The evolution of a rivalry

This weekend was the annual Red River Rivalry, one of the greatest rivalries in college football. It has a remarkable and storied tradition. For me it was my 29th in a row to attend. During that tenure, I've seen it all, and I can say that in a way I believe few true sports fans can match. My deepest agonies of defeat and greatest joys and thrills of victory in all my sport spectating have come in that Cotton Bowl stadium in the middle of the State Fair of Texas in Big D, half-way between Norman and Austin.

As much as the experience has maintained its continuity, there are a few significant changes that have taken place. I have watched as that game and the weekend that surrounds it has evolved over time. It is unmistakably a more subdued, sophisticated, and superficial affair. For the most part these changes are good. A little of the pure rivalry is lost, I believe, but on the whole it is a better environment. Some of the changes have been:

• The center of fan pre game (night-before) activity has moved away from the rowdy and rough areas like Deep Ellum and the West End and into the tony Uptown and stylish Knox-Henderson.
• Yelling at, taunting, and otherwise verbally berating opposing fans is generally gauche and rare.
• Wearing team colors the night before is rare rather than the norm (this contributes to the prior trend).

In summary the behavior is better, the environment cleaner, and the atmosphere more sophisticated. 

Most of this, probably 80%, I attribute to the wealth effect. We've gotten a bit wealthier in both fan bases overall, but in particular the selection of fans has probably gotten considerably wealthier. The explosion in sophistication in Dallas, some of it genuine wealth, some of it the so-called $50,000 millionaires, has attracted a different crowd to the game. These fans are willing and able to spend much more for the OU-TX experience, and they crowd out other fans that more resembled what I saw in the mid-eighties. Also, the relaxed attitude generally for secondary-market ticket sales, read market prices, have further pushed out the fans of lesser means. 

The remaining 20% or so behind the evolution would include the significant downturn both teams experienced in the 1990s. This surely washed out some of the marginal fans. Also, the general encouragement of respectfulness would seem to have played a role. This attitudinal shift started at OU around the time of Stoops' arrival, but I believe it was incidental to him per se. Lastly, the extreme and probably over-the-top police enforcement during the 1980s and 1990s in Dallas surrounding the OU-TX game stands out. For a while they seemed intent on taking away the fun as the took brawlers off the streets and made what I witnessed to be arbitrary arrests of public drinkers (not drunks, mind you). There were literally invisible lines that once crossed would land you ziptied on the curb without warning. 

Again, I think the evolution is overall positive, but some of the spirit is lost.

PS. There is nothing like beating Texas. Boomer Sooner!

Come fly with me--since the cost has never been much lower

Mark Perry at the Carpe Diem blog points to a couple of interesting data sets showing the steady downward progression in the cost of flying. It is a great post with what will be for some, but not us at MM, very surprising facts. I like the conclusion:

Overall, consumers have reaped significant benefits from the deregulation of airlines in 1979, and have saved billions of dollars in lower fares.  Like any industry, the airline industry is evolving over time, and consumers have to adjust to the changes.

Read the whole thing.

That last line and my recent air travel got me thinking a little about where I see the evolution of the airline industry headed. FWIW, my forecast is for reduced or eliminated class distinctions within individual flights. I believe service levels will be separated by airline generally and occasionally by airplane. Watching the odd, halfhearted auction that took place before every leg of my recent American Airlines flight brought me to this thought. People vie for upgrades in ways that more resemble prisoners asking for special privileges from the warden rather than paying customers engaging in free market transactions.

I love Southwest Airlines, but I realize their approach may not appeal to everyone. I just can't believe the current model still in use by so many other airlines appeals to anyone. That's why I see a role for an airline specializing only in first/business class service. And also I see airlines that have entire planes or routes that offer one level of service with other routes/planes offering another level completely. There will be more a la carte purchasing of goods and services in flight. American among others is doing some of this by selling food items and pricing preferred seats at a premium. Expect a lot more of this but perhaps in a more appealing way. I think the winning airlines will be those who are more transparent and trusted in their ticket pricing. Today's approach is filled with penalties; tomorrow's will be much more about amenities.

While this disrupts the classic model of price discrimination in airlines, we have already seen those models challenged and changed in movie theaters, et al. Pricing is more uniform and theater quality much higher for me today than it was a decade ago. There are many routes to profitable air travel.

Wither economic freedom

The Cato Institute recently released the latest Economic Freedom of the World annual report. Click here to hear an interview with one of the report's authors, James Gwartney. The United States has again slipped in the rankings, now landing at 18th place. It seems the U.S. is falling both relatively (understandable as other nations advance and potentially not material if the differences are slight, which they are not) and absolutely (a much more serious problem).

For me this raises a few questions for progressives:

1. Do you care?
2. Is this a bad but necessary situation as other, conflicting goals are realized?
3. Do you outright deny the report's findings (does this assume you do care about economic freedom?)

My guess is that the answers are basically 20% of the time No, N/A, N/A; 50% of the time Yes, Yes, No; and 25% of the time Yes, Maybe, Probably; and 5% of the time Yes, No, No.

To be clear, I believe the answer should be Yes, No, No.

Here's a vote for rationality

I planned on writing a post on why I don't vote. In it I planned on laying out the inconsistencies and illogical reasoning behind the many arguments offered by the pro-vote movement. Rather than hack my way through that, I will direct you to the timely and very well written article in the latest issue of REASON by Katherine Mangu-Ward. In it she hits all the critical points. 

Here is a particularly good passage:

Voting is widely thought to be one of the most important things a person can do. But the reasons people give for why they vote (and why everyone else should too) are flawed, unconvincing, and sometimes even dangerous. The case for voting relies on factual errors, misunderstandings about the duties of citizenship, and overinflated perceptions of self-worth. There are some good reasons for some people to vote some of the time. But there are a lot more bad reasons to vote, and the bad ones are more popular. 

The first thing I like to do when confronted (make no mistake it is always a confrontational attitude) with the question, "Why don't you vote?" is to reverse the questioning, "Why DO you?" This lets me know exactly what approach my adversary is taking: wistful hope shrouded in mathematical ignorance, a desire or duty-bound obligation to feel a part of the process, a genuine understanding of the futility coupled with a defendable enjoyment of voting, et al. 

My simple explanation for my position is as follows: It is a matter of principle and pragmatism. First the practical, my vote will not affect the outcome of an election. "But what if everyone thought and acted that way?" comes the familiar refrain. "Then I would vote and determine the outcome of elections. Now let's drop the childish hypotheticals." If you believe that your vote "counts", you are simply and severely mathematically mistaken. I would expect that you are more likely to mis-vote for the opposing side than vote as intended and meaningfully affect the voting outcome. You can enjoy the process and justify your actions on those grounds. In this sense rational voting is like rational gambling: you should vote/gamble because of the pleasure of the experience itself (contribution to democracy/thrill of potential jackpot), not because you believe you will likely change the outcome/win more than lose.

You can also take (the smallest) pride in knowing that you did affect the aggregate numbers for your side by a unit of one. And by proudly broadcasting the "I voted!" signal, you are perhaps unwittingly showing that you went to relatively great expense to support your side. But for what are you truly showing support?

This brings me to the principled reason. Generally there is very little difference between the candidates in an election--emphasis on very. To the extent differences appear, experience shows they disappear or are significantly reversed once rhetoric becomes policy. When voting on specific ballot measures where the distinctions between sides appears more clear cut, we are up against two forces: unintended consequences and the futility of fighting the tides. Voting down a tax increase may open a backdoor for politicians to increase debt. Voting against a measure to grant imminent domain powers to a private company doesn't change the fact that many in the population believe progress requires submitting this liberty. Most importantly, my non vote is a vote of disgust at the ever-reaching growth of the state and the worship of collective action as a problem solver. And I guess it is a little jab at those who don't understand probability.

It is official . . .

After thousands of hours, hundreds of practice problems, three exams, and some dues paid, I am now officially a holder of the Chartered Financial Analyst®, CFA, designation. Click the insignia below for more information on the CFA Institute.

Thoughts on the OU loss

It is unfortunate but fitting that my first blog post about the OU Sooners would be on the heals of defeat. As I hope to explain in a later post, it is the rare events that receive our attention and thoughts whether warranted or not. Here are some brief thoughts on Sooners football.

Landry Jones is not an NFL quarterback. In fact, he is not truly good enough to be OU's multiyear starting quarterback. Unfortunately, it has taken until his senior season (fifth-year senior at that) for us to discover that fact. Well, there was reason to believe that was the case often times last year, but in truth and in the defense of the coaches paid handsomely to make these determinations it is a loose, vague, and indeterminant type of decision. There is nothing very cut and dried about it. Only after the fact do we even have a chance of seeing the error or virtue of our prior decisions in these matters. And it is not as if there were a lot of alternatives. The only option that seems likely to have been true is an alteration in the offense the past couple of seasons especially the fuller integration of Blake Bell into the fold. More on that below.

In the Stoops era the following quarterbacks have proven to be worthy of unconditional starter status:

• Josh Heupel
• Jason White
• Sam Bradford

In that era these quarterbacks proved to be worthy of solid backup status:

• Nate Hybl
• Paul Thompson
• Landry Jones

Any others didn't have enough time at the helm for a proper decision to be made. And a change in a few circumstances might move any of the above from one list to the other. 

It is with careful consideration that I place Landry on the second list. He certainly had his shot at the first. Many times he made a case for being on it. But I believe the entirety of the evidence rightfully places him on the lower level. He is making more critical mistakes as a senior than Bradford made as a sophomore. Which leads to my evaluation that he is not an NFL-level quarterback. By that I mean a serious contender to play an extended role (>1 season) in the position. 

Landry has the following shortcomings:

1. He exhibits poor decision making.
2. He cannot reliably hit the deep pass.
3. He does not handle pocket pressure well.

My prediction is he goes in the late second to early fourth round in the draft and is out of the league within 2 years. I certainly don't wish him ill. I very much admire what he has accomplished--holder of numerous, significant OU records, which says a lot about how close he has been from being elite. I believe he is a good person of strong character and a great athlete. The difference between very good and great is sometimes a lot of little things that add up.

One corollary thought is how the success of the starting quarterback has affected the coaching staff and in particular the offensive coordinator position. The prior OU offensive coordinators, Leach, Mangino, Long, and Wilson probably were overly esteemed, recognized, and rewarded as a result of terrific quarterback play. Heupel, the current coordinator, is probably underappreciated at this point for the same reasoning. 

Back to Blake Bell. How could he be better utilized? As a fan, I viewed Landry's return for his senior season postponning the NFL draft as potentially a very good thing (best of both world's with an experienced QB plus an opportunity to bring Blake Bell along slowly for maximum play in 2013) or a very bad thing (a disappointing 2012 season and a poorer 2013 as Blake Bell would be much less prepared, some might say squandered). I fear we are well into the latter. What I'd like to see is Bell now incorporated into the offense much, much more. That would give us the chance to move back toward the optimistic senario. Alas, the notable stubborness of company Stoops, a trait that serves him well in much decision making, and the general reluctance of coaches to take proper risks when the risk is perceived as unorthodox stands in the way. 

The revolution from within

For the most powerful empires, revolution resulting in substantial and lasting change usually must come from within. I believe the NCAA has already begun collapsing under the weight of its own injustice and inconsistencies. This report by ESPN's Tom Farrey  reveals much about how troubled some of those within the upper ranks of the NCAA cartel are by the illogical house of cards that is the student-athlete to institution relationship.

Here are some choice passages:

"This whole area of name and likeness and the NCAA is a disaster leading to catastrophe as far as I can tell," wrote [University of Nebraska chancellor Harvey] Perlman, a former member of the NCAA Board of Directors and law professor specializing in intellectual property. "I'm still trying to figure out by what authority the NCAA licenses these rights to the game makers and others. I looked at what our student athletes sign by way of waiver and it doesn't come close."

...

 A stalwart of the NCAA's economic model that redistributes money from revenue sports to other parts of the athletic department and university, Renfro [, NCAA senior policy advisor who has worked at the NCAA since the 1970s,] proposed a re-focusing of sports on the educational mission of universities. At the same time, he conceded that the philosophy underpinning the model has become antiquated -- and even posed whether the time has come to allow athletes to hire agents.

I was amazed by some of the counter "arguments" made by others within the cartel. Go read the whole thing.