasn't happened yet! It's not just Missouri that's slighted by Alabama bias, though. Every one loss team suffers. You see, not only is Alabama not on some semi-pro uberwonderseason, but they haven't even put together the best first half of the season among one loss teams. Their loss at South Carolina is worse than Oklahoma's loss at Missouri, or Wisconsin's at Michigan State, or Ohio State's at Wisconsin, or Stanford's at Oregon, or Florida State's at Oklahoma, or LSU's at Auburn, or Oklahoma State's loss to Nebraska. In fact, what's remarkable about Alabama's loss compared to other top one-loss teams is how badly they got beat by a lesser team than the victors of all those other one-loss teams.
Oh, but it's the quality wins you say, not the losses? Ah, interesting. What teams have Oregon and Boise State beat again (this year) to warrant placing them ahead of Auburn, Missouri, Michigan State, and TCU? Uh-huh. And then when we look specifically at Alabama, they haven't beaten anybody with fewer than two losses. Wisconsin has beaten Ohio State. Nebraska has beaten Oklahoma State. Oklahoma has beaten Florida State. Heck, even Stanford's win over USC is as high a quality as any victory on Alabama's schedule so far.
The computers recognize this, too, and rank Alabama accordingly: at number 12. Alabama is a great team, one of the best in the country. They just don't belong in the Top Ten until they beat Auburn and LSU - which, as of now, they haven't done - and until Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wisconsin, and Ohio State lose more games - which, as of now, hasn't happened, either.
So if it's not being undefeated, and it's not the quality of wins, and it's not the quality of losses, how are pollsters making decisions? Is it the conference?
Well, TCU is in the only conference with two unbeaten teams, and other schools like Air Force and San Diego State are playing competitively, too. That's all the more reason to rank them ahead of Boise State. The Big 12, meanwhile, is putting on a conference finale for the ages. Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma State are all quality programs. In the Embarrassment of the Season Bowl, Colorado beat Georgia. Heck, Baylor is bowl eligible, Texas is simply middle of the pack, and Kansas managed to beat Georgia Tech. In the Big Ten, meanwhile, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Iowa all look very solid. Oh yeah, Michigan has a guy who can make headlines. It's also interesting that Iowa is ranked so much more highly by humans than machines; why wouldn't the Big Ten love be going to Michigan State, first and foremost? And Illinois beat the same Penn State team Alabama did. In a bizarre twist, the SEC luster isn't rubbing off on the conference's undefeated team, or even the team it beat. Rather, it's the third best SEC performance of the first half, Alabama, hogging all the (human) headlines.
After all, we can't have preseason prognosticators bothered by how the season actually turns out. I mean, imagine if the World Series wasn't the Yanks and Phillies? How could Texas and San Francisco even be worth talking about?
Unfortunately, this post has to be this long, because it's absolutely necessary to point out the inherent contradiction which the humans can't shake: it simply can't be that Boise State and Oregon are having great years while it is also true that Alabama is having a great year. The second half of the season could very well play out differently, particularly with possible losses for Missouri at Nebraska, Michigan State at Iowa, Auburn at Alabama, and TCU/Utah. But as we mark the roughly halfway point through the season, it needs reminding in all the biased pundit hype that so far in the 2010 season, the computers are smarter than the pollsters. The problem with using coaches to rank these things is that coaches have a far more important demand on their time - coaching. There's no evil conspiracy here, just an unfortunate problem with relying so heavily on the human polls. Fortunately, there's a simple solution. Have the computer rankings account for half the score, rather than 1/3.
So, here's where I place things. I will re-arrange accordingly after my higher ranked teams actually lose and the lower ranked teams actually win. And remember, the computers will adjust, too. They have no pre-season prediction egos to feed. That's probably why the media blathers on about how horrible the machines are. Change is scary.
1. Auburn
2. Missouri
3. Michigan State
4. TCU
5. Oregon
6. Boise State
7. Utah
8. Oklahoma
9. Wisconsin
10. Ohio State
11. LSU
12. Alabama
13. Nebraska
14. Florida State
15. Oklahoma State
16. Stanford
17. Arizona
18. Mississippi State
19. Iowa
20. Baylor
21. South Carolina
22. Arkansas
23. Virginia Tech
24. Miami
25. San Diego State
10/22/2010
it's here
And I don't mean ESPN College GameDay.
Nope, just talking about my car.
Wait for it.
And then it's gone.
Nope, just talking about my car.
Wait for it.
And then it's gone.
10/11/2010
the chiefs are in the playoffs
A couple weeks ago, I said the Chargers' early road sloppiness meant they had to win the games in this stretch against Arizona, Oakland, and St. Louis, while the Chiefs didn't need to beat Indy or Houston.
Well, two games in, the Chargers have already lost.
There are all sorts of things that can go wrong over the course of the season - from horrific injuries to brutal mental collapses - but it is truly amazing how early in the season it appears that such a bad team as the 2009 Chiefs were are now poised in 2010 to win the division. There are 12 games left to play for the Chiefs, and no team appears more in control of their division race than Kansas City. Now, it's quite possible actually San Diego could win a wildcard spot. They get games against New England, Tennessee, Indianapolis, and Houston, which if they win could all be potential tie breakers for a wildcard spot. Of course, those are all potential losses for the Chargers, too, which is part of their problem looking ahead at their schedule.
But at any rate, from the perspective of the AFC West and the Chiefs, wow. They're ahead in the loss column, the division record, and remaining opponents. Either the defense frustrated the dominant offense in the AFC South, or the Colts are in decline similar to the Chargers and the AFC South teams will all be giving each other losses, making it quite possible that the West picks up a wildcard team at the expense of the South. The offense had one of the most impressive strings of failures you can see, and the team was in the game on the road until the final few minutes. Scary. I have now firmly transitioned from being excited for a winning record to wanting to see a division title this year with this team.
Well, two games in, the Chargers have already lost.
There are all sorts of things that can go wrong over the course of the season - from horrific injuries to brutal mental collapses - but it is truly amazing how early in the season it appears that such a bad team as the 2009 Chiefs were are now poised in 2010 to win the division. There are 12 games left to play for the Chiefs, and no team appears more in control of their division race than Kansas City. Now, it's quite possible actually San Diego could win a wildcard spot. They get games against New England, Tennessee, Indianapolis, and Houston, which if they win could all be potential tie breakers for a wildcard spot. Of course, those are all potential losses for the Chargers, too, which is part of their problem looking ahead at their schedule.
But at any rate, from the perspective of the AFC West and the Chiefs, wow. They're ahead in the loss column, the division record, and remaining opponents. Either the defense frustrated the dominant offense in the AFC South, or the Colts are in decline similar to the Chargers and the AFC South teams will all be giving each other losses, making it quite possible that the West picks up a wildcard team at the expense of the South. The offense had one of the most impressive strings of failures you can see, and the team was in the game on the road until the final few minutes. Scary. I have now firmly transitioned from being excited for a winning record to wanting to see a division title this year with this team.
10/03/2010
more good news for the chiefs
And the Rams too, for that matter.
The Chiefs aren't good enough yet to consistently beat dominant teams. So it's great news that this year, there don't appear to be any such teams in the NFL. None. Every team looks beatable at this stage of the game.
In the NFC, we had winless teams at the bottom of the NFC North, NFC South, and NFC West travel to three of the top teams in the conference. All three teams remain winless, but they lost on the road by a collective six points. Not exactly an overwhelming performance by the Packers, Saints, and Falcons. In the AFC, there's not a single (other) undefeated team remaining. Every (other) team has already lost at least one game in the conference and/or at home.
What's going on this year?
The Chiefs aren't good enough yet to consistently beat dominant teams. So it's great news that this year, there don't appear to be any such teams in the NFL. None. Every team looks beatable at this stage of the game.
In the NFC, we had winless teams at the bottom of the NFC North, NFC South, and NFC West travel to three of the top teams in the conference. All three teams remain winless, but they lost on the road by a collective six points. Not exactly an overwhelming performance by the Packers, Saints, and Falcons. In the AFC, there's not a single (other) undefeated team remaining. Every (other) team has already lost at least one game in the conference and/or at home.
What's going on this year?
9/30/2010
stars continue to align
At a superficial level, one would expect the Chiefs to be a below average but not rock bottom team this year. They've got some untested players and coaches, and they are coming off a three year reign of terror, so to speak, wherein they've won all of about 10 games. Out of 48. (Although, interestingly, they only finished last in the division in two of those three seasons). Looking forward, it appears the Chiefs have troughed, and the question is how far to the upswing they might progress this season. And the big question mark about the Chargers is how fast their dominance will fade over the next couple seasons. In fact, San Diego's four consecutive division titles is the longest AFC West streak since the Raiders of the 1970s won five in a row.
So with that context we entered 2010. From the perspective of the Chiefs, it has the potential to be a particularly noteworthy affair, more than just a small improvement over 2009. After some seasons where it seemed like the schedulers were out to get us (one of those fun fan complaints), 2010 is set up nicely for things to potentially get very interesting. Our home/away matchups mimic the Chargers, which gives us a good guidepost (assuming San Diego is still the team to beat this year). With the renovations to Arrowhead complete, there is some additional excitement on that front.
But I say potential, because the stars do have to align for this to be a magical season. Which, of course, is why seasons like this one could be are described as magical.
Consider the stretch before the bye week. In the early part of the Chiefs' schedule, the pressure was on Kansas City to perform. Right out of the gate, we hosted a division rival on Monday night at home. If you're going to be competitive, you have to win divisional home games. Then, the second game of the season is one of the winnable road games, and the third game back at home. Again, these are the kinds of games that need to be won to be competitive. It doesn't have to be pretty; just be ahead when the clock hits zero.
Well, the Chiefs actually performed. It took two ugly wins and better adaption to weather, but this season is already materially different than the previous three. That means the pressure is now on the Chargers. Next up for us is a bye week and two road games we don't need to win. San Diego, though, has to win three times in the next three weeks. Now, it's possible that San Diego still has another year of dominance left, their early difficulties losing two flukey road games don't mean anything, and they finish the season about 13-3 and win the division handily. In that case, the Chiefs improve from last year, celebrate that, and go into 2011 aiming for division champ.
But it's also possible that the Chargers are losing close games on the road because they're not that much better than the rest of the league. In that case, let's go back to the schedule. Due to losing at Arrowhead, the Chargers absolutely have to beat the Chiefs at home later this year. If KC pulls off a victory at either Indianapolis or Houston over the next two weeks, that means San Diego absolutely must do the same thing. With the Chiefs' victory against their AFC North opponent, and upcoming AFC East opponent being the Buffalo Bills, the Chargers are under the gun to beat both the Patriots and Bengals. In short, by coming out of the first six weeks at least 3-2 (which is already done, after week 3), KC, for the whole rest of the season, puts the pressure on San Diego, a team that won three times as many games as the Chiefs last year.
It only takes one more mistake by San Diego, losing a sloppy road game or getting surprised at home, and the Chiefs might have a hard time not looking phenomenal. Of course, the Chiefs could also finish the season about 3-10 after their 3-0 start, too.
If you'd asked me a month ago, I would have been excited for a winning season. Now, I think there is legitimate talk about the Chiefs vying for the division title, this year, based on what has happened so far and then looking out at the scheduling yet to come. It's your move, San Diego. Are you going 12-1 the rest of the season, or not? Were the Seattle and KC losses more September flukes, or are you also going to lose at Indy, Houston, Cincinnati, Denver, and Oakland? Are New England and Tennessee going to come in and beat you at home? Are you even, perhaps, worried about Sam Bradford and the newly resurgent 1-15 St. Louis Rams? Time will tell. I can't wait to see how the universe aligns.
It's been a few years since MO NFL fans were actually excited about seeing how the season unfolds. This is the combined record of the Chiefs and Rams over the past three seasons: 16-80. Ouch.
So with that context we entered 2010. From the perspective of the Chiefs, it has the potential to be a particularly noteworthy affair, more than just a small improvement over 2009. After some seasons where it seemed like the schedulers were out to get us (one of those fun fan complaints), 2010 is set up nicely for things to potentially get very interesting. Our home/away matchups mimic the Chargers, which gives us a good guidepost (assuming San Diego is still the team to beat this year). With the renovations to Arrowhead complete, there is some additional excitement on that front.
But I say potential, because the stars do have to align for this to be a magical season. Which, of course, is why seasons like this one could be are described as magical.
Consider the stretch before the bye week. In the early part of the Chiefs' schedule, the pressure was on Kansas City to perform. Right out of the gate, we hosted a division rival on Monday night at home. If you're going to be competitive, you have to win divisional home games. Then, the second game of the season is one of the winnable road games, and the third game back at home. Again, these are the kinds of games that need to be won to be competitive. It doesn't have to be pretty; just be ahead when the clock hits zero.
Well, the Chiefs actually performed. It took two ugly wins and better adaption to weather, but this season is already materially different than the previous three. That means the pressure is now on the Chargers. Next up for us is a bye week and two road games we don't need to win. San Diego, though, has to win three times in the next three weeks. Now, it's possible that San Diego still has another year of dominance left, their early difficulties losing two flukey road games don't mean anything, and they finish the season about 13-3 and win the division handily. In that case, the Chiefs improve from last year, celebrate that, and go into 2011 aiming for division champ.
But it's also possible that the Chargers are losing close games on the road because they're not that much better than the rest of the league. In that case, let's go back to the schedule. Due to losing at Arrowhead, the Chargers absolutely have to beat the Chiefs at home later this year. If KC pulls off a victory at either Indianapolis or Houston over the next two weeks, that means San Diego absolutely must do the same thing. With the Chiefs' victory against their AFC North opponent, and upcoming AFC East opponent being the Buffalo Bills, the Chargers are under the gun to beat both the Patriots and Bengals. In short, by coming out of the first six weeks at least 3-2 (which is already done, after week 3), KC, for the whole rest of the season, puts the pressure on San Diego, a team that won three times as many games as the Chiefs last year.
It only takes one more mistake by San Diego, losing a sloppy road game or getting surprised at home, and the Chiefs might have a hard time not looking phenomenal. Of course, the Chiefs could also finish the season about 3-10 after their 3-0 start, too.
If you'd asked me a month ago, I would have been excited for a winning season. Now, I think there is legitimate talk about the Chiefs vying for the division title, this year, based on what has happened so far and then looking out at the scheduling yet to come. It's your move, San Diego. Are you going 12-1 the rest of the season, or not? Were the Seattle and KC losses more September flukes, or are you also going to lose at Indy, Houston, Cincinnati, Denver, and Oakland? Are New England and Tennessee going to come in and beat you at home? Are you even, perhaps, worried about Sam Bradford and the newly resurgent 1-15 St. Louis Rams? Time will tell. I can't wait to see how the universe aligns.
It's been a few years since MO NFL fans were actually excited about seeing how the season unfolds. This is the combined record of the Chiefs and Rams over the past three seasons: 16-80. Ouch.
9/27/2010
have a seat, stay for awhile
For the non sports fans, the Rams have had some problems recently. They didn't even win a home game last year.
But this year, the Rams have played competitive games against the Raiders and the Cardinals. Sam Bradford, the rookie from Oklahoma, is making by far the most impact in the NFL this season. By comparison, Florida's Tim Tebow isn't even the Broncos starter.
And here we are playing Washington tough. The Rams take the best Washington can throw at them, regain the lead, and...make the lead even bigger! And what do St. Louis fans do?
That's right. They start leaving.
This is a party. The first home win in four years. The Rams are only a game out of first place in the NFC West. They're not even in last place in the division. Savor this. Either this is the start of something incredible, or a rarity to be relished.
Stick around for awhile. At least, be there when the clock hits zero.
But this year, the Rams have played competitive games against the Raiders and the Cardinals. Sam Bradford, the rookie from Oklahoma, is making by far the most impact in the NFL this season. By comparison, Florida's Tim Tebow isn't even the Broncos starter.
And here we are playing Washington tough. The Rams take the best Washington can throw at them, regain the lead, and...make the lead even bigger! And what do St. Louis fans do?
That's right. They start leaving.
This is a party. The first home win in four years. The Rams are only a game out of first place in the NFC West. They're not even in last place in the division. Savor this. Either this is the start of something incredible, or a rarity to be relished.
Stick around for awhile. At least, be there when the clock hits zero.
9/24/2010
thanks tom
Okay, I'm not exactly on a first name basis with anyone from the Fed, let alone a Regional President.
But there's a great writeup in BusinessWeek about the approach of Thomas Hoenig, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Well worth the read. The observations are really pretty straightforward when you boil them down. And they're getting into the mainstream corporate media.
1. There's a difference between rescuing the banking system and rescuing big banks. Community banks are who have good business plans that add value to the economy.
2. The Fed isn't equipped to handle the present situation; monetary policy simply doesn't do much when the problem is too much credit. In fact, Greenspan and Bernanke are responsible for precisely some of the conditions that have created booms and busts over the past couple decades.
3. We should break up any entity deemed 'too big to fail'.
Or as the article writes
But there's a great writeup in BusinessWeek about the approach of Thomas Hoenig, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Well worth the read. The observations are really pretty straightforward when you boil them down. And they're getting into the mainstream corporate media.
1. There's a difference between rescuing the banking system and rescuing big banks. Community banks are who have good business plans that add value to the economy.
2. The Fed isn't equipped to handle the present situation; monetary policy simply doesn't do much when the problem is too much credit. In fact, Greenspan and Bernanke are responsible for precisely some of the conditions that have created booms and busts over the past couple decades.
3. We should break up any entity deemed 'too big to fail'.
Or as the article writes
The hard truth, in his view, is that there just isn't much more the Fed can do to help, and we all ought to admit that.
We've had a Treasury Secretary from Goldman Sachs (GS) under a Democratic President and a Treasury Secretary from Goldman Sachs under a Republican President. The outcomes were not good,"
"What I took from that," says Hoenig, "was that it followed a period of very easy credit. It followed a period when people felt prices could only go up." Feel-good rates, in other words, led to excessive leverage and crisis. "I find it very interesting today," Hoenig continues, "how many people don't remember the late 1970s-early 1980s."
When community banks stumble, he adds, they are allowed to fail. When Wall Street collapsed, it got a heroic rescue. "I would break them up," Hoenig says of Citigroup (C), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), and Bank of America (BAC). "They're too big. They have too much political influence. When they get in trouble again, the temptation to rescue them because they are 'too big to fail' will be very strong."
9/13/2010
what a little bit of law school does to you
James Kwak has another interesting post up at the Baseline Scenario blog. It is entitled 'What a Little Bit of Economics Does to You'. He manages to touch upon several issues which I think are important. What is unusual for the blog is that the manner in which he does this is by being nearly completely wrong (generally, I tend to agree with most of what is written at Baseline Scenario). This is my somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but overall serious, take on the matter.
Kwak starts by discussing a paper that asked questions about various actions to see if people thought it was fair or unfair, reaching a broad conclusion that “The cardinal rule of fairness is surely that one person should not achieve a gain by simply imposing an equivalent loss on another.” I wholeheartedly agree; that seems like a great, succinct summary of the concept of fairness as it relates to economic transactions. This is why actions like fraud and torture are illegal; they are simply one person's gain at the expense of someone else's loss. This is why at the heart of capitalism lies the concept of consent of the individual.
However, Kwak then relates this broad concept to his current class.
This writing is rich in irony and confused reasoning. As business school students may be classic Econ 101 robots, so too are law school students classic law professor stenographers. If the professor said it, it must be true!
More substantively, we're talking about snow shovels here. That cost $20. Simply buying a replacement blade for the Snow Wovel costs $19.85, and that's based upon shipping to an area that is not encumbered by a snow storm. Moreover, the fact that someone would even need a snow shovel implies two very important things. First, they own property that needs care (a house with a sidewalk, a driveway for a car, etc). How many renters are expected to shovel snow? How many poor people have cars? Second, they don't currently have a snow shovel; in other words, they're being negligent in maintaining their property and free-riding off of others to bail them out when they want help. That's like complaining that the gas company shuts off your gas after not paying your bills for six months.
In addition, there's a lot of 'shoulds' in here. Notice, the question doesn't ask what students would do if they were the business owner. Rather, the question is if it's unfair for the business to raise prices. Finally, one point worth mentioning here is that this is all based upon insufficient information. It's speculation; one cannot conclude what people are thinking, or why, from the given information.
Kwak continues
Note the bait and switch here, how Kwak almost subconsciously transitions from concerns about people who have to pay the higher price for the shovel to concerns about people who won't get a shovel. The people paying $20 for the shovel after a snowstorm are deriving greater utility from it, otherwise they wouldn't pay the extra $5. Now, for those who can't afford the $20, the question remains, why didn't they buy a shovel at $15? Are they too poor to afford even a $15 shovel? At that rate, we're talking about people too poor to worry about things like driveways and sidewalks. That kind of property is owned by rich people. Kwak would need to demonstrate some data that suggests that the marginal increase in the price of the shovel impacts the distribution of shovel consumption with respect to income. This is not academic, by the way. For example, one substitute good for buying a shovel is hiring somebody else to shovel your driveway. Guess who is more likely to do that? Richer folks! Another substitute good is calling in to work to take a day off. Guess who has more paid leave time? Richer folks! Another substitute good is bringing in shovels from someplace else. Guess what's going to attract other sellers to brave the snow and distance? Higher prices! Another substitute good is borrowing/renting a shovel from a neighbor. Guess who's more likely to live in an area where there are other property owners who would have shovels to share/loan? Richer folks! The point of all this is that higher prices might lead to more shovels being bought by poorer folks, not less; we would need actual data to determine that. The conceptual framework alone offers no guidance. That price increase can just as easily signal to richer folks that they should choose some other method at their disposal of clearing their property of snow as it can signal to poorer folks that they can't get a shovel because they can't afford the extra $5.
Also, this sentiment languishes in the same insufficient information purgatory. Since Kwak does not claim to speak for people who 'believe' Econ 101, he would need to present some actual evidence about what those people believe. He would also need evidence that law students at Yale are representative of the general population in the ways material to the original paper. Perhaps the problem isn't business at all; maybe it's our elite universities that create concepts of fairness alien to average Americans.
While the above academic fun is fun, the real meat lies ahead:
Notice the leap from 'Econ 101' to 'free market ideology'? That claim calls for a modicum of warrants, shall we say. And then we're back to this business of generating profits by imposing losses on counterparties. That may be what the laissez-faire 'free market ideology' types think, and perhaps Kwak shows his subtle cultural biases by assuming that's what everybody thinks. And maybe I just had great professors. I mean, I'd take Wash U over Yale any day (which is why you should recognize both of our biases in the odd event we played a basketball game or something). While I have great disdain for certain parts of the business community and great appreciation for certain parts of the legal community, I think overall there are probably too many lawyers and too few people who really understand business in our society. In fact, you could go so far as to argue that Kwak has the cause and effect reversed. Maybe the problem isn't that business education creates market fundamentalism, but rather, that those inclined toward the free market ideology are about the only folks who think business education is valuable? Maybe if we had more architects and painters and philosophers and social service agency staffers and gay rights activists and whoever-whatsie else's studying the basic concepts of business, both the economy and society would benefit?
Regardless of where you align on that particular mode of thought, consider the core inaccuracy of Kwak's assertion. The store selling the shovel for $20 isn't imposing a loss on the buyer. That's a stupid argument; I don't know how to put it more kindly. If the shovel wasn't worth $20, the buyer wouldn't buy it. In fact, refusing patronage to a store is precisely how one demonstrates that the legal actions of the store's proprietors are unfair.
I would also point out the misguided nature of his last statement. Our public policy isn't dominated by Econ 101. It largely ignores it. That's why we're in such the crapper at the moment, so to speak. Remember my comment about things like fraud and torture? Imagine if we actually prosecuted stuff like that which has been undermining both our economy and our democracy.
Kwak's footnote sums it up
In other words, there is no perfect way to allocate scarce resources. Everything has inequality and inefficiency effects. The pricing mechanism in capitalism is just the best system we've got until we come up with something better. I highly encourage everyone to investigate Econ 101 and see what you think for yourself. I enjoyed my own professors, like Jackson Nickerson, who taught my Management 100 class, William Emmons, who taught my Microeconomics class, Dottie Petersen, who taught my global macroeconomics class, Russ Roberts, who taught my class on business and public policy, and Robert Pollak, who taught my course on business and the environment. These are only a handful of professors, of course, but I highlight them because they were teaching the fundamentals, the 'Econ 101' stuff that Kwak apparently thinks is destroying our culture. My beef isn't with the economic textbook written by Gregory Mankiw, George Bush's economic advisor; it was a great textbook. My beef is with the public policies our government enacts that ignore basic economics. I'm not worried about changes in public attitudes toward 'free markets'; my concern is when our public policies ignore the broad will of the people.
I can't wait until Kwak posts a piece about how personal finance education and financial literacy caused the DJIA/NASDAQ and housing bubbles!
Kwak starts by discussing a paper that asked questions about various actions to see if people thought it was fair or unfair, reaching a broad conclusion that “The cardinal rule of fairness is surely that one person should not achieve a gain by simply imposing an equivalent loss on another.” I wholeheartedly agree; that seems like a great, succinct summary of the concept of fairness as it relates to economic transactions. This is why actions like fraud and torture are illegal; they are simply one person's gain at the expense of someone else's loss. This is why at the heart of capitalism lies the concept of consent of the individual.
However, Kwak then relates this broad concept to his current class.
"Today in class, the professor posed the first question from the paper:
A hardware store has been selling snow shovels for $15. The morning after a large snowstorm, the store raises the price to $20.”
In 1986, 82 percent of respondents thought this was unfair. In class, it was about 50-50.
As the professor said, this is probably because there are a lot of business school students in this class. Business school students are classic Econ 101 robots. They know enough to know that if there is a demand shift, not only is it OK to raise prices, but you should raise prices in order to clear the market. In this case, supply is fixed in the short term, so raising the price won’t increase supply; the Econ 101 argument is that raising the price allocates the shovels to people who will derive more utility from them (because they will pay more), thereby increasing social welfare.
This writing is rich in irony and confused reasoning. As business school students may be classic Econ 101 robots, so too are law school students classic law professor stenographers. If the professor said it, it must be true!
More substantively, we're talking about snow shovels here. That cost $20. Simply buying a replacement blade for the Snow Wovel costs $19.85, and that's based upon shipping to an area that is not encumbered by a snow storm. Moreover, the fact that someone would even need a snow shovel implies two very important things. First, they own property that needs care (a house with a sidewalk, a driveway for a car, etc). How many renters are expected to shovel snow? How many poor people have cars? Second, they don't currently have a snow shovel; in other words, they're being negligent in maintaining their property and free-riding off of others to bail them out when they want help. That's like complaining that the gas company shuts off your gas after not paying your bills for six months.
In addition, there's a lot of 'shoulds' in here. Notice, the question doesn't ask what students would do if they were the business owner. Rather, the question is if it's unfair for the business to raise prices. Finally, one point worth mentioning here is that this is all based upon insufficient information. It's speculation; one cannot conclude what people are thinking, or why, from the given information.
Kwak continues
But this rests on a huge assumption: that willingness to pay is the same as utility. Unfortunately, however, this assumption fails in the real world; poor people simply can’t pay as much for snow shovels as rich people, and as a result a price increase will allocate shovels to rich people, not to those who need them the most.* But people who believe Econ 101 only remember the demand and supply curves they saw on the first day of class, so they think firms should raise prices.
Note the bait and switch here, how Kwak almost subconsciously transitions from concerns about people who have to pay the higher price for the shovel to concerns about people who won't get a shovel. The people paying $20 for the shovel after a snowstorm are deriving greater utility from it, otherwise they wouldn't pay the extra $5. Now, for those who can't afford the $20, the question remains, why didn't they buy a shovel at $15? Are they too poor to afford even a $15 shovel? At that rate, we're talking about people too poor to worry about things like driveways and sidewalks. That kind of property is owned by rich people. Kwak would need to demonstrate some data that suggests that the marginal increase in the price of the shovel impacts the distribution of shovel consumption with respect to income. This is not academic, by the way. For example, one substitute good for buying a shovel is hiring somebody else to shovel your driveway. Guess who is more likely to do that? Richer folks! Another substitute good is calling in to work to take a day off. Guess who has more paid leave time? Richer folks! Another substitute good is bringing in shovels from someplace else. Guess what's going to attract other sellers to brave the snow and distance? Higher prices! Another substitute good is borrowing/renting a shovel from a neighbor. Guess who's more likely to live in an area where there are other property owners who would have shovels to share/loan? Richer folks! The point of all this is that higher prices might lead to more shovels being bought by poorer folks, not less; we would need actual data to determine that. The conceptual framework alone offers no guidance. That price increase can just as easily signal to richer folks that they should choose some other method at their disposal of clearing their property of snow as it can signal to poorer folks that they can't get a shovel because they can't afford the extra $5.
Also, this sentiment languishes in the same insufficient information purgatory. Since Kwak does not claim to speak for people who 'believe' Econ 101, he would need to present some actual evidence about what those people believe. He would also need evidence that law students at Yale are representative of the general population in the ways material to the original paper. Perhaps the problem isn't business at all; maybe it's our elite universities that create concepts of fairness alien to average Americans.
While the above academic fun is fun, the real meat lies ahead:
I suspect that belief in Econ 101 is not only stronger among business school students (and the businessmen they become) than among ordinary people, but is also stronger today than it was in 1986. The free market ideology teaches not only that businesses can maximize profits by any legal means, but that they have a moral imperative to maximize profits by any legal means, including generating profits by imposing equivalent losses on their counterparties. (Essentially all proprietary trading fulfills this condition.) And three decades of this ideology have probably changed people’s responses to these types of questions.
More fundamentally, the 1986 paper shows that Econ 101 is diametrically opposed to human beings’ intuitive sense of fairness. Yet public policy largely follows the dictates of Econ 101. Is that a good thing?
Notice the leap from 'Econ 101' to 'free market ideology'? That claim calls for a modicum of warrants, shall we say. And then we're back to this business of generating profits by imposing losses on counterparties. That may be what the laissez-faire 'free market ideology' types think, and perhaps Kwak shows his subtle cultural biases by assuming that's what everybody thinks. And maybe I just had great professors. I mean, I'd take Wash U over Yale any day (which is why you should recognize both of our biases in the odd event we played a basketball game or something). While I have great disdain for certain parts of the business community and great appreciation for certain parts of the legal community, I think overall there are probably too many lawyers and too few people who really understand business in our society. In fact, you could go so far as to argue that Kwak has the cause and effect reversed. Maybe the problem isn't that business education creates market fundamentalism, but rather, that those inclined toward the free market ideology are about the only folks who think business education is valuable? Maybe if we had more architects and painters and philosophers and social service agency staffers and gay rights activists and whoever-whatsie else's studying the basic concepts of business, both the economy and society would benefit?
Regardless of where you align on that particular mode of thought, consider the core inaccuracy of Kwak's assertion. The store selling the shovel for $20 isn't imposing a loss on the buyer. That's a stupid argument; I don't know how to put it more kindly. If the shovel wasn't worth $20, the buyer wouldn't buy it. In fact, refusing patronage to a store is precisely how one demonstrates that the legal actions of the store's proprietors are unfair.
I would also point out the misguided nature of his last statement. Our public policy isn't dominated by Econ 101. It largely ignores it. That's why we're in such the crapper at the moment, so to speak. Remember my comment about things like fraud and torture? Imagine if we actually prosecuted stuff like that which has been undermining both our economy and our democracy.
Kwak's footnote sums it up
* I’m not saying that there is a perfect way to allocate the shovels, just that using price isn’t perfect, and does have inequality effects
In other words, there is no perfect way to allocate scarce resources. Everything has inequality and inefficiency effects. The pricing mechanism in capitalism is just the best system we've got until we come up with something better. I highly encourage everyone to investigate Econ 101 and see what you think for yourself. I enjoyed my own professors, like Jackson Nickerson, who taught my Management 100 class, William Emmons, who taught my Microeconomics class, Dottie Petersen, who taught my global macroeconomics class, Russ Roberts, who taught my class on business and public policy, and Robert Pollak, who taught my course on business and the environment. These are only a handful of professors, of course, but I highlight them because they were teaching the fundamentals, the 'Econ 101' stuff that Kwak apparently thinks is destroying our culture. My beef isn't with the economic textbook written by Gregory Mankiw, George Bush's economic advisor; it was a great textbook. My beef is with the public policies our government enacts that ignore basic economics. I'm not worried about changes in public attitudes toward 'free markets'; my concern is when our public policies ignore the broad will of the people.
I can't wait until Kwak posts a piece about how personal finance education and financial literacy caused the DJIA/NASDAQ and housing bubbles!
9/12/2010
the politics of parking
A funny thing happened on the way to church. Grand Center, Inc didn't let me park on the church's parking lot.
It's very weird. I don't know why it's so difficult for organizations to work together. This is one of the things I'm still trying to learn about urban life in general and St. Louis in particular; why is it that people and groups who are basically all on the same team have such difficulty arriving at mutually beneficial arrangements? GCI has been very good at charging visitors to Midtown St. Louis for the privilege of using parking spaces - including those owned by the church. But for some unexplained reason, GCI seems to think they own all the proceeds. Apparently, they broke off negotiations so suddenly that they didn't even allow the church to build a separate street entrance into that part of the parking lot before literally denying little old church ladies the ability to park next to the entrance. And of course, there's no notice or anything. The thankless task of telling people they can't enter the parking lot was left to the subcontracted parking lot attendants to explain on Sunday morning.
What's the dealio Mr. Schoemehl? We're even doing GCI the favor of housing the Grand Center Arts Academy charter school for a year until their tax-credit financed building rehab is completed. You owe us man. I expect more from my fellow Skinker-Debaliviere peep!
It's very weird. I don't know why it's so difficult for organizations to work together. This is one of the things I'm still trying to learn about urban life in general and St. Louis in particular; why is it that people and groups who are basically all on the same team have such difficulty arriving at mutually beneficial arrangements? GCI has been very good at charging visitors to Midtown St. Louis for the privilege of using parking spaces - including those owned by the church. But for some unexplained reason, GCI seems to think they own all the proceeds. Apparently, they broke off negotiations so suddenly that they didn't even allow the church to build a separate street entrance into that part of the parking lot before literally denying little old church ladies the ability to park next to the entrance. And of course, there's no notice or anything. The thankless task of telling people they can't enter the parking lot was left to the subcontracted parking lot attendants to explain on Sunday morning.
What's the dealio Mr. Schoemehl? We're even doing GCI the favor of housing the Grand Center Arts Academy charter school for a year until their tax-credit financed building rehab is completed. You owe us man. I expect more from my fellow Skinker-Debaliviere peep!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)