Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Is Columbia Playing Moneyball?



These guys don't look so tough


I continue to be amazed by what I find out about our football players via Twitter.

First, we had the problem of too many players posting inappropriate comments.

Then we had the problem of some players posting inappropriate pictures of themselves.

But now, I can’t help but notice how many Tweets by our players and incoming recruits unintentionally give away the extreme wealth their families enjoy. Spring break was especially telling, with player after player chronicling their exotic vacation locales.

Now as anyone who knows me well can tell you, I’m no enemy of wealthy or the wealthy. I’m a dyed in the wool supply-sider who believes we can grow the pie and make everyone wealthy… and that would be a good thing.

But I have more and more evidence that the average net worth of our football players’ families is sharply higher, (even if adjusted for inflation), than it was 15-20 years ago.

As one fan told me last week: “No wonder we went 0-10 last year, most of these guys look like they were born 10-0… what do they need to win football games for?”

Every former player I've spoken to recently tells me he can't remember more than one player from their time who was remotely this wealthy.

And that makes me suspicious.

Let me explain.

In his excellent book, The Price of Admission, former Wall Street Journal writer Dan Golden explained how Ivy schools still find a way to admit the richest applicants despite the rigorous academic requirements.

One new way was to find super-rich applicants who happen to play lower-profile sports like squash and Equestrian events and park those kids on the bench on those teams where no one would be the wiser.

That’s not the most “sporting” thing to do, especially for those few not-so-rich squash players and horse riders who get pushed out to make room for a billionaire.

But is there a chance Columbia is now doing this in the key high-profile sport like football?

I certainly hope not, and the argument could be made that rising Ivy tuitions are effectively attracting a higher percentage of wealthier applicants and crowding out the middle class kids more and more.

But the trend is worth noting and we should keep an eye on what’s happening here. Is there anyone here who would put it past our vaunted administration to use such a ploy to ensure that more full tuition-paying students fill our athletic teams… even if it costs us a few wins here or there?  

Even I’m willing to say this administration is still innocent before proven guilty… but I’m watching… always watching.



20 comments:

Anonymous said...

I really can't stand twitter. It is a complete distortion of human interaction. I can't stand the way mass media has shifted to make idiot sites like facebook, twitter and other subcrony social media as something significant. This is a complete coup de grĂ¢ce of the dumbing down of america. THAT is the real issue. Does not matter rich or poor, young or old, student or blue collar, etc - it is people buying into the idea of being stupid.

DOC said...

I don't buy into that "born 10-0" crap. If a kid happens to come from a wealthy family, that fact doesn't imply a lack of competitiveness or desire to win. I think all schools practice the sort of cherry-picking that you describe, Jake, some more and some less. Similarly, I believe that some wealthy foreign students get admitted over our kids because of a perceived goal of "diversity."

Anonymous said...

It just occurred to me "moneyball", the concept defined by billy beane, is to cultivate unheralded talent to defeat stronger opponents. Not sure that really applies to the post's intent. Seems more like "why would spoiled brats want to play football anyway?"

Anonymous said...

In what sport RLB?

oldlion said...

I think that we would be better served by more analysis of our personnel as athletes than by speculation of their socioeconomic status.

Chick said...

Don't see much point in worrying about this. I don't care if they're billionaires or paupers if they win. And I doubt economic status factors in winning.

But above all, I reject excuses or distractions from Admin.
They have failed or ignored their duty. It's up to them to build a winning program. If this factors in, good or bad, it's the Admin's job to handle it.

Big Dawg said...

When I was active, we had a number of "advantaged" teammates, both on FB and Track. They were every bit as competitive as the rest of us. Ego counts more than money.
Perhaps the availability of low cost packaged tours provides an explanation.
Bottom line: Proof will be in performance. No more BS or toothy admin smiles. Let's see some real progress or get out of Dodge.

Chick said...

Not knocking Jake at all...without him there'd be no scrutiny whatsoever of our winless football program. But maybe because I've watched this debacle longer, I have no patience left for psychoanalysis, sociology or other
mental gymnastics and verbal voodoo about football.
It's only a game but we love it. W-L and devotion to school pride are the only measures that count now. Twitter, schmitter or something else that rhymes with it be damned, just show me the TDs and the Ws.

It's simple. Anyone who isn't interested in winning should quit now, and that includes the coaches, AD and PrezBo.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to hear more rationale from the party who reminds this forum of tennis victories and claims a top half of the standings ranking for... football? Or is it simply more trolling.

Big Dawg said...

I think you all know where I stand on this, but just for the record, this is EXACTLY what CU's athletic situation is:

Men’s CC is Ivy champ and nationally ranked. Women’s CC is nationally ranked.
Men’s fencing is Ivy champ and nationally ranked. Women’s fencing is nationally ranked.
Men’s squash is nationally ranked. Women’s squash is nationally ranked.
Men’s tennis is currently undefeated in league play and nationally ranked.
Men’s indoor track is nationally ranked.
Archery: National champs
Women’s swimming: regular season champs
Women’s tennis is currently undefeated.

Sounds good, no? Actually, thank God for the accomplishments of these kids and their coaches. But before you get too carried away, check this out.

CU’s average title production over the past 57 years (league inception) has been 1.56 per year. This is DEAD LAST in the league. For the past 10 years, CU annual title production has been (to date) 2.4 average. But for the past 6 years to date, it has been 1.83 titles per year. If we optimistically assume 3 more titles this spring, the 6 year total average possibly climbs to 2.3 titles per year.
So, while it is nice to see some of our teams nationally ranked, and a few others with titles, one wonders where the general improvement over the past 10 years has been? If anything, title production has fallen in the last few years, and only an anomalous performance in 2013-2014 has kicked things in an upward yet still unsatisfactory direction. We have stagnated for the past 10 years. CU has always had the sporadic champion here and there; typically in fencing or swimming or tennis. But we have never, ever had anything approaching athletic parity with any other Ivy members. Brown is the next worst achiever re Ivy titles, and they have 33% more than we do. When does this stop?

I'm not a pessimist or misanthrope. I'm a fairly intelligent guy who cares for CU and sports, and wonders why this has been tolerated for so long.

What do you think?

Big Dawg said...

No, RLB, they are not. That is the problem.
Some of them are doing well, as they usually do. But in general, we are mediocre. Do you not realize that the rest of the Ivies also have nationally ranked teams in such esoteric sports as squash and golf?

The way we are judged is in football and BB. This year we finished in a tie for 3rd in BB. We don't need to comment on FB.
We are and have been below average since the League started. Period.
Don't be fooled by minor and sporadic success.

Anonymous said...

According to this page, CU men's and women's squash finished the 2013 season ranked 10th out of 59 teams for the men, 43 for the women. Not bad at all.

CU's top player finished 4th overall out of a ranking of 100.

What a fun sport to play, can't imagine trying to watch it.

Big Dawg said...

In my efforts to be as analytic and pragmatic as possible about this, a thought has arisen.

Is it possible that "moneyball" is indeed being played here, in the sense that the admin, looking to get the most national status/recognition as they can for their buck, have deliberately steered $ towards less expensive sports and gone light on football investment?

I have no idea; just wondering. I mean, it's a hell of a lot easier to get mileage out of the minor sports, where there are fewer competitors, etc. Also, except for T&F and soccer, the teams are smaller.

Bottom line, Alabama and Florida don't have nationally ranked squash and fencing squads. Can it be they don't really care?

WOF said...

RLB, what is your affiliation to the school?

oldlion said...

Our football spend is among the highest in the league.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps RLB is Pete's right hand man - a solitary protege facing unrepentant extinction.

Anonymous said...

Ok, that was embarassing

WOF said...

thanks RLB

roger dennis said...

jake,

this is a sincere comment:

one day i would love to talk with you re your comment: "I’m no enemy of (wealth)... I’m a dyed in the wool supply-sider who believes we can grow the pie and make everyone wealthy… "


(i don't see this...to me allowing some people to become incredibly wealthy has to be at the expense of others - other people or peoples, other cultures, and/or other species (plants, animals, etc.) and/or at the expense of healthy air, water, foods, etc.)

i truly would like to hear your thoughts on this sometime. (not in written form but sitting down and talking)

roger

alawicius said...

Attaboy, Rog, let's educate these meatheads.

Best to you,
Your former OB buddy (one you recruited from the West End :).