Appalling hypocrisy

jim_tressel_downtroddenSo, let me get this straight.

Ohio State University throws its most successful football coach since Woody Hayes under the bus because he knew about compensation being paid to Ohio State football players, whose talents the institution exploited for enormous profit.

Meanwhile, numerous commentators castigate Ohio State and its coach for being cheaters when, in reality, virtually every big-time college football program engages in similar violations of the NCAA’s dubious regulation of compensation to players who create enormous value for NCAA member institutions. Some institutions are simply better at hiding their violations than others.

I don’t know Coach Tressel, but I’d be willing to bet that he is a good man who simply responded to the perverse incentives of a corrupt system.

Big-time college football is an entertaining form of corruption (see also here). But the corruption is the NCAA’s regulatory scheme, and throwing decent men such as Coach Tressel to the wolves will not change that.

South Park’s analysis is spot on:

Life Lessons with Tom Watson

watsonTom Watson is one of the most remarkable athletes of our time. He won eight major golf tournaments (five Open Championships, two Masters and a U.S. Open) and he has tacked on another six senior major championships since turning 50. At the age of 59, Watson had the golfing world transfixed as he came agonizingly close to winning another Open Championship.

Yesterday, Watson added to his already formidable r√©sum√© by winning the Senior PGA Championship at the age of 61, the second-oldest winner of that event in history. “If this is the last tournament I ever win, it’s not a bad one,” Watson observed after his latest victory. “I’m kind of on borrowed time out here at 61.” Watson has now won six senior majors — only Jack Nicklaus (eight) and Hale Irwin (seven) have won more.

But for all of Watson’s success, arguably the most amazing thing about the man is that none of it has come easily. He struggled in his early years on the PGA Tour to win his first major and dealt for years with the unfair characterization that he was a choker under pressure. Then, after an extraordinary decade in which he was the best golfer on the planet, Watson inexplicably lost his velvet putting stroke, which was the part of his game that separated him from his main competitors. Then, almost another decade later, after honing the other facets of his game to compensate for his lessened putting skills, Watson again won twice on the PGA Tour in his late 40’s and became a dominant force on the Champions Tour after turning 50.

All of which brings us to this wonderful post (also see here) by Joe Posnanski, who – as a fellow Kansas Citian – has covered Watson’s exploits for many years. The first post above relates a fun story about Posnanski’s lack of golf ability, but then explains why Watson is one of the most compelling athletes of our time:

[M]y favorite bit from Wednesday’s conversation with Tom was when he talked about how every shot counts in golf. I was asking him about [Rory] McIlroy’s self-destruction at Augusta, and he said that he wished Rory had fought harder. “I never once saw Jack Nicklaus give away a stroke,” he said. The key to golf is that if you are on pace to shoot 80, you have to try to shoot 79. If you are on pace to shoot 90, you have to try to shoot 89.

And, Tom makes clear, this is not just about making the best of the situation. No, this is about defining who you are as a person. “When you’re hitting the ball well,” he says, “it’s EASY. … And golf is not supposed to be easy.” The most successful people, Tom believes, are the ones who can stay fully committed to the moment, who will be dedicated to do their best even after it’s clear that things are not going to work out as well as they had hoped or planned.

Tom told the story of Byron Nelson, after shooting a 72, griping about what a terrible round he’d played at the Masters. He’d only hit six greens in regulation. He was hacking the ball all over the place. He was grumbling afterward that it was as bad as he could remember playing. And his friend Eddie Lowery, who was Francis Ouimet’s 10-year-old caddy when Ouimet won the 1913 U.S. Open, said: “On the contrary, this was the FINEST round you have ever played. Because you played that badly and you STILL shot a 72.”

That, to Tom Watson, is the gold standard. Most days in life, you are not going to shoot 63. You just aren’t. The wind will be blowing. The ball will bounce funny. The putt will hit a spike mark. Life is simply not set up for five-for-five days at the plate, for 19-of-21 shooting days, for hat tricks and four-sack days and rounds with 10 birdies. If you’re lucky, you will have a few of those days in your life, days when everything seems to click, Ferris Bueller’s day off. And those days are to be enjoyed, cherished, but that’s not real life.

Real life is shooting 72 when you hit only six greens. Every shot counts.

Ecclesia Houston

Ecclesia2.jpgEcclesia is an inner-city church in Houston. Its heart is in the right place, as reflected by this video.

Dirt Devil

Yet another in our continuing series of the most creative product on television, commercials.

Dirt Devil-The Exorcist from MrPrice2U on Vimeo.

Paying for placebos

placeboOne of the most interesting issues in the health care finance debate is whether a consumer should be able to shift at least a portion of the cost of a placebo to a broad base of insureds. As The Economist notes, placebos are big business and – in some cases – just as effective as the real thing:

Alternative medicine is big business. Since it is largely unregulated, reliable statistics are hard to come by. The market in Britain alone, however, is believed to be worth around ¬£210m ($340m), with one in five adults thought to be consumers, and some treatments (particularly homeopathy) available from the National Health Service. Around the world, according to an estimate made in 2008, the industry’s value is about $60 billion.

Over the years Dr [Edzard] Ernst and his group have run clinical trials and published over 160 meta-analyses of other studies. (Meta-analysis is a statistical technique for extracting information from lots of small trials that are not, by themselves, statistically reliable.) His findings are stark.

According to his “Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine”, around 95% of the treatments he and his colleagues examined–in fields as diverse as acupuncture, herbal medicine, homeopathy and reflexology–are statistically indistinguishable from placebo treatments. In only 5% of cases was there either a clear benefit above and beyond a placebo (there is, for instance, evidence suggesting that St John’s Wort, a herbal remedy, can help with mild depression), or even just a hint that something interesting was happening to suggest that further research might be warranted.

Should a portion of your health insurance premiums be used to pay a portion of the cost of a placebo for your co-insured? Or is this an example of the situation in which the third party-payor system simply doesn’t control costs as well as a consumer-payor system?

The power of smiling

One of the nicest compliments that I have ever received came from from a court clerk who told me that the court staff enjoyed having me in their court because I always came with a smile on my face. Ron Gutman provides good thoughts on smiles to begin the week.

The real LinkedIn morality play

linkedin-logoSo, the NY Times Joe Nocera (as well as Henry Blodget) think that the investment bankers scammed LinkedIn’s owners in favor of the investment bankers other customers.

Grand conspiracy theories – as well as criminal prosecutions – certainly have been hatched with less.

But as the Epicurean Dealmaker lucidly explains (also here), morality plays and conspiracy theories are hard to piece together given the wide variety of forces that are in play when owners of a company tap the public markets with a piece of their company. Heck, LinkedIn’s shares are trading at a massive multiple to what they traded for recently in private in secondary markets.

The instinct of most politicians and much of the mainstream media is to embrace simple “villain and victim” morality plays when attempting to explain a particular outcome in which someone gained at the expense of someone else.

Take, for example, investment loss. The more nuanced story about the financial decisions that underlie a failed investment strategy doesn’t garner sufficient votes or sell enough newspapers to generate much interest from the demagogues or muckrakers. That’s why we periodically endure witch hunts — such as demonizing speculators – when it’s unquestionable that speculation in markets has a beneficial purpose.

Morality plays are comforting because they make it easy to identify and demonize the villains who are supposedly responsible for trouble. The truth is usually far more nuanced and complicated, but ultimately more rewarding to embrace.