(This was first posted almost a year ago on the eve of the the 2007 NFL draft.
As I write this in 2008 the jury of Brady Quinn is still out.)
The NFL Draft takes place today...
The Raiders and Detroit Lions, at the head of the line, when it comes to franchise ineptitude will be picking first and second respectively... As I have stated before on this blog, the most rational course of action for teams that suck in multiple areas (as high drafting teams invariably do) would seem to be trading down. That happens rarely.. I have no doubt that by the end of today Jamarcus Russell and Brady Quinn will have the hopes of mediocre organisations resting on their shoulders. Top five picks ARE the hallmark of a lousy organisation as well as a bad team. Lousy organisations are much further than just a draft pick away from excelllence.The cap space invested in a potential superstar can actually prevent a team from becoming competitive and effectively adressing the many other needs high drafting teams inevitably have.
What blows me away about predraftr prognosticators is their absurd confidence levels...
Gil Brandt NFL.com's Draft guru states about Notre Dame QB Brady Quinn...
"He will be a Pro Bowl QB and will be able to take a team to the playoffs"
Not "might" not "could be" not "has potential to be" but "WILL"
Bear in mind that this is by a guy who was VP of player personel for the Dallas Cowboys for almost 30 years! (1960-89) An NFL insider who has closely followed the NFL Draft his entire adult life!
A guy who has watched Heath Shuler Rick Mirer, Ryan Leaf, Todd Marinovich, Tim Couch, Joey Harrington and David Carr all be touted as the superstar QBs of the future!
That a guy who studies more hours of football in a year than I will watch in a lifetime and has made his living in this game can make such statements of pseudocertainty in regard to a QB prospect shows just how dramatically people underestimate the degree of uncertainty involved in these decisions and why team after team plump for the can't miss golden arm prospect rather than spreading the risk
February 23, 2008
Persuasion
Persuasion
The following post was first published on my now defunct blog "Random Acts of Thought" on June 4 2005
An interesting article in the New York Times ran today concenring the degree to which beliefs are entrenched.
The vast majority of people hold essentially closed opinions on many many subjects and changes of mind are almost impossible.
I believe it was either Kuhn or Popper who stated that scientific theories are not so much discarded as that their proponents die. In general we cling to our beliefs with incredible tenacity. Differing degrees of intelligence seem mainly to influence how sophisticated our defense of those ideas is rather than our ability to abandon them in the face of conflicting evidence. Loyalty to ideas seems unfortunately to be something that is hardwired into us.
This is a subject Naseem Taleb discusses in his excellent book Fooled By Randomness.
The huge psychological resistance to changing our mind seems unfortunately hardwired into us. Idea, values, and beliefs become such an integral part of the self concept that refutation of them becomes a kind of challenge to the sense of "I"
Most people (including myself) instinctively distrust the opinion of individuals who frequently change their mind on issues. Flip flopping on issues is one of the worst sins a politician can commit in the public eye.
Why are changes in opinion accompanied with a loss of pride? The degree of difficulty involved in changing your opinion seems proportional to the energy and time you have invested in thinking about it. Inability to abandon existing ideas and beliefs is one of the most problematic of human traits and I would wager that it responsible for a large proportion of the evil and folly in the world
Freedom and sexual satisfaction
This post was first published on my now defunct blog "Random Acts Of Thought" on April 21 2006
A recent University of Chicago study offers further proof that that more freedom leads to more of everything that is good in life including more orgasms...
Apparently there is a correlation between the degree of gender equality in a society and and the level of sexual satisfaction reported by BOTH parties in those countries.
Unfortunately, petty bedroom tyrants arent in the habit of perusing University of Chicago studies. I have written before about the destructive effect of coercion on friendships, business and relationships... It appears that tyranny is as destructive of sexual enjoyment as it is of economic and intellectual growth. I cant say I am surprised.
Once again western civilisation is at the head of the pack from a utiliarian AND a moral perspective. We produce more software, more literature, more dishwashers, more art, more cars, and more orgasms.
Bullying and coercion produce suffering, inefficieny and poverty whether it occurs in Kabul or Kansas City. Let freedom ring! (or moan in this case)
A Virtual mugging
First published on my old blog on Friday, August 19, 2005
I found this so deeply weird I had to post it. From the New Scientist website.
Computer characters mugged in virtual crime spreeA man has been arrested in Japan on suspicion carrying out a virtual mugging spree by using software "bots" to beat up and rob characters in the online computer game Lineage II.
The stolen virtual possessions were then exchanged for real cash.The Chinese exchange student was arrested by police in Kagawa prefecture, southern Japan, the Mainichi Daily News reports.Several players had their characters beaten and robbed of valuable virtual objects, which could have included the Earring of Wisdom or the Shield of Nightmare.
The items were then fenced through a Japanese auction website, according to NCsoft, which makes Lineage II. The assailant was a character controlled by a software bot, rather than a human player, making it unbeatable.Ren Reynolds, a UK-based computer games consultant and an editor of the gaming research site Terra Nova, says the case highlights the problem of bots in virtual worlds.
Intellectual honesty and the Newspapers
first published on Random Acts of Thought on Feburary 22 2007
Active partisanship is an essential part of British newspaper culture. Newspapers in this country don’t sit on the fence, but have an active viewpoint they promote not just in the editorial or opinion pages but in the selection of news and headlines and the spin that is put on different stories. This is very different than the American Newspaper tradition in which the papers do their best to adhere to a neutral tone and obvious soapboxing if and when it occurs is largely confined to the editorial pages… there are biases of course. The Washington Post for example is a more conservative newspaper than the New York Times, but these differences are far more subtle than the differences between say The Guardian and The Telegraph
I don’t have a problem with either approach. However I still value fairness and intellectual honesty.
A while back the Telegraph led with the Headline
“BLAIR TO DEFY 1.8 MILLION WHOS SIGNED ROAD TOLL PETITION”
What is the problem here? Is it that Tony Blair is defying popular opinion or that the Telegraph (and its readers) don’t want road pricing. If it is the former, would the Telegraph run a similiar headline were the issue the millions of people who want city bonuses more heavily taxed? I doubt it… I have no idea how many names the Stop the War coalition amassed before the invasion of Iraq but it has to have been more than 1.8 million… Should Blair’s foreign policy decisions have been dependent on their approval? Almost nobody has a problem with politicians defying the popular will when they happen to be in the minority that agree with the politicians. Furthermore we don’t live in an Athenian style direct democracy. The problem here is that the Telegraph doesnt like road pricing. That is fine.. The 1.8 million people are not the relevant factor here. The feasibility fairness and cost of road pricing are.
February 20, 2008
Elections are not the Superbowl
The most frustrating thing about the manner in which the mainstream media cover politics is the misconception about what I as a viewer find useful.
I am not looking for the mainstream media to provide me with an election handicapping service. I will not be gambling on the outcome of the democratic primaries.
90% of political coverage is geared towards helping me pick winners rather than understand issues.
Candidate A makes proposes policy A
Candidate B proposes policy B
What I voter or spectator care about.
What are the merits of the two proposals?
What do experts in the relevant fields think about the effectiveness of the each proposal?
What downsides or unintended consequences can they forsee in each case?
Do proposals A and B involve different sets of tradeoffs?
Which sections of society are likely to pay the highest cost and which sections are likely to reap the greatest benefits from Proposal A as opposed to Proposal B
What are the associated price tags of proposals A and B? Are they the same?
What I as a voter or spectator don't give a damn about
How Candidate A is polling with hispanic women with household incomes
under $40,000
Which candidate has gained 6 points in the latest poll.
Pretty much any strategic considerations affecting the political positioning in the two camps.
Identity politics related voting patterns
Now if I was a campaign manager then I would undoubtedly care deeply about these issues.
If I was running for office and wanted to win I would also have to care about these issues as a matter of pragmatism.
But as a spectator or voter ALL I care about is the reasonableness of the policy proposals and my subjective impression of the candidates making them.
The only questions I want the media to help me answer are;
Given the different sets of policy position espoused by the available candidates, which do I think is most desirable/least harmful for myself, my family and the larger community?
Do these people have track records that suggests they are fairly competent and rational?
What the hell do the poll responses of hispanic single mothers have to do with that?
Nothing!
Politics is covered like sports.
I understand tactical analysis in sports programming.
Beyond who is likely to win their is nothing to discuss. Most of the fun of watching sports is getting to be an armchair quarterback and second guessing players coaches and the front office. I get why people like to second guess say Brian Cashman's free agent signings for the Yankees, or Tom Coughlin's play calling for the Giants. Heck I can even understand why a Wall Street Journal subscriber would enjoy second guessing the CEO of General Motors.
What I can not for the life of me understand is why someone would want to do the same thing with the Democratic primary. Do people actually enjoy identifying with the decisions of campaign managers? Are there people that go. "Damn, we need to get that hispanic single mother demographic locked down in time for the California primary" the way they talk about their favorite basketball team needing to draft a new point guard?
Perhaps there are... But do these armchair party political tacticians constitute the majority of the voting public? You would think so from examining the tone of the media coverage.
So far, I haven't even touched on why this style of coverage is morally problematic. The basic assumption behind all this Xs and Os chalkboard analysis of the political playbook is that winning and election is a valid end in and of itself.
In this cynical view policy formulations are merely a means to an end, just like sports plays. Staking out different positions on, say healthcare or social security is just like deciding between man to man defense or zone coverage.
Needless to say this perspective is morally bankrupt. Political decisions have practical consequences that for good or ill, will effect the lives (and livelihoods) of millions of people.
Now I am convinced that many politicians do indeed think like this. But it is the job of the media to hold them to account, not cheerfully endorse their ethically vacuous Power Uber Alles cynicism as valid game strategy. That they choose the latter course is a total abdication of their responsibility.
Incidentally even if I were so morally indifferent that all I cared about was correctly predicting the outcome of elections rather than informing myself about the issues being debated; watching demographic pie charts, poll results and debate on CNN would be a waste of my time. All the information has already been incorporated into the betting odds posted on gambling sites for anyone who cares to look. The betting market is pretty efficient Using all this data to get a jump on the election outcome is as futile as trying to use an article in last months Forbes to get ahead of the professionals in the the stock market.
I am not looking for the mainstream media to provide me with an election handicapping service. I will not be gambling on the outcome of the democratic primaries.
90% of political coverage is geared towards helping me pick winners rather than understand issues.
Candidate A makes proposes policy A
Candidate B proposes policy B
What I voter or spectator care about.
What are the merits of the two proposals?
What do experts in the relevant fields think about the effectiveness of the each proposal?
What downsides or unintended consequences can they forsee in each case?
Do proposals A and B involve different sets of tradeoffs?
Which sections of society are likely to pay the highest cost and which sections are likely to reap the greatest benefits from Proposal A as opposed to Proposal B
What are the associated price tags of proposals A and B? Are they the same?
What I as a voter or spectator don't give a damn about
How Candidate A is polling with hispanic women with household incomes
under $40,000
Which candidate has gained 6 points in the latest poll.
Pretty much any strategic considerations affecting the political positioning in the two camps.
Identity politics related voting patterns
Now if I was a campaign manager then I would undoubtedly care deeply about these issues.
If I was running for office and wanted to win I would also have to care about these issues as a matter of pragmatism.
But as a spectator or voter ALL I care about is the reasonableness of the policy proposals and my subjective impression of the candidates making them.
The only questions I want the media to help me answer are;
Given the different sets of policy position espoused by the available candidates, which do I think is most desirable/least harmful for myself, my family and the larger community?
Do these people have track records that suggests they are fairly competent and rational?
What the hell do the poll responses of hispanic single mothers have to do with that?
Nothing!
Politics is covered like sports.
I understand tactical analysis in sports programming.
Beyond who is likely to win their is nothing to discuss. Most of the fun of watching sports is getting to be an armchair quarterback and second guessing players coaches and the front office. I get why people like to second guess say Brian Cashman's free agent signings for the Yankees, or Tom Coughlin's play calling for the Giants. Heck I can even understand why a Wall Street Journal subscriber would enjoy second guessing the CEO of General Motors.
What I can not for the life of me understand is why someone would want to do the same thing with the Democratic primary. Do people actually enjoy identifying with the decisions of campaign managers? Are there people that go. "Damn, we need to get that hispanic single mother demographic locked down in time for the California primary" the way they talk about their favorite basketball team needing to draft a new point guard?
Perhaps there are... But do these armchair party political tacticians constitute the majority of the voting public? You would think so from examining the tone of the media coverage.
So far, I haven't even touched on why this style of coverage is morally problematic. The basic assumption behind all this Xs and Os chalkboard analysis of the political playbook is that winning and election is a valid end in and of itself.
In this cynical view policy formulations are merely a means to an end, just like sports plays. Staking out different positions on, say healthcare or social security is just like deciding between man to man defense or zone coverage.
Needless to say this perspective is morally bankrupt. Political decisions have practical consequences that for good or ill, will effect the lives (and livelihoods) of millions of people.
Now I am convinced that many politicians do indeed think like this. But it is the job of the media to hold them to account, not cheerfully endorse their ethically vacuous Power Uber Alles cynicism as valid game strategy. That they choose the latter course is a total abdication of their responsibility.
Incidentally even if I were so morally indifferent that all I cared about was correctly predicting the outcome of elections rather than informing myself about the issues being debated; watching demographic pie charts, poll results and debate on CNN would be a waste of my time. All the information has already been incorporated into the betting odds posted on gambling sites for anyone who cares to look. The betting market is pretty efficient Using all this data to get a jump on the election outcome is as futile as trying to use an article in last months Forbes to get ahead of the professionals in the the stock market.
January 04, 2008
College Sports scam
I read an excellent New York Times piece by Micheal Lewis of Liars Poker and Moneyball fame. One of the best things I have read on the economically exploitative student-athlete farce.
It makes the scale of the ripoff abundantly clear.
In 2005, the 121 Division 1-A football teams generated $1.8 billion for their colleges. If the colleges paid out 65 percent of their revenues to the players, the annual college football payroll would come to $1.17 billion. A college football team has 85 scholarship players while an N.F.L. roster has only 53, and so the money might be distributed a bit differently.
It makes the scale of the ripoff abundantly clear.
In 2005, the 121 Division 1-A football teams generated $1.8 billion for their colleges. If the colleges paid out 65 percent of their revenues to the players, the annual college football payroll would come to $1.17 billion. A college football team has 85 scholarship players while an N.F.L. roster has only 53, and so the money might be distributed a bit differently.
“You’d pay up for the most critical positions,” one N.F.L. front office executive told me on the condition that I not use his name. “You’d pay more for quarterbacks and left tackles and pass rushing defensive ends. You’d pay less for linebackers because you’d have so many of them. You could just rotate them in and out.”
A star quarterback, he thought, might command as much as 8 percent of his college team’s revenues. For instance, in 2005 the Texas Longhorns would have paid Vince Young roughly $5 million for the season. In quarterbacking the Longhorns free of charge, Young, in effect, was making a donation to the university of $5 million a year — and also, by putting his health on the line, taking a huge career risk.
At least Young was able to eventually to parlay his college football exploits into a lucrative NFL Career. The vast majority of young athletes that keep the cogs on the NCAA's money machine turning never see a penny of it.
I recommend reading the whole article here. Lewis focuses on football, but the same obviously applies to basketball. The NCAA tourney generates tremendous sums that most of the (often poverty stricken) kids who create the product that launched a thousand CBS commercials will never see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
