Champs Sports Bowl: My Observations

A Happy New Year to all. I returned from Orlando this morning after what was definitely a great close to four years of marching in the Hardest Working Band in America. Great show, but also a win. Doesn't get better. But I'm not here to write about that. I'm here to make some observations on the game.

Wisconsin won because of two things. First: there was excellent control of both the ball and the clock. Wisconsin had the ball for almost 40 of the 60 minutes and knew what it wanted to do with it. On the rare occassions when Wisconsin wasn't exactly sure, they remained calm and collected, made the fix, and proceeded. For example, at one point in the game, Wisconsin looked like that it was going to try for the FG. A called timeout allowed them to calmly reassess and opt for a well-placed punt instead. Many's the time when Wisconsin would have sent out it's FG team, had second thoughts, but proceeded anyway, and missed. In summary, Wisconsin executed a fantastic game. There are countless debates about "speed" vs. "size", but I'm pretty sure that the winner of the game executes better than their opponent.

Second: Miami is a team that doesn't seem to take its games seriously. It was talking all about taking the National Championship next year. Why on earth would a team think about the end of next season, when this season's not over? Miami also embraces this concept of "swagger". If you check out college football boards now and again, you may have heard of it. Apparently, at Miami, swagger is a verb, a noun, and probably serves the same purpose that the word "smurf" does for those little blue toadstool-dwellers. Essentially, it is bravado. When a Miami player makes a regular tackle and gets in the opponent's face, that is swagger. Late hits and blatant personal fouls (that aren't called by crappy SEC officials) are swagger. Swagger is a failure to look ahead, to consider the single act in the scheme of the bigger picture. As long as Miami has a mindset that places more importance on celebrating and bringing attention to themselves than making the play and moving on and repeating, it'll remain a mid-conference player.

Also: the turf was ridiculously soft, and it was basically sod that had been laid down perhaps that morning, or even that afternoon. It was noticibly hard to manuver on, and it definitely affected bounces and rolls, in addition to runs.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the game.

The Big Ten Gets Bigger

Alright, so everyone here knows that the "Big Ten" is a misnomer (hence the hidden "11" in the logo - cool, huh?). And, in fact, there are twelve schools in the academic Big Ten; charter member University of Chicago is the George Harrison of the Big Ten. Well, according to a recent interview with Barry Alvarez, the Big Ten will be redoubling its efforts to add school number twelve to its happy yet dysfunctional family. Coach Paterno also supports expansion, as well as a number of athletic faculty concerned over the six-week hiatus that occurs annually between the end of the Big Ten conference football season and the start of bowl season.

So, what would happen if the Big Ten got twelve teams? First of all, it would really have to change its name, and Big 12 is taken. We could become the Big North, the Midwestern Conference, or the Great Lakes Conference. I like the latter, myself. We could stay the Big Ten...but how long can that go on?

Second, it's very realistic that the conference might be split into two divisions, and a conference championship game. I'll say this now: East vs. West will not work. That will almost certainly put Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State into the East Division. No good. North vs. South may be the fate of the Big...Whatever. That will almost certainly keep most major rivalries in the same divisions (Illinois/Northwestern, Wisconsin/Minnesota), except for the special exception that will be made for Ohio State/Michigan.

Of course, this all depends on who becomes the mythical twelfth team. There are a few rules that must be adhered to (at least, at this moment): Teams may only come from states that already have a Big Ten member, or are in a state that borders a state with a Big Ten member. This gives us a list of possible locations:

Big Ten States: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania
Big Ten Borders: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York

Now, let us assume for the moment that the Big Ten could lure away schools from other conferences (by the way, if this happens, expect to see a major shift in all conferences), as well as look at independents. The new team would have to be not only a fair competitor athletically, but academically as well. Not to mention conerns about marketability and fan base. Schools must also belong to the Association of American Universities, which is an organization of top doctoral universities in North America. Below is the list of all potential schools:

ACC: Virginia Tech, Virginia, Maryland
Big East: Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Big 12: Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska
C-USA: Marshall
Independents: Notre Dame, Army, Navy
MAC: Akron, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Kent State, Miami (OH), Ball State, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Western Michigan

Wide selection. But we can scratch off Notre Dame (who won't really join a conference for a while yet, and even if they did, they'd join the Big East), Army, and Navy. Most, if not all of the directional schools lack the fan base and academic power of the Big Ten schools. I'm not arguing that they are bad schools; I'm saying that in terms of research dollars and funding, they don't come close. So good-bye, Central/Eastern/Western Michigan. Northern Illinois, I contend, is becoming an increasingly competent football contender, but it doesn't meet the research/funding requirements, and having three conference schools in one state might be too much. The rest of the MAC teams lack the fan base even remotely necessary for Big Ten interest. Same problem for Marshall. Thus, we have a short list:

Virginia Tech, Virginia, Maryland, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Iowa State, Missouri, Nebraska.

The good news: most of these schools are competitive in either football or basketball. Most meet the minimum academic standards of the Big Ten in terms of both research and education. The inclusion of any of them would provide a potential for expansion of the Big Ten Network into new media markets.

The bad news: all of them already belong to a conference.

So. Which of these teams would be interested in switching conferences? Who could become the twelfth member of the Big Ten?

Moldy Old Stuff

For those of you unaware, yesterday President Obama spoke at Wright Middle School in Madison, Wisconsin. It was a half-hour speech to a crowd of a little more than 600, definitely fewer than the crowd that last saw him when he spoke in Madison. But then, that was a public event held in the Kohl Center during the election; circumstances change. Obama said that over $4 billion in federal incentives would be offered to successful schools - essentially, he would be actually funding "No Child Left Behind."

That's great. Except NCLB relies heavily on test scores, which as everyone knows, are excellent indicators of test-taking ability, but piss-poor when it comes to actually getting knowledge through the thick skulls of students. You may notice I'm a little biased on this point.

American students simply do not learn as much as students from other countries. This can be seen in Common Core's report, "Why We're Behind: What Top Nations Teach Their Students But We Don't." (Warning: PDF file).

Twelve hundred 17-year olds were questioned on basic knowledge that should be common to any curriculum. Here are some results that, as a history major, really make me want to beat some small animals to death with a bat:

*The respondents answered 73% of the history questions correctly. That's a low C.

*Almost 1/3 could not identify "ask not what your country can do for you" as a quote from JFK.

*A third did not know that the Bill of Rights ensures freedoms of speech or religion.

*Only two in five students knew that the Civil War occurred sometime between 1850 and 1900.

*Only three in five students knew that the First World War occurred sometime between 1900 and 1950.

In fact, the question that students did the best on in history concerned the "I Have a Dream" speech, where 97% of students could correctly identify the speaker (MLK).

Students who have parents that went to college finished one to two letter grades better than those without college-educated parents. I don't find this an excuse. Parents need to get involved in the education of their children, at an early age! Parents should take their kids to museums, or national parks and monuments, or read books about our history. Maybe the reason our current political situation is so fucked up is because our citizens have such a skewed, inaccurate, and simply spotty understanding about the key events and concepts that shape our nation.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sometimes they may not even get that chance.

Boycotting the Nitty

Very interesting development today. Both the Daily Cardinal and the Badger Herald are calling for a boycott of the Nitty Gritty, after owner Marsh Shapiro made comments deriding the role of students on the Alcohol License Reviewing Committee. Recently District 8 Alderman Bryon Eagon proposed the addition of a permanent voting member of the ALRC that is 25 years of age or younger - essentially, a student.

Shapiro has made comments that indicate, in one way or another, that students are an interest group, and not a consituency, and therefore should not have a voting position.

Anyone that reads blogs like The Sconz or the Badger Herald when it was running might have seen my comments regarding the Nitty Gritty and Shapiro. To be succinct, I'm not a big fan. Here's something I said yesterday:

"I can understand Shapiro’s resistance to a student voting member. He probably thinks that a student would always vote in favor of awarding licenses, thus increasing the number of bars and alcohol venues in the city. More bars, less revenue for Shapiro since his Nitty Gritty suffers from competition. Since he’s looking to sell the Nitty, decreased revenue means decreased value of his property, and less money for him overall."

Clearly, Shapiro thinks that a student would be a rubber stamp for alcohol licenses. The Herald, Cardinal, and myself believe that someone appointed to a voting position would be responsible enough to examine each application carefully and on a case-by-case basis.

Students are residents of the city of Madison- one-fourth of its population, as a matter of fact. Yes, many students move from place to place each year. But they remain residents of the city for at least four years (sometimes much, much longer). In four years, they can elect alders, county board members, and the mayor. They can drastically shape the politics of this city. If that's not a resident, I don't know what is.

I support the idea of a boycott in general. Economic coercion should be an appropriate and effective method of protest and politics in this situation. However, as many have stated on the newspaper's comments, most of the employees of the Nitty are students, who make their money off of tips. This poses a problem. How to effectively protest Shapiro's comments regarding the ALRC, but prevent student employees from destitution?

I recommend an alcohol boycott of the Nitty. Rather than avoiding the Nitty altogether, people should simply not go to the Nitty as a bar. It is still a restaurant during the day. If you really feel the need to go there for lunch, or a pre-basketball/hockey dinner, or a birthday, then go if you must (there are much better places to eat, however). But if you go, don't buy alcohol. Don't go to the Nitty when only the bar is open, or if you do go, don't buy alcohol. Buy soda instead. And tip generously! Shapiro gets no income from tips. He'll make less money off the non-alcoholic drinks and the food, and student workers will still make tips (bigger tips, if people decide to do so).

Overall, the Nitty should be disregarded as a normal spot for a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday-night bar crawl. Go to the Vintage, or Wando's, or the Plaza. The Church Key, the Red Shed, or Brother's. Hell, go to the Karaoke Kid or across town to the Big 10! But avoid the Nitty as a regular stop. Speak with your wallets. Reduce Shapiro's profit, but help your fellow students where you can.

International (B)Onus

Very fascinating news coming out of Oslo today. President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Committee citing that "[h]is diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Awarding the Prize to a sitting head of government is not unprecedented. Mikhail Gorbachev won the Prize in 1990 for his work to open up the Soviet Union. It seems that the Committee again is attempting to promote a leader and their work, and using the awarding of the Prize to increase that leader's international and moral authority.

Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to receive the Prize. Woodrow Wilson was awarded the Prize in 1919, and Theodore Roosevelt received his Prize in 1906. And now a major onus lies on the shoulders of Barack Obama.

The Nobel Peace Prize is ostensibly the world's highest honor. Wilson received his Prize for his Fourteen Points, a framework for peace negotiations in the post-World War I world. Although those Points might be seen as a failure due to World War II, many of its expectations and ideas still hold major relevance today. Roosevelt's Prize was given for his role in the Treaty of Portsmouth, bringing an end to the Russo-Japanese War.

Many will say/have said that the President has not earned the Prize, because he has not done anything. I have a tendency to partially agree with them. We are still in Afghanistan and Iraq, although our forces in that country are slowly winding down (but there are 14 bases under construction there for our use). Iran still has attention on it for its nuclear program issues, and of course there's the perennial problem of Israel and Palestine. Not to mention the continued existance of al-Qaida and other radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.

The Committee also believed that President Obama's work on non-proliferation was a key cause for their decision. It is on this issue that Obama has his greatest opportunity to really earn his Nobel. Nuclear weapons are a terribly destabilizing weapon, and non-proliferation has long been seen as a key strategy to preventing a global catastrophe. When France got the bomb, China accelerated its development program. When China got the bomb, India worked harded to get theirs. Then Pakistan did. Generally, nations that feel threatened by nearby nuclear weapons will seek to obtain weapons of their own.

If Iran successfully develops nuclear weapons, I predict that it will only be a matter of time before the Iraqi government desires their own program. Turkey will continue to amass its stockpile from NATO (if not develop their own weapons), and Israel most certainly will increase their own nuclear resources, if not conduct an outright pre-emptive strike against Iranian facilities. If North Korea continues to develop its weapons program, then soon South Korea will want nuclear weapons, and perhaps even Japan will turn towards a weapon that had wreaked so much death and destruction on them almost 65 years ago. With more nuclear weapons about, the possiblity of war dramatically increases, not to mention the risk of terrorists obtaining a stray warhead. That's a real nightmare scenario.

Iraq and Afghanistan are important, no doubt. But President Obama, if he is to really earn the world's greatest honor, must make non-proliferation his primary foreign policy objective in this term. We know how to handle Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorists; that is a military job, and really does not demand a whole lot from Obama (that's why there's the DOD and the Chiefs of Staff, and the SecDef). But the president should follow through on his campaign statement and talk face-to-face with leaders attempting to develop nuclear weapons. I hope that the Prize will help him in this task. If he is successful, then we might be able to say that Obama more than met the expectations of Wilson and Roosevelt.

Oh, and the $1.4 million prize? Either donate it to charity, or use it in the efforts for health care reform.

Getting LBJ on You

So it seems that the Democratic power structure is starting to put together a plan to assure passage of a health care reform bill. According to recent reports, political pressure will be applied to the six key senators necessary for blocking a filibuster in the Senate. These senators are Lincoln and Pryor of Arkansas, Landrieu of Lousiana, Baucus of Montana, Nelson of Nebraska, and Reid of Nevada. On the outside, free health clinics will be taking place in the capitol cities of those states. These clinics will be organized by the National Association of Free Clinics. The NAFC held a free clinic in Houston recently. 1500 people showed up. Will these senators notice the free clinics? Only if many thousands of people show up. It remains to be seen.

Senate Democratic leadership, however, has said that if any Democratic senator sides with the Republicans on a filibuster, action will be taken to strip chairmanship and leadership positions from those senators. That's a big deal, and theoretically should whip any recalcintrant senators into line. If that doesn't work, then the health care reform bill will be voted on through the reconciliation rule. That means only 51 votes are required to pass the bill. This is the same method that the Bush tax cuts passed by, and I say turnabout is fair play.

I recommend a further step for any senators that continue to get out of line. Clearly this issue is the biggest of our time. I recommend party action be taken if necessary. If any Democratic senator votes against the health care bill, the Democratic Party will simply do whatever it can to make sure that that senator will lose its reelection chances by supporting a primary contender with its connections and funds.

Now, this is a very risky move, and might hurt the Democratic majority in the Senate. But, damnit, health care reform is a key plank in the Democratic platform. If a Democratic senator is not going to follow a key plank, then they're not worth the party's time, and they can run as an independent like Lieberman did. That's the essence of a political party. If you use the party advantages to get elected, then you had better fall in line when the chips are on the table, especially on something as central as health care. That's how a party works.

Grading the Baucus Bill

Senator Max Baucus' much-maligned bill has been debuted, and there's no shortage of criticism on it. I'll be grading his bill, comparing it to the details set out by Obama in his health care speech.

*Do not scrap the current health care system. Examine and revise.
This is done easy enough. Baucus does not propose a major dismantling of the current health care system. Grade: A+

*Those already covered must not be forced to switch coverage or change doctors
It seems like Baucus' bill leaves those satisfied with their insurance or doctors well enough alone. Grade: A+

*Denying coverage due to preexisting conditions must be prohibited by law
The bill expressly prohibits the denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions. Simple enough. Grade: A+

*Coverage may not be dropped or diluted if the policy holder becomes ill
Not sure if there are prohibitions against this in the bill. I wager it is in there somewhere. Grade: Incomplete

*Arbitrary coverage caps for a year or lifetime will not be allowed
It appears that these are prohibited in the bill. Grade: A+

*Out-of-pocket expenses must be limited
It seems like there are limits in place, but they are higher than other plans we see. Grade: C-

*Routine checkups and preventive care must be covered with no additional cost
This seems to be one of the major strengths of the Baucus bill. It makes it far cheaper to receive preventive care and check-ups, and also works to reward healthy lifestyle choices, particularly for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees. But it doesn't do much for those outside those programs. Grade: B+

*Individuals and small businesses may purchase insurance through a market
Yes, there is a market created in the Baucus bill for this purpose. Grade: A+

*Those who cannot afford insurance will be provided with tax credits based upon need
There are subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance, but they are smaller than everything else proposed. While this does keep the overall cost down, it does little good if people still can't buy insurance even with tax credits. Grade: C

*Insurance companies desiring to participate in the aforementioned market have four years to adhere to the outlined regulations above
Yes, the deadline is in 2013. Grade: A+

*Those currently uninsured due to preexisting conditions will be offered low-cost coverage immediately in case of catastrophic illness
There is a catastrophic-only option offered, but only available for the "young invincible" (yes, that is a phrase in the bill). I'm not sure if the plan makes immediate coverage available to those currently uninsured. Grade: C/Incomplete

*Health insurance will be mandatory
Yes, it is mandatory. But the costs for not getting insurance are very high. Combine this with low tax credits, and you may end up with a lot of poor people who still can't buy insurance or afford the four-figure fines associated with that. Grade: C-

*Businesses must offer health care or chip in to cover the costs of health care
This is included in the bill, but there are no regulations of the quality of the care provided. Larger companies could offer expensive programs with low benefits at their leisure, and most workers would be forced to take it. Regulations are necessary. Grade: C+

*There will be a hardship waiver, applicable to 95% of all small businesses
The bill makes it very easy for most small businesses to be waived from their requirements. Grade: A+

*A public option will be made available, running as a not-for profit
There is no public option, instead going for the co-op method. The government will provide start up and solvency funds. Co-ops will be not-for-profit, and any leftover funds they do have will be used to lower premiums or improve benefits. Co-ops will be state-by-state. This is difficult, especially if a state elects not to establish a co-op. It would be far simpler to create a national public option. Grade: B

*This public option will only be available to those who currently do not have insurance
Co-ops are a different beast, but they only seem to be available to those without insurance. Grade: C

*The public option must be self-sufficient
The co-ops will have start-up funds provided, but they are otherwise self-sufficient. Grade: A+

*The overall plan must be deficit neutral
This plan attempts to be deficit neutral, but the way its finances are organized, it's highly doubtful. Grade: C-

*Establish some method of malpractice reform
Since malpractice is mostly covered at the state levels, the bill does not explicitly implement reform. It does, however, call for states to examine their system to seek alternatives to the current litigation system. Whether states do so or not is not mandated. Grade: C+

*The cost must be limited to $900 billion over 10 years
Definitely passes. At $856 billion, it's the lowest figure seen among any of the health care proposals. Grade: A-

*Slow the growth of health care costs by 1/10 of 1% per year
It's hard to see this plan control costs without a public option, and the bill has no regulations to even attempt to control the costs of care. This bill will likely not control costs in any way. Grade: F

*If savings are not up to expectations, create spending cuts
Not sure if this is included. Baucus seems to be trying to put the cart before the horse by keeping the initial cost of his bill low. It would be wiser to start at a higher cost, then reduce it year by year as we know the costs decrease, rather than start low and have to keep increasing because we find that the first year costs are more than expected. Grade: C+

*Meet the following goals:
*Provide security and stability for those with insurance
*Provide insurance for those who currently have none
*Slow the growth of costs
The big grade. Baucus clearly is reaching for compromise in his bill, but the fact that no Republicans have voiced favor for the bill tells me that something isn't quite right. Overall, the bill doesn't really achieve goals 2 or 3 very well, which are the two goals that are the most important. It's very easy to accomplish goal 1; simply create regulations that prohibit the dropping of coverage or care. But Baucus' bill could do more to make insurance available for those without it, and it certainly doesn't slow the growth of costs. Instead, it tries to keep its own costs down, perhaps at the cost of effectiveness. OVERALL GRADE: B/B-