notesfromnokomis

Assuming Responsibility

When I assume responsibility, I am usually on the hook for something. The doctor’s office always asks me to sign a form indicating that I am responsible for whatever the insurance company doesn’t pay. I am responsible for having automobile insurance. If I don’t, I can be penalized. I am responsible for renewing my driver’s license, for taking out the garbage. The list goes on.

Virtually every time I purchase a ticket to watch a game or concert or attend an event, the organizer of the game, concert, or event includes a disclaimer indicating that they are not responsible for anything that happens to me related to the game, concert, or event. So if a ball, drumstick, or horse, hits or kicks me, the organizer isn’t responsible for the harm, I am. I’m ok with that; if I assume a risk, I should be responsible.

It’s different for bigwigs. John Stumpf is the CEO of Wells Fargo, a bank that apparently opened somewhere around 2 million accounts that were bogus. That’s a lot of accounts. You’d think someone would have noticed, and eventually, the LA Times did. Stumpf has accepted “full responsibility” for the scandal, which interestingly enough did not enhance the bank’s earnings, only its costs. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-accounts-ceo-idUSKCN11Q08U

In this instance, however, accepting full responsibility doesn’t appear to mean much. Stumpf still has his job. He hasn’t been fined or penalized. As far as I can tell, nothing has happened to Stumpf except that he has been yelled at by a few senators. (Wells Fargo paid $185 million to settle the case with federal regulators without, of course, admiting wrongdoing. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wells-lawsuits-20160909-snap-story.html)

I heard Stumpf being interviewed by Jim Cramer, who asked whether there would be a clawback, a procedure whereby a company seeks to recover ill-gotten gains from an employee. In this case, stock options increased in value at least in part because of the existence of all those putative new accounts, which were viewed as evidence of the bank’s excellence in cross-selling. Stumpf told Cramer that clawbacks would be sought to the extent possible. That seemingly responsive answer means that Wells Fargo might seek to claw back anywhere between 0% and 100% of the stock options’ increase in value.

Over 5,000 employees, who were part of the bogus account-opening scandal, have been fired, some as long ago as 2011. http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/14/investing/warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway-wells-fargo-fake-account-scandal/ They have rightly paid a price for their role in establishing the bogus accounts. But the manager who oversaw the fired employees was not fired, she is being allowed to retire. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/20/its-would-not-be-easy-for-wells-fargo-to-claw-back-banker-pay.html And she has not accepted responsibility, only Stumpf has. Not that it matters.

This situation reminds me of when Donald Rumsfeld assumed full responsibility for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers. http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2004-05-07-24-1-67497562/282715.html Like Stumpf, Rumsfeld did not lose his job, he did not pay a fine, and he did not, as far as can be determined, suffer any personal consequences.

Stumpf and Rumsfeld both apologized. More importantly, neither of them was directly involved in the scandal or abuse. Although each was in charge of the organization that committed the scandal or abuse, each was far removed from the events. Still, they accepted responsibility without suffering consequences. I wish I could do that. So does every five-year old who hits a sibling.

Most of us live in the real world, where responsibility does not come without costs. But just as some banks are too big to fail, some people (Rumsfeld and Stumpf [so far] among them) are too big to suffer direct consequences. The unquantifiable damage to their reputations is something else entirely.

Cornell and Central Michigan: Two Examples of Integrity and Sportsmanship

College football incites passion like no other sport. The sectional rivalries, the long-term powerhouse programs, the upsets, the Heisman, the Playoff, and the various buckets, cups, and trophies that rivals play for, generate excitement like no other sport. In a given weekend, so many games are played that it can be hard to keep track of all the goings-on.

Unfortunately, sometimes it’s also hard for the officials to keep track of what is going on. Last weekend, Oklahoma State lost a game on a play that occurred after the game was over. By rule, the game had ended, but because the officials misapplied the rule, they allowed a play to take place after the clock had struck zero. On that play, Central Michigan scored and “won” the game.

Oklahoma State was gracious in defeat. They shouldn’t have been. They should have protested, but to whom. Nobody is in charge of college football as a whole. Central Michigan had a chance, and still does, to address the situation honorably. They should forfeit the game. They didn’t win it fairly, so they shouldn’t take credit for doing so.

In 1940, something similar happened. Cornell, which was undefeated and ranked second in the country, scored on a fifth down as the game was about to end. http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/156300200/miami-duke-fifth-down-1940-cornell-dartmouth After reviewing game film, Cornell determined that it had scored on a play that shouldn’t have happened. They informed Dartmouth that they were forfeiting the game, changing the final score of the game from 7-3 to 3-0. Cornell’s telegram stated “Cornell relinquishes claims to victory and extends congratulations to Dartmouth.” How refreshing. How unmodern. Do not expect Central Michigan to embrace the sportsmanlike trail blazed by the Big Red.

This situation is different from some other recent officiating foibles that have affected outcomes. For example, Miami scored a winning touchdown against Duke last November on a game-ending play that included eight laterals, a block in the back, and a player being down before he lateraled. The officials made mistakes, but they were all related to discretionary calls, the types of calls that are routinely missed. http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/156168618/acc-referees-suspended-duke-miami

Most blown calls are not on the last play of the game and are not quite so outcome determinative. These missed calls are easier to excuse because the teams affected have time to recover and overcome the mistakes, just like they also have to overcome their own mistakes.

Oklahoma State did not have the opportunity to overcome the officials. And they shouldn’t have had to. The officials misapplied a rule and extended a completed game by one play. That one play should be reversed by someone. Is there anyone involved with the administration of college sports with the authority to do the right thing? Barring that, Central Michigan should call Oklahoma State and forfeit the game. They can keep the elation they felt upon “winning.”

According to the NCAA, its member institutions are committed to the “highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship.” http://www.ncaa.org/about/ncaa-core-values Given this commitment to sportsmanship, Central Michigan should forfeit the win they did not earn. I’m not going to hold my breath and you shouldn’t either. The final score: Central Michigan 1, Integrity and Sportsmanship 0.

More baseball: the Cubs

If you are a sports fan and you pay attention to baseball, you are no doubt aware of how highly the media regard the 2016 Cubs. They are number one in the MLB Network’s power rankings. They are number one in the ESPN power rankings. Basically every baseball analyst considers them the best team in baseball. And it’s a fun uplifting story because the Cubs haven’t won a World Series since 1908.

Maybe they are the best team. They have given up the fewest runs of any team, only 3.4 per game compared to a league average of 4.5 runs per game. They have scored the third most runs, 5.0 per game – only the Red Sox and the Rockies have scored more. Their run differential is massive, on average they score 1.6 more per game than their opponent. That’s over half a run better than the second best team, the Red Sox. The Cubs are the only team in the majors (so far) to win 90 games. They are a whopping 40 games over .500.

I can’t help saying – but * * *.

The Cubs record includes 64 wins against teams under .500. That’s 64 wins, not games played. The Cubs have more wins against sub-.500 teams, than the three teams leading divisions in the AL have played against them. The Cubs have played 92 games against sub-.500 teams, Texas has played 55, Boston 56, and Cleveland 62.

The Cubs winning percentage against good teams (defined, by me, as teams over .500) is .529; against bad teams, their winning percentage is .696. That does not indicate to me that they are the juggernaut the national press has made them out to be.

As if feeding my frenzy, CSNChicago recently reported “The Cubs responded to their worst month (12-14 in July) with their best month (22-6 in August) * * *.” http://www.csnchicago.com/chicago-cubs/cubs-will-keep-their-foot-gas-pedal-chance-clinch-st-louis These records are accurate, though it is doubtful that the Cubs play in August was in “response” to their play in July. It was in response to their competition.

As Don Imus used to say, “you can’t make this stuff up.” In July, when the Cubs didn’t play well, going 12-14, they played 12 games against good teams and 14 against bad teams. Hmmn. Notice a relationship? In August, when they played well, going 22-6, the Cubs played 7 games against good teams and 21 against bad teams. I think we’re on to something – the Cubs are really good when they play bad teams, not so good when they play good teams. Don’t expect anybody touting the Cubs to mention this.

I’m not saying the Cubs aren’t good. They are. But they aren’t as good as they appear, and they aren’t nearly as good when playing good teams as they are when playing bad teams.

In the playoffs, they won’t be playing teams with sub-.500 records. They better bring their “A” game. Their “B” game might be good enough to beat the Phillies and Reds. It is unlikely to do so well against the Dodgers, Mets, and whichever team prevails in the American League.

MLB Scheduling and the Wild Card

Major league baseball is in its home stretch. Each team plays 162 games over six months, and we are down to the last 20 or so games. The season is long enough and routine enough for players and fans to develop a rhythm, distracted by the occasional day game or double-header and by long trips east or west.

Scheduling used to be simple. For decades, each team played the other seven teams in its league 22 times for a total of 154 games. The winner of the National League (first game played in 1876) played the winner of the American League (first game played in 1901) in the World Series (first played in 1903). Because every team in a league played the same schedule, no team (or its fans) could argue that it played a tougher schedule than some other team.

That changed in 1969, when the leagues divided into divisions, started playing unbalanced schedules, and created a playoff format. (Previously, playoff games were played only when two or more teams in a league were tied at the end of the regular season.) It changed more when inter-league games were incorporated into the schedule.

Teams now play the other four teams in their division 19 times each season, a total of 76 division games, 46.9% of their schedule. The other major sports in the U.S. play significantly fewer division games — in the NFL, 6/16 (37.5%); in the NHL, 30/82 (36.6%); in the NBA, 16/82 (19.5%). An unbalanced schedule is a great way to determine which team is the best in a division. It is a terrible way to determine which teams should qualify for a wild card berth in the playoffs because it is inherently inequitable.

The teams in each division of baseball play the same schedule, therefore the fact that they play each other disproportionately does not influence which of them wins the division. But the wild card berths are based on overall record without considering strength of schedule. This approach benefits teams that play more games against weaker competition.

The following chart helps illustrate the issue:

American League	Games over .500

East	33
Central	-2
West	3

National League

East	-16
Central	7
West	-25

These numbers, through games played on September 10, 2016, are even worse than they appear on first glance. Each division, by definition, plays .500 against teams in that division. That means that the numbers above are based solely on games against teams from other divisions and have, therefore, been compiled in only half the games played (because roughly half of games are played within a division). The American League East is 33 games over .500 against teams outside the American League East. The National League West is 25 games under .500. (This discrepancy is exacerbated by the fact that in inter-league games this season the AL East teams played NL West teams.)

This disparity can have significant wild card implications. The San Francisco Giants are the first wild card team in the NL, a game ahead of the St. Louis Cardinals. The New York Mets are only half a game behind the Cardinals. The Cards are handicapped (compared to the Giants and Mets) by playing half their games against the best division the NL – because the Giants and Mets have played half of their games in the two worst divisions in the majors. Although each win is worth the same, the competition is markedly different. It isn’t fair, in this case, to the Cardinals, who are battling two teams with decidedly easier schedules. The same applies in the AL, where the Detroit Tigers benefit from playing in the weak Central division, while most of their wild card competition beats up on itself in the East, easily the best division in baseball.

In the old days (sometimes called “the good old days”) the team with the most wins in a league made the World Series. And they deserved to, having compiled the best record against the same teams that every other team played. Now because there are levels of playoffs, the best team (however we might determine that) does not always make the World Series. Moreover, given the huge differences in strength of schedule, it’s not certain that the best teams even make the playoffs.

Freedom of Speech

Colin Kaepernick chose not to stand while the National Anthem was being played before a football game recently. He has the right to do that.

The first amendment to the US constitution states, in pertinent part, that “Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech.” It means what is says: “Congress” cannot curtail speech. Based on case law, state and local governments can’t either.

Every state has always had its own state constitutional provision guaranteeing freedom of speech. So, in many respects the Supreme Court was doubling down when it interpreted the fourteenth amendment to incorporate freedom of speech, thereby making the first amendment enforceable against state and local governments as well as the federal government.

Kaepernick was expressing a political opinion, the most protected kind of speech there is. It’s the kind of speech that used to cause people to say things like: “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” This quote is often attributed to Voltaire, but was created from whole cloth by historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall as an example of Voltaire’s beliefs. http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

“Speech” is quite expansive. It covers speaking, writing, activity (burning flags), and inactivity (not standing during the National Anthem), among other things. If a person is expressing a political opinion in just about any form, the expression is likely protected from the state police. Alas, nothing protects us from the PC police.

The PC police come in two variants. The liberal PC police stand against any expression that offends or disparages or that could offend or disparage any particular individual or group. Use of an outdated term to refer to a group of people, for example “oriental” instead of “asian,” is likely to be met with PC condemnation. Even if that term, say “Redskins,” is deemed non-offensive by 90% of the group being “disparaged.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2016/05/24/redskins-name-poll-didnt-change-the-opinions-of-peter-king-and-bob-costas/

Conservatives hate the liberal PC police, but they love their own brand of political correctness. PC conservatives stand against any expression that offends or disparages the US military, the country, or the flag. They are prone to invite a speaker who offends their brand of political correctness to find another country to live in.

What I find particularly interesting about political correctness, whether liberal or conservative, is how little respect the PC police give to the right of others to freely express themselves. The PC police most assuredly do not espouse the principles of Voltaire, instead of defending the rights of others, they seek to inhibit them. But, of course, that is their right — they are not Congress.

The PC police are everywhere – in your neighborhood, in your school (maybe especially in your school), in your workplace, and perhaps coaching your team. John Tortorella, the head coach of the Team USA World Cup team, has declared that he will bench any player who refuses to stand during the National Anthem. In doing so, he is declaring his concept of political correctness (thou must not disparage the flag) to be more important than his players’ right to express a political opinion.

All Americans have the freedom to say what we want and we have the freedom to be offended by what others say. We do both of these things with abandon – and I hope we never stop.

The blogger doth protest too much, methinks.

I am not a linguist and I am not particularly well-versed in linguistic theory. I do have a decent grasp of English grammar and believe that many grammatical mistakes are of almost no consequence. Although they might subtly depreciate the (mis)speaker’s reputation, grammatical mistakes generally do not detract from the speaker’s comprehensibility.

On a recent episode of Modern Family, Claire’s family was chiding her for using the phrase “me likey,” when referring to something she likes. That reminded me of how frequently I hear misuse of “I” and “me.”

Both are first person pronouns. “I” is subjective, meaning it is the subject of a verb. The subject performs the action of a verb, as in: I went to a movie. “Me” is objective, meaning it is the object of a verb or preposition. The object receives the action of the verb, as in: Phil gave me a book.

“Me” is almost never used alone in the subjective. For instance, I have never heard anybody say: me went to a movie, unless intentionally, like Claire. But if another person is involved, if Gloria also went to the movie, a speaker will often say: Gloria and me went to the movie. There is no confusion about who went to the movie, but why “me” instead of the correct “I?”

Similarly, nobody and I mean nobody says: Phil gave the book to I. Not once in my life have I heard or read that construction. But if another person is involved, a speaker will often say: Phil gave the book to Gloria and I. Why does using a compound subject or object lead to using the wrong pronoun?

I don’t have an answer. Me hopes one of you does and that you will share it with the gang and I.

A little Cincinnati Reds history

It is commonly believed that the Cincinnati Reds are the oldest professional baseball team. And it is true that the Cincinnati Red Stockings were the first openly entirely professional team and that they had a spectacular 65-0 record in 1869. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Red_Stockings Because they were not playing other professional teams, that record means little. That it happened in 1869, long before anyone currently alive was born, makes it mean a little less. That parts of the game were wildly different (for instance, the batter could request a high or low pitch that was thrown underhand) takes it down another notch. Still 65-0 is pretty darn good.

When the National League started playing games in 1876, the Cincinnati Reds franchise, as we know it, was not among the league’s teams. There was a Cincinnati Reds team. But that team played its last game in 1880 and was subsequently expelled from the league because its owner wanted to sell beer at games and play games on Sundays. (It was a different time.) The 1876 team was almost as bad at the 1869 team had been good, winning only 9 of the 65 games it played. (Baseball-reference.com is the source of much of the information in this post and much entertainment. I encourage you to wander into its voluminous records some day and check out your favorite team or player.)

Trivia – two original National League franchises have been in the league continuously since it started in 1876. Name them.

The worst year in Cincinnati baseball history was 1881, when the city had to endure without a professional team. The Red Stocking were formed in 1882 and played in the American Association. Thus, for their first eight years, the new Reds were a minor league team. They joined the majors, which at that time was solely the National League, and changed their name to the Reds in 1890.

The last old Reds team (1880), had one hall of famer: Deacon White, who was inducted in 2013, almost 113 years after he played his last game. Deacon was a bit of a maverick, despite earning his nickname based on his manners. He was likely the first catcher to stand directly behind the plate, he helped design the first chest protector, and he was devoutly against the reserve clause, stating “No man can sell my carcass unless I get at least half.” See The Biographical History of Baseball, Donald Dewey and Nicholas Acocella.

Deacon’s brother Will was the best pitcher for the 1880 (old) Reds, where they formed one of the first brother/brother batteries in professional baseball history. Will was also the best pitcher for the 1882 (new) Reds when professional baseball returned to the Queen City. In 1880, Will pitched in 62 of the team’s 83 games. He completed 58 of them. (It was a different time.) The team used exactly two pitchers that year. Blondie Purcell pitched 21 complete games and finished the four games that the Deacon couldn’t. In 1982, Will started 54 games, completing 52. Harry McCormick started 25 games and completed 24. Outfielder Harry Wheeler finished the three games the starters could not complete. (It was a different time.)

To further accentuate the difference, the 1880 and 1882 teams combined to hit 12 total home runs, an average of six per year. As of today, the 15 teams in the American League are averaging over seven home runs each per week. Deacon White had a maximum salary in his career of $3,500. Bid McPhee, a hall of famer who played for the 1882 team, earned $2,300 in the only year for which that information is available. His salary exceeded the salary cap of $2,000 based on a side agreement.

For a little context, the average blacksmith in 1880 earned $800 per year, based on a wage of $15.54 per 60-hour work week. The average carpenter earned about $50 more per year. See https://outrunchange.com/2012/06/14/typical-wages-in-1860-through-1890/ for information on old-time salaries. The best ball players were making three to five times as much as an average worker. Baseball’s minimum salary today ($507,500) is almost 10 times the median income for a family of four ($54,462). Many baseball players make more than $10 million per year, which is over 180 times the median income for a family of four.

Trivia Answer – Chicago Cubs(continuously in Chicago) and Atlanta Braves (who started in Boston, moved to Milwaukee, and then were the first modern team to migrate east, to Atlanta.)

The Reds currently play in Great American Ballpark, in my opinion the best corporate name for a ballpark. It also hearkens back to the 1880’s. The new Reds played in American Park (because they were in the American Association) before changing the name to League Park, when they moved to the National League, and ultimately to Crosley Field, after Powel Crosley Jr. purchased the franchise in 1934. As far as I can tell, no sponsorship money was involved in the name changes. As I said before, it was a different time.

“Back to Blood”

Some authors are able to rise to the occasion again and again, churning out novels for decades that are more or less the same quality. This seems especially likely to happen in the realm of detectives – Agatha Christie and Robert B. Parker come to mind. Some authors reach such a terrific peak that they are never able to approach it again, think Joseph Heller and John Irving. I’m not sure where to place Tom Wolfe in this model, but I know where his book “Back to Blood” fits.

I enjoyed “Bonfire of the Vanities” when I was young and vain and I enjoyed “A Man in Full” (a little less) when I was older and a bit more rounded. So I was looking forward to reading “Back to Blood.” It was a mistake, not a peak. I kept telling myself to keep reading, convinced that the plot would come together. I did, but it didn’t.

Unless you are a Cuban American or enamored of Miami, the book is unlikely to appeal to you. And even then it might not because I’m not sure how accurately Wolfe has captured the mood and ethos of Cuban Americans or the city where many of them live.

Too many characters were either introduced but not fully developed or developed but not engaged. The plot was convoluted to no apparent end and included days of intensive micromanagement and months in which nothing was described, though issues remained hanging. There were various forays involving sex and pornography that did little to advance the plot and appeared designed to showcase the author’s knowledge of, for example, public pornography. The denouement was an open door, revolving rather than resolving the various strands of the plot.

For over 700 pages, the author relentlessly relentlessly relentlessly beat his linguistic tic of repetition into my skull skull skull. That theme came through loud and clear — sometimes to emphasize a word, sometimes to provide atmosphere (think background noises) — and always annoyingly annoyingly annoyingly. If more books were written like this, less reading would take place.

Nobody would ever say or write “fewer reading would take place,” however “less” is often used when “fewer” would be more appropriate. People say that they want “less French fries,” and though I don’t believe them, neither do I misunderstand them. Still, it’s not as precise (or mellifluous) as saying they want “fewer French fries.”

“Fewer” should be used with quantifiable things, like French fries or blood cells. “Less” should be used with things that aren’t easily quantified, like mashed potatoes or blood. “More” always works, whether you want more French fries, more mashed potatoes, more platelets, or more plasma.

Something I don’t want more of: Tom Wolfe novels.

Olympics — random thoughts

Can you name a single event in the modern pentathlon? It is a bizarre collection of skills that are bundled into one largely ignored event. I’ll provide the answer below after you wrack your gray cells for a bit.

All of the media I have read suggest that Bahamian Shaunae Miller dove over the line to edge American Allyson Felix for the gold medal in the 400 meters. Based on the video I have seen, I am convinced that she stumbled. Either way, it makes me question my long-held belief that runners should sprint through first base rather than dive into it.

Why do female beach volleyball players wear the approximate equivalent of bikinis? The male players don’t wear speedos – nor should they.

Does it make me a bad American that I sort of wanted the Serbians to hit that three-pointer that would have tied their basketball game against the USA? And would I have felt the same way if it had been a medal-round game?

Are you aware that American athletes get paid for winning medals? Gold medalists receive $25,000, silver medalists receive $15,000, and bronze medalists receive $10,000. All of it is taxable, including the value of the medal itself.

Does the medal count matter? Does it make us a better country or more patriotic because we are winning more medals than any other country? And have you noticed that eight of the top ten medal winning countries are western democracies? https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=summer%20olympics%20medal%20count

Does this mean anything other than that these countries have the resources to enable their athletes to train often enough and effectively enough to win their various events? I don’t think so. The current top ten in order: USA, Great Britain, China, Russia, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Netherlands, and Australia. The two outliers are (obviously) China and Russia. India and its billion or so citizens have won a total of one bronze medal.

The five events in the modern pentathlon are: pistol shooting, épée fencing, 200 meter freestyle swimming, show jumping, and 3.2 kilometer cross-country run. The event seems tailor-made for D’Artagnan. I believe that he, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis would handily defeat the four most athletic members of Cardinal Richelieu’s Guard.

2016 Summer Olympics

The Olympics has been on TV for the past two weeks or so. Many significant and amazing feats of swimming, running, throwing, shooting, rowing, jumping, and other verbs have been accomplished. Many extraordinary athletes compete and we should applaud all of the participants for their dedication and efforts.

But let’s be honest, for the most part, the Olympics comprise a bunch of events that generate marginal interest beyond the competitors and their families. According to Wikipedia, the 2016 Summer Olympics have 306 events, including 10 sailing, 10 fencing, 14 rowing, 8 Taekwondo, 14 judo, 15 weightlifting, 15 shooting, and 16 canoeing events. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics) That’s 102 events, exactly one third of the Olympics, and none of them have anything beyond niche appeal. Although there is no reason to begrudge the participants their opportunity to shine every four years, there is also no reason to be interested just because NBC devotes hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of broadcast time to airing fringe events.

Let’s give NBC credit for creating a market for a product that is otherwise unsaleable for 3.96 years out of every four. In reality, they are not unlike traveling snake-oil salesmen, who sell a product that we can all easily live without and then disappear long enough that we forget having been hoodwinked – until it is time to rinse and repeat.

Most of the time, Bob Costas is an excellent sports journalist. Like him or not, he addresses issues directly and candidly. Then for two weeks or so every two years (the Summer and Winter Olympics are now two years off-cycle), Bob Costas transmogrifies into a shill for NBC. If he weren’t making so much money, he might do an exposé on himself.

The Olympics should consider eliminating events that can stand on their own. Basketball, tennis, and golf have their own highly successful leagues and tournaments and are viable without the Olympics. Winning an NBA title, or a major championship is much more important to top-level competitors than winning an Olympic medal. The same cannot be said of swimming or gymnastics, let alone dressage or badminton.

Removing the big events would allow the smaller events to receive more time and attention and perhaps facilitate their escape from the periphery. Either way, I suspect the Olympics will continue to thrive – it appears that some products are capable of creating their own demand. Every four years, it’s Field of Dreams (if you build it, he will come) writ large.