Friday, March 28, 2008
Why I Expect I Won't Be Able to Vote for Obama in November
by Ken Houghton
But let's look at this from a Sports point of view. My undergraduate alma mater broke the Division I record for a football team's losing streak (though, in fairness, the streak began the year after I graduated).
And while the MBA school has pretensions of being a football powerhouse (they are in the SEC, after all), they're rather more accomplished on the national level in swimming.
And no one will confuse the current campus—the most diverse college in the country—with the main branch, which goes to bowl games and manages to lose money.
So, since I have a chance to do graduate work at the school that just won its country's National Women's Hockey Team Championship, the opportunity for the sports culture shock alone is not to be passed up.
But it probably will make casting a ballot difficult. Advice/suggestions welcome.
It's not that I want to ignore Hillary's advice.
But let's look at this from a Sports point of view. My undergraduate alma mater broke the Division I record for a football team's losing streak (though, in fairness, the streak began the year after I graduated).
And while the MBA school has pretensions of being a football powerhouse (they are in the SEC, after all), they're rather more accomplished on the national level in swimming.
And no one will confuse the current campus—the most diverse college in the country—with the main branch, which goes to bowl games and manages to lose money.
So, since I have a chance to do graduate work at the school that just won its country's National Women's Hockey Team Championship, the opportunity for the sports culture shock alone is not to be passed up.
But it probably will make casting a ballot difficult. Advice/suggestions welcome.
Labels: campus life, hockey, just life, McGill, Rutgers, sports
Sunday, March 16, 2008
UC Berkeley Gets "Saved"?
by Ken Houghton
This appears to be in reaction to rumors summarized concisely by David Warsh a few weeks ago:
Akerlof turns 68 this year. Varian got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity (and got rich from the options he had received before; maybe not Mankiw-rich, but rich enough). Card (Class of 1950) and Christina Romer (Class of 1957) already have endowed chairs, as does David Romer (Herman Royer Professor of Political Economy).
On the other hand, Chetty is an Associate Professor and is on leave, as are Professor Jones and Assistant Professor Sannikov. Gournichas is an Assistant Professor, a rung lower than Chetty.
And the institution will still have a host of riches:
Only after bemoaning all of this does Warsh note that UC-Berkeley isn't exactly just being taken in this roundelay:
There are some things Warsh seems to get wrong. His overall frame suggests that UCLA, not the obvious choice, would [have] supplant[ed] Berkeley before that $1.1 Billion came in. And the mere fact that Cal can raise a $1.1B "war chest" strongly suggests that its not exactly going to be the loser in these battles.
The losers are going to be the "land-grant schools," such as Minnesota, and the other schools whose budgets are being slashed and that don't have access to the type of war chest that Cal does.
But David Warsh won't write about those, and they'll only raise large sums of money if it's for a new football stadium.
Maybe I should change the title of this post.
In comments at DeLongville, save_the_rustbelt notes:
The University of California at Berkeley has accumulated a $1.1-billion “war chest” to fend off Ivy League poachers, the Bloomberg news service reported today.
Berkeley administrators hope the money, which will go toward endowed chairs for 100 professors, will dissuade faculty members from defecting to wealthier competitors like Harvard and Yale, where salary offers are significantly higher.
For the 2006 fiscal year, full professors at Berkeley earned an average of $134,672 and associate professors $88,576 — about 15 percent less than peers at private institutions. And, since 2003, the California university has lost at least 30 faculty members to its eight main competitors, chief among them Harvard.
This appears to be in reaction to rumors summarized concisely by David Warsh a few weeks ago:
Private universities raise tuitions at will and keep enrollments small while public universities, constrained by legislatures, must keep fees down while increasing their enrollments.
Something of a test of the balance of power may come this spring at the University of California at Berkeley, where professors in the economics department, one of the top half-dozen in the nation, are targets of ten outside offers. Every spring departments all over the country seek to improve their standing by hiring from their rivals, a little like free agent season in big league sports. Bids are always out. But the suspense at Berkeley this year is unusually intense.
Development economist Chang-Tai Hsieh already has preferred an offer from the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago to one from Stanford. Other targets of multiple offers include applied microeconomist David Card, a [John Bates] Clark medalist who is a department unto himself; husband-and-wife macroeconomists Christina and David Romer; growth economist Charles Jones; public finance specialist Raj Chetty; not to mention several members of Berkeley’s remarkable junior faculty, led by wunderkind theorist Yuliy Sannikoff and international economist Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas. Meanwhile, star information economist Hal Varian has gone off to be chief economist for Google (to whom he consulted for many years, growing wealthy from his options grants), and Nobel laureate George Akerlof, a youthful presence in Evans Hall, is retiring.
Akerlof turns 68 this year. Varian got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity (and got rich from the options he had received before; maybe not Mankiw-rich, but rich enough). Card (Class of 1950) and Christina Romer (Class of 1957) already have endowed chairs, as does David Romer (Herman Royer Professor of Political Economy).
On the other hand, Chetty is an Associate Professor and is on leave, as are Professor Jones and Assistant Professor Sannikov. Gournichas is an Assistant Professor, a rung lower than Chetty.
And the institution will still have a host of riches:
Its behavioral economists are led by Nobel laureate Daniel McFadden, Oliver Williamson and Clark Medalist Matthew Rabin. The presence of Joseph Farrell, Michael Katz, Enrico Moretti, Daniel Rubinfeld and Carl Shapiro give it a lock on a certain kind of applied industrial organization. Maurice Obstfeld, Alan Auerbach, J. Bradford DeLong and Emmanuel Saez assure that Berkeley macroeconomics won’t wink out altogether.
Only after bemoaning all of this does Warsh note that UC-Berkeley isn't exactly just being taken in this roundelay:
The department has its own offers out, too, naturally, including one to James Hines of the University of Michigan. What Berkeley economics desperately needs is a faculty entrepreneur to serve as department chair, someone to wheel and deal for it the way John Dunlop did for Harvard economics in the 1960s. But the next chair has yet to be chosen.
There are some things Warsh seems to get wrong. His overall frame suggests that UCLA, not the obvious choice, would [have] supplant[ed] Berkeley before that $1.1 Billion came in. And the mere fact that Cal can raise a $1.1B "war chest" strongly suggests that its not exactly going to be the loser in these battles.
The losers are going to be the "land-grant schools," such as Minnesota, and the other schools whose budgets are being slashed and that don't have access to the type of war chest that Cal does.
But David Warsh won't write about those, and they'll only raise large sums of money if it's for a new football stadium.
Maybe I should change the title of this post.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Ill-Chosen Headline of the Day
by Ken Houghton
Am I the only one who had visions of a Slap Shot-style finish?
From the ESPN RSS Feed, discussing a women's basketball game: Late strip seals Louisville's upset of No. 5 Rutgers.
Am I the only one who had visions of a Slap Shot-style finish?
Labels: college basketball, Rutgers, sports
Saturday, March 08, 2008
The War of the Roses (Part 4 of an Ongoing Series)
by Ken Houghton
I've found a minor mistake in the Coate data; at least two games allocated to the Chicago White Sox (AL) are actually Cubs games (NL). So the data presented below may have minor differences from the previous three posts.
One of the things about making a bet is that there are two possible motivations: one might be betting for a team, or one might be betting against the other team. So it might be worth looking (again, excluding bets involving the Reds) at which teams have large differentials (in both absolute and result basis). So, as a first run:
If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm distracting myself from the vagaries of Health Economics and the trenchant, profound political "analysis" of the ProgLib Blogsphere—not to mention tomorrow's memorial—by going through the data from Coate (2008), available in PDF form here.*
I've found a minor mistake in the Coate data; at least two games allocated to the Chicago White Sox (AL) are actually Cubs games (NL). So the data presented below may have minor differences from the previous three posts.
One of the things about making a bet is that there are two possible motivations: one might be betting for a team, or one might be betting against the other team. So it might be worth looking (again, excluding bets involving the Reds) at which teams have large differentials (in both absolute and result basis). So, as a first run:
There is a difference between "0" and a blank in the above data. Using the example of the Atlanta Braves, Rose bet for the team 12 times: he won six and he lost six, leaving a net of zero (0).
By contrast, and following up to the issue raised in a previous post regarding his previous teams, there is NO indication in the data that he bet FOR the Montreal Expos, so there is a blank or null in that field.**
Also, in some cases, one might believe that a team has a significant advantage due to playing at home due, for instance, to the shape of the ballpark and the team developed to play in it.*** So, especially in the absence of other information, there might be a bet placed on a home team with such a park. Following is the bets on a general basis, broken down by league and home/road team being favored. (Again, the Reds are excluded.)
More ongoing.
*CREDIT UPDATE: Some data in this portion available from Baseball-Reference.com and/or Baseball Almanac.
**Similarly, he never bet against the Toronto Blue Jays, betting on them ten times during the period, winning seven and losing three for a net of +4. Other than the Canadian teams, all of the zeroes on the summary table indicate the net result of an even number of bets.
***There are teams that have had a significant advantage playing on the road, of course, but such advantages generally appear later in the season.
Labels: baseball, efficient markets, Rutgers
Friday, March 07, 2008
A Rose is a Rose is a Rose
by Ken Houghton
So let's look a little more at the gambling activities of one Peter Edward Rose.**
The simplest way to answer the question most recently posted is to look at his cumulative returns. While we know the ultimate answer must be significantly negative, the accumulation is frightening in its consistency***:
In order to keep from discussing the Obama campaign's methods here—the Hilzoy/De Long axis keeps trying to tell us they are pure, and the commenters here appear to agree; why let matters of fact* get in the way?
So let's look a little more at the gambling activities of one Peter Edward Rose.**
The simplest way to answer the question most recently posted is to look at his cumulative returns. While we know the ultimate answer must be significantly negative, the accumulation is frightening in its consistency***:
After April 11th, Rose doesn't even approach break-even. There is a brief "winning streak" from the 15th to the 18th, and a fairly solid positive trend in American League bets from 15 April to 4 May (14 nonnegative days in 17 days of bets), but the time from May 5th to the 12th produces $30,000 in losses (three days—May 6, 8, and 9—lose $26,000, almost all of which is due to bad AL bets that more than negate the net $21,000 gain of the AL streak).
On the surface, on balance, and with few exceptions, the only obvious trend in the data Coate presents on Rose's betting is that he fails to consider the primary rule of betting: if you can't find the sucker at the table, the odds are good it is you.
*Link added here, as it was deleted at the original discussion, though a peculiar manifestation of The Obama Rules remains in response to it.
**Again, all data from Coate (2008), available in PDF form here. Dollar amounts do not foot for the National League; presumably this is an error of mine.
***All of the following data excludes the Cincinnati games, since we are working on the presumption, supported by the evidence presented, that Rose would not have bet against the Reds. The overall effect upon the data of adding those games does not appear as if it would be significant.
Labels: baseball, efficient markets, Rutgers
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Baseball, Asymmetrical Information, and Efficient Markets
by Ken Houghton
Curiously, especially if you exclude CIN games,* it appears that Rose was a better gambler when he didn't have access to information (i.e., better overall betting on the AL than the NL).
UPDATE: The distribution is interesting. Assuming the data is correct, The Philadelphia Phillies are responsible for 29% of his losses over the period. Indeed, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Houston account for over 60% of the dollar losses.
I walked past Douglas Coate's office a couple of times yesterday. Had I seen this paper (PDF) (h/t Tyler Cowen via Portfolio), I might have stopped in.
Curiously, especially if you exclude CIN games,* it appears that Rose was a better gambler when he didn't have access to information (i.e., better overall betting on the AL than the NL).
UPDATE: The distribution is interesting. Assuming the data is correct, The Philadelphia Phillies are responsible for 29% of his losses over the period. Indeed, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Houston account for over 60% of the dollar losses.
And to no one's great surprise, the same teams, along with San Diego, are the teams where Rose bets frequently and (presumably) the wrong way, with the Phillies again setting the standard:
Maybe more tomorrow.
*Which makes sense, since the consensus is that Rose always bet those, and only to win. Though the April 25th entry of "no bet" may be indicative something else.
Labels: baseball, efficient markets, Rutgers
Saturday, April 14, 2007
My Last (I hope) word on Imus
by Ken Houghton
My last word follows from Mark Cuban's:
And I fully expect that Imus (and, unfortunately, 'The I-Man') will end up on HBO or Sirius or XM or some other non-public airwave.* Which is fine; there are enough straight white males on the public airwaves trying to make other SWMs feel superior to others as a substitute for accomplishing anything themselves.
Let's see him survive in the private sector. As with the comedians Mannion and Mahablog were discussing, there's probably a demand; the question is whether it will produce a return on capital, or is already mature and declining. I know which way I would bet.
Let's see if Mark Cuban decides to put his money where his mouth is.
Note to readers: I've deleted several comments in the thread below by mutual agreement between Gary Farber, Bill Patterson, and me. If you've arrived here via a link at alt.fan.heinlein, I commend Patterson's forthcoming Heinlein bio for all the information provided in the deleted comments and much, much more.
*Assuming he doesn't just decide that, at age 67, he can take some time for his charity and his second family. (He appears to have forgotten his first, a la Robert A. Heinlein.)
The basketball team has continued to be the only classy thing about the whole episode, and it may well have cost us a governor, though that can't be blamed on Imus or Rutgers, but rather...well, let Jim MacDonald at Making Light explain.
My last word follows from Mark Cuban's:
Now for one last comment. If the Imus show was on HDNet would I have fired him ? Hell no. I would have expected him to apologize, but he would have kept his job. Firing him would just get him a job on HBO.
And I fully expect that Imus (and, unfortunately, 'The I-Man') will end up on HBO or Sirius or XM or some other non-public airwave.* Which is fine; there are enough straight white males on the public airwaves trying to make other SWMs feel superior to others as a substitute for accomplishing anything themselves.
Let's see him survive in the private sector. As with the comedians Mannion and Mahablog were discussing, there's probably a demand; the question is whether it will produce a return on capital, or is already mature and declining. I know which way I would bet.
Let's see if Mark Cuban decides to put his money where his mouth is.
Note to readers: I've deleted several comments in the thread below by mutual agreement between Gary Farber, Bill Patterson, and me. If you've arrived here via a link at alt.fan.heinlein, I commend Patterson's forthcoming Heinlein bio for all the information provided in the deleted comments and much, much more.
*Assuming he doesn't just decide that, at age 67, he can take some time for his charity and his second family. (He appears to have forgotten his first, a la Robert A. Heinlein.)
Labels: commonweal, Imus, Mannion, public v. private, Rutgers
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
In the Case You Missed It (Rutgers)
by Ken Houghton
Two press releases in my inbox last night, one from the President of the University, the other from one of the leaders of our local (Newark) campus.
If the people at WFAN/CBS/MSNBC are hoping this is going to go away two weeks from now, I expect they are wrong. But, as I noted below, they're only in it for the money anyway.
Meanwhile, catch Jemele Hill's column at ESPN, which concludes
The General puts the faces to the 'nappy-headed hos'.
Two press releases in my inbox last night, one from the President of the University, the other from one of the leaders of our local (Newark) campus.
If the people at WFAN/CBS/MSNBC are hoping this is going to go away two weeks from now, I expect they are wrong. But, as I noted below, they're only in it for the money anyway.
Meanwhile, catch Jemele Hill's column at ESPN, which concludes
But none of this has anything to do with Imus, whose apology I can't accept or take seriously. Imus has become a Hall of Fame broadcaster using race-baiting, offensive tactics. He is routinely offensive to people of color and women, and if he needs to lose his job to understand that there is no place for that, so be it.
As a society, there are times when we need to stand together against indecency and cruelty.
Labels: college basketball, Imus, Rutgers
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
I Keep Getting Pulled Back In
by Ken Houghton
I wasn't going to do this—as I said below, others have covered this ground, well—but the homemade CD I brought for the car today refused to play anything past Track 1, so I had to shift to the radio. And since my normal listening station was doing Yeshiva League Sports Updates (like regular sports updates, but with more cliches), I was left flipping between Whoopie, the Rock of New Jersey, and New York's Classic Rock station (if Classic Rock were limited to White bands).
And Jim Kerr,* who should know better, started talking about Imus.
Defending Imus.
Defending dialog of which Ron Allen of MSNBC rightly notes:
Kerr* inadvertently let slip the whole reason for the fooforah:
Imus is getting a lot of free publicity. It's probably the first time people are talking about him in several years.
Kerr* presented the other BS defences: he's doing comedy, he's been humiliated enough, he's tried to make things right with Coach Stringer and her players,** he's really, really sorry and it will never happen again (this was, after all, only the 47th time, give or take a few). UPDATE: And, of course, he attacked the character of Imus's attackers.
UPDATE: Via Dr. Black, Imus appears to be getting tired of making fake apologies, or, as he calls it, "playing."
I was going to do a furious post about that this morning—I'm reprogramming the radio, removing Q104.3 from autosets—but then I saw the comments of another MSNBC-affiliated professional . Al Roker:
That's an understatement. Imus has been on a Glorious Tour: yesterday, Sharpton. Today, Today. Imus can, and probably will, spend the two weeks of his "suspension" appearing all over the place, receiving scale and keeping himself in the spotlight. Roker again:
Roker declares that the best case is that Imus gets a new job elsewhere. And declares himself the "victim," while the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team—which performed beyond all expectation, doesn't have a senior on it, and has been the only classy thing about this entire roundelay—has to wonder how they got shunted and shamed and became pariahs for coming within one game of a National Championship.
*UPDATE: Corrected, and my deepest apologies to Pat St. John for the initial mistake.
**He'll get the chance, privately, which is another indication that the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team and their coach have more class and style than Imus ever will, and that the remark is, if anything, even more over the line than it was when uttered.
***This has been underemphasized. It was McGuirk, after all, who first irrredemably described the Rutgers team as "some hard-core hos," and continued by describing the game as "The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes" If anything, Imus's initial response was a downplaying of McGuirk's statement.
This is for Max.
I wasn't going to do this—as I said below, others have covered this ground, well—but the homemade CD I brought for the car today refused to play anything past Track 1, so I had to shift to the radio. And since my normal listening station was doing Yeshiva League Sports Updates (like regular sports updates, but with more cliches), I was left flipping between Whoopie, the Rock of New Jersey, and New York's Classic Rock station (if Classic Rock were limited to White bands).
And Jim Kerr,* who should know better, started talking about Imus.
Defending Imus.
Defending dialog of which Ron Allen of MSNBC rightly notes:
But I still can't forget those words: "nappy headed hos," and then more banter about "jigaboos and wannabes." Where did that come from? How could Imus -- and don't forget his producer -- feel comfortable enough to think that's funny? How could they not anticipate a firestorm? When people speak that way publicly, it makes you wonder what's said, and felt, in private?
If you say the words out loud rather than just listening to them or reading them, each carries even more power. And they strike at the heart of the negative images that so many people have fought so many battles to rid our culture and society of. When I hear those words, I think of people I know -- the insults they endured, and more importantly, the injustices along the way. We're reminded that some of America's most horrible history -- history we hope to leave in our past -- happened during our lifetimes. We're reminded of parents and grandparents who combed and brushed our tightly curled hair.
Kerr* inadvertently let slip the whole reason for the fooforah:
It's radio's Spring Sweeps time.
Imus is getting a lot of free publicity. It's probably the first time people are talking about him in several years.
Kerr* presented the other BS defences: he's doing comedy, he's been humiliated enough, he's tried to make things right with Coach Stringer and her players,** he's really, really sorry and it will never happen again (this was, after all, only the 47th time, give or take a few). UPDATE: And, of course, he attacked the character of Imus's attackers.
UPDATE: Via Dr. Black, Imus appears to be getting tired of making fake apologies, or, as he calls it, "playing."
I was going to do a furious post about that this morning—I'm reprogramming the radio, removing Q104.3 from autosets—but then I saw the comments of another MSNBC-affiliated professional . Al Roker:
Don and his wife have done a lot of good things—raising money for charity, including a ranch for children suffering from cancer and blood disorders.
Yet, Don Imus needs to be fired for what he said. And while we’re at it, his producer, Bernard McGu[i]rk, needs to be canned as well. McGu[i]rk is just as guilty, often egging Imus on.***
The “I’m a good person who said a bad thing” apology doesn’t cut it. At least he didn’t try to weasel out of this by hiding behind alcohol or drug abuse. Still, he said it and a two-week suspension doesn’t cut it. It is, at best, a slap on the wrist. A vacation. Nothing....
Don Imus should do the right thing and resign. Not talk about taking a two-week suspension with dignity. I don’t think Don Imus gets it.
That's an understatement. Imus has been on a Glorious Tour: yesterday, Sharpton. Today, Today. Imus can, and probably will, spend the two weeks of his "suspension" appearing all over the place, receiving scale and keeping himself in the spotlight. Roker again:
After watching and listening to him this morning during an interview with Matt Lauer, Don Imus doesn’t get it. Maybe it’s being stuck in a studio for 35 years or being stuck in the 1980’s. Either way, it’s obvious that he needs to move on. Citing “context within a comedy show” is not an excuse.
He has to take his punishment and start over. Guess what? He’ll get re-hired and we’ll go on like nothing happened. CBS Radio and NBC News needs to remove Don Imus from the airwaves. That is what needs to happen. Otherwise, it just looks like profits and ratings rule over decency and justice.
Roker declares that the best case is that Imus gets a new job elsewhere. And declares himself the "victim," while the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team—which performed beyond all expectation, doesn't have a senior on it, and has been the only classy thing about this entire roundelay—has to wonder how they got shunted and shamed and became pariahs for coming within one game of a National Championship.
*UPDATE: Corrected, and my deepest apologies to Pat St. John for the initial mistake.
**He'll get the chance, privately, which is another indication that the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team and their coach have more class and style than Imus ever will, and that the remark is, if anything, even more over the line than it was when uttered.
***This has been underemphasized. It was McGuirk, after all, who first irrredemably described the Rutgers team as "some hard-core hos," and continued by describing the game as "The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes" If anything, Imus's initial response was a downplaying of McGuirk's statement.
Labels: college basketball, Imus, radio, Rutgers
Monday, April 09, 2007
Rutgers Achievements, Update
by Ken Houghton
That said,
Except to discuss this, which hadn't happened when she wrote her post, and especially:
Gee, ya think??
That's good, because I'm not certain I understand what he just said, unless it was "My producer and I may not be here five more years."
Some of his best friends? Maybe not, if all he could cite was his ranch where "[t]en percent of the children who come to the ranch are black."
That's good. Because if this is the best he can do, in the forum where he had the best chance to redeem himself and time to prepare, then he's going to have to have more interesting guests than Joe Lieberman to survive much longer, no matter how much Howie ignores him.
I didn't comment on the no-way-I-lose Women's College Basketball Final (Rutgers v. Tennessee, won by Pat Summit's team), in part because I had class and by the time I got home, it was clearly going to be Tennessee's day.
That said,
- It's good to see C. Vivian Stringer's team get some recognition. Unlike that other Rutgers sports team, which loses money when it does well, the Women's Basketball team has been competitive for years.
- About the Imus discussions, I have nothing to say that Angry Black Bitch didn't already say better, despite having none of those characteristics.
Except to discuss this, which hadn't happened when she wrote her post, and especially:
"Our agenda is to be funny and sometimes we go too far. And this time we went way too far," Imus said on "The Al Sharpton Show."
Gee, ya think??
"Here's what I've learned: that you can't make fun of everybody, because some people don't deserve it," he said on his show, which is nationally syndicated to millions of listeners. "And because the climate on this program has been what it's been for 30 years doesn't mean that it has to be that way for the next five years or whatever because that has to change, and I understand that."
That's good, because I'm not certain I understand what he just said, unless it was "My producer and I may not be here five more years."
"I'm not a white man who doesn't know any African-Americans," he said.
Some of his best friends? Maybe not, if all he could cite was his ranch where "[t]en percent of the children who come to the ranch are black."
Imus said he hoped to meet the Rutgers players and their parents and coaches, and that he was grateful for the appearance on Sharpton's nationally syndicated show.
"It's not going to be easy, but I'm not looking for it to be easy," Imus said.
That's good. Because if this is the best he can do, in the forum where he had the best chance to redeem himself and time to prepare, then he's going to have to have more interesting guests than Joe Lieberman to survive much longer, no matter how much Howie ignores him.
Labels: Angry Black Bitch, college basketball, Imus, Journamalism, Rutgers
