Another poor performance by Wisconsin.

In my recent post about how Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker will never be elected president, I mentioned several ways that Minnesota outperforms Wisconsin economically despite Minnesota having fewer people than Wisconsin. Maybe because I am not as big a sports fan as Mr. Torvik, I neglected to mention that Minnesota is apparently also historically better at college football than Wisconsin.

First thought is not always the best thought.

I belong to the generation of people that cannot point to World War II or the Great Depression as a thing that made my childhood rough. Instead, the thing I can point out to children as being rough about my childhood is that people only got 3 or 4 channels on their TV.* These were ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS. If I recall correctly, the only baseball we could watch was the Game of the Week on Saturday afternoon. Since it was often nice out when the game was airing, I did not watch it very much.

A nice return on an investment.

In 1985, former Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl purchased the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team for $18 million. According to ESPN, Senator Kohl is now selling a majority interest in the team for $550 million. The Bucks had a record of 15-67 this year, which is the worst record of any team in the NBA. I know the value of an NBA franchise is not based entirely on the team's record but one wonders what price Senator Kohl could have gotten for the team if it had been good.

Being the champion and the nature of reality.

Given his love of basketball, I am a little surprised that Mr. Torvik has not already pointed out that our joint alma mater, the University of Minnesota, won the NIT men's basketball championship last night. Some might say that the Golden Gophers are one of two national champions in men's college basketball. Given that the other tournament, run by NCAA, contains 68 teams, others might say this means the Gophers are the 69th best team in the country. It's all a matter of perspective.

Major League Baseball and the nature of reality (part two)

Jack Moore at Sports on Earth has a post about how the Detroit Tigers have reached an impasse in talks to extend their contract with pitcher Max Scherzer. Mr. Scherzer won the American League Cy Young Award last season and is a big part of the Tigers' hopes on winning the American League Central Division and more this season.

Grudge Match: Basketball Edition

You may be forgiven, dear Reader(s)™, for thinking this blog was dead. But it isn't! It was just, well, frozen. I, for one, am currently obsessed with: (1) pursuing justice on behalf of my saintly clients; and (2) blogging about college basketball.

On the latter point, tomorrow is the rematch of the Iowa – Wisconsin basketball game. Wisconsin is going for the sweep, hoping that Iowa's coach once again blows his top.

Mr. Gillette's birth-state honor is on the line, as the football team also lost to the mighty Badgers in the fall.

May the best state school (that is, Wisconsin) win.

The Grudge Match is Alive!

For the first time since 2010, the football teams for the University of Iowa and the University of Wisconsin will take the field to determine whether Mr. Torvik (Wisconsin) or I (Iowa) is the superior blogger.  Or maybe they play for the Heartland Trophy.  According to Wikipedia, the teams have played 86 games.  Two of the 86 games ended in a tie and Iowa and Wisconsin have each won 42 of the other 84 games.  As a result, one team will leave having made their team a winner in this year's rivalry game and also in the all-time rivalry.  Whether either coach is using this tidbit as a motivational tool is unknown.

Trophies, college football, and clothes

Virtually the entire sports media world would have you believe that today's game between the University of Alabama and Texas A&M University is the most important college football game being played.  This may be true if one is only concerned about which school might be named college football's national champion in January.  True fans of the game know that the most important football game today is game between the University of Iowa and Iowa State University.  The winner of the game is awarded the Cy-Hawk Trophy.  Our previous coverage of the Cy-Hawk Trophy is here.

According to the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Iowa is slightly favored to win.  However, Iowa State is wearing throwback jerseys to honor Jack Trice. Mr. Trice, if you did not know, was the first African-American football player at Iowa State.  He played for the team in 1923 and died as a result of injuries sustained during Iowa State's game against the University of Minnesota.  The jerseys are not the first time that Iowa State has honored Mr. Trice's memory.  In fact, Iowa State s football stadium is named after him.

You can see the jerseys here.  As far as throwback jerseys go, these look pretty good. Some folks say that being a fan of a team is really rooting for laundry (this article says that Jerry Seinfeld made this observation).  If that is true, at least this week's Iowa State laundry stands for something more than just bragging rights for a year.

Knucklehead, victim, or both?

Let's close out the week by hearing what Aaron Rodgers thinks about Ryan Braun now. Our previous coverage of Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Braun can be found here, here, and here.  The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has this report on a press conference during which Mr. Rodgers discussed Mr. Braun.

Did Aaron Rodgers just lose a year's salary?

As Mr. Gillette points out, Green Bay QB Aaron Rodgers was a strong defender of Brewers' left fielder Ryan Braun when he was accused of juicing last year. His defense included the following exchange with a fan on Twitter:

@toddsutton ya I'd put my salary next year on it. #ponyup #exonerated
— Aaron Rodgers (@AaronRodgers12) February 23, 2012

Now that Braun has essentially confessed to using PEDs, many are saying that Rodgers lost his bet, which amounts to $8.5 million or so.

To state the obvious, there's no enforceable contract here because there was no consideration. But a tougher question, perhaps, is whether there was even a bet. Notice that Rodgers's statement is couched conditionally: "I'd put my salary next year on it." So he said that he would put his salary on it, but left unstated were the terms and conditions of the bet. People don't normally make "bets" unless they stand to gain something if they're right. So this seems like a challenge to make a bet, a dare, rather than an actual bet. There was no real offer, and no real acceptance. Most importantly, they never shook on it.

There is one countervailing piece of evidence, though: the hashtag comment "#ponyup." What does that mean? My colloquial understanding of the term is that to "pony up" means to pay up, especially after you lose a bet (particularly in a card game such as poker). Does Rodgers's use of #ponyup imply that he is promising to pay up if he's proven incorrect? Or is it a reference to winning bets he previously made to others before Braun was ephemerally #exonerated?

There's enough ambiguity in there that I would say Rodgers is not beholden under the Gentleman's Code to #ponyup this year's salary to Mr. Sutton or anyone else. But a big fat charitable donation to a worthy cause might be in order.

One final thought. I'm on record as suspecting that PEDs are rampant in pro and college football. In that light, Rodgers's over-zealous defense of Braun seems suspiciously defensive. The QB doth protest too much, methinks.

[Cross-posted at Adam's WI Sports Blog]

Mot Juste?

With the news that Milwaukee Brewers' slugger Ryan Braun is being suspended for the remainder of the baseball season, it might not hurt to review Mr. Torvik's excellent post about Mr. Braun from the last time he was in trouble for using performance enhancing drugs.

Also, Frank Schwab at Yahoo Sports does a nice job of reminding people that Packers' quarterback Aaron Rodgers was a bit of a knucklehead when it came to Mr. Braun.

Our long national nightmare is over.

Back in November we indicated our displeasure with Maryland and Rutgers joining the Big 10. As if to show that there is a silver lining to every cloud, ESPN reports that once Maryland and Rutgers are in the Big 10, the conference will stop referring to its divisions as "Leaders" and "Legends." Instead the Big 10 will have divisions based on geography. Importantly, the proposed Big Ten West will include Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa. Ohio State and Michigan will be in the Big Ten East along with Rutgers and Maryland. The only guaranteed football game between East and West will be Indiana/Purdue.  

Blame the Lawyers?

Tim Pernetti, the athletic director at Rutgers, has resigned for failing to fire Mike Rice, the school's basketball coach, after seeing a video of him brutalizing and belittling the team's players during practice. 

Any sane person with authority over "Coach" Rice would have fired him on the spot, and Pernetti has deservedly lost his job for his insane failure to do so. But he's going down swinging, and his target is lawyers:

As you know, my first instincts when I saw the videotape of Coach Rice's behavior was to fire him immediately. However, Rutgers decided to follow a process involving university lawyers, human resources professionals, and outside counsel. Following review of the independent investigative report, the consensus was that university policy would not justify dismissal.

I will assume for a moment that this is true, because I have heard stories of similar bureaucratic nonsense—particularly in public universities and other public employment settings. Mike Rice had an employment contract. He could not be fired at will; Rutgers needed good cause to fire him. So lawyers and "human resources professionals" were going to have to review any decision to terminate, and in my experience they follow a rote, unthinking "process." According to Pernetti, they followed that process and prevented him from firing Rice because it was a "first offense" (as he said when the video first became public) and therefore "university policy would not justify dismissal."

I don't know anything about Rutgers's "university policy," but obviously that initial interpretation of the policy was wrong because Mike Rice has now been fired (for the same behavior) and no one at the university is complaining anymore that the conduct doesn't justify dismissal. (I guess they're all too busy running for cover to complain.) So maybe Pernetti has a legitimate beef against those lawyers and HR "professionals." In a remotely just world, they'd all be next in line with their resignation letters.

What's really going on here is that people are way too afraid of legal disputes, even ones that are objectively frivolous. If Mike Rice had been fired back in December, he would have gone to a lawyer, and the lawyer would have sued Rutgers alleging a breach of contract and an unlawful termination. In all likelihood, that lawsuit would have been a loser—objectively frivolous, in my opinion—but you just never know. Even sure-winner lawsuits are expensive, time-consuming, and embarrassing. So we avoid them at all costs.

But, oh the costs! How many kids took a fastball to the face from Mike Rice so that Rutgers could avoid a frivolous lawsuit? How many kids had to stand there while Rice spewed spit and shouted "you are a fucking faggot!" at them so that Rutgers could avoid a lawsuit?

Too many, obviously. This is what happens when cowards and idiots conspire.

In the end, this whole affair goes in as entry number 3,254 on my list of "Reasons I'm Glad I Don't Live in New Jersey."

It's official:

Professional football is slow-motion suicide.

Previous coverage here and here.

A Dumb New Rule for a Dumb Sport

Apparently the USGA and the R&A have decided to outlaw the use of anchored putting in golf. Steve Stricker—Madison's favorite PGA son and great (conventional) putter—supports the rule change.

I don't really care about the rules of golf, but this is ridiculous. Exhibit A:

"There was no empirical data to suggest a long putter made golf easier."

In other words, every argument in favor of the ban is based on nothing but speculation and gut feelings.

So why ban the anchored long putter? Stricker says:

"Any time you can take your arms and hands out of it, especially your hands, I think when you can anchor it in your chest, (it) is a huge advantage. I'm not a big proponent of long putters."

OK, fine, but you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Who cares? If it is such an advantage, why don't you do it, Strick? Why don't 90% of pros do it? Just because they are too macho? Gimme a break. Millions of dollars are on the line. If pros really thought anchored putting was an advantage, they'd do it. And if golfers were really macho they'd be playing a real sport. You know, one with athletics involved.

Here's my theory. A country-club culture pervades golf, and the snobs in charge just think anchored putting looks funny. "Why, Millie, this is the worst thing since cargo shorts!" If these people were in charge of basketball they'd have outlawed the jump shot. ("Any time you elevate yourself, especially your hands, in the process of shooting, it is a huge advantage." Cf. Stricker's statement.)

[Cross-posted from Adam[ Chorlton's] WI Sports Blog]

Big Ten Expansion: The Legal Angle

As Mr. Gillette recently reported (in a Gillette-Torvik Non-Exclusive Breaking News Item of the Day), Maryland and Rutgers will be joining the Big Ten athletic conference.

One of the footnotes in this news is that the members of the ACC (Maryland's current affiliation) recently voted to impose a $50 million "exit fee" on institutions that leave the conference. (Until September, the fee was a mere $20 million.) In the press conference announcing the decision to go over to the Big Ten, Maryland's president was somewhat dismissive of this requirement, implying that the fee would get whittled down in negotiations: "As far as that exact amount of that sum, that is something that we will discuss in private with the ACC."

Well, the ACC has taken things very public by suing Maryland in North Carolina state court to recover the $50 million. I haven't reviewed the contract between Maryland and the ACC, but I presume the exit fee is styled as "liquidated damages" for the harm caused by Maryland's breach. Such provisions are generally permitted under contract law so long as they don't amount to a penalty. I expect that Maryland will argue that the fee is an excessive penalty that is not meant to recompense the ACC for any damages but rather to penalize it for jumping ship.

Maryland's best argument, it seems to me, is the recent and sudden increase in the fee from $20 to $50 million. Is there any basis to believe that the reasonable approximation of damages suddenly increased 150%? It seems much more reasonable to believe that the conference realized that $20 million wasn't enough to make it uneconomical for members to leave for greener pastures. In other words, it became evident that the fee wasn't punitive enough to prevent breach. Seems like a penalty.

A Gillette-Torvik Prediction™:  Maryland and the ACC will soon settle this suit for an undisclosed sum, "in private." That undisclosed sum will be around $25 million.

UPDATE: They settled for $31 million, publicly.

What sort of sick joke is this?

Sports Illustrated reports that the University of Maryland and Rutgers University are discussing joining the Big Ten.  It's fair to say that Maryland and Rutgers are neither Leaders nor Legends.  I can't say for sure, but I suspect that either team joining the Big Ten will be the push I need to give up on college football entirely.

On Probabilities, College Basketball, and Elections

As Mr. Gillette alludes to in his programming note, Nate Silver—the author of the fivethirtyeight blog—has become quite famous for his election prognostications. He's also become quite controversial.

The controversy stems from his model's assessment that Barack Obama has about an 80% chance of being reelected next Tuesday. Many pundits, particularly Republican ones, think this is crazy (or worse). They point to the fact that national polls have been tied or given Mitt Romney a narrow lead for weeks and say the race is as best a tossup.

Silver's defenders—and Silver himself—respond with some variation of, "the math is the math." They point to the state level polls, which Silver's model relies heavily on, and which currently show Obama with a small but clear and sustained lead in enough swing states to take the Electoral College with relative ease.

In a way, both sides of this argument are right. I think Silver's model's estimate of an 80% probability of Obama winning is highly plausible. But I also think it's fair to label that a "tossup."

To understand why, you need to understand that Silver comes from the world of sports. In particular, he's among the line of people applying "advanced stats" to baseball and other sports to yield stunning new insights: Bill James; sabermetrics; "Moneyball"; kenpom.com; etc.

Let's talk about Ken Pomeroy. His superb website (kenpom.com) has for many years been applying advanced, tempo-free statistics to college basketball. His model allows him to create a "win probability" for every game of every season. This win probability largely tracks the Vegas betting odds. It's pretty amazing.

But here's the thing—it turns out that teams with an 80% win probability lose all the time. Not every time, of course, or even most of the time. But they lose with almost clockwork regularity. In fact, they lose about two out of every ten games.

Here's a painful example from last season. Wisconsin versus Marquette, at the Kohl Center, on December 3rd. Wisconsin came into the game 6-1, having utterly destroyed some inferior competition (e.g., an 85-31 victory over Kennesaw State) and having just lost, on the road, by 3 points to preseason #1 North Carolina. Marquette was undefeated but untested. There was cause for worry, as they had just narrowly scraped out a 59-57 win over lowly Norfolk State.

Considering their relative performances and Wisconsin's significant home court advantage, Pomeroy's computer gave Wisconsin an 83.2% chance of winning. Yet Marquette led almost the entire game, opened up a double-digit lead at half-time, and won going away, 61-54. In other words, the 83.2% favorite got whipped.

(I would link to the Pomeroy data, but it's behind a paywall. I encourage you to pay the $20 to get access to it.)

This is important because Nate Silver's model is fundamentally similar to Ken Pomeroy's model. Neither is predicting what is actually going to happen. Rather, both use historical data to spit out a probability that something will happen in the future. And if you follow Ken Pomeroy's model closely, you will know that an 80% favorite is not really a very "big" favorite. Because you will have experienced your favorite team losing as an 80% favorite many times. Indeed, last year Wisconsin lost twice to Iowa, games in which Pomeroy's computer said it had a 98.3 and 81.9 percent chance of winning. Given those percentages, Wisconsin had a 99.7% chance of winning at least one of those games. (This is hard to swallow, given that Wisconsin would have won a share of the Big Ten title if had managed to win just one of those games.)

There is a psychological difficulty in taking this concept of win probabilities and transferring it to elections. In sports, there are often dozens of games going on every single day—particularly in college basketball. So the "probability" aspect of Pomeroy's model makes some intuitive sense because you can watch it play out in front of your eyes over the dozens of results. But there is only one presidential election at a time. So it is not very intuitive to think of the result probabilistically. You have to start thinking about multiple universes, or something.

Anyhow, here's my conclusion based on my experience as a college basketball fan: Obama is the favorite, but he's a precarious and narrow one. His team better show up on game day.

The Infield-Fly Rule

When we were studying the commerce clause (or perhaps "the dormant commerce clause") in law school, the professor asked the class, "What is the difference between Wisconsin and Iowa?"

The context was that long-haul truckers prefer to drive through Iowa rather than Wisconsin, so the answer was very clear: Wisconsin has hills, Iowa doesn't.

Still, such an open-ended question gets my jokey little brain going and, after a long uncomfortable silence where no one was willing to supply the correct answer, I found myself blurting out: "Wisconsin has a baseball team."

It got a pretty big laugh, but it also got me a homework assignment. I was to go to the library and seek out a famous law review article: "The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule." And I did. (It was actually kind of difficult because the article was too old to be found on Westlaw, so I had to pull an actual dusty book off the shelves. Ew.)

The article is hilarious. The very first word—"the"—is followed by a footnote to the OED definition of this definite article. (A not-so-subtle knock on persnickety law-review editors.) But it is also pretty informative and substantive. I recommend that anyone interested in the history of sports give it a read. It is also essential background information for evaluating John Roberts's claim that a judge is just an umpire. (Because it turns out that umpiring is more interesting and iterative than it may at first seem.)

Anyhow, the infield-fly rule is in the news because it played a significant role in the outcome of the one-game wildcard playoff game between St. Louis and Atlanta last night. It's unclear to me whether the correct call was made (though the Atlanta fans certainly made their position known), but I think it's great that this wonderful and confusing rule is in the news. Here's a nice read.

A race to the bottom

Tommy Craggs lets folks know what the dispute between the NFL and its referees was really about.