A Moral Quandry

Something I'm considering...

Assuming:

(1) Playing football leads to concussions which leads to the type of dementia and psychological problems, including suicide.

and

(2) that there is no equipment change or rule change that can reduce (1) significantly.

　

　

Then don't I have a moral obligation to stop being a fan of football?

On the day of the retirement of the Space Shuttle

I show you one of more depressing images.  Depressing in terms of how we've limited ourselves:

(taken from http://www.xkcd.com/- great comic; I highly recommend it)

Browns on the clock

It's tough to be a Brown's fan.  I mean, all of the sports teams in Cleveland are bad, but it's especially tough to root for the Browns for two reasons:

1)  Cleveland is a football town first and foremost.  The fans in Cleveland, given a choice, would OVERWHELMINGLY prefer a Super Bowl win to a World Series win of a NBA Title.

2)  The Brown's results are far more self-inflicted. 

The Cavs have made their share of mistakes, but when they make a move, 95% of the time it makes good sense.  I have faith, based ont heir track record, that Dan Gilbert, Chris Grant, and their team is putting together a good team.  And considering where they started (from the Rubble of "The Decision"), they have made good progress.

The Indians?  They've made good and bad decisions, and have come close in the past.  But every year, baseball is more and more a sport where the "Haves" beat up on the "Have Nots".  It's only because (a) baseball is tougher to dominate and (b) they have added more playoff teams that baseball hasn't been wholly dominated by 3-4 teams.  No thanks.

((On a side topic, sports is the one area I consider myself a Socialist.))

But football has enough factors to give every team a fair change to succeed.  The Browns haven't because... well, the front office has made horrific mistakes. 

Right now- offseason 2012- they have a decent defense, but no offense whatsoever.  They desperately need a Running Back, Right Tackle, Wide Receivers...  I have no idea if Colt McCoy is good enough to be a NFL quarterback.  I do know that he has almost no help on that offense.

(There was talk of trading up to grab Robert Griffin III with the #2 pick.  Considering what Washington paids for that pick, I'm glad the Browns passed.  The Browns have far too many holes to be solved with one QB)

The Browns have the #4 pick in the draft.  Assuming the first three picks go in the order everyone predicts (Andrew Luck/RG III/Matt Kalil), the Browns could go in several directions.  Here's my preferred choice:

1)  Trent Richardson, RB- the rule is, don't grab RB this high, because they are injury-prone.  Normally, I agree.  However, Richardson is both (a) highly touted (b) desperately fills a need and (c) there doesn't seem to be any good alternatives.  People have compared him to Adrian Peterson, which is VERY high praise.

2)  Morris Claiborne, CB- this helps the defense, not the offense.  But this would give the Browns two excellent CBs to really solidify that defense.  And most experts have Claiborne and Richardson ranked #4 and #5 overall in terms of talent.  The Browns need help on offense, but picking the best player available is a smart strategy.

3)  Justin Blackmon, WR- I like Blackmon, but most experts don't put him as an 'elite' WR.  Plus, the Browns have picks at #22 and #37, and there are a lot of good WR in this draft (moreso than RB). 

4)  Trade down- I'm opposed to this.  The Browns need talent, and there are good options here.  Someone would have to REALLY overpay to convince me the Browns should move down.

5)  Ryan Tannehill, QB- I don't have a problem with Tannehill.  But this strikes me as a panic move.  Again- the Browns might need a new QB.  But they DEFINITELY have other holes that need to be filled, no matter who the QB is.  Tannehill looks like a serviceable QB- but I'm not convinced he's better than McCoy.  Give McCoy some help this year and let's find out if he's capable of the job or not.

We'll see what happens in two weeks.

So.... this is 40

40 years ago, I graced this universe with my presence.  OK, technically I started about nine months before that, but we start counting from the birth date, so I'll stick with that. 

A lot has happened in 40 years, both in the world and the little corner I inhabit.  There's been ups and downs, but overall I've had fun in the first forty years- and look forward to the rest of my time.

And I'd like to thank all of you for coming with me on this journey.

Can't wait to see the next chapter.

Really?

For crying out loud... we're 15 TRILLION in debt, the CBO says unemployment is actually closer to 15%, Greece is ready to default and take the Euro down with it, and things are breaking down between the US and Iran.  A lot of serious problems in the world.

And we're arguing over contraception?!?

Look, I'll answer the contraception question easily.  Condoms are cheap, buy them your own damn self.  End of story.

The bigger problem is that there are serious issues in the world, we're trying to elect a President and Congress to handle these issues the best way possible, and we're getting sidetracked by the most idiotic issues possible.

This isn't even rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  This is arguing over the colors of the seat cushions, while the ship is heading towards the giant Iceberg. 

I'm pissed at all sides.  I think President Obama is giving a first-rate example why we shouldn't elected unqualified people to the highest office in the land.  But the GOP are self-destructing to a degree that we might end up giving him another four years to ignore the debt and come up with economic solutions that don't work.

Gingrich is a disaster, Santorum is a walking stereotype of what non Conservatives think Conservatives are really like, and Romney comes across as phony as a $3 bill.  (And I say this as a Romney supporter)

My big fear isn't that these guys aren't offering the right solutions.  It's that none of them seem to be aware of what the real problems are. 

Viva Las Vegas

I'm turning 40 later this year.  As a present, several of us got together and spent three days in Las Vegas as a celebration.  Had a great time.  Some quick and dirty highlights:

* Won $380 in a poker tournament at the Luxor.  Entered two other tournaments- once had bad cards, once made a bad move.  But the win was a nice ego boost.

* Overall, was up on poker, up on roulette (the five spins I stays), and up on slots (only put $20 in the slots, but we hit a good one).  However, I gave it all back and then some at Blackjack.  I swear, I think the dealers got together beforehand and decided that it was a moral imperative to take our had-earned cash.  I never saw so many dealers pull 20s and 21s out of nowhere. 

* Went to the "Pawn Stars" store.  Smaller than I expected, but a lot of neat items.  Didn't have the money to buy any of the items I wanted, though.

* Sports bets.  Threw $5 on three longshots (Grizzlies to win the NBA title; Cardinals and Dolphins to win next year's Super Bowl). 

More importantly, bet $100 at 6/5 on the Miami Heat winning the NBA title.  Now, I'm not a Miami fan (being a Clevelander and all).  But I've had such bad luck with sports teams (fan of Chicago Cubs, Cleveland Indians, Cleveland Cavs, Cleveland Browns), that I've half-joked that I am a sports curse.

Well, let's put this to the test.  Now my interest as a fan is in conflict with my interest as a greedy capitalist.  One side must win.  Either I win $120- or Miami doesn't win the Title.  I'm content with both outcomes.




* Coming from 70 in Vegas to 20 in Cleveland is... a radical change in weather.
* Drank well, ate well, had a great time with family and friends. 

Fail

A good rule to follow is that "A bad process will inevitably lead to bad results".  Not that a good system will always lead to good results, or that a bad process is always wrong.  But a flow system will inevitably lead to poor results, and that's why the method for getting results is so important.

Yesterday had two examples of this:  The College BCS Final and The Baseball Hall of Fame.

Now, I admit I'm not a college football fan, so anything I say should be accepted with a grain of salt.  But there are 120 college football teams eligible for the BCS, and they all only play 10-12 games a year.  There's not enough information to try to select the two best teams and have them each other, then proclaiming the winner the champion of college football. 

There's too many scenarios that can screw things up.  Too many teams can be undefeated, leading to a team winning every game they can and not being in the game to detemine the champion.  Or not enough teams are undefeated, leading to a formula to pick the best team based on schedule, etc.  Which is great for figuring things out on paper, but they actually play the game out on the field.

This year is a perfect example.  LSU was ranked #1, and Alabama was ranked #2.  Alabama already had one loss- to LSU.  So teams like Stanford and Oklahoma State, who also only had one loss, were locked out of "the title game".  Alabama beat LSU, and now Alabama is crowned the champion.

And they might be the best team in college football.  But I'm sure the fans of the other schools wanted the opportunity to find out, but did not have the opportunity.

Flawed system, flawed result.

Same with the baseball Hall of Fame.  The system is simple- writers with enough experience are allowed to vote on eligible candidates.  If a candidate gets 75% of the vote, they are enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

Here's the problem- the writers can use any criteria they want to make their choices.  And a lot of the writers are biased or uninformed.

For instance, a large bloc of writers have decided not to support any candidate who has been caught with steroids.  So Mark McGwire, who in a different era would be a first ballot Hall of Famer, can't crack the 20% line. 

And Alan Trammell, who is one of the best ten shortstops of all time, can't make the Hall of Fame- while Catfish Hunter sailed in on the first ballot.

And now, Jeff Bagwell- probably a top five first baseman- only received 56% of the votes.  So 44% of the writers don't think he belong in the Hall of Fame.

They don't need to explain their votes, or justify.  You can't argue with them, because they can say "I don't fell he's a Hall of Famer".  And that's enough.

Flawed System, Flawed Results.