"The Cuban Affair": Review

 In doing research for this book Nelson Demille visited Cuba, probably shortly after the Obama administration tried to normalize relations. I didn’t check to see how long he was there but it is a safe assumption he spend at least a week or more. His detail of the roads and layout of the city is impressive, not only in Havana but also some of the other spots.

The Cuban Affair builds intrigue slowly, revealing just enough about the mission to keep anyone interested.

His hero is a retired Army officer named Daniel McCormick (Mac) who owns a charter boat in Key West that he uses to take fishing groups on excursions in the Gulf. One day a wealthy businessman offers him a chance of a lifetime. Through a series of events, he is to join a tour group from the states, under an assumed identity, and bring back some secret documents and money. He is joined by a Cuban American woman (Sara Ortega) who helps him get around the country What could go wrong?

 Despite the risks he agrees to the terms. A fishing tournament off the shores of Cayo Guillermo serves as the opening for a way to get the hidden loot from its hiding spot in Cuba to Mac’s boat just off the coast. It’s a risky stunt and we are never sure what the real value of the hidden treasure is. Like any good story it unfolds a little at a time, never giving too much away and continually raising the stakes.

Mac has a grouchy old partner who enters the fishing tournament while Mac and Sara join an official tour group as a way to get into the country.

I’ve always like the way Demille writes dialogue. The story unfolds from the mind of the lead and the reader sees the plot develop around them. This puts us in the head of the main character, what he is really thinking. It’s funny too.

Sara: “I want to do it now…in case I don’t get back”.

 Mac: “In that case it doesn’t matter”

Sara: “Yes…but…it’s the right thing to do. Even if you cheat, you shouldn’t lie.”

Really? I though lying and cheating went together. But maybe Catholics need to confess. 

Mac: “Let’s decide tomorrow.”

Demille’s leads are sarcastic and pepper the story with one-liners and inside jokes. And since he writes from first person (mostly) we follow the plot from Mac’s point of view.

The story isn't forced since Mac isn’t political or passionate about causes. He doesn’t preach to us about the cruelty of the Cuban police state, he lets the story develop that way and leave no doubt. It’s sympathetic to anti-Communists and harsh with citizen informants “los chivatos” who are really just stand-ins for the police. They report suspicious activity regarding foreigners. 

I’ve always thought there was too much romanticism surrounding Cuba from Americans. Partly because of Ernest Hemingway (he had a home there) and partly because of the “What might have been?” aspect of almost 60 year embargo. This book will not make anyone think the US made a mistake in slamming the door to trade on the Castros. It keeps the history pretty light assumes readers understand how the island came to be run by thugs. 

The Cuban Affair blames the decay of the country as the fault of the leaders only, not of the citizens trying to scrape by on $20 a month.

What results is an adventure with plenty of romance, scuttled plans and an impressive knowledge of the city layout in Havana.

Who Owns the Tip?

What is the purpose behind the tip at a restaurant? Is it the friendly attitude and ‘can-I-help-you’ demeanor of the waiter or waitress? Does it depend on how long it took to cook that “extra anchovy” pizza? Is the food quality the reason, or is it all decorum and timing?

I guess everyone has an imaginary sliding scale in their head on what determines a fair tip. Since the service is what I notice first, I tend to weigh it higher than food quality. Everyone is different though. 

The one thing most people know about the restaurant business is that competition is fierce. That Korean BBQ place you like might go belly up in a few years, that local deli with the perfect Ruben might be close to bankruptcy. Even profitable ones are often one slow season from shutting the doors forever. The reasons are pretty simple. Alternatives exist and even most small cities have a handful of options for dinning out. From steak houses to Applebees and everything in between, this country is chock full of places to gorge. Owners decide daily on how to cut costs and remain profitable. One measure is in salary for employees whether wait staff, cooks or bus workers. Retaining good cooks, especially at swanky places, is imperative for offering top quality. With such tight profit margins owners are sometimes forced to use tip pooling schemes to pad the salaries of everyone.

Understandably this doesn’t sit well with servers. At least in those cases where they are used to tips as a part of their income, a ‘pooling’ requirement would undercut their totals. Currently the Department of Labor is considering tossing out the Obama era’s policy that make’s pooling illegal. The existing law bars restaurant owners from using server tips as a means to pay cooks, bartenders and bus boys for their labor. President Trump’s proposal would overturn that requirement, giving owners total control over payroll. At its core, this law gives owners the freedom to make choices in the best interest of their businesses.

 Without the freedom to make payroll choices though restaurants may find themselves quickly out of business. The best option for any company trying to survive is to make choices that fit their model and make sure everyone working there understands it.

Some businesses get around the pooling law by adding a percentage fee (10%) to the total bill after the sales tax. That way half the tip (assuming a 20% gratuity) is already spoken for. It usually gets added to a salary fund and divided among the ‘back of the room’ staff like cooks. This does seem a bit like taking money from the servers, but again it depends on what the tip represents. Is it a reward for excellent service, or payment for a great meal and wonderful experience? If the former, than steeling the server’s income is what it feels like. If the latter, than the staff shares in the reward due to everyone.

I think the old model of servers getting the whole portion of the tip is on the way out, probably has been for a while. I never think to ask when eating out “How exactly is my tip being spent?” but most establishments have probably figured out what works best for them by now. I imagine if too many dine in places go the pooling route, good wait service will see a huge drop off. That’s the downside. Removing the incentive for great service means removing great service. There is some question as to how much of a link there is between customer care and tip percentage. Most people put down between 15% and 20% for even mediocre service; Acting ‘extra nice’ to paying customers doesn’t seem to garner a higher percentage.

I don’t want to live in a country that doesn’t prize customer service though.

 US companies generally prize customer service, this is especially true for dinning out. I went to Ireland a few years ago and ate nearly every meal out, some at fast food short order places and some at proper dining restaurants. In the short week I was there I noticed that places used to hosting foreigners had decent to good service. One place even cooked for us after the kitchen had closed from catering an all-day wedding. The burger and fry joints were universally bad though, the service was worse than an 8 hour license check at the DMV. Slow moving workers, forgetful cashiers and bland (really bland) food were the norm. “For the love of taste, has anyone ever heard of seasoning salt!?”

The best incentive in customer service is money. I like a culture that emphasizes taking care of paying customers. We shouldn’t take away that importance altogether even if it means the dinning business has to rethink some core methods for paying its help.

FirstPrinciples believes a one size fits all approach to paying workers is bad business and hurts those with a unique model and a varied customer base. Let enterprising owners decide how to hire and pay their own staff according to the model best suited. Who can say what creative marketing ploy they might devise anyway to attract hungry diners. If tipping wait staff for excellent service is what customers want, use it as a selling point for your new venture. “Waiters get to take home any extra tips” as a model, might just work for a large enough segment of your city’s foodies. It would certainly attract good servers eager to earn higher rates than the competition.

For exactly the same reasons I was against the smoking ban for restaurants over twenty years ago. Some places cater to smokers. It seemed silly to insist they all ban it. Don’t like working in a smoke filled dinner? Don’t. You don’t like eating in a restaurant with a smoking section? Don’t. There were plenty of places going smoke free before the ‘ban’. Let owners decide which (smoking or non) is a better fit.

Putting one size fits all regulations on company restricts their ability to compete. Put choice before out dated requirements. 

  

Renewing the Mind

I read this article on Michael Phelps today where he opened up about his depression. The article pulled a quote from an interview where he said “I am extremely thankful that I did not take my life”. I know these athlete profiles are generous and promotional but if you dig deeper into the answers he gave, a sense of profound sadness emerges. It’s important because it proves that people who are famous for greatness are often as sad and lonely as those who aren’t great. He is a phenomenal swimmer and holds nearly every record available in Olympic competition, but even he struggled with depression. The article doesn’t get into much beyond basic questions about his mental state in his competitive years but it’s helpful none the less.

I think depression is more common than a lot of people think. I don’t mean that everyone is in need of medication but a level of sadness runs through the current of everyday life in America. It’s difficult to generalize about the reasons, I imagine a good bit of it stems from an idea that we can have it all, wealth, happiness and love without hard work. We are conditioned to strive for excellence and self-fulfillment. We aren’t content to just enjoy and relax in casual happiness, time with family, a great meal, a sunny day.

Success should be a result of diligence and persistence. Instead it becomes the goal, the measure of who we are. The anxiety it creates is overwhelming and can lead to depression.  

 One culprit is the availability of options. “You can be anything you want and do anything in America” is a basically true axiom, but not everyone is suited for certain careers. Our physiological makeup and intelligence determine a big chunk.  Kids who struggle with math shouldn’t become engineers and quiet anti-social types shouldn’t go into sales. We do live in a very open society with never before choices available to us. A lot of the old barriers and exclusivity corners (Ivy league networks, racial restrictions) are crumbling. The ‘choice’ narrative is a powerful idea and often promotes options that aren’t really options at all. Most success is earned, a bedrock characteristic of achievers.

 Being great at anything requires a staggering amount of mental toughness and perseverance. Exceptions to the rule exist and get promoted ahead of conventional notions. The Kardashians and kids of famous musicians/actors are mostly just familiar because they are on TV, a lot. This image of popularity supports the underlying belief that anyone can do it. Nothing against overnight sensations but those are extreme cases and most people won’t find success that way.

Also, popularity isn’t success. Reality TV and YouTube have certainly boosted popularity of some deserving and not so deserving, stars. Young kids often want to be popular because it feels like a shortcut. Most people will figure out at some point that hard work and persistence are endemic to success. Hard work is hard. In a lot of cases, depression is an outgrowth of the phenomenon that says anyone can be popular. When reality hits and we realize popularity is rare, it plants a seed of doubt in everything we are. We start to disbelieve that we can offer anything substantive to those around us. We aim too high at first and instead of starting with excellence at a low level, say being a reliable employee, we disappoint ourselves.  

I don’t imagine that everyone wants to be an international pop star or a famous athlete, but we do want to matter. We want our own sense of significance and influence and getting there feels hopeless. The hopelessness surrounding big dreams leads to hopelessness in small endeavors. Suddenly we struggle to go to work and take care of our lives. The mood swings become frequent as we see, what we assume, are friends everywhere living the good life as we struggle to just pay bills. Without a dramatic re-think the sadness can become ugly and poisonous to those around us, the ones we love.

The only true re-think I’ve found is to study the Bible and discover what Christ says about us. The message of Christ is all about purpose and significance, selflessness demonstrated by a perfect man. Only by putting our ambition and happiness aside will we discover the importance of salvation for all. It turns our self-centered attitude into an others first attitude toward friends, family and strangers. The effort to transform thinking (renewing the mind) feels awkward since our previous journey has been singularly focused on self. It is rewarding though. The dark clouds of mental anxiety begin to lift when we spend time offering help to those in need. It can be as straightforward as helping a friend move or giving food to homeless men and women. 

Also, in pursuing friendships based on support instead of network we find meaning and hope. 

The best part is that by living a life for others we get the happiness and peace we so often strive for. By not striving we find joy. 

Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. Romans 12:2 (Holman)

On Immigration for America

The President supposedly called Haiti an “s-hole” country. Actually it wasn’t clear which country specifically he meant since it was reported second hand by Congressional members who met with him last week to hash out details on the upcoming legislation. No Republicans (at least then) argued the specifics of Trump’s comments so it is a pretty safe bet that he said it. It certainly wouldn’t be out of character for the 45^th president to talk about anyone crudely, it’s kind of his MO. The ensuing criticism from the press was typically shocked, annoyed, incredulous.

Whatever the context of his arguments he seems to step on the main thrust by being rude and dismissive. Let me try to make his case instead.

 He was elected on the promise of building a wall and drawing a hard line on illegal immigration. Because of his bluntness voters reasoned his motives were genuine and enough Americans felt our borders are (and were) unacceptably porous. Too many attempts to create workable immigration quotas and restrictions fell flat in 2007 because it always included some type of amnesty. Even when work visas and penalty taxes got introduced as part of a broad framework the plans always failed. Phones rang off the hook at congressional offices during the Bush (43) years from angry voters demanding a wall along the southern border.

I thought then, and I do now, that if a wall were build and tough restrictions put in place Americans would settle for some type of work visa for illegals already in country. But security always takes a back seat to amnesty. We never trusted congress to complete their promise of building a wall after the work visas were in place. That’s why voters were so belligerent over the issue and pushed Trump ahead in 2016. He talks tough on security, terrorism and illegal immigration. All of this played to the one issue (illegal immigration) voters felt they could never get a solid deal on. President Trump is an imperfect vessel for curbing immigration (among other things) but he is also the only vessel. But he is plowing ahead on his promise (so far) to put up a wall because that’s what got him there. He knows it.

Immigration isn’t an all or nothing issue the way it is often portrayed. Either you are for open borders and with no quotas or you’re a nativist who hates brown people. Countries have a right to increase their numbers as well as decrease them based on whichever criteria are deemed important at the time. They are determined like every other issue. We vote on them. Immigration is a truly national issue since Montana and Minnesota can’t decide how many Canadians to give citizenship to. Neither can Texas establish plans to open the border to Mexico and South America.

Federal power is absolute on the borders.

Immigration falls into a couple of problem categories; drugs and crime, welfare state increases, and terrorism. On the first one, our own drug demand is the real problem and not something foisted on us by those “tricky SOBs” in South America. Sorry America, this one is your own doing. Supply and demand explains it. Resource rich countries with poor industry like Columbia will sell to cash rich decadent ones like the US. Customs officers restrict when possible but this is a massive country with an expensive addiction. Enforcement is extremely difficult. Without checking any figures I’d say it is responsible for most of the violence in Mexico. It should be a sobering thought to every American who uses illegal drugs.

The second big issue is with giveaways in food stamps, housing and education to illegal immigrants. Understandably the first few years in a new country are tough financially even for legal immigrants. Most people take whatever help is offered. Who can blame them? But countries with tax burdens for an increasingly stretched safety net cannot survive by doling out generous subsidies year after year. Paying citizens won’t support it because their burden will continue to go up. It isn’t just a math problem either. There is something morally wrong about keeping people in poverty through government transfers. It keeps the cycle of poverty turning. It isn’t just illegal immigrants; this is a problem for poor Americans too.

There is a trade-off for permitting ‘off the books’ type work. Labor intensive industries like farming and hospitality get to pay low wages and stay competitive which keeps prices on bread and hotel rooms affordable. That’s the benefit. The cost is in the welfare and service costs to maintain living conditions. That includes food stamps, Medicaid, Social Security and housing just to name a few. Even if the benefits outweighed the costs, which they don’t, it would be bad policy to encourage such future dependency.

The third issue is terrorism. On terrorism the plan is pretty straightforward and requires diligence on particular countries in the Middle East. The truth is most of them are Muslim majority countries and even without the religious difference from Christianity, the culture is very different. Of course many followers of Islam will (and do) make great citizens and run successful business. At some crucial level, large increases in the populations create problems for democracy. Talk of incorporating Sharia Law with American legal norms has already begun.

The President’s ‘ban’ on selected Middle East countries was roundly criticized. But it ignored the fact that the US (and any country) has the right to restrict immigration even when it seems mean spirited and targeted. Follow the news in most European cities where Muslim migrants have emigrated and a picture of conflict appears-between liberal democracy and religious fervor.

Assimilation is a dirty word in our hypersensitive mindset but the process is critical to maintaining unity. Because of some ham-fisted attempts in our history (think Native Americans) we have a bad reference point for it. Assimilation is just a respect for the laws and customs of the host country, including language. American citizens are different in temperament, history, political leanings, and religion. To say nothing of the incredible mixing of ethnicities spread from coast to coast. The similar thread is democracy and capitalism with an underlying Constitution supported by Judeo-Christian principles. Each citizen pursuing happiness generally leads to cooperation and civility.

Wealthy places will always be a draw for those looking to get rich, escape poverty and pursue free expression. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a large number poor people seek a life in the US. It has been this way since before the big immigration boom in early twentieth century.

 I wouldn’t say our strength is because of our immigrant populations through the years, but it is a defining characteristic of the American experience. Our strength is in our liberties and the laws put in place to guard them. As long as we stay true to our values, immigration should remain an important part of who we are. Without unity we fail. 

Chinos and the Man

Winter is officially here. The cold weather means I have to reluctantly give up my penchant for wearing shorts. I can deal with the high forties to mid fifties weather going from office to car to home isn’t too bracing in shorts. Any colder than that and some full coverage is a must. The breezy arctic chill is too much for bare legs. I feel a bit like a hippie for saying it but I just don’t like pants.

If I had to list the problems of pants I would start with the weight. Too heavy and they hang off your butt, too light and they won’t keep the cold out. I’m perpetually hiking them up, both to keep the cuffs from dragging on the floor and to keep them waist level. Nothing is worse than walking into a public bathroom with a semi-wet floor and worrying about how much the cuffed bottoms are soaking up. Also my wallet and phone add extra weight to already hefty trousers. I can only tighten my belt so far before the stomach starts to pinch in the belt buckle. Want to witness an embarrassing spectacle? Just wait for me to hoist that belt one extra hole down the strap and yelp when the stomach flesh rolls up in the metal clasp.

Jeans are a bit of problem too. Because they’re denim they’re rigid and unrelenting. Jeans have a position of their own. No two are alike. They don’t flow and swoop the way polyester golf pants do. They’re more stiff than a corpse and they bind on the thighs, never wielding. Jeans hate us. Oh sure they last a long time. Wash after wash they hold their position. They mock our attempts to control them with fabric softeners and hang dry efforts, useless. The slim cut variety are even worse. Seriously, who needs a tighter fit?

Cargo pants are bulky and massive but necessarily so. They aren’t stylish and they don’t care. Utility is their game. The extra space in the pockets is perfect for tools and snacks, just in case you’re working outdoors and need row of chocolate mini donuts. Pockets on cargo pants are like seagulls at the beach; they’re interesting and even fun at first but quickly become annoying. Most of us don’t need that much space. It just increases the chance of losing more stuff in the washing machine, from gum and coins to cash and toothpickers. For everyday use cargo pants are probably the worst option unless you work construction.

   

Dress slacks are dignified and sharp but I don’t have enough excuses to wear them. If you don’t normally wear slacks to work, try it someday and see what people say. “You going to funeral or something?” or “What’s with the dress up, you coming from church?” The chances to wear them are so seldom you’ll realize when you finally do, they’ve shrunk. Pants are always shrinking. One of life’s mysteries I guess. Also, dress pants fit great while standing but sitting is a nightmarish surprise. They suck up tight and expose your white/sock black/shoe combo if you aren’t careful. Standing quickly back up doesn’t help either. You’ll have to massage the legs portions back down into standing position because they won’t fall gracefully back into place. You can use the kick method, where you kick your feet out to get the legs to slide back down but it will look silly. Movement is a bit restricted while wearing them because if the cloth is old it might rip along the butt seam. This is definitely worse than having everyone know you wore white socks to a formal event.

Sweatpants are a wonderful respite from a tough day. The fleece moves around effortlessly never bunching or tearing. Plus if you spill your drink on them the cotton fibers will soak it up better than a paper towel or whole stack of napkins. Even floor spills are a cinch. Just get off your recliner, put down your beer and sit directly on the puddle. The fleece will suck up the liquid like a shop vac. Don’t put them on too early in the day though. You might have to go out and get some milk or lottery tickets. Very few sweats are good enough to wear at Target. Not that Target is high class, but you don’t want to be accused of someone begging for loose change and have the employees throw you out. Especially with the stains and wet spots on your pants.  Wearing them out to go shopping is like reminding people that you don’t care. Sweatpants say “Don’t mind me I am just having a rough day” and “Could you spare a couple of bucks for gas?”  

Golf pants certainly go in the most improved garment of menswear. The ones I used to buy were cotton and bunched up with even the slightest bit of movement. Now they’re light and wrinkle free. Most even have a layer that prevents wrinkling.  You can wad them up in corner before tucking into bed and in the morning wear them again without worrying about ironing out a mess. Also the textile geniuses have figured out how to make them loose around the legs which is a huge improvement for me. They aren’t too formal either, you wear them with your Pearl Jam t-shirt and you’ll never regret being both ‘adultish’ and ‘hip’.

Until warmer weather I’ll just have to make do cycling through my small wardrobe of khaki and black golf pants. I really do prefer shorts. 

Humility and Leadership

 I glanced over this latest research from a couple academics who studied personality types. More precisely they compared arrogant thinkers to humble ones and came to the conclusion that ‘humble’ leaders are more powerful and effective. I read the Washington Post’s quick summary of the findings, short and neat. I don’t read full academic papers unless I have to. For my purposes a summary by a respected newspaper is enough. The people studied were considered 'intellectually' arrogant or 'intellectually' humble. 

I clicked on the link because it was headline-grabby and seemed to remind everyone what we instinctively know to be true.  Readers can draw what they like from the results. The findings don’t seem surprising for anyone who has experienced poor leadership. Those with the misfortune of serving under a boss with an outsized ego know the pitfalls of pride. Thinking well of oneself doesn’t always mean arrogant however, and being soft spoken doesn’t mean humble. 

First, the study had participants (both arrogant and humble) read from a list of statements and asked how familiar they were with the topics. The topics covered science, history, sociology and a mixed bag of knowledge. Second, they read from a slightly longer list and had to recall which statements were covered on both readings.

 A few fake news items were slipped in.

The arrogant ones mostly skimmed the passages while the humble read with closer detail. Arrogant participants got more items wrong and were susceptible to the fake items as well. Humble participants did better on identifying the correct statements and the false, but also were more open to changing their mind if the true statements conflicted their previous positions. The arrogant rarely changed their mind. Most people who have held any job for any amount of time has encountered bosses who blame others for their failures and refuse to take advice. They also hate giving anyone credit if they can take it for themselves.

 Mostly, humility gets a bad rap, as in “Oh my God I was so humiliated!” As a character trait it describes a person willing to understand their own shortcomings and learn from them. Humble people have a reasonable view of their strengths and weaknesses. If the image of a soft spoken indecisive person emerges, throw out that image. Humility sometimes gets interpreted as milquetoast men afraid of making choices.

Humility is just honest, self-reflection.

When leaders have it you know it. They aren’t afraid of others getting credit but they take decisive moves and improve along the way. They don’t apologize and agonize about wrong choices or bad information, they improve. 

From the study: 

As Owens and Hekman wrote in Academy of Management Journal, “Our findings suggest that humility appears to embolden individuals to aspire to their highest potential and enables them to make the incremental improvements necessary to progress toward that potential.”

The findings show that humble authority figures make everyone better by inspiring performance. The opposite is also true of reckless pride.

There is a great illustration of this from the excellent mini-series Band of Brothers. The film follows E company through much of the war in Germany as they parachute across France in June 1944 to VE day in the summer of 1945. In one harrowing scene the battalion is crossing a hail of gunfire in the Ardennes Forest to occupy a town held by the Germans. The company commander (Dyke) freezes up under the mortar fire and refuses to move from a covered position. The charging men look to their leader shouting "What we do?, We have to move, we're surrounded!" His only reply "I don't know! I don't know!"

 Soldiers are being killed all around until another lieutenant (Speirs) storms in and starts directing men. He takes over swiftly and urges the men to move and fire. Staying in one place and getting shelled is what is hurting them. He takes over command from Dyke who seems more concerned with his own safety. The battalion takes the town with heavy losses but if not for quick thinking leadership E company might have lost every soldier.

Lieutenant Speirs’ humility is seen in other scenes as he praises individuals and delegates responsibility. He is humble where it counts. He shows bravery and gives orders under pressure but he also has shortcomings in administrative functions. His character is quiet for much of the movie, only popping up with advice when needed. Dyke is arrogant because he doesn’t bother with the details of leadership (preparing for battle, making decisions) and is only around when necessary. It’s a tough scene to watch knowing that battles often play out exactly like that, when lives are at stake and decisiveness makes a crucial difference. A big theme in the series is leadership. Few events prove it out like war.

It might be a little fuzzier in the business world but the essential character of a humble leader will play out the same. Bosses have different personality types but one who can honestly assess a situation and improve the result is effectively humble. 

Research that supports my intuition is always welcome. I usually ignore findings that don’t. Some might call that arrogant though.

Death, Taxes and Angry College Football Fans

Benjamin Franklin once said “…nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.” If he were alive today he would probably include fan anger over college football rankings. The limited number of slots in the playoffs practically guarantee an surge of 'righteous' anger from a neglected team. There are 5 power conferences that contain the best teams. The SEC, the ACC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10 and the Big 12. Additionally, the few games played each season means that analysts have to determine the best teams from a small sample. The number of variables considered when establishing a teams’ credentials can be technical. Strength of schedule, margin of victory, road wins against top opponents, and something called the ‘eye test’ are just some of the variables the selection group considers when assigning slots.

The eye test is exactly what it sounds like. How does this team actually look on the field? Do they execute plays and hold up under pressure? Do they beat themselves with dumb penalties and turnovers? Do their skill position players have speed? Does the defense shut down high caliber opponents? The eye test gets criticized by stat wonks who love to spreadsheets showing how Middle Tennessee State gets great production, but who cares. The big conferences matter. Stats are one measure of progress but football fans know a good team when they see one. A good team has NFL talent and performs every week. Not that they never lose but they keep loses to a minimum and win on the road. Teams like Alabama and Georgia are great, Illinois and Purdue are not (sadly).

Good stats in football filter out ‘garbage time’ numbers. Those extra 65 yards your team’s running back got on a night when they were played North Eastern Delaware A&M, that’s garbage time. Numbers and measurables can explain a lot but they don’t help with the eye test. I’ll always take the eye test over almost any other measure of tracked skill. Football talent gravitates toward certain schools and we already know which ones they are. They’re called the power 5 for a reason. A quarterback who averages 300 yards passing per game at Ohio State gets more attention than one at Montana Tech. This isn’t news.

I watched Ohio State beat Wisconsin last night and one thing was clear from the start, Ohio had much better athletes. The fact that Wisconsin only lost by 7 was an indication that crowd noise and intensity of the moment play an outsized factor in the college game. These are kids after all, average age is probably 21 or so. They get nervous and make mistakes but the really talented teams like OSU can make a few and usually finish with a win. In an outdoor stadium with less noise Ohio should have run Wisconsin off the field. I did hope the Badgers could pull off a miracle come back but their offense looked slow footed and not used to having to throw to get out of trouble. Badgers run first, always. 

The Big Ten conference game last night was a default play in for Wisconsin and a little more complicated for the Ohio State. They had a chance with a win but it wasn’t enough. The committee decided against them. Buckeyes have 2 loses for the season after all. That’s 1 more than any playoff team should have.

The controversy was over who gets the open slot for the playoffs, only 4 are allowed after all. The teams announced just a few hours ago, Oklahoma, Georgia, Clemson, Alabama. Bama was the wild card since they didn’t play for a conference championship but still managed a 1 loss season. The loss was to Auburn who was a top ranked team at the time. I don’t like to criticize the committee, they have a lot to consider. But putting two teams from the same conference in the playoffs is a sketchy move. I imagine they included the Tide because of their quality wins and 1 loss season. The alternative would have been Ohio State with two losses and a conference championship. If they put the Buckeyes in it opens the door for questions about why they didn’t include the USC Trojans, who basically had the same season. 

Buckeye fans will complain for sure. Every year some team gets left out that probably deserved to be included. With the limited spots it is unavoidable. Most fans will want to expand the field to include 8 teams. For now though there isn’t enough time or games in the season without seriously affecting academics (don’t laugh). That’s the official reason at least from the NCAA for keeping the 4 team playoff. I imagine it will get to that point in the near future. The playoffs should be fun though.