Wednesday, December 1, 2010
4:20 pm
Daniel J. Summers
This post has grown out of a discussion I had with a friend over on Facebook, regarding the BCS vs. deciding the championship on the field. I said that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with something better, and below is an expansion of the remainder of that comment.
All bowls must occur by January 1st. I'm still undecided about whether playoff contenders still play in a bowl, but I'm leaning toward yes, as this leaves the “season” as close to its current incarnation as possible. Once these final rankings come out, the AP top 16 qualify for the playoffs.
Beginning the weekend after New Year's Day, there will be regional playoffs for the rounds of 16 and 8, then a final four that rotates from year to year; the higher seeds (1-8) go to the regional closest to them that has a spot open. All playoff venues will be NFL facilities, to avoid any team playing on their home field. This would also have to take into consideration teams who make the NFL playoffs, so they won't lose the use of their home field to use for practice. For the South/East, some venues would be the Georgia Dome (Atlanta) or Raymond James Stadium (Tampa); the West could play at Qualcomm Field (San Diego) or Candlestick Park (San Francisco); the Midwest could play at Cowboys Stadium (Dallas), Soldier Field (Chicago), Reliant Stadium (Houston), or Invesco Field (Denver). For the championship, I foresee NFL stadiums bidding for a chance to host the Final 4, similar to the way cities bid on the NCAA basketball Final 4.
The round of 16 would feature the lower seeds on Friday night, and the higher seeds on Saturday; the following week, the winners would play (staggered Friday/Saturday among regions, to maximize TV time). The round of 4 would play lower seeds on Friday, higher seeds on Saturday, with the championship the following Saturday. This will wrap up the college champion by the end of January, in plenty of time for the Super Bowl, which is usually the first or second weekend in February.
So, how would this play out this year? As of this writing, we would have:
West Regional - Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego, CA
Friday - #12 Virginia Tech vs. #5 Stanford
Saturday - #16 Oklahoma State vs. #1 Oregon
South/East Regional - Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, FL
Friday - #9 Boise State vs. #8 Arkansas
Saturday - #15 Missouri vs. #2 Auburn
Midwest Regional 1 - Invesco Field, Denver, CO
Friday - #11 LSU vs #6 Ohio State
Saturday - #13 Nebraska vs. #4 Wisconsin
Midwest Regional 2 - Cowboys Stadium, Dallas, TX
Friday - #16 Oklahoma vs. #7 Michigan State
Saturday - #14 Nevada vs. #3 TCU
I don't really see a whole lot wrong with any of these pairings. Nevada/TCU? LSU/Ohio State? Boise/Arkansas? I don't even follow those schools, but those would be some sweet games. And, throw in a few upsets, and there are some really good college football games in the month of January. Boise State and TCU still get to play for the championship; failing to win your conference championship doesn't necessarily keep you from getting a shot at the national championship. Any of these 16 teams could win the championship, by winning 4 games in a row.
I don't know if we're ready for college teams with records like 18-0 (what Auburn's record would be if they won out - 12 regular season games, 1 conference championship, 1 bowl, and 4 playoff games). But, as a college football fan, I'd sure love to stop hearing about “BCS Busters” year after year. (It would also make Tim Brando and Rece Davis find something else to talk about.)
Friday, February 5, 2010
10:04 pm
Daniel J. Summers
The results are below, but first, the set up…
January 5th, 2010 was the first day back to work for me after the new year. I decided to put the radio on 91.5, which is our local Family Life Radio station. They were advertising a 30-Day Challenge - listen only to that radio station for 30 days. At the time, I didn't commit to it, but I thought “Eh, I'll give it a shot.” I only drive about 10 minutes one way to work, but driving home at lunch and back, then home for good in the afternoon, we start getting into some real time. At these times, they are generally playing music, or the DJs are discussing the topic of the day. A few weeks in, I befriended Dan Rosecrans, the local morning host, on Facebook. (He just recently got a national show on Sundays, playing praise music; congratulations, Dan!)
They also have talk programs. At work, I generally listen to podcasts or music from my computer, as I can't just tell people “Leave me alone - I'm listening to my radio program!” At my wife's suggestion, I subscribed to Intentional Living. They were doing a series of “If I Could Do It All Over Again” shows on different topic. Those weren't really doing much for me, and I asked my wife about her experience. She suggested I wait it out, as it was a show that she really enjoyed. She was right; I now wholeheartedly recommend it. I also, through driving my oldest son to scouts, heard Focus on the Family's daily broadcast. I wasn't new to FOTF at all, but I heard part of a show that interested me, and subscribed to their podcast as well. Their feed has about 4 months of recent episodes, and they have been hitting home runs every week! So, even when I wasn't listening to FLR, I was listening to a few of their shows, in a way where I wouldn't miss any of it.
The results…
The first week, it actually seemed like more things were going wrong than right. Work was stressful, home was stressful, and I wasn't handling it well in either place. Over the next few weeks, though, I began to have peace. The problems didn't go away, but I now have peace within them. More challenges have been thrown at me, and I'm not going to air a dirty laundry list, but in all of it, I have a peace about everything that is going on. Of course, that doesn't mean that I'm not trying to work through the problems and make them better; but, when I do what I believe God is telling me to do, I don't have to stress about the results - those are His problems now.
Even now, just shortly removed from them, I can see where some of these challenges (even those in the first week) have worked together for good, to help me address struggles that I've had as long as I can remember. 2010 is going to be an outstanding year, and FLR is a resource I'm going to keep.
Friday, October 9, 2009
12:00 pm
Daniel J. Summers
This week has been the 2009 Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta. I've been “live-photo-blogging” the event when I go, and uploading the pictures to Facebook. The album is public - even if you're not on Facebook, you can still view the album.
The final live photos will probably be Sunday morning during the farewell mass ascension, from 0700-0900 MDT. Hope you enjoy them!
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
10:12 pm
Daniel J. Summers
I made a Facebook status update earlier today where I said I hoped that the mismanaged “Cash for Clunkers” program (C4C hereafter) had caused some people to think about whether they wanted the same people in charge of their health care. Of course, with the limited space for status updates, and my double-dose of verbosity (which is genetic, I thnk), I really didn't have room to flesh out my thoughts on the matter.
A review would be in order here. C4C is a government program that gives incentives for people to trade in cars deemed older and less fuel-efficient on a new car that is more fuel-efficient. A consumer group has a FAQ. A controversial provision of this bill is that these trade-ins must be completely destroyed - no parts can be salvaged at all, no tires, no body parts, nothing. One of my Facebook friends described the process they used - drain the oil, replace it with water, and run the engine until it seizes up. Anyway, this program was funded at $1 billion to go from July 24th to November 1st of this year. Yet, a short week later, the news begins to break that the program is almost out of money. There is talk of adding another $2 billion - that's $3 billion of our tax dollars to buy and destroy perfectly functional cars, because they don't fit someone's idea of a “good car.”
Regarding the way these cars are being destroyed - this is the classic broken window fallacy, the economic theory that says that vandalism is good for the economy. A boy breaks a window; the shopkeeper must get it replaced. This benefits the window maker, which can benefit others in turn. However, the fallacy is that it does not look at what the money that the shopkeeper had to use to fix the window might have otherwise been used to do. For example, while the window maker advances, the shoe maker and baker, who might have received the money the shopkeeper would have spent, are hurt. (As an aside - wouldn't it be better to keep the window maker in business by providing windows for new business? Oops - that was the greedy capitalist in me.)
Now, let's look at the health care issue. Nearly every proposal I've heard coming from Washington decries the number of uninsured people in this country, how much we pay for health care, and how bad the insurance companies are. There are many ways to go about this; I'll look at each of these in turn. As we do, keep in mind what happened to the “bad” cars in C4C.
We hear bad, bad things about the number of uninsured Americans - the latest numbers have it about 47 million. That's a lot, right? Maybe, but maybe not. One thing that these stats do not take into account is the number of people who choose to be uninsured. Many college students are uninsured by choice (or by lack of giving it a thought - that would have been me right after high school!). The census bureau said that the number of college students was 15.9 million in 2004. How about single people? I certainly didn't worry about health insurance when I was single. The census bureau said in 2007 that of the 92 million single people, 60% had never been married at all, and 15 million were over 65. Certainly not all of these are without insurance, but a good many may very well choose not to have it. That leaves the ones that can't afford it - we'll look at ways to make it more affordable in our third point.
Next up is how much we pay for health care. Yes, just like our military prowess, America is #1 in the world at spending per-capita on health care. We are also #1 in the world at medical advances and technology. These things do not come for free - what is the incentive for a company to develop the newest bang-up drug if they aren't going to be able to make enough money on it to fund the research it took to develop it? Altruism may be nice, but it doesn't put food on the table. While the exchange of money for services seems to be distasteful to some people, you'll look long and hard to find a better motivator. Why do doctors put themselves through years and years of education after most people are already out working? For a few, they may just love their fellow man that much, but for the most part, it's that American dream of making it, and having the things they want. How does one acquire things? Money.
All this talk about money brings us to those evil, horrible insurance companies. I've dealt with them just as many of you have, and it's frustrating to have things denied because a t wasn't crossed or an i dotted. However, let's look at what we expect from insurance. Does homeowner's insurance cover carpet cleaning, painting inside and out, and re-weatherstripping the windows? Does auto insurance cover oil changes, new tires, detailing, and radio upgrades? Then why must any health insurance cover check-ups? The litany of required services on some insurance providers is astounding - and, the consumer has no choice. I don't think I could go to a state in the Union and get an insurance plan that didn't cover maternity; as a male, I really don't think that's coverage I need. People view health insurance completely different from any other insurance. Why is it that, if something exists, people think that their health insurance should cover it? Some of these treatments or experimental procedures weren't even in existence when the policy was written, but people think that they're entitled to them.
This is where affordability comes in. Let insurance companies customize plans, so that people can buy just what they want (catastrophic coverage, for example) and exclude what they don't (TMJ). End the ridiculous “discounted rate” on the billing - doctors have artificially raised their rates because they know that, for the most part, their patients' insurance will only pay a portion of it. The price should be the same for someone paying out-of-pocket as it is for the insurance companies. (Back to auto insurance, does Ford offer Allstate a discount? Yeah right.)
What happens with this is the regular free-market benefits. First, the availability of health care goes up, because the people who opted out of “hypochondriac” coverage will not take up a doctor's time for every sneeze and sniffle. Second, there is an incentive for providers to get into the business, as the playing field is more level and less laden with red tape. Third, people will be so happy that we'll never have to hear about this ridiculous socialized health care mess ever again! (Well, okay, maybe that last one is a stretch.)
Now, let's look at C4C health care. You'll have politicians and government paper-pushers determining what's covered and what isn't, with their decisions holding the force of law. The thresholds will be hard - the qualifying line is drawn in the cement as it hardens. It will cost 10 times what “they” estimate - at least. Wait times will be through the roof, as anyone who qualifies for something will get in line for it, whether they need it or not. Over five or ten years, there will be a shortage of providers, because doctors will decide that law is a much more lucrative field. And, one of the founding principles of our nation will have been sacrificed on the altar of good intentions.
This is the first time my blog and Facebook accounts have crossed. If you're not a member of Facebook, you may not know exactly what I'm talking about. However, you know my enjoyment of economic discussions, and this is a good learning opportunity.
Recently, several of my Facebook friends joined a group called “We Will Not Pay for Facebook.” They're not alone - this group boasts over 4.4 million members. The group had articles referring to the profit that the current owner is making on the site, and various purchase offers. Then there was this…
Because of Facebook's huge popularity Mark Zuckerberg is getting a lot of offers from people wanting to buy Facebook. People Who WILL turn it into a paysite.
The assumption here is that if anyone buys the service, they will change it to a pay site. This is FUD*, and to illustrate this, we'll look at Facebook compared to another site, Classmates.
What makes Facebook valuable is its large (and exponentially growing) user base. Facebook can charge advertisers a premium for ads placed there, and if they make it paid-per-view, they make even more money, because they get lots of eyes on them. There are people who, like me, pay for very few websites (the only one I'm currently paying to use is Geocaching), and were Facebook a pay site, would not have signed up it. With this high user base, and high business value, comes the innovation - while few people I know like the new “stream” home page, there are things that Facebook can do that few other sites can match.
Contrast this with Classmates - this site has been up longer than Facebook, does pretty much the same thing as Facebook, yet is nowhere near as hot a commodity or as valuable a business as Facebook. Why is this? The fee model. Classmates requires a fee for an account (or at least they did when I looked at them, which hasn't been recently).
If someone bought Facebook and changed it to a fee model, it would kill the business value of the site. Sure, you'd have people who got addicted to the free stuff and would pay to maintain their addiction, but you'd have other people (myself included) who would simply let the account go. I have other ways of doing pretty much anything that site can do. It's nice to have it all in one place, but it's not worth $3.95/mo to me. All this would severely stifle the growth of the site, thereby reducing its business value.
If this happened, there would then be demand - demand for another free bring-it-all-together social networking site. The entire science of economics is defined as the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Demand causes resources to be allocated - whether it was “iShare,” or “Friends and Family,” or “Facepedia,” some other site would sprout up that would provide the services that Facebook used to provide.
That being said - I don't see Facebook going to a fee model, whether it changes hands or not. It just doesn't make economic sense. And, if the owners decide to go that route, it still won't be a big deal, as something else will rise up to replace it. Don't believe the FUD. :)