Let’s get right to the point.

-           Bob Stoops is overrated as a game-planner and football strategist.

-           Pete Carroll has achieved one National Championship, not two.

-           The Big Ten Conference is not slow.

-           The SEC does not play better football than every other conference.

-           TCU, et al, has virtually no chance of ever making the big game

-           The BCS is rigged (and it is supposed to be)

The human mind is an amazing instrument.  Each and every day our brains process billions of bits of information and send millions of instructions to other parts of our body, in addition to making thousands upon thousands of external decisions.  No super-computer in the world can even come close to the raw computational power or complexity of the brain.  And today’s society is placing upon us an ever increasing information load: the internet, Blackberry’s and iPhone’s, text messaging, video games, satellite radio, cable television, and, yes, some still read the printed word.  From the time that we awaken in the morning (and often even as we sleep) our brains are processing enormous loads of information.  We take in data in all these, and many more forms, and we process this data in an effort to glean from it what we need and discard what we do not.  And, surprisingly, it works.

Have you ever wondered why television advertising so often includes a jingle?  Why do marketers attempt to narrow their entire corporate message down to a single, simple slogan or logo?  The answer lies in the way that our wonderful brains operate.  Given all the information that must be processed, the human mind, long ago, began to develop ways to organize and sort data input so as to most effectively and efficiently decipher what is important and what is not.  Basically, the brain is very, very good at taking shortcuts, focusing on what is seemingly the point and ignoring much of what is not.  The brain knows that if some message is often repeated, then there must be some importance attached to it.  If this repeated message is in the form of a clear image, a concise slogan or, best of all, a short jingle, then it tends to burn itself into the main file of our internal hard drive where it is very easy to find and recall.  These are mnemonic devices; shiny gold stars in the filing cabinets of our minds.

So, what does this have to do with college football or the statements made at the top of the page.  Simple; as college football fans, sportswriters, sports reporters and, importantly, poll voters, we have collectively succumbed to the mnemonic tricks of football group think.  Our minds are taking short cuts and we haven’t stopped to re-evaluate the consensus.

If ESPN tells us, over and over and over, that USC, under Pete Carroll, is the greatest college football program of all time, then we eventually are prone to believe it.   If we are told, over and over and over, that Tim Tebow is the greatest college football player of all time, then we eventually are prone to believe it.  Boise State, Cincinnati and TCU are from non-BCS conferences, therefore, they must have played much weaker schedules than the big boys and, thus, don’t deserve a shot at the Championship game.  Yeah, that’s believable.  The 1980’s and early 1990’s Miami and Florida State teams were unstoppable; they could probably beat today’s Cleveland Browns.  Again, our minds tend to make that believable.

The problem with all of this is that our perceptions are generally non-quantifiable and often deviate from reality.  Even when we make an effort to look beyond the headline statement, we regularly make the mistake of confusing statistics for empirical evidence.  USC, for instance, has in fact been to seven straight BCS Bowls under Pete Carroll, winning six of those.  That certainly seems like hard evidence to back up the above claim.  However when we take a more open-minded approach towards analysis, we start to see some cracks in the theory.  Consider that the PAC-10 champion earns an automatic BCS Bowl berth, that is half way to getting a BCS Bowl win.  Now consider that, for much of the last decade, competition in the PAC-10 has been less than stellar.  No PAC-10 team, other than USC, has ever been to more than a single BCS Bowl game.  In fact, since the 2003 season, no PAC-10 team other than USC has earned a spot in any BCS Bowl game.  It starts to become clear that USC, certainly a powerhouse program, has a decided advantage over teams such as Utah, Boise State, etc. in reaching a big bowl game and getting a win.

And we should not limit this criticism to Southern Cal.  The aforementioned Miami and Florida State programs had the same advantage, if not to a greater extent.  Miami, after all, was an independent during most of their golden years, giving them the flexibility to cherry pick their opponents (see Notre Dame.)  And, when they finally decided to join a conference, they aligned with the Big East, not exactly a hotbed of elite football programs.  The same can be said for Florida State; independent until 1991 when they recognized where the Bowl Coalition was going and then chose to join the ACC, a basketball conference.

Importantly, the perceptions, or misperceptions, translate into reality in a very quick way.  After all, we don’t have a playoff system in FBS College Football, we have a beauty contest.  And, if the consensus believes that the handful of elite programs are, indeed, better than everyone else, then these handful will populate the tops of the pre-season polls and, then, the prize will be theirs to lose.  Starting in the poll position is an advantage that cannot be over-emphasized.  One needs only to take a look at the 2009 pre-season polls.  Most had Oklahoma, USC, LSU and Georgia in the Top-Ten, if not in the Top-Five.  Very wrong.  However, most also had Florida, Alabama and Texas somewhere in there too.  The point being that, although the polls were very wrong, at least three of the picks have managed to stay undefeated and have garnered a road to the Championship Game in effect, by default.  That is not to take away from the programs or their on-field accomplishments, those left standing are, no doubt, on a very, very short list of the nation’s best teams.  What this says is that this system of polling places a mostly insurmountable obstacle in the way of the would be, could be champions who are out of the elite circle.

Review this list of BCS Champions since 1992 (includes Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance:)

Alabama, Florida State, Nebraska, Nebraska, Florida, Nebraska, Tennessee, Florida State, Oklahoma, Miami, Ohio State, LSU, USC, Texas, Florida, LSU, Florida.

Notice any pattern here?  Think about who is playing in this year’s Championship game.  It is clear, the rich are getting richer.

And, this head start brings us to the other chink in the BCS armor, the computers.  The computers were added, ostensibly, to provide some sort of scientific approach, some hard data, to counter-balance the emotional and bias driven polls voted on by coaches and others.  Seems like a good idea.  After all, if we are going to have a beauty contest rather than determine our champions on the field, then we should at least have some sort of subjective criteria by which to determine who is Miss America and who is the Runner-up.  Not so fast.  Simply adding mathematical formulas, high-powered computers and teams of PhD’s does not a science make.  The computer models are flawed at best and harmful to the process at worst.

If there are any two things that we, as Americans, have grown to believe in they are that every problem can be fixed with a pill and that propeller heads with computers can figure out anything.  While computer modeling no doubt provides enormous benefits to many complex situations, it is important to recognize its limitations.  Computer generated mathematical models do provide a valuable framework for predictive problem solving but, unfortunately, they encounter significant difficulties when confronted with a) too many variables and, especially, b) variables which are influenced by human emotion or error.  The model is only as good as the data.

We don’t have to look very far for a striking example of overdependence upon models, the fallibility of the models, and the disastrous effects of both.  No industry has allocated more resources to mathematical geniuses with black-box computer models than Wall Street.  Not NASA, not the CIA, not ExxonMobil.  And yet, no matter how many mathematicians they had on hand, and no matter how elaborate their models, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went down the tube and the rest of the Street was forced to become a branch of the Government.  The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression hit the Investment Banks, it hit the Commercial Banks, it hit our businesses on Main Street, and it hit each and every one of our pocket books.  All of the models in the world, literally, failed to prevent this from happening and failed even to put out fair warning.  We can rest assured that Bear and Lehman spent a lot more money on their models than has Sagarin, Wolfe or Anderson/Hester.  If, after all, any of the computer models that we accept as science in the BCS debate were worth their salt, they would be picking winners against the spread and they wouldn’t be telling us about it.

High rankings and big bowl games lead to lots of media which leads to high team profiles which leads to great recruiting classes which leads to very, very good teams which leads to big bowl wins which leads to lots of money which leads to legendary coaching status which leads to enormous salaries.  The “have’s” have this and the “have not’s” don’t, nor are they going to get it anytime soon.  In the mean time, we can, at least, endeavor to shed light on the biases that are so often overlooked and strive for some honest, quantifiable analysis.  Let’s try and look past hyperbole and start calling an ace an ace.  The BCS, in lieu of a playoff platform, is discriminatory, plain and simple.  This is not likely to change until something breaks down so drastically that a MAC and C-USA team face off in a BCS Championship game.

Citi’s Actions Indicative of Primary Market Problem

(first published @ seekingalpha.com)

The much expected announcement by Citigroup indicating that the corporation intends to repay some $20 billion in TARP funds may seem, on the surface, like good news for the American taxpayer.  Unfortunately, however, this move is indicative of the behavior that has brought us to this dismal point to begin with.

The move by Citi will lessen the government oversight that the corporation is subject to and clear the way for the board to issue substantial bonuses to top level executives, bankers and traders.  The company’s board has decided that it is in Citi’s best interest to take on substantial new debt (at high relative interest rates) and to dilute shareholder value through the issuing of new shares so that portions of the bank’s capital can be handed out to a select few executives who have done a “good” job.

When Wall Street firms were manned by partners, whose very own capital was tied up in the company, this would never have happened.  What ails the US financial system is not a lack of regulatory oversight nor a failure of the free-market system; it is a dislocation between those who own capital and those who employ that capital.

The mortgage brokers were compensated based on transactional volume; thus, they had incentive to turn as many loans as they could.  There were no immediate, direct ramifications for making poor quality loans so, naturally, they gave little thought to the long term viability of these loans.

Wall Street bankers, et al, are compensated based upon bonuses which are based upon performance.  These individuals have tremendous incentive to reap the highest returns possible, regardless of the risks these returns entail.  If the companies that they work for blow up, they will move to new companies.

So long as there is no “skin” in the game, we will continue to have significant problems.  After all, it is the shareholder’s money, not the executive’s.

In light of the recent Global Warming email scandal, and the current climate meetings in Copenhagen, you owe it to yourself to watch the following clip from the film “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” which recently aired on the Sundance Channel.

Irregardless of what side of the debate you might be on, it is important to get all the information that you can and to be objective.

–

• OPINION: INFORMATION AGE
• NOVEMBER 29, 2009, 9:46 P.M. ET

The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths

The world cannot trust scientists who abuse their power.

• By L. GORDON CROVITZ

For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws. Their behavior was brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and some 3,500 additional files were published online, many of which boasted about how they suppressed hard questions about their data.

The emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name “FOI,” were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile campaigners for the theory of global warming.

The findings from East Anglia have been at the core of policy reports by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC does not do its own research but compiles information relating to climate change. It has declared the evidence that the globe is warming to be “unequivocal,” a claim routinely cited by lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere as authoritative.

The IPCC stresses honest science. According to its Web site, its goal is to “assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, now faces the inconvenient truth that it relied on scientists who violated scientific process. In one email, the Climate Research Unit’s director, Phil Jones, wrote Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, promising to spike studies that cast doubt on the relationship between human activity and global warming. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” he said. He pledged to “keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another email exhange, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones: “This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature.’ Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

Other emails include one in which Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit told Mr. Mann that “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same,” and in which Mr. Jones said he had employed Mr. Mann’s “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures. A May 2008 email from Mr. Jones with the subject line “IPCC & FOI” asked recipients to “delete any emails you may have had” about data submitted for an IPCC report. The British Freedom of Information Act makes it a crime to delete material subject to an FOI request; such a request had been made earlier that month.

Over the weekend, East Anglia officials disclosed they had disposed years ago of the historic weather data underlying their analysis. This may be one reason they’ve fought information requests. They say they’ll release the data they still have some time next year.

The emails showed how the global-warming group stifled dissent. They controlled the peer-review process, keeping opposing views unpublished, then cited “peer review” as evidence of their “consensus.” One of the dissident scientists, Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, wrote on his blog that the emails show the “collusion to suppress other scientifically supported views of the climate system, and the human role within it, is a systemic problem with the climate assessment process.”

These disclosures have led to some soul-searching. “Opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science,” wrote George Monbriot, a leading British environmentalist. “There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.” Demetris Koutsoyiannis, a hydraulic engineer who has written on climate change, wrote that scientists who suppressed others “must have felt that this secrecy was their best weapon: to censor differing opinions, to develop ‘trick’ procedures, to ‘balance’ the needs of the IPCC, and even to ‘redefine’ peer review.”

This unseemly business reveals another flaw. Why are scholars who review papers allowed to remain anonymous? Reforming scientists and lawmakers might put the question more concretely: How many of the anonymous reviewers who spiked skeptical scientific papers over the years are the people who wrote these emails detailing how they abused peer review to block contrary evidence?

Science was one of the first disciplines to insist on transparency in order to foster competition in data and ideas. In the case of global warming, transparency is better late than never, as policy makers now have the chance to review the facts. Facing up to high-profile flaws is hard for any profession, but honest scientists will cheer how in our digital era eventually the truth will out, and will accept that no scientific hypothesis can be viewed as sacred or can be proved in secret.

Global Warming E-Mails Scandal Show Scientists May Have Cooked the Facts

UN slams ‘discriminatory’ Swiss minaret ban

Obama’s Troop Increase Means He ‘Owns’ Afghan War

In Dubai Crisis, a Test of Law and Islamic Banking