My Foray Into The Footie

admin | SPORTS | Thursday, June 8th, 2006
8 months or so ago, I decided I’d give soccer a shot. Prior to that, I had been kind of an asshole about the sport… I said it was boring and girly and the rules were dumb… all your standards. Really, it wasn’t that I didn’t like soccer, it’s just that I liked being an asshole in regards to soccer a little bit more. I don’t recall exactly what it was that spurred me to give soccer a real chance. But it didn’t have anything to do with the MLS, Brandi Chastain’s sports bra, or Freddy Adu. But I somehow ended up watching some Saturday morning/afternoon Premiership games with my buddy Danks, and a bearded, drunk Columbian guy who woke up on Danks’ couch around time for kick-off. This all happened at the beginning of this past Premiership season. Going into it, here were some of the things I’d have to overcome: 1) The time situation. I still really don’t understand this one. I don’t know why it’d be such a problem to give fans an idea of when the game is going to end. If there’s four minutes of injury time, fine, put four minutes on the clock, and let’s play until it hits 0:00. How it seems to work, though, is that someone will arbitrarily decide how much more time should be added, and then the ref will blow his whistle whenever the hell he feels like it. 2) The soccer people. This is a big one. My problem is not with the crazed international fans of soccer… but rather, with the American soccer fans who act like they’re more cultured and refined people than any of the unwashed inbred hicks who don’t watch it. They know who they are. They say “football” instead of “soccer,” “kit” instead of “uniform,” “pitch” instead of “field,” and heap scorn upon you if you don’t. And it’s not that it’s at all wrong to say those things, but for these douchebags, it’s what it’s all about. Being different and cool and unique and special because they know terms that you don’t. I don’t even know if they like the sport, they just like being a part of the special soccer fan club. Fuck these people in the auditory canal. I think it’s important to understand that you don’t have to like or become one of these bastards to enjoy soccer. 3) Letting go of my desire to make fun of soccer. It should be the easiest thing, but is probably actually the hardest. It’s just easy to make fun of soccer. I didn’t understand and didn’t attempt to, so when told me about an awesome 1-0 soccer game, I said, “Hey, 1-0, that sounds awesome,” and then called them women. Easy and fun, just like that. And if you have any desire to try and enjoy soccer, you’ve got to drop that completely. Stop looking for things you don’t like. It’s not as easy as it sounds, to clear your mind of all that, especially if you’ve been anti-soccer for a long time. And I was. And if the effort isn’t honest, it’s not going to happen. If you sit down in front of a World Cup game and say, “Fine, I’ll give this damn thing a chance,” and you turn it off after 20 minutes, then all you’ve done is waste twenty minutes. I hate to skip ahead in the story, but it really was as simple as this: I started watching it, and I kind of liked it. And before I get too far ahead of myself, let me just make it clear, in case it isn’t obvious enough, that I’m no soccer expert. I can’t expect to even come close to fully understanding the sport after just one season of viewing. But fortunately, I don’t have to have a complete grasp of the sport to enjoy it. I’m just giving you my experience here, and I’m not claiming it to be anything past that. So with that out of the way, I started watching, and here’s how it went down. And I really hate to sound like one of the guys who are really adamant that you like soccer, because I really don’t care if you do or not, but… the skill and creativity involved in soccer at highest level is pretty staggering. A lot of these guys can control a round ball with their feet as well as you or I could with our hands, and that’s just freakish. A guy like Thierry Henry has a ton of different ways to fake and move the ball, and all of them seem to defy the laws of physics. The things that Ronaldinho can do with a soccer ball, in my opinion, are not exceeded by what Steve Nash can do with a basketball or what Tom Brady can do with a football. Soccer’s also the closest thing to basketball, in my estimation, and you know that I love the basketball. It’s very similar in terms of guys filling individual roles and having to know and stick with those roles. You’ve got your scorers, your playmakers, your defenders, your attacking defenders… and if any of them try to do something outside of their role, the whole play will break down. It’s about getting the ball into position, seeing the field, making smart and accurate passes, taking the best shot you can get, and, when appropriate, letting someone’s individual creativity and talent take over. And if you can start to appreciate that, some of your pre-conceived criticisms disappear. For instance, the time thing. It hasn’t been an issue in a long time. Yes, objectively, it’s still a little bit goofy. But after a while, it’s not an issue… you just accept it as a part and tradition of the game. And instead of a clock deciding that a goal or a point or a touchdown was one-tenth of a second too late, maybe it’s preferable for the ref to just let it get to a reasonable stopping point and blow the whistle himself. And the “low-scoring” criticism, I don’t think is valid. It’s just something that people say because it’s easy to say. It’s an easy shot to take. I don’t believe that Americans reject soccer because the scores are too low. The same people who use a 1-0 score to poke fun are a lot of the same people who will tell you that a 1-0 “pitchers duel” in baseball can be exciting, or that a 6-3 football can be an enthralling “defensive struggle.” And once upon a time in America, there were some hockey fans. I just don’t believe that the lack of scoring is a real issue. If people wanted to adjust to that, they could, without problem. They just choose not to. With all this said, however, there are still some things I don’t like about the game… but none of them are enough to make me dislike the sport as a whole, and I certainly list more than a few things I don’t like about the NFL, NBA, or MLB, too. But here they are: Flopping/diving. Some of these guys make Vlade Divac look like Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull. The flopping is out of hand. And it’s not like NBA flopping. If Erick Dampier flops, he’s back on his feet in three seconds. Soccer players go the extra mile. It takes much less to indunce a flop, and when it happens, they like to lay on the field for six to eight minutes, even after it’s clear they aren’t getting the call. They’ll stop at nothing. A guy will lie there, scream, cry, have a priest come and administer last rights, be carted off in an ambulance, and pretend to not respond when tey use the heart paddles on him, begin funeral planning, and then he’ll be back on the field in 10 minutes without a limp. Pisses me off. When a game is bad… yeah, it’s bad. A match where neither team can sustain a possession is pretty much unwatchable. The ball bouncing back and forth in the midfield, with aimless headers and intercepted passes, nowhere near the goal… that’ll put you to sleep. I guess you could say this for any sport, but… bad soccer is really bad. I do recommend, if you’re going to try to give soccer a chance, that you watch the highest level possible. A word on hooliganism. And obviously, I don’t approve of the violence committed by crazy bastard “soccer fans.” And that’s the issue… the hooliganism really doesn’t have anything to do with soccer. When gangs of British hooligans brawl, they’re not brawling to defend the honor of their team, or out of any real disagreement… they really just like to get liquored up and fight. And hey, who doesn’t? Would it really shock anyone if the SEC decided to adopt the idea of “firms” of violent hooligans? A group of 40 Vols fans meeting 40 Gator fans behind a barn somehwere and going toe-to-toe with fists and clubs… that has to have happened at some point. Instead of the media calling it soccer violence, I’d rather they just covered it as a whole other sport. Have standings and everything. So that’s where I am: still with a few minor issues, but still learning and very much enjoying. And if you’re one of the 90% or so of readers that hate soccer, or don’t want to give it a chance, I’m certainly not trying to tell you that you should like soccer, or that you’re dumb if you don’t. If you don’t like it, I’m sure you have your reasons. Certainly, not all sports appeal to me. But I do believe that a lot more of you could be soccer fans if you wanted to give it a real chance. But, like I said… it’s not my intention to push you in that direction. Just letting you know that the option exists, and it might not be quite as intolerable as you think.

ESPN Will Repeat Damn Near Anything You Put On Your Blog

admin | SPORTS | Thursday, June 8th, 2006
ESPN is starting to slip a little bit on their attention to detail. Yesterday on PTI, Kornheiser and Wilbon were talking about how Kobe Bryant will be doing an advice column in the LA Times. They talked about it, made some jokes, and Tony did say, “We don’t know if this is true or not,” but they were treating it very seriously. Well, Tony, I know if it’s true or not. I 100% sure that it’s not true. How do I know this? Because the person who wrote the thing also wrote just below it “This was a joke.” That’s what tipped me off. I lack the resources of the ESPN research department, but I was able, through some of my own determination and sluething skills, to determine that this was not true. Worldwide Leader, huh? In what, not being able to read? I understand that people make mistakes, and I’ve done some dumb things here, but… hey, I’m not ESPN. That’s a big one. And it’s not really that someone fooled them, either. The person at LakersTalk.net, where ESPN picked the story up, was just fucking around. It was not an attempt to pull a fast one. He was making a joke. It’s been up on the site for 7 days, and for six of those days, it has said, “This was a joke” directly underneath it. And ESPN just got to it yesterday. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but it’s just so hard for me to believe that ESPN bit on this. Just completely asleep at the wheel in Bristol. I’m sure that the LakersTalk.net person expected only a few chuckles from his/her own readers, and that was it. It must’ve been a hell of a shock to see it on ESPN a few days later. I’m expecting a PTI bit next week about how Flip Saunders owns a turtle that’s capable of writing letters sometime next week.

Hey, Ted Nolan?s Getting A Job

admin | SPORTS | Thursday, June 8th, 2006
The New York Islanders, never afraid to make a splash, are hiring former Rangers GM Neil Smith as their new GM, and Ted Nolan as their head coach. Well, this is good news. Almost a decade overdue, but hey… here’s another chance for Ted Nolan. He was fired in ‘97 after winning the Coach of the Year award in Buffalo, and has since been blackballed. He had a beef with his GM in Buffalo, John Muckler, and got labeled as a GM-killer. And hockey’s old boy network has had it in for him since. It’s been so long, in fact, that I have vague recollections of being a hockey fan at around the time it happened. So, good for him. I’m happy he’s finally back in the league, and I’ll be rooting for him… as much as anyone can actually root for a coach without actually watching his games.

I Guess Sports Economists Will Always Have A Job?

admin | SPORTS | Wednesday, June 7th, 2006
My favorite principles teacher used to start all of his "real world" lessons with, "I guess economists will always have a job." He would then use a modern example that economists had beaten up in earlier episodes, but the example was still there anyway. Looks like the same is true for sports economists. Witness this article in The Tennessean about UT women's basketball coach Pat Summit cracking the $1 million mark. We start with: "Let's say your business is barely scraping by, turning a profit of less than $30,000 last year. But the board of directors votes to give the boss a raise to $1.125 million next year. Does this make sense? Of course not. But this is intercollegiate athletics, where dollars and sense often fail to merge." As I've posted and discussed before, and as many sports economists have continued to reiterate, you don't look for the returns of the division of a company (women's basketball in the UT athletic department) just on that division's own bottom line. First, there is no profit incentive in the true sense of that word so all sports have the incentive to plow their revenues back into their own activity. Second, women's sports have contributions that simply are not captured by their net revenue. Not the least of these is Title IX compliance; failure to comply (even though enforcement is pretty weak) puts hundreds of millions of dollars at risk at most major universities so that the coach's MRP doesn't rest only on winning and net revenue. Then we get the report that Summit makes more than the UT men's basketball coach even though the men's team "cleared" over $1 million. But why stop there? The article also reports that the UT football program cleared almost $20 million and that coach "only" gets about $2 million. More of the same awful accounting from the economic perspective and a complete failure to note that most of that money is earned at the expense of players that don't receive pay beyond their in-kind (and typically zero marginal cost) tuition/room and board subsidy. Sigh. But the worst is yet to come, and I'm not picking on the author of this article because it's just an example of widespread economic illiteracy (or purposeful shenanigans to confuse sports consumers). The author speculates that the UT program is headed toward a truly thorny issue of which coach to pay the most, especially given the coaching market salary pressures: "Problems lie ahead. Pearl (the new and highly successful men's basketball coach) is on the fast track. With his coaching style and salesman personality, he will become a hot commodity for top-level programs in upcoming years, which will force UT to up the ante to keep him. When that time comes, will the Vols' powers-that-be feel compelled to keep Summitt's salary in line with Pearl's? It is no secret that there is an arms race in college athletics. But UT has an arms race of its own." (I added the parenthetical for clarity.) I won't go into the reasons I've enumerated previously about this "arms race" nonsense. The truly insidious problem here is that if it is said often enough, it comes to be believed. [Remember the urban legend claiming that domestic violence increases during Super Bowl weekends?] Maybe somebody should write something from the economic perspective laying all of this bull**** to rest; Oh, that's right, I already have (Chapter 13 in my textbook Sports Economics). But I guess my ol' professor was right. We will always have a job.

Short England

admin | SPORTS | Wednesday, June 7th, 2006
There are many betting pools for the outcome of the World Cup. The enthusiasm in England is so high, I can't imagine they haven't overbid the price of an England win. My best guess is to short England. But then the enthusiam is probably equally high in other countries. I wonder if there is enough slack in the betting markets around the world that there are opportunities for arbitraging the bets internationally.... The betting lines are different, but I don't know enough about these markets to know whether the odds are different enough to compensate for the transaction costs in placing myriad bets with different agencies. Here's the BBC link for one the pool that got me interested in this topic. [h/t to Brian Ferguson]. Interestingly, Tradesports.com has England as the second-highest favourite among the bettors, behind Brazil. In contrast, a projection reported in The Observer last weekend ranked the English team only 9th in expected probability of winning the world cup; it also ranked the French team second, saying it is much stronger than people were giving them credit for, and that Brazil, despite being the strong favourite, is perhaps not such a strong favourite as many make them out to be. That prediction, based on expected goals for and expected goals against, gave Brazil only a 13% chance of winning the World Cup this year. [The article is titled, "P(n) = λne-λ over n! is the formula for World Cup success"]
Decision Technology, a firm of prediction experts who claim to be the best in the business, has invented a computer program that boasts a better record than any bookmaker, pundit or sports tipster. While most bookmakers rank England as second favourites behind Brazil to land football's greatest prize, Dectech ranks Sven-Goran Eriksson's side [i.e. England] ninth in the list it has produced to estimate the chance each of the 32 teams has of lifting the trophy. Brazil have the highest probability at 13.1 per cent.In a statement that will not readily make the first line of a new football chant, Dr Henry Stott, firm director and visiting fellow at Warwick University, said: 'Our modelling technique involves maximum likelihood estimation and a kind of rational probabilistic analysis to predict what the outcome of a match will be.' The computer has studied the scorelines of 4,500 games between 200 countries since 2002 and come up with forecasts for every match at the initial group stage. 'England have an easy group and so an 80 per cent chance of reaching the knockout stages. After that the games against tough opposition such as Germany and Argentina come thick and fast. That's why we have made them only ninth favourites to win. With or without Wayne Rooney,' said Stott. If the system is as accurate as its inventors claim - it has correctly called 53 per cent of Premiership matches since 2002, better than anyone else - fans can stop relying on hunches, advice from friends and listening, for example, to newspaper tipsters, who score a measly 43 per cent. Stott says anyone seeking to make a profit on events in Germany should back France, Holland or the Czech Republic, whose chances, he says, have been underestimated. According to Stott and his colleagues, a combination of science and mathematics shows that, after Brazil, the next nearest favourites are France, who did not score a goal at the last World Cup, Germany, who [sic] even Germans admit are an unexceptional team, and Holland.
Digression: Recently Ms. Eclectic and I wanted to buy some English flags to hang in the window of our flat and saw some we liked in a storefront, so we went in to buy them. It turned out the storefront was a betting parlour, and we had to place five-quid bets each in order to receive a "free" flag. Believing that England and Germany had been overpriced here in England, she bet on Brazil and I chose the Czech Republic to win the World Cup.
« Previous PageNext Page »