The commments on the old thread are too long. Open thread.
421 thoughts on “New Thread!!”
There sure are a lot of powerful hurricanes around this year. Just something I noticed. May not mean anything…
Hi Boris, how they hanging.
There sure are. Personally, I blame Trump. If he’d only have stayed in the Paris agreement, third never have happened.
😉
This not third. Darn phone… I blame Trump for that too.
Boris,
I noticed that any weather extreme (flood or drought, much snow or the lack of it, extreme hot or extreme cold, any tornado, and certainly any tropical storm) will be instantly blamed on global warming by the climate deranged. Would be funny were it not so stooooopid…. and so damaging to developing rational public policy. Oh well, the dedicated green types will grasp at any straw, no matter how frail, in an attempt to advance their agenda.
.
The truly comical part is that global CO2 emissions will be rising for a couple of decades, then very gradually falling, completely independent of green fantasies about ‘renewable’ energy and politically correct efforts to reduce fossil fuel use. I gently suggest you find something more useful to do than carry on about extreme weather events.
Lucia you do not know this man [Boris].
He has never commented on this blog before to your knowledge.
The fact that he is doing so from a [redacted] site in [R*****] is purely coincidental.
Can you take out CIA insurance?
I would send a tweet to your bogeyman for help.
Remember the phone line is not secure.
Three in a row possible Boris, after over 10 years of no landfall.
Hoping this one veers North shortly and the next burns out.
Most people die from drowning in a hurricane, not wind. Even Andrew only had about 18 deaths.
.
I-95 and I-75 and turnpike are starting to slow down, you can see it on Google maps. It was going about 30 mph today. I do not want to be stuck on an interstate. It’s looking like east coast landfall and it might actually miss entirely. Miami is under heavy threat and I don’t think you can evacuate that many people without making things worse. It’s likely a bad weekend in Florida for a lot of people.
.
It’s hard to get a realistic view of actual damage. Media tend to go to trailer parks or frame shots for maximum apparent damage. Here is a flyover of ground zero of Harvey. https://youtu.be/_eE2oyarSN8
.
They did a lot of assessments after Andrew. Concrete and block walls rarely failed. The leading cause of roof failures was inadequate attachment of roof sheathing. Most window failures were caused by flying debris. In the hardest hit areas most shingle roofs had significant damage. Hip roofs were better than gable roofs. Garage doors detached from their rails. Manufactured/mobile homes were catastrophically damaged. Poorly constructed homes were a problem, not built to code. Roof damage > water damage > large losses.
Is it my imagination or has Trump Derangement Syndrome taken a month off in the media? It seems to have dissipated from hysteria to just normal partisan hackery. Maybe they are just temporarily distracted. The fainting spells are getting fewer and farther between.
“There sure are a lot of powerful hurricanes around this year. Just something I noticed. May not mean anything…”
Let us hope your investing is not influenced by such recency bias.
Tom Scharf,
Maybe a tiny bit. The usual suspects continue to carry on about Trump colluding with Russians to steal Hillary’s presidency, despite zero evidence. I suspect some of the more rational in the left’s department of propaganda (AKA the main stream media) are beginning to notice that the public holds them in even lower esteem than Trump, and that Trump is not going anywhere soon. I see a shift in the MSM toward trying to help Decomcrats flip the House…. so they can start impeachment in January 2019. Little do they know this will ensure Trump is reelected in 2020.
“Personally, I blame Trump.”
Now I certainly don’t want to jump the gun on this, but I will point out that Russia has not been hit by a single hurricane this year. Coincidence?
Tom Scharf (Comment #164897): “Is it my imagination or has Trump Derangement Syndrome taken a month off in the media? It seems to have dissipated from hysteria to just normal partisan hackery.”
I suspect you are just getting used to it. What used to sound like hysteria seems more and more normal.
When I first moved to Canada, I was astonished by how petty and vicious Canadian politics was in comparison with the U.S. After a while, I came to realize that it was just an unfamiliar style of pettiness and viciousness to which I had not built up any immunity. Once I built up immunity, it no longer bothered me.
angech,
Boris has commented here. Not in a while– but I haven’t been posting “real” blog posts. So lots of old regulars haven’t posted in a while.
Tom
Trump Derangement Syndrome taken a month off in the media
You must have missed the hyper ventalliation about Melania wearing high heels while on the tarmac in NY getting ready to board for a flight to TX.
Some environmentalists have learned that “the tactic of opening up a relationship by punching someone in the face … doesn’t work well.”
Go figure.
Time to get out of Miami, today or never. 3 days out and the forecast is a direct hit. Time to panic if you live there, it’s going to be chaos. This looks like the highest damage event by far if it stays on that track. Andrew hit with a 145 mph sustained winds and 175 mph gusts and Irma could easily do that over a more damaging angle with 25 more years of development since Andrew.
.
My guess is FEMA probably isn’t ready for this. How could they be? They probably went all-in for Houston, not a minor effort.
.
If it shifts just 20 miles more east the damage would drop 100x and be almost a complete miss, some models suggest this will happen.
.
Dave Barry: Even with Irma knocking at our door, we here in Miami are NOT FREAKING OUT AT ALL! http://www.miamiherald.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/dave-barry/article171702477.html
HaroldW,
It always baffles me that alleged “communication experts” somehow don’t criticize their peers for crapping all over people they want to convince to join their side. It may be me, but being labeled a den–r, bigot, sexist, and racist is not endearing enough for convincing me of anything.
.
Realistically they are just throwing red meat to their own side and trying to shame the opposition into compliance. At some point over the last decade a lot of people have convinced themselves that shaming is the greatest super power ever, it works on everything, just like bleach! You might be able to shame some people into silence, but don’t fool yourself that you have won them over. There is no shame in the voting booth, and the last people I want running the country is the shaming mob.
.
Is it a good thing that environmentalists have totally alienated Republicans? It seems to be intentional. Why would they want to do that? I like the environment, but the very last place I would ever go would be an environmentalist meeting. I’m guessing voter registration cards are checked at the door and you are tased if you try to sneak in as a Republican or Libertarian.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164906): “Time to get out of Miami, today or never. 3 days out and the forecast is a direct hit. Time to panic if you live there, it’s going to be chaos.”
That strikes me as an extremely dangerous attitude. People in low lying areas or inadequate structures definitely should relocate, but a general attitude of “run for your lives” will increase risk for everyone. Forecast landfall is still anywhere from just south of Tallahassee to North Carolina.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164907): “Realistically they are just throwing red meat to their own side and trying to shame the opposition into compliance.”
I suspect that this is really a form of corruption in which an organization comes to serve a purpose that is different from the purpose that it nominally serves. In this case, environmental groups doing what is good for the organization (i.e., good for fundraising) rather than actually doing things that help the environment. I think this has happened all across the political spectrum and is a major source of polarization in American politics.
Mike M.,
It seems to me that this form of corruption is almost inevitable in any large organization that originated from the ground up, labor unions for example.
“Is it a good thing that environmentalists have totally alienated Republicans? It seems to be intentional.”
Mike M, Yes, it is. There are certain people who want to exercise what they think is their power. To really wield power you need enemies to defeat. If everyone gets along and you have to just live your own life in peace, what fun is that?
Andrew
Mike M,
The 3 day out forecast is kind of the rule of thumb for many people. If you view the spaghetti plots and they are tight 3 days out then it’s meaningful. http://derecho.math.uwm.edu/models/al112017.png
.
Hurricane tracking accuracy trend. Their 3 day is now as good as their one day was 30 years ago, but 80 mile errors are still large for planning purposes. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/figs/ALtkerrtrd.jpg
.
Landfall wind accuracy is not very accurate, and not getting much better. Could tracking be wrong? Of course, they have a cone for a reason but you use what you got. In 2004, Cat4 Hurricane Charley was predicted to go right over my house. http://www.vastormphoto.com/charleyradar/charley3.jpg
Inside 6 hours before landfall it mysteriously turned south and almost missed us completely. http://survivalblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/charley-path.jpg
.
You are pretty much strapped to a dart board and nature is throwing darts at you, but you don’t want to be strapped to the center of the dart board.
.
If you want to leave Miami today it is doable, if you want to leave tomorrow you are risking an epic traffic jam with epic stress. Go to Google maps, turn on traffic and look at the state of Florida. It’s not going to get better. Leave today, or commit to riding it out is reasonable IMO.
Tom,
Good luck. I’ve got my fingers crossed for all of Florida. I look at the maps and say “veer east. EAST“. Moving up over cooler waters for a while is much to be desired.
Having relatives in Illinois, I would have packed up the cat and left yesterday. That’s no longer possible.
I lived in Naples, Florida for a while when I was a kid. So, I followed Hurricane Andrew closely when it hit Florida in the 90s. It was amazing to me how little damage it did when it hit Naples, which is about 90 miles from Miami. Apparently, hurricanes lose force very quickly when they hit land.
It looks like Irma might loop into Naples, which would be very bad for Naples. Also, of course, there are very expensive houses built right on the beach on Naples, which will be wiped out if the hurricane angles in over the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, it is totally foreseeable that these houses will eventually be wiped out by Irma or another hurricane, which will eventually come.
JD
What’s really irritating is the “no pets at emergency shelters” rule. Many states have learned that this is creating much more danger than it prevents. Many people will not leave their pets, ummmm….not leaving my dog to die, sorry. One poll found 44 percent of people who chose not to evacuate during Katrina did so because they did not want to abandon their pets.
.
In FL there are a few shelters that allow pets but you must pre-register them. Bring them in a crate should be allowed. I suppose some people have pet allergies.
You can build a house that can survive a direct hit by a hurricane with minimal damage. One of the things that people like me never see is government tax dollars at work maybe even usefully sometimes. Here is a FEMA document that has everything you would ever want to know about building a safe house in a coastal region. It’s actually pretty interesting from an engineering perspective, clearly written, and lots of examples. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1538-20490-2983/fema499web_2.pdf
.
The process of damage assessments getting translated to building codes and effective inspections is long and grinding.
Tom,
The campus rape policy article would be shocking if I hadn’t heard it all before. How anyone could conclude that the woman, R.M., in the article was in any way shape or form a victim is completely beyond me. The only person I see having anything like a case for being sexually assaulted would be the man. Maybe I’m missing something, but from her account, she was completely in charge of what happened at all times.
The plaintiff’s attorneys should be, but probably aren’t, all over this like the proverbial duck on a june bug. I think multi-million dollar damages are clearly justified. Men’s lives are being ruined for no good reason.
Ugh. Looks like a potential critical gas shortage. Governor says state police will now escort gas trucks. Some east coast residents being instructed not to leave their counties. My daughter’s boss in Alabama activated for National Guard for Irma today.
DeWitt,
The have some crazy anecdotal stories in that article. Academia has gone nuts lately.
.
“…an Oregon college in which a male student was investigated and told to stay away from a female student, resulting in the loss of his campus job and a move from his dorm. He didn’t know why he was being investigated, but it turned out he resembled a man who had raped the female student “months before and thousands of miles away.†He was found “innocent of any sexual misconduct,†but the no-contact order was not lifted.”
Tom,
Another question, where’s the ACLU (not rhetorical, I would really like to know)? Due process clauses are in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and certainly are part of our civil liberties. The Fifth Amendment was limited to the Federal Government, the Fourteenth Amendment applied the same language to the states. That would, I’m pretty sure, include state universities. I doubt that private universities would get a pass either. The Title IX enforcement process is surely depriving the accused of liberty and possibly property as well.
Of course, it’s yet another end run around the law by the Obama administration. And it’s another example of caving to political correctness by college administrators. Maybe losing a lot of law suits with large judgements will get their attention.
Tom Scharf,
Jim ordered “Key Largo” from Netflix a while back. It arrived today. I”ll be thinking of you while watching….
I’m in South Florida… absorbing all the info on Irma and recall these instructions from the 1950’s when we were all scared of a Russian nuclear attack………. “In the event of a nuclear attack, get under the desk, cover your head with your hands, and kiss your butt goodbye.”….seems appropriate for hurricanes too…….
DeWitt
Maybe losing a lot of law suits with large judgements will get their attention.
The lawsuits are happening. The schools are either settling or loosing.
Of course the suits tend to be filed only by young men whose parents have enough money to hire a lawyer. But they are happening.
It’s the end of our humanity. From an article subtitled “On climate change and human futilitarianism”:
Climate change means, quite plausibly, the end of everything we now understand to constitute our humanity. If action isn’t taken soon, the Amazon rainforest will eventually burn down, the seas will fester into sludge that submerges the world’s great cities, the Antarctic Ice Sheet will fragment and wash away, acres of abundant green land will be taken over by arid desert. A 4-degree Celsius rise in global temperatures would, within a century, produce a world as different from the one we have now as ours is from that of the Ice Age. And any humans who survive this human-made chaos would be as remote from our current consciousness as we are from that of the first shamanists ten thousand years ago, who themselves survived on the edges of a remote and cold planet.
HaroldW,
That’s bad sci-fi, not a realistic portrayal of a possible future. Apparently the author is unaware that it was as much as 8°C warmer at the peak of the Eocene epoch. Life flourished during the Eocene on land and in the oceans.
Before the peak, which lasted for millions of years, there was a temperature spike, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, that seems to have involved a large release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere fairly quickly. It was hard on benthic foraminifera, but not so much for everything else. There were no ice caps and the temperature difference between the equator and the poles was likely much smaller than today.
There was a mass extinction at the end of the Eocene and the beginning of the Oligocene, but it seems to have been due to, among other things, a reduction in temperature and a drop in atmospheric CO2.
According to today’s WSJ, Comey and the FBI may have been involved with the Fusion GPS and the fake Trump dossier as well. Needless to say, the FBI is stonewalling requests for documents by the Congressional investigating committee. Mueller should be investigating his buddy Comey, not Trump.
Right up the middle of the state now. Lots of alligators in the everglades are going to have an interesting night on Saturday. Because the hurricane rotates counter-clockwise it’s worse on the east side in this scenario, timing of high tide will be a factor. Miami is still looking bad, we shall see if the eye goes over populated areas. It’s been losing power fairly quickly in the last day. Beyond Miami there is almost nothing in the center of the state until Orlando. Everyone would be affected but both coasts would likely see <100 mph winds which should be minimal damage relatively to 140 mph direct hit. Power will dissipate quickly over land.
.
Here is Florida building codes wind speed map. https://www.floridabuilding.org/fbc/Wind_2010/figa.PNG
.
There's a lot of grandfathering in of older sub-code buildings, so events like this tend to gradually rid the state of those structures. The more strict codes came in after 1992. Here is a hurricane vs. house engineering damage assessment from hurricane Andrew. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1611-20490-1856/fia22_complete.pdf
Tom Scharf
so events like this tend to gradually rid the state of those structures
Well… that’s one way to get rid of the non-Hurricane proof structures.
As much as I miss Popsie-Wopsie, I’m glad I don’t need to worry about how he’s doing in a hurricane.
HaroldW
You gotta love these.
the seas will fester into sludge
Yep. Not just sea level rise but transformation into sludge.
abundant green land will be taken over by arid desert
Presumably, some places that are green might become desert and vice versa. But generally speaking we expect more evaporation with higher temperatures. What evaporates eventually condenses, so for the most part we expect more rain, not less. That said, the use of “might” permits wide latitude.
any humans who survive this human-made chaos would be as remote from our current consciousness as we are from that of the first shamanists ten thousand years ago,
Because it’s climate change that changed the religious views of shaman. I mean, we wouldn’t even have the word “shaman” were it not for people who discovered Neanderthal cave paintings who created the word to describe beliefs no one has had for eaons.
Presumably this author think the change from “shamanism” to whatever our current consciousness consists of is a good thing. (Modern day shaman might dispute this. Whoops– I forgot. They clearly must not exist.) But anyway, assuming the are all in the past, why future changes in consciousness would necessarily be bad is entirely unclear.
who themselves survived on the edges of a remote and cold planet.
Not sure where the “edge” of a planet is supposed to be. But it’s a bit difficult to consider “nearer the equator than the poles” the “edge”.
HaroldW,
Those type of articles are pretty common now, the NYMag article was similar in tone. When things get polarized and only one side of an issue is effectively policed by the media then this type of stuff seems to proliferate. This really only helps the opposition as it makes team science look a bit silly. The author is going to be very distressed when they learn about actual ice ages.
.
You can literally claim anything in a climate article at this point. Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes? Check. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/16/climate-change-triggers-earthquakes-tsunamis-volcanoes
.
I really enjoyed this part (written in 2016):
“The 2013 season saw no major hurricanes at all and tied with 1982 for the fewest hurricanes since 1930. This, in turn, is no big deal as there is great year-on-year variability in the level of hurricane activity”
.
Guardian 3 days ago – “Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering”
.
12 years of no major hurricane landfalls means nothing, one is definitive proof of climate linkage. Perhaps we can just point to these under the definition of confirmation bias in the dictionary. If only team science knew about this bias.
lucia (Comment #164931): “Presumably, some places that are green might become desert and vice versa. But generally speaking we expect more evaporation with higher temperatures. What evaporates eventually condenses, so for the most part we expect more rain, not less.”
What matters for vegetation is soil moisture; that is determined by the local balance between precipitation and evaporation, also on seasonal distributions. Thus, it is not totally obvious that more rain means wetter soils. The crazy catastrophists use that ambiguity to make unfounded, antiscientific claims like “abundant green land will be taken over by arid desert”.
The reason that is antiscientific nonsense is that the geological record is perfectly clear: A warmer world is a greener world. Forests were far more extensive during really warm eras, like the Cretaceous and Eocene. The global cooling that began during the Miocene led to shrinkage of forests and expansion of savanna. That was very important in Africa; it drove significant evolution, including the appearance of genus Homo. In the Pleistocene ice age, deserts and savanna expanded during glacial periods and forests made a comeback during interglacials. At the Holocene optimum, deserts were much less extensive than today, most famously in North Africa where there was savanna, and even forests, in what is now the Sahara. But the the climate cooled and deserts expanded. The recent warming has been associated with global greening. The North African savanna has been slowly reclaiming the Sahara.
There is good evidence that there was a substantial amount of voter fraud in New Hampshire, with people with out of state driver’s licenses voting, but never later getting New Hampshire licenses. It was big enough to potentially affect both the Presidential race and the very tight race for the Senate. See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/7/voter-fraud-alert-over-5000-new-hampshire-presiden/ Wonder if Mueller will investigate? Supposedly, the Left is concerned about alleged Russian interference in the election process because it undermines the integrity of elections.
…..
This is on top of a study that found that large numbers of non-citizens vote. See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973 The abstract stated: “Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections.”
….
Of course, when anybody dares to even look at whether there is voter fraud, the Left disingenuously and dishonestly cries racism and intimidation. To me this is part of the continuing erosion of the rule of law, which was most substantially caused by Obama’s not only not enforcing immigration law but actually encouraging violations and violators. I agree with Nils Nielson’s previous comments in this regard.
JD
The people declaring vote fraud is no big deal, could prove their point pretty quickly by having California release its database of illegal immigrants with drivers licenses, to see how many voted.
For those of you who need their daily corporate exec outrage:
Equifax execs sold stock before hack was disclosed http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/08/investing/equifax-stock-insider-sales-hack-data-breach/
.
People need to go.to.jail. This has to stop. I’m probably in the 98% of capitalism support but this corruption has become excessive. Give them their due process, then put them in Guantanamo.
JD,
I read that the definition of a racist is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.
Good luck with the storm Tom Scharf. I don’t think anyone else who reads here is in the path.
best regards,
john
Yes. Good luck Tom.
Joe Bastardi today said that there is a good chance that Irma will hit the Marco Island/Fort Myers area. If so, it appears to be very dangerous for Marco because Marco is roughly 1/2 canals. If a 10 foot storm surge hit, I don’t imagine that much would be left of the Island. Hope everyone is doing whatever they can to protect their lives.
Also, good luck Tom.
JD
Tom,
Good fortune.
This is the kind of storm that rearranges coastlines and makes sandbars appear and disappear. Unfortunately, some of the places that are called islands on the Florida coast are, in fact, sandbars. Marco Island may be one of them. Go back and look at old maps and they won’t be there. Instead there are ‘islands’ on those maps that aren’t there now.
I think the current definition of a fascist is the same as your definition of a racist.
Let me add my best wishes to the rest Tom. Godspeed weathering the storm.
I am not liking the “trend of the track” of this hurricane. It’s been moving west for the last 24 hours. Miami is looking much better, but I wouldn’t want to be in Naples right now. It’s uncomfortably close to Tampa, looks like we will see 70 to 90 mph winds at this point. We rode out a similar size hurricane in 1995.
.
If the track moves another 30 miles west, yuck. I appreciate the support.
Tom Scharf: “Miami is looking much better, but I wouldn’t want to be in Naples right now.”
But if Irma runs up along the Gulf coast, ahead of the eye the winds will be coming out of the east, from over land. It seems to me that should make storm surge a lot smaller. Behind the eye, winds will be from over water, but isn’t storm surge much less of a problem on the trailing edge of the storm? I am probably missing something important.
.
Tom: “If the track moves another 30 miles west, yuck.”
Is that because it could stay really strong over water, then hit hard when it does make landfall?
Tampa wants the eye to make landfall as soon as possible to throttle down the storm before it gets to Tampa. If it stays off shore it will be stronger when it gets to Tampa, but it’s still going to weaken anyway with a large part of the storm over land. Warm water is gasoline. There’s probably some calculus, amount of area over land diminishes power with center having a higher weight.
For Florida’s west coast maximum storm surge is under the eye due to rotation so storm surge is unlikely to be a big problem in this trajectory/storm for Tampa. This is why Tampa rarely gets hit, hurricanes have to basically do a u-turn around Florida. This changes late in the season when storms form more frequently in the Gulf of Mexico and then they tend to be weaker.
The worst case Tampa scenario for a hurricane is a side entry from the Gulf of Mexico just above Tampa Bay to allow max storm surge into the bay.
Note To Self: Trust spaghetti models less, they may be less independent than they appear.
Tom Scharf,
Tampa’s bad fortune is Stuart’s good luck. After walking my daughter through how to hook up and run the back-up generator, it looks now like she won’t likely lose power at all.
.
Good luck over the next 60 hours. I expect the storm will be down to cat 2 by the time it reaches you.
Pielke Senior was rooting for landing so it could pass over mangroves in the everglades for a nice while.
But if Irma goes up the middle of the peninsula, the east coast of Florida will likely be blasted by storm surge. Especially Miami. Given the intensity and size of the storm, the projected path might be the least bad. The right front quadrant should hit the Everglades rather than someplace populated.
Tom,
We were in Tampa for 93 storm of century. The flooding was extensive and pretty deep.
Good luck again.
John
StwveF,
It’s good to empower women. Always.
Seeing the radar…. thinking of how worried I would have been years ago when Popsie Wopsie lived in Sarasota. Bittersweet.
Hope Floridians have all hatches battened down and stay as safe as reasonably possible.
Greetings from Huntsville AL. Ha ha. Got up yesterday morning at 6:30 and it drifted into basically worst case for Tampa. Aaaaagggh! Checked traffic and bolted. Told my daughter and wife we are leaving in 15 minutes. Traffic was very light. Traffic got bad later exiting Tampa. Looks like 115 mph in Tampa tonight.
Tom, Glad you got out. Looks horrible for Marco Island and Naples.
JD
Tom,
Good move.
It probably won’t be the wind, it’ll be the storm surge that does the real damage. If they get over 10 feet in Naples as predicted, I don’t see single family dwellings surviving, especially on the barrier islands, which might not even be there after the storm. If the contractors didn’t cheat, high rise condos might be OK, other than the damage from the windows blowing out if they weren’t properly covered.
John D. MacDonald of Travis McGee fame wrote a book titled Condominium many years ago. It wasn’t his best work by far, but it describes in much detail the effects of a storm much like Irma on the Florida Gulf Coast. It didn’t end well for people who didn’t leave.
Tom, you’re here in Huntsville, no kidding! 🙂
I’d ask if you wanted to meet for lunch or dinner or something, except I’ve got my wife’s parents staying with us at the moment (also climate change refugees).
How long you think you’ll camp out here?
[Edit: Maybe I could buy you lunch Monday?)
Tom,
Good escape to Hunstville!!
Moving ashore plus wind shear really took a lot of the force out of Irma. Sounds like the damage in Florida is way less than was feared. The total will no doubt be large, since the entire peninsula was hit. But no scenes of devastation. Might be bad in the Keys or Marcos Island.
Looks like it missed Tampa and weakened early. Realistically Miami was worse than Tampa. Marco Island and Keys might be bad. Never a good sign when very little information is available. Tampa dodges another bullet. At one point the track was less than 5 miles from my house with less than 12 hours left.
mark bofill,
I’d be glad to meet up but logistics this time are not in our favor. We have 4 people and 2 dogs in one apartment, it’s kind of a circus. We are all de-stressing ha ha.
Tom,
I understand. Truthfully it’d had involved a couple back flips for me too to work out it out. Some other time would be great though. 🙂 Thanks.
>At one point the track was less than 5 miles from my house with less than 12 hours left.
Go to sleep then talk a long walk…
Did 60 Minutes rig the color scheme to make Bannon look bad?
>All I know for sure is that climate scientist Michael Mann says his temperature data is proprietary. He refused to release it to a Canadian court for that reason.
Any idea what Scott Adams is talking about? He published this on his blog after first asking about it on Twitter, to which Steve McIntyre responded, and this was the result.
MikeN,
No idea. I haven’t been following all of the court cases Mann is involved with.
MikeN,
I would not be surprised to discover 60 Minutes does any and all sorts of editing to cast people the don’t like in a bad light and those they do in a good light. Doing so would not be new behavior on the part of 60 minutes.
lucia,
I put 60 Minutes in the same category as the National Enquirer. I wouldn’t believe anything they say without multiple independent corroboration. People got upset when one year they were awarded a Golden Globe in the entertainment category. I thought it was completely appropriate.
MikeN(#164969) –
Google led me to this article, which claims that in his suit against Tim Ball, Mann was supposed to have supplied data (for his famous 1998 graph?) this past February, but did not. The article cited a John Sullivan blog post which mentions data and code. I believe the raw data was eventually published, in which case the “proprietary” claim is likely for the code.
HaroldW, I have yet to see anything about this case that does not source back to John Sullivan who is lying to get money from skeptics.
MikeN,
I share your skepticism about Mr. Sullivan. But I suspect that Scott Adams’ statement traces back through the path I mentioned. He (Adams) may have believed that the American Thinker article was well-researched.
Correction: Should be John O’Sullivan, not Sullivan.
“Boris has commented here. Not in a while– but I haven’t been posting “real†blog posts. So lots of old regulars haven’t posted in a while.”
Good to see him posting, was just having a bit of fun with the Russian meme and his name, hope I did not put him off.
With Boris and Bugs you had a real TV series going there at one stage.
–
Tom Scharf (Comment #164896
“Most people die from drowning in a hurricane, not wind. Even Andrew only had about 18 deaths.”
Respectfully disagree in part
Cyclone Tracey in Darwin population 35,000, 71 deaths a handful at sea the rest on land all due to the severe wind damage. Houses blown completely away.
Your point is solid for those at sea. But if we are talking deaths on land where normal people are and really severe hurricanes it is the wind.
What do you call a small hurricane? A tornado. How many people die of drowning in tornadoes? I think when we are talking of really strong hurricanes hitting land it is the wind.
Of course if you have low lying land like in Bangladesh or it strikes at high tide drowning does become important.
Then again
“On September 8, a Category 4 hurricane ripped through Galveston, killing an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 people. A 15-foot storm surge flooded the city, which was then situated at less than 9 feet above sea level, and numerous homes and buildings were destroyed.”‘
I went looking for actual numbers to show that Tom is right (I had always been told that storm surge is the big killer) and angech wrong. I found pretty much the opposite:
“the majority of impact phase deaths are now due to high-velocity winds … most of the storm-related mortality and much of the morbidity now occurs during the post-impact period … electrocutions from downed power lines, chain-saw injuries, blunt trauma from falling trees, and motor vehicle fatalities occurring during the early post-impact period. Observation of hurricane mortality patterns in developed nations suggests the need to provide specific guidance to the public regarding post-impact hazards such as live power lines and falling trees” https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/epirev/mxi011
Storm surge deaths are rather easy to prevent, given adequate warning, which we now have, at least in developed nations. The article cited above seems to imply that is generally the case, not just developed nations. When was the last really deadly tropical cyclone?
.
Addition: Looked a bit further. The storm surge from Cyclone Nargis killed over 100,000 in Myanmar in 2008. So most deaths are due to storm surge. That is probably followed by landslides due to rain. But it might well be that in most storms, most deaths are due to wind and post-impact accidents, while most deaths overall occur in a small number of deadly storms.
It may also be that the meme “storm surge is the real killer” is a key factor in preventing storm surge deaths.
@angech
“Cyclone Tracey in Darwin population 35,000, 71 deaths a handful at sea the rest on land all due to the severe wind damage. Houses blown completely away.”
Darwin, as is all of northern Australia, is cyclone country. Darwin was built out of cardboard and corrugated iron. It blew away in a cyclone. A good friend of mine was there at the time. His comment was something like “I didn’t know I was pissed until I walked out of the pub, and fell over. Then a house blew past me and I knew it wasn’t the beer”.
(1) This coming out can’t be good for Tesla. On the other hand, give Tesla credit for putting the needs of people fleeing Irma ahead of keeping this secret.
(2) I am trying to imagine a mass evacuation using electric cars. Not good.
MikeM,
I suspect using the same physical hardware was cheaper. But… yeah.. Now people know. My guess is everone who owns a 60 kWh battery will want a software upgrade.
Tesla did the right thing during the evac and should be praised for that.
On the other side: Imagine if some people had run out of juice and been stuck and then the story about the battery capacity had come out after the storm. And I bet the story would-a come out! Wouldn’t have been good for Tesla. (Not saying that’s why they did the upgrade to avoid negative publicity. Just pointing out how bad it would have been if they’d done the wrong thing. They did the right thing.)
“My guess is everone who owns a 60 kWh battery will want a software upgrade.”
The upgrade was already available, but at a price of $4500 to $9000 (per Mike M.’s link). I suspect that a lot of folks didn’t want to pay that much for the increase in range.
That link also mentions that the upgrade provides “as much as 30 to 40 miles more range.” This implies that range is still on the low side. If “30-40 miles” represents a 25% increase (from 60 to 75 kWh), the un-enhanced range is about 150 miles. Evacuating from Miami to Atlanta (660 miles) or Tampa to Huntsville (630 miles) would require 4 recharge cycles, or 3 with the enhancement. Compared to 1 fill-up for most gasoline-powered cars.
The deeper you discharge a lithium ion battery, the faster it will lose capacity. If you ‘upgrade’ to the high capacity battery, and use that extra capacity, you’ll have to replace the battery pack sooner. I’m told on the early Tesla’s if the battery pack was completely discharged, it couldn’t be recharged. That could happen if the car sat long enough, say in an airport parking lot for a couple of weeks.
DeWitt: “The deeper you discharge a lithium ion battery, the faster it will lose capacity.”
But that is not the issue here. It is not a matter of overriding a limit installed to preserve battery life. The limit was solely to encourage people to pay more for the same hardware.
I would think that anyone with a Tesla normally charges it overnight at home. As a result, deep discharges of the batteries would be very rare for most users. Occasional use of most of the charge would not really impact battery life. It is different with hybrids and plug-in hybrids. I think that is why many hybrids use nickel metal hydride batteries.
HaroldW,
One of the reasons I did not find electric vehicles attractive was range. My reasoning was always that yes I mostly only drive short distances. But once or twice a year I want to drive a long distance– e.g. to Tennessee or VA to visit Jim’s cousins, or take a road trip for some unanticipated reason. I want the car to have a decent range.
There are tons in and around Chicago. But if I’m actually going to want to go somewhere a car pretty much has to be able to make it from Chicago to Champaign or Chicago to Indianapolis. Chi-Champ is 136 miles. Naperville Champaign is 145 mi. Chi-Indi is 182 miles. So a 150 miles range would definitely mean I have to pick the route through Champaign and I had dang well not better end up on some detour. Because I’m not going to feel comfortable with only 4 miles range and unsure where the charging station is!
You can punch in a lot of cities and see how the range really is a limitation. (Actually, I’m glad I did. Because whenever I would say I was anxious about the range, people would mention the charging stations.
There definitely are places you’re going to hate commuting to in a Tesla. Suppose you live near DesMoines and want to make it to Chicago. Desmoines-Davenport is 168 miles. That’s more than 150 miles. So: Take a very inconvenient detour to Cedar Rapid, juice up. , Then get back to the highway, go to Davenport. And then, hold your breath while you try for 150 miles to Naperville. (Hope the charging stations are on the west side of Naperville and the east side of Davenport.)
It’s pretty clear that if you are hoping to ever take a long trip in a Tesla, you need the upgrade and hope for a 187 mile range. Still, to my mind, given the reality of construction, detours to see scenery or friends a “road trip” car needs a 200 mile range.
Numerous auto accidents are being reported in Palm Beach county. The signals are/were out for want of electricity. My memory of mortality attribution in Dade county following Andrew was that death by automobile was most popular single method. This would include the storm itself and the first weeks following the storm.
Tesla is planning to put more of these on interstates, with solar panels for the charging. However, I am skeptical they can get the space, because the superchargers would be limited to Teslas.
J ferguson (Comment #164989): “Numerous auto accidents are being reported in Palm Beach county. The signals are/were out for want of electricity.”
During the 2003 blackout, roads were nearly empty and signals were out. I saw idiots zipping along without regard to cross streets. I guess there were few enough that the idiots had little chance of trying to occupy the same space at the same time. Perhaps not the case after a hurricane.
De Witt, would you call the minimum? I am too scared to.
Also Nino3.4 down to -0.34.
My be some cold times ahead at last.
angech,
ENSO mostly influences temperatures in the 30S to 30N region, so even a fairly strong la Nina won’t have a big influence on temperatures in temperate regions. (There are some apparent influences of ENSO on things like rainfall patterns outside the tropics.) Since 30S to 30N is half the Earth’s surface, ENSO does show up clearly in the global average temperature record, but the temperature influence is strong in the tropics and near nothing elsewhere.
SteveF: “ENSO mostly influences temperatures in the 30S to 30N region, so even a fairly strong la Nina won’t have a big influence on temperatures in temperate regions. (There are some apparent influences of ENSO on things like rainfall patterns outside the tropics.) Since 30S to 30N is half the Earth’s surface, ENSO does show up clearly in the global average temperature record, but the temperature influence is strong in the tropics and near nothing elsewhere.”
El Ninos obviously increase temperatures in North America at latitudes 45 degrees north and higher.
angech,
I think we need a few more days. Two up days in a row isn’t enough, especially when the delta isn’t large. I want to see the seven day moving average going up. August ice volume was looking better too.
The Antarctic is looking better. Yesterday’s area was higher than five previous years instead of setting a record low. Global sea ice isn’t setting new record lows either.
The AMO index hasn’t dropped yet. It’s still above 0.3. The annual average so far is below 2016, but not by much.
SteveF,
Last year’s El Nino had a big effect on sea ice, particularly Antarctic Sea ice.
angech,
I want to see all Arctic Sea ice sites showing increases. the September 12 NOAA near real time extent was the low for the year. The average minimum date is also still a week away, although we are well within the minimum date range.
It turns out traffic back into Florida is as bad as traffic was leaving Florida in some places. I passed two large national guard convoys and several convoys of tree trimming trucks and power company trucks. Cell access was available almost all the way. Several towns without power at major intersections. Long lines for gas, but available.
.
No significant damage to report on my side, I didn’t really see much damage driving back in as well except for some trees down, trees on power lines, etc. Power was out for only about 18 hours at my house which is great.
Underground utilities helps. I haven’t seen ground zero Marco Island coverage yet.
.
I don’t remember exactly where I saw the drowning stats, here is one article:
88 Percent of U.S. Deaths From Hurricanes, Tropical Storms Are From Water, Not Wind https://weather.com/safety/hurricane/news/hurricanes-tropical-storms-us-deaths-surge-flooding
.
I imagine it is another exercise in how you count things, whether it is US only, and what time period you use. I think “from a hurricane” is likely pretty malleable. It’s storm surge, flooding, versus wind, then there are secondary effects such as auto accidents, electrocutions, heat stress, etc. Katrina: About two-thirds either drowned or died from illness or injury brought on by being trapped in houses surrounded by water. The number of people today who die directly from wind are pretty small. Getting struck by flying debris or inside a house destroyed by wind is rare…
…in the western world. Most hurricane deaths are preventable and are actually prevented in the US when compared to the third world (unless you build your city below sea level and fail to evacuate). Realistically most damage is also cost-effective preventable in high frequency hurricane areas but some things are not cost effective to protect like billboards.
Once you got out of Florida the gas mania ended, I would not have evacuated in an electric vehicle if it didn’t get me out of Florida in one charge. It would be interesting to see some stats there. If you are 10 deep in a gas line you need to wait 50 minutes, if you are 10 deep in an electric line…
.
If you use gas buddy (awesome app for this kind of crisis) it is pretty amazing the scale of the gas infrastructure in place. It’s going to take a minimum of a decade to get anywhere near that level for electric. Since range is getting solved, infrastructure is the next key problem and it is very hard. Recharge times need to improve. 5 minutes to refill a gas tank. My car’s gas range is over 500 miles. http://tracker.gasbuddy.com
If the gas lines are ten deep, try going to the line with the tank on the right, and the hose will reach around.
Tom,
The range problem isn’t solved even for the Tesla with the biggest battery. I read an article in the LA Times about driving a high end Tesla from San Francisco to LA. It took two days. The charging time was about two hours charging for every hour on the road. Maybe the supercharging stations can charge faster, but that costs battery life too.
That was also in fair weather, not running the A/C or the heater, both of which also cost range at a higher rate than for a gasoline or diesel engine.
It’s not just the charging stations either. You need a lot of new generating capacity. At least some Tesla supercharging stations use diesel generators.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #165003): “I read an article in the LA Times about driving a high end Tesla from San Francisco to LA. It took two days. The charging time was about two hours charging for every hour on the road.”
That is simply not believable. That trip would require one charging stop, and not even a full recharge. People have driven Tesla’s coast to coast without problems.
Mike M,
“People have driven Tesla’s coast to coast without problems.”
.
Big solar panels on the roof? Or perhaps a very carefully planned route. We can be sure that charging availability was a continuing concern.
.
People have driven Tesla’s coast to coast without problems.
I’m sure people can pick a route to drive coast to coast and get there “without problems”. That doesn’t mean a person living in selected parts of the country can conveniently get from one place to another conveniently.
If you like at the example I found with Desmoines, you can get to Chicago “without problems” provided you think taking a time consuming detour to Cedar Rapids is “not a problem”. I could get to Indianapolis from Naperville by taking a screwy time consuming route so I could recharge. As long as I consider taking time consuming routes “not a problem” I can report that I can get around “without a problem”.
That said: I’m not buying a car that requires me to take convoluted strange routes just to avoid running out of electrons.
I was off on the charging time. It was 30 minutes for one hour of driving. It was also 2015. I’m sure there are more charging stations now. You won’t get the theoretical range at 70+mph on the Interstate either. At 383 miles via I-5, you can make it with one charging stop, but I would bet that you won’t have much range when you get to the charging station if you drive normally. 200 miles is a more realistic range for the P85D than the rated range of 253 miles.
I could probably make it on one tank of gas in my 400+hp 2011 Mustang GT averaging 70mph and it won’t take a significant fraction of an hour to refill it either. I could drive there and halfway back on one tank of gas in my Hyundai Sonata. It gets better gas mileage and has a bigger gas tank.
HaroldW (Comment #165006): “Forbes has an article about driving from San Diego to San Francisco …”
From that it sounds like about 1.5 hrs charging for 6-7 hours driving. Sounds about like I would expect. Also sounds like it would drive me nuts.
.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #165008): “I was off on the charging time. It was 30 minutes for one hour of driving.”
I don’t know how you got that from the article. It sounds like the driver did not really know how to get the job done efficiently. And the overnight aspect of the trip had nothing whatever to do with the car.
.
lucia (Comment #165007): “I’m sure people can pick a route to drive coast to coast and get there “without problemsâ€. That doesn’t mean a person … can conveniently get from one place to another conveniently.”
From this map: https://www.tesla.com/supercharger it looks like there are stations every 50 to 100 miles along major routes, with most gaps being closer to 50. So for major routes between major cities, it looks quite manageable, especially since the car does the planning. Off the beaten track, not so much.
I was not endorsing Tesla. I personally would not want an electric car. I was only objecting to misinformation.
Nephew in cedar rapids, Iowa bought used Tesla 80. Interesting story, but I’m tablet-bound in Darwin.
Trip to Chicago required 45 minute supercharge in Rockford, a bit out of the way. This was 18 months ago.
Reason for purchase was it was by far hottest car for money. I think he paid $75k. Yes, he’s nuts.
Last year, we met a bunch (gaggle) of Tessa’s in Yellowstone. Owner’s club sponsered but done entirely with then-in-place superchargers. They were from LA.
All this fuss about lay-by time for charging wouldn’t occur to
MG A owners club outing. Substitute unscheduled maintenance for charging.
MikeM,
On the map you found, there is now a station at Iowa City which is, mercifully, better than a detour to Cedar Rapids. But DesMoines to Iowa city is not 50 miles. It’s 114.
I-80 would be considered a “major route”.
I personally would not want an electric car. I was only objecting to misinformation.
I don’t think anyone has posted “misinformation”.
DeWitt,
“At least some Tesla supercharging stations use diesel generators.”
.
I’ve heard of diesel-electric locomotives, but I have to admit Tesla has taken the same concept to a new level. Truly dedicated green drivers would no doubt prefer to sit on the side of the interstate than use such a dirty, CO2 spewing energy source to recharge. Better for Tesla to build a giant windmill and enormous battery bank at each charging station….. taxpayer subsidized, of course.
J Ferguson,
Nephew in cedar rapids, Iowa bought used Tesla 80. Interesting story, but I’m tablet-bound in Darwin.
Yes. Well, even though Mike M’s estimate of distance between stations on major routes is 50 m-100m, there is no station on I-88 between Davenport and Naperville. That’s 150 mi.
I-88 is generally considered a major route– at least to those of us who live in and near Chicago.
If you are range limited you need to either to Peru or Rockford. Are these out of the way when driving from Cedar Rapids (or DesMoines) to Chicago? Yes. They are out of the way.
Is Chicago a major city? Yes. I realize some people think of all the midwest as “off the beaten track”. But I happen to live in the midwest and DesMoines is the capital of Iowa.
It may be that people planning a cross-country drive who don’t actually have any destinations in the midwest will have “no problems” driving around. But if you actually live here, have family and need to go to someplace in particular: Trouble. Got a kid going to Iowa State Univerisity or University of Iowa? Live in Chicago? You may find yourself in Peru, Il or Rockford. Not. Convenient.
lucia (Comment #165011): “I don’t think anyone has posted “misinformationâ€.”
DeWitt Payne (Comment #165003): “I read an article in the LA Times about driving a high end Tesla from San Francisco to LA. It took two days. The charging time was about two hours charging for every hour on the road.”
Misinformation.
.
lucia,
I pretty much agree with your comments re electric cars. But you seem determined to quibble over things like what is a major route or the fcat that some stations are farther apart than the average.
IDK. Maybe it’s only a quibble for people who aren’t actually driving the car looking for recharging stations.
The best idea I heard for batteries is replacing the entire battery module at a “refueling” station. One can imagine this would take five minutes if designed properly. I think Tesla considered this but eventually dropped the idea. Logistics would be difficult I imagine, but it solves the long recharge times. Range anxiety is still a problem for long distances, but it’s much better for daily commutes. Note also that batteries aren’t as efficient at low temperatures and running the heater is an extra energy drain in winter. The Volt solved this problem by having an additional small gas motor that would recharge the car on the fly.
.
I’ll get an electric car when they make sense, they don’t quite yet. They are solving the problems and wouldn’t be surprised if they are ready for prime time in ten years. Electric motors can also deliver neck snapping torque from a dead stop.
Mike M.,
I admitted the mistake on the charging time. The trip did take two days. But the point of my post was that the range problem has not been solved. That isn’t misinformation either. An electric car that is more affordable than the Tesla Model S, the Nissan Leaf, has a range of 100 miles. And a practical range of 200 miles for a car that costs on the order of $100,000 makes it a toy like an exotic sports car not a practical automobile for general transportation use.
My problem with recharging stations is if you get to one and all the slots are full, you are in for a long wait. Don’t know how big a problem this actually is, but it will get worse with more cars on the road. I also don’t think there are recharging station standards that allow different cars to all recharge at a station.
MikeM
How is it misinformation? He had a link and it did take someone that long. He corrected a mistake he made about the ratio of times for recharging. So I’m not seeing mis-information there.
Your showing the charging map hasn’t demonstrated it to be misinformation.
But you seem determined to quibble over things like what is a major route or the fcat that some stations are farther apart than the average.
I’m not quibbling about what is or is not a major route. Obviously, I-80 and I-88 are major routes. There is no route more major than I-80. I point this out to show that my examples aren’t some locations that I found by scrounging for odd routes.
My reason for pointing out the longer intervals is not to point out they are merely further apart than average. Of course some intervals are larger than average. I point them out because intervals larger than the range of the car are important. Even one interval larger than the range of the car takes a particular route out of contention. To avoid those intervals, a person going cross country has to do things like “not drive through Chicago” and/or “take weird time consuming detours to places like Rockford or Peru, Il” That’s probably fine if you live in NY and want to go to LA. But it’s rather impractical for people who actually want to to travel to a destination in the midwest or who might want to visit a relative in the Chicago area on the route from NY to the west coast.
Granted: Chicago may loom larger for me than others. But it is a rather large city. Needing to avoid routes through Chicago to get to other places in the midwest strikes me as a big inconvenience. I don’t think this is a quibble.
Tom Scharf,
I suspect the cars will be ready for prime time in 5 years. The number of recharging stations needs to increase. I think it has to increase a lot. For example, looking at the map MikeM provided, they need one near Quincy Il, Hannibal Mo.
I’m sure if Iowa/Illinois/Mo is inconvenient for the car, lots of places are.
Free Speech on Campus, UC Berkeley edition.
Interview with new dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/berkeley-dean-erwin-chemerinsky.html
.
Interview with new UC Berkeley Chancellor http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-uc-berkeley-chancellor-free-speech-20170914-htmlstory.html
.
It’s going to be interesting to see how these words translate to action. They aren’t interested in bending the 1st amendment. The Chancellor brings up valid issues such as security costs for speakers is not sustainable, they have spent $800K since Milo last year. However she reaches fair viewpoint neutral conclusions, that possibly when the security budget is used up, all speaking events stop.
Tom Scharf,
If ending all speaking engagements when the budget is gone is the choice, that might give protest groups an incentive to behave. After all: their guests won’t be able to come once the security budget is exhausted.
There are 16,000 electric recharge station in the US, 44,000 outlets. 14,000 of these outlets are in CA.
373 locations are Tesla superchargers with about 8 outlets each. The rest are “destination chargers”, hours to overnight to charge.
There are 168,000 gas stations which are effectively “supercharging”.
So a 450:1 ratio of gas stations to superchargers at the moment.
.
Tesla recharge times:
Supercharger = 300 miles in one hour.
Destination charger = 22 miles in one hour.
lucia,
I suspect the cars will be ready for prime time in 5 years.
I will be pleasantly surprised if that’s the case. I would say more like 20 years and even then I would need odds. There will definitely be more models of electric cars available in five years, but it will, IMO, still be a niche market with low penetration and the cars will still average much less than a 200 mile range and cost a lot more than a gas or diesel powered car.
You may not see that on the sticker because a lot will be sold at a loss to help with CAFE. Tesla will still not be making an operating profit. The Model 3 will be a colossal bust.
I think you’d add recharging stop locations to your mental overhead if you drove one of these things not unlike flight planning a trip with a plane that has a 3 hour range at 100mph. Trips cannot be driven thoughtlessly in an electric car.
There are a lot of Tesla’s down our way, not all of them driven by snowbirds. We have one other friend who has one and he was president/CEO of electrical equipment manufacturers company in Chicago.
Otherwise the virtue signallers seem to be comfortable with priuses. This makes me wonder if the Tesla market is a more rarified all-the-rage sort of thing. Iknow I’m susceptible to the 3. The one with the big battery.
But then in my many years driving screwy cars, I used to rent a serious one for trips.
DeWitt,
There will be very limited penetration by electric cars in the near future, but it could increase if gas prices jumped to $6 a gallon like in Europe… which is why greens are so hot for a heavy carbon tax: make anything but an electric car crazy expensive to run.
.
I think a plug-in hybrid with a combination of >50 miles all-electric range and an on-board gasoline motor/generator (~25 KW) is a much better bet, since you would get all the puffed-up virtue signaling of owning an electric (for around town) and still have a car with a practical range, and no worry about charging stations. So far the “plug-in hybrids” look like conventional hybrids with a complex drive train, big gasoline motor, slightly larger battery, and very limited all-electric range… and a big price tag.
Tom Scharf, Tesla didn’t drop the idea of swapping out the battery. They produced a demo and deployed it. Having this facility allowed them to claim extra credits from California, which they sold for over $100 million. The supercharger that has the battery swap is by appointment only, and the cost seems high. Some might think that the whole thing is a fraud…
With all things like DVD’s and bitcoins progress happens.
While solar and wind could not power or feed New York Electric cars will continue upwards in presence even if they do not become a major force.
Perhaps only the rich will have private electric transport in future?
Go Ice.
The problem with electric cars is that they are part of an inter-connected distributed energy system. When the main system goes down (electrical power), the car is close to worthless. So, if you are in Florida after a hurricane, an electric car could be very inconvenient when the power is out for millions of people. Also, even before a hurricane would hit, if everyone had electric cars, I could see situations where the grid would be overburdened by excessive power demands. Additionally, where millions of people are leaving at the same time, it is easy to imagine situations where there would be long lines at charging stations after people had left their homes.
My basic point is that with electric cars, there is a very substantial risk that when you need them most (for instance, to get out of the path of a hurricane), they may not be convenient or functional.
JD
JD Ohio,
“…they may not be convenient or functional.”
.
They very clearly are not, even in normal circumstances. Electric cars basically suck, which is why numbnut politicians in California are insisting on their use.
SteveF,
And France. France just passed a law banning the sale of fossil fueled vehicles in 2040.
We’ve probably seen the low for Arctic Sea ice extent. JAXA, NOAA and MASIE have not set new lows for several days and the JAXA seven day moving average went up today. The low for JAXA was 4.472Mm² on 9/9/17. That’s sixth from the bottom. If JAXA was a stock and I was a technical analyst, I would say that the recent behavior looks like a classic head and shoulders pattern, which would suggest that the trend is about to reverse. But sea ice, unlike stock prices, doesn’t have an emotional content so it probably won’t.
SteveF’s comment about high gas prices in Europe piqued my interest in electric cars sales over there. It seems to me electric cars should have been selling well now for some time because of the perpetually high gasoline prices they have.
Lucia’s concern over the range limitation (and the fear of mid-distance route not having a charging station) for an electric car is interesting but not new by any means.
Back when cars where first becoming more popular (late 1800’s and early 1900s- there was a real battle between electric and gas powered. This was at a time when there was not a gas station (or a “charging station”) along every road either.
The solution to the range problem for gas power was easy – carry extra gas. The weight to energy ratio allowed for this. Not so for electric cars.
It was one of the reasons gas won the day (gas engines were not efficient by any means either).
DeWitt – “head and shoulders pattern”.
It would be interesting if it was matching Fibonacci levels as well.
Kan (Comment #165035): “”It seems to me electric cars should have been selling well now for some time because of the perpetually high gasoline prices they have.”
But Europe also has very high electricity prices.
It is to power a Tesla with solar panels about equal to the area of the Tesla.
“But Europe also has very high electricity prices.”
Funny how that works.
MikeN,
It is to power a Tesla with solar panels about equal to the area of the Tesla.
This is likely sarcasm, but just for giggles, I’ll take it seriously. 1hp = 0.75kW in round numbers. Direct normal solar radiation peaks around 1000W/m², also in round numbers. So even if you could point the solar panel directly at the sun all the time and could convert with 100% efficiency, you’d need 15m² to get 20hp, when the sun was well above the horizon. More likely, you’d need ten times that area. IIRC, that’s just a bit larger than a Tesla.
If the Model S gets 253 miles range from an 85kWh battery pack, then it gets 3miles/kWh. At 50 mph, that would be ~17kW or ~23 hp.
After Andrew we found that gas stations without electricity couldn’t pump gas. Some without credit connection couldn’t sell it. Cash only. I vaguely remember some chains couldn’t sell for cash either because of company financial controls. So no electricity may mean no gasoline either
I’m a little surprised at the electric car scepticism here but then this is a sceptic watering hole
Range and insufficient number and location of recharge stations seem to me the main issues
J ferguson,
I wouldn’t care much if electric cars weren’t being rammed down our throats by the government. Rich people buying what amount to expensive toys are being subsidized. It’s much like net metering of rooftop solar electricity at retail. It’s a wealth transfer from the rate payers and the tax payers to people who are already well off enough to afford the out of pocket initial expense.
Elon Musk = P.T.Barnum
DeWitt,
“France just passed a law banning the sale of fossil fueled vehicles in 2040.”
.
Cubans manage to keep 1959 vintage cars running, so I expect the French can do the same after 2040. Of course, if the government banned diesel and gasoline, then there could be another French revolution… absent the guillotines I hope… even if that might be richly deserved.
1hp = 0.75kW Direct normal solar radiation peaks around 1000W/m², 100% efficiency, you’d need 15m² to get 20hp, More likely, you’d need ten times that area. IIRC, that’s just a bit larger than a Tesla.
If the Model S gets 253 miles range from an 85kWh battery pack, then it gets 3miles/kWh. At 50 mph, that would be ~17kW or ~23 hp.
Why bring hp into the discussion?
1000W/m², for 15m² you have 360 kWh/day That is 4 battery pack charges, for 1000 miles of range. Typical usage is 30 miles/day.
Low power and low mass electric cars would be good for France in 2040.
MikeN,
Living at the poles are we? The sun isn’t up for 24hours/day most places. And at the poles, you don’t get 1000 W/m². And efficiency isn’t 100%.
Dewitt, I’m aware of that. I also have 30x factor to work with. I think I got 20 to 25 square meters as my number.
Your calculation above breaks down because you ignored the car isn’t being driven all the time. I was surprised how good the number was until I realized it is not 17kW but 1/17 kW. 23hp becomes .08hp.
Oops, the 17kW is correct.
DeWitt,
I think I was able to recognize a desire for an electric car on my own. And without a subsidy, whose ethics I do also find disagreeable. But then they clearly aren’t for everyone.
In November we had a referendum down here on the assignment of excess facility charges incurred by the attachment of residential solar systems to the local grid. Should everyone share the cost or just the folks with the panels?
As you might suppose, all the usual people supported the idea that we should all share the cost. I reearned my stripes as a denier by advocating a “no-share”. As you might also expect, not a single person I discussed this with actually understood the issue; only that the local newspapers supported it. And the verbiage on the referendum was about as plain as it could be.
Mr grandfather was a john Bircher, a very early one. I was a kid then, but I already knew we could screw this place up without any help from the outside.
We’re now in Alice springs. Town’s full of 3 letter agency people. The insghtful who read here will be able to guess why they are here.
J Ferguson. Is that Alice Springs in Northern Territory, or Alice springs nowheresville USA? If you’re in Alice, I can see the use for an electric car to get to the deli and bottle shop and back, but it won’t get you far on the Stuart Highway.
j Ferguson,
The only solar back-feed scheme that makes economic sense is to set the credit value at the continuously updated wholesale price, which varies widely, but is on average way lower than retail. There would also be a need to separate electric bills for back-feeders into a fixed monthly cost for use of the system infrastructure and a net electric cost (credit for wholesale back-fed power and debit for retail power use). Of course that is unlikely to happen, since any economically reasonable system would demonstrate just how economically bonkers an investment in a roof-top system is… at least when it is not being largely paid for by your neighbors via taxes and higher retail power rates.
Seth, it is NT. On trip.
SteveF,
My take on value to utility of home-grown power was less than wholesale rate due to organisational and maintenance wear and tear. And it was this cost I didn’t want to share.
My thought was that it made as much sense as issuing an outboard motor to each sailor boarding the USS Saratoga.
I’d add that I wonder how reliable Tesla’s roof tile system can be with all the connectors it would appear to require.
I suppose I might be the only one here with hands on experience running a utility – ten years putting out 6kwhrs. Every day.
It was not competitive with FPL’s costs by a long shot. But then their distribution did not include marine customers.
j ferguson,
“I suppose I might be the only one here with hands on experience running a utility – ten years putting out 6kwhrs.”
.
My similar marine experience is much more limited… 6-10 Kwhrs a day, but only for stretches of a couple of weeks at a time. Maybe 6 months in total. The net cost per kwhr makes German rates ($0.36/kwhr) look cheap, but then Germans aren’t sitting at anchor in bright turquios water in the Bahamas. ðŸ˜
Keep in mind electric cars can be refueled at home, a major difference. It might take all night but you don’t have to go to the gas station. You might be able to refuel them from a generator(?).
Electric cars are best viewed in where they were ten years ago, and substantial progress has been made. It’s still early adopters only territory but they are making strides toward mainstream and it seems only a matter of when at this point. At some point they will likely hit price and performance parity with gas cars. For myself (and most others) I don’t value the virtue signalling aspect at all, so it’s only interesting in a cool tech toy kind of way today. I bought an evil fossil fuel car this year, didn’t even test drive an electric car. One of my customers has had a Chevy Volt for years and it is a very interesting car. They did good engineering on it.
There aren’t many solar panels in Florida and they don’t really subsidize them, that should tell you everything you need to know about economic viability at the moment. I calculated about a 12 year pay off last time I looked and the opportunity cost made it a clear financial loser. If you want to do it as a hobby I can understand that.
Even when it crosses that threshold it’s not obvious to me that a million people having a million different semi-reliable solar systems from different companies is a better plan than large scale utilities with an existing infrastructure. These utilities can put up their own solar farms. It all seems kind of nutty like urban gardens.
It might have been helpful if I’d added that the sailors freshly issued outboards would then provide the Saratoga’s propulsion. Duh.
Tom Scharf,
Never needing to fill a 5 gallon gas can for the mower is one of the big advantages of an electric lawn mower. If you own a standard lot, the battery always lets you finish the lawn. If you owned an acre, I doubt it would.
The other big advantage is that it’s quieter. I always wore ear protection when using a gas powered mower. But that didn’t prevent the noise from potentially bothering neighbors. The bother for neighbors is less with electric mowers. (I still don’t mow before 10 am on weekends.)
Tom Scharf (Comment #165060): “Electric cars … are making strides toward mainstream and it seems only a matter of when at this point. At some point they will likely hit price and performance parity with gas cars.”
I don’t think that will happen, at least not in the foreseeable future. Most of the strides have been driven by a combination of subsidies, trendiness, and virtue signalling. None are a basis for more than a niche role long term.
Hybrid market share is about where it was a decade ago (under 3%). That suggests that there is a niche that is now filled.
If there is to be a major near term shift in the market, I think it will be plug-in hybrids. They offer virtually all the short trip advantages of electric cars at much lower cost and combine that with the convenience of gas cars for longer trips. But plug-in hybrid sales seem to be struggling to get off the ground.
I think they have made a lot of progress with range. Going from 30 miles to 200 miles was a big advance. It mostly solves one of the problems.
1. (OK) Range (range anxiety)
2. (OK) Performance
3. (OK) Safety
4. (No) Unsubsidized cost
5. (No) Recharge infrastructure (range anxiety)
6. (No) Recharge time
7. (?) Reliability
8. (?) Lifetime of batteries / cost to replace
.
It may be that hybrids are the proper bridge technology but you have to pay for two systems which increases costs.
Tom Scharf: “It may be that hybrids are the proper bridge technology but you have to pay for two systems which increases costs.”
The premium for a hybrid over a conventional car was about $3000 a few years ago. My impression is that it is somewhat less now. A plug-in hybrid would be somewhat more. That is cheap compared to an EV A 200 mile range would require at least a 70 kW-hr battery pack. At $200 per kW-hr (low, I think) that is $14K for the battery.
I’m troubled by the gross vehicle weight, complexity, and number of parts in high-brids. Brother has driven a hi-brid ford escape to practical end of life – cost of repairs exceed value. In sum though, he thinks it was worth it although it couldn’t be used for towing
Brother in law has hibred fusion. He claims more than 40 mpg around town mostly picked up by gerayting during braking.
Still too complex for me. I like pure electric for it’s simplicity.
I used to drive pre-1962 VW’s and was pretty good at running through the reserve fuel supply and pushing the car the last 2 blocks to a gas station. A Tesla lookalike a pricey way to relive some of the excitement of my youth.
I should add that at least one date was unamused.
j ferguson,
My guess is that there is very little added complexity to recover energy during breaking with an electric vehical. The big complexity is marrying a big gasoline engine to a mechanically complicated hybrid drive train. For certain a stand-alone 25 KW motor/generator combination in a car would add to cost, but would still be very (mechanically) simple compared to a current version hybrid. The issue is (always has been) the cost for batteries for an all electric or long range electric/gas backup. When car manufacturers recognize peole will not pbay $30K for a car that leaves them stranded, then a ‘hybrid’ may make an impact.
That strange word is supposed to suggest regenerative braking.
Sorry.
40mpg car for the higher price is not worthwhile. You can generally find a fuel efficient gas car for much cheaper.
The fuel savings for hybrids are higher for SUVs and trucks.
Going from 30 MPG to 50MPG, is less fuel savings than going from 10 MPG to 12 MPG.
The strange thing about plugin hybrids is they are more of a religious allure. It is not the recharging that attracts them, but rather the opportunity to sell electricity back to the grid.
MikeN,
I agree. Facing choice of first new car when we moved ashore in 2013, I would have preferred a diesel but I couldn’t make it’s cost of operation and premium initial costs less than the Ford focus we ultmately bought. Vw diesel vs vw gas – same spec car except motivation didn’t work either.
MikeN (Comment #165071): “The strange thing about plugin hybrids is they are more of a religious allure. It is not the recharging that attracts them, but rather the opportunity to sell electricity back to the grid.”
That is ridiculous. I am pretty sure that you are not allowed to do that. And if you did that, you would be guaranteed to lose money.
More great wisdom from The Guardian and Harvard:
It’s time to take the ‘great’ white men of science off their pedestals https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/white-supremacist-statues-must-fall-scientists
.
Sigh. Predictable.
.
I’m happy to report that this was uniformly panned in the comments. It’s a bit curious that this even got published at all. It’s a bit of a tell that only ‘white men’ statues should be removed, there appears to be no interest in removing statues of anyone else who might have unacceptable views as judged through today’s moral lens. If I was a political double agent trying to get Trump re-elected this would be the exact type of article I would write.
“The extreme weather of the past months is a game-changer: surely now the world is ready to talk about climate change as a civilisation-collapsing catastrophe” —Ellie Mae O’Hagan at the Guardian.
Please take note, those who opine that the “C” in CAGW is a contrarian invention.
Harold,
.
It’s strange that Ellie takes it so completely for granted (both that climate change caused the hurricanes and the idea that climate change obviously to everyone ca[u]sed the hurricanes) when even the Huffington Post reports uncertainty regarding this.
The fact is, nobody knows how to solve the riddle of persuading the public to demand action on climate change.
Well, certainly not by making large and probably false assumptions this way!
There’s a company called Proterra that makes battery powered buses. They recently set a record of 1101.2 miles on a single charge. The battery pack has a capacity of 660kWh. They also use a lot more than 440V to charge it.
One of the factors I leaned on in my scheme to buy a battery car was the thought that better batteries could replace the ones the car comes with. It does seem though that the majical batteries I read about never show up.
DeWitt,
Those buses have a price tag of $800K+, depending on range, versus a comparable diesel bus at $300K. The payout in fuel and maintenance savings looks like about 10 years…. so no slam-dunk. No data on the lifetime of the batteries, but I’m guessing replacing the batteries each 5-10 years will cost another $300K… same price as a new diesel bus…. which is nowhere explained on the Proterra website.
.
What is hidden from the virtue signalers is that in many places, the grid power used to charge the batteries comes mostly from coal fired plants….. so the net CO2 emissions, while lower than a diesel bus, are on average nowhere close to zero. If you cost out operation of the bus based on unsubsidised wind/solar electric costs… true zero emissions… rather than the wholesale cost of power on the grid, the economics look really bad. More high priced virtue signaling for the PC crowd; count on them asking for hefty taxpayer subsidies for this nonsense.
j ferguson,
The limitation is the amount of chemical energy that can be storred in a battery relative to its weight. There is no magic in chemistry, so you are never going to see magical batteries. There may be marginal improvements in energy density to be found, but it seems to me the much bigger issue is lifetime: if the battery has a useful lifetime of 1,500 cycles, then you have to buy a new battery every 5 years or so… ‘burning’ 20% of the battery’s cost every year means higher power (and more expensive!) batteries are no better an investment than what is currently available. Battery lifetime is the key to making electric cars economically viable; progress has been kind of slow.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #165084): “There’s a company called Proterra that makes battery powered buses. They recently set a record of 1101.2 miles on a single charge.”
I wonder if that was a production model or one with extra batteries. I see that the record they broke was also over 1000 miles and was set by a car. Obviously not a production model unless the artificial conditions (constant speed on a closed track) dramatically increase range.
SteveF (Comment #165088): “There may be marginal improvements in energy density to be found, but it seems to me the much bigger issue is lifetime: if the battery has a useful lifetime of 1,500 cycles, then you have to buy a new battery every 5 years or so … Battery lifetime is the key to making electric cars economically viable; progress has been kind of slow.”
I agree that dramatic improvements in energy density are very unlikely. I don’t think lifetime is a big issue for purely electric cars. The thing that kills battery lifetime is deep discharges; that can be avoided by having a battery that gives a range much larger than what is normally driven in a day. For an electric car, that is not hard. For a plug-in hybrid it is much more of a problem. Cost is a bigger issue for pure electric cars; that also looks to be limited to incremental improvements. Cycle efficiency and charging rate (which I think are related) also is an issue.
Li ion batteries with glass electrolytes are supposedly just around the corner (I’ll believe that when I see it). They could dramatically improve lifetime and charging rate.
SteveF –
Speaking of the Proterra website…they have a chart purporting to show that their electric-powered bus is a better long-term buy than alternatives. The text claims savings (over a 12-year operational lifetime) of $448K compared to diesel, $459K to a diesel-electric hybrid, and $408K relative to CNG. The graph, however, indicates lesser numbers: around $200K for CNG & diesel, ~$450K for hybrid. I wonder which is accurate. [Of course, one must consider that these figures were not produced by a disinterested third party, so “neither” may be the correct answer.]
Louisville, KY has been using Proterra buses in their public transport system for three years now. They now have 15 buses. They can be recharged in less than ten minutes, but that’s not plugging them into the wall. The charging stations are fairly elaborate. I’m told they look like a small electric substation with massive carbon electrodes that clamp to electrodes on the top of the bus. I don’t know what voltage and current they use. I might be able to find out as the son-in-law of a friend is involved in building the charging stations.
HaroldW,
I wonder if that cost includes the capital investment in the charging stations?
“I wonder if that cost includes the capital investment in the charging stations?”
I think not. The graph is divided into “vehicle”, “fuel”, and “maintenance” categories. While one might incorporate the charging equipment under “fuel”, one would also have to figure the cost of gas pumps & tanks for the diesel version, etc.
The spec sheet says that the new buses are J1772-CCS compliant, which doesn’t sound like electrodes on top of the bus. I’d still expect that some serious circuitry is required for such high voltage, high current connections.
Mike M,
The lifetime/capacity issues are intimately linked. If you add batteries to avoid deep discharge, then you extend life, but you also add proportionally to capital cost. I disagree that battery lifetime is not an issue in electric cars…. maybe not for today’s wealthy virtue signalers who receive huge taxpayer subsidies (apparently for being virtuous) in their purchase of an expensive toy, but certainly for everyone else. If you have to add enough batteries to make battery lifetime not important for the new car buyer, then probably you put the cost out of reach, and the potential used car buyer is not going to be thrilled about purchasing new batteries that are a significant fraction of a new car price. Electric cars are a very long way from practical.
.
For what it’s worth: one of my nephews is a researcher at NREL, and he is working on “next generation” Li-ion batteries. He makes it very clear,even in casual conversation that the lifetime/capacity balance is critical… capacity * lifetime = value.
DeWitt,
P.S. Just noticed that you mentioned a 10-minute recharge time for the Louisville buses. That suggests Proterra’s smaller “FC” model (79 kWh). The latest Proterra model (E2, 660 kWh) takes ~5 hours to charge. About 8x the energy, but 30x the time => suggests 4x less current. So it may not need as elaborate a charging station as the prior model.
Another puzzle…the press release says that the bus traveled over 1000 miles on one charge. But the spec sheet gives a range of 350 miles for the 660 kWh E2-max model. What’s the source(s) of the factor of 3 difference?
Harold W,
“…indicates a 6-year battery warranty”
.
Hummm… 6 years free replacement, or 6-years pro-rated… makes a big difference. My guess: a complicated warranty that you are unlikely to ever actually use, so you end up buying new batteries at near $600/kwh capacity to keep the bus in service past 6 years.
.
DeWitt,
The ‘bus-out-of-service’ charge station is 100 kw…. 134 amps@440VAC-three phase. The on-street quick charge stations are MUCH bigger. Yikes!
HaroldW,
“What’s the source(s) of the factor of 3 difference?”
.
Marketing reality versus reality reality.
SteveF,
I think those mileage records are set at low speed to minimize rolling resistance and aero drag. With internal combustion engines, the car mostly coasts. The engine has no cooling system. The tires are rock hard and narrow. The body is very low drag and as light as possible.
I use the term ‘car’ to mean a device with four wheels not in a line. It’s not something that could be used in the real world. Aero drag would be a major factor for a bus with its large frontal area. My guess is that the bus never went over 20 mph, if that.
HaroldW,
That spec is for the out-of-service charge station, not the on-street quick charge.
The battery chemistry is lithium titanate. There is no diffusion of the ions with that chemistry which allows for much faster charging without losing a lot of efficiency. That comes with a cost of lower specific energy due to the lower inherent voltage. That’s not really a problem for a bus. That’s also why compressed natural gas is a good fit for buses. There’s plenty of room for the heavy tanks needed to hold high pressure methane. Cars, not so much.
SteveF,
I got 900 cycles or so from lead-acid, 3 years. I could carry each days load between full charge and 12 volts or about 50% iirc. Batteries were deep cycle 6volt golf cart type, in series and parallel to create a large single 12 volt bank. All batteries were purchased at once and I insisted that they be delivered new and with identical batch number. I never had battery problems in 20 years operating boat.
To get back to where we are in potential useable energy in possible battery chemistry, is it fair to assume we are not likely to see a doubling?
Rechaege time and number of cycles would make a big difference. But I’m unconvinced That improvement in those characteristics would overcome adverse effect of limited range.
j Ferguson,
900 cycles is pretty good: you must have been a conscientious waterer of batteries. Since my boat has always been used intermittently, I have always used AGM batteries, with 5 KWH total capacity. Even with relatively light use they are shot in 5 years or so.
.
A doubling of capacity is physically possible for Li-ion, but not other types. But if that doubling doubles the cost (as the market would likely lead to) then the cost problem remains unless lifetime improves.
.
The impact of longer battery lifetime on car range is that you could justify more batteries (at higher total cost) if they would last longer. Just like with off-grid rooftop solar, a big chunk of the total cost for the power used is the gradual destruction of very expensive batteries.
I’ve come to deeply distrust lifetime cost calculations by activists. You normally have to dig deep to find out if they are fairly done or not and I don’t have the patience to do it. If they insert costs such as “social cost of carbon” and so forth the calculation becomes corrupted. How many time have you seen a calculation like this that didn’t match the agenda of the authors of the study? The most obscene one I saw was a study that inserted the cost of future nuclear wars in a nuclear power study.
.
It’s a bit hard to believe a bus with humongous expensive batteries is more cost effective than a diesel bus. Why isn’t the industry converting then? A conspiracy by fossil fuel companies? The power of greed will make this a quick transition when the cost crossover point is hit. Long haul trucking would be an ideal target for high cost infrastructure electric vehicles.
HaroldW,
“It is also too massive. The truth is if we don’t take action on climate change now, the food shortages, mass migration and political turmoil it will cause could see the collapse of civilisation in our lifetimes.”
“maybe some of the rich white people who were battered by Hurricane Sandy would use their privilege to demand action.”
.
A linked article: “A 3ºC temperature could potentially be possible as early as 2050.” Let’s see, 2C more warming in the next 33 years. 0.6C per decade. Yes if the rate of increase changes by 5x tomorrow that might happen. I wonder what the odds of that are.
.
Why I just can’t understand why people aren’t buying into this argument, bring in the communications experts! Ha ha. Another proof of the theory you can say almost anything about climate change without push back.
NFL Goodell:
“The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture.”
“(Trump’s) Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players”
.
What an unenviable position Goodell is in. Once again Trump expresses unsaid frustration that many people feel and the media is too timid to state. One could make the argument that it is the players who first were being divisive and showing a lack of respect for America and the culture of the fans who pay their salaries.
.
This is a no win situation for the NFL and Trump is forcing their hand on it. As usual though Trump overplays any hand he is given. This was an unnecessary situation to escalate. Players can protest and I’m all for their right to do so, but fans can choose to not watch, express disapproval, and not buy their product. Annoying your customers is just bad business and I think the NFL knows this. The only thing worse than allowing your employees to willfully annoy your customers is not allowing them to do so in this case.
Scharf: Goodell
Trump as usual addresses issues that should be discussed but goes too far. He could have simply made his point by tweeting that if the team was unsure of whether they wanted to visit the Whitehouse, he would make their decision easier and cancel the event. He didn’t have to go further and say that if he was an owner, he would fire those who knelt. The NFL’s problem (which many players don’t understand) is that almost surely most of its fans hate the kneeling. They will stop attending and watching, which will ultimately find its way down to reduced revenue and player salaries.
…..
Trump by going further than cancelling the event and saying players should be fired, has simply created more motivated powerful enemies in people like James and Curry. The players seem to think that they have the right to have a forum created by Trump (the Whitehouse invitation) to attack Trump. He should have just cancelled the event and moved on.
JD
Mahmoud Abdul Rauf was suspended for similar actions in the NBA, and he stopped doing it after other Muslims, particularly Hakeem Olajuwon, said he was wrong.
The NFL and other leagues started appeasing left-wing groups, threatening to take a Super Bowl away from Arizona if they passed a religious liberty bill for example, so now they are not able to enforce the bans they did before.
JD Ohio (Comment #165107): “He could have simply made his point by tweeting that if the team was unsure of whether they wanted to visit the Whitehouse, he would make their decision easier and cancel the event.”
Isn’t that just what happened?
.
JD: “He didn’t have to go further and say that if he was an owner, he would fire those who knelt.”
I think you are conflating two different things. Trump did not HAVE to say what he said in Alabama about the NFL, but I see no reason why the President (or anyone else) should limit himself to saying only what he has to say.
.
JD: “The NFL’s problem (which many players don’t understand) is that almost surely most of its fans hate the kneeling.”
True. Trump understands that perfectly. He also know that the fans who hate the kneeling are his present or potential supporters. He has every reason to play to them. He delivered that message to some thousands of supporters in Alabama and let the media amplify the message by a factor of 10,000.
.
JD: “Trump … has simply created more motivated powerful enemies in people like James and Curry.”
Really? Name one.
.
JD: “The players seem to think that they have the right to have a forum created by Trump (the Whitehouse invitation) to attack Trump. He should have just cancelled the event and moved on.”
I have no problem with Trump turning the tables on the too-full-of-themselves players.
.
Addition: JD, It almost sounds like you are confusing the NBA (Warriors, Curry, James) and the NFL (players kneeling during the national anthem).
They need to be careful, it can go too far. The NFL player strike did lasting damage that they eventually recovered from. Haven’t seen a strike for a while. The entire Steeler’s team stayed in the locker room during the anthem, not something that will play well with their fan base. A single player came out and stood for the anthem, Alejandro Villanueva, an ex-Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan, he is now an instant folk hero to many.
.
It seems there is a curious and hilarious strong correlation between protesting and losing football games. Browns, Lions, Steelers, Dolphins, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, 49ers, all losing at this time. The Patriots are immune it seems.
I think the Patriots have players kneeling during the anthem, but they are closely associated with Trump, even giving him a Super Bowl ring(Putin already has one).
James and Curry were already against Trump, and vocally so. LeBron James led the Heat into posing for a picture in support of TrayVon Martin, campaigned for Hillary, and during the finals engaged in a hoax hate crime at his house in LA. Curry was vocal against Trump along with coach Steve Kerr, who I’d think would be less adamant given his dad was killed by jihadists.
“President Trump just proved that the folks with the highest rate of brain damage (according to science) think he’s Hitler.” Scott Adams
The NFL is getting significant ratings decline, partly because of this. Trump throwing down could accelerate the damage. I was wondering how Monday Night Football’s ratings would do since they finally got a game better than Sunday night.
You may think it is unpresidential and a step too far, but having a whole bunch of NFL teams and media attack Trump for supporting the flag and anthem looks like a big win for Trump.
It is a dreadful and unforced error for the left to cede patriotism to the right. What are they thinking? The military and police are the most respected government institutions. If you are the party of government then at least support the parts that people actually like. It gets confusing lately who is anti-government and who isn’t.
.
Never was much of Kobe Bryant fan, but one interview I always remember is when NBC asked him if it was awkward to play on the Olympic team when playing for America wasn’t seen as “cool”, he immediately responded “No, it’s a cool thing for me to say. I feel great about it, and I’m not ashamed to say it. I mean, this is a tremendous honor”. It seemed very real even though it would be expected from someone protecting their image. That’s an example of “create a sense of unity in our country and our culture” IMO.
Tom,
I don’t watch football unless I end up visiting someone who is hosting some sort of “watch football” event. At home I can leave the room and surf the web, read a book or watch another tv in another room. But because I don’t watch, I can’t begin to predict how this whole “flag” kerfuffle will play out.
That said: I think Trump should have shut up and just let it play out without his ‘input’. I suspect very few players would have ended up making a display of not standing more-or-less at attention and so on. In fact, once Kaepernick was merely ‘in the past’ — which was going to be within 2 months — the whole thing would have gone away. That would probably have been the path that was better for political discourse and better for football.
Sadly, now Kaepernick actually has more attention than before and more people are discussing the message. Mind you: I don’t mind discussing race– in fact I think it should be discussed. But I think the “not standing for the flag” method was a stupid way to discuss it; it results in people mixing up a whole bunch of issues.
Still, for those who do want to discuss race in the way Kaepernick did, the discussion is now going to be louder and nastier than it was before. It’s also going to be a confused one because it’s going to be all entangled with “patriotism”, how it is shown and so on. This isn’t going to lead to any clarity on anything.
The weird thing is they never actually covered the anthem during TV for at least a decade except for the Super Bowl. The “you are either with me or against me” line drawing from Trump is definitely not unifying. However Trump seems to have a unique gut feel ability in picking the right enemies. Making people stand for or against America and the military (and by extension for Trump) is not unwise politically. I could do without this circus. Perhaps if people started kneeling during the opera and Shakespeare we could just all agree to keep politics in politics and let people breathe.
MikeM
I have no problem with Trump turning the tables on the too-full-of-themselves players.
He didn’t turn the tables on them. He created sympathy for them where otherwise there would have been none. In my view, by provoking him in to his stupid statement, the athletes turned the tables on Trump and anyone who criticizes the athletes for their own political speech.
Bigger issue because of Trump, but it would not have receded without him. Kaepernick might have become a minor story except his ability is higher than Tebow, so the media can continue to push it, and outside groups are protesting on his behalf. However, more players had joined in the protest, with the left and MSESPNP encouraging them.
At best, some players would continue to protest and it would get no attention.
>He created sympathy for them where otherwise there would have been none.
People who disapproved of the players are likely to continue disapproving unless they dislike Trump more(Bill Kristol is advising they take a knee to protest Trump and stand after the first few lines). People who approved will continue to approve.
The main groups affected are people who didn’t really think about it or were neutral, and the players’ teammates. Having more players kneeling and the media playing it up would likely push neutral and apathetic people towards Trump’s side I think.
lucia (Comment #165115): “He created sympathy for them where otherwise there would have been none.”
You are mistaken. OK, I can’t prove that. I can’t even provide any evidence. I just don’t see how what you claim can be so. So if you can provide evidence to the contrary, I am listening.
Maybe you mean that Trump created sympathy for Colin Kaepernick among people who hate Trump but never heard of Kaepernick? That is quite possible, but I don’t see how it matters.
MikeN
>People who disapproved of the players are likely to continue disapproving unless they dislike Trump more
I think you are largely mistaken. Yes some people who disapprove will continue to do so. But many people really value free speech and a sitting US President seeing to act to surpress will make quite a few of these have sympathy for players.
I disapprove of all the drama Kapernick was getting into. But Trump doing this makes me totally, utterly approve of the players who are now communicating their view in this way. At a minimum: at least one person who falls in the groups of “people” who disapproved of the behaviour now has sympathy for the players doing this. That person is me.
Having more players kneeling and the media playing it up would likely push neutral and apathetic people towards Trump’s side I think.
I doubt this very much. I suspect more people support free speech than you think.
MikeM
So if you can provide evidence to the contrary, I am listening.
I’m going by my reaction.
Maybe you mean that Trump created sympathy for Colin Kaepernick among people who hate Trump but never heard of Kaepernick?
I suspect that will happen too. But I think it will also create sympathy for Kaepernick among people who never heard of him (which is likely a fair number) and who are neutral toward Trump.
People who are more neutral to Trump is a considerable number.
People who mildly dislike him is also a large number.
Obviously, ardent Trump supporters are going to continue to be ardent Trump supporters. Those who hate him are going to continue to hate him. But I think those in the middle are going to tend to be more sympathetic to players who are now bending a knee than they were before Trump said what he said.
I certainly am.
MikeM, Ray Lewis was fired by ESPN after he attacked Black Lives Matter(and they hired him after he was involved in a double murder). Today he was kneeling in London with the other Ravens. Ravens might have hired Kaepernick if his girlfriend hadn’t tweeted Ray Lewis is an Uncle Tom and the Ravens owner a slaveowner.
I originally wrote that most of the affected group that moves towards the players don’t really care about football, but thought it was an irrelevant point. Now I’m not so sure. Your argument is centered around people’s opinions towards Trump. I am starting with their view of the players’ action. Trump injected himself in. I look at it as the media hates Trump and likes the players’ protest so they will highlight it more. People watching football who were previously in the middle will focus more and dislike the players’ being against the flag and ratings will decline. People thinking mostly about Trump are going to overall disapprove of his getting involved and will support players’ free speech as you say.
Football > politics, but maybe not with Trump.
MikeM “Addition: JD, It almost sounds like you are confusing the NBA (Warriors, Curry, James) and the NFL (players kneeling during the national anthem).”
….
You are right. I could have been clearer about separating the two. On the other hand, it seems like many professional athletes across different sports are reacting in essentially the same way.
Re: Firing someone for Protesting. I realize the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to private employers. However, Trump’s suggestion that players be fired for protesting is on very shaky legal ground viewed from contractual basis. If for instance, a player making $10,000,000 per year was fired for one protest, I would call that breach of contract by the employer unless there was clear language (almost certainly not there) explicitly stating that protests were not permissible under the contract.
JD
>that most of the affected group that moves towards the players don’t really care about football, but thought it was an irrelevant point.
I don’t think that’s irrelevant. It might be irrelevant to NFL commercial prospects. But it’s not irrelevant to political discourse or Trump’s popularity. I think the ltater is a way more important consideration than how things affect NFL’s economic prospects.
Your argument is centered around people’s opinions towards Trump.
.
Yes. Absolutely. I’m focused on the more important issue rather than the less important issue. The are many sports. If people stop watching the NFL and start preferring Hockey or vice-versa no skin off my nose.
Mike N
Regarding Kaepernick vs Tebow. Both are exceptional athletes in their own way. Kaepernick is faster Teobow is stronger. But both lack some of the most important qualities to be a good quarterback in the NFL and they’ve both been around long enough that teams don’t want to invest in the possibility that those negatives can be corrected. That is the reason that they’re not in the league.
Also … Most people realize this isn’t a first amendment issue. They also realize Trump is out of line with his tweets. And they also are put off by the drama queen reaction by the media, players and pundits. The reaction is way out of proportion to the initial transgression. When you do that you lose.
Chuck, Tebow’s negatives are much higher than Kaepernick. Despite beating a good Steelers team in the playoffs and that streak, he is a horrible quarterback. Kaepernick is just mediocre, who once was very good.
> Your argument is centered around people’s opinions towards Trump.
>
>Yes. Absolutely. I’m focused on the more important issue rather than the less important issue.
Yet your conclusion was about people having sympathy towards the players. Putting yourself as evidence no longer holds. You have to look at people who were neutral towards Trump, or approving who moved towards disapproval, and vice versa. Having Trump be placed by the media as being on the side of patriotism, the national anthem and the flag is solid for him, though perhaps the media has already done this and this only reinforces. He loses mostly with people who voted for him or are neutral, are OK with the protesting in general;, and their favorite team has a good player protesting. They have to be OK with the protesting because the firings will not happen.
chuckrr
Most people realize this isn’t a first amendment issue.
It is not. The NFL is private and could deal with players speech as they wish. As a matter of law, there is no 1A issue.
That said the US president calling employers to fire people who express speech the US president does not like….. Chilling. Very chilling.
Also: lots of people will find it disturbing that a president is suggesting anyone be fired from their job owing to speech.
Except it would be speech while on the job. The NFL already suspends players for what they do on Twitter.
Let’s consider Clay Travis’s example. What if some UPS drivers went around with Trump hats and had his bumper stickers on their trucks under President Hillary and she called on UPS to fire or suspend these drivers? Of course she would never need to do that because UPS would do it anyways.
I’m wondering if the whole thing is a smokescreen. Trump was about to have the Warriors reject his invitation. People would see thru a tweet that he is pulling the invitation. Now that is a minor detail.
MikeN
Yet your conclusion was about people having sympathy towards the players.
Sure. And you are also making claims with no evidence like
Bigger issue because of Trump, but it would not have receded without him.
I think most of us understand that we are expressing opinions here. That’s the way people talk when they are expressing opinions. I do it. You do it.
You have to look at people who were neutral towards Trump,
Sure. I hadn’t even discussed this with Jim. Yet, not a half hour ago while watching TV he decreed Trump was an idiot on this issue. And Jim doesn’t hate Trump. He’s pretty neutral.
I’m at least basing my opinion on some people who are neutral. I’m not interpreting what neutral people think based on what raving Trump supporters think.
MikeN
Except it would be speech while on the job.
Lots of people think it’s not quite right for employers to fire people for speech on the job. That the NFL might fire people for tweets…..
Can’t say I approve of that. I would suspect lots of people wouldn’t approve if those tweets were merely political. They might think it’s ok if they were ‘true threats’ to kill someone and so on. Or some other types of speech. But merely discussing politics? Or race? Or preference in an election?
It’s pretty dang chilling for an employer to suppress that sort of speech.
Lots of people don’t like this sort of thing. And lots complain when universities fire faculty for conservative liberal speech.
But if you accept one, and you want to make any pretense of being consistent, I think you ought to think the other is fine too. I think both are wrong.
What if some UPS drivers went around with Trump hats and had his bumper stickers on their trucks under President Hillary and she called on UPS to fire or suspend these drivers?
It would be chilling if hypothetical President Hillary did that. The only reason it would be reasonable for UPS to fire the drivers is if they have a content neutral rule that no one can wear any political hats. In fact, based on the uniforms UPS drivers wear, I suspect they will be fired for merely being out of uniform– which is entirely different from being fired for “speech”.
I’m wondering if the whole thing is a smokescreen. Trump was about to have the Warriors reject his invitation. People would see thru a tweet that he is pulling the invitation. Now that is a minor detail.
Sure. Trump calling for someone to surpress speech is considerably more important that whether or not someone would decline his invitation. If they’d declined that would have reflected on the team not so much on Trump. No one would be criticizing Trump for merely accepting the invitation.
For some reason Trump decided to act like an idiot because of what would be at most a small slight. If he’s calling for employers to surpress speech because he’s grumpy someone declined an invitation, he’s being a complete bozo.
>UPS to fire the drivers is if they have a content neutral rule that no one can wear any political hats.
Yes, that’s what I had in mind. It would be bad for UPS to be seen as endorsing either side and would lose business. The NFL also would be suffering if their players are at the games and protesting the flag and anthem by not standing. It would be different if they were doing this on their own time. It is an official NBA rule.
>types of speech. But merely discussing politics? Or race? Or preference in an election? It’s pretty dang chilling for an employer to suppress that sort of speech.
The ones that come to mind are Curt Schilling had a bunch, one making fun of transgendered people. One player was fined for tweeting ‘this is terrible’ after drafting Michael Sam and they showed him kissing his boyfriend. I think it’s still the case that the most punishments go to criticism of referees.
I don’t support firing people over their speech that’s on Twitter or personal time. If the protests were away from the game(Trump has also called for Jemele Hill to be fired for her Twitter attacks on Trump), it would be different, though arguably the impact on the NFL’s business is the same.
> Yet your conclusion was about people having sympathy towards the players.
>Sure. And you are also making claims with no evidence like
> Bigger issue because of Trump, but it would not have receded without him.
> I think most of us understand that we are expressing opinions here.
I should have referenced #119-120, which is what I was I thinking of with ‘your opinion doesn’t count as evidence.’
It’s not ‘your conclusion’ that I object to. But that it is about the players, and then you said you focus on the more important issue, so you are no longer in the neutral category in which you placed yourself in 119.
MikeN
The NFL also would be suffering if their players are at the games and protesting the flag and anthem by not standing.
I think you may be a little confused about “content neutral”.
In the UPS cases, the drivers express no political speech. They are forbidden to express any. That neutral.
In the NFL case, they are being told they must express political speech– that is, stand to express “respect” for the flag. If they were fired, they would be being told that not expressing political position the owners chose is fireable. “You must express political position A and may not express B” is pretty dang far from “content neutral”.
which is what I was I thinking of with ‘your opinion doesn’t count as evidence.’
You asked for evidence that anyone would think what I think or behave as I behave. The fact that I do is evidence that at least one person does. As it happens: so does Jim.
One player was fined for tweeting ‘this is terrible’ afte
I don’t know what rules the NFL has. Not criticizing other players behavior on social media could, hypothetically, be a rule. If it’s enforced for all criticism, it would be content neutral.
If it’s enforced non-uniformly, it is not. I’d disapprove if they do the latter. The former, I’d think is more or less ok.
lucia (Comment #165127): “The NFL is private and could deal with players speech as they wish. As a matter of law, there is no 1A issue.”
Yes, but it is more than just that. This is not about something players are doing on their own time and their own dime. They are doing it while on the job and officially representing their employers.
lucia: “That said the US president calling employers to fire people who express speech the US president does not like….. Chilling. Very chilling.”
I don’t think so. The press and pressure groups do that, and succeed, all the time. I agree that the President should be more circumspect than pressure groups (so should the press, but that is a different issue). But the speech here is not a criticism of Trump. The players are verbally attacking America. I don’t mind the President sticking up for America. Not one bit.
Mike…. I don’t in anyway justify Trumps comments. I view him in context of what we have experienced for the last year. Trump makes over the top comments but his actions rarely if ever follow. It’s bluster, but what a large percentage of people feel in one way or another even though they know no action will be taken. It’s venting… . And even though Trump makes them cringe the over the top reaction negates anything Trump has done. I think that view in one form or another is shared by a lot of so called nuetrals…. not just the die hard Trumpsters
Sorry but I disagree with your talent evaluations. They’re both rotten quarterbacks that given the right circumstances could still win some games. Tebow had intangibles that helped him rise to the same level of rottenness as Kaepernick.
Lucia…I understand why you find it chilling and disturbing. I would too but I guess my view is colored by how I see the context of Trumps tweets and the events of the past few years There’s hyperbole on all sides and I used to think hyperbole can be defeated by reasoned argument Now I think it’s probably a mixture of both, Again I think we need to put things in context. BLM was founded on events based on lies. And although I agree with them on many points you can’t have a movement based on lies and expect it not to be challenged. The movement was created and based on hyperbole. And it has thrived on hyperbole So I’m not overly disturbed by Trumps tweets and I probably would be if they came from another president. Are my views overflowing with hypocrisy and bias? Yes
>It’s bluster, but what a large percentage of people feel in one way or another even though they know no action will be taken. It’s venting… . And even though Trump makes them cringe the over the top reaction negates anything Trump has done.
That’s how I think this will play out.
> both rotten quarterbacks that given the right circumstances could still win
Kap, sure, but if Belichick couldn’t use Tebow he’s too far gone. However, Jacksonville should have signed him.
>Tebow had intangibles that helped him rise to the same level of rottenness
That is Kap’s current level. His peak was better, with 3 straight conference championship games and that season opener against Green Bay. Tebow had one good pass in overtime and lots of other players fumbling or stepping out of bounds while he was on the sideline.
Lucia,
I don’t much care for the NFL, and feel zero connection to players who are 6′ 6″ and 290 lbs on average. It is difficult to connect to a sport where the most important skill for success is skill in choosing your parents. That said, the NFL has very unwisely chosen to allow their (highly compensated!) employees to offend a large fraction of their customers. This will not end well for the NFL. I played golf some weeks ago with a trial lawyer who suggested the NFL is toast due to brain injury lawsuits. I disagreed with him. That kind of problem can be handled with signed empmoyment contracts, which acknowledge the risk. I suspect that brain unjury liability is minimal compared to pissing off half or more of your customers. My guess: the NFL will either put a stop to political statements by players or they are going to be toast. My expectation: toast.
MikeM
They are doing it while on the job and officially representing their employers.
I’m not convinced they are representing their employers. Some of the employers don’t necessarily care to make this speech.
But even if they are representing their employers, that would be their employers business to deal with. Their employers seemed to being doing just fine. Presumably, the employers weren’t the ones object.
What we have here is the US President who does not employ these players trying to get their employers to force players into speech the US President wants and to forbid speech quite a few of the employers may be perfectly fine with.
Had the employers wanted to stomp on Kaepernick’s speech they could have done so long ago. They didn’t– which suggest to me they would prefer to send a message that free speech is tolerated. That’s a powerful message and a very American one. I think it’s disturbing that the US President is calling for the employers speech to be “we don’t tolerate free speech when, to all appearances, the employers don’t want to say any such thing.
I think this is inappropriate on the part of the president. After all: he is calling both to dictate the players speech and that of their employers.
I have a lot of sympathy for players who, at this point, are protesting the President’s call for employers to stiffle speech the President wants stiffled. I have sympathy for owners who don’t take up the Presidents suggestion they stiffle speech– especially as they didn’t seem to want to do that in th efirst place.
But the speech here is not a criticism of Trump. The players are verbally attacking America
Free speech means Americans are allowed to verbally attack america. Saying they cannot do so is very unAmerican. Suggesting they should be prohibitted from doing so strikes at the heart of the first Amendment.
We both agree this is not legally a 1A problem– after all the president is just shooting off his mouth, and the teams aren’t the government. But the general idea of that people cannot criticize American is itself totally unAmerican.
Alright alright…I’m already dead..Kap was better
SteveF
That said, the NFL has very unwisely chosen to allow their (highly compensated!) employees to offend a large,fraction of their customers
That may be true as a business issue. If so, their viewers will decline. No skin off my nose.
Also: if the owners do want to decree that they won’t hire players who want to speak their mind about politics or religion at all, they could do so. They could put that in contracts. If they did so, they would probably lose viewership because they would be left with smaller, slower, less talented players on average. I think that’s a big reason the owners aren’t likely to do any such thing.
The main thing is, I think Trump is being a bozo. Mind you, he’s often a bozo — though not always. I would prefer that he not suggest chilling speech. He could just shut up.
If you are correct about the alienation, Trump has caused the NFL a business headache, which is also not a terrific thing for a president to do. It’s just unnecessary. The problem is: the man can’t shut up. He can’t bring himself to keep some thoughts that would better not become news to himself and just not tweet them.
>Had the employers wanted to stomp on Kaepernick’s speech they could have done so long ago. They didn’t which suggest to me they would prefer
I was going to agree with you that the employers have no interested in punishing people except for the damage to ratings, except I realize that in Kaep’s case one set of protests is that the employers DID stomp on his free speech.
EDIT: To clarify for the non-football folks, he is not currently employed. I saw one protester argue that he was the 17th best quarterback last year and there are 32 teams so he should get at least a backup spot.
Lucia,
Yes, Trump is a jerk to become involved in any of this. But the political nonsense in the NFL predates Trump. The players have just about zero economic prospects outside football (or basketball). If they can’t appreciate that political statements are inappropriate for professional athletes, then their financial loss will be far greater than anyone elses. Politics is always inappropriate when you are selling a product. NFL players will rue the day and Kaepernick decided to take a knee during the national anthem.
Mike N,
“To clarify for the non-football folks, he is not currently employed”
.
Who needs a second string quarterback who will drive away half your customers? Answer: no team in the NFL. (Or any other pro sport!)
Lucia,
I think you can count on NFL contracts to have a standard ‘no political horsesh!t’ clause very soon. Really, this is a strictly business decision, and owners (with hundreds of millions invested) will not put up with the nonsense, and loss of income, for very long. NFL TV viewership is off sharply this year…. That will focus minds.
lucia (Comment #165139): “What we have here is the US President who does not employ these players trying to get their employers to force players into speech the US President wants and to forbid speech quite a few of the employers may be perfectly fine with.”
Trump did that? When? Where? I must have missed it. But given the way this has blown up, I find it hard to believe that I missed that.
Trump essentially said what he would do if he owned a team. That is not attempting to force anybody to do anything. A country that sees an opinion expressed by the President as trying to “force” something is a country yearning for a dictator. Fortunately, Trump won the election, so there is no need to worry about that for at least a few more years.
MikeM, nitpicking. Trump said an owner that said you’re fired would be very popular.
Later on Twitter:
Roger Goodell of NFL just put out a statement trying to justify the total disrespect certain players show to our country.Tell them to stand!
Mike M,
In rather suspect the owners will be a lot less than ‘fine’ with players who offend a lot of fans. This is all just about surreal. As an employee of a large financial enterprise, you have zero right to expect continued employment when your behavior damages that enterprise by offending customers. OK, a few monopolies like Google may get away with really bad politics, at least for a while, but most businesses (like the NFL) can’t get away with it.
MikeN
I realize that in Kaep’s case one set of protests is that the employers DID stomp on his free speech.
In what way? Real question. As far as I can tell: he continued to be on a team for quite some time. Then when he became a free agent it turned out he wasn’t good enough to have a team give him an offer. That’s not stomping on his speech.
SteveF
If they can’t appreciate that political statements are inappropriate for professional athletes, then their financial loss will be far greater than anyone elses.
It seems to me most of them did totally agree with this. No one was joining in wheth Kaepernick up to know.
But once Trump is out there making an issue about this telling them they don’t have a right to speak and that they must stand there expressing “respect” — that is making the political statement Trump wants– I think things change a bit. I think they have some reason to respond to Trump who called them out, not as individuals, but as “Football Players”.
They don’t need to behave as Trump tells them to and I sympathize with any desire to respond.
That said: if they end up earning less because football becomes unpopular, I won’t really feel sorry for them. Their in the entertainment business– that’s all sports is. If people seek other entertainment, that’s just the business.
Mike M
Trump did that? When? Where? I must have missed it.
He spokeI don’t think you missed this.
I think what we have here is the President expressing an opinion. This may not be “presidential” as defined by previous behavior but that is irrelevant. If Trump took actual action to force the owners to do something then that would be different, otherwise it’s just the bully pulpit. Trump can express his opinions just as Obama did repeatedly with firearms, bathrooms, and other items.
.
The NFL has very strict rules with uniforms, ask Jim McMahon.
.
The NFL regularly supports political causes on the field such as breast cancer, but curiously they don’t find it wise to do so by obscenely disrespecting the USA, the flag, the military, and their fans. The protesters are doing it this way with the expressed intention of pissing off their own fans. Period. It got them noticed. Does this help the cause?
.
Way more people care passionately about sports than care about politics. Good luck trying to get 75,000 screaming fans to paint their faces and show up at a mayoral debate. Maybe if the debate sold beer and had cheerleaders it would help. The NFL is the most expensive rights of not only any American sport, but any American entertainment property.
.
There is a 100% chance the NFL just wants this issue to go away, which is exactly what the fans want to happen. I doubt this will materially affect their revenues unless they let it get out of control. The issue with the fans is about disrespecting their culture. It might be hard to believe, but there was a time when patriotism didn’t use to be equated with racism. There is military on the field before every game. Those jets doing flyovers after the anthem aren’t from BLM. Every Super Bowl coverage they show overseas military watching the game.
.
These players will be allowed to do what they want, but if your name isn’t Tom Brady or Lebron James and you have made a negative political spectacle of yourself then the next free agency negotiation might be harder than you thought. If you want to risk sacrificing your career over a political stance I can respect that. Muhammad Ali went to jail instead of serving in the armed forces. Don’t declare yourself a victim based on the negative response to your political activism that your customers don’t like.
Anthem protests led poll of reasons viewers tuned out http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20171611/national-anthem-protests-no-1-reason-viewers-tuned-nfl-games
.
“The pollster said it asked more than 9,200 people who attended either one football, basketball or hockey game whether they tuned into fewer games and why. Twenty-six percent of those who watched fewer games last season said that national anthem protests, some of which were led by Colin Kaepernick, were the reason.”
Tom Scharf,
The president has a big bully pulpet.
Trump can express his opinions just as Obama did repeatedly with firearms, bathrooms, and other items.
I often thought Obama was a pushing bozo trying to impose his agenda on people. Same with Trump.
Of course either can express their opinions but sometimes ought to shut up while in office.
There is a 100% chance the NFL just wants this issue to go away, which is exactly what the fans want to happen. I doubt this will materially affect their revenues unless they let it get out of control.
It was going away until Trump opened his yap. If it doesn’t affect their revenues, that’s ok too. But in which case, that means the bending knees doesn’t affect revenues. So I don’t see how anyone can be concerned the players are doing it.
The NFL has very strict rules with uniforms, ask Jim McMahon.
Sure. So? I don’t see the relevance of uniforms to this issue of taking a knee.
The NFL regularly supports political causes on the field such as breast cancer,
Which I find annoying. But if they want to… ok.
If a player refused to wear pink shoes or a ribbon, I’d say fine with me.
The issue with the fans is about disrespecting their culture.
Is there an issue about “disrespecting [fans] culture”? Real question.
Sure football is losing ratings. But lots of things are losing ratings due to the fact that people have a wider range of entertainment. In families with more than one tv, the whole family doesn’t get stuck watching football just because one person dominates the tv. They can watch all sorts of stuff. Other sports are available as are numerous optoins on Amazon, Netflix and so on. It’s natural that ratings would decline. Then, as the decline for a while, the decline gets even bigger as new fans aren’t formed.
As far as I can tell, most people were just ignoring Kaepernick. The reaction was mostly “Yawn”.
Don’t declare yourself a victim based on the negative response to your political activism that your customers don’t like.
Who is declaring themselves a victim based on negative reaction of any “customer”? Real question too.
I suspect Kaepernick may decreed himself a victim of someone — in which case I think he’s wrong. He’s just likely deluded about his value to a team. He wouldn’t be the first player to mistake his talent and think that he’s a better quarter back than he is.
Has anyone else claimed they were victimized? They are only just taking a knee now. So it seems unlikely they’ve been instantly victimized or that they have claimed to have been victimized.
Tom
NFL game viewership on networks that broadcast games was down an average of 8 percent for the 2016 regular season versus the season before. Before the election (Nov. 8), games for the first nine weeks were down 14 percent compared to 2015. The final eight weeks saw only a drop of 1 percent compared to Weeks 10-17 in 2015.
Viewership was down 8%. Let’s say that’s because 8% watched fewer games. Of that 8%, 26% think their main reason was the protest. That would suggest that 2% of football watchers are upset by the protests.
Or if you take another number 12% said they watched less football. 26% of 12% is 3% who were upset about the protests. This still doesn’t sound like the protests turned off a huge fraction of the base.
Interestingly, viewership was not down much for the actual interesting games. It was down for the boring games during the season and/or games that had to compete with other entertainment (like elections discussions). And 74% of those who did view less football gave reasons like “too many commercials” and or “domestic violence” or “game delays”. I’m really not seeing the protests as having caused anything remotely close to most the fans being upset. 2-3% being upset is not that many.
To make this situation even more surreal, they had a game in London and the players who knelt for the anthem then stood for God Save the Queen. I have no idea what to make of that. Bizarre.
.
That poll was taken before today’s protests. It’s just a sign that business might be materially affected if this was allowed to spiral out of control. Right now it is just mildly annoying. Media opinion is almost universally for the players, but fan opinion is much different. This is another instance where the media is paralyzed by political correctness and can’t even express the alternate view shared by a majority of fans. The “discussion” everyone thinks the protests are supposed to start is banned from actually happening in public by suffocating social restrictions.
.
“As the National Football League struggles to explain this season’s downturn in viewer ratings, 34% of American Adults say they are less likely to watch an NFL game because of the growing number of protests by players on the field.” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/sports/september_2017/34_are_less_likely_to_follow_nfl_because_of_protests
.
The media’s usual suspects are falling all over themselves declaring Kaepernick a victim because he wasn’t hired, but he himself isn’t doing so from what I can tell.
.
Patriotism is intertwined deeply with some sports. Baseball (America’s pastime), NASCAR, NFL, etc. The NFL’s logo is basically an American flag, red, white, and blue with stars. MLB and NBA are also red white and blue. Almost every single person at a stadium stands for the anthem. This has been going on for a 100+ years. Players say they aren’t disrespecting the miltary but I just don’t buy it. This is the only big public opportunity to do so for them and they choose not to. It’s just a dumb form of protest.
.
It’s pretty easy to confuse this protest as just spiteful racial identity politics when it’s unclear what the objectives actually are. I’m not sure the players even know or agree. Today was mostly about unity among players against Trump’s attack.
It’s pretty clear that most of the protesting players don’t know what they are protesting. Kapernick’s journey has been analyzed in detail and he was “radicalized” by auditing courses at Berkeley. Marxist and racist dogma is common currency there. This is disturbing because apparently he has no real personal grievance, just an ignorant view that “racism” is an overarching problem. This is the fruit of post modernism. Reality and facts and data don’t matter. What matters is “feelings” and emotions.
Lucia: “Is there an issue about “disrespecting [fans] cultureâ€? Real question.”
…..
Football culture has a strong militaristic/teamwork element. On good teams, everyone tends to sublimate their individual interests for the benefit of the team. Sometimes, it can be uplifting. For instance, see this video where two Ohio State walk-ons (non-scholarship players) had their black stripes removed signifying that they were full fledged, achieving members of the team. http://www.cleveland.com/osu/2017/04/ohio_state_football_walk-ons_c_4.html What is really nice about the video [that non-Ohio State fans wouldn’t recognize] is that some really talented full-scholarship players who will probably be making millions of dollars in a couple of years are whooping it up and celebrating the achievement of the comparatively non-talented, but hard-working non-scholarship players.
….
Justice Bill O Neill, a veteran and lone Democrat on the Ohio Supreme Court had strong words of disapproval concerning the Cleveland Browns: ““I will NEVER attend a sporting event where the draft dodging millionaire athletes disrespect the veterans who earned them the right to be on that field. Shame on you all. William O’Neill, LTC, US Army, Retired. Vietnam veteran; son of a World (War) II veteran; proud father of an Iraq veteran,†See http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170823/justice-bill-oneill-calls-out-browns-for-kneeling-during-national-anthem
Long-term, if this continues as I expect it to, I could easily see the NFL losing 10-20% of its fans. If you feel strongly like O Neill does, there is no pleasure in seeing a game where players disrespect the flag.
JD
David,
I wouldn’t be remotely surprised that Kaepernick doesn’t have clue one what he’s really protesting. Reading wikipedia, he decided to protest last year. So it looks like he just wants to protest.
But I suspect those who are protesting today know what they are protesting: Trump trying to boss them around from his bully pulpit.
JD,
I’ve never really held the notion of “respecting the flag” as being an important thing. I’ve been to sports games (usually baseball) where they play the anthem, and I’m usually the only one who sings. The players generally stand but the audience is really kind of so-so. So in some sense, I’m sort of one of the more respectful people around as far as I can see. Yet, I have nothing against people not “respecting” the flag. I think it’s important to allow people to “respect” or not as they wish.
I guess at least some people are upset. If people don’t go to games that will be fine with me. I guess we’ll see what happens.
This is all that really needs to be said
David Burgeâ€
@iowahawkblog
U put your right knee down
U put your left knee out
U put your right fist up & shake it all about
Do the Wokey Pokey & turn yourself around
3:52 PM – 24 Sep 2017
New conversation
David Burge†@iowahawkblog 6h6 hours ago
More
Replying to @iowahawkblog
That’s what it’s all about
Lucia: “JD,
I’ve never really held the notion of “respecting the flag†as being an important thing.”
…..
It is not something I feel super strong about either. On the other hand, it is something that a lot of people feel strongly about. Personally, I would respect their feelings, and if I felt I had the gripe that some football players have, I would find a different way and forum to express it.
JD
JD
I also agree with respecting the feeling of others. So I’d pick some other way of communicating my political views or gripes. The same goes for religious observances which I think should mostly be kept out of the public sphere. But I wouldn’t start whistling while some person says a brief public prayer just to get them to stop.
chuckrr (Comment #165161),
The Wokey Pokey is the best comment I’ve seen on this, but I can’t help trying to improve on it:
U put your right knee down
U put your left knee out
U put your right fist up and shake it all about
Do the Wokey Pokey and feel oh so smug
That’s what it’s all about
Credit entirely to iowahawkblog on twitter. A brilliant and funny libertarian.
Chuchrr,
Except the players who put their knees down yesterday didn’t put their fists up nor did they shake them.
I think one could equally accuse Trump of smugness.
One can sometimes seem funnier by making the joke describe people doing things they didn’t actually do.
One odd thing about this is that the main reason I think Kaepernick was wrong in the first place was that football is entertainment. The ticket buying customers and people who consume football on tv are there to be entertained by football. As a general rule, I think entertainers– which is what football players are– should provide the entertainment the audience came to consume.
I think entertainers who decide to use the forum to get out political messages should tread very lightly especially if they aren’t personally “the” attraction. (So for example: if I were to go to a “Joe Blow” concert, then “Joe Blow” is, quite likely, the attraction. But if I go to an opera, it’s not “about” the tenor individually nor the soprano individually and so on.) Generally speaking, a football game is never about any one player. For that reason it would be very, very, very rare for the forum of a game to be an appropriate place for an individual to make the political statement of his choice. Any individual player — or even owner– should find some other venue for political speech.
Note: In the above, I’ve said nothing about “disrespecting the flag” nor what view they hold.
The problem now though is that an external party who happens to be the sitting president has made this a huge political issue. In the process, he has made views on behavior of players a national political issues rather than one what fans might deserve from entertainment. Obviously, the players collectively are likely to have some view on this. As the president is discussing this in a national forum, the players obviously are going to use their only national forum– televised football.
Different teams and different members of teams did this different ways. Other than the view some have that the “way” to show respect to the flag is to stand, I didn’t really see indications of disrespect to the flat. Many kneeling had their heads down– the traditional prayer position in the Catholic church when I was a kid. Some had hands on their heart. This was not communicating “I am disrespecting the flag.” It was communicating, “Trump doesn’t dictate how I show respect nor what I chose to say.”
I get that some ticket buying fans are going to be disappointed or offended. But I think the fault lies on Trump. Who has been a bozo about this.
At least they aren’t burning flags. As I remember, that was not uncommon during Vietnam War protests. There was even a Supreme Court ruling, Texas v. Johnson, 1989, that overturned flag desecration laws.
Apparently Kaepernick’s recent girlfriend is a DJ big on social justice or something similar which is likely where his newfound religion comes from.
.
There is definitely a sense of taking the fans for granted here. The people who care the most about this are the fans and the media could care less what they think, or more likely they know what they think and don’t like the “disrespecting fans and country” narrative. The media joining billionaire owners and millionaire entertainers to condescend to middle america is not new. Fan disapproval on this subject is probably like an oil tanker, pretty hard to turn around once negative momentum gets going. Note to NFL: Stop digging a hole with a shovel that you will need to fill back up with a teaspoon.
DeWitt,
I was watching Ken Burn’s new PBS Vietnam documentary (18 hours long, very good) and they brought up something I hadn’t known before. The Vietnam protest movement really took off when they starting drafting people out of college. One person made a comment that it shifted from a moral protest to a protest of self interest. http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-vietnam-war/watch/
Lucia.
I know the players didn’t raise their fists..although I think some did in the past. I just think the post was funny. It also had some subtle messages about wokeness and virtue signalling.
I understand your view on the president getting involved in this issue or any issue involving private enterprise or individuals….and I agree with you. I’m just not as outraged as you because I see it in a different context. The context of hyperbole and misinformation that has stirred up this controversy from the beginning. Obama did it countless times, although with a lot more subtle delivery.
That’s called “whataboutism” or two wrongs don’t make it right ….I know. I’ve watched enough of these crisises to know that the first take is almost always wrong. So I think this situation will blow over. And what you may perceive as an increase in tensions may actually decrease in the long run . Was that Trumps intention ….almost certainly not. I guess we’ll see.
I follow @iowahakblog for the same reason I follow you…except he’s a lot funnier…..sorry. And although he makes fun of the woke football players he would agree with everyone of your points also. As do I. Both views can coexist
Dewitt,
You can have content neutral laws against burning stuff in public especially in ways that are fire safety hazards. But in that case, you better arrest people who start burning things like chairs too. It can’t be a special law against burning flags. (I think ANTIFA has burned stuff like chairs? Or set trashcans on fire? Or something. I know I’ve seen burning stuff.)
The Dixie Chicks went political and it hurt them. The audience didn’t intend to be presented a political lecture; they wanted to hear a concert. It wouldn’t have gone so badly for the Dixie Chicks if their audience had agreed with their politics. But the fact is: when people pay to for entertainment, they want to be entertained.
chuckrr, I’m just not as outraged as you because I see it in a different context.
I’m not outraged. I jumped in when MikeM suggested Trump had turned the tables. I don’t think he has. I’m expressing my view. Saying I think he’s a bozo, that he behavior is chilling and so on does not require or indicate outrage.
I just think the post was funny.
I get that. I don’t have a problem with you finding him funny. But I can’t help pointing out that that poem does not actually describe what is happening.
I also think comedy is funnier and more clever when it’s based on truth rather than making fun of people for doing something they didn’t actually have do. So I don’t take that poem of any indication of iowahawk being clever in this instance. (He is clever sometimes.)
Obama did it countless times, although with a lot more subtle delivery.
Yes. I would contradict people who supported Obama when he acted like a bozo. It just happens that most of those people aren’t here. Certainly they aren’t here today.
Was that Trumps intention ….almost certainly not. I guess we’ll see.
Intention? I think often Trump doesn’t have much of an intention other than the one right there at the surface. I think he wants the players to be pressured to stand up and “respect the flag”. If they don’t do it voluntarily, he wants the owners to fire them. He wants to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to pressure people into doing it. Those are the intentions I criticize him form.
Oddly: That Trump doesn’t seem to communicate in hidden meanings is one of the things I sort of like in him. At the same time: He doesn’t seem to have any filter at all. In some cases, he ought to.
“That Trump doesn’t seem to communicate in hidden meanings is one of the things I sort of like in him. At the same time: He doesn’t seem to have any filter at all. In some cases, he ought to.”
Great summary. I have no idea why Trump thought he had to throw in his $0.02 on this particular (trivial) issue. It doesn’t rise anywhere near the threshold of what should attract his attention as President.
This particular trivial issue is hot. Here’s my $0.02 solution. Drop the anthem. It’s just sports, and not even the Olympics, politics don’t belong, and the nationalism is old-fashioned. It’s a meaningless ritual. It’s almost like saying a prayer before the game. The game is just a game, it doesn’t need to be sanctified. It’s like the Pledge of Allegiance; it’s an anachronism.
HaroldW (Comment #165174): “I have no idea why Trump thought he had to throw in his $0.02 on this particular (trivial) issue. It doesn’t rise anywhere near the threshold of what should attract his attention as President.”
“Why” is totally obvious. He was speaking to a rally for his Senate candidate in the Alabama primary and figured it would be a good applause line. Obama, and every other president, routinely gave their attention to much more trivial things (NCAA brackets come to mind with Obama). It is the NFL and the press who are treating Trump’s comments like they are the end of the world. They are the ones lacking in perspective, not Trump.
.
p.s. – Trump is really clever about stuff like this, so he might well have anticipated the over reaction and group think that his comments would trigger. All the better for him.
Ledite,
I think dropping the anthem would be a wise idea. Obviously, it would take away a platform for anyone to use the flag for purposes like publicizing their personal protest or cause. That said, I suspect it would be controversial. I think there are plenty of people who want to force others to “respect” it.
The thing is: if you put it up there to insist people stand at attention while also claiming we should value free speech, there’s going to be tension. You are bound to discover there are people who actually believe in free speech and then say something you don’t like.
Lucia, the accusation is that Kaepernick was both demoted and not signed because of his protests, not his quality of play. While he is not a Top 20 quarterback, I don’t know if he is top 30 or backup level.
Kaepernick has been fined by the NFL for wearing Beats headphones at a postgame press conference when the league sponsor is Bose.
Also, NFL ratings are down very significantly. “NFL ratings are down double-digits this season so far after taking a similar tackle-for-loss last year.” http://deadline.com/2017/09/redskins-sunday-night-football-ratings-nfl-protests-star-trek-discovery-donald-trump-nbc-1202176141/ Personally, the thought of watching the NFL game that was on last night, made me sort of sick to my stomach, so I intentionally refused to watch it. (Quite often on Sunday evening, I used to watch NFL games while using my exercise bicycle.)
JD
MikeN
the accusation is that Kaepernick was both demoted and not signed because of his protests, not his quality of play.
Note: “the accusation”. That means someone has advanced this claim, not that it is true. I read his wikipedia page. He’s not that great a quarterback.
JD Ohio,
Jim watched one. I was in here. He watches the Bears some games because his brother’s do. Its sort of a social thing. Anyway, while watching, he volunteered that Trump was being a doofus on this. Up to that point neither of us had talked about it.
Myself, I can’t see tuning out an NFL game simply because some players choose to kneel during the anthem. On the other hand, I’m beginning to get bad feelings about the dangerousness of the game. Not only immediate injuries (knees, ankles, etc.), which have been present forever, but seem to be more prevalent now. Long-term effects seem even more serious.
Removing the anthem is the rational solution to this problem, however I suspect it will be met with…emotional resistance. Maybe the best answer is announce the anthem will be optional at stadiums next year. Personally I like the big flags, good singers, and especially Air Force flyovers. Sometimes they have a B-2 flyover which is the coolest thing ever. The anthem feels kind of like a requirement from a stodgy old teacher, but I would never take it away if a significant portion of the fan base wanted it there. Let the players be jerk-wads if they want. Realistically the usual suspects will just find another annoying way to protest so removing the anthem might not actually solve anything. The statue brouhaha has proven these things are give an inch take a mile affairs.
.
FYI: It is a requirement for teams to be on the sideline for the anthem, but the NFL announced no penalties for those who didn’t do it.
.
It’s likely Kaepernick was blackballed for his politics. I think from an owner’s perspective that is rational because the PITA you get from him isn’t worth a middling performance / high rent QB.
>Removing the anthem is the rational solution
Send a message to the left that they can dictate the removal of whatever they want. There’s a reason Yankee conservatives are supporting the Confederate monuments.
>Note: “the accusationâ€. That means someone has advanced this claim, not that it is true.,, read his wikipedia page. He’s not that great
I thought I said that to begin with. I’m don’t know it is false. Funny I had also read Wikipedia to see whether he’d been cut, and his stats from last year do not scream out he is terrible. You don’t have to be great to be a backup QB. It is possible he would have a job if not for the protests.
MikeN,
Or as the phrase from 1984 goes: ‘down the memory hole’
And yet more proof irony increases, Salon is accusing the Trump administration of tossing recent history down the memory hole.
To change the subject, what’s the opinion on the new Star Trek series being behind a $6/month pay wall? I’m not signing up. There’s nothing else worth watching on the service.
JD, that would be a uniform violation, and the NFL has been very strict about that.
They actually do have a rule like the NBA that players must stand during the anthem with their helmets under their shoulder, threatening fines, suspensions, or loss of draft picks even on a first offense.
According to the ESPN site, playing The Star-Spangled Banner at baseball games can be attributed to the Cubbies. They played it during the seventh inning stretch to try to liven up the crowd during the first game of the 1918 World Series. The song wasn’t adopted as the national anthem until 1931.
Lucia,
“I’ve been to sports games (usually baseball) where they play the anthem, and I’m usually the only one who sings. The players generally stand but the audience is really kind of so-so.”
.
I am really surprised by this. I often go to Cape Cod League baseball games in the summer (top college players… many are pro prospects). The anthem is sung by lots of people in the crowd, and even most of the players give it a try. Both teams stand along the first and third base lines, hats off and placed over their hearts, facing the flag in center field. Nothing so-so about it.
Hope I can ask a physics/electrical question here. I have had a Whirlpool E05KVEXVB00 model ice making refrigerator in my house for 2 years with no problem. About 5 days ago, it began tripping the GFCI about every 8-12 hours. A quick Google search gave me some ideas of potential problems that can cause electrical leakage.
I haven’t cleaned the coils in a while and the ice making filter is blinking red. I understand that I need to clean the coils, which may help.
In any event, about 38 hours ago, I pulled the fridge about 3 inches from the wall and noticed that the power cord was somewhat tangled. I straightened the cord and left the fridge 3 inches from the back wall. Since then what had been pretty regular tripping has stopped. Is it coincidence, or did what I tried help in some way. (Should mention that watching a youtube video with respect to James Clerk Maxwell about 2 weeks ago dealing with electro-magnetic fields was part of the source of my idea) I will leave the fridge as is and see if the tripping restarts.
JD
JD…you should never have a frig on a GFI. Frig’s have a high and somewhat sudden amp draw which can trip the GFI Can you eliminate it? Usually if the outlet is fed through the GFI to another outlet they can be reconnected to the incoming load connection on the GFI so it doesn’t trip the GFI ….just move the wire feeding the next outlet to the top connection on the GFI. Sorry can’t help you much on the physics
If you have Netflix and access to a foreign proxy, you can watch the new Star Trek series without paying an extra $6. I guess it will also be downloadable from the usual places pronto.
Haven’t seen it yet though.
SteveF,
I’ve had people thank me for singing, but they don’t. Maybe it’s a regional thing.
JD, had you previously tried unplugging the frig?
Sometimes that will reset and solve problems.
DaveJR, can you use your existing Netflix account or do you have to sign up for a new one? The foreign proxy is easy.
Here is an interesting footnote on Sunday’s NFL tantrum. Fans like to buy jerseys with the name and number of NFL stars; the league makes a lot of money on sales of such items. Of course, all the top sellers are quarterbacks, but star running backs and receivers are popular too. Maybe a few of the more spectacular defensive players. Offensive linemen, not so much. After all, you don’t normally hear an offensive lineman’s name during a game unless he screwed up.
It seems there is a new number 1 for NFL jerseys: offensive tackle Alejandro Villanueva of the Pittsburgh Steelers. The reason is that when the rest of the team stayed in the locker room during the anthem, Villanueva came out and stood at attention with his hand over his heart. I’m sure his back story didn’t hurt.
MikeN,
If I recall correctly, he opted out of his contract to become a free agent. Presumably he could have kept in the old one but didn’t want to.
You don’t have to be great to be a backup QB.
No. But it’s normal for people to not be willing to put up with drama for a back up anything.
Mike N. “JD, had you previously tried unplugging the frig?
Sometimes that will reset and solve problems.”
Did it many times. Didn’t work. Still hasn’t tripped since I straightened the power cord and moved the fridge.
JD
>it’s normal for people to not be willing to put up with drama for a back up
If you think that’s what’s happening, then you’re saying he’s being stomped on for his speech.
MikeN, existing Netflix account. IP location is all they seem to check.
MikeN
If you think that’s what’s happening, then you’re saying he’s being stomped on for his speech.
No. Any sort of drama is unappealing in anyone, but makes a backup unhirable. Since any sort would make people reluctant to hire him, that’s “content neutral” and so not “because” the issue is specifically speech.
Mike N,
If you have an obnoxious cousin who wants to constantly badmouth everyone he disagrees with politically, then you probably are not going to invite him over for dinner too often. Same thing with Kaepernik. Owners don’t need the drama with a back-up QB who is unlikely to see any playing time anyway.
JDOhio,
GFIs are sensitive and their circuitry can fail. If the tripping starts again, try replacing the GFI.
I think deciding to not hire someone and deciding to fire them are different standards. The holistic (ha ha) process of hiring a QB involves many factors. If you have equal candidates and one of them is likely to annoy your customers then the decision is pretty easy.
.
Von Miller lost his Denver Ford dealership endorsement for kneeling yesterday. Apparently the owner of the dealership is a veteran. This is a close call I think.
.
I do find the entire line of argument that “we aren’t disrespecting the military” to be dubious. You can take the flag out, take a big crap on it, burn it, and then assert you meant no disrespect. That doesn’t make it so. What is the primary symbol of our military? What is that thing they are constantly carrying around everywhere and wear on their uniforms?
.
If you believe the left’s rhetoric then disrespect is in the eye of the beholder anyway. I find the argument of “I meant no disrespect by burning that cross, I’m just protesting mistreatment of dogs” to be equally compelling.
.
I’m sure that some of the protesters do separate these issues in their minds, but it is obvious to everyone that a lot of people will interpret this as disrespect. That is why this form of protest is so poorly chosen. They can choose to make it obvious they respect the military in some additional way, hug the soldiers after the anthem or whatever.
lucia (Comment #165199): “If I recall correctly, he opted out of his contract to become a free agent. Presumably he could have kept in the old one but didn’t want to.”
I am pretty sure you recall correctly. Kaepernik presumably did not opt out so that he could get backup money (maybe $3 Million) elsewhere. He may have been hoping to get established starter money ($15 million and up) and was probably expecting at least compete-for-the-starting-job money ($10 million). So he priced himself out of the backup market. Otherwise, I bet he’d have been signed by Seattle.
.
lucia: “But it’s normal for people to not be willing to put up with drama for a back up anything.”
Exactly. There is also the fact the Kaepernik only seems good at a style of play tailored to his skills, which are not those of most quarterbacks. You don’t design your offense around a backup.
MikeN,
it’s normal for people to not be willing to put up with drama for a back up
If you think that’s what’s happening, then you’re saying he’s being stomped on for his speech.
Yes, he probably is. So what. The First Amendment limits the government and the states, not football teams. I’d bet that every player contract already contains a misconduct clause that allows penalties for player conduct that management thinks damages the team’s image or future earnings potential.
So Dallas probably found the best answer, kneel before the anthem and then stand when it starts. Clear separation solves the disrespect problem and even enhances the meaning of uniting. I can easily live with this. Hell would probably freeze over before Jerry Jones would allow “America’s Team” to disrespect the flag.
.
I found it very interesting to see actual independent thought in action with all teams coming out with different angles on the protest before social media inspired herd mentality takes over. Teams not even showing up for the anthem was probably the worst answer.
Tom
Teams not even showing up for the anthem was probably the worst answer.
According to Roger Pielke Jr. that was what the old standard method. The anthem was played for the audience. The players came out later. Polifact reports
One aspect of this history that has spawned some confusion in recent days concerns a change made in 2009.
Until that year, players in primetime games would remain inside their locker rooms while the anthem was sung, due to timing concerns for the television networks. After 2009, the players in primetime games have been on the field during the anthem, McCarthy said.
But this change only affected primetime games. For all other games — typically held at 1 p.m. or 4 p.m. Eastern — players had already been stationed on the field for the national anthem. So the 2009 change simply applied to primetime games the rules that had already been in place for daytime games.
Part of the confusion, McCarthy said, may be that television networks often haven’t shown the national anthem being played.
With regard to prime time games, the old way was probably better. The players could relax up until the game started. (I’m guessing there is probably even a commercial break after the anthem? Letting them stay in the locker room is likely much better is so.)
If players are in the locker room prepping, there was little possibility of player doing much of anything controversial during the anthem. As long as being in the club house was SOP, there was no ‘message’ communicated by their staying in.
It’s too bad the rule was ever changed. Having SOP be players in the locker room would have diminished the ability of players seizing the anthem as a time for communicating their politics.
Sadly, changing it back now would be controversial particularly as I’m pretty sure their are people who want to force respect. That fact that forcing respect is both (a) impossible and (b) goes against the spirit of the first Amendment and so unAmerican doesn’t make them want to drop the attempt to force respect. And that subset can’t be made to see (a) and (b). So there would be strum and drang over any rule change about players standing on the sidelines.
We’ll see what happens.
Stay
Tom Scharf
Von Miller lost his Denver Ford dealership endorsement for kneeling yesterday. Apparently the owner of the dealership is a veteran. This is a close call I think.
Close call on what question? I’d say the probability Von Miller lost a commercial endorsement (which is a gig for paid speech) owing to his own speech. This is routine. People fire paid mouthpieces when the paid mouth piece is “off message” or does something that detracts from the message the person who hired them wants communicated.
Of course a guy who is paid to convey a particular message, idea, aura and so on who does anything to dilute the message he is paid to communicate will lose that gig.
In contrast: the NFL pays these guys principally to play football. Firing them for speech would be rather different than someone who is not the NFL yanking their endorsement for no longer properly doing the job for which they were paid– which in this case was to communicate a commercial message for a dealership and convey a certain “aura” while doing so.
hat doesn’t make it so. What is the primary symbol of our military? What is that thing they are constantly carrying around everywhere and wear on their uniforms?
Close call on whether this helps your business or hurts it. Von Miller is a high profile member of their Super Bowl winning team. By not addressing it at all your business may be able to remain invisible to a highly polarizing event. Invisibility with politics is highly desirable for a business. Ford dealers do tend to have gigantic flags out front though.
Only the contrast between staying in the locker room while others do not is what makes it bad optics. All teams remaining inside during the anthem is something I could also live with.
.
Forcing people to respect the flag, or forcing them to not disrespect it? Although these are effectively the same question I think this is how the different sides see the issue. I don’t want to force anyone to do anything, nor do I want the owners to force anything. I want them to have free speech and for the fans to react accordingly and let market forces take over. Hollywood doesn’t allow their actors to make irrelevant political statements in the middle of TV shows and movies. Personal agendas aren’t allowed in the entertainment product.
.
The NFL and their owners are going to want to incentivize the players to make this go away if they are smart.
Tom Scharf
Forcing people to respect the flag, or forcing them to not disrespect it?
Making all players stand on the sidelines, standing respectfully with any and all other behavior being forbidden and deemed “disrespectful” is forcing them to respect it.
There is no intermediate behavior permitted that is neither respecting nor disrespecting. Intermediate behavior would have been to allow them to excuse themselves. That’s also not permitted– or at least I imagine so.
Anyone who objects to the team for staying in the locker room is clearly grousing about the players taking “neither” respect nor disrespect option. Because those players did not disrespect the flag, the just stayed away and picked an option that didn’t force anyone to respect it.
I don’t want to force anyone to do anything,
And yet you wrote this
Teams not even showing up for the anthem was probably the worst answer.
That was the answer that allowed people to neither respect nor disrespect. All others required people to either stand respectfully or to be considered to do something disrespectful.
Tom Scharf
The NFL and their owners are going to want to incentivize the players to make this go away if they are smart.
How? (Real question.)
I think the best solution is to say they are going back to pre-2009 rules and having players stay in the locker room during the anthem. The could add window dressing about commercial breaks and so on stretching out time and wanting them to relax. No one will buy that as the real reason, but having them off the field would be wise.
Hollywood doesn’t allow their actors to make irrelevant political statements in the middle of TV shows and movies.
Hollywood also don’t have all the actors film a 5 minute pre-quel in which they deliver a political message that is irrelevant to the TV show or movie and show that before every TV show or movie. They don’t even make them be filmed standing respectfully while someone else delivers a political message with which they disagree. They just have then provide the entertainment.
<No. Any sort of drama is unappealing in anyone, but makes a backup unhirable. Since any sort would make people reluctant to hire him, that’s “content neutral†and so not “because†the issue is specifically speech.
Has Brandon hijacked your account? I said people were protesting because he wasn't being hired due to his protest. You said they think so doesn't make it true, now you agree his protest is dragging him down. Not sure if Jesuit is the right word here.
Kaepernick was on a 6 year, 156 million dollar contract, with four years left, that he renegotiated to a two year deal with a player option after the first year(early 2016), with no change in salary. Kaepernick would have been cut, and did the deal because it made him an unrestricted free agent incl no compensatory draft picks from teams that sign him, while the 49ers get his salary off their cap.
MIkeN
I said people were protesting because he wasn’t being hired due to his protest.
Not to quibble, but you wrote “then you’re saying he’s being stomped on for his speech.”.
Creating drama that detracts from the game and type of entertainment the owners want to provide and the audience want to go to is not “his speech” nor is it precisely “his protest”. Similar drama that involved no “protest” would make him similarly unhireable.
I realize you might think this is a quibble. But in a long discussion that has been revolving around freedom of speech, involves discussing the first amendments protection of speech and so on, the distinction between whether the reason he is unhireable is the “speech” (i.e. content of what he is communicating) or the disruption he is creating is, in my view, relevant.
Kaepernick would have been cut, and did the deal because it made him an unrestricted free agent
He would have been cut. I assume he didn’t exactly take his team to the superbowl last year. The team thought his salary was larger than his value to the team. Sounds like SOP.
Things are seldom what they seem given the reporting of modern day journalism and what people are predisposed to believe.
“Indeed, the current pantomime in which NFL players are expected to stand at attention for the national anthem is of extremely recent origin. As Tom Curran pointed out on Comcast Sportsnet, prior to 2009, football players “weren’t on the field for the national anthem and instead generally remained in the locker room.”
And why did players start making a display of their “patriotism” in 2009? It turns out the government gave them taxpayer money to do so:
In 2009, Barack Obama’s Department of Defense began paying hundreds of thousands towards teams in a marketing strategy designed to show support for the troops and increase recruitments. The NFL then required all players and personnel to be on the sidelines during the national anthem, in exchange for taxpayers dollars. Prior, the national anthem was played in the stadium but players had the option of staying in the locker room before heading out to the field.
Furthermore, teams that showed “Veteran’s Salutes” during games were paid upwards of $5.1 million dollars.”
Would we expect more from NFL owners of which many have a hand out for taxpayer’s money to build their stadiums? I answer an emphatic no.
This latest silliness over the national anthem has no import other than to show that too many people want to translate an athlete’s , an actor’s or a comedian’s ability in their field into some other field and for better or worse depending on people’s political views. I personally like to look at these professionals as to how well they perform in their chosen field and how I might perceive them as an individual – and without really knowing them that well.
There are many such celebrities that I admire for their accomplishments in their field who I disagree vehemently when comes to politics. Warren Buffett comes to mind here.
With Trump I do not see a need to respect the office of the president and thus can say he is pretty much a dumb a$$ tweeter -and speaker as well.
>Sounds like SOP.
The two were unrelated. Just adding detail to his contract situation. I find it strange that they keep announcing big contracts for players, but teams can cancel anytime. Kaepernick’s $156 million probably paid 40.
>the reason he is unhireable is the “speech†(i.e. content of what he is communicating) or the disruption he is creating is, in my view, relevant.
That’s the same excuse universities use to disinvite speakers that the Left wants to shut down, too much of a security issue.
The two were unrelated. Just adding detail to his contract situation.
That his being cut is partly owing to a detail of his contract situation does not make his being cut “unrelated” to his contract situation. It makes his being cut because his value to those employing him was worth less than what they were paying him “standard operating procedure”
too much of a security issue.
I didn’t say the owners think Kaepernick was a security issue.
MikeN,
Kaepernik only got $40 million? Well, now I do feel sorry about his unemployment. Hope he didn’t already spend it all….. which I suspect is a real possibility.
Recent FBI report shows the murder rate is up 22% over the past two years. Mostly big city changes and possibly the Ferguson effect. The interesting dynamic here is that the media is burying this story as quickly as possible and explaining it away as only short term noise (tell that to the hurricane pontificators, ha ha), still near historical lows, etc. The question is why bury and soft pedal this story when everything bad is always Trump’s fault?
.
I suppose for two reasons. One is that the fix for increasing violent crime is inevitably tougher on crime policies which seems to be a bad thing to many people. The other is (trigger warning!) that in an era of everything must be measured and adjudicated by racial disparities this particular measurement is the statistic that shall not be named. African Americans murder each other at a rate 600% higher per capita than whites. While hate crimes are updated by the media every 12 seconds and police shootings having racial disparities is fait accompli of racism, social scientists can draw no conclusions on community dysfunction from murder rate disparities, although it is commonly tied to white racism via complex second order social effects and of course gun control.
.
Is this truly helpful? Do problems like this get solved by ignoring them? Certainly there are problems with community relations and police but isn’t it odd that police are effectively being asked to stop pro-active policing in the highest crime areas? I know what the activists want, but do these high crime communities really want less policing? If they do, then I say fine, do less policing. I imagine what they really want is policing they can trust.
Classic line from a hurricane article in The Atlantic today:
“This isn’t to say that there hasn’t been an increase in storms over the last century, only that you can’t find it in the data.”
Tom,
Of course on could say precisely the opposite. “This isn’t to say that there hasn’t been an [decrease] in storms over the last century, only that you can’t find it in the data.â€
I’m not sure, but my impression is the effect more commonly predicted is fewer storms but an increase in strength. So more Cat 5s, fewer 1 & 2s with sum over all storms a smaller number.
Lucia: “Of course on could say precisely the opposite.”
.
One, could, but one never does.
.
My impression is that the prediction is the usual grasping at straws for a bad result when things aren’t “worse than we thought”. My prediction is that when broken down, the evidence will fall into two categories. 1) modelling supporting the conclusion and 2) data, potentially cherry picked from available records, with floor to ceiling error bars which doesn’t disprove it.
This is what frustrates me about media reporting on racial crime. NPR today:
Fewer Youths Incarcerated, But Gap Between Blacks And Whites Worsens http://www.npr.org/2017/09/27/551864016/fewer-youths-incarcerated-but-gap-between-blacks-and-whites-worsens
“But a closer look at the data shows a widening gap between black and white youth confinement….despite little difference in crime rates between black and white youths”
.
This article uses a common deception here. “little difference in crime rates between black and white youths” is a statistic of the absolute # of crimes. Black and white murders are very close in absolute numbers for example. They then compare “per capita” incarceration rates which is about 5x and leave the impression that black youths are thrown in jail 5x more often for the same crimes.
.
Anecdotal comment. Juvenile incarceration is down. Yeah? Our county is in the midst of an epidemic of car theft. In August close to my house three 14 to 16 year old’s died in a stolen car. They were going 130 mph at 5 am with their lights off and went through a red light at a major intersection and hit another car. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/three-boys-dead-after-fiery-crash-in-stolen-suv-pinellas-sheriff-says/2332825
.
The kids in the car(s) had 126 arrests between them in the past 3 years. http://tampabay.com/tbprojects/dcloud/dcloud-template.html?doc=3914581-PCSO-Teen-records
.
14 different kids here have been arrested at least 5 times each for car theft over 18 months. Maximum 21 days of detention by state law. This crime is tolerated, is this policy truly helpful to anyone?
Tom Scharf,
From the NPR article:
Every two years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention performs a study analyzing youth risk behavior. The CDC looks at youth alcohol use, drug use, behaviors that contribute to violence and others. The results from its 2015 study show black youths are not committing more crimes in proportion to white youths.
The problem with that is that there is no data in the CDC report that supports that assertion. The CDC report looks at many unhealthy behavior including things that are crimes, like carrying a gun on school property, and use and possession of drugs and alcohol, but I didn’t see a burglary, robbery or murder section. The CDC conclusion is about risky behavior, not the commission of crimes. So NPR’s assertion above is not supported by their reference.
To put it another way, the CDC report says that blacks and whites carry guns at about the same rate. It says nothing about the actual use of those guns.
DeWitt
“behaviors that contribute to violence and others. ”
Yep. It’s true that drug use is a behavior that contributes to violence. The thing is that drug use will result in more violence when those addicted the drugs need to rob others to pay for the drugs as opposed to when those who use the drugs get money to pay for the drugs through some other means. So, sadly, you can’t just look at drug use by rich kids and drug use by poor kids, find it’s comparable and conclude the violence induced will be equal. Generally, white kids are richer than black kids.
lucia,
So, sadly, you can’t just look at drug use by rich kids and drug use by poor kids, find it’s comparable and conclude the violence induced will be equal.
Unfortunately NPR, and probably the WaPo and the NYT can and do. I say ‘probably’ because I don’t feel like looking for actual citations. I also won’t be convinced by a cherry picked individual article that contradicts my supposition.
> does not make his being cut “unrelated†to his contract situation.
I meant the two parts of #219 were unrelated, but I interpreted your reply as associating them.
>I didn’t say the owners think Kaepernick was a security issue.
No, just a distraction caused by his free speech that makes him unemployable. Just as the college says they support free speech, but there is a security issue to prevent the speaker from coming.
MikeN,
Conflating college policies towards certain guest speakers with Kaepernick and the NFL is nugatory. They are quite separate issues.
Blacks and white do not commit violent crime at proportional (per capita) rates, either juvenile or adult. When I see an assertion like this I track it down sometimes. It is always either outright deception, journalistic failure, or a very convoluted calculation.
.
Juvenile murder rates, blacks commit murder at 700% the rate of whites, violent crime index is 500% higher: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05262 https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05261
.
The NPR story points to this for incarceration. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/State_Race.asp?state=&topic=State_Race&year=2001&percent=rate
.
The table is titled “Rate per 100,000 juveniles”, but the better title is “Rate per 100,000 juveniles OF THAT RACE”. If you change the measurement to their “Row %” or “Count” setting you find that absolute numbers of blacks and white in juvenile detention are about equal which reflects the rates at which they commit crime per capita.
.
Blacks are not getting thrown in jail at 5x the rate of whites for the same crimes. The justice system has sentencing guidelines. It may very well be that people who have a long rap sheet get thrown in jail more often and blacks may comprise a larger subset here as well.
.
This is not to say there are no disparities anywhere in the system. Blacks get the death penalty for the same crimes at a disproportionate rate. There’s a lot of theories that blacks get arrested more often because of white cop bias or their neighborhoods are more heavily patrolled. What isn’t possibly biased is counting murder victims and other racial violent crime stats are proportional to murder victims so unlikely to be a big factor.
.
It’s very complicated to get to the root cause, it’s not like skin pigment makes you violent. Poor people commit crime more often, etc. However I find that cultural dysfunction is on the banned discussion list. If we want a real conversation on this subject, the ban list needs to change.
MikeN,
I don’t see why Kaepernick’s unemployment seems to bother you. He is an entertainer. When entertainers exercise their rights in ways which offend many people in their audience, that will make it more difficult for them to succeed as an entertainer. There is nothing I see here that is surprising, or even unexpected. Offending a lot of your customers is usually unwise. Ask Mel Gibson. Or Tom Brady… a friend and Trump supporter who never says a political word to his uber-liberal fans in Massachusetts.
Tom Scharf,
” I find that cultural dysfunction is on the banned discussion list.”
.
Yes, and has been since Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed to cultural dysfunction as a large and growing problem. Progressives will shout down anyone who suggests cultural differences lead to different life outcomes. They will say you are blaming the victum.
SteveF,
Add the Dixie Chicks to your list.
SteveF, I didn’t say it bothers me. During this thread I came to realized his ‘speech’ is likely a cause of his unemployment, and not just that his skills are diminished.
“With Trump I do not see a need to respect the office of the president and thus can say he is pretty much a dumb a$$ tweeter -and speaker as well.”
Confusing the office of the president and Trump I see.
We can all knock the man, he gives plenty of ammunition.
I see that as separate to the office. Sorry that you do not.
As an aside thinking of the value of life, both that we give and that we take Trump represents a force of nature.
Alien to most of us he still has a wife, family, job and a determination to keep going through stuff I would have wilted at first up.
Amazed he is still going, cheering on his support of skepticism though I doubt he bothers to think about the issues like we do.BTW in a poll re NFL he got 46 likes to 47 dislikes percentage wise, Goodell 12% likes.
Funny thing is the real polls claim 38%.
Perhaps the polls poll the wrong people?
Footballers have every right to protest anything they dislike. Amazing that given that they have not, generally, bothered to use that right in the past and will not in future. Problem solved by only picking players who do not protest in future?
Or perhaps they should pay a fee to the club when they exercise their right to protest on the club’s time?
Yes, that nails it.
angech,
The players are employees, albeit employees with employment contracts. If the contracts say you can’t make political statements while carrying out your job, then you can’t. Nobody puts a gun to the heads of players when they sign contracts… this will ultimately boil down to contractual compliance when the NFL owners realise just how bad the whole episode is for P&L.
angech,
Sure the players can protest anything they dislike. But there may be consequences. Bad mouth your employer on Facebook or other social media sites and see what happens. Also, when they are in uniform on the field, things are different than when they are off the field on their own time. But even then, if their conduct is outrageous enough, they can be suspended for a few games or for a lifetime. See the NFL’s domestic violence policy, for example.
Let’s just make sure everyone remains consistent with their thinking on the NFL and Google’s firing of an employee who wrote an internal memo that he was fired for. If you think NFL players should be able to publicly protest during a game without consequences and also support Google’s decision to fire Damore it’s time to check your partisanship meter.
angech (Comment #165243)
I was not sufficiently clear in my remark, angech. I do not have any predisposition to respect a political office including the office of president of the US and thus feel free to judge office holders with no reservations or compunctions.
I also do not have any predispositions about what the singing of the National Anthem means, but would agree with Lucia that I would feel it disruptive to others not to stand when it is sung and would not use some other action during the singing to make a political statement.
One truly interested in educating the public on a political issue would in my mind want to make a written statement that includes sufficient details and avoids bringing emotions into the discussions.
Kaepernick, could in such a statement hardly avoid noting that most of the incidents of police shootings of black men, or at least those shootings receiving the most publicity, were in cities where police departments were administered by Democrats. That much the same Democrats can sympathize with the shooting victims and their defenders without taking blame is something that a Kaepernick would need to address. In Chicago, Democrat mayor Emanuel, kept the details of a police shooting of a black man under wraps until after his re-election. Of course, if a Kaepernick were to take such a course he would be violating the plantation politics practiced in big city politics and the MSM would soon lose interest in his cause.
This kind of stuff drives me crazy when you look it at it from a higher level.
Source: ‘Coach-2’ in federal complaint is Rick Pitino http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/20848092/louisville-cardinals-basketball-coach-rick-pitino-coach-2-federal-complaint-source
.
Louisville’s coach is getting fired for a conspiracy involving Adidas to direct $100K to a potential recruit. This was an FBI investigation. This is illegal and against the rules.
Why? That’s what drives me crazy.
It’s actually illegal to give mostly poor people and their family money. Who made up these rules? Corporations and college boosters can’t give players money. But the colleges can accept donations from these very same people and receive big money shoe contracts. Meanwhile you get fired or can’t play if any money goes to a player. This is a farce of epic proportions. Why isn’t someone suing the NCAA on this?
.
I have no doubt making the NCAA a free fire money zone will be bad for college sports but making it illegal for poor people to receive ANY additional money is unfair. In what other industry does this happen? Sorry Brad Pitt, but you only get to stay in the dorm and we can’t pay you except in free meals because you know, laws and stuff, and oh by the way people love your work. What we really need is a bunch of liberal academics to take charge of this atrocity and….oh wait.
It’s shocking that Rick Pitino gets fired for scandals faster than Lexington’s Calipari who has had two final fours erased from the books. Pitino has always had stuff going on that he was shocked to find out about.
TomScharf
Why isn’t someone suing the NCAA on this?
I think they do periodically get sued for things. I don’t know the laws, but it would seem they are allowed to do an awful lot of things I view as unfair to those players who could attract money.
I think the NCAA rules are appalling.
Rick Pitino: “These allegations come as a complete shock to me. If true, I agree with the U.S. Attorney’s Office that these third-party schemes, initiated by a few bad actors, operated to commit a fraud on the impacted universities and their basketball programs, including the University of Louisville. Our fans and supporters deserve better, and I am committed to taking whatever steps are needed to ensure those responsible are held accountable.”
.
Pitino’s statement aside, I agree with Tom that I don’t understand what the Federal crime is. Certainly it’s a violation of NCAA rules to compensate players. (Although such rules seem to be violated fairly often.) I found the complaint, which says in part
2. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that CHUCK
CONNORS PERSON, the defendant, being an agent of an
organization, to wit, a public university (“University-1”} that
received, in a one-year period, benefits in excess of $10,000
under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy,
loan, guarantee, insurance, and other form of Federal
assistance, corruptly would and did solicit and demand for the
benefit of a person, and accept and agree to accept, something
of value from a financial advisor and business manager for
professional athletes who, unbeknownst to PERSON, was a
cooperating witness for the Government (“CW-1”), intending to be
influenced and rewarded in connection with a business,
transaction, and series of transactions of such organization,
involving something of value of $5,000 and more, in violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Section 666 (a) (1) (B).
So it seems that the Federal issue is not about the players receiving money from Adidas, but that the coaches solicited and received bribes for using their positions at the university. (And the university receives federal contracts/grants/etc.)
While it is fresh in my mind, I would like to allude to an uninformed statement by a generally good guy, Charles Barkley. He was on the Ruscillo sports show and got into talking about politics. Said if he had a chance to meet Trump, he would discuss DACA and the “dreamers” (an offensive term to me designed to deflect the responsibility of the parents for breaking the laws of the US and putting their children in harm’s way). He said the “Dreamers” were born in the US and that something should be done to take care of them. Of course, they were not born in the US because if they were born in the US, they would be US citizens and could not be deported.
There is so much controversy over things that are simply and easily proved wrong, but voters and much of the media are too lazy and too biased to look at the actual facts.
JD
Tom Scharf (Comment #165249): “It’s actually illegal to give mostly poor people and their family money.”
I don’t think that is the case. It is against NCAA rules, but not against the law. I don’t understand why the FBI is investigation this or what laws they think Pitino and Addidas broke.
.
lucia (Comment #165252): “I think the NCAA rules are appalling.”
I think the NCAA rules are mostly reasonable for student-athletes. What I find appalling is that major college sports have long since ceased to be about student-athletes.
.
Hypocrisy has a long tradition in the NCAA. John Wooden is regarded as practically a saint, but he won all those championships with the best players money could buy.
We are having a same sex marriage debate in Australia and our football codes are dressing up to get the accolades of fitting in with the choice about to be made.
One code got slammed for advertising support as pressuring people on their own private choices. The second code is having a US rap singer belt out a same sex song at the start of the grand final.
So many conflicts with my number one rule in life that everyone one is entitled to make their own choices in life against my white male 60 year+ life experiences and upbringing.
Easy choice in the end as it is other peoples business and does not affect me personally much or financially. This applies to both what football clubs and other adults choose to do.
–
What is interesting is that we have already had our black protests against various forms of racism by some of our athletes and it is still going on at a very slow level.
I doubt that it ever needs to be fully addressed in multicultural, one race majority, democratic societies. Everyone has their own view or tolerance on all sides and basically we go about our lives not interacting with people we do not wish to interact with except for sports players and policemen. All I know from my varied life experience is that all people are good most of the time and some are not and race has nothing to do with this.
If I was a black American football player and I was told I should not do something not illegal by someone outside my team I would do it as a protest against being told what to do.
If I had to do it every week I would get a little bit bored, I think.
It wouldn’t have been illegal to give them money if they had done it in the open and everyone filed the appropriate paperwork. The NCAA would have taken exception to that, however, so they did it surreptitiously.
I’m kind of interested how they managed to move six figures to players’ families without throwing money laundering flags in the banks. I can’t imagine Adidas and Nike are going to enjoy having financial auditors digging through their accounts transaction by transaction.
angech
“we have already had our black protests against various forms of racism by some of our athletes”
Are you under the impression that us backward Americans are just now experiencing our first protests by black athletes?
“If I was a black American football player and I was told I should not do something not illegal by someone outside my team I would do it as a protest against being told what to do.”
Yes….you’ve summarized what he whole kerfuffle is about. The protest is about the players feeling slighted. And they’re willing to insult a large portion of the US to make their point. They can do it but what does it say about their empathy for those that are insulted. They put their own hurt feelings ahead of the feelings of others. in other words their feelings outrank all others To me that comes off as a bit selfish.
Beyond that:
The protest is ineffectual. It changes no minds. In fact I think it probably is is detrimental to the supposed cause….the original cause.
Many of us feel the original cause was based on bogus assumptions…. and bogus blame. Dozens of essay’s have been penned about the interpretation of police statistics and the reality twisting of recent events. So I won’t rehash that. But almost all the issues involved occur in areas controlled by white and to a great extent black democrats.And yet the protests are clearly aimed at white privileged America…. and by extension Trump and republicans. When we they start at that point in the discussion it’s a problem
No one wants to strip their rights to express their grievances. Many of us object to the method and to some extent the the assumptions behind the grievance itself. And we have that right too. On the other hand I think sometimes these issues need to quit simmering and come to a boil to ultimately improve. So maybe, just maybe the outcome of this will be positive
I shouldn’t have used the term illegal, as in criminal. It’s against the rules of the NCAA. The FBI was involved because of the school’s employees were soliciting money and taking bribes.
.
However there wouldn’t be criminal behavior here if players could be compensated outside the system. If I’m getting a CS degree on a scholarship why would there be a rule that says I can’t do consulting jobs? External companies can fund scholarships and as far as I know can pay a potential CS grad as much extra money as they like.
.
The people involved need to be punished as per the rules, I just think the rules need changed. It’s not justifiable. I see it like a collusion between all tech companies to pay CS people $10K / year. A college sports monopoly that makes huge amounts of money is engaged in flagrant anti-competitive behavior and their employees are forced to literally live in poverty, even when people are willing to endorse them. It’s insanely unfair.
.
The students are compensated with a scholarship, that’s something but it doesn’t match their value for high profile players at successful programs. It’s just shameful to see the NCAA preaching about educational and moral values to players and with the other hand greedily extracting maximum value from their sports enterprises.
.
Alabama’s football coach is paid $6.9M each season. Meanwhile last year one Alabama football player was suspended for the first four games of the 2016 season for selling multiple pieces of school issued equipment and participation awards valued at $820. Alabama had $82M of football revenue and $46M in profit.
.
9 football players have been indefinitely suspended from UF’s team for credit card fraud. UF’s coach makes $3.4M each season. UF had $74M in football revenue, $51M of profit.
.
Five Ohio State players including their QB in 2010 sold signed memorabilia to a tattoo shop owner. The resulting “scandal” brought down the coach (Tressel) in a cover up and he was fined $250K. Tressel received $4.6M via contracts with Nike. Ohio State spends $800K in legal fees on the case. All this over signed memorabilia to a tattoo shop.
.
FSU – “Free Shoes University”. Agents brings players to mall and buys them $6K worth of merchandise. FSU vacates 12 wins for the season and coach eventually forced to retire.
.
College football teams have about 85 players. Do the math. I don’t excuse criminal behavior where it happened but most of this isn’t even criminal. This system is psychotic.
Even the Olympics has given up on the ridiculous amateur/pro dichotomy which cost Jim Thorpe his Olympic medals for having played semi-pro baseball. Those medals were restored posthumously in 1982. It’s long past time that the NCAA moves into the twentieth century and stops taking advantage of college sports players.
You want to pay the football and basketball players….fine. But it will come at the expense of the other sports. I don’t feel sorry at all for the players. They’re doing fine and they have perks the rest of the students don’t have.
chuckrr,
My reaction to the thought that paying players in revenue sports will hurt other sports is “shrug”.
I’m not big into wealth transfer in the Federal Tax Code and I’m equally not big into it in college sports.
Tom Scharf: “The students are compensated with a scholarship, that’s something but it doesn’t match their value for high profile players at successful programs.”
…
The problem with this idea is that it inevitably leads to a pay differential on teams. Joey Bosa, formerly of Ohio State may have been worth $2,000,000 per year for his last 2 years at OSU, but the 3rd string defensive end at that time may have been worth only $5,000 per year. All of the players at OSU, when figuring their scholarships and living expenses get paid roughly $200,000 to $250,000 for 4 or 5 years of work. If they are responsible that education can be leveraged into much more money. Also, at OSU, you make many valuable connections. So, the majority of OSU football players do well under the current system. Of course, the athletes in the other roughly 34 sports that are supported by football (and maybe to some extent by basketball) do very well.
….
If you go beyond the very top tier (Alabama, OSU, USC & a few others), those schools (Indiana, Bowling Green, Fresno State et cet.,) would be almost completely shut-out because they wouldn’t be able to pay top money. As it is now, some non top tier schools can occasionally, through good coaching, compete with top tier schools. If players are paid, the lower 75% will be out of luck — which I believe is the goal of many of the people who support this concept.
JD
Lucia
It doesn’t mater to me much either. My only point is that there will be consequences, and many other unforeseen consequences too. Also it’s not going to eliminate graft , bribery and kickbacks either. There’s no system that eliminates that. 99% of college athletes are not ever going to be professionals so in exchange for their ability to contribute on the playing field they get the opportunity to get a free education and all kinds of contacts as well. To me that’s enough. is it more free market and capitalistic? Sure Does it correct anything.? The devils in the details. Are you going to pay all the players the same or pay the individuals on their worth? Are you going to pay all players in all divisions and all schools? Countless questions
chuckrr,
I’m with lucia. I could care less if big time college athletics existed at all. If allowing players to be compensated for their true value to their team causes that to happen, I’d probably celebrate. The source of the money should be the pro leagues, specifically the NBA and the NFL. They’re getting a free ride for a farm system now. They should have to pay for it.
Dale, I don’t think Adidas checks for 100k would trigger money laundering flags. transactions over 10k get reported by banks, and then the government has to determine which are relevant.
Dewitt
The money for big time college sports comes from ticket sales and TV revenue. I’m sure the NFL would love a piece of that action. But again I don’t care much either. I just think that it’s not much of a problem the way it is.
JD,
There is currently a pay deferential between garbage men and lawyers but nobody wants to even out pay because garbage men are terrible lawyers. An unbalanced system of pay (i.e. college sports free agency) will have plenty of drawbacks but that doesn’t justify keeping people in poverty who generate lots of income for colleges. There is a vast area of compromise between poverty and free agency such as profitable schools paying them $50K, $100K, whatever. Certainly at less lucrative schools or lower end players you will just get a scholarship or less.
.
I just don’t see the answer here as keeping already poor people in poverty for programs that net $50M a year. There has got to be a better answer than the silly results we are seeing now. Players can leave early and get into the NFL is they are high profile enough but it is rare that people don;t spend at least a couple years in college for football.
.
I like the system the way it is as a college football fan, but I have to look away when the finances are handled the way they are.
chuckrr,
Apparently you didn’t read what I wrote. The NBA and the NFL are already getting a free ride. They don’t have to spend a dime on player development. So that’s not the way the money would flow. Colleges would get money from the NFL and the NBA’s revenues, not the other way around.
Tom Scharf (Comment #165269): “I just don’t see the answer here as keeping already poor people in poverty for programs that net $50M a year. There has got to be a better answer than the silly results we are seeing now. Players can leave early and get into the NFL is they are high profile enough but it is rare that people don;t spend at least a couple years in college for football.”
Players have to be out of high school for three years before they can sign with the NFL.
What we have now is crazy. I think that the answer is things like the Pacific Pro League. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18449983/new-pacific-pro-football-league-debut-summer-2018
Let players who want to be paid or who are just interesting in trying to be pros go to such leagues instead of college. And return college sports to student athletes, with rules suitable to such.
Dewitt
That’s fine with me. But it sounds terribly complicated. Leaving aside the fact that big time college sports actually make money for the schools, how much do the leagues pay and to whom? Just athletes at the big schools where they get all their talent? I’d rather see them spend some of that dough on their stadiums. But that ship has sailed too
Another question …. Don’t most large bushiness use colleges as their feeder program? How much do those businesses reimburse the colleges? I know they invest in some ways,sometimes. Like when they pay an employee to further their education. But how much? And is it enough?
Tom Scharf: ” There is a vast area of compromise between poverty and free agency such as profitable schools paying them $50K, $100K, whatever.”
….
Going to school on an OSU football scholarship and living in Columbus is not, in the vast majority of incidences, living in poverty. You like many people believe that college football is generally profitable. It is not. Some top tier schools make a good amount of money on football, but it is generally plowed into non-revenue sports.
****
Here is a link to a Forbes article on college football. https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/the-20-most-profitable-college-football-teams-122215/ Texas football was the most profitable, making $92,000,000. Ohio State was the 10th most profitable, making $50,000,000. I would observe that $50,000,000 profit for Ohio State football is pennies compared to its influence and interest in Ohio and in many instances, nationwide.
******
Forbes summarizes it this way: “But instead of receiving payment for their talents right now football and men’s basketball players see the revenue they produce spent on scholarships for other athletes, those in sports where the market would never pay for them to exist. So every other sport on a college campus, whether it’s men’s and women’s tennis or swimming or soccer, exists thanks to the money produced by football and men’s basketball.
The end result is that most college athletic departments either break even or lose money. The profits from football and men’s basketball are eaten up in scholarship costs for sports that lost vast sums of money. ” — I don’t see this as such a terrible or scandalous result.
*****
Your plan would dry up scholarships for the mid-level to lower level college football players, who need it the most. (Not being able to compete at all, scholarships at approximately 60-80 schools would just go away) In terms of finances for the athletes, viewed on a broad level, there is nothing particularly wrong with today’s college football. I have read of occasional stories of poor students having very little while on scholarship. I would support giving them some sort of stipend, based on poverty, while in school. What you are proposing would just make the rich (the very talented players who will make gads of money in the NFL) richer and harm those players who need the scholarships the most.
In any event, there are few, if any, OSU football players coming from poor families who are doing worse at OSU than they would be doing at home.
JD
SEC gets about $55 million a year from CBS. This is by far the best deal in sports broadcasting, and will jump to over $500 million and maybe a billion when the deal is up for renewal. That is $50 million per school.
MikeN ” SEC gets about $55 million a year from CBS.”
….
The gross doesn’t matter. It is the profit and where it goes that matters. Be curious about what a mid-level SEC team, such as Mississippi State makes in profit (if there is one) and where it goes.
JD
The end result is that most college athletic departments either break even or lose money. The profits from football and men’s basketball are eaten up in scholarship costs for sports that lost vast sums of money. †— I don’t see this as such a terrible or scandalous result.
I dont’ see it as a positive result either. I also don’t see it as a reason why those whose sports are money makers should not make money so that money can be sent to those who play at sports that don’t make money.
Nothing against sports. But I don’t see why those in the non-revenue sports should have their hobby subsidized by others– especially not to the tune of the hobby sports guys getting their college educations free paid for on the backs of others.
Lucia
I can’t argue against your reasoning here. Although Iv’e tried. Probably more because I admire tradition. Funny because I played small college basketball. No scholarships. No subsidies from big college sports. And we did alright.
Lucia: “I dont’ see it as a positive result either. I also don’t see it as a reason why those whose sports are money makers should not make money so that money can be sent to those who play at sports that don’t make money.
Nothing against sports. But I don’t see why those in the non-revenue sports should have their hobby subsidized by others– especially not to the tune of the hobby sports guys getting their college educations free paid for on the backs of others.”
….
My first disagreement with this argument is that it assumes that without the structure we have today that Division I colleges will have a healthy enough football system so that the top colleges will be able to make merit based payments. As I said upthread, I don’t think most of the college football teams can compete at all against top tier teams if the top tier teams can make merit based payments. There may be 25 teams that in the current set up could make merit based payments, but shortly after they would start, 75% of the programs would just fold. I don’t think there would be much interest in just 25 teams.
Also, even the NFL has draft rules to equalize talent. With college football teams making merit based payments, in anything similar to the current setup, there would be no basic controls on all of the top talent going to the top schools for top money. The alternative would be some sort of development league, which I don’t think would draw many fans.
….
My second disagreement is labeling the non-revenue athletes as “hobbyists.” Among the “hobbyists” at OSU (I refer to OSU mainly because I am familiar with it) is Kyle Snyder the world, and Olympic champion in heavyweight wrestling, who won his titles at the youngest age of any wrestler. Also, OSU has the mens national championship Volleyball team, which undoubtedly has several Olympians on it. It also has the men’s runnerup lacrosse team, which had 3 players drafted in the top six for pro lacrosse for the first time in history. The women’s synchronized swimming team won the national championship also.
I can discuss the golf team, which at this time is not nationally prominent. I played junior tournament golf (won several big city tournaments, but no state tournaments) and I was not good enough to make any college golf teams. The players at OSU are very good and work very hard, but, so far, they are not world class in the brutally competitive world of golf. I wouldn’t call them hobbyists.
….
Third, even many very highly paid athletes are motivated by more than money, so I disagree with your viewpoint which focuses solely on money. For instance, even though the Ryder Cup is a huge event, the players are not paid. (Personally, I don’t know why) Notwithstanding that pro golfers work very hard and are honored to be on the Ryder Cup. (as well as the lesser President’s Cup) See the Youtube video (10 second to 1:03) link https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ryder+Cup+2016+Highlights&&view=detail&mid=385C30DE2CFC1351B5C0385C30DE2CFC1351B5C0&FORM=VRDGAR ) and how excited Rory McIllroy and Patrick Reed get to be in playing for their country and no money. Much the same team loyalty is what substantially contributes to the popularity of college football.
JD
JD,
My not seeing why football should subsidize sports isn’t really an argument at all. But if it was one, it’s more based on the idea that I don’t think it matters if sports at schools collapse or survive. Either outcome is fine with me.
Kyle Snyder the world, and Olympic champion in heavyweight wrestling,
I consider Olympic sports people hobbiests too. I don’t see any reason why football players should subsidize them. If other people want to subsidize him or other wrestlers directly, that would be fine.
I consider all those sports people hobbiests. Same with chess, national champions in bridge, poker and so on.
even many very highly paid athletes are motivated by more than money,
Sure. But that’s not an argument in favor of forcing football players money to be sent to support the wrestlers, golfers, swimmers and so on. Those wrestlers are presumably motivated by something other than money. Let them continue to wrestle based on their non-monetary motivation.
lucia (Comment #165276): “I also don’t see it as a reason why those whose sports are money makers should not make money so that money can be sent to those who play at sports that don’t make money.”
Lucia’s comment implicitly assumes that the purpose of college sports is identical to pro sports, with the only difference being who owns the teams. I don’t believe that should be the case. Neither does the NCAA. However, the fact is that increasingly men’s football and basketball are indistinguishable from the pros, except for players not being paid. The NCAA refuses to come to grips with that. The incoherence between what is so and what the NCAA pretends to be so will have to be resolved, one way or another.
.
lucia: “I don’t see why those in the non-revenue sports should have their hobby subsidized by others– especially not to the tune of the hobby sports guys getting their college educations free paid for on the backs of others.”
Well, even Division Three does that, as do many universities in Canada and, for that matter, high schools. I think the justification is that it is part of college life, which it is at many places.
JD objects to the term “hobby”. Sports are rather more than a hobby, but I can’t think of a better term than for what lucia seems to be saying. My objection is to the fact that at the top levels in some sports it is not a hobby, even using an expansive definition of hobby.
Mike M.,
My objection is to the fact that at the top levels in some sports it is not a hobby, even using an expansive definition of hobby.
Exactly. Which makes it extremely difficult for those involved to play football or basketball at a major college and still get a real education. Some do manage it. A lot don’t.
This situation is very similar to the Olympics when they were still trying to keep the distinction between amateur and professional athletes. The athletes from the countries behind the Iron Curtain were effectively professionals. It was a total farce. Eventually this was recognized and the distinction was dropped. Something similar will happen in the NCAA.
I have to agree with Lucia… There doesn’t seem to be any good reason for athletes in one sport to effectively pay for the education of athletes in other sports. If a sport has no possibility of earning its practitioners a living, then it is a hobby, or maybe an exercise plan. Which is what my golf (10 hdcp) is. I have a few times played with young men who aspire to make a living at it. Aside from being better than scratch players, most have a sponsor…. so it is not a hobby.
MikeM
Lucia’s comment implicitly assumes that the purpose of college sports is identical to pro sports,
That’s not what I assume. I assume the purpose of college sports is is entirely different from pro sports.
I think the purpose of college sports is to provide student’s who attend recreational choices. I think school theaters that bring in opera, plays, rock concerts share the same purpose. So do some student clubs like ballroom dance.
I have no objection to some of these recreational endeavors being able to pay for itself by charging for people to watch or getting television to pay for airing it. I just don’t see any good reason why football should pay for fencing. I would note that it probably doesn’t pay for ballroom dance unless, possibly, those students are engaged in competitive dance rather than social dance. But I see both as recreation. Some people enjoy competing; that doesn’t make it any less a recreation.
MikeM
My objection is to the fact that at the top levels in some sports it is not a hobby, even using an expansive definition of hobby.
All sorts of hobbies stop being hobbies at top levels. That’s because those who enjoy the hobby either also enjoy seeing it practiced at the top level or buy products that the top level hobbiests produce. This goes for chess which has competitions, knitting where those who design and knit sell books, music and theater where top level hobbiests end up performing for pay and ballroom dance where top competitors vie to become world champ with money prices. Sports of the sort we see at college campuses is no different.
That one can make money if they achieve the top level of their hobby doesn’t make engaging something at an amateur level “not a hobby”.
For some reason sports enthusiasts want to see sports as somehow different. But it’s not really.
DeWitt
Exactly. Which makes it extremely difficult for those involved to play football or basketball at a major college and still get a real education. Some do manage it. A lot don’t.
To the extent that it is not a hobby, it doesn’t belong at universities.
If schools actually provided degrees in “playing football and earning a living at football”, it could be an academic subject. Then part of playing could be “education”. I suspect no one is going to offer such a degree.
Lucia: ” I assume the purpose of college sports is is entirely different from pro sports.
I think the purpose of college sports is to provide student’s who attend recreational choices.”
….
Was probably the original intent. However, not true now. Football, wrestling and volleyball at the elite level are highly demanding and not recreational nor intended to be recreational. (Some people enjoy highly competitive activities, which of course includes elite athletes. However, I believe there is a big distinction between Tiger Woods enjoying competing at the highest level and a once a week golfer enjoying golf.)
By accident what has evolved is a hybrid system (with many faults and hypocrisy intertwined in the system) where large numbers of people enjoy the camaraderie and competition of big time college football. The fact that some of the stars are underpaid and some of the lesser players are overpaid with scholarships (for essentially providing additional games for the stars to play in) doesn’t bother me. Virtually all human activity is suffused with flaws and hypocrisy. On balance, I am happy to watch a game like Washington St. v. USC last night, where the underdog was competitive and actually won. If players receive merit pay there will be no Washington States playing football and ultimately the current system will collapse, which is fine with Lucia. However, I understand that most of the people seeking higher pay for athletes assume that the system can absorb merit pay and continue on with roughly the same number of colleges taking part. I don’t think this is feasible. For instance, Ohio State football gives people from all walks of life and backgrounds an interest they share and enjoy. I believe this is beneficial notwithstanding the flaws of both college football and Ohio State football.
…..
Lucia: “that’s not an argument in favor of forcing football players money to be sent to support the wrestlers, golfers, swimmers and so on.” I don’t agree with this argument. A University is an entity that can offer the services and terms and conditions that it wishes to. If it thinks that elite athletes, competition and teamwork are things that benefit the University, it is the choice of the University to offer non-profitmaking sports. A person that doesn’t wish to go to such a university has many choices of where to be educated or whether to go to school at all. A university can’t compel anyone to come.
….
Lucia ” Some people enjoy competing; that doesn’t make it any less a recreation.” I totally disagree with this. Quite often work and thinking are done at the highest level for fun. For instance, Feynman stated: “Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn’t matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best.” What he did was recreational, but highly useful. Jack Nicklaus loved to compete. Just because he enjoyed ferocious competition doesn’t detract from his work, discipline, courage and imagination. Society and colleges should encourage this kind of “recreation.” Ohio State has benefited greatly by having been associated with Nicklaus. It is a wholly different pursuit than playing golf once a week or knitting 4 sweaters per year.
….
Having said all of the above, I agree that college basketball is a cesspool and if it goes away it is no big deal to me. Because the teams are so small and one or two players can make such a big difference, the temptation to cheat is too large. Also, there is an AAU system where younger players can compete and improve their skills.
JD
JD Ohio,
Why do you think merit pay is the only option? Paying college athletes as if they were pros, i.e. a few players get most of the money, is a truly awful idea. It amounts to a straw man argument. I see no reason whatsoever to pay any college athlete more than any other college athlete in that sport. They should be paid a reasonable salary based on the number of hours that are devoted to the sport.
If you’re not going to pay college sport players, then the NCAA needs to drastically restrict the number of hours per week devoted to any college sport so that an athletic scholarship actually has something to do with learning.
JD Ohio
Football, wrestling and volleyball at the elite level are highly demanding and not recreational nor intended to be recreational.
That the elite level is highly demanding doesn’t make it “not recreational”. It only means some people like their recreation to be demanding.
where large numbers of people enjoy the camaraderie and competition of big time college football.
Yes. And these people are willing to pay for that camarderie which is created by the revinue sports like football. I see no reason why the money they pay ought to go to programs like wrestling that do not create this camaraderie.
However, I understand that most of the people seeking higher pay for athletes assume that the system can absorb merit pay and continue on with roughly the same number of colleges taking part. I don’t think this is feasible.
I’m not sure whether it’s feasible or not. But as you are aware, I don’t really care if it is.
A University is an entity that can offer the services and terms and conditions that it wishes to
The can. That they can doesn’t mean it’s a good wise or just policy.
WRT to Feinman: If he had not been paid and continued to do physics, then it would have been his hobby. In fact, there are people who do some astronomy for a hobby and so on. Lots of people love their jobs and would try to do them as a hobby. But that doesn’t turn hobbies into “not hobbies”.
Let me add that the stupid restrictions on college student athletes hiring agents and signing legitimate endorsement contracts would go away as well. That would mean that some athletes could make more money than others, but it wouldn’t be tied to the college and university athletic departments, who would not be allowed to act as agents.
DeWitt,
I agree student athletes should be able to be paid for endorsements. That wouldn’t go through the college.
Other students are allowed to be paid for endorsements. Granted, they are unlikely to be offerred any such thing, but it should be allowed.
Being in commercials: other students are allowed.
I knew a guy in college who was a male model. He paid tuition from that. He wasn’t a college athlete, so: allowed. Why shouldn’t the kicker from Ohio state model? I don’t see why not.
You know… I’m starting to think entrepreneurally….
Let’s say 12 guys on the OHSU football team made a calendar of themselves in various attractive poses and sold it as “Guys of OHSU”. It sells. They split the proceeds 12 ways.
Is this allowed? Or not? I think it should be allowed. It’s not going through the school. It would be allowed if they were 12 hot guys who weren’t on the football team. Fair is fair: Should be allowed.
lucia: “Is this allowed? ”
I think it is not allowed, since it would effectively legalize rich boosters giving the players as much money as the boosters like. “OK, guys, I can’t just give you $10K each so here is what we’ll do. Make a calendar, print a thousand copies, and sell them for $120 each. I guarantee they will sell out overnight.”
MikeM,
Yes. Hypothetically, it would create a mechanism where someone could buy up all the calendars to get money to the players.
That said: the same happens if the players take many sorts of jobs. Letting them take a job as an engineering intern– as quite a few students do– could hypothetically let a rich booster give them a cush-job. Taking a job painting houses? Take a job as a exotic male dancer for the Chip and Dales? Same risk.
Every single money making venture they could possibly try has the risk some rich patron would figure out a way to slip them money while disguising it as proceeds of the venture or job.
That actual students who happen to play college sports are barred for actual honest to goodness employment opportunities that all other student can take is just not right.
It appears that the NCAA and college sports in general provides revenues for student-athletes with major men’s sports providing most of the revenue. I would think that the primary question to be asked then is whether colleges should spend the portion of their efforts on student-athletes as they do or should their mission be more proportionately in the realm of academics. Also for consideration is the time, effort and money that is spent at the pre-college level preparing the hope-to-be student-athletes for the college level and with the hopes in most case of obtaining scholarships.
I think the current approach at the college and pre-college levels is more or less a facade that keeps the academics mixed with the student-athlete activities without the student-athlete being treated as merely an athlete and losing identification with a particular college (university) and all its supporters.
If the student-athlete is treated and paid as an athlete sans the student label it would became more difficult for the college to justify their efforts in an activity further divorced from academics. Private schools should be allowed to do whatever they want in these activities, but public schools that are supported by tax-payer dollars are a different story.
The student-athlete’s participation in sports is sometimes justified for the life’s lesson that can be learned in those endeavors. As a former student-athlete I feel that important life’s lessons can be learned in participation in competitive sports, but that those lessons can be learned equally as well in more academically related activities.
First…The colleges see the athletic programs as one one entity. with the sports that don’t generate positive revenue as being important to the whole. You may not agree with that business model but that’s their right. Schools can cut programs if they want, and sometimes they do.
Second…A huge factor in any change to the status quo is Title 9 legislation. The current status has been lawyered and manipulated to be in compliance. It’s impossible to predict how that plays out If you start cutting funding for non revenue sports. What’s not impossible to predict is the huge number of lawsuits.
Kennth
A good percentage of athletes go to college just to play sports. Only a tiny percentage have any future in professional sports. But there’s also a good percentage that also get an education that leads to future employment. But these issues are pretty much pervasive throughout college academics and athletics. One only need to look at some of the classes and majors to see this…Alien sex, Arguing with judge Judy, What if Harry Potter was real, The sociology of Myley Cyrus and on and on.
DeWittP :”Why do you think merit pay is the only option? Paying college athletes as if they were pros, i.e. a few players get most of the money, is a truly awful idea. It amounts to a straw man argument. I see no reason whatsoever to pay any college athlete more than any other college athlete in that sport. They should be paid a reasonable salary based on the number of hours that are devoted to the sport.”
….
I focused on merit pay because the loudest complaints I hear are about the highly talented, very successful college players that don’t get paid while the University makes money off them. (For instance, their jersey number) As a matter of equity, I see no solution to the problem. On the other hand, if you are truly highly talented, you are going to cash out big time in pro sports, and the money won’t be all that significant in the long term any way.
The problem with salaries is all the federal and state regulation of employees. Taxes, workers comp, unemployment, parental leave, pensions et cet. It would be no big deal for the bigger schools to pay an extra $50,000 per student for football players. Then again, the next issue would be the non-football athletes and Title IX. Coaches would lose control over their players and the headaches complying with the various regulations would be extremely burdensome. Here is a link to a panel that discusses these issues with most of the panelists supporting paying the players. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ohio+state+panel+on+paying+athletes+2016&&view=detail&mid=94B40DB50CF770AC43BC94B40DB50CF770AC43BC&FORM=VRDGAR
My bottom line is that I like watching college football as do many others. A decent number of players do well by it. It has many flaws, but I am willing to live with the flaws. The one mistake made by many is the assumption that college athletics as a whole is bringing in scads of money and that players, as a whole, are being treated like paupers. Generally, college athletics is not that profitable and any solutions to the problem should reflect that reality.
JD
JD Ohio,
As I said, the alternative is to reduce the number of hours per week. Every college sport other than football and basketball is limited to 20 hours/week during the season by the NCAA. That exemption should be eliminated whether players are paid or not.
Spending forty+ hours/week playing and practicing doesn’t leave either time or energy for education but there’s not even scholarship extension for compensation. The players are, to all intents and purposes, employees during the season at least, but without any legal protection that goes with being an employee. Search on ‘major college football hours per week’ if you want to see citations.
It turns out that college baseball players spend more time on their sport than football and basketball players.
Then there’s the whole issue of ‘paper classes’ for college athletes.
I seriously doubt that UNC is the only place that does this. An athletic scholarship that only gives you a degree on paper at best rather than a real education is worthless unless you actually get to the pros.
JD,
The last school on earth that would be hurt by allowing players to be paid would be OSU of course. The high end schools already get all the very best players based on reputation and as a result of a player’s assessment of the best path to the NFL. Allowing them to be paid would hardly change the current pecking order.
.
If we wanted to go total socialist in college football we could allow a college draft out of high school for all Div 1 schools. My guess is the howling out of Columbus for this new arrangement could be heard in China.
.
There is some merit to distributing (some) income for all sports, but I would suffice it to say that if it were left to the players to voluntarily donate their stipends to the swimming and badminton team that those teams would likely suffer. It’s not obvious to me why the swimming team is more deserving of surplus revenue than the robot team based soley on jockness.
.
All of these arguments are worth debating, what I think is beyond the pale is the NCAA not allowing OTHERS to independently pay a player for whatever reasons they desire. How about player families having enough money to actually attend the games? Effing against the rules. It is psychotic.
.
And the absolute worst example of outright financial rape and plunder is schools selling football jerseys with players names on them and giving ZERO back to the player. Unbelievable. This embarrassment is being rectified by forcing teams to sell jerseys without names. The fans lose, the players lose, hooray for justice! How about just giving them some royalties! https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/inside-college-football-the-big-deal-ohio-state-lawsuit-alabama-revelations/
.
One calculation of an OSU football player’s value is $363K annually. I’m sure the details of this measurement are debatable but if I’m the comptroller of the academic department I just love the NCAA and their draconian rules. http://www.businessinsider.com/college-football-player-value-2015-9
.
I’d be more than happy to compare the living arrangements between players and coaches/assistants for a poverty index assessment, although athletic dorms are pretty much palaces at most high profile schools now. The current rule set would never be enacted from scratch today, it is a result of a legacy before it became a big time business. Once the media decides this is a subject they want to “flood the zone” over, it will be a field day (ha ha) for outrage.
JD,
USC vs WSU was a good game. I just want to fix the system without breaking the good parts somehow. The people I feel sorry for are NFL caliber players who get career ending injuries in college and those just below pro level who spend their most lucrative career years in college and never get compensated fairly. That type of compensation could pay for other family members to go to college. Perhaps money can be put in a trust for them after they leave college to try to maintain the integrity of what we have today.
as someone from the UK & after reading most (not all) comments above, my view on the guys/gals not standing for the flag/anthem is they should have stayed in the changing rooms if they wanted to make a protest.
to come out on the field & make their protest in full view just asks for kickback about not respecting the flag/USA.
My opinion only.
Tom Scharf,
although athletic dorms are pretty much palaces at most high profile schools now
And sometimes I know people will consider this to be of some great $$ “value” to students as if it is the equivalent of pay. Of course it is a nice thing. But huge numbers of people and all financially prudent ones would rather have income in $$ and live in some place more modest. Financial advisers would recommend it– save the money for the future, to build your own net worth and/ or to support your family and so on. So the fact that the place is a palace that someone might compare favorably to some high priced apartment doesn’t mean the player is really getting a value equal to that apartment. Because if they got it in money they could spend it on what they value.
Everyone knows the difference between the “cost” of an object and it’s “value” to them when they are given a crappy present. (But it’s the thought that counts…. 🙂 )
dougieh
my view on the guys/gals not standing for the flag/anthem is they should have stayed in the changing rooms if they wanted to make a protest.
That’s what one of the teams did after Trump tweeted and made comments in front of his crowd. Players got criticized for doing just that too.
Tom S: “The last school on earth that would be hurt by allowing players to be paid would be OSU of course.”
….
Of course, that is very true. It would be pennies for OSU. This issue is whether much of their competition (Indiana or UNLV, for instance) could afford it. If OSU is in a system where it is functionally allowed to pay more to its football players, the programs of lesser football schools will wither away quickly. The harm to OSU if most other programs die is that OSU (and Alabama and USC) will not have enough schools to play.
JD
Tom S: “The people I feel sorry for are NFL caliber players who get career ending injuries in college and those just below pro level who spend their most lucrative career years in college and never get compensated fairly. That type of compensation could pay for other family members to go to college. Perhaps money can be put in a trust for them after they leave college to try to maintain the integrity of what we have today.”
….
I pretty much agree with these sentiments. What I would suggest is giving football players an extra 2-4 years of scholarships if they maintain their eligibility. It is extremely difficult to play football and study, and if after their playing days are done, players want or need to add to their education, I think this would be fair. Probably be pretty expensive (but most probably not prohibitively so) because whatever football players would get other athletes would probably be entitled to the same thing. (Because of the especially high risk of injury to football players, I would give them more years than others, but my opinion means little to those who would make the decision.)
JD
Tom S: Re: Ohio State/Spielman lawsuit
…..
I agree with Spielman and others here. The university, for sure, should lose the rights to the images of former players once they graduate. Of course, many of the players whose images are being used now, like Spielman, did very well in pro football and don’t really need the money. This lawsuit would do little to help those players who would need the help the most.
JD
JD
It’s funny..It’s never the third string right guard involved in these lawsuits. It’s always the 1%rs. What would Bernie say? If hypocrisy had a mother, father and stepchild his name would be NCAA. Not that I have any answers. I kind of agree with you. It’s the system we’ve got and any other will be just as bad
Chuckrr
“On the other hand I think sometimes these issues need to quit simmering and come to a boil to ultimately improve. So maybe, just maybe the outcome of this will be positive”
Very true words.
Including the maybe.
SouthPark put it poignantly (weirdly for them) by stating that empathy is sometimes impossible unless you actually own the shoes you live in.
I’m not black, I feel some pain for the plight of the minority’s who are. On the other hand the best way to get on with this business of living is to stop complaining and start doing. Works just as well for white supremacists and latino’s and anyone else who is or feels victimised.
First pain, then numbness then acceptance or something like that.
I see HRC said she wanted to “put politics aside” and attacked the NRA within 12 hours of the US’s worst massacre. Maybe she should stay off twitter too.
South Park last week was classic, a parody on 23andMe DNA testing…”I’m 21% victim!”.
JD Ohio
Of course, many of the players whose images are being used now, like Spielman, did very well in pro football and don’t really need the money.
I’m pretty sure needing the money is irrelevant to the legal principle about whether schools can own players likeness in perpetuity. I don’t think it’s very important to the ethical issue either. The ethical question is: is it ok for a powerful bodies (schools/NCAA) to seize assets that rightfully belong to a person that has less power (student)? Especially when the powerful bodies use cartel like agreements between each other to reduce possible choices by the less powerful? (Students can’t really shop around for a school that agrees to better terms because the NCAA dictates terms.)
I presume the legal question would relate to contract of some sort. I don’t know contract law.
I think the answer is no. That the student might later make money still makes them in a less powerful situation when entering any agreements about publicity rights involving their images.
Of course it will be players who do well in popular sports whose likeness makes money. They are the ones the fans are enthused about and whose likenesses make products appealing to those who pay money for them.
Latest court rulings on NCAA are split:
Supreme Court rejects NCAA appeal of antitrust ruling http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/17703790/supreme-court-rejects-ncaa-appeal-antitrust-ruling
“The effect of the high court action is to leave the NCAA vulnerable to more legal challenges that are working their way through the courts, but it also gives the association time to make changes to blunt those possible threats.”
“The NCAA was found guilty of illegal price-fixing in two courts, and the Supreme Court is allowing those rulings to stand,” Huma said. “This makes clear that the NCAA is not above the law and that college athletes deserve equal protection under the law.”
.
The NCAA agreed to send a bunch of players about $6,000 in the settlement. They have ruled the NCAA is a cartel and subject to anti-trust laws, but the Supreme court not hearing the case was a victory for the NCAA (fear of court ordered pay to play). Next up is Kessler case. This lawyer forced free agency on the NFL. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/02/07/ncaa-settlement-on-past-cost-of-attendance-stipends-is-not-nearly-enough-sports-lawyer-jeffrey-kessler
.
If you view the athletic financial exploitation by the NCAA through a racial lens this could well go nuclear using social pressure. I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t already. I suppose this is a wedge issue for the left as it pits academia vs race relations so the forces aren’t properly aligned. The social science departments are too busy naval gazing to look across campus, and I think there is endless resentment of athletics by the rest of academia. I think it would be wise for the NCAA to fix this before the court imposes the fix for them.
From Scharf Wapo Link: “If he and his clients win in court, Kessler reiterated Tuesday, no school will be forced to pay its football and basketball players. Schools would have the option to offer money to prized recruits, which Kessler contends would pave the way for a more equitable distribution of the billions of dollars generated at the top levels of college football and basketball.
“The NCAA’s position is they will fight to the death because if [Alabama football coach] Nick Saban had to give back a few million dollars out of his $9 million contract so some impoverished kids could get a little bit more of the financial benefits out of the millions of dollars they generate, the world of college football and basketball would collapse as we know it? It’s ridiculous,†Kessler said.”
….
Totally stupid and disingenuous quote from the plaintiff’s lawyer. As I have been pointing out before, the bigger schools can easily pay the players. The issue is whether there would be enough schools left after the weaker ones are killed off by the payments made by the more wealthy schools for there to be Division I college football. I would note that the article is one-sided and doesn’t quote from the NCAA or from NCAA briefs. Essentially, the Wapo gives an advocate his chance to spin the story, and doesn’t cover the rest of the story. Sort of what you expect from the Wapo and the NY Times.
JD
The link below is a good read for those posters like, I think, Harold W who wondered how the NCAA rule violations became a federal crime. I think that process whereby the feds have found ways of getting involved is worrying.
It’s another high profile PR stunt by those thugs at the FBI. I’m reminded of the prosecution of Martha Stewart for lying to a federal agent about something that wasn’t a crime. She did not engage in insider trading or they would have prosecuted her for that. But they didn’t want to come up empty on something that high profile so they trumped up the lying charge. The sad part is the jury bought it.
Kenneth,
Thanks for that article. Just as the carrot of federal largesse is followed by the stick of regulation (else the money stops flowing), it seems that expansion of police oversight is another inevitable consequence of federal aggrandizement.
NYT: How the N.C.A.A. Cheats Student Athletes https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/opinion/how-the-ncaa-cheats-student-athletes.html
.
“Lest you think I exaggerate, look up the case of the two athletes at the University of Iowa who started a T-shirt screening business and were threatened with ineligibility by the N.C.A.A. because their website mentioned that they met because they were both — brace yourself — swimmers. Or the more recent case of a cross-country runner at Texas A&M who was threatened with ineligibility for posting a YouTube video about a water bottle company he started.”
.
Clearly universities don’t want their athletes promoting the local strip club in their name so there are limits to what should be allowed, but the strait jacket is on with suffocating tightness currently.
If memory serves, and it may not, I remember the same arguments being made about how the rich, big city teams (now top college teams) would get all the best players when baseball players were trying to be able to control their own destinies, i.e. gain free agency. That is, the NY Yankees would win the World Series every year.
The NYY’s do have about a 3x advantage in salaries over the least funded teams. MLB runs kind of a hybrid with some profit sharing. A salary cap like the NFL is the best for parity and fans I think, but pure free agency is best for the players.
.
A comedian made fun of free agency in the NFL and said what fans are basically cheering for is their city’s uniforms playing another city’s uniforms. Kind of true. Free agency does lose the long term character of a team when players change so often.
In the latest spasm of political correctness gone wild, the Michigan State president issued a statement after a “noose” was found at a dorm. The noose ended up being shoelaces accidentally dropped by a student, ha ha. Probably best to allow the Office of Institutional Equity to complete their preliminary investigation before notifying the president. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/msu-noose-shoelace-student/
Tom,
A comedian made fun of free agency in the NFL and said what fans are basically cheering for is their city’s uniforms playing another city’s uniforms. Kind of true. Free agency does lose the long term character of a team when players change so often.
And this is different from college sports how? College players only have four (or so) years of eligibility. It is exactly cheering for your uniforms.
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit is publishing a series on the so-called Russian hack of the DNC emails. The FBI looks like the Keystone Cops on this but not as funny. The evidence that it was the Russians is, to put it mildly, weak to non-existent. The DNC appears to be even more incompetent than expected. About half the emails that appeared on Wikileaks were dated after the DNC hired Crowdstrike to clean and protect their email servers.
Note that the entire Trump campaign Russian collusion meme appears to be based on attributing the DNC hack to the Russians.
Entire is pretty inclusive. How about “a lot of”?
The various meetings while likely innocent seem worth investigating.
j ferguson,
It’s the FBI and the Intelligence Community that need investigating, not the Trump campaign. If the DNC hack wasn’t Russian, then the meetings are meaningless.
A more important question is who hired GPS Fusion to concoct the phony Trump dossier and why did the FBI take this obviously phony dossier seriously? That’s what Mueller should be investigating. But that might cast a bad light on Comey, which isn’t going to happen as long as Mueller is in charge.
Tom Scharf,
It is true that there are big differences in total salary in MLB. That clearly makes some difference, but it is not an overwhelming one. A big reason is that the contracts signed by prized free agents are just about always guaranteed large salary deals. The unsurprising result when someone is going to receive $20 million a year independent of perfomance, their performance tends to become, shall we say, less important to them. It’s easy to point to lots of “albatross” contracts teams wish they hadn’t signed. When it gets really bad, the teams release the albatross… just to make room on their roster… even though they still pay the now non-player. If it were me signing the contracts, every one would have very generous incentives for performance, but very low guaranteed payouts.
SteveF (Comment #165335): “The unsurprising result when someone is going to receive $20 million a year independent of perfomance, their performance tends to become, shall we say, less important to them.”
I don’t think there is much evidence for that. What does happen is that money can’t stop aging. Baseball players peak around age 27 or 28, some earlier, some later. That is about the age when players start to become free agents, some earlier, most later. So players get to the point where they can cash in just about when their careers start to decline. Some players remain highly productive well into their 30’s, partly good genetics and partly by using experience to offset declining physical skills. Some deteriorate quickly after 30, they end up being a drag on a team’s payroll. The only recent big bucks player I can recall being released is Josh Hamilton.
It seems that teams have been gradually getting smarter about big contracts.
“The unsurprising result when someone is going to receive $20 million a year independent of perfomance, their performance tends to become, shall we say, less important to them.”
.
Tell that to mother effing Aaron Rodgers, ha ha. Give that stupid fool 90 seconds and the football with less than a one score lead and you might as well chalk up a loss and leave early to beat the traffic, but I digress…
.
Gambling on long term contracts for first year players became like meth addiction. Some monumental busts. They made a pretty funny commercial about it: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7jD3/dish-network-going-back-to-college-ft-matt-leinart
.
There is athletic Einstein out there, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, etc. There might also be good baseball players in theory, ha ha. I think the draw is fans live vicariously through the exploits of their favorite players.
.
Another interesting factor is being a fan of a mediocre team means the pleasure from winning a title is magnified, expectations for the NYY are pretty high every year. The Rays winning the division against Boston and New York is like a monumental event. It happened twice in 20 years, the NYY won it 13 times, Boston 5 times. Money matters, but it’s not everything.
Mike M.: “The only recent big bucks player I can recall being released is Josh Hamilton.” Pablo Sandoval was released this year, with about $50 million remaining on his contract. ARod and Carl Crawford last year, although for lesser sums of money.
.
My take on the original question — paying college athletes — is that it’s unfair to the athletes to limit their options. If the NCAA removed restrictions, I’m sure that there would be great changes. Just as when free agency came to baseball. I don’t think that it would end competition. MLB & its players union agreed to rules which restrict spending, in the interest of maintaining a competitive balance, so that the source of money (fans) wouldn’t tune out. I think something like that could be worked out with college athletes. Let’s face it, there isn’t a level playing field across all colleges as it is now. Yes, a new system might have knock-on effects on funding other college sports. I say, let the chips fall where they may — the most important factor is the increased contractual freedom for the athletes.
MikeM,
Yes, it is true that many free agents become that after their peak years, but the decline in production is often obscene after the contract is signed. Case in point: Pablo Sandoval, $19 million average a year, guaranteed for 5 years (Red Sox) they released him this year after he: 1) showed up for spring training grossly overweight, 2) couldn’t hit the side of a barn, and 3) couldn’t stop making HORRIBLE errors on routine ground balls. He was released by Boston because nobody would pick up even a portion of his contract…meaning he was WORSE than a randomly selected minor league player. He signed to a one year minimum salary swan song contract deal with San Francisco (where he started his career). Here is what Sandoval did since 2009, his first full season:
.
Year WAR Salary
2009 5.5 $401K
2010 1.5 $465K
2011 4.4 $507K
2012 2.4 $3.2 Million (arbitration eligible)
2013 3.0 $5.7 Million
2014 3.1 $8.25 million
2015 -0.9 $20 million
2016 -0.2 $17 Million
2017 -1.4 $17.5 million ($500K from SF)
2018 – $17 million
2019 – $5 million
.
The $95 million free-agent contract was signed between 2014 and 2015 (at age 28). I really doubt Sandoval became ‘old’ at 28. Similar stories have been repeated many times. When free agency comes later, players (shockingly) seem able to maintain performance until at least their early 30’s. The incentives of the free agency system are all wrong, and the resulting drop in performance is typically precipitous after the free agent contract is signed.
Looks like the NFL protests are turning against the players. The Miami owner made protesting players stay in the locker room yesterday and Dallas’s owner announced, you sit for the anthem, you sit for the game. Pence walked out of the SF-Colts game yesterday in what appeared to be a staged political protest.
.
The bully pulpit seems to be effective in this case, although one has to wonder how much Trump’s previous association with the defunct USFL has given him an ax to grind with the NFL.
.
Firing the players would go too far I think, so I doubt that will happen…directly. I would not be surprised to find that those who continue to protest (mostly second level players) are going to have a lifetime Scarlet Letter on them and will be Kaepernick’d out of the league ASAP. Let this be a sign for others…not that we all don’t learn that annoying your boss can have bad career consequences.
Tom Scharf,
“Let this be a sign for others… not that we all don’t learn that annoying your boss can have bad career consequences.”
.
Exactly why I have not had a boss for 25+ years. There are good bosses, of course, but the frequency of extreme a$$holes in ‘leadership’ positions at large corporations is frighteningly high. Seems to have something to do with the personal characteristics which are valued by upper managers in large corporations.
.
I remember one fellow who announced drastic reductions in retirement benefits (cutting expected retirement income for most employees by between 50% and 75%, while the company simultaneously ‘recovered’ most of the “excess” money that had been invested to fund future retirees). He became furious when he got negative comments from employees. Those that spoke out were…. let’s say… disfavored after that.
Every now and then the NYT man’s up…errr….person’s up…. and takes down one of their own using their ever changing moral lens of past behavior. They broke the Weinstein sexual harassment story (huge Hollywood left political donor) that got him fired within days and just wrote a story on how SNL decided to cut all jokes about him in what can only be kindly called an inconsistent application of comedy. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/arts/television/snl-weinstein-jokes.html
.
Vox is quite open about protection: “But aside from his considerable legal defenses and Hollywood clout, Weinstein had another line of defense against possible accusations of impropriety: his longstanding and aggressively public commitment to championing progressive causes…he also spoke at length about how unfair it is that a report on his history of alleged sexual harassment did not discuss his record as a political activist.”
.
“Weinstein’s apparent belief that his history of supporting liberal causes should mitigate decades’ worth of sexual harassment allegations might explain the puzzling conclusion to the statement he gave the New York Times. “I’m going to need a place to channel that anger,†Weinstein writes, apparently referring to the anger that caused him to harass his employees, “so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention.â€
.
The blatant privilege of that old white man is appalling, ha ha. Hollywood and the NRA? Puhleeeeze. Every time the gun control debate opens up again, it is always fascinating to see the silence from the media on Hollywood’s glorification of gun violence. John Wick 1/2 have 128 close and personal total gun kills. For the record I liked those movies, so blame the viewers.
Tom,
Yeah…. when I first read the story all I could think was “Yeah. He’s so angry at himself he’s going to do precisely what he wants to do.”
If he was contrite, he’d release all the women who are bound to non-disclosures and allow them to talk. But he’s not contrite. So he won’t.
Obtaining free agency players and the potential for overpaying these athletes for their future performance is more understandable and reasonable if the potential marginal utility of the free agent to make a team a playoff contender or even league or world champion is considered in the business decision. The decision is not necessarily based on the players abilities as much as it is on the marginal utility the player can provide. An established player with a reputation to maintain and even allow consideration for a Hall of Fame candidate is more likely to play and train hard even when overpaid.
An example of that marginal utility would be overpaying a 5th starter for a major league team pitching staff where the difference between a 10 and 10 win/lose record and say a 5 and 15 record could well determine whether the team makes the playoffs.
I am rather surprised that many posters here take it as inevitable that colleges should spend so much time and effort recruiting athletes in order to provide winning teams that will in turn provide revenues for many athletic scholarships for lesser programs within the school. Emphasis appears to be circular and ever increasing that the colleges are increasingly in the business of sports and that that effort must detract from academics. I would think that a school student and alumnus spirit could be maintained just as well with athlete teams composed of truly student athletes.
Without the colleges providing a training ground for potential professional players, the athlete who is interested in a potential professional career would surely be compensated with signing bonuses and those professional teams interested in these athletes would surely have to pay signing bonuses and maintain some kind of minor leagues like professional baseball and hockey does.
We have not discussed what happens to those college athletes who do not obtain a proper college education and do not make it into professional sports – which is a very large percentage of the college athletes. The second link admits to academic failures of student athletes but in my mind uses circular reasoning in attributing a cause.
Fritsch: “I am rather surprised that many posters here take it as inevitable that colleges should spend so much time and effort recruiting athletes in order to provide winning teams that will in turn provide revenues for many athletic scholarships for lesser programs within the school. Emphasis appears to be circular and ever increasing that the colleges are increasingly in the business of sports and that that effort must detract from academics.”
*****
To the extent that you are implying that I said that, I never said that. I have simply said that college athletics is not that profitable as a whole and that most players getting paid $200,000 –300,000 in effect for 4 or 5 years of work are doing reasonably well. Most people are assuming that most colleges make gads of profits off of college athletics which is not true. Personally, I like college football and it doesn’t bother me that the 15% of the really good football players may be subsidizing the other 85% who have no pro future as well as athletes in other sports. Others can have a different opinion.
Young players, the NFL, and any business person have the right to set up a league or some other structure to compete with college football. So far no one has done so. The overall system is not unjust. Some people get unfair results but that happens in every endeavor involving humans. It is interesting to note that in baseball, the majority of players drafted come out of college as opposed to those who bypass college. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_draft#The_Draft
Additionally, many college football players benefit from high level coaching and the patience that their 4 or 5 years of college permits coaches to have. For instance, Marshon Lattimore of OSU was drafted as the 11th pick and Malik Hooker was the 15th pick in last years draft (Of course, both players made large amounts of money) even though both only had 1 full year as a starter. Neither played as a freshman and both only played sparingly in their second year. Lattimore had serious hamstring problems that were only resolved in his 3rd year, and Hooker wanted to quit in his freshman year because of homesickness. Almost certainly both did better by being in a 4-year collegiate program than if they were in a development league.
I would add that I think that there are legitimate criticisms to the effect that the players are worked so hard athletically that they lack the time to give good effort to their studies, which I would remedy by giving them several additional scholarship years in addition to their athletic scholarships.
JD
The biggest thing football players need to understand is their actual odds. There are 1,083,000 high school football players and 251 people are drafted to the NFL. Your odds of making it to the NFL are 0.02% out of high school, 1.5% out of college. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/football
.
Compare that to the odds of getting an engineering job if you “participate” in college engineering (>90%?). If you factor in lifetime earnings of an engineer ($2M) versus an NFL player career ($6M) then it even looks like a less wise path to shoot for the NFL. You can of course do both, and an NFL career is only 4 years long typically.
.
It isn’t a bad idea to force football players to get an education while playing football if you view it through this lens. I question whether many college athletes truly understand their odds. The matheletes ironically know their odds the best no doubt.
.
Sadly engineers never get to work in stadiums full of people cheering them on and I have yet to see my name on the back of a jersey for sale (and I would even allow them to keep the royalties!). I suppose there is a bit of engineer worship out there for Elon Musk, Bill Gates, etc. I can proudly say I was a nerd before nerds were cool, ha ha.
JD Ohio (Comment #165347)
I did not have any one poster in mind in my comment. It was aimed more at the general lack of discussion of the basic question about increasing college emphasis on sports where their traditional emphasis was and should be, in my mind anyway, academics. Private schools can do as they please in this matter, but tax supported schools have to answer or should answer to the taxpayer. It may well be that most tax payers support more emphasis on sports in colleges. There are certainly lots of college sports fans out there that probably are much better informed about a colleges efforts in sports then in academics.
I also was interested in a discussion of those serious student athletes that have some hopes for a professional career and do not make it.
JD do not take my comments personally. I commented with the motivation to change some of the discussion to areas that interest me. That selfish approach does not work very often for me though.
Tom Scharf (Comment #165349): “The biggest thing football players need to understand is their actual odds. There are 1,083,000 high school football players and 251 people are drafted to the NFL. Your odds of making it to the NFL are 0.02% out of high school, 1.5% out of college.”
1 million high school players, 2000 pro players. That is about 0.2%, not 0.02%. Tom makes two errors: comparing flux to total and neglecting the fact that about 30% of NFL players were not drafted. I think the average length of career is about the same for high school, college, and pro players.
From Tom’s link, about 25,000 division I college players, so about 8% might be pros some day. Terrible job prospects compared to engineers, but probably better than most college majors.
Nevertheless, I agree that college athletes should be students first and athletes second. Hopefully, the Pacific Pro Football League will succeed and provide an alternative for those who don’t want to be students.
The contribution of college athletics to school spirit and community can be significant. But that does not require scholarships, as demonstrated by the Ivy League, Division II, and Division, III.
Mike M,
I was unaware of the Pacific pro league. Makes perfect sense to me, but it may take more than $50K per year to get some of the better prospects from high schools; double that and I think lots of top prospects,would not bother with college. Triple it, and I suspect they could have their picka. If the NFL has any sense, they will follow closely and invest in a minor league system if the new league has any success attracting high school talent. The best prospects in high school have a very good chance of a pro career, but they do need development… If that can be done outside the college system, it would not be a bad thing. Heck, MLB has a huge minor league system, and college players are only a portion of the total talent stream for MLB.
Switching back to electric vehicles and range anxiety, Morgan Stanley has priced developing charging stations worldwide at $2.7 T.
.
Don’t know if that’s a realistic number or not, but that’s large. And in order for it to have much of an effect on emissions, energy storage has to be addressed. Nobody wants to pull over to recharge and have to wait for the sun to come out, or the wind to pick up.
Mike M,
That data comes from the NCAA, whether or not they had an agenda I don’t know, but I think your numbers are closer to right.
.
I would make it an annual calculation as:
Number of players to make an NFL team out of college / Number of players to make a college team out of high school.
.
I can’t find those numbers. So total numbers http://www.scholarshipstats.com/football.html
.
NFL 53 * 32 = 1,692 players
DIV 1= 15,167
All of NCAA = 92,642
.
DIV 1 (1692 / 15167) = 11% (better than I thought!)
NCAA (1692 / 92642) = 1.8%
High School (1692 / 1,086,720) = 0.15%
.
Average NFL career is 3.3 years.
Average NFL career for player making roster as a rookie is 6 years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/240102/average-player-career-length-in-the-national-football-league/
.
30% of NFL players were not drafted.
87% of NFL players were DIV 1 (FBS) players
63% of NFL players come from the Power 5 conferences
17% of NFL players were SEC conference players http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1641528-where-does-nfl-talent-come-from
This is why the NFL must take action:
The N.F.L. Is Now One of the Most Divisive Brands in the U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/11/upshot/trump-nfl-polarization.html
.
Examine the top graph on Trump voters view of the NFL. Ouch. I’m not sure there are many lessons for the NFL to learn here as they are mostly a victim of circumstances. Perhaps never letting divisive protests like this start in the first place by enforcing workplace standards is the lesson.
.
Those numbers can reverse quickly too, no doubt with a reversal on the other side of the ledger. Split the baby, must be respectful and stand during the anthem, protests allowed before and after.
HaroldW,
The answer is obviously to put windmills on top of electric cars, they will charge while driving. This logic is flawless, where is my patent application?
HaroldW,
It is a huge amount of $$. The budget would there if people really wanted electric cars. Someone would have an incentive to build.
The problem is: do significant numbers of people really want electric cars? I’m not so sure lots of people actively want them. I know they’d want them if they were cheaper, more reliable, not inconvenient and so on. That would just be economics. But even apart from the anxiety of running out of electrons before getting to a charger, right now “refueling” times are still larger for electric cars.
Time to make a trip matters to people. It takes something like 10 minutes at most to pull into a gas station, add ~13 gallons and leave.
City mileage is estimated at 25 mpg, highway at 30+.
How long does it take to recharge a battery? A: ” Placed along well traveled routes, a Supercharger provides up to 170 miles of range in as little as 30 minutes.”
I’ll let you do the math. I know the frequency and length of delays is modest in my golf.
lucia,
My new car gets about 35 mpg on the highway. After a fill-up of its 15-gallon tank, it indicates over 500 miles to empty. So, 3x the range provided by a Supercharger, in about 1/3 the time.
.
And it’s not just that the trip time is longer. “Dead time” when traveling with small children can be fraught.
Even without small children. Some people take their pets on vacation.
Even if you don’t need to wait to access the recharging station, 30 minutes means you’ve got to find something to do. Pretty much no one takes 30 minutes to use the toilet. So: lunch?
But 170 miles/ (55 mph) means you need a half hour stop at a recharging station every 3 hours. That’s just not attractive. Granted: the recharging stations existing make it possible…. still… not convenient.
In order for people to love, love, love these cars relative to gasoline powered ones, they are going to need recharging to take 10 minutes or less. Until they get there, the cars will only be “loved” on some sort of intellectual levels where people really wish they had something less inconvenient.
Tom Scharf (#165358)
“where is my patent application?”
Unfortunately, the idea fails the “novelty” criterion.
See, e.g. here, or here. Other persons have proposed this idea, apparently seriously — just google.
Yeah, but my car windmills have blades made out of solar panels.
Tom —
Well, that *does* sound novel, to me at least. Go for it! 😉
Looks like Trump is trying to goad the left into his next “cultural killbox” (as the National Review referred to them). “We’re saying Merry Christmas again!”. Now that we have set fire to the NFL let’s throw Christmas in the political incinerator. I suppose Christmas trees with American flags on them will be in our near future. Make Christmas Great Again!
.
This is another one of these things the reflexively anti-Trump people should not take the bait on. Good luck in 2020 with anti-Flag, anti-Christmas labels stuck on you.
There sure are a lot of powerful hurricanes around this year. Just something I noticed. May not mean anything…
Hi Boris, how they hanging.
There sure are. Personally, I blame Trump. If he’d only have stayed in the Paris agreement, third never have happened.
😉
This not third. Darn phone… I blame Trump for that too.
Boris,
I noticed that any weather extreme (flood or drought, much snow or the lack of it, extreme hot or extreme cold, any tornado, and certainly any tropical storm) will be instantly blamed on global warming by the climate deranged. Would be funny were it not so stooooopid…. and so damaging to developing rational public policy. Oh well, the dedicated green types will grasp at any straw, no matter how frail, in an attempt to advance their agenda.
.
The truly comical part is that global CO2 emissions will be rising for a couple of decades, then very gradually falling, completely independent of green fantasies about ‘renewable’ energy and politically correct efforts to reduce fossil fuel use. I gently suggest you find something more useful to do than carry on about extreme weather events.
Lucia you do not know this man [Boris].
He has never commented on this blog before to your knowledge.
The fact that he is doing so from a [redacted] site in [R*****] is purely coincidental.
Can you take out CIA insurance?
I would send a tweet to your bogeyman for help.
Remember the phone line is not secure.
Three in a row possible Boris, after over 10 years of no landfall.
Hoping this one veers North shortly and the next burns out.
Most people die from drowning in a hurricane, not wind. Even Andrew only had about 18 deaths.
.
I-95 and I-75 and turnpike are starting to slow down, you can see it on Google maps. It was going about 30 mph today. I do not want to be stuck on an interstate. It’s looking like east coast landfall and it might actually miss entirely. Miami is under heavy threat and I don’t think you can evacuate that many people without making things worse. It’s likely a bad weekend in Florida for a lot of people.
.
It’s hard to get a realistic view of actual damage. Media tend to go to trailer parks or frame shots for maximum apparent damage. Here is a flyover of ground zero of Harvey.
https://youtu.be/_eE2oyarSN8
.
They did a lot of assessments after Andrew. Concrete and block walls rarely failed. The leading cause of roof failures was inadequate attachment of roof sheathing. Most window failures were caused by flying debris. In the hardest hit areas most shingle roofs had significant damage. Hip roofs were better than gable roofs. Garage doors detached from their rails. Manufactured/mobile homes were catastrophically damaged. Poorly constructed homes were a problem, not built to code. Roof damage > water damage > large losses.
Is it my imagination or has Trump Derangement Syndrome taken a month off in the media? It seems to have dissipated from hysteria to just normal partisan hackery. Maybe they are just temporarily distracted. The fainting spells are getting fewer and farther between.
“There sure are a lot of powerful hurricanes around this year. Just something I noticed. May not mean anything…”
Let us hope your investing is not influenced by such recency bias.
Tom Scharf,
Maybe a tiny bit. The usual suspects continue to carry on about Trump colluding with Russians to steal Hillary’s presidency, despite zero evidence. I suspect some of the more rational in the left’s department of propaganda (AKA the main stream media) are beginning to notice that the public holds them in even lower esteem than Trump, and that Trump is not going anywhere soon. I see a shift in the MSM toward trying to help Decomcrats flip the House…. so they can start impeachment in January 2019. Little do they know this will ensure Trump is reelected in 2020.
“Personally, I blame Trump.”
Now I certainly don’t want to jump the gun on this, but I will point out that Russia has not been hit by a single hurricane this year. Coincidence?
Tom Scharf (Comment #164897): “Is it my imagination or has Trump Derangement Syndrome taken a month off in the media? It seems to have dissipated from hysteria to just normal partisan hackery.”
I suspect you are just getting used to it. What used to sound like hysteria seems more and more normal.
When I first moved to Canada, I was astonished by how petty and vicious Canadian politics was in comparison with the U.S. After a while, I came to realize that it was just an unfamiliar style of pettiness and viciousness to which I had not built up any immunity. Once I built up immunity, it no longer bothered me.
angech,
Boris has commented here. Not in a while– but I haven’t been posting “real” blog posts. So lots of old regulars haven’t posted in a while.
Tom
You must have missed the hyper ventalliation about Melania wearing high heels while on the tarmac in NY getting ready to board for a flight to TX.
Some environmentalists have learned that “the tactic of opening up a relationship by punching someone in the face … doesn’t work well.”
Go figure.
Time to get out of Miami, today or never. 3 days out and the forecast is a direct hit. Time to panic if you live there, it’s going to be chaos. This looks like the highest damage event by far if it stays on that track. Andrew hit with a 145 mph sustained winds and 175 mph gusts and Irma could easily do that over a more damaging angle with 25 more years of development since Andrew.
.
My guess is FEMA probably isn’t ready for this. How could they be? They probably went all-in for Houston, not a minor effort.
.
If it shifts just 20 miles more east the damage would drop 100x and be almost a complete miss, some models suggest this will happen.
.
Dave Barry: Even with Irma knocking at our door, we here in Miami are NOT FREAKING OUT AT ALL!
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/dave-barry/article171702477.html
HaroldW,
It always baffles me that alleged “communication experts” somehow don’t criticize their peers for crapping all over people they want to convince to join their side. It may be me, but being labeled a den–r, bigot, sexist, and racist is not endearing enough for convincing me of anything.
.
Realistically they are just throwing red meat to their own side and trying to shame the opposition into compliance. At some point over the last decade a lot of people have convinced themselves that shaming is the greatest super power ever, it works on everything, just like bleach! You might be able to shame some people into silence, but don’t fool yourself that you have won them over. There is no shame in the voting booth, and the last people I want running the country is the shaming mob.
.
Is it a good thing that environmentalists have totally alienated Republicans? It seems to be intentional. Why would they want to do that? I like the environment, but the very last place I would ever go would be an environmentalist meeting. I’m guessing voter registration cards are checked at the door and you are tased if you try to sneak in as a Republican or Libertarian.
A shockingly even-handed article on Campus Rape Policy at The Atlantic. Long.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/
Tom Scharf (Comment #164906): “Time to get out of Miami, today or never. 3 days out and the forecast is a direct hit. Time to panic if you live there, it’s going to be chaos.”
That strikes me as an extremely dangerous attitude. People in low lying areas or inadequate structures definitely should relocate, but a general attitude of “run for your lives” will increase risk for everyone. Forecast landfall is still anywhere from just south of Tallahassee to North Carolina.
Tom Scharf (Comment #164907): “Realistically they are just throwing red meat to their own side and trying to shame the opposition into compliance.”
I suspect that this is really a form of corruption in which an organization comes to serve a purpose that is different from the purpose that it nominally serves. In this case, environmental groups doing what is good for the organization (i.e., good for fundraising) rather than actually doing things that help the environment. I think this has happened all across the political spectrum and is a major source of polarization in American politics.
Mike M.,
It seems to me that this form of corruption is almost inevitable in any large organization that originated from the ground up, labor unions for example.
“Is it a good thing that environmentalists have totally alienated Republicans? It seems to be intentional.”
Mike M, Yes, it is. There are certain people who want to exercise what they think is their power. To really wield power you need enemies to defeat. If everyone gets along and you have to just live your own life in peace, what fun is that?
Andrew
Mike M,
The 3 day out forecast is kind of the rule of thumb for many people. If you view the spaghetti plots and they are tight 3 days out then it’s meaningful.
http://derecho.math.uwm.edu/models/al112017.png
.
Hurricane tracking accuracy trend. Their 3 day is now as good as their one day was 30 years ago, but 80 mile errors are still large for planning purposes.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/verification/figs/ALtkerrtrd.jpg
.
Landfall wind accuracy is not very accurate, and not getting much better. Could tracking be wrong? Of course, they have a cone for a reason but you use what you got. In 2004, Cat4 Hurricane Charley was predicted to go right over my house.
http://www.vastormphoto.com/charleyradar/charley3.jpg
Inside 6 hours before landfall it mysteriously turned south and almost missed us completely.
http://survivalblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/charley-path.jpg
.
You are pretty much strapped to a dart board and nature is throwing darts at you, but you don’t want to be strapped to the center of the dart board.
.
If you want to leave Miami today it is doable, if you want to leave tomorrow you are risking an epic traffic jam with epic stress. Go to Google maps, turn on traffic and look at the state of Florida. It’s not going to get better. Leave today, or commit to riding it out is reasonable IMO.
Tom,
Good luck. I’ve got my fingers crossed for all of Florida. I look at the maps and say “veer east. EAST“. Moving up over cooler waters for a while is much to be desired.
Having relatives in Illinois, I would have packed up the cat and left yesterday. That’s no longer possible.
I lived in Naples, Florida for a while when I was a kid. So, I followed Hurricane Andrew closely when it hit Florida in the 90s. It was amazing to me how little damage it did when it hit Naples, which is about 90 miles from Miami. Apparently, hurricanes lose force very quickly when they hit land.
It looks like Irma might loop into Naples, which would be very bad for Naples. Also, of course, there are very expensive houses built right on the beach on Naples, which will be wiped out if the hurricane angles in over the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, it is totally foreseeable that these houses will eventually be wiped out by Irma or another hurricane, which will eventually come.
JD
What’s really irritating is the “no pets at emergency shelters” rule. Many states have learned that this is creating much more danger than it prevents. Many people will not leave their pets, ummmm….not leaving my dog to die, sorry. One poll found 44 percent of people who chose not to evacuate during Katrina did so because they did not want to abandon their pets.
.
In FL there are a few shelters that allow pets but you must pre-register them. Bring them in a crate should be allowed. I suppose some people have pet allergies.
You can build a house that can survive a direct hit by a hurricane with minimal damage. One of the things that people like me never see is government tax dollars at work maybe even usefully sometimes. Here is a FEMA document that has everything you would ever want to know about building a safe house in a coastal region. It’s actually pretty interesting from an engineering perspective, clearly written, and lots of examples.
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1538-20490-2983/fema499web_2.pdf
.
The process of damage assessments getting translated to building codes and effective inspections is long and grinding.
Tom,
The campus rape policy article would be shocking if I hadn’t heard it all before. How anyone could conclude that the woman, R.M., in the article was in any way shape or form a victim is completely beyond me. The only person I see having anything like a case for being sexually assaulted would be the man. Maybe I’m missing something, but from her account, she was completely in charge of what happened at all times.
The plaintiff’s attorneys should be, but probably aren’t, all over this like the proverbial duck on a june bug. I think multi-million dollar damages are clearly justified. Men’s lives are being ruined for no good reason.
Ugh. Looks like a potential critical gas shortage. Governor says state police will now escort gas trucks. Some east coast residents being instructed not to leave their counties. My daughter’s boss in Alabama activated for National Guard for Irma today.
DeWitt,
The have some crazy anecdotal stories in that article. Academia has gone nuts lately.
.
“…an Oregon college in which a male student was investigated and told to stay away from a female student, resulting in the loss of his campus job and a move from his dorm. He didn’t know why he was being investigated, but it turned out he resembled a man who had raped the female student “months before and thousands of miles away.†He was found “innocent of any sexual misconduct,†but the no-contact order was not lifted.”
Tom,
Another question, where’s the ACLU (not rhetorical, I would really like to know)? Due process clauses are in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and certainly are part of our civil liberties. The Fifth Amendment was limited to the Federal Government, the Fourteenth Amendment applied the same language to the states. That would, I’m pretty sure, include state universities. I doubt that private universities would get a pass either. The Title IX enforcement process is surely depriving the accused of liberty and possibly property as well.
Of course, it’s yet another end run around the law by the Obama administration. And it’s another example of caving to political correctness by college administrators. Maybe losing a lot of law suits with large judgements will get their attention.
Tom Scharf,
Jim ordered “Key Largo” from Netflix a while back. It arrived today. I”ll be thinking of you while watching….
I’m in South Florida… absorbing all the info on Irma and recall these instructions from the 1950’s when we were all scared of a Russian nuclear attack………. “In the event of a nuclear attack, get under the desk, cover your head with your hands, and kiss your butt goodbye.”….seems appropriate for hurricanes too…….
DeWitt
The lawsuits are happening. The schools are either settling or loosing.
Of course the suits tend to be filed only by young men whose parents have enough money to hire a lawyer. But they are happening.
It’s the end of our humanity. From an article subtitled “On climate change and human futilitarianism”:
HaroldW,
That’s bad sci-fi, not a realistic portrayal of a possible future. Apparently the author is unaware that it was as much as 8°C warmer at the peak of the Eocene epoch. Life flourished during the Eocene on land and in the oceans.
Before the peak, which lasted for millions of years, there was a temperature spike, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, that seems to have involved a large release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere fairly quickly. It was hard on benthic foraminifera, but not so much for everything else. There were no ice caps and the temperature difference between the equator and the poles was likely much smaller than today.
There was a mass extinction at the end of the Eocene and the beginning of the Oligocene, but it seems to have been due to, among other things, a reduction in temperature and a drop in atmospheric CO2.
According to today’s WSJ, Comey and the FBI may have been involved with the Fusion GPS and the fake Trump dossier as well. Needless to say, the FBI is stonewalling requests for documents by the Congressional investigating committee. Mueller should be investigating his buddy Comey, not Trump.
Right up the middle of the state now. Lots of alligators in the everglades are going to have an interesting night on Saturday. Because the hurricane rotates counter-clockwise it’s worse on the east side in this scenario, timing of high tide will be a factor. Miami is still looking bad, we shall see if the eye goes over populated areas. It’s been losing power fairly quickly in the last day. Beyond Miami there is almost nothing in the center of the state until Orlando. Everyone would be affected but both coasts would likely see <100 mph winds which should be minimal damage relatively to 140 mph direct hit. Power will dissipate quickly over land.
.
Here is Florida building codes wind speed map.
https://www.floridabuilding.org/fbc/Wind_2010/figa.PNG
.
There's a lot of grandfathering in of older sub-code buildings, so events like this tend to gradually rid the state of those structures. The more strict codes came in after 1992. Here is a hurricane vs. house engineering damage assessment from hurricane Andrew.
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1611-20490-1856/fia22_complete.pdf
Tom Scharf
Well… that’s one way to get rid of the non-Hurricane proof structures.
As much as I miss Popsie-Wopsie, I’m glad I don’t need to worry about how he’s doing in a hurricane.
HaroldW
You gotta love these.
Yep. Not just sea level rise but transformation into sludge.
Presumably, some places that are green might become desert and vice versa. But generally speaking we expect more evaporation with higher temperatures. What evaporates eventually condenses, so for the most part we expect more rain, not less. That said, the use of “might” permits wide latitude.
Because it’s climate change that changed the religious views of shaman. I mean, we wouldn’t even have the word “shaman” were it not for people who discovered Neanderthal cave paintings who created the word to describe beliefs no one has had for eaons.
Presumably this author think the change from “shamanism” to whatever our current consciousness consists of is a good thing. (Modern day shaman might dispute this. Whoops– I forgot. They clearly must not exist.) But anyway, assuming the are all in the past, why future changes in consciousness would necessarily be bad is entirely unclear.
Not sure where the “edge” of a planet is supposed to be. But it’s a bit difficult to consider “nearer the equator than the poles” the “edge”.
This is another home damage assessment from Andrew by HUD.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/Assessment_of_Damage.pdf
HaroldW,
Those type of articles are pretty common now, the NYMag article was similar in tone. When things get polarized and only one side of an issue is effectively policed by the media then this type of stuff seems to proliferate. This really only helps the opposition as it makes team science look a bit silly. The author is going to be very distressed when they learn about actual ice ages.
.
You can literally claim anything in a climate article at this point. Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes? Check.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/16/climate-change-triggers-earthquakes-tsunamis-volcanoes
.
I really enjoyed this part (written in 2016):
“The 2013 season saw no major hurricanes at all and tied with 1982 for the fewest hurricanes since 1930. This, in turn, is no big deal as there is great year-on-year variability in the level of hurricane activity”
.
Guardian 3 days ago – “Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering”
.
12 years of no major hurricane landfalls means nothing, one is definitive proof of climate linkage. Perhaps we can just point to these under the definition of confirmation bias in the dictionary. If only team science knew about this bias.
lucia (Comment #164931): “Presumably, some places that are green might become desert and vice versa. But generally speaking we expect more evaporation with higher temperatures. What evaporates eventually condenses, so for the most part we expect more rain, not less.”
What matters for vegetation is soil moisture; that is determined by the local balance between precipitation and evaporation, also on seasonal distributions. Thus, it is not totally obvious that more rain means wetter soils. The crazy catastrophists use that ambiguity to make unfounded, antiscientific claims like “abundant green land will be taken over by arid desert”.
The reason that is antiscientific nonsense is that the geological record is perfectly clear: A warmer world is a greener world. Forests were far more extensive during really warm eras, like the Cretaceous and Eocene. The global cooling that began during the Miocene led to shrinkage of forests and expansion of savanna. That was very important in Africa; it drove significant evolution, including the appearance of genus Homo. In the Pleistocene ice age, deserts and savanna expanded during glacial periods and forests made a comeback during interglacials. At the Holocene optimum, deserts were much less extensive than today, most famously in North Africa where there was savanna, and even forests, in what is now the Sahara. But the the climate cooled and deserts expanded. The recent warming has been associated with global greening. The North African savanna has been slowly reclaiming the Sahara.
There is good evidence that there was a substantial amount of voter fraud in New Hampshire, with people with out of state driver’s licenses voting, but never later getting New Hampshire licenses. It was big enough to potentially affect both the Presidential race and the very tight race for the Senate. See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/7/voter-fraud-alert-over-5000-new-hampshire-presiden/ Wonder if Mueller will investigate? Supposedly, the Left is concerned about alleged Russian interference in the election process because it undermines the integrity of elections.
…..
This is on top of a study that found that large numbers of non-citizens vote. See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379414000973 The abstract stated: “Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections.”
….
Of course, when anybody dares to even look at whether there is voter fraud, the Left disingenuously and dishonestly cries racism and intimidation. To me this is part of the continuing erosion of the rule of law, which was most substantially caused by Obama’s not only not enforcing immigration law but actually encouraging violations and violators. I agree with Nils Nielson’s previous comments in this regard.
JD
The people declaring vote fraud is no big deal, could prove their point pretty quickly by having California release its database of illegal immigrants with drivers licenses, to see how many voted.
For those of you who need their daily corporate exec outrage:
Equifax execs sold stock before hack was disclosed
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/08/investing/equifax-stock-insider-sales-hack-data-breach/
.
People need to go.to.jail. This has to stop. I’m probably in the 98% of capitalism support but this corruption has become excessive. Give them their due process, then put them in Guantanamo.
JD,
I read that the definition of a racist is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.
Good luck with the storm Tom Scharf. I don’t think anyone else who reads here is in the path.
best regards,
john
Yes. Good luck Tom.
Joe Bastardi today said that there is a good chance that Irma will hit the Marco Island/Fort Myers area. If so, it appears to be very dangerous for Marco because Marco is roughly 1/2 canals. If a 10 foot storm surge hit, I don’t imagine that much would be left of the Island. Hope everyone is doing whatever they can to protect their lives.
Also, good luck Tom.
JD
Tom,
Good fortune.
This is the kind of storm that rearranges coastlines and makes sandbars appear and disappear. Unfortunately, some of the places that are called islands on the Florida coast are, in fact, sandbars. Marco Island may be one of them. Go back and look at old maps and they won’t be there. Instead there are ‘islands’ on those maps that aren’t there now.
I think the current definition of a fascist is the same as your definition of a racist.
Let me add my best wishes to the rest Tom. Godspeed weathering the storm.
I am not liking the “trend of the track” of this hurricane. It’s been moving west for the last 24 hours. Miami is looking much better, but I wouldn’t want to be in Naples right now. It’s uncomfortably close to Tampa, looks like we will see 70 to 90 mph winds at this point. We rode out a similar size hurricane in 1995.
.
If the track moves another 30 miles west, yuck. I appreciate the support.
Tom Scharf: “Miami is looking much better, but I wouldn’t want to be in Naples right now.”
But if Irma runs up along the Gulf coast, ahead of the eye the winds will be coming out of the east, from over land. It seems to me that should make storm surge a lot smaller. Behind the eye, winds will be from over water, but isn’t storm surge much less of a problem on the trailing edge of the storm? I am probably missing something important.
.
Tom: “If the track moves another 30 miles west, yuck.”
Is that because it could stay really strong over water, then hit hard when it does make landfall?
Tampa wants the eye to make landfall as soon as possible to throttle down the storm before it gets to Tampa. If it stays off shore it will be stronger when it gets to Tampa, but it’s still going to weaken anyway with a large part of the storm over land. Warm water is gasoline. There’s probably some calculus, amount of area over land diminishes power with center having a higher weight.
For Florida’s west coast maximum storm surge is under the eye due to rotation so storm surge is unlikely to be a big problem in this trajectory/storm for Tampa. This is why Tampa rarely gets hit, hurricanes have to basically do a u-turn around Florida. This changes late in the season when storms form more frequently in the Gulf of Mexico and then they tend to be weaker.
The worst case Tampa scenario for a hurricane is a side entry from the Gulf of Mexico just above Tampa Bay to allow max storm surge into the bay.
Note To Self: Trust spaghetti models less, they may be less independent than they appear.
Tom Scharf,
Tampa’s bad fortune is Stuart’s good luck. After walking my daughter through how to hook up and run the back-up generator, it looks now like she won’t likely lose power at all.
.
Good luck over the next 60 hours. I expect the storm will be down to cat 2 by the time it reaches you.
Pielke Senior was rooting for landing so it could pass over mangroves in the everglades for a nice while.
But if Irma goes up the middle of the peninsula, the east coast of Florida will likely be blasted by storm surge. Especially Miami. Given the intensity and size of the storm, the projected path might be the least bad. The right front quadrant should hit the Everglades rather than someplace populated.
Tom,
We were in Tampa for 93 storm of century. The flooding was extensive and pretty deep.
Good luck again.
John
StwveF,
It’s good to empower women. Always.
Seeing the radar…. thinking of how worried I would have been years ago when Popsie Wopsie lived in Sarasota. Bittersweet.
Hope Floridians have all hatches battened down and stay as safe as reasonably possible.
Greetings from Huntsville AL. Ha ha. Got up yesterday morning at 6:30 and it drifted into basically worst case for Tampa. Aaaaagggh! Checked traffic and bolted. Told my daughter and wife we are leaving in 15 minutes. Traffic was very light. Traffic got bad later exiting Tampa. Looks like 115 mph in Tampa tonight.
Tom, Glad you got out. Looks horrible for Marco Island and Naples.
JD
Tom,
Good move.
It probably won’t be the wind, it’ll be the storm surge that does the real damage. If they get over 10 feet in Naples as predicted, I don’t see single family dwellings surviving, especially on the barrier islands, which might not even be there after the storm. If the contractors didn’t cheat, high rise condos might be OK, other than the damage from the windows blowing out if they weren’t properly covered.
John D. MacDonald of Travis McGee fame wrote a book titled Condominium many years ago. It wasn’t his best work by far, but it describes in much detail the effects of a storm much like Irma on the Florida Gulf Coast. It didn’t end well for people who didn’t leave.
Tom, you’re here in Huntsville, no kidding! 🙂
I’d ask if you wanted to meet for lunch or dinner or something, except I’ve got my wife’s parents staying with us at the moment (also climate change refugees).
How long you think you’ll camp out here?
[Edit: Maybe I could buy you lunch Monday?)
Tom,
Good escape to Hunstville!!
Moving ashore plus wind shear really took a lot of the force out of Irma. Sounds like the damage in Florida is way less than was feared. The total will no doubt be large, since the entire peninsula was hit. But no scenes of devastation. Might be bad in the Keys or Marcos Island.
Looks like it missed Tampa and weakened early. Realistically Miami was worse than Tampa. Marco Island and Keys might be bad. Never a good sign when very little information is available. Tampa dodges another bullet. At one point the track was less than 5 miles from my house with less than 12 hours left.
mark bofill,
I’d be glad to meet up but logistics this time are not in our favor. We have 4 people and 2 dogs in one apartment, it’s kind of a circus. We are all de-stressing ha ha.
Tom,
I understand. Truthfully it’d had involved a couple back flips for me too to work out it out. Some other time would be great though. 🙂 Thanks.
>At one point the track was less than 5 miles from my house with less than 12 hours left.
Go to sleep then talk a long walk…
Did 60 Minutes rig the color scheme to make Bannon look bad?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkF9Ab8wblM
>All I know for sure is that climate scientist Michael Mann says his temperature data is proprietary. He refused to release it to a Canadian court for that reason.
Any idea what Scott Adams is talking about? He published this on his blog after first asking about it on Twitter, to which Steve McIntyre responded, and this was the result.
MikeN,
No idea. I haven’t been following all of the court cases Mann is involved with.
MikeN,
I would not be surprised to discover 60 Minutes does any and all sorts of editing to cast people the don’t like in a bad light and those they do in a good light. Doing so would not be new behavior on the part of 60 minutes.
lucia,
I put 60 Minutes in the same category as the National Enquirer. I wouldn’t believe anything they say without multiple independent corroboration. People got upset when one year they were awarded a Golden Globe in the entertainment category. I thought it was completely appropriate.
MikeN(#164969) –
Google led me to this article, which claims that in his suit against Tim Ball, Mann was supposed to have supplied data (for his famous 1998 graph?) this past February, but did not. The article cited a John Sullivan blog post which mentions data and code. I believe the raw data was eventually published, in which case the “proprietary” claim is likely for the code.
HaroldW, I have yet to see anything about this case that does not source back to John Sullivan who is lying to get money from skeptics.
MikeN,
I share your skepticism about Mr. Sullivan. But I suspect that Scott Adams’ statement traces back through the path I mentioned. He (Adams) may have believed that the American Thinker article was well-researched.
Correction: Should be John O’Sullivan, not Sullivan.
“Boris has commented here. Not in a while– but I haven’t been posting “real†blog posts. So lots of old regulars haven’t posted in a while.”
Good to see him posting, was just having a bit of fun with the Russian meme and his name, hope I did not put him off.
With Boris and Bugs you had a real TV series going there at one stage.
–
Tom Scharf (Comment #164896
“Most people die from drowning in a hurricane, not wind. Even Andrew only had about 18 deaths.”
Respectfully disagree in part
Cyclone Tracey in Darwin population 35,000, 71 deaths a handful at sea the rest on land all due to the severe wind damage. Houses blown completely away.
Your point is solid for those at sea. But if we are talking deaths on land where normal people are and really severe hurricanes it is the wind.
What do you call a small hurricane? A tornado. How many people die of drowning in tornadoes? I think when we are talking of really strong hurricanes hitting land it is the wind.
Of course if you have low lying land like in Bangladesh or it strikes at high tide drowning does become important.
Then again
“On September 8, a Category 4 hurricane ripped through Galveston, killing an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 people. A 15-foot storm surge flooded the city, which was then situated at less than 9 feet above sea level, and numerous homes and buildings were destroyed.”‘
I went looking for actual numbers to show that Tom is right (I had always been told that storm surge is the big killer) and angech wrong. I found pretty much the opposite:
“the majority of impact phase deaths are now due to high-velocity winds … most of the storm-related mortality and much of the morbidity now occurs during the post-impact period … electrocutions from downed power lines, chain-saw injuries, blunt trauma from falling trees, and motor vehicle fatalities occurring during the early post-impact period. Observation of hurricane mortality patterns in developed nations suggests the need to provide specific guidance to the public regarding post-impact hazards such as live power lines and falling trees”
https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/epirev/mxi011
Storm surge deaths are rather easy to prevent, given adequate warning, which we now have, at least in developed nations. The article cited above seems to imply that is generally the case, not just developed nations. When was the last really deadly tropical cyclone?
.
Addition: Looked a bit further. The storm surge from Cyclone Nargis killed over 100,000 in Myanmar in 2008. So most deaths are due to storm surge. That is probably followed by landslides due to rain. But it might well be that in most storms, most deaths are due to wind and post-impact accidents, while most deaths overall occur in a small number of deadly storms.
It may also be that the meme “storm surge is the real killer” is a key factor in preventing storm surge deaths.
@angech
“Cyclone Tracey in Darwin population 35,000, 71 deaths a handful at sea the rest on land all due to the severe wind damage. Houses blown completely away.”
Darwin, as is all of northern Australia, is cyclone country. Darwin was built out of cardboard and corrugated iron. It blew away in a cyclone. A good friend of mine was there at the time. His comment was something like “I didn’t know I was pissed until I walked out of the pub, and fell over. Then a house blew past me and I knew it wasn’t the beer”.
The Tesla model S was sold with either a 60 kWh battery or a 75 kWh battery. It turns out that they all had 75 kWh batteries, but the base model was software crippled to only allow the owner to use 60 kWh of capacity. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hurricane-irma/tesla-wirelessly-upgraded-owners-batteries-help-flee-irma-n800231
Two thoughts:
(1) This coming out can’t be good for Tesla. On the other hand, give Tesla credit for putting the needs of people fleeing Irma ahead of keeping this secret.
(2) I am trying to imagine a mass evacuation using electric cars. Not good.
MikeM,
I suspect using the same physical hardware was cheaper. But… yeah.. Now people know. My guess is everone who owns a 60 kWh battery will want a software upgrade.
Tesla did the right thing during the evac and should be praised for that.
On the other side: Imagine if some people had run out of juice and been stuck and then the story about the battery capacity had come out after the storm. And I bet the story would-a come out! Wouldn’t have been good for Tesla. (Not saying that’s why they did the upgrade to avoid negative publicity. Just pointing out how bad it would have been if they’d done the wrong thing. They did the right thing.)
“My guess is everone who owns a 60 kWh battery will want a software upgrade.”
The upgrade was already available, but at a price of $4500 to $9000 (per Mike M.’s link). I suspect that a lot of folks didn’t want to pay that much for the increase in range.
That link also mentions that the upgrade provides “as much as 30 to 40 miles more range.” This implies that range is still on the low side. If “30-40 miles” represents a 25% increase (from 60 to 75 kWh), the un-enhanced range is about 150 miles. Evacuating from Miami to Atlanta (660 miles) or Tampa to Huntsville (630 miles) would require 4 recharge cycles, or 3 with the enhancement. Compared to 1 fill-up for most gasoline-powered cars.
The deeper you discharge a lithium ion battery, the faster it will lose capacity. If you ‘upgrade’ to the high capacity battery, and use that extra capacity, you’ll have to replace the battery pack sooner. I’m told on the early Tesla’s if the battery pack was completely discharged, it couldn’t be recharged. That could happen if the car sat long enough, say in an airport parking lot for a couple of weeks.
DeWitt: “The deeper you discharge a lithium ion battery, the faster it will lose capacity.”
But that is not the issue here. It is not a matter of overriding a limit installed to preserve battery life. The limit was solely to encourage people to pay more for the same hardware.
I would think that anyone with a Tesla normally charges it overnight at home. As a result, deep discharges of the batteries would be very rare for most users. Occasional use of most of the charge would not really impact battery life. It is different with hybrids and plug-in hybrids. I think that is why many hybrids use nickel metal hydride batteries.
HaroldW,
One of the reasons I did not find electric vehicles attractive was range. My reasoning was always that yes I mostly only drive short distances. But once or twice a year I want to drive a long distance– e.g. to Tennessee or VA to visit Jim’s cousins, or take a road trip for some unanticipated reason. I want the car to have a decent range.
I know Tesla has recharging stations: https://www.tesla.com/findus#/bounds/49.38,-66.94,25.82,-124.39?search=destination%20charger&name=usa.
There are tons in and around Chicago. But if I’m actually going to want to go somewhere a car pretty much has to be able to make it from Chicago to Champaign or Chicago to Indianapolis. Chi-Champ is 136 miles. Naperville Champaign is 145 mi. Chi-Indi is 182 miles. So a 150 miles range would definitely mean I have to pick the route through Champaign and I had dang well not better end up on some detour. Because I’m not going to feel comfortable with only 4 miles range and unsure where the charging station is!
You can punch in a lot of cities and see how the range really is a limitation. (Actually, I’m glad I did. Because whenever I would say I was anxious about the range, people would mention the charging stations.
There definitely are places you’re going to hate commuting to in a Tesla. Suppose you live near DesMoines and want to make it to Chicago. Desmoines-Davenport is 168 miles. That’s more than 150 miles. So: Take a very inconvenient detour to Cedar Rapid, juice up. , Then get back to the highway, go to Davenport. And then, hold your breath while you try for 150 miles to Naperville. (Hope the charging stations are on the west side of Naperville and the east side of Davenport.)
It’s pretty clear that if you are hoping to ever take a long trip in a Tesla, you need the upgrade and hope for a 187 mile range. Still, to my mind, given the reality of construction, detours to see scenery or friends a “road trip” car needs a 200 mile range.
Numerous auto accidents are being reported in Palm Beach county. The signals are/were out for want of electricity. My memory of mortality attribution in Dade county following Andrew was that death by automobile was most popular single method. This would include the storm itself and the first weeks following the storm.
Tesla is planning to put more of these on interstates, with solar panels for the charging. However, I am skeptical they can get the space, because the superchargers would be limited to Teslas.
J ferguson (Comment #164989): “Numerous auto accidents are being reported in Palm Beach county. The signals are/were out for want of electricity.”
During the 2003 blackout, roads were nearly empty and signals were out. I saw idiots zipping along without regard to cross streets. I guess there were few enough that the idiots had little chance of trying to occupy the same space at the same time. Perhaps not the case after a hurricane.
De Witt, would you call the minimum? I am too scared to.
Also Nino3.4 down to -0.34.
My be some cold times ahead at last.
angech,
ENSO mostly influences temperatures in the 30S to 30N region, so even a fairly strong la Nina won’t have a big influence on temperatures in temperate regions. (There are some apparent influences of ENSO on things like rainfall patterns outside the tropics.) Since 30S to 30N is half the Earth’s surface, ENSO does show up clearly in the global average temperature record, but the temperature influence is strong in the tropics and near nothing elsewhere.
SteveF: “ENSO mostly influences temperatures in the 30S to 30N region, so even a fairly strong la Nina won’t have a big influence on temperatures in temperate regions. (There are some apparent influences of ENSO on things like rainfall patterns outside the tropics.) Since 30S to 30N is half the Earth’s surface, ENSO does show up clearly in the global average temperature record, but the temperature influence is strong in the tropics and near nothing elsewhere.”
El Ninos obviously increase temperatures in North America at latitudes 45 degrees north and higher.
angech,
I think we need a few more days. Two up days in a row isn’t enough, especially when the delta isn’t large. I want to see the seven day moving average going up. August ice volume was looking better too.
The Antarctic is looking better. Yesterday’s area was higher than five previous years instead of setting a record low. Global sea ice isn’t setting new record lows either.
The AMO index hasn’t dropped yet. It’s still above 0.3. The annual average so far is below 2016, but not by much.
SteveF,
Last year’s El Nino had a big effect on sea ice, particularly Antarctic Sea ice.
angech,
I want to see all Arctic Sea ice sites showing increases. the September 12 NOAA near real time extent was the low for the year. The average minimum date is also still a week away, although we are well within the minimum date range.
It turns out traffic back into Florida is as bad as traffic was leaving Florida in some places. I passed two large national guard convoys and several convoys of tree trimming trucks and power company trucks. Cell access was available almost all the way. Several towns without power at major intersections. Long lines for gas, but available.
.
No significant damage to report on my side, I didn’t really see much damage driving back in as well except for some trees down, trees on power lines, etc. Power was out for only about 18 hours at my house which is great.
Underground utilities helps. I haven’t seen ground zero Marco Island coverage yet.
.
I don’t remember exactly where I saw the drowning stats, here is one article:
88 Percent of U.S. Deaths From Hurricanes, Tropical Storms Are From Water, Not Wind
https://weather.com/safety/hurricane/news/hurricanes-tropical-storms-us-deaths-surge-flooding
.
I imagine it is another exercise in how you count things, whether it is US only, and what time period you use. I think “from a hurricane” is likely pretty malleable. It’s storm surge, flooding, versus wind, then there are secondary effects such as auto accidents, electrocutions, heat stress, etc. Katrina: About two-thirds either drowned or died from illness or injury brought on by being trapped in houses surrounded by water. The number of people today who die directly from wind are pretty small. Getting struck by flying debris or inside a house destroyed by wind is rare…
…in the western world. Most hurricane deaths are preventable and are actually prevented in the US when compared to the third world (unless you build your city below sea level and fail to evacuate). Realistically most damage is also cost-effective preventable in high frequency hurricane areas but some things are not cost effective to protect like billboards.
Once you got out of Florida the gas mania ended, I would not have evacuated in an electric vehicle if it didn’t get me out of Florida in one charge. It would be interesting to see some stats there. If you are 10 deep in a gas line you need to wait 50 minutes, if you are 10 deep in an electric line…
.
If you use gas buddy (awesome app for this kind of crisis) it is pretty amazing the scale of the gas infrastructure in place. It’s going to take a minimum of a decade to get anywhere near that level for electric. Since range is getting solved, infrastructure is the next key problem and it is very hard. Recharge times need to improve. 5 minutes to refill a gas tank. My car’s gas range is over 500 miles.
http://tracker.gasbuddy.com
If the gas lines are ten deep, try going to the line with the tank on the right, and the hose will reach around.
Tom,
The range problem isn’t solved even for the Tesla with the biggest battery. I read an article in the LA Times about driving a high end Tesla from San Francisco to LA. It took two days. The charging time was about two hours charging for every hour on the road. Maybe the supercharging stations can charge faster, but that costs battery life too.
That was also in fair weather, not running the A/C or the heater, both of which also cost range at a higher rate than for a gasoline or diesel engine.
It’s not just the charging stations either. You need a lot of new generating capacity. At least some Tesla supercharging stations use diesel generators.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #165003): “I read an article in the LA Times about driving a high end Tesla from San Francisco to LA. It took two days. The charging time was about two hours charging for every hour on the road.”
That is simply not believable. That trip would require one charging stop, and not even a full recharge. People have driven Tesla’s coast to coast without problems.
Mike M,
“People have driven Tesla’s coast to coast without problems.”
.
Big solar panels on the roof? Or perhaps a very carefully planned route. We can be sure that charging availability was a continuing concern.
.
Forbes has an article about driving from San Diego to San Francisco, in 9 hours 12 minutes, with 3 re-charging stops. It talks about the car’s route planning approach.
MikeM
I’m sure people can pick a route to drive coast to coast and get there “without problems”. That doesn’t mean a person living in selected parts of the country can conveniently get from one place to another conveniently.
If you like at the example I found with Desmoines, you can get to Chicago “without problems” provided you think taking a time consuming detour to Cedar Rapids is “not a problem”. I could get to Indianapolis from Naperville by taking a screwy time consuming route so I could recharge. As long as I consider taking time consuming routes “not a problem” I can report that I can get around “without a problem”.
That said: I’m not buying a car that requires me to take convoluted strange routes just to avoid running out of electrons.
Mike M.,
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-p85-d-long-distance-20150220-story.html
I was off on the charging time. It was 30 minutes for one hour of driving. It was also 2015. I’m sure there are more charging stations now. You won’t get the theoretical range at 70+mph on the Interstate either. At 383 miles via I-5, you can make it with one charging stop, but I would bet that you won’t have much range when you get to the charging station if you drive normally. 200 miles is a more realistic range for the P85D than the rated range of 253 miles.
I could probably make it on one tank of gas in my 400+hp 2011 Mustang GT averaging 70mph and it won’t take a significant fraction of an hour to refill it either. I could drive there and halfway back on one tank of gas in my Hyundai Sonata. It gets better gas mileage and has a bigger gas tank.
HaroldW (Comment #165006): “Forbes has an article about driving from San Diego to San Francisco …”
From that it sounds like about 1.5 hrs charging for 6-7 hours driving. Sounds about like I would expect. Also sounds like it would drive me nuts.
.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #165008): “I was off on the charging time. It was 30 minutes for one hour of driving.”
I don’t know how you got that from the article. It sounds like the driver did not really know how to get the job done efficiently. And the overnight aspect of the trip had nothing whatever to do with the car.
.
lucia (Comment #165007): “I’m sure people can pick a route to drive coast to coast and get there “without problemsâ€. That doesn’t mean a person … can conveniently get from one place to another conveniently.”
From this map: https://www.tesla.com/supercharger it looks like there are stations every 50 to 100 miles along major routes, with most gaps being closer to 50. So for major routes between major cities, it looks quite manageable, especially since the car does the planning. Off the beaten track, not so much.
I was not endorsing Tesla. I personally would not want an electric car. I was only objecting to misinformation.
Nephew in cedar rapids, Iowa bought used Tesla 80. Interesting story, but I’m tablet-bound in Darwin.
Trip to Chicago required 45 minute supercharge in Rockford, a bit out of the way. This was 18 months ago.
Reason for purchase was it was by far hottest car for money. I think he paid $75k. Yes, he’s nuts.
Last year, we met a bunch (gaggle) of Tessa’s in Yellowstone. Owner’s club sponsered but done entirely with then-in-place superchargers. They were from LA.
All this fuss about lay-by time for charging wouldn’t occur to
MG A owners club outing. Substitute unscheduled maintenance for charging.
MikeM,
On the map you found, there is now a station at Iowa City which is, mercifully, better than a detour to Cedar Rapids. But DesMoines to Iowa city is not 50 miles. It’s 114.
I-80 would be considered a “major route”.
I don’t think anyone has posted “misinformation”.
DeWitt,
“At least some Tesla supercharging stations use diesel generators.”
.
I’ve heard of diesel-electric locomotives, but I have to admit Tesla has taken the same concept to a new level. Truly dedicated green drivers would no doubt prefer to sit on the side of the interstate than use such a dirty, CO2 spewing energy source to recharge. Better for Tesla to build a giant windmill and enormous battery bank at each charging station….. taxpayer subsidized, of course.
J Ferguson,
Yes. Well, even though Mike M’s estimate of distance between stations on major routes is 50 m-100m, there is no station on I-88 between Davenport and Naperville. That’s 150 mi.
I-88 is generally considered a major route– at least to those of us who live in and near Chicago.
If you are range limited you need to either to Peru or Rockford. Are these out of the way when driving from Cedar Rapids (or DesMoines) to Chicago? Yes. They are out of the way.
Is Chicago a major city? Yes. I realize some people think of all the midwest as “off the beaten track”. But I happen to live in the midwest and DesMoines is the capital of Iowa.
It may be that people planning a cross-country drive who don’t actually have any destinations in the midwest will have “no problems” driving around. But if you actually live here, have family and need to go to someplace in particular: Trouble. Got a kid going to Iowa State Univerisity or University of Iowa? Live in Chicago? You may find yourself in Peru, Il or Rockford. Not. Convenient.
lucia (Comment #165011): “I don’t think anyone has posted “misinformationâ€.”
DeWitt Payne (Comment #165003): “I read an article in the LA Times about driving a high end Tesla from San Francisco to LA. It took two days. The charging time was about two hours charging for every hour on the road.”
Misinformation.
.
lucia,
I pretty much agree with your comments re electric cars. But you seem determined to quibble over things like what is a major route or the fcat that some stations are farther apart than the average.
IDK. Maybe it’s only a quibble for people who aren’t actually driving the car looking for recharging stations.
The best idea I heard for batteries is replacing the entire battery module at a “refueling” station. One can imagine this would take five minutes if designed properly. I think Tesla considered this but eventually dropped the idea. Logistics would be difficult I imagine, but it solves the long recharge times. Range anxiety is still a problem for long distances, but it’s much better for daily commutes. Note also that batteries aren’t as efficient at low temperatures and running the heater is an extra energy drain in winter. The Volt solved this problem by having an additional small gas motor that would recharge the car on the fly.
.
I’ll get an electric car when they make sense, they don’t quite yet. They are solving the problems and wouldn’t be surprised if they are ready for prime time in ten years. Electric motors can also deliver neck snapping torque from a dead stop.
Mike M.,
I admitted the mistake on the charging time. The trip did take two days. But the point of my post was that the range problem has not been solved. That isn’t misinformation either. An electric car that is more affordable than the Tesla Model S, the Nissan Leaf, has a range of 100 miles. And a practical range of 200 miles for a car that costs on the order of $100,000 makes it a toy like an exotic sports car not a practical automobile for general transportation use.
My problem with recharging stations is if you get to one and all the slots are full, you are in for a long wait. Don’t know how big a problem this actually is, but it will get worse with more cars on the road. I also don’t think there are recharging station standards that allow different cars to all recharge at a station.
MikeM
How is it misinformation? He had a link and it did take someone that long. He corrected a mistake he made about the ratio of times for recharging. So I’m not seeing mis-information there.
Your showing the charging map hasn’t demonstrated it to be misinformation.
I’m not quibbling about what is or is not a major route. Obviously, I-80 and I-88 are major routes. There is no route more major than I-80. I point this out to show that my examples aren’t some locations that I found by scrounging for odd routes.
My reason for pointing out the longer intervals is not to point out they are merely further apart than average. Of course some intervals are larger than average. I point them out because intervals larger than the range of the car are important. Even one interval larger than the range of the car takes a particular route out of contention. To avoid those intervals, a person going cross country has to do things like “not drive through Chicago” and/or “take weird time consuming detours to places like Rockford or Peru, Il” That’s probably fine if you live in NY and want to go to LA. But it’s rather impractical for people who actually want to to travel to a destination in the midwest or who might want to visit a relative in the Chicago area on the route from NY to the west coast.
Granted: Chicago may loom larger for me than others. But it is a rather large city. Needing to avoid routes through Chicago to get to other places in the midwest strikes me as a big inconvenience. I don’t think this is a quibble.
Tom Scharf,
I suspect the cars will be ready for prime time in 5 years. The number of recharging stations needs to increase. I think it has to increase a lot. For example, looking at the map MikeM provided, they need one near Quincy Il, Hannibal Mo.
I can’t imagine taking the car from Quadcities (Davenport) to U MO at Columbia:
https://www.tesla.com/findus#/bounds/41.695543,-91.4630469,41.5985629,-91.61567989999998?search=supercharger&name=Iowa%20City,%20IA,%20USA
)
I’m sure if Iowa/Illinois/Mo is inconvenient for the car, lots of places are.
Free Speech on Campus, UC Berkeley edition.
Interview with new dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/berkeley-dean-erwin-chemerinsky.html
.
Interview with new UC Berkeley Chancellor
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-uc-berkeley-chancellor-free-speech-20170914-htmlstory.html
.
It’s going to be interesting to see how these words translate to action. They aren’t interested in bending the 1st amendment. The Chancellor brings up valid issues such as security costs for speakers is not sustainable, they have spent $800K since Milo last year. However she reaches fair viewpoint neutral conclusions, that possibly when the security budget is used up, all speaking events stop.
Tom Scharf,
If ending all speaking engagements when the budget is gone is the choice, that might give protest groups an incentive to behave. After all: their guests won’t be able to come once the security budget is exhausted.
There are 16,000 electric recharge station in the US, 44,000 outlets. 14,000 of these outlets are in CA.
373 locations are Tesla superchargers with about 8 outlets each. The rest are “destination chargers”, hours to overnight to charge.
There are 168,000 gas stations which are effectively “supercharging”.
So a 450:1 ratio of gas stations to superchargers at the moment.
.
Tesla recharge times:
Supercharger = 300 miles in one hour.
Destination charger = 22 miles in one hour.
lucia,
I will be pleasantly surprised if that’s the case. I would say more like 20 years and even then I would need odds. There will definitely be more models of electric cars available in five years, but it will, IMO, still be a niche market with low penetration and the cars will still average much less than a 200 mile range and cost a lot more than a gas or diesel powered car.
You may not see that on the sticker because a lot will be sold at a loss to help with CAFE. Tesla will still not be making an operating profit. The Model 3 will be a colossal bust.
I think you’d add recharging stop locations to your mental overhead if you drove one of these things not unlike flight planning a trip with a plane that has a 3 hour range at 100mph. Trips cannot be driven thoughtlessly in an electric car.
There are a lot of Tesla’s down our way, not all of them driven by snowbirds. We have one other friend who has one and he was president/CEO of electrical equipment manufacturers company in Chicago.
Otherwise the virtue signallers seem to be comfortable with priuses. This makes me wonder if the Tesla market is a more rarified all-the-rage sort of thing. Iknow I’m susceptible to the 3. The one with the big battery.
But then in my many years driving screwy cars, I used to rent a serious one for trips.
DeWitt,
There will be very limited penetration by electric cars in the near future, but it could increase if gas prices jumped to $6 a gallon like in Europe… which is why greens are so hot for a heavy carbon tax: make anything but an electric car crazy expensive to run.
.
I think a plug-in hybrid with a combination of >50 miles all-electric range and an on-board gasoline motor/generator (~25 KW) is a much better bet, since you would get all the puffed-up virtue signaling of owning an electric (for around town) and still have a car with a practical range, and no worry about charging stations. So far the “plug-in hybrids” look like conventional hybrids with a complex drive train, big gasoline motor, slightly larger battery, and very limited all-electric range… and a big price tag.
Tom Scharf, Tesla didn’t drop the idea of swapping out the battery. They produced a demo and deployed it. Having this facility allowed them to claim extra credits from California, which they sold for over $100 million. The supercharger that has the battery swap is by appointment only, and the cost seems high. Some might think that the whole thing is a fraud…
With all things like DVD’s and bitcoins progress happens.
While solar and wind could not power or feed New York Electric cars will continue upwards in presence even if they do not become a major force.
Perhaps only the rich will have private electric transport in future?
Go Ice.
The problem with electric cars is that they are part of an inter-connected distributed energy system. When the main system goes down (electrical power), the car is close to worthless. So, if you are in Florida after a hurricane, an electric car could be very inconvenient when the power is out for millions of people. Also, even before a hurricane would hit, if everyone had electric cars, I could see situations where the grid would be overburdened by excessive power demands. Additionally, where millions of people are leaving at the same time, it is easy to imagine situations where there would be long lines at charging stations after people had left their homes.
My basic point is that with electric cars, there is a very substantial risk that when you need them most (for instance, to get out of the path of a hurricane), they may not be convenient or functional.
JD
JD Ohio,
“…they may not be convenient or functional.”
.
They very clearly are not, even in normal circumstances. Electric cars basically suck, which is why numbnut politicians in California are insisting on their use.
SteveF,
And France. France just passed a law banning the sale of fossil fueled vehicles in 2040.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-cars-2040-emmanuel-macron-volvo
We’ve probably seen the low for Arctic Sea ice extent. JAXA, NOAA and MASIE have not set new lows for several days and the JAXA seven day moving average went up today. The low for JAXA was 4.472Mm² on 9/9/17. That’s sixth from the bottom. If JAXA was a stock and I was a technical analyst, I would say that the recent behavior looks like a classic head and shoulders pattern, which would suggest that the trend is about to reverse. But sea ice, unlike stock prices, doesn’t have an emotional content so it probably won’t.
SteveF’s comment about high gas prices in Europe piqued my interest in electric cars sales over there. It seems to me electric cars should have been selling well now for some time because of the perpetually high gasoline prices they have.
According to Forbes – not so.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2017/06/06/electric-car-sales-in-europe-moribund-awaiting-lift-off-moment/#449897bc44c2
Lucia’s concern over the range limitation (and the fear of mid-distance route not having a charging station) for an electric car is interesting but not new by any means.
Back when cars where first becoming more popular (late 1800’s and early 1900s- there was a real battle between electric and gas powered. This was at a time when there was not a gas station (or a “charging station”) along every road either.
The solution to the range problem for gas power was easy – carry extra gas. The weight to energy ratio allowed for this. Not so for electric cars.
It was one of the reasons gas won the day (gas engines were not efficient by any means either).
DeWitt – “head and shoulders pattern”.
It would be interesting if it was matching Fibonacci levels as well.
Kan (Comment #165035): “”It seems to me electric cars should have been selling well now for some time because of the perpetually high gasoline prices they have.”
But Europe also has very high electricity prices.
It is to power a Tesla with solar panels about equal to the area of the Tesla.
“But Europe also has very high electricity prices.”
Funny how that works.
MikeN,
This is likely sarcasm, but just for giggles, I’ll take it seriously. 1hp = 0.75kW in round numbers. Direct normal solar radiation peaks around 1000W/m², also in round numbers. So even if you could point the solar panel directly at the sun all the time and could convert with 100% efficiency, you’d need 15m² to get 20hp, when the sun was well above the horizon. More likely, you’d need ten times that area. IIRC, that’s just a bit larger than a Tesla.
If the Model S gets 253 miles range from an 85kWh battery pack, then it gets 3miles/kWh. At 50 mph, that would be ~17kW or ~23 hp.
After Andrew we found that gas stations without electricity couldn’t pump gas. Some without credit connection couldn’t sell it. Cash only. I vaguely remember some chains couldn’t sell for cash either because of company financial controls. So no electricity may mean no gasoline either
I’m a little surprised at the electric car scepticism here but then this is a sceptic watering hole
Range and insufficient number and location of recharge stations seem to me the main issues
J ferguson,
I wouldn’t care much if electric cars weren’t being rammed down our throats by the government. Rich people buying what amount to expensive toys are being subsidized. It’s much like net metering of rooftop solar electricity at retail. It’s a wealth transfer from the rate payers and the tax payers to people who are already well off enough to afford the out of pocket initial expense.
Elon Musk = P.T.Barnum
DeWitt,
“France just passed a law banning the sale of fossil fueled vehicles in 2040.”
.
Cubans manage to keep 1959 vintage cars running, so I expect the French can do the same after 2040. Of course, if the government banned diesel and gasoline, then there could be another French revolution… absent the guillotines I hope… even if that might be richly deserved.
1hp = 0.75kW Direct normal solar radiation peaks around 1000W/m², 100% efficiency, you’d need 15m² to get 20hp, More likely, you’d need ten times that area. IIRC, that’s just a bit larger than a Tesla.
If the Model S gets 253 miles range from an 85kWh battery pack, then it gets 3miles/kWh. At 50 mph, that would be ~17kW or ~23 hp.
Why bring hp into the discussion?
1000W/m², for 15m² you have 360 kWh/day That is 4 battery pack charges, for 1000 miles of range. Typical usage is 30 miles/day.
Low power and low mass electric cars would be good for France in 2040.
MikeN,
Living at the poles are we? The sun isn’t up for 24hours/day most places. And at the poles, you don’t get 1000 W/m². And efficiency isn’t 100%.
Dewitt, I’m aware of that. I also have 30x factor to work with. I think I got 20 to 25 square meters as my number.
Your calculation above breaks down because you ignored the car isn’t being driven all the time. I was surprised how good the number was until I realized it is not 17kW but 1/17 kW. 23hp becomes .08hp.
Oops, the 17kW is correct.
DeWitt,
I think I was able to recognize a desire for an electric car on my own. And without a subsidy, whose ethics I do also find disagreeable. But then they clearly aren’t for everyone.
In November we had a referendum down here on the assignment of excess facility charges incurred by the attachment of residential solar systems to the local grid. Should everyone share the cost or just the folks with the panels?
As you might suppose, all the usual people supported the idea that we should all share the cost. I reearned my stripes as a denier by advocating a “no-share”. As you might also expect, not a single person I discussed this with actually understood the issue; only that the local newspapers supported it. And the verbiage on the referendum was about as plain as it could be.
Mr grandfather was a john Bircher, a very early one. I was a kid then, but I already knew we could screw this place up without any help from the outside.
We’re now in Alice springs. Town’s full of 3 letter agency people. The insghtful who read here will be able to guess why they are here.
J Ferguson. Is that Alice Springs in Northern Territory, or Alice springs nowheresville USA? If you’re in Alice, I can see the use for an electric car to get to the deli and bottle shop and back, but it won’t get you far on the Stuart Highway.
j Ferguson,
The only solar back-feed scheme that makes economic sense is to set the credit value at the continuously updated wholesale price, which varies widely, but is on average way lower than retail. There would also be a need to separate electric bills for back-feeders into a fixed monthly cost for use of the system infrastructure and a net electric cost (credit for wholesale back-fed power and debit for retail power use). Of course that is unlikely to happen, since any economically reasonable system would demonstrate just how economically bonkers an investment in a roof-top system is… at least when it is not being largely paid for by your neighbors via taxes and higher retail power rates.
Seth, it is NT. On trip.
SteveF,
My take on value to utility of home-grown power was less than wholesale rate due to organisational and maintenance wear and tear. And it was this cost I didn’t want to share.
My thought was that it made as much sense as issuing an outboard motor to each sailor boarding the USS Saratoga.
I’d add that I wonder how reliable Tesla’s roof tile system can be with all the connectors it would appear to require.
I suppose I might be the only one here with hands on experience running a utility – ten years putting out 6kwhrs. Every day.
It was not competitive with FPL’s costs by a long shot. But then their distribution did not include marine customers.
j ferguson,
“I suppose I might be the only one here with hands on experience running a utility – ten years putting out 6kwhrs.”
.
My similar marine experience is much more limited… 6-10 Kwhrs a day, but only for stretches of a couple of weeks at a time. Maybe 6 months in total. The net cost per kwhr makes German rates ($0.36/kwhr) look cheap, but then Germans aren’t sitting at anchor in bright turquios water in the Bahamas. ðŸ˜
Keep in mind electric cars can be refueled at home, a major difference. It might take all night but you don’t have to go to the gas station. You might be able to refuel them from a generator(?).
Electric cars are best viewed in where they were ten years ago, and substantial progress has been made. It’s still early adopters only territory but they are making strides toward mainstream and it seems only a matter of when at this point. At some point they will likely hit price and performance parity with gas cars. For myself (and most others) I don’t value the virtue signalling aspect at all, so it’s only interesting in a cool tech toy kind of way today. I bought an evil fossil fuel car this year, didn’t even test drive an electric car. One of my customers has had a Chevy Volt for years and it is a very interesting car. They did good engineering on it.
There aren’t many solar panels in Florida and they don’t really subsidize them, that should tell you everything you need to know about economic viability at the moment. I calculated about a 12 year pay off last time I looked and the opportunity cost made it a clear financial loser. If you want to do it as a hobby I can understand that.
Even when it crosses that threshold it’s not obvious to me that a million people having a million different semi-reliable solar systems from different companies is a better plan than large scale utilities with an existing infrastructure. These utilities can put up their own solar farms. It all seems kind of nutty like urban gardens.
It might have been helpful if I’d added that the sailors freshly issued outboards would then provide the Saratoga’s propulsion. Duh.
Tom Scharf,
Never needing to fill a 5 gallon gas can for the mower is one of the big advantages of an electric lawn mower. If you own a standard lot, the battery always lets you finish the lawn. If you owned an acre, I doubt it would.
The other big advantage is that it’s quieter. I always wore ear protection when using a gas powered mower. But that didn’t prevent the noise from potentially bothering neighbors. The bother for neighbors is less with electric mowers. (I still don’t mow before 10 am on weekends.)
Tom Scharf (Comment #165060): “Electric cars … are making strides toward mainstream and it seems only a matter of when at this point. At some point they will likely hit price and performance parity with gas cars.”
I don’t think that will happen, at least not in the foreseeable future. Most of the strides have been driven by a combination of subsidies, trendiness, and virtue signalling. None are a basis for more than a niche role long term.
Hybrid market share is about where it was a decade ago (under 3%). That suggests that there is a niche that is now filled.
If there is to be a major near term shift in the market, I think it will be plug-in hybrids. They offer virtually all the short trip advantages of electric cars at much lower cost and combine that with the convenience of gas cars for longer trips. But plug-in hybrid sales seem to be struggling to get off the ground.
I think they have made a lot of progress with range. Going from 30 miles to 200 miles was a big advance. It mostly solves one of the problems.
1. (OK) Range (range anxiety)
2. (OK) Performance
3. (OK) Safety
4. (No) Unsubsidized cost
5. (No) Recharge infrastructure (range anxiety)
6. (No) Recharge time
7. (?) Reliability
8. (?) Lifetime of batteries / cost to replace
.
It may be that hybrids are the proper bridge technology but you have to pay for two systems which increases costs.
Tom Scharf: “It may be that hybrids are the proper bridge technology but you have to pay for two systems which increases costs.”
The premium for a hybrid over a conventional car was about $3000 a few years ago. My impression is that it is somewhat less now. A plug-in hybrid would be somewhat more. That is cheap compared to an EV A 200 mile range would require at least a 70 kW-hr battery pack. At $200 per kW-hr (low, I think) that is $14K for the battery.
I’m troubled by the gross vehicle weight, complexity, and number of parts in high-brids. Brother has driven a hi-brid ford escape to practical end of life – cost of repairs exceed value. In sum though, he thinks it was worth it although it couldn’t be used for towing
Brother in law has hibred fusion. He claims more than 40 mpg around town mostly picked up by gerayting during braking.
Still too complex for me. I like pure electric for it’s simplicity.
I used to drive pre-1962 VW’s and was pretty good at running through the reserve fuel supply and pushing the car the last 2 blocks to a gas station. A Tesla lookalike a pricey way to relive some of the excitement of my youth.
I should add that at least one date was unamused.
j ferguson,
My guess is that there is very little added complexity to recover energy during breaking with an electric vehical. The big complexity is marrying a big gasoline engine to a mechanically complicated hybrid drive train. For certain a stand-alone 25 KW motor/generator combination in a car would add to cost, but would still be very (mechanically) simple compared to a current version hybrid. The issue is (always has been) the cost for batteries for an all electric or long range electric/gas backup. When car manufacturers recognize peole will not pbay $30K for a car that leaves them stranded, then a ‘hybrid’ may make an impact.
That strange word is supposed to suggest regenerative braking.
Sorry.
40mpg car for the higher price is not worthwhile. You can generally find a fuel efficient gas car for much cheaper.
The fuel savings for hybrids are higher for SUVs and trucks.
Going from 30 MPG to 50MPG, is less fuel savings than going from 10 MPG to 12 MPG.
The strange thing about plugin hybrids is they are more of a religious allure. It is not the recharging that attracts them, but rather the opportunity to sell electricity back to the grid.
MikeN,
I agree. Facing choice of first new car when we moved ashore in 2013, I would have preferred a diesel but I couldn’t make it’s cost of operation and premium initial costs less than the Ford focus we ultmately bought. Vw diesel vs vw gas – same spec car except motivation didn’t work either.
MikeN (Comment #165071): “The strange thing about plugin hybrids is they are more of a religious allure. It is not the recharging that attracts them, but rather the opportunity to sell electricity back to the grid.”
That is ridiculous. I am pretty sure that you are not allowed to do that. And if you did that, you would be guaranteed to lose money.
More great wisdom from The Guardian and Harvard:
It’s time to take the ‘great’ white men of science off their pedestals
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/white-supremacist-statues-must-fall-scientists
.
Sigh. Predictable.
.
I’m happy to report that this was uniformly panned in the comments. It’s a bit curious that this even got published at all. It’s a bit of a tell that only ‘white men’ statues should be removed, there appears to be no interest in removing statues of anyone else who might have unacceptable views as judged through today’s moral lens. If I was a political double agent trying to get Trump re-elected this would be the exact type of article I would write.
“The extreme weather of the past months is a game-changer: surely now the world is ready to talk about climate change as a civilisation-collapsing catastrophe” —Ellie Mae O’Hagan at the Guardian.
Please take note, those who opine that the “C” in CAGW is a contrarian invention.
Harold,
.
It’s strange that Ellie takes it so completely for granted (both that climate change caused the hurricanes and the idea that climate change obviously to everyone ca[u]sed the hurricanes) when even the Huffington Post reports uncertainty regarding this.
Well, certainly not by making large and probably false assumptions this way!
There’s a company called Proterra that makes battery powered buses. They recently set a record of 1101.2 miles on a single charge. The battery pack has a capacity of 660kWh. They also use a lot more than 440V to charge it.
https://www.proterra.com/press-release/proterra-catalyst-e2-max-sets-world-record-and-drives-1101-2-miles-on-a-single-charge/
One of the factors I leaned on in my scheme to buy a battery car was the thought that better batteries could replace the ones the car comes with. It does seem though that the majical batteries I read about never show up.
DeWitt,
Those buses have a price tag of $800K+, depending on range, versus a comparable diesel bus at $300K. The payout in fuel and maintenance savings looks like about 10 years…. so no slam-dunk. No data on the lifetime of the batteries, but I’m guessing replacing the batteries each 5-10 years will cost another $300K… same price as a new diesel bus…. which is nowhere explained on the Proterra website.
.
What is hidden from the virtue signalers is that in many places, the grid power used to charge the batteries comes mostly from coal fired plants….. so the net CO2 emissions, while lower than a diesel bus, are on average nowhere close to zero. If you cost out operation of the bus based on unsubsidised wind/solar electric costs… true zero emissions… rather than the wholesale cost of power on the grid, the economics look really bad. More high priced virtue signaling for the PC crowd; count on them asking for hefty taxpayer subsidies for this nonsense.
j ferguson,
The limitation is the amount of chemical energy that can be storred in a battery relative to its weight. There is no magic in chemistry, so you are never going to see magical batteries. There may be marginal improvements in energy density to be found, but it seems to me the much bigger issue is lifetime: if the battery has a useful lifetime of 1,500 cycles, then you have to buy a new battery every 5 years or so… ‘burning’ 20% of the battery’s cost every year means higher power (and more expensive!) batteries are no better an investment than what is currently available. Battery lifetime is the key to making electric cars economically viable; progress has been kind of slow.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #165084): “There’s a company called Proterra that makes battery powered buses. They recently set a record of 1101.2 miles on a single charge.”
I wonder if that was a production model or one with extra batteries. I see that the record they broke was also over 1000 miles and was set by a car. Obviously not a production model unless the artificial conditions (constant speed on a closed track) dramatically increase range.
SteveF (Comment #165088): “There may be marginal improvements in energy density to be found, but it seems to me the much bigger issue is lifetime: if the battery has a useful lifetime of 1,500 cycles, then you have to buy a new battery every 5 years or so … Battery lifetime is the key to making electric cars economically viable; progress has been kind of slow.”
I agree that dramatic improvements in energy density are very unlikely. I don’t think lifetime is a big issue for purely electric cars. The thing that kills battery lifetime is deep discharges; that can be avoided by having a battery that gives a range much larger than what is normally driven in a day. For an electric car, that is not hard. For a plug-in hybrid it is much more of a problem. Cost is a bigger issue for pure electric cars; that also looks to be limited to incremental improvements. Cycle efficiency and charging rate (which I think are related) also is an issue.
Li ion batteries with glass electrolytes are supposedly just around the corner (I’ll believe that when I see it). They could dramatically improve lifetime and charging rate.
SteveF –
Speaking of the Proterra website…they have a chart purporting to show that their electric-powered bus is a better long-term buy than alternatives. The text claims savings (over a 12-year operational lifetime) of $448K compared to diesel, $459K to a diesel-electric hybrid, and $408K relative to CNG. The graph, however, indicates lesser numbers: around $200K for CNG & diesel, ~$450K for hybrid. I wonder which is accurate. [Of course, one must consider that these figures were not produced by a disinterested third party, so “neither” may be the correct answer.]
P.S. Proterra’s spec sheet indicates a 6-year battery warranty.
Louisville, KY has been using Proterra buses in their public transport system for three years now. They now have 15 buses. They can be recharged in less than ten minutes, but that’s not plugging them into the wall. The charging stations are fairly elaborate. I’m told they look like a small electric substation with massive carbon electrodes that clamp to electrodes on the top of the bus. I don’t know what voltage and current they use. I might be able to find out as the son-in-law of a friend is involved in building the charging stations.
HaroldW,
I wonder if that cost includes the capital investment in the charging stations?
“I wonder if that cost includes the capital investment in the charging stations?”
I think not. The graph is divided into “vehicle”, “fuel”, and “maintenance” categories. While one might incorporate the charging equipment under “fuel”, one would also have to figure the cost of gas pumps & tanks for the diesel version, etc.
The spec sheet says that the new buses are J1772-CCS compliant, which doesn’t sound like electrodes on top of the bus. I’d still expect that some serious circuitry is required for such high voltage, high current connections.
Mike M,
The lifetime/capacity issues are intimately linked. If you add batteries to avoid deep discharge, then you extend life, but you also add proportionally to capital cost. I disagree that battery lifetime is not an issue in electric cars…. maybe not for today’s wealthy virtue signalers who receive huge taxpayer subsidies (apparently for being virtuous) in their purchase of an expensive toy, but certainly for everyone else. If you have to add enough batteries to make battery lifetime not important for the new car buyer, then probably you put the cost out of reach, and the potential used car buyer is not going to be thrilled about purchasing new batteries that are a significant fraction of a new car price. Electric cars are a very long way from practical.
.
For what it’s worth: one of my nephews is a researcher at NREL, and he is working on “next generation” Li-ion batteries. He makes it very clear,even in casual conversation that the lifetime/capacity balance is critical… capacity * lifetime = value.
DeWitt,
P.S. Just noticed that you mentioned a 10-minute recharge time for the Louisville buses. That suggests Proterra’s smaller “FC” model (79 kWh). The latest Proterra model (E2, 660 kWh) takes ~5 hours to charge. About 8x the energy, but 30x the time => suggests 4x less current. So it may not need as elaborate a charging station as the prior model.
Another puzzle…the press release says that the bus traveled over 1000 miles on one charge. But the spec sheet gives a range of 350 miles for the 660 kWh E2-max model. What’s the source(s) of the factor of 3 difference?
Harold W,
“…indicates a 6-year battery warranty”
.
Hummm… 6 years free replacement, or 6-years pro-rated… makes a big difference. My guess: a complicated warranty that you are unlikely to ever actually use, so you end up buying new batteries at near $600/kwh capacity to keep the bus in service past 6 years.
.
DeWitt,
The ‘bus-out-of-service’ charge station is 100 kw…. 134 amps@440VAC-three phase. The on-street quick charge stations are MUCH bigger. Yikes!
HaroldW,
“What’s the source(s) of the factor of 3 difference?”
.
Marketing reality versus reality reality.
SteveF,
I think those mileage records are set at low speed to minimize rolling resistance and aero drag. With internal combustion engines, the car mostly coasts. The engine has no cooling system. The tires are rock hard and narrow. The body is very low drag and as light as possible.
I use the term ‘car’ to mean a device with four wheels not in a line. It’s not something that could be used in the real world. Aero drag would be a major factor for a bus with its large frontal area. My guess is that the bus never went over 20 mph, if that.
HaroldW,
That spec is for the out-of-service charge station, not the on-street quick charge.
The battery chemistry is lithium titanate. There is no diffusion of the ions with that chemistry which allows for much faster charging without losing a lot of efficiency. That comes with a cost of lower specific energy due to the lower inherent voltage. That’s not really a problem for a bus. That’s also why compressed natural gas is a good fit for buses. There’s plenty of room for the heavy tanks needed to hold high pressure methane. Cars, not so much.
SteveF,
I got 900 cycles or so from lead-acid, 3 years. I could carry each days load between full charge and 12 volts or about 50% iirc. Batteries were deep cycle 6volt golf cart type, in series and parallel to create a large single 12 volt bank. All batteries were purchased at once and I insisted that they be delivered new and with identical batch number. I never had battery problems in 20 years operating boat.
To get back to where we are in potential useable energy in possible battery chemistry, is it fair to assume we are not likely to see a doubling?
Rechaege time and number of cycles would make a big difference. But I’m unconvinced That improvement in those characteristics would overcome adverse effect of limited range.
j Ferguson,
900 cycles is pretty good: you must have been a conscientious waterer of batteries. Since my boat has always been used intermittently, I have always used AGM batteries, with 5 KWH total capacity. Even with relatively light use they are shot in 5 years or so.
.
A doubling of capacity is physically possible for Li-ion, but not other types. But if that doubling doubles the cost (as the market would likely lead to) then the cost problem remains unless lifetime improves.
.
The impact of longer battery lifetime on car range is that you could justify more batteries (at higher total cost) if they would last longer. Just like with off-grid rooftop solar, a big chunk of the total cost for the power used is the gradual destruction of very expensive batteries.
I’ve come to deeply distrust lifetime cost calculations by activists. You normally have to dig deep to find out if they are fairly done or not and I don’t have the patience to do it. If they insert costs such as “social cost of carbon” and so forth the calculation becomes corrupted. How many time have you seen a calculation like this that didn’t match the agenda of the authors of the study? The most obscene one I saw was a study that inserted the cost of future nuclear wars in a nuclear power study.
.
It’s a bit hard to believe a bus with humongous expensive batteries is more cost effective than a diesel bus. Why isn’t the industry converting then? A conspiracy by fossil fuel companies? The power of greed will make this a quick transition when the cost crossover point is hit. Long haul trucking would be an ideal target for high cost infrastructure electric vehicles.
HaroldW,
“It is also too massive. The truth is if we don’t take action on climate change now, the food shortages, mass migration and political turmoil it will cause could see the collapse of civilisation in our lifetimes.”
“maybe some of the rich white people who were battered by Hurricane Sandy would use their privilege to demand action.”
.
A linked article: “A 3ºC temperature could potentially be possible as early as 2050.” Let’s see, 2C more warming in the next 33 years. 0.6C per decade. Yes if the rate of increase changes by 5x tomorrow that might happen. I wonder what the odds of that are.
.
Why I just can’t understand why people aren’t buying into this argument, bring in the communications experts! Ha ha. Another proof of the theory you can say almost anything about climate change without push back.
NFL Goodell:
“The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture.”
“(Trump’s) Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players”
.
What an unenviable position Goodell is in. Once again Trump expresses unsaid frustration that many people feel and the media is too timid to state. One could make the argument that it is the players who first were being divisive and showing a lack of respect for America and the culture of the fans who pay their salaries.
.
This is a no win situation for the NFL and Trump is forcing their hand on it. As usual though Trump overplays any hand he is given. This was an unnecessary situation to escalate. Players can protest and I’m all for their right to do so, but fans can choose to not watch, express disapproval, and not buy their product. Annoying your customers is just bad business and I think the NFL knows this. The only thing worse than allowing your employees to willfully annoy your customers is not allowing them to do so in this case.
Scharf: Goodell
Trump as usual addresses issues that should be discussed but goes too far. He could have simply made his point by tweeting that if the team was unsure of whether they wanted to visit the Whitehouse, he would make their decision easier and cancel the event. He didn’t have to go further and say that if he was an owner, he would fire those who knelt. The NFL’s problem (which many players don’t understand) is that almost surely most of its fans hate the kneeling. They will stop attending and watching, which will ultimately find its way down to reduced revenue and player salaries.
…..
Trump by going further than cancelling the event and saying players should be fired, has simply created more motivated powerful enemies in people like James and Curry. The players seem to think that they have the right to have a forum created by Trump (the Whitehouse invitation) to attack Trump. He should have just cancelled the event and moved on.
JD
Mahmoud Abdul Rauf was suspended for similar actions in the NBA, and he stopped doing it after other Muslims, particularly Hakeem Olajuwon, said he was wrong.
The NFL and other leagues started appeasing left-wing groups, threatening to take a Super Bowl away from Arizona if they passed a religious liberty bill for example, so now they are not able to enforce the bans they did before.
JD Ohio (Comment #165107): “He could have simply made his point by tweeting that if the team was unsure of whether they wanted to visit the Whitehouse, he would make their decision easier and cancel the event.”
Isn’t that just what happened?
.
JD: “He didn’t have to go further and say that if he was an owner, he would fire those who knelt.”
I think you are conflating two different things. Trump did not HAVE to say what he said in Alabama about the NFL, but I see no reason why the President (or anyone else) should limit himself to saying only what he has to say.
.
JD: “The NFL’s problem (which many players don’t understand) is that almost surely most of its fans hate the kneeling.”
True. Trump understands that perfectly. He also know that the fans who hate the kneeling are his present or potential supporters. He has every reason to play to them. He delivered that message to some thousands of supporters in Alabama and let the media amplify the message by a factor of 10,000.
.
JD: “Trump … has simply created more motivated powerful enemies in people like James and Curry.”
Really? Name one.
.
JD: “The players seem to think that they have the right to have a forum created by Trump (the Whitehouse invitation) to attack Trump. He should have just cancelled the event and moved on.”
I have no problem with Trump turning the tables on the too-full-of-themselves players.
.
Addition: JD, It almost sounds like you are confusing the NBA (Warriors, Curry, James) and the NFL (players kneeling during the national anthem).
They need to be careful, it can go too far. The NFL player strike did lasting damage that they eventually recovered from. Haven’t seen a strike for a while. The entire Steeler’s team stayed in the locker room during the anthem, not something that will play well with their fan base. A single player came out and stood for the anthem, Alejandro Villanueva, an ex-Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan, he is now an instant folk hero to many.
.
It seems there is a curious and hilarious strong correlation between protesting and losing football games. Browns, Lions, Steelers, Dolphins, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, 49ers, all losing at this time. The Patriots are immune it seems.
I think the Patriots have players kneeling during the anthem, but they are closely associated with Trump, even giving him a Super Bowl ring(Putin already has one).
James and Curry were already against Trump, and vocally so. LeBron James led the Heat into posing for a picture in support of TrayVon Martin, campaigned for Hillary, and during the finals engaged in a hoax hate crime at his house in LA. Curry was vocal against Trump along with coach Steve Kerr, who I’d think would be less adamant given his dad was killed by jihadists.
“President Trump just proved that the folks with the highest rate of brain damage (according to science) think he’s Hitler.” Scott Adams
The NFL is getting significant ratings decline, partly because of this. Trump throwing down could accelerate the damage. I was wondering how Monday Night Football’s ratings would do since they finally got a game better than Sunday night.
You may think it is unpresidential and a step too far, but having a whole bunch of NFL teams and media attack Trump for supporting the flag and anthem looks like a big win for Trump.
It is a dreadful and unforced error for the left to cede patriotism to the right. What are they thinking? The military and police are the most respected government institutions. If you are the party of government then at least support the parts that people actually like. It gets confusing lately who is anti-government and who isn’t.
.
Never was much of Kobe Bryant fan, but one interview I always remember is when NBC asked him if it was awkward to play on the Olympic team when playing for America wasn’t seen as “cool”, he immediately responded “No, it’s a cool thing for me to say. I feel great about it, and I’m not ashamed to say it. I mean, this is a tremendous honor”. It seemed very real even though it would be expected from someone protecting their image. That’s an example of “create a sense of unity in our country and our culture” IMO.
Tom,
I don’t watch football unless I end up visiting someone who is hosting some sort of “watch football” event. At home I can leave the room and surf the web, read a book or watch another tv in another room. But because I don’t watch, I can’t begin to predict how this whole “flag” kerfuffle will play out.
That said: I think Trump should have shut up and just let it play out without his ‘input’. I suspect very few players would have ended up making a display of not standing more-or-less at attention and so on. In fact, once Kaepernick was merely ‘in the past’ — which was going to be within 2 months — the whole thing would have gone away. That would probably have been the path that was better for political discourse and better for football.
Sadly, now Kaepernick actually has more attention than before and more people are discussing the message. Mind you: I don’t mind discussing race– in fact I think it should be discussed. But I think the “not standing for the flag” method was a stupid way to discuss it; it results in people mixing up a whole bunch of issues.
Still, for those who do want to discuss race in the way Kaepernick did, the discussion is now going to be louder and nastier than it was before. It’s also going to be a confused one because it’s going to be all entangled with “patriotism”, how it is shown and so on. This isn’t going to lead to any clarity on anything.
The weird thing is they never actually covered the anthem during TV for at least a decade except for the Super Bowl. The “you are either with me or against me” line drawing from Trump is definitely not unifying. However Trump seems to have a unique gut feel ability in picking the right enemies. Making people stand for or against America and the military (and by extension for Trump) is not unwise politically. I could do without this circus. Perhaps if people started kneeling during the opera and Shakespeare we could just all agree to keep politics in politics and let people breathe.
MikeM
He didn’t turn the tables on them. He created sympathy for them where otherwise there would have been none. In my view, by provoking him in to his stupid statement, the athletes turned the tables on Trump and anyone who criticizes the athletes for their own political speech.
Bigger issue because of Trump, but it would not have receded without him. Kaepernick might have become a minor story except his ability is higher than Tebow, so the media can continue to push it, and outside groups are protesting on his behalf. However, more players had joined in the protest, with the left and MSESPNP encouraging them.
At best, some players would continue to protest and it would get no attention.
>He created sympathy for them where otherwise there would have been none.
People who disapproved of the players are likely to continue disapproving unless they dislike Trump more(Bill Kristol is advising they take a knee to protest Trump and stand after the first few lines). People who approved will continue to approve.
The main groups affected are people who didn’t really think about it or were neutral, and the players’ teammates. Having more players kneeling and the media playing it up would likely push neutral and apathetic people towards Trump’s side I think.
lucia (Comment #165115): “He created sympathy for them where otherwise there would have been none.”
You are mistaken. OK, I can’t prove that. I can’t even provide any evidence. I just don’t see how what you claim can be so. So if you can provide evidence to the contrary, I am listening.
Maybe you mean that Trump created sympathy for Colin Kaepernick among people who hate Trump but never heard of Kaepernick? That is quite possible, but I don’t see how it matters.
MikeN
>People who disapproved of the players are likely to continue disapproving unless they dislike Trump more
I think you are largely mistaken. Yes some people who disapprove will continue to do so. But many people really value free speech and a sitting US President seeing to act to surpress will make quite a few of these have sympathy for players.
I disapprove of all the drama Kapernick was getting into. But Trump doing this makes me totally, utterly approve of the players who are now communicating their view in this way. At a minimum: at least one person who falls in the groups of “people” who disapproved of the behaviour now has sympathy for the players doing this. That person is me.
I doubt this very much. I suspect more people support free speech than you think.
MikeM
I’m going by my reaction.
I suspect that will happen too. But I think it will also create sympathy for Kaepernick among people who never heard of him (which is likely a fair number) and who are neutral toward Trump.
People who are more neutral to Trump is a considerable number.
People who mildly dislike him is also a large number.
Obviously, ardent Trump supporters are going to continue to be ardent Trump supporters. Those who hate him are going to continue to hate him. But I think those in the middle are going to tend to be more sympathetic to players who are now bending a knee than they were before Trump said what he said.
I certainly am.
MikeM, Ray Lewis was fired by ESPN after he attacked Black Lives Matter(and they hired him after he was involved in a double murder). Today he was kneeling in London with the other Ravens. Ravens might have hired Kaepernick if his girlfriend hadn’t tweeted Ray Lewis is an Uncle Tom and the Ravens owner a slaveowner.
I originally wrote that most of the affected group that moves towards the players don’t really care about football, but thought it was an irrelevant point. Now I’m not so sure. Your argument is centered around people’s opinions towards Trump. I am starting with their view of the players’ action. Trump injected himself in. I look at it as the media hates Trump and likes the players’ protest so they will highlight it more. People watching football who were previously in the middle will focus more and dislike the players’ being against the flag and ratings will decline. People thinking mostly about Trump are going to overall disapprove of his getting involved and will support players’ free speech as you say.
Football > politics, but maybe not with Trump.
MikeM “Addition: JD, It almost sounds like you are confusing the NBA (Warriors, Curry, James) and the NFL (players kneeling during the national anthem).”
….
You are right. I could have been clearer about separating the two. On the other hand, it seems like many professional athletes across different sports are reacting in essentially the same way.
Re: Firing someone for Protesting. I realize the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to private employers. However, Trump’s suggestion that players be fired for protesting is on very shaky legal ground viewed from contractual basis. If for instance, a player making $10,000,000 per year was fired for one protest, I would call that breach of contract by the employer unless there was clear language (almost certainly not there) explicitly stating that protests were not permissible under the contract.
JD
>that most of the affected group that moves towards the players don’t really care about football, but thought it was an irrelevant point.
I don’t think that’s irrelevant. It might be irrelevant to NFL commercial prospects. But it’s not irrelevant to political discourse or Trump’s popularity. I think the ltater is a way more important consideration than how things affect NFL’s economic prospects.
.
Yes. Absolutely. I’m focused on the more important issue rather than the less important issue. The are many sports. If people stop watching the NFL and start preferring Hockey or vice-versa no skin off my nose.
Mike N
Regarding Kaepernick vs Tebow. Both are exceptional athletes in their own way. Kaepernick is faster Teobow is stronger. But both lack some of the most important qualities to be a good quarterback in the NFL and they’ve both been around long enough that teams don’t want to invest in the possibility that those negatives can be corrected. That is the reason that they’re not in the league.
Also … Most people realize this isn’t a first amendment issue. They also realize Trump is out of line with his tweets. And they also are put off by the drama queen reaction by the media, players and pundits. The reaction is way out of proportion to the initial transgression. When you do that you lose.
Chuck, Tebow’s negatives are much higher than Kaepernick. Despite beating a good Steelers team in the playoffs and that streak, he is a horrible quarterback. Kaepernick is just mediocre, who once was very good.
> Your argument is centered around people’s opinions towards Trump.
>
>Yes. Absolutely. I’m focused on the more important issue rather than the less important issue.
Yet your conclusion was about people having sympathy towards the players. Putting yourself as evidence no longer holds. You have to look at people who were neutral towards Trump, or approving who moved towards disapproval, and vice versa. Having Trump be placed by the media as being on the side of patriotism, the national anthem and the flag is solid for him, though perhaps the media has already done this and this only reinforces. He loses mostly with people who voted for him or are neutral, are OK with the protesting in general;, and their favorite team has a good player protesting. They have to be OK with the protesting because the firings will not happen.
chuckrr
It is not. The NFL is private and could deal with players speech as they wish. As a matter of law, there is no 1A issue.
That said the US president calling employers to fire people who express speech the US president does not like….. Chilling. Very chilling.
Also: lots of people will find it disturbing that a president is suggesting anyone be fired from their job owing to speech.
Except it would be speech while on the job. The NFL already suspends players for what they do on Twitter.
Let’s consider Clay Travis’s example. What if some UPS drivers went around with Trump hats and had his bumper stickers on their trucks under President Hillary and she called on UPS to fire or suspend these drivers? Of course she would never need to do that because UPS would do it anyways.
I’m wondering if the whole thing is a smokescreen. Trump was about to have the Warriors reject his invitation. People would see thru a tweet that he is pulling the invitation. Now that is a minor detail.
MikeN
Sure. And you are also making claims with no evidence like
I think most of us understand that we are expressing opinions here. That’s the way people talk when they are expressing opinions. I do it. You do it.
Sure. I hadn’t even discussed this with Jim. Yet, not a half hour ago while watching TV he decreed Trump was an idiot on this issue. And Jim doesn’t hate Trump. He’s pretty neutral.
I’m at least basing my opinion on some people who are neutral. I’m not interpreting what neutral people think based on what raving Trump supporters think.
MikeN
Lots of people think it’s not quite right for employers to fire people for speech on the job. That the NFL might fire people for tweets…..
Can’t say I approve of that. I would suspect lots of people wouldn’t approve if those tweets were merely political. They might think it’s ok if they were ‘true threats’ to kill someone and so on. Or some other types of speech. But merely discussing politics? Or race? Or preference in an election?
It’s pretty dang chilling for an employer to suppress that sort of speech.
Lots of people don’t like this sort of thing. And lots complain when universities fire faculty for conservative liberal speech.
But if you accept one, and you want to make any pretense of being consistent, I think you ought to think the other is fine too. I think both are wrong.
It would be chilling if hypothetical President Hillary did that. The only reason it would be reasonable for UPS to fire the drivers is if they have a content neutral rule that no one can wear any political hats. In fact, based on the uniforms UPS drivers wear, I suspect they will be fired for merely being out of uniform– which is entirely different from being fired for “speech”.
Sure. Trump calling for someone to surpress speech is considerably more important that whether or not someone would decline his invitation. If they’d declined that would have reflected on the team not so much on Trump. No one would be criticizing Trump for merely accepting the invitation.
For some reason Trump decided to act like an idiot because of what would be at most a small slight. If he’s calling for employers to surpress speech because he’s grumpy someone declined an invitation, he’s being a complete bozo.
>UPS to fire the drivers is if they have a content neutral rule that no one can wear any political hats.
Yes, that’s what I had in mind. It would be bad for UPS to be seen as endorsing either side and would lose business. The NFL also would be suffering if their players are at the games and protesting the flag and anthem by not standing. It would be different if they were doing this on their own time. It is an official NBA rule.
>types of speech. But merely discussing politics? Or race? Or preference in an election? It’s pretty dang chilling for an employer to suppress that sort of speech.
The ones that come to mind are Curt Schilling had a bunch, one making fun of transgendered people. One player was fined for tweeting ‘this is terrible’ after drafting Michael Sam and they showed him kissing his boyfriend. I think it’s still the case that the most punishments go to criticism of referees.
I don’t support firing people over their speech that’s on Twitter or personal time. If the protests were away from the game(Trump has also called for Jemele Hill to be fired for her Twitter attacks on Trump), it would be different, though arguably the impact on the NFL’s business is the same.
> Yet your conclusion was about people having sympathy towards the players.
>Sure. And you are also making claims with no evidence like
> Bigger issue because of Trump, but it would not have receded without him.
> I think most of us understand that we are expressing opinions here.
I should have referenced #119-120, which is what I was I thinking of with ‘your opinion doesn’t count as evidence.’
It’s not ‘your conclusion’ that I object to. But that it is about the players, and then you said you focus on the more important issue, so you are no longer in the neutral category in which you placed yourself in 119.
MikeN
I think you may be a little confused about “content neutral”.
In the UPS cases, the drivers express no political speech. They are forbidden to express any. That neutral.
In the NFL case, they are being told they must express political speech– that is, stand to express “respect” for the flag. If they were fired, they would be being told that not expressing political position the owners chose is fireable. “You must express political position A and may not express B” is pretty dang far from “content neutral”.
You asked for evidence that anyone would think what I think or behave as I behave. The fact that I do is evidence that at least one person does. As it happens: so does Jim.
I don’t know what rules the NFL has. Not criticizing other players behavior on social media could, hypothetically, be a rule. If it’s enforced for all criticism, it would be content neutral.
If it’s enforced non-uniformly, it is not. I’d disapprove if they do the latter. The former, I’d think is more or less ok.
lucia (Comment #165127): “The NFL is private and could deal with players speech as they wish. As a matter of law, there is no 1A issue.”
Yes, but it is more than just that. This is not about something players are doing on their own time and their own dime. They are doing it while on the job and officially representing their employers.
lucia: “That said the US president calling employers to fire people who express speech the US president does not like….. Chilling. Very chilling.”
I don’t think so. The press and pressure groups do that, and succeed, all the time. I agree that the President should be more circumspect than pressure groups (so should the press, but that is a different issue). But the speech here is not a criticism of Trump. The players are verbally attacking America. I don’t mind the President sticking up for America. Not one bit.
Mike…. I don’t in anyway justify Trumps comments. I view him in context of what we have experienced for the last year. Trump makes over the top comments but his actions rarely if ever follow. It’s bluster, but what a large percentage of people feel in one way or another even though they know no action will be taken. It’s venting… . And even though Trump makes them cringe the over the top reaction negates anything Trump has done. I think that view in one form or another is shared by a lot of so called nuetrals…. not just the die hard Trumpsters
Sorry but I disagree with your talent evaluations. They’re both rotten quarterbacks that given the right circumstances could still win some games. Tebow had intangibles that helped him rise to the same level of rottenness as Kaepernick.
Lucia…I understand why you find it chilling and disturbing. I would too but I guess my view is colored by how I see the context of Trumps tweets and the events of the past few years There’s hyperbole on all sides and I used to think hyperbole can be defeated by reasoned argument Now I think it’s probably a mixture of both, Again I think we need to put things in context. BLM was founded on events based on lies. And although I agree with them on many points you can’t have a movement based on lies and expect it not to be challenged. The movement was created and based on hyperbole. And it has thrived on hyperbole So I’m not overly disturbed by Trumps tweets and I probably would be if they came from another president. Are my views overflowing with hypocrisy and bias? Yes
>It’s bluster, but what a large percentage of people feel in one way or another even though they know no action will be taken. It’s venting… . And even though Trump makes them cringe the over the top reaction negates anything Trump has done.
That’s how I think this will play out.
> both rotten quarterbacks that given the right circumstances could still win
Kap, sure, but if Belichick couldn’t use Tebow he’s too far gone. However, Jacksonville should have signed him.
>Tebow had intangibles that helped him rise to the same level of rottenness
That is Kap’s current level. His peak was better, with 3 straight conference championship games and that season opener against Green Bay. Tebow had one good pass in overtime and lots of other players fumbling or stepping out of bounds while he was on the sideline.
Lucia,
I don’t much care for the NFL, and feel zero connection to players who are 6′ 6″ and 290 lbs on average. It is difficult to connect to a sport where the most important skill for success is skill in choosing your parents. That said, the NFL has very unwisely chosen to allow their (highly compensated!) employees to offend a large fraction of their customers. This will not end well for the NFL. I played golf some weeks ago with a trial lawyer who suggested the NFL is toast due to brain injury lawsuits. I disagreed with him. That kind of problem can be handled with signed empmoyment contracts, which acknowledge the risk. I suspect that brain unjury liability is minimal compared to pissing off half or more of your customers. My guess: the NFL will either put a stop to political statements by players or they are going to be toast. My expectation: toast.
MikeM
I’m not convinced they are representing their employers. Some of the employers don’t necessarily care to make this speech.
But even if they are representing their employers, that would be their employers business to deal with. Their employers seemed to being doing just fine. Presumably, the employers weren’t the ones object.
What we have here is the US President who does not employ these players trying to get their employers to force players into speech the US President wants and to forbid speech quite a few of the employers may be perfectly fine with.
Had the employers wanted to stomp on Kaepernick’s speech they could have done so long ago. They didn’t– which suggest to me they would prefer to send a message that free speech is tolerated. That’s a powerful message and a very American one. I think it’s disturbing that the US President is calling for the employers speech to be “we don’t tolerate free speech when, to all appearances, the employers don’t want to say any such thing.
I think this is inappropriate on the part of the president. After all: he is calling both to dictate the players speech and that of their employers.
I have a lot of sympathy for players who, at this point, are protesting the President’s call for employers to stiffle speech the President wants stiffled. I have sympathy for owners who don’t take up the Presidents suggestion they stiffle speech– especially as they didn’t seem to want to do that in th efirst place.
Free speech means Americans are allowed to verbally attack america. Saying they cannot do so is very unAmerican. Suggesting they should be prohibitted from doing so strikes at the heart of the first Amendment.
We both agree this is not legally a 1A problem– after all the president is just shooting off his mouth, and the teams aren’t the government. But the general idea of that people cannot criticize American is itself totally unAmerican.
Alright alright…I’m already dead..Kap was better
SteveF
That may be true as a business issue. If so, their viewers will decline. No skin off my nose.
Also: if the owners do want to decree that they won’t hire players who want to speak their mind about politics or religion at all, they could do so. They could put that in contracts. If they did so, they would probably lose viewership because they would be left with smaller, slower, less talented players on average. I think that’s a big reason the owners aren’t likely to do any such thing.
The main thing is, I think Trump is being a bozo. Mind you, he’s often a bozo — though not always. I would prefer that he not suggest chilling speech. He could just shut up.
If you are correct about the alienation, Trump has caused the NFL a business headache, which is also not a terrific thing for a president to do. It’s just unnecessary. The problem is: the man can’t shut up. He can’t bring himself to keep some thoughts that would better not become news to himself and just not tweet them.
>Had the employers wanted to stomp on Kaepernick’s speech they could have done so long ago. They didn’t which suggest to me they would prefer
I was going to agree with you that the employers have no interested in punishing people except for the damage to ratings, except I realize that in Kaep’s case one set of protests is that the employers DID stomp on his free speech.
EDIT: To clarify for the non-football folks, he is not currently employed. I saw one protester argue that he was the 17th best quarterback last year and there are 32 teams so he should get at least a backup spot.
Lucia,
Yes, Trump is a jerk to become involved in any of this. But the political nonsense in the NFL predates Trump. The players have just about zero economic prospects outside football (or basketball). If they can’t appreciate that political statements are inappropriate for professional athletes, then their financial loss will be far greater than anyone elses. Politics is always inappropriate when you are selling a product. NFL players will rue the day and Kaepernick decided to take a knee during the national anthem.
Mike N,
“To clarify for the non-football folks, he is not currently employed”
.
Who needs a second string quarterback who will drive away half your customers? Answer: no team in the NFL. (Or any other pro sport!)
Lucia,
I think you can count on NFL contracts to have a standard ‘no political horsesh!t’ clause very soon. Really, this is a strictly business decision, and owners (with hundreds of millions invested) will not put up with the nonsense, and loss of income, for very long. NFL TV viewership is off sharply this year…. That will focus minds.
lucia (Comment #165139): “What we have here is the US President who does not employ these players trying to get their employers to force players into speech the US President wants and to forbid speech quite a few of the employers may be perfectly fine with.”
Trump did that? When? Where? I must have missed it. But given the way this has blown up, I find it hard to believe that I missed that.
Trump essentially said what he would do if he owned a team. That is not attempting to force anybody to do anything. A country that sees an opinion expressed by the President as trying to “force” something is a country yearning for a dictator. Fortunately, Trump won the election, so there is no need to worry about that for at least a few more years.
MikeM, nitpicking. Trump said an owner that said you’re fired would be very popular.
Later on Twitter:
Roger Goodell of NFL just put out a statement trying to justify the total disrespect certain players show to our country.Tell them to stand!
Mike M,
In rather suspect the owners will be a lot less than ‘fine’ with players who offend a lot of fans. This is all just about surreal. As an employee of a large financial enterprise, you have zero right to expect continued employment when your behavior damages that enterprise by offending customers. OK, a few monopolies like Google may get away with really bad politics, at least for a while, but most businesses (like the NFL) can’t get away with it.
MikeN
In what way? Real question. As far as I can tell: he continued to be on a team for quite some time. Then when he became a free agent it turned out he wasn’t good enough to have a team give him an offer. That’s not stomping on his speech.
SteveF
It seems to me most of them did totally agree with this. No one was joining in wheth Kaepernick up to know.
But once Trump is out there making an issue about this telling them they don’t have a right to speak and that they must stand there expressing “respect” — that is making the political statement Trump wants– I think things change a bit. I think they have some reason to respond to Trump who called them out, not as individuals, but as “Football Players”.
They don’t need to behave as Trump tells them to and I sympathize with any desire to respond.
That said: if they end up earning less because football becomes unpopular, I won’t really feel sorry for them. Their in the entertainment business– that’s all sports is. If people seek other entertainment, that’s just the business.
Mike M
He spokeI don’t think you missed this.
I think what we have here is the President expressing an opinion. This may not be “presidential” as defined by previous behavior but that is irrelevant. If Trump took actual action to force the owners to do something then that would be different, otherwise it’s just the bully pulpit. Trump can express his opinions just as Obama did repeatedly with firearms, bathrooms, and other items.
.
The NFL has very strict rules with uniforms, ask Jim McMahon.
.
The NFL regularly supports political causes on the field such as breast cancer, but curiously they don’t find it wise to do so by obscenely disrespecting the USA, the flag, the military, and their fans. The protesters are doing it this way with the expressed intention of pissing off their own fans. Period. It got them noticed. Does this help the cause?
.
Way more people care passionately about sports than care about politics. Good luck trying to get 75,000 screaming fans to paint their faces and show up at a mayoral debate. Maybe if the debate sold beer and had cheerleaders it would help. The NFL is the most expensive rights of not only any American sport, but any American entertainment property.
.
There is a 100% chance the NFL just wants this issue to go away, which is exactly what the fans want to happen. I doubt this will materially affect their revenues unless they let it get out of control. The issue with the fans is about disrespecting their culture. It might be hard to believe, but there was a time when patriotism didn’t use to be equated with racism. There is military on the field before every game. Those jets doing flyovers after the anthem aren’t from BLM. Every Super Bowl coverage they show overseas military watching the game.
.
These players will be allowed to do what they want, but if your name isn’t Tom Brady or Lebron James and you have made a negative political spectacle of yourself then the next free agency negotiation might be harder than you thought. If you want to risk sacrificing your career over a political stance I can respect that. Muhammad Ali went to jail instead of serving in the armed forces. Don’t declare yourself a victim based on the negative response to your political activism that your customers don’t like.
Anthem protests led poll of reasons viewers tuned out
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20171611/national-anthem-protests-no-1-reason-viewers-tuned-nfl-games
.
“The pollster said it asked more than 9,200 people who attended either one football, basketball or hockey game whether they tuned into fewer games and why. Twenty-six percent of those who watched fewer games last season said that national anthem protests, some of which were led by Colin Kaepernick, were the reason.”
Tom Scharf,
The president has a big bully pulpet.
I often thought Obama was a pushing bozo trying to impose his agenda on people. Same with Trump.
Of course either can express their opinions but sometimes ought to shut up while in office.
It was going away until Trump opened his yap. If it doesn’t affect their revenues, that’s ok too. But in which case, that means the bending knees doesn’t affect revenues. So I don’t see how anyone can be concerned the players are doing it.
Sure. So? I don’t see the relevance of uniforms to this issue of taking a knee.
Which I find annoying. But if they want to… ok.
If a player refused to wear pink shoes or a ribbon, I’d say fine with me.
Is there an issue about “disrespecting [fans] culture”? Real question.
Sure football is losing ratings. But lots of things are losing ratings due to the fact that people have a wider range of entertainment. In families with more than one tv, the whole family doesn’t get stuck watching football just because one person dominates the tv. They can watch all sorts of stuff. Other sports are available as are numerous optoins on Amazon, Netflix and so on. It’s natural that ratings would decline. Then, as the decline for a while, the decline gets even bigger as new fans aren’t formed.
As far as I can tell, most people were just ignoring Kaepernick. The reaction was mostly “Yawn”.
Who is declaring themselves a victim based on negative reaction of any “customer”? Real question too.
I suspect Kaepernick may decreed himself a victim of someone — in which case I think he’s wrong. He’s just likely deluded about his value to a team. He wouldn’t be the first player to mistake his talent and think that he’s a better quarter back than he is.
Has anyone else claimed they were victimized? They are only just taking a knee now. So it seems unlikely they’ve been instantly victimized or that they have claimed to have been victimized.
Tom
Viewership was down 8%. Let’s say that’s because 8% watched fewer games. Of that 8%, 26% think their main reason was the protest. That would suggest that 2% of football watchers are upset by the protests.
Or if you take another number 12% said they watched less football. 26% of 12% is 3% who were upset about the protests. This still doesn’t sound like the protests turned off a huge fraction of the base.
Interestingly, viewership was not down much for the actual interesting games. It was down for the boring games during the season and/or games that had to compete with other entertainment (like elections discussions). And 74% of those who did view less football gave reasons like “too many commercials” and or “domestic violence” or “game delays”. I’m really not seeing the protests as having caused anything remotely close to most the fans being upset. 2-3% being upset is not that many.
To make this situation even more surreal, they had a game in London and the players who knelt for the anthem then stood for God Save the Queen. I have no idea what to make of that. Bizarre.
.
That poll was taken before today’s protests. It’s just a sign that business might be materially affected if this was allowed to spiral out of control. Right now it is just mildly annoying. Media opinion is almost universally for the players, but fan opinion is much different. This is another instance where the media is paralyzed by political correctness and can’t even express the alternate view shared by a majority of fans. The “discussion” everyone thinks the protests are supposed to start is banned from actually happening in public by suffocating social restrictions.
.
“As the National Football League struggles to explain this season’s downturn in viewer ratings, 34% of American Adults say they are less likely to watch an NFL game because of the growing number of protests by players on the field.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/sports/september_2017/34_are_less_likely_to_follow_nfl_because_of_protests
.
The media’s usual suspects are falling all over themselves declaring Kaepernick a victim because he wasn’t hired, but he himself isn’t doing so from what I can tell.
.
Patriotism is intertwined deeply with some sports. Baseball (America’s pastime), NASCAR, NFL, etc. The NFL’s logo is basically an American flag, red, white, and blue with stars. MLB and NBA are also red white and blue. Almost every single person at a stadium stands for the anthem. This has been going on for a 100+ years. Players say they aren’t disrespecting the miltary but I just don’t buy it. This is the only big public opportunity to do so for them and they choose not to. It’s just a dumb form of protest.
.
It’s pretty easy to confuse this protest as just spiteful racial identity politics when it’s unclear what the objectives actually are. I’m not sure the players even know or agree. Today was mostly about unity among players against Trump’s attack.
It’s pretty clear that most of the protesting players don’t know what they are protesting. Kapernick’s journey has been analyzed in detail and he was “radicalized” by auditing courses at Berkeley. Marxist and racist dogma is common currency there. This is disturbing because apparently he has no real personal grievance, just an ignorant view that “racism” is an overarching problem. This is the fruit of post modernism. Reality and facts and data don’t matter. What matters is “feelings” and emotions.
Lucia: “Is there an issue about “disrespecting [fans] cultureâ€? Real question.”
Yes. For instance, read the comments from New England fans here. http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots/the_blitz/2017/09/devin_mccourty_explains_why_patriots_knelt_during_national_anthem For instance, one fan stated: “agree. Life long Pat’s fan, but not after today. Hope they loss every single game from her on in.”
…..
Football culture has a strong militaristic/teamwork element. On good teams, everyone tends to sublimate their individual interests for the benefit of the team. Sometimes, it can be uplifting. For instance, see this video where two Ohio State walk-ons (non-scholarship players) had their black stripes removed signifying that they were full fledged, achieving members of the team. http://www.cleveland.com/osu/2017/04/ohio_state_football_walk-ons_c_4.html What is really nice about the video [that non-Ohio State fans wouldn’t recognize] is that some really talented full-scholarship players who will probably be making millions of dollars in a couple of years are whooping it up and celebrating the achievement of the comparatively non-talented, but hard-working non-scholarship players.
….
Justice Bill O Neill, a veteran and lone Democrat on the Ohio Supreme Court had strong words of disapproval concerning the Cleveland Browns: ““I will NEVER attend a sporting event where the draft dodging millionaire athletes disrespect the veterans who earned them the right to be on that field. Shame on you all. William O’Neill, LTC, US Army, Retired. Vietnam veteran; son of a World (War) II veteran; proud father of an Iraq veteran,†See http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170823/justice-bill-oneill-calls-out-browns-for-kneeling-during-national-anthem
Long-term, if this continues as I expect it to, I could easily see the NFL losing 10-20% of its fans. If you feel strongly like O Neill does, there is no pleasure in seeing a game where players disrespect the flag.
JD
David,
I wouldn’t be remotely surprised that Kaepernick doesn’t have clue one what he’s really protesting. Reading wikipedia, he decided to protest last year. So it looks like he just wants to protest.
But I suspect those who are protesting today know what they are protesting: Trump trying to boss them around from his bully pulpit.
JD,
I’ve never really held the notion of “respecting the flag” as being an important thing. I’ve been to sports games (usually baseball) where they play the anthem, and I’m usually the only one who sings. The players generally stand but the audience is really kind of so-so. So in some sense, I’m sort of one of the more respectful people around as far as I can see. Yet, I have nothing against people not “respecting” the flag. I think it’s important to allow people to “respect” or not as they wish.
I guess at least some people are upset. If people don’t go to games that will be fine with me. I guess we’ll see what happens.
This is all that really needs to be said
David Burgeâ€
@iowahawkblog
U put your right knee down
U put your left knee out
U put your right fist up & shake it all about
Do the Wokey Pokey & turn yourself around
3:52 PM – 24 Sep 2017
New conversation
David Burge†@iowahawkblog 6h6 hours ago
More
Replying to @iowahawkblog
That’s what it’s all about
Lucia: “JD,
I’ve never really held the notion of “respecting the flag†as being an important thing.”
…..
It is not something I feel super strong about either. On the other hand, it is something that a lot of people feel strongly about. Personally, I would respect their feelings, and if I felt I had the gripe that some football players have, I would find a different way and forum to express it.
JD
JD
I also agree with respecting the feeling of others. So I’d pick some other way of communicating my political views or gripes. The same goes for religious observances which I think should mostly be kept out of the public sphere. But I wouldn’t start whistling while some person says a brief public prayer just to get them to stop.
chuckrr (Comment #165161),
The Wokey Pokey is the best comment I’ve seen on this, but I can’t help trying to improve on it:
U put your right knee down
U put your left knee out
U put your right fist up and shake it all about
Do the Wokey Pokey and feel oh so smug
That’s what it’s all about
Credit entirely to iowahawkblog on twitter. A brilliant and funny libertarian.
Chuchrr,
Except the players who put their knees down yesterday didn’t put their fists up nor did they shake them.
I think one could equally accuse Trump of smugness.
One can sometimes seem funnier by making the joke describe people doing things they didn’t actually do.
One odd thing about this is that the main reason I think Kaepernick was wrong in the first place was that football is entertainment. The ticket buying customers and people who consume football on tv are there to be entertained by football. As a general rule, I think entertainers– which is what football players are– should provide the entertainment the audience came to consume.
I think entertainers who decide to use the forum to get out political messages should tread very lightly especially if they aren’t personally “the” attraction. (So for example: if I were to go to a “Joe Blow” concert, then “Joe Blow” is, quite likely, the attraction. But if I go to an opera, it’s not “about” the tenor individually nor the soprano individually and so on.) Generally speaking, a football game is never about any one player. For that reason it would be very, very, very rare for the forum of a game to be an appropriate place for an individual to make the political statement of his choice. Any individual player — or even owner– should find some other venue for political speech.
Note: In the above, I’ve said nothing about “disrespecting the flag” nor what view they hold.
The problem now though is that an external party who happens to be the sitting president has made this a huge political issue. In the process, he has made views on behavior of players a national political issues rather than one what fans might deserve from entertainment. Obviously, the players collectively are likely to have some view on this. As the president is discussing this in a national forum, the players obviously are going to use their only national forum– televised football.
Different teams and different members of teams did this different ways. Other than the view some have that the “way” to show respect to the flag is to stand, I didn’t really see indications of disrespect to the flat. Many kneeling had their heads down– the traditional prayer position in the Catholic church when I was a kid. Some had hands on their heart. This was not communicating “I am disrespecting the flag.” It was communicating, “Trump doesn’t dictate how I show respect nor what I chose to say.”
I get that some ticket buying fans are going to be disappointed or offended. But I think the fault lies on Trump. Who has been a bozo about this.
At least they aren’t burning flags. As I remember, that was not uncommon during Vietnam War protests. There was even a Supreme Court ruling, Texas v. Johnson, 1989, that overturned flag desecration laws.
Apparently Kaepernick’s recent girlfriend is a DJ big on social justice or something similar which is likely where his newfound religion comes from.
.
There is definitely a sense of taking the fans for granted here. The people who care the most about this are the fans and the media could care less what they think, or more likely they know what they think and don’t like the “disrespecting fans and country” narrative. The media joining billionaire owners and millionaire entertainers to condescend to middle america is not new. Fan disapproval on this subject is probably like an oil tanker, pretty hard to turn around once negative momentum gets going. Note to NFL: Stop digging a hole with a shovel that you will need to fill back up with a teaspoon.
DeWitt,
I was watching Ken Burn’s new PBS Vietnam documentary (18 hours long, very good) and they brought up something I hadn’t known before. The Vietnam protest movement really took off when they starting drafting people out of college. One person made a comment that it shifted from a moral protest to a protest of self interest.
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-vietnam-war/watch/
Lucia.
I know the players didn’t raise their fists..although I think some did in the past. I just think the post was funny. It also had some subtle messages about wokeness and virtue signalling.
I understand your view on the president getting involved in this issue or any issue involving private enterprise or individuals….and I agree with you. I’m just not as outraged as you because I see it in a different context. The context of hyperbole and misinformation that has stirred up this controversy from the beginning. Obama did it countless times, although with a lot more subtle delivery.
That’s called “whataboutism” or two wrongs don’t make it right ….I know. I’ve watched enough of these crisises to know that the first take is almost always wrong. So I think this situation will blow over. And what you may perceive as an increase in tensions may actually decrease in the long run . Was that Trumps intention ….almost certainly not. I guess we’ll see.
I follow @iowahakblog for the same reason I follow you…except he’s a lot funnier…..sorry. And although he makes fun of the woke football players he would agree with everyone of your points also. As do I. Both views can coexist
Dewitt,
You can have content neutral laws against burning stuff in public especially in ways that are fire safety hazards. But in that case, you better arrest people who start burning things like chairs too. It can’t be a special law against burning flags. (I think ANTIFA has burned stuff like chairs? Or set trashcans on fire? Or something. I know I’ve seen burning stuff.)
The Dixie Chicks went political and it hurt them. The audience didn’t intend to be presented a political lecture; they wanted to hear a concert. It wouldn’t have gone so badly for the Dixie Chicks if their audience had agreed with their politics. But the fact is: when people pay to for entertainment, they want to be entertained.
chuckrr,
I’m just not as outraged as you because I see it in a different context.
I’m not outraged. I jumped in when MikeM suggested Trump had turned the tables. I don’t think he has. I’m expressing my view. Saying I think he’s a bozo, that he behavior is chilling and so on does not require or indicate outrage.
I get that. I don’t have a problem with you finding him funny. But I can’t help pointing out that that poem does not actually describe what is happening.
I also think comedy is funnier and more clever when it’s based on truth rather than making fun of people for doing something they didn’t actually have do. So I don’t take that poem of any indication of iowahawk being clever in this instance. (He is clever sometimes.)
Yes. I would contradict people who supported Obama when he acted like a bozo. It just happens that most of those people aren’t here. Certainly they aren’t here today.
Intention? I think often Trump doesn’t have much of an intention other than the one right there at the surface. I think he wants the players to be pressured to stand up and “respect the flag”. If they don’t do it voluntarily, he wants the owners to fire them. He wants to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to pressure people into doing it. Those are the intentions I criticize him form.
Oddly: That Trump doesn’t seem to communicate in hidden meanings is one of the things I sort of like in him. At the same time: He doesn’t seem to have any filter at all. In some cases, he ought to.
“That Trump doesn’t seem to communicate in hidden meanings is one of the things I sort of like in him. At the same time: He doesn’t seem to have any filter at all. In some cases, he ought to.”
Great summary. I have no idea why Trump thought he had to throw in his $0.02 on this particular (trivial) issue. It doesn’t rise anywhere near the threshold of what should attract his attention as President.
This particular trivial issue is hot. Here’s my $0.02 solution. Drop the anthem. It’s just sports, and not even the Olympics, politics don’t belong, and the nationalism is old-fashioned. It’s a meaningless ritual. It’s almost like saying a prayer before the game. The game is just a game, it doesn’t need to be sanctified. It’s like the Pledge of Allegiance; it’s an anachronism.
HaroldW (Comment #165174): “I have no idea why Trump thought he had to throw in his $0.02 on this particular (trivial) issue. It doesn’t rise anywhere near the threshold of what should attract his attention as President.”
“Why” is totally obvious. He was speaking to a rally for his Senate candidate in the Alabama primary and figured it would be a good applause line. Obama, and every other president, routinely gave their attention to much more trivial things (NCAA brackets come to mind with Obama). It is the NFL and the press who are treating Trump’s comments like they are the end of the world. They are the ones lacking in perspective, not Trump.
.
p.s. – Trump is really clever about stuff like this, so he might well have anticipated the over reaction and group think that his comments would trigger. All the better for him.
Ledite,
I think dropping the anthem would be a wise idea. Obviously, it would take away a platform for anyone to use the flag for purposes like publicizing their personal protest or cause. That said, I suspect it would be controversial. I think there are plenty of people who want to force others to “respect” it.
The thing is: if you put it up there to insist people stand at attention while also claiming we should value free speech, there’s going to be tension. You are bound to discover there are people who actually believe in free speech and then say something you don’t like.
Lucia, the accusation is that Kaepernick was both demoted and not signed because of his protests, not his quality of play. While he is not a Top 20 quarterback, I don’t know if he is top 30 or backup level.
Kaepernick has been fined by the NFL for wearing Beats headphones at a postgame press conference when the league sponsor is Bose.
NFL very hypocritical: The Dallas Cowboys wanted to show support for slain Dallas police officers, but the NFL said decals on helmet violated NFL policy in August of 2016. We can pretty much discard the idea that the NFL supports freedom of speech for its players. It has simply chosen to support the intolerant, self-righteous Left. https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-cowboys/cowboys/2016/08/11/nfl-ruling-arm-arm-decal-disappoints-cowboys-stop-teams-support-dallas-police-jerry-jones-says
Also, NFL ratings are down very significantly. “NFL ratings are down double-digits this season so far after taking a similar tackle-for-loss last year.” http://deadline.com/2017/09/redskins-sunday-night-football-ratings-nfl-protests-star-trek-discovery-donald-trump-nbc-1202176141/ Personally, the thought of watching the NFL game that was on last night, made me sort of sick to my stomach, so I intentionally refused to watch it. (Quite often on Sunday evening, I used to watch NFL games while using my exercise bicycle.)
JD
MikeN
Note: “the accusation”. That means someone has advanced this claim, not that it is true. I read his wikipedia page. He’s not that great a quarterback.
JD Ohio,
Jim watched one. I was in here. He watches the Bears some games because his brother’s do. Its sort of a social thing. Anyway, while watching, he volunteered that Trump was being a doofus on this. Up to that point neither of us had talked about it.
A germane cartoon.
Myself, I can’t see tuning out an NFL game simply because some players choose to kneel during the anthem. On the other hand, I’m beginning to get bad feelings about the dangerousness of the game. Not only immediate injuries (knees, ankles, etc.), which have been present forever, but seem to be more prevalent now. Long-term effects seem even more serious.
Removing the anthem is the rational solution to this problem, however I suspect it will be met with…emotional resistance. Maybe the best answer is announce the anthem will be optional at stadiums next year. Personally I like the big flags, good singers, and especially Air Force flyovers. Sometimes they have a B-2 flyover which is the coolest thing ever. The anthem feels kind of like a requirement from a stodgy old teacher, but I would never take it away if a significant portion of the fan base wanted it there. Let the players be jerk-wads if they want. Realistically the usual suspects will just find another annoying way to protest so removing the anthem might not actually solve anything. The statue brouhaha has proven these things are give an inch take a mile affairs.
.
FYI: It is a requirement for teams to be on the sideline for the anthem, but the NFL announced no penalties for those who didn’t do it.
.
It’s likely Kaepernick was blackballed for his politics. I think from an owner’s perspective that is rational because the PITA you get from him isn’t worth a middling performance / high rent QB.
>Removing the anthem is the rational solution
Send a message to the left that they can dictate the removal of whatever they want. There’s a reason Yankee conservatives are supporting the Confederate monuments.
>Note: “the accusationâ€. That means someone has advanced this claim, not that it is true.,, read his wikipedia page. He’s not that great
I thought I said that to begin with. I’m don’t know it is false. Funny I had also read Wikipedia to see whether he’d been cut, and his stats from last year do not scream out he is terrible. You don’t have to be great to be a backup QB. It is possible he would have a job if not for the protests.
MikeN,
Or as the phrase from 1984 goes: ‘down the memory hole’
And yet more proof irony increases, Salon is accusing the Trump administration of tossing recent history down the memory hole.
To change the subject, what’s the opinion on the new Star Trek series being behind a $6/month pay wall? I’m not signing up. There’s nothing else worth watching on the service.
JD, that would be a uniform violation, and the NFL has been very strict about that.
They actually do have a rule like the NBA that players must stand during the anthem with their helmets under their shoulder, threatening fines, suspensions, or loss of draft picks even on a first offense.
According to the ESPN site, playing The Star-Spangled Banner at baseball games can be attributed to the Cubbies. They played it during the seventh inning stretch to try to liven up the crowd during the first game of the 1918 World Series. The song wasn’t adopted as the national anthem until 1931.
http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/6957582/the-history-national-anthem-sports-espn-magazine
Lucia,
“I’ve been to sports games (usually baseball) where they play the anthem, and I’m usually the only one who sings. The players generally stand but the audience is really kind of so-so.”
.
I am really surprised by this. I often go to Cape Cod League baseball games in the summer (top college players… many are pro prospects). The anthem is sung by lots of people in the crowd, and even most of the players give it a try. Both teams stand along the first and third base lines, hats off and placed over their hearts, facing the flag in center field. Nothing so-so about it.
Hope I can ask a physics/electrical question here. I have had a Whirlpool E05KVEXVB00 model ice making refrigerator in my house for 2 years with no problem. About 5 days ago, it began tripping the GFCI about every 8-12 hours. A quick Google search gave me some ideas of potential problems that can cause electrical leakage.
I haven’t cleaned the coils in a while and the ice making filter is blinking red. I understand that I need to clean the coils, which may help.
In any event, about 38 hours ago, I pulled the fridge about 3 inches from the wall and noticed that the power cord was somewhat tangled. I straightened the cord and left the fridge 3 inches from the back wall. Since then what had been pretty regular tripping has stopped. Is it coincidence, or did what I tried help in some way. (Should mention that watching a youtube video with respect to James Clerk Maxwell about 2 weeks ago dealing with electro-magnetic fields was part of the source of my idea) I will leave the fridge as is and see if the tripping restarts.
JD
JD…you should never have a frig on a GFI. Frig’s have a high and somewhat sudden amp draw which can trip the GFI Can you eliminate it? Usually if the outlet is fed through the GFI to another outlet they can be reconnected to the incoming load connection on the GFI so it doesn’t trip the GFI ….just move the wire feeding the next outlet to the top connection on the GFI. Sorry can’t help you much on the physics
If you have Netflix and access to a foreign proxy, you can watch the new Star Trek series without paying an extra $6. I guess it will also be downloadable from the usual places pronto.
Haven’t seen it yet though.
SteveF,
I’ve had people thank me for singing, but they don’t. Maybe it’s a regional thing.
JD, had you previously tried unplugging the frig?
Sometimes that will reset and solve problems.
DaveJR, can you use your existing Netflix account or do you have to sign up for a new one? The foreign proxy is easy.
Here is an interesting footnote on Sunday’s NFL tantrum. Fans like to buy jerseys with the name and number of NFL stars; the league makes a lot of money on sales of such items. Of course, all the top sellers are quarterbacks, but star running backs and receivers are popular too. Maybe a few of the more spectacular defensive players. Offensive linemen, not so much. After all, you don’t normally hear an offensive lineman’s name during a game unless he screwed up.
It seems there is a new number 1 for NFL jerseys: offensive tackle Alejandro Villanueva of the Pittsburgh Steelers. The reason is that when the rest of the team stayed in the locker room during the anthem, Villanueva came out and stood at attention with his hand over his heart. I’m sure his back story didn’t hurt.
http://www.realclearlife.com/sports/alejandro-villanueva-becomes-league-top-seller-overnight/
MikeN,
If I recall correctly, he opted out of his contract to become a free agent. Presumably he could have kept in the old one but didn’t want to.
No. But it’s normal for people to not be willing to put up with drama for a back up anything.
Mike N. “JD, had you previously tried unplugging the frig?
Sometimes that will reset and solve problems.”
Did it many times. Didn’t work. Still hasn’t tripped since I straightened the power cord and moved the fridge.
JD
>it’s normal for people to not be willing to put up with drama for a back up
If you think that’s what’s happening, then you’re saying he’s being stomped on for his speech.
MikeN, existing Netflix account. IP location is all they seem to check.
MikeN
No. Any sort of drama is unappealing in anyone, but makes a backup unhirable. Since any sort would make people reluctant to hire him, that’s “content neutral” and so not “because” the issue is specifically speech.
Mike N,
If you have an obnoxious cousin who wants to constantly badmouth everyone he disagrees with politically, then you probably are not going to invite him over for dinner too often. Same thing with Kaepernik. Owners don’t need the drama with a back-up QB who is unlikely to see any playing time anyway.
JDOhio,
GFIs are sensitive and their circuitry can fail. If the tripping starts again, try replacing the GFI.
I think deciding to not hire someone and deciding to fire them are different standards. The holistic (ha ha) process of hiring a QB involves many factors. If you have equal candidates and one of them is likely to annoy your customers then the decision is pretty easy.
.
Von Miller lost his Denver Ford dealership endorsement for kneeling yesterday. Apparently the owner of the dealership is a veteran. This is a close call I think.
.
I do find the entire line of argument that “we aren’t disrespecting the military” to be dubious. You can take the flag out, take a big crap on it, burn it, and then assert you meant no disrespect. That doesn’t make it so. What is the primary symbol of our military? What is that thing they are constantly carrying around everywhere and wear on their uniforms?
.
If you believe the left’s rhetoric then disrespect is in the eye of the beholder anyway. I find the argument of “I meant no disrespect by burning that cross, I’m just protesting mistreatment of dogs” to be equally compelling.
.
I’m sure that some of the protesters do separate these issues in their minds, but it is obvious to everyone that a lot of people will interpret this as disrespect. That is why this form of protest is so poorly chosen. They can choose to make it obvious they respect the military in some additional way, hug the soldiers after the anthem or whatever.
lucia (Comment #165199): “If I recall correctly, he opted out of his contract to become a free agent. Presumably he could have kept in the old one but didn’t want to.”
I am pretty sure you recall correctly. Kaepernik presumably did not opt out so that he could get backup money (maybe $3 Million) elsewhere. He may have been hoping to get established starter money ($15 million and up) and was probably expecting at least compete-for-the-starting-job money ($10 million). So he priced himself out of the backup market. Otherwise, I bet he’d have been signed by Seattle.
.
lucia: “But it’s normal for people to not be willing to put up with drama for a back up anything.”
Exactly. There is also the fact the Kaepernik only seems good at a style of play tailored to his skills, which are not those of most quarterbacks. You don’t design your offense around a backup.
MikeN,
Yes, he probably is. So what. The First Amendment limits the government and the states, not football teams. I’d bet that every player contract already contains a misconduct clause that allows penalties for player conduct that management thinks damages the team’s image or future earnings potential.
So Dallas probably found the best answer, kneel before the anthem and then stand when it starts. Clear separation solves the disrespect problem and even enhances the meaning of uniting. I can easily live with this. Hell would probably freeze over before Jerry Jones would allow “America’s Team” to disrespect the flag.
.
I found it very interesting to see actual independent thought in action with all teams coming out with different angles on the protest before social media inspired herd mentality takes over. Teams not even showing up for the anthem was probably the worst answer.
Tom
According to Roger Pielke Jr. that was what the old standard method. The anthem was played for the audience. The players came out later.
Polifact reports
With regard to prime time games, the old way was probably better. The players could relax up until the game started. (I’m guessing there is probably even a commercial break after the anthem? Letting them stay in the locker room is likely much better is so.)
If players are in the locker room prepping, there was little possibility of player doing much of anything controversial during the anthem. As long as being in the club house was SOP, there was no ‘message’ communicated by their staying in.
It’s too bad the rule was ever changed. Having SOP be players in the locker room would have diminished the ability of players seizing the anthem as a time for communicating their politics.
Sadly, changing it back now would be controversial particularly as I’m pretty sure their are people who want to force respect. That fact that forcing respect is both (a) impossible and (b) goes against the spirit of the first Amendment and so unAmerican doesn’t make them want to drop the attempt to force respect. And that subset can’t be made to see (a) and (b). So there would be strum and drang over any rule change about players standing on the sidelines.
We’ll see what happens.
Stay
Tom Scharf
Close call on what question? I’d say the probability Von Miller lost a commercial endorsement (which is a gig for paid speech) owing to his own speech. This is routine. People fire paid mouthpieces when the paid mouth piece is “off message” or does something that detracts from the message the person who hired them wants communicated.
Of course a guy who is paid to convey a particular message, idea, aura and so on who does anything to dilute the message he is paid to communicate will lose that gig.
In contrast: the NFL pays these guys principally to play football. Firing them for speech would be rather different than someone who is not the NFL yanking their endorsement for no longer properly doing the job for which they were paid– which in this case was to communicate a commercial message for a dealership and convey a certain “aura” while doing so.
Now for something completely different. Some people have decidedly funner jobs than I do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrqYohBV58o
Tom
I think those were rhetorical.
I think these are the primary symbols of the military.
http://www.wpunj.edu/dotAsset/239926.jpg
Close call on whether this helps your business or hurts it. Von Miller is a high profile member of their Super Bowl winning team. By not addressing it at all your business may be able to remain invisible to a highly polarizing event. Invisibility with politics is highly desirable for a business. Ford dealers do tend to have gigantic flags out front though.
Only the contrast between staying in the locker room while others do not is what makes it bad optics. All teams remaining inside during the anthem is something I could also live with.
.
Forcing people to respect the flag, or forcing them to not disrespect it? Although these are effectively the same question I think this is how the different sides see the issue. I don’t want to force anyone to do anything, nor do I want the owners to force anything. I want them to have free speech and for the fans to react accordingly and let market forces take over. Hollywood doesn’t allow their actors to make irrelevant political statements in the middle of TV shows and movies. Personal agendas aren’t allowed in the entertainment product.
.
The NFL and their owners are going to want to incentivize the players to make this go away if they are smart.
Tom Scharf
Making all players stand on the sidelines, standing respectfully with any and all other behavior being forbidden and deemed “disrespectful” is forcing them to respect it.
There is no intermediate behavior permitted that is neither respecting nor disrespecting. Intermediate behavior would have been to allow them to excuse themselves. That’s also not permitted– or at least I imagine so.
Anyone who objects to the team for staying in the locker room is clearly grousing about the players taking “neither” respect nor disrespect option. Because those players did not disrespect the flag, the just stayed away and picked an option that didn’t force anyone to respect it.
And yet you wrote this
That was the answer that allowed people to neither respect nor disrespect. All others required people to either stand respectfully or to be considered to do something disrespectful.
Tom Scharf
How? (Real question.)
I think the best solution is to say they are going back to pre-2009 rules and having players stay in the locker room during the anthem. The could add window dressing about commercial breaks and so on stretching out time and wanting them to relax. No one will buy that as the real reason, but having them off the field would be wise.
Hollywood also don’t have all the actors film a 5 minute pre-quel in which they deliver a political message that is irrelevant to the TV show or movie and show that before every TV show or movie. They don’t even make them be filmed standing respectfully while someone else delivers a political message with which they disagree. They just have then provide the entertainment.
<No. Any sort of drama is unappealing in anyone, but makes a backup unhirable. Since any sort would make people reluctant to hire him, that’s “content neutral†and so not “because†the issue is specifically speech.
Has Brandon hijacked your account? I said people were protesting because he wasn't being hired due to his protest. You said they think so doesn't make it true, now you agree his protest is dragging him down. Not sure if Jesuit is the right word here.
Kaepernick was on a 6 year, 156 million dollar contract, with four years left, that he renegotiated to a two year deal with a player option after the first year(early 2016), with no change in salary. Kaepernick would have been cut, and did the deal because it made him an unrestricted free agent incl no compensatory draft picks from teams that sign him, while the 49ers get his salary off their cap.
MIkeN
Not to quibble, but you wrote “then you’re saying he’s being stomped on for his speech.”.
Creating drama that detracts from the game and type of entertainment the owners want to provide and the audience want to go to is not “his speech” nor is it precisely “his protest”. Similar drama that involved no “protest” would make him similarly unhireable.
I realize you might think this is a quibble. But in a long discussion that has been revolving around freedom of speech, involves discussing the first amendments protection of speech and so on, the distinction between whether the reason he is unhireable is the “speech” (i.e. content of what he is communicating) or the disruption he is creating is, in my view, relevant.
He would have been cut. I assume he didn’t exactly take his team to the superbowl last year. The team thought his salary was larger than his value to the team. Sounds like SOP.
Things are seldom what they seem given the reporting of modern day journalism and what people are predisposed to believe.
https://mises.org/blog/stop-wrapping-flag-around-pro-sports
“Indeed, the current pantomime in which NFL players are expected to stand at attention for the national anthem is of extremely recent origin. As Tom Curran pointed out on Comcast Sportsnet, prior to 2009, football players “weren’t on the field for the national anthem and instead generally remained in the locker room.”
And why did players start making a display of their “patriotism” in 2009? It turns out the government gave them taxpayer money to do so:
In 2009, Barack Obama’s Department of Defense began paying hundreds of thousands towards teams in a marketing strategy designed to show support for the troops and increase recruitments. The NFL then required all players and personnel to be on the sidelines during the national anthem, in exchange for taxpayers dollars. Prior, the national anthem was played in the stadium but players had the option of staying in the locker room before heading out to the field.
Furthermore, teams that showed “Veteran’s Salutes” during games were paid upwards of $5.1 million dollars.”
Would we expect more from NFL owners of which many have a hand out for taxpayer’s money to build their stadiums? I answer an emphatic no.
This latest silliness over the national anthem has no import other than to show that too many people want to translate an athlete’s , an actor’s or a comedian’s ability in their field into some other field and for better or worse depending on people’s political views. I personally like to look at these professionals as to how well they perform in their chosen field and how I might perceive them as an individual – and without really knowing them that well.
There are many such celebrities that I admire for their accomplishments in their field who I disagree vehemently when comes to politics. Warren Buffett comes to mind here.
With Trump I do not see a need to respect the office of the president and thus can say he is pretty much a dumb a$$ tweeter -and speaker as well.
>Sounds like SOP.
The two were unrelated. Just adding detail to his contract situation. I find it strange that they keep announcing big contracts for players, but teams can cancel anytime. Kaepernick’s $156 million probably paid 40.
>the reason he is unhireable is the “speech†(i.e. content of what he is communicating) or the disruption he is creating is, in my view, relevant.
That’s the same excuse universities use to disinvite speakers that the Left wants to shut down, too much of a security issue.
That his being cut is partly owing to a detail of his contract situation does not make his being cut “unrelated” to his contract situation. It makes his being cut because his value to those employing him was worth less than what they were paying him “standard operating procedure”
I didn’t say the owners think Kaepernick was a security issue.
MikeN,
Kaepernik only got $40 million? Well, now I do feel sorry about his unemployment. Hope he didn’t already spend it all….. which I suspect is a real possibility.
Recent FBI report shows the murder rate is up 22% over the past two years. Mostly big city changes and possibly the Ferguson effect. The interesting dynamic here is that the media is burying this story as quickly as possible and explaining it away as only short term noise (tell that to the hurricane pontificators, ha ha), still near historical lows, etc. The question is why bury and soft pedal this story when everything bad is always Trump’s fault?
.
I suppose for two reasons. One is that the fix for increasing violent crime is inevitably tougher on crime policies which seems to be a bad thing to many people. The other is (trigger warning!) that in an era of everything must be measured and adjudicated by racial disparities this particular measurement is the statistic that shall not be named. African Americans murder each other at a rate 600% higher per capita than whites. While hate crimes are updated by the media every 12 seconds and police shootings having racial disparities is fait accompli of racism, social scientists can draw no conclusions on community dysfunction from murder rate disparities, although it is commonly tied to white racism via complex second order social effects and of course gun control.
.
Is this truly helpful? Do problems like this get solved by ignoring them? Certainly there are problems with community relations and police but isn’t it odd that police are effectively being asked to stop pro-active policing in the highest crime areas? I know what the activists want, but do these high crime communities really want less policing? If they do, then I say fine, do less policing. I imagine what they really want is policing they can trust.
Classic line from a hurricane article in The Atlantic today:
“This isn’t to say that there hasn’t been an increase in storms over the last century, only that you can’t find it in the data.”
Tom,
Of course on could say precisely the opposite. “This isn’t to say that there hasn’t been an [decrease] in storms over the last century, only that you can’t find it in the data.â€
I’m not sure, but my impression is the effect more commonly predicted is fewer storms but an increase in strength. So more Cat 5s, fewer 1 & 2s with sum over all storms a smaller number.
Lucia: “Of course on could say precisely the opposite.”
.
One, could, but one never does.
.
My impression is that the prediction is the usual grasping at straws for a bad result when things aren’t “worse than we thought”. My prediction is that when broken down, the evidence will fall into two categories. 1) modelling supporting the conclusion and 2) data, potentially cherry picked from available records, with floor to ceiling error bars which doesn’t disprove it.
This is what frustrates me about media reporting on racial crime. NPR today:
Fewer Youths Incarcerated, But Gap Between Blacks And Whites Worsens
http://www.npr.org/2017/09/27/551864016/fewer-youths-incarcerated-but-gap-between-blacks-and-whites-worsens
“But a closer look at the data shows a widening gap between black and white youth confinement….despite little difference in crime rates between black and white youths”
.
This article uses a common deception here. “little difference in crime rates between black and white youths” is a statistic of the absolute # of crimes. Black and white murders are very close in absolute numbers for example. They then compare “per capita” incarceration rates which is about 5x and leave the impression that black youths are thrown in jail 5x more often for the same crimes.
.
Anecdotal comment. Juvenile incarceration is down. Yeah? Our county is in the midst of an epidemic of car theft. In August close to my house three 14 to 16 year old’s died in a stolen car. They were going 130 mph at 5 am with their lights off and went through a red light at a major intersection and hit another car.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/three-boys-dead-after-fiery-crash-in-stolen-suv-pinellas-sheriff-says/2332825
.
The kids in the car(s) had 126 arrests between them in the past 3 years.
http://tampabay.com/tbprojects/dcloud/dcloud-template.html?doc=3914581-PCSO-Teen-records
.
14 different kids here have been arrested at least 5 times each for car theft over 18 months. Maximum 21 days of detention by state law. This crime is tolerated, is this policy truly helpful to anyone?
Tom Scharf,
From the NPR article:
The problem with that is that there is no data in the CDC report that supports that assertion. The CDC report looks at many unhealthy behavior including things that are crimes, like carrying a gun on school property, and use and possession of drugs and alcohol, but I didn’t see a burglary, robbery or murder section. The CDC conclusion is about risky behavior, not the commission of crimes. So NPR’s assertion above is not supported by their reference.
To put it another way, the CDC report says that blacks and whites carry guns at about the same rate. It says nothing about the actual use of those guns.
DeWitt
“behaviors that contribute to violence and others. ”
Yep. It’s true that drug use is a behavior that contributes to violence. The thing is that drug use will result in more violence when those addicted the drugs need to rob others to pay for the drugs as opposed to when those who use the drugs get money to pay for the drugs through some other means. So, sadly, you can’t just look at drug use by rich kids and drug use by poor kids, find it’s comparable and conclude the violence induced will be equal. Generally, white kids are richer than black kids.
lucia,
Unfortunately NPR, and probably the WaPo and the NYT can and do. I say ‘probably’ because I don’t feel like looking for actual citations. I also won’t be convinced by a cherry picked individual article that contradicts my supposition.
> does not make his being cut “unrelated†to his contract situation.
I meant the two parts of #219 were unrelated, but I interpreted your reply as associating them.
>I didn’t say the owners think Kaepernick was a security issue.
No, just a distraction caused by his free speech that makes him unemployable. Just as the college says they support free speech, but there is a security issue to prevent the speaker from coming.
MikeN,
Conflating college policies towards certain guest speakers with Kaepernick and the NFL is nugatory. They are quite separate issues.
Blacks and white do not commit violent crime at proportional (per capita) rates, either juvenile or adult. When I see an assertion like this I track it down sometimes. It is always either outright deception, journalistic failure, or a very convoluted calculation.
.
Juvenile murder rates, blacks commit murder at 700% the rate of whites, violent crime index is 500% higher:
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05262
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05261
.
The NPR story points to this for incarceration.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/State_Race.asp?state=&topic=State_Race&year=2001&percent=rate
.
The table is titled “Rate per 100,000 juveniles”, but the better title is “Rate per 100,000 juveniles OF THAT RACE”. If you change the measurement to their “Row %” or “Count” setting you find that absolute numbers of blacks and white in juvenile detention are about equal which reflects the rates at which they commit crime per capita.
.
Blacks are not getting thrown in jail at 5x the rate of whites for the same crimes. The justice system has sentencing guidelines. It may very well be that people who have a long rap sheet get thrown in jail more often and blacks may comprise a larger subset here as well.
.
This is not to say there are no disparities anywhere in the system. Blacks get the death penalty for the same crimes at a disproportionate rate. There’s a lot of theories that blacks get arrested more often because of white cop bias or their neighborhoods are more heavily patrolled. What isn’t possibly biased is counting murder victims and other racial violent crime stats are proportional to murder victims so unlikely to be a big factor.
.
It’s very complicated to get to the root cause, it’s not like skin pigment makes you violent. Poor people commit crime more often, etc. However I find that cultural dysfunction is on the banned discussion list. If we want a real conversation on this subject, the ban list needs to change.
MikeN,
I don’t see why Kaepernick’s unemployment seems to bother you. He is an entertainer. When entertainers exercise their rights in ways which offend many people in their audience, that will make it more difficult for them to succeed as an entertainer. There is nothing I see here that is surprising, or even unexpected. Offending a lot of your customers is usually unwise. Ask Mel Gibson. Or Tom Brady… a friend and Trump supporter who never says a political word to his uber-liberal fans in Massachusetts.
Tom Scharf,
” I find that cultural dysfunction is on the banned discussion list.”
.
Yes, and has been since Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed to cultural dysfunction as a large and growing problem. Progressives will shout down anyone who suggests cultural differences lead to different life outcomes. They will say you are blaming the victum.
SteveF,
Add the Dixie Chicks to your list.
SteveF, I didn’t say it bothers me. During this thread I came to realized his ‘speech’ is likely a cause of his unemployment, and not just that his skills are diminished.
“With Trump I do not see a need to respect the office of the president and thus can say he is pretty much a dumb a$$ tweeter -and speaker as well.”
Confusing the office of the president and Trump I see.
We can all knock the man, he gives plenty of ammunition.
I see that as separate to the office. Sorry that you do not.
As an aside thinking of the value of life, both that we give and that we take Trump represents a force of nature.
Alien to most of us he still has a wife, family, job and a determination to keep going through stuff I would have wilted at first up.
Amazed he is still going, cheering on his support of skepticism though I doubt he bothers to think about the issues like we do.BTW in a poll re NFL he got 46 likes to 47 dislikes percentage wise, Goodell 12% likes.
Funny thing is the real polls claim 38%.
Perhaps the polls poll the wrong people?
Footballers have every right to protest anything they dislike. Amazing that given that they have not, generally, bothered to use that right in the past and will not in future. Problem solved by only picking players who do not protest in future?
Or perhaps they should pay a fee to the club when they exercise their right to protest on the club’s time?
Yes, that nails it.
angech,
The players are employees, albeit employees with employment contracts. If the contracts say you can’t make political statements while carrying out your job, then you can’t. Nobody puts a gun to the heads of players when they sign contracts… this will ultimately boil down to contractual compliance when the NFL owners realise just how bad the whole episode is for P&L.
angech,
Sure the players can protest anything they dislike. But there may be consequences. Bad mouth your employer on Facebook or other social media sites and see what happens. Also, when they are in uniform on the field, things are different than when they are off the field on their own time. But even then, if their conduct is outrageous enough, they can be suspended for a few games or for a lifetime. See the NFL’s domestic violence policy, for example.
Let’s just make sure everyone remains consistent with their thinking on the NFL and Google’s firing of an employee who wrote an internal memo that he was fired for. If you think NFL players should be able to publicly protest during a game without consequences and also support Google’s decision to fire Damore it’s time to check your partisanship meter.
angech (Comment #165243)
I was not sufficiently clear in my remark, angech. I do not have any predisposition to respect a political office including the office of president of the US and thus feel free to judge office holders with no reservations or compunctions.
I also do not have any predispositions about what the singing of the National Anthem means, but would agree with Lucia that I would feel it disruptive to others not to stand when it is sung and would not use some other action during the singing to make a political statement.
One truly interested in educating the public on a political issue would in my mind want to make a written statement that includes sufficient details and avoids bringing emotions into the discussions.
Kaepernick, could in such a statement hardly avoid noting that most of the incidents of police shootings of black men, or at least those shootings receiving the most publicity, were in cities where police departments were administered by Democrats. That much the same Democrats can sympathize with the shooting victims and their defenders without taking blame is something that a Kaepernick would need to address. In Chicago, Democrat mayor Emanuel, kept the details of a police shooting of a black man under wraps until after his re-election. Of course, if a Kaepernick were to take such a course he would be violating the plantation politics practiced in big city politics and the MSM would soon lose interest in his cause.
This kind of stuff drives me crazy when you look it at it from a higher level.
Source: ‘Coach-2’ in federal complaint is Rick Pitino
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/20848092/louisville-cardinals-basketball-coach-rick-pitino-coach-2-federal-complaint-source
.
Louisville’s coach is getting fired for a conspiracy involving Adidas to direct $100K to a potential recruit. This was an FBI investigation. This is illegal and against the rules.
Why? That’s what drives me crazy.
It’s actually illegal to give mostly poor people and their family money. Who made up these rules? Corporations and college boosters can’t give players money. But the colleges can accept donations from these very same people and receive big money shoe contracts. Meanwhile you get fired or can’t play if any money goes to a player. This is a farce of epic proportions. Why isn’t someone suing the NCAA on this?
.
I have no doubt making the NCAA a free fire money zone will be bad for college sports but making it illegal for poor people to receive ANY additional money is unfair. In what other industry does this happen? Sorry Brad Pitt, but you only get to stay in the dorm and we can’t pay you except in free meals because you know, laws and stuff, and oh by the way people love your work. What we really need is a bunch of liberal academics to take charge of this atrocity and….oh wait.
It’s shocking that Rick Pitino gets fired for scandals faster than Lexington’s Calipari who has had two final fours erased from the books. Pitino has always had stuff going on that he was shocked to find out about.
TomScharf
I think they do periodically get sued for things. I don’t know the laws, but it would seem they are allowed to do an awful lot of things I view as unfair to those players who could attract money.
I think the NCAA rules are appalling.
Rick Pitino: “These allegations come as a complete shock to me. If true, I agree with the U.S. Attorney’s Office that these third-party schemes, initiated by a few bad actors, operated to commit a fraud on the impacted universities and their basketball programs, including the University of Louisville. Our fans and supporters deserve better, and I am committed to taking whatever steps are needed to ensure those responsible are held accountable.”
.
Pitino’s statement aside, I agree with Tom that I don’t understand what the Federal crime is. Certainly it’s a violation of NCAA rules to compensate players. (Although such rules seem to be violated fairly often.) I found the complaint, which says in part
So it seems that the Federal issue is not about the players receiving money from Adidas, but that the coaches solicited and received bribes for using their positions at the university. (And the university receives federal contracts/grants/etc.)
While it is fresh in my mind, I would like to allude to an uninformed statement by a generally good guy, Charles Barkley. He was on the Ruscillo sports show and got into talking about politics. Said if he had a chance to meet Trump, he would discuss DACA and the “dreamers” (an offensive term to me designed to deflect the responsibility of the parents for breaking the laws of the US and putting their children in harm’s way). He said the “Dreamers” were born in the US and that something should be done to take care of them. Of course, they were not born in the US because if they were born in the US, they would be US citizens and could not be deported.
There is so much controversy over things that are simply and easily proved wrong, but voters and much of the media are too lazy and too biased to look at the actual facts.
JD
Tom Scharf (Comment #165249): “It’s actually illegal to give mostly poor people and their family money.”
I don’t think that is the case. It is against NCAA rules, but not against the law. I don’t understand why the FBI is investigation this or what laws they think Pitino and Addidas broke.
.
lucia (Comment #165252): “I think the NCAA rules are appalling.”
I think the NCAA rules are mostly reasonable for student-athletes. What I find appalling is that major college sports have long since ceased to be about student-athletes.
.
Hypocrisy has a long tradition in the NCAA. John Wooden is regarded as practically a saint, but he won all those championships with the best players money could buy.
We are having a same sex marriage debate in Australia and our football codes are dressing up to get the accolades of fitting in with the choice about to be made.
One code got slammed for advertising support as pressuring people on their own private choices. The second code is having a US rap singer belt out a same sex song at the start of the grand final.
So many conflicts with my number one rule in life that everyone one is entitled to make their own choices in life against my white male 60 year+ life experiences and upbringing.
Easy choice in the end as it is other peoples business and does not affect me personally much or financially. This applies to both what football clubs and other adults choose to do.
–
What is interesting is that we have already had our black protests against various forms of racism by some of our athletes and it is still going on at a very slow level.
I doubt that it ever needs to be fully addressed in multicultural, one race majority, democratic societies. Everyone has their own view or tolerance on all sides and basically we go about our lives not interacting with people we do not wish to interact with except for sports players and policemen. All I know from my varied life experience is that all people are good most of the time and some are not and race has nothing to do with this.
If I was a black American football player and I was told I should not do something not illegal by someone outside my team I would do it as a protest against being told what to do.
If I had to do it every week I would get a little bit bored, I think.
It wouldn’t have been illegal to give them money if they had done it in the open and everyone filed the appropriate paperwork. The NCAA would have taken exception to that, however, so they did it surreptitiously.
I’m kind of interested how they managed to move six figures to players’ families without throwing money laundering flags in the banks. I can’t imagine Adidas and Nike are going to enjoy having financial auditors digging through their accounts transaction by transaction.
angech
“we have already had our black protests against various forms of racism by some of our athletes”
Are you under the impression that us backward Americans are just now experiencing our first protests by black athletes?
“If I was a black American football player and I was told I should not do something not illegal by someone outside my team I would do it as a protest against being told what to do.”
Yes….you’ve summarized what he whole kerfuffle is about. The protest is about the players feeling slighted. And they’re willing to insult a large portion of the US to make their point. They can do it but what does it say about their empathy for those that are insulted. They put their own hurt feelings ahead of the feelings of others. in other words their feelings outrank all others To me that comes off as a bit selfish.
Beyond that:
The protest is ineffectual. It changes no minds. In fact I think it probably is is detrimental to the supposed cause….the original cause.
Many of us feel the original cause was based on bogus assumptions…. and bogus blame. Dozens of essay’s have been penned about the interpretation of police statistics and the reality twisting of recent events. So I won’t rehash that. But almost all the issues involved occur in areas controlled by white and to a great extent black democrats.And yet the protests are clearly aimed at white privileged America…. and by extension Trump and republicans. When we they start at that point in the discussion it’s a problem
No one wants to strip their rights to express their grievances. Many of us object to the method and to some extent the the assumptions behind the grievance itself. And we have that right too. On the other hand I think sometimes these issues need to quit simmering and come to a boil to ultimately improve. So maybe, just maybe the outcome of this will be positive
I shouldn’t have used the term illegal, as in criminal. It’s against the rules of the NCAA. The FBI was involved because of the school’s employees were soliciting money and taking bribes.
.
However there wouldn’t be criminal behavior here if players could be compensated outside the system. If I’m getting a CS degree on a scholarship why would there be a rule that says I can’t do consulting jobs? External companies can fund scholarships and as far as I know can pay a potential CS grad as much extra money as they like.
.
The people involved need to be punished as per the rules, I just think the rules need changed. It’s not justifiable. I see it like a collusion between all tech companies to pay CS people $10K / year. A college sports monopoly that makes huge amounts of money is engaged in flagrant anti-competitive behavior and their employees are forced to literally live in poverty, even when people are willing to endorse them. It’s insanely unfair.
.
The students are compensated with a scholarship, that’s something but it doesn’t match their value for high profile players at successful programs. It’s just shameful to see the NCAA preaching about educational and moral values to players and with the other hand greedily extracting maximum value from their sports enterprises.
.
Alabama’s football coach is paid $6.9M each season. Meanwhile last year one Alabama football player was suspended for the first four games of the 2016 season for selling multiple pieces of school issued equipment and participation awards valued at $820. Alabama had $82M of football revenue and $46M in profit.
.
9 football players have been indefinitely suspended from UF’s team for credit card fraud. UF’s coach makes $3.4M each season. UF had $74M in football revenue, $51M of profit.
.
Five Ohio State players including their QB in 2010 sold signed memorabilia to a tattoo shop owner. The resulting “scandal” brought down the coach (Tressel) in a cover up and he was fined $250K. Tressel received $4.6M via contracts with Nike. Ohio State spends $800K in legal fees on the case. All this over signed memorabilia to a tattoo shop.
.
FSU – “Free Shoes University”. Agents brings players to mall and buys them $6K worth of merchandise. FSU vacates 12 wins for the season and coach eventually forced to retire.
.
College football teams have about 85 players. Do the math. I don’t excuse criminal behavior where it happened but most of this isn’t even criminal. This system is psychotic.
Even the Olympics has given up on the ridiculous amateur/pro dichotomy which cost Jim Thorpe his Olympic medals for having played semi-pro baseball. Those medals were restored posthumously in 1982. It’s long past time that the NCAA moves into the twentieth century and stops taking advantage of college sports players.
You want to pay the football and basketball players….fine. But it will come at the expense of the other sports. I don’t feel sorry at all for the players. They’re doing fine and they have perks the rest of the students don’t have.
chuckrr,
My reaction to the thought that paying players in revenue sports will hurt other sports is “shrug”.
I’m not big into wealth transfer in the Federal Tax Code and I’m equally not big into it in college sports.
Tom Scharf: “The students are compensated with a scholarship, that’s something but it doesn’t match their value for high profile players at successful programs.”
…
The problem with this idea is that it inevitably leads to a pay differential on teams. Joey Bosa, formerly of Ohio State may have been worth $2,000,000 per year for his last 2 years at OSU, but the 3rd string defensive end at that time may have been worth only $5,000 per year. All of the players at OSU, when figuring their scholarships and living expenses get paid roughly $200,000 to $250,000 for 4 or 5 years of work. If they are responsible that education can be leveraged into much more money. Also, at OSU, you make many valuable connections. So, the majority of OSU football players do well under the current system. Of course, the athletes in the other roughly 34 sports that are supported by football (and maybe to some extent by basketball) do very well.
….
If you go beyond the very top tier (Alabama, OSU, USC & a few others), those schools (Indiana, Bowling Green, Fresno State et cet.,) would be almost completely shut-out because they wouldn’t be able to pay top money. As it is now, some non top tier schools can occasionally, through good coaching, compete with top tier schools. If players are paid, the lower 75% will be out of luck — which I believe is the goal of many of the people who support this concept.
JD
Lucia
It doesn’t mater to me much either. My only point is that there will be consequences, and many other unforeseen consequences too. Also it’s not going to eliminate graft , bribery and kickbacks either. There’s no system that eliminates that. 99% of college athletes are not ever going to be professionals so in exchange for their ability to contribute on the playing field they get the opportunity to get a free education and all kinds of contacts as well. To me that’s enough. is it more free market and capitalistic? Sure Does it correct anything.? The devils in the details. Are you going to pay all the players the same or pay the individuals on their worth? Are you going to pay all players in all divisions and all schools? Countless questions
chuckrr,
I’m with lucia. I could care less if big time college athletics existed at all. If allowing players to be compensated for their true value to their team causes that to happen, I’d probably celebrate. The source of the money should be the pro leagues, specifically the NBA and the NFL. They’re getting a free ride for a farm system now. They should have to pay for it.
Dale, I don’t think Adidas checks for 100k would trigger money laundering flags. transactions over 10k get reported by banks, and then the government has to determine which are relevant.
Dewitt
The money for big time college sports comes from ticket sales and TV revenue. I’m sure the NFL would love a piece of that action. But again I don’t care much either. I just think that it’s not much of a problem the way it is.
JD,
There is currently a pay deferential between garbage men and lawyers but nobody wants to even out pay because garbage men are terrible lawyers. An unbalanced system of pay (i.e. college sports free agency) will have plenty of drawbacks but that doesn’t justify keeping people in poverty who generate lots of income for colleges. There is a vast area of compromise between poverty and free agency such as profitable schools paying them $50K, $100K, whatever. Certainly at less lucrative schools or lower end players you will just get a scholarship or less.
.
I just don’t see the answer here as keeping already poor people in poverty for programs that net $50M a year. There has got to be a better answer than the silly results we are seeing now. Players can leave early and get into the NFL is they are high profile enough but it is rare that people don;t spend at least a couple years in college for football.
.
I like the system the way it is as a college football fan, but I have to look away when the finances are handled the way they are.
chuckrr,
Apparently you didn’t read what I wrote. The NBA and the NFL are already getting a free ride. They don’t have to spend a dime on player development. So that’s not the way the money would flow. Colleges would get money from the NFL and the NBA’s revenues, not the other way around.
Tom Scharf (Comment #165269): “I just don’t see the answer here as keeping already poor people in poverty for programs that net $50M a year. There has got to be a better answer than the silly results we are seeing now. Players can leave early and get into the NFL is they are high profile enough but it is rare that people don;t spend at least a couple years in college for football.”
Players have to be out of high school for three years before they can sign with the NFL.
What we have now is crazy. I think that the answer is things like the Pacific Pro League. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18449983/new-pacific-pro-football-league-debut-summer-2018
Let players who want to be paid or who are just interesting in trying to be pros go to such leagues instead of college. And return college sports to student athletes, with rules suitable to such.
Dewitt
That’s fine with me. But it sounds terribly complicated. Leaving aside the fact that big time college sports actually make money for the schools, how much do the leagues pay and to whom? Just athletes at the big schools where they get all their talent? I’d rather see them spend some of that dough on their stadiums. But that ship has sailed too
Another question …. Don’t most large bushiness use colleges as their feeder program? How much do those businesses reimburse the colleges? I know they invest in some ways,sometimes. Like when they pay an employee to further their education. But how much? And is it enough?
Tom Scharf: ” There is a vast area of compromise between poverty and free agency such as profitable schools paying them $50K, $100K, whatever.”
….
Going to school on an OSU football scholarship and living in Columbus is not, in the vast majority of incidences, living in poverty. You like many people believe that college football is generally profitable. It is not. Some top tier schools make a good amount of money on football, but it is generally plowed into non-revenue sports.
****
Here is a link to a Forbes article on college football. https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/the-20-most-profitable-college-football-teams-122215/ Texas football was the most profitable, making $92,000,000. Ohio State was the 10th most profitable, making $50,000,000. I would observe that $50,000,000 profit for Ohio State football is pennies compared to its influence and interest in Ohio and in many instances, nationwide.
******
Forbes summarizes it this way: “But instead of receiving payment for their talents right now football and men’s basketball players see the revenue they produce spent on scholarships for other athletes, those in sports where the market would never pay for them to exist. So every other sport on a college campus, whether it’s men’s and women’s tennis or swimming or soccer, exists thanks to the money produced by football and men’s basketball.
The end result is that most college athletic departments either break even or lose money. The profits from football and men’s basketball are eaten up in scholarship costs for sports that lost vast sums of money. ” — I don’t see this as such a terrible or scandalous result.
*****
Your plan would dry up scholarships for the mid-level to lower level college football players, who need it the most. (Not being able to compete at all, scholarships at approximately 60-80 schools would just go away) In terms of finances for the athletes, viewed on a broad level, there is nothing particularly wrong with today’s college football. I have read of occasional stories of poor students having very little while on scholarship. I would support giving them some sort of stipend, based on poverty, while in school. What you are proposing would just make the rich (the very talented players who will make gads of money in the NFL) richer and harm those players who need the scholarships the most.
In any event, there are few, if any, OSU football players coming from poor families who are doing worse at OSU than they would be doing at home.
JD
SEC gets about $55 million a year from CBS. This is by far the best deal in sports broadcasting, and will jump to over $500 million and maybe a billion when the deal is up for renewal. That is $50 million per school.
MikeN ” SEC gets about $55 million a year from CBS.”
….
The gross doesn’t matter. It is the profit and where it goes that matters. Be curious about what a mid-level SEC team, such as Mississippi State makes in profit (if there is one) and where it goes.
JD
I dont’ see it as a positive result either. I also don’t see it as a reason why those whose sports are money makers should not make money so that money can be sent to those who play at sports that don’t make money.
Nothing against sports. But I don’t see why those in the non-revenue sports should have their hobby subsidized by others– especially not to the tune of the hobby sports guys getting their college educations free paid for on the backs of others.
Lucia
I can’t argue against your reasoning here. Although Iv’e tried. Probably more because I admire tradition. Funny because I played small college basketball. No scholarships. No subsidies from big college sports. And we did alright.
Lucia: “I dont’ see it as a positive result either. I also don’t see it as a reason why those whose sports are money makers should not make money so that money can be sent to those who play at sports that don’t make money.
Nothing against sports. But I don’t see why those in the non-revenue sports should have their hobby subsidized by others– especially not to the tune of the hobby sports guys getting their college educations free paid for on the backs of others.”
….
My first disagreement with this argument is that it assumes that without the structure we have today that Division I colleges will have a healthy enough football system so that the top colleges will be able to make merit based payments. As I said upthread, I don’t think most of the college football teams can compete at all against top tier teams if the top tier teams can make merit based payments. There may be 25 teams that in the current set up could make merit based payments, but shortly after they would start, 75% of the programs would just fold. I don’t think there would be much interest in just 25 teams.
Also, even the NFL has draft rules to equalize talent. With college football teams making merit based payments, in anything similar to the current setup, there would be no basic controls on all of the top talent going to the top schools for top money. The alternative would be some sort of development league, which I don’t think would draw many fans.
….
My second disagreement is labeling the non-revenue athletes as “hobbyists.” Among the “hobbyists” at OSU (I refer to OSU mainly because I am familiar with it) is Kyle Snyder the world, and Olympic champion in heavyweight wrestling, who won his titles at the youngest age of any wrestler. Also, OSU has the mens national championship Volleyball team, which undoubtedly has several Olympians on it. It also has the men’s runnerup lacrosse team, which had 3 players drafted in the top six for pro lacrosse for the first time in history. The women’s synchronized swimming team won the national championship also.
I can discuss the golf team, which at this time is not nationally prominent. I played junior tournament golf (won several big city tournaments, but no state tournaments) and I was not good enough to make any college golf teams. The players at OSU are very good and work very hard, but, so far, they are not world class in the brutally competitive world of golf. I wouldn’t call them hobbyists.
….
Third, even many very highly paid athletes are motivated by more than money, so I disagree with your viewpoint which focuses solely on money. For instance, even though the Ryder Cup is a huge event, the players are not paid. (Personally, I don’t know why) Notwithstanding that pro golfers work very hard and are honored to be on the Ryder Cup. (as well as the lesser President’s Cup) See the Youtube video (10 second to 1:03) link https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ryder+Cup+2016+Highlights&&view=detail&mid=385C30DE2CFC1351B5C0385C30DE2CFC1351B5C0&FORM=VRDGAR ) and how excited Rory McIllroy and Patrick Reed get to be in playing for their country and no money. Much the same team loyalty is what substantially contributes to the popularity of college football.
JD
JD,
My not seeing why football should subsidize sports isn’t really an argument at all. But if it was one, it’s more based on the idea that I don’t think it matters if sports at schools collapse or survive. Either outcome is fine with me.
I consider Olympic sports people hobbiests too. I don’t see any reason why football players should subsidize them. If other people want to subsidize him or other wrestlers directly, that would be fine.
I consider all those sports people hobbiests. Same with chess, national champions in bridge, poker and so on.
Sure. But that’s not an argument in favor of forcing football players money to be sent to support the wrestlers, golfers, swimmers and so on. Those wrestlers are presumably motivated by something other than money. Let them continue to wrestle based on their non-monetary motivation.
lucia (Comment #165276): “I also don’t see it as a reason why those whose sports are money makers should not make money so that money can be sent to those who play at sports that don’t make money.”
Lucia’s comment implicitly assumes that the purpose of college sports is identical to pro sports, with the only difference being who owns the teams. I don’t believe that should be the case. Neither does the NCAA. However, the fact is that increasingly men’s football and basketball are indistinguishable from the pros, except for players not being paid. The NCAA refuses to come to grips with that. The incoherence between what is so and what the NCAA pretends to be so will have to be resolved, one way or another.
.
lucia: “I don’t see why those in the non-revenue sports should have their hobby subsidized by others– especially not to the tune of the hobby sports guys getting their college educations free paid for on the backs of others.”
Well, even Division Three does that, as do many universities in Canada and, for that matter, high schools. I think the justification is that it is part of college life, which it is at many places.
JD objects to the term “hobby”. Sports are rather more than a hobby, but I can’t think of a better term than for what lucia seems to be saying. My objection is to the fact that at the top levels in some sports it is not a hobby, even using an expansive definition of hobby.
Mike M.,
Exactly. Which makes it extremely difficult for those involved to play football or basketball at a major college and still get a real education. Some do manage it. A lot don’t.
This situation is very similar to the Olympics when they were still trying to keep the distinction between amateur and professional athletes. The athletes from the countries behind the Iron Curtain were effectively professionals. It was a total farce. Eventually this was recognized and the distinction was dropped. Something similar will happen in the NCAA.
I have to agree with Lucia… There doesn’t seem to be any good reason for athletes in one sport to effectively pay for the education of athletes in other sports. If a sport has no possibility of earning its practitioners a living, then it is a hobby, or maybe an exercise plan. Which is what my golf (10 hdcp) is. I have a few times played with young men who aspire to make a living at it. Aside from being better than scratch players, most have a sponsor…. so it is not a hobby.
MikeM
That’s not what I assume. I assume the purpose of college sports is is entirely different from pro sports.
I think the purpose of college sports is to provide student’s who attend recreational choices. I think school theaters that bring in opera, plays, rock concerts share the same purpose. So do some student clubs like ballroom dance.
I have no objection to some of these recreational endeavors being able to pay for itself by charging for people to watch or getting television to pay for airing it. I just don’t see any good reason why football should pay for fencing. I would note that it probably doesn’t pay for ballroom dance unless, possibly, those students are engaged in competitive dance rather than social dance. But I see both as recreation. Some people enjoy competing; that doesn’t make it any less a recreation.
MikeM
All sorts of hobbies stop being hobbies at top levels. That’s because those who enjoy the hobby either also enjoy seeing it practiced at the top level or buy products that the top level hobbiests produce. This goes for chess which has competitions, knitting where those who design and knit sell books, music and theater where top level hobbiests end up performing for pay and ballroom dance where top competitors vie to become world champ with money prices. Sports of the sort we see at college campuses is no different.
That one can make money if they achieve the top level of their hobby doesn’t make engaging something at an amateur level “not a hobby”.
For some reason sports enthusiasts want to see sports as somehow different. But it’s not really.
DeWitt
To the extent that it is not a hobby, it doesn’t belong at universities.
If schools actually provided degrees in “playing football and earning a living at football”, it could be an academic subject. Then part of playing could be “education”. I suspect no one is going to offer such a degree.
Lucia: ” I assume the purpose of college sports is is entirely different from pro sports.
I think the purpose of college sports is to provide student’s who attend recreational choices.”
….
Was probably the original intent. However, not true now. Football, wrestling and volleyball at the elite level are highly demanding and not recreational nor intended to be recreational. (Some people enjoy highly competitive activities, which of course includes elite athletes. However, I believe there is a big distinction between Tiger Woods enjoying competing at the highest level and a once a week golfer enjoying golf.)
By accident what has evolved is a hybrid system (with many faults and hypocrisy intertwined in the system) where large numbers of people enjoy the camaraderie and competition of big time college football. The fact that some of the stars are underpaid and some of the lesser players are overpaid with scholarships (for essentially providing additional games for the stars to play in) doesn’t bother me. Virtually all human activity is suffused with flaws and hypocrisy. On balance, I am happy to watch a game like Washington St. v. USC last night, where the underdog was competitive and actually won. If players receive merit pay there will be no Washington States playing football and ultimately the current system will collapse, which is fine with Lucia. However, I understand that most of the people seeking higher pay for athletes assume that the system can absorb merit pay and continue on with roughly the same number of colleges taking part. I don’t think this is feasible. For instance, Ohio State football gives people from all walks of life and backgrounds an interest they share and enjoy. I believe this is beneficial notwithstanding the flaws of both college football and Ohio State football.
…..
Lucia: “that’s not an argument in favor of forcing football players money to be sent to support the wrestlers, golfers, swimmers and so on.” I don’t agree with this argument. A University is an entity that can offer the services and terms and conditions that it wishes to. If it thinks that elite athletes, competition and teamwork are things that benefit the University, it is the choice of the University to offer non-profitmaking sports. A person that doesn’t wish to go to such a university has many choices of where to be educated or whether to go to school at all. A university can’t compel anyone to come.
….
Lucia ” Some people enjoy competing; that doesn’t make it any less a recreation.” I totally disagree with this. Quite often work and thinking are done at the highest level for fun. For instance, Feynman stated: “Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn’t matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best.” What he did was recreational, but highly useful. Jack Nicklaus loved to compete. Just because he enjoyed ferocious competition doesn’t detract from his work, discipline, courage and imagination. Society and colleges should encourage this kind of “recreation.” Ohio State has benefited greatly by having been associated with Nicklaus. It is a wholly different pursuit than playing golf once a week or knitting 4 sweaters per year.
….
Having said all of the above, I agree that college basketball is a cesspool and if it goes away it is no big deal to me. Because the teams are so small and one or two players can make such a big difference, the temptation to cheat is too large. Also, there is an AAU system where younger players can compete and improve their skills.
JD
JD Ohio,
Why do you think merit pay is the only option? Paying college athletes as if they were pros, i.e. a few players get most of the money, is a truly awful idea. It amounts to a straw man argument. I see no reason whatsoever to pay any college athlete more than any other college athlete in that sport. They should be paid a reasonable salary based on the number of hours that are devoted to the sport.
If you’re not going to pay college sport players, then the NCAA needs to drastically restrict the number of hours per week devoted to any college sport so that an athletic scholarship actually has something to do with learning.
JD Ohio
That the elite level is highly demanding doesn’t make it “not recreational”. It only means some people like their recreation to be demanding.
Yes. And these people are willing to pay for that camarderie which is created by the revinue sports like football. I see no reason why the money they pay ought to go to programs like wrestling that do not create this camaraderie.
I’m not sure whether it’s feasible or not. But as you are aware, I don’t really care if it is.
The can. That they can doesn’t mean it’s a good wise or just policy.
WRT to Feinman: If he had not been paid and continued to do physics, then it would have been his hobby. In fact, there are people who do some astronomy for a hobby and so on. Lots of people love their jobs and would try to do them as a hobby. But that doesn’t turn hobbies into “not hobbies”.
Let me add that the stupid restrictions on college student athletes hiring agents and signing legitimate endorsement contracts would go away as well. That would mean that some athletes could make more money than others, but it wouldn’t be tied to the college and university athletic departments, who would not be allowed to act as agents.
DeWitt,
I agree student athletes should be able to be paid for endorsements. That wouldn’t go through the college.
Other students are allowed to be paid for endorsements. Granted, they are unlikely to be offerred any such thing, but it should be allowed.
Being in commercials: other students are allowed.
I knew a guy in college who was a male model. He paid tuition from that. He wasn’t a college athlete, so: allowed. Why shouldn’t the kicker from Ohio state model? I don’t see why not.
You know… I’m starting to think entrepreneurally….
Let’s say 12 guys on the OHSU football team made a calendar of themselves in various attractive poses and sold it as “Guys of OHSU”. It sells. They split the proceeds 12 ways.
Is this allowed? Or not? I think it should be allowed. It’s not going through the school. It would be allowed if they were 12 hot guys who weren’t on the football team. Fair is fair: Should be allowed.
lucia: “Is this allowed? ”
I think it is not allowed, since it would effectively legalize rich boosters giving the players as much money as the boosters like. “OK, guys, I can’t just give you $10K each so here is what we’ll do. Make a calendar, print a thousand copies, and sell them for $120 each. I guarantee they will sell out overnight.”
MikeM,
Yes. Hypothetically, it would create a mechanism where someone could buy up all the calendars to get money to the players.
That said: the same happens if the players take many sorts of jobs. Letting them take a job as an engineering intern– as quite a few students do– could hypothetically let a rich booster give them a cush-job. Taking a job painting houses? Take a job as a exotic male dancer for the Chip and Dales? Same risk.
Every single money making venture they could possibly try has the risk some rich patron would figure out a way to slip them money while disguising it as proceeds of the venture or job.
That actual students who happen to play college sports are barred for actual honest to goodness employment opportunities that all other student can take is just not right.
It appears that the NCAA and college sports in general provides revenues for student-athletes with major men’s sports providing most of the revenue. I would think that the primary question to be asked then is whether colleges should spend the portion of their efforts on student-athletes as they do or should their mission be more proportionately in the realm of academics. Also for consideration is the time, effort and money that is spent at the pre-college level preparing the hope-to-be student-athletes for the college level and with the hopes in most case of obtaining scholarships.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/where-does-money-go
http://smartycents.com/articles/college-football-revenue/
I think the current approach at the college and pre-college levels is more or less a facade that keeps the academics mixed with the student-athlete activities without the student-athlete being treated as merely an athlete and losing identification with a particular college (university) and all its supporters.
If the student-athlete is treated and paid as an athlete sans the student label it would became more difficult for the college to justify their efforts in an activity further divorced from academics. Private schools should be allowed to do whatever they want in these activities, but public schools that are supported by tax-payer dollars are a different story.
The student-athlete’s participation in sports is sometimes justified for the life’s lesson that can be learned in those endeavors. As a former student-athlete I feel that important life’s lessons can be learned in participation in competitive sports, but that those lessons can be learned equally as well in more academically related activities.
First…The colleges see the athletic programs as one one entity. with the sports that don’t generate positive revenue as being important to the whole. You may not agree with that business model but that’s their right. Schools can cut programs if they want, and sometimes they do.
Second…A huge factor in any change to the status quo is Title 9 legislation. The current status has been lawyered and manipulated to be in compliance. It’s impossible to predict how that plays out If you start cutting funding for non revenue sports. What’s not impossible to predict is the huge number of lawsuits.
Kennth
A good percentage of athletes go to college just to play sports. Only a tiny percentage have any future in professional sports. But there’s also a good percentage that also get an education that leads to future employment. But these issues are pretty much pervasive throughout college academics and athletics. One only need to look at some of the classes and majors to see this…Alien sex, Arguing with judge Judy, What if Harry Potter was real, The sociology of Myley Cyrus and on and on.
DeWittP :”Why do you think merit pay is the only option? Paying college athletes as if they were pros, i.e. a few players get most of the money, is a truly awful idea. It amounts to a straw man argument. I see no reason whatsoever to pay any college athlete more than any other college athlete in that sport. They should be paid a reasonable salary based on the number of hours that are devoted to the sport.”
….
I focused on merit pay because the loudest complaints I hear are about the highly talented, very successful college players that don’t get paid while the University makes money off them. (For instance, their jersey number) As a matter of equity, I see no solution to the problem. On the other hand, if you are truly highly talented, you are going to cash out big time in pro sports, and the money won’t be all that significant in the long term any way.
The problem with salaries is all the federal and state regulation of employees. Taxes, workers comp, unemployment, parental leave, pensions et cet. It would be no big deal for the bigger schools to pay an extra $50,000 per student for football players. Then again, the next issue would be the non-football athletes and Title IX. Coaches would lose control over their players and the headaches complying with the various regulations would be extremely burdensome. Here is a link to a panel that discusses these issues with most of the panelists supporting paying the players. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ohio+state+panel+on+paying+athletes+2016&&view=detail&mid=94B40DB50CF770AC43BC94B40DB50CF770AC43BC&FORM=VRDGAR
My bottom line is that I like watching college football as do many others. A decent number of players do well by it. It has many flaws, but I am willing to live with the flaws. The one mistake made by many is the assumption that college athletics as a whole is bringing in scads of money and that players, as a whole, are being treated like paupers. Generally, college athletics is not that profitable and any solutions to the problem should reflect that reality.
JD
JD Ohio,
As I said, the alternative is to reduce the number of hours per week. Every college sport other than football and basketball is limited to 20 hours/week during the season by the NCAA. That exemption should be eliminated whether players are paid or not.
Spending forty+ hours/week playing and practicing doesn’t leave either time or energy for education but there’s not even scholarship extension for compensation. The players are, to all intents and purposes, employees during the season at least, but without any legal protection that goes with being an employee. Search on ‘major college football hours per week’ if you want to see citations.
It turns out that college baseball players spend more time on their sport than football and basketball players.
Then there’s the whole issue of ‘paper classes’ for college athletes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/unc-fake-class-scandal-details-2014-10
I seriously doubt that UNC is the only place that does this. An athletic scholarship that only gives you a degree on paper at best rather than a real education is worthless unless you actually get to the pros.
JD,
The last school on earth that would be hurt by allowing players to be paid would be OSU of course. The high end schools already get all the very best players based on reputation and as a result of a player’s assessment of the best path to the NFL. Allowing them to be paid would hardly change the current pecking order.
.
If we wanted to go total socialist in college football we could allow a college draft out of high school for all Div 1 schools. My guess is the howling out of Columbus for this new arrangement could be heard in China.
.
There is some merit to distributing (some) income for all sports, but I would suffice it to say that if it were left to the players to voluntarily donate their stipends to the swimming and badminton team that those teams would likely suffer. It’s not obvious to me why the swimming team is more deserving of surplus revenue than the robot team based soley on jockness.
.
All of these arguments are worth debating, what I think is beyond the pale is the NCAA not allowing OTHERS to independently pay a player for whatever reasons they desire. How about player families having enough money to actually attend the games? Effing against the rules. It is psychotic.
.
And the absolute worst example of outright financial rape and plunder is schools selling football jerseys with players names on them and giving ZERO back to the player. Unbelievable. This embarrassment is being rectified by forcing teams to sell jerseys without names. The fans lose, the players lose, hooray for justice! How about just giving them some royalties!
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/inside-college-football-the-big-deal-ohio-state-lawsuit-alabama-revelations/
.
One calculation of an OSU football player’s value is $363K annually. I’m sure the details of this measurement are debatable but if I’m the comptroller of the academic department I just love the NCAA and their draconian rules.
http://www.businessinsider.com/college-football-player-value-2015-9
.
I’d be more than happy to compare the living arrangements between players and coaches/assistants for a poverty index assessment, although athletic dorms are pretty much palaces at most high profile schools now. The current rule set would never be enacted from scratch today, it is a result of a legacy before it became a big time business. Once the media decides this is a subject they want to “flood the zone” over, it will be a field day (ha ha) for outrage.
JD,
USC vs WSU was a good game. I just want to fix the system without breaking the good parts somehow. The people I feel sorry for are NFL caliber players who get career ending injuries in college and those just below pro level who spend their most lucrative career years in college and never get compensated fairly. That type of compensation could pay for other family members to go to college. Perhaps money can be put in a trust for them after they leave college to try to maintain the integrity of what we have today.
as someone from the UK & after reading most (not all) comments above, my view on the guys/gals not standing for the flag/anthem is they should have stayed in the changing rooms if they wanted to make a protest.
to come out on the field & make their protest in full view just asks for kickback about not respecting the flag/USA.
My opinion only.
Tom Scharf,
And sometimes I know people will consider this to be of some great $$ “value” to students as if it is the equivalent of pay. Of course it is a nice thing. But huge numbers of people and all financially prudent ones would rather have income in $$ and live in some place more modest. Financial advisers would recommend it– save the money for the future, to build your own net worth and/ or to support your family and so on. So the fact that the place is a palace that someone might compare favorably to some high priced apartment doesn’t mean the player is really getting a value equal to that apartment. Because if they got it in money they could spend it on what they value.
Everyone knows the difference between the “cost” of an object and it’s “value” to them when they are given a crappy present. (But it’s the thought that counts…. 🙂 )
dougieh
That’s what one of the teams did after Trump tweeted and made comments in front of his crowd. Players got criticized for doing just that too.
Tom S: “The last school on earth that would be hurt by allowing players to be paid would be OSU of course.”
….
Of course, that is very true. It would be pennies for OSU. This issue is whether much of their competition (Indiana or UNLV, for instance) could afford it. If OSU is in a system where it is functionally allowed to pay more to its football players, the programs of lesser football schools will wither away quickly. The harm to OSU if most other programs die is that OSU (and Alabama and USC) will not have enough schools to play.
JD
Tom S: “The people I feel sorry for are NFL caliber players who get career ending injuries in college and those just below pro level who spend their most lucrative career years in college and never get compensated fairly. That type of compensation could pay for other family members to go to college. Perhaps money can be put in a trust for them after they leave college to try to maintain the integrity of what we have today.”
….
I pretty much agree with these sentiments. What I would suggest is giving football players an extra 2-4 years of scholarships if they maintain their eligibility. It is extremely difficult to play football and study, and if after their playing days are done, players want or need to add to their education, I think this would be fair. Probably be pretty expensive (but most probably not prohibitively so) because whatever football players would get other athletes would probably be entitled to the same thing. (Because of the especially high risk of injury to football players, I would give them more years than others, but my opinion means little to those who would make the decision.)
JD
Tom S: Re: Ohio State/Spielman lawsuit
…..
I agree with Spielman and others here. The university, for sure, should lose the rights to the images of former players once they graduate. Of course, many of the players whose images are being used now, like Spielman, did very well in pro football and don’t really need the money. This lawsuit would do little to help those players who would need the help the most.
JD
JD
It’s funny..It’s never the third string right guard involved in these lawsuits. It’s always the 1%rs. What would Bernie say? If hypocrisy had a mother, father and stepchild his name would be NCAA. Not that I have any answers. I kind of agree with you. It’s the system we’ve got and any other will be just as bad
Chuckrr
“On the other hand I think sometimes these issues need to quit simmering and come to a boil to ultimately improve. So maybe, just maybe the outcome of this will be positive”
Very true words.
Including the maybe.
SouthPark put it poignantly (weirdly for them) by stating that empathy is sometimes impossible unless you actually own the shoes you live in.
I’m not black, I feel some pain for the plight of the minority’s who are. On the other hand the best way to get on with this business of living is to stop complaining and start doing. Works just as well for white supremacists and latino’s and anyone else who is or feels victimised.
First pain, then numbness then acceptance or something like that.
I see HRC said she wanted to “put politics aside” and attacked the NRA within 12 hours of the US’s worst massacre. Maybe she should stay off twitter too.
South Park last week was classic, a parody on 23andMe DNA testing…”I’m 21% victim!”.
JD Ohio
I’m pretty sure needing the money is irrelevant to the legal principle about whether schools can own players likeness in perpetuity. I don’t think it’s very important to the ethical issue either. The ethical question is: is it ok for a powerful bodies (schools/NCAA) to seize assets that rightfully belong to a person that has less power (student)? Especially when the powerful bodies use cartel like agreements between each other to reduce possible choices by the less powerful? (Students can’t really shop around for a school that agrees to better terms because the NCAA dictates terms.)
I presume the legal question would relate to contract of some sort. I don’t know contract law.
I think the answer is no. That the student might later make money still makes them in a less powerful situation when entering any agreements about publicity rights involving their images.
Of course it will be players who do well in popular sports whose likeness makes money. They are the ones the fans are enthused about and whose likenesses make products appealing to those who pay money for them.
Latest court rulings on NCAA are split:
Supreme Court rejects NCAA appeal of antitrust ruling
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/17703790/supreme-court-rejects-ncaa-appeal-antitrust-ruling
“The effect of the high court action is to leave the NCAA vulnerable to more legal challenges that are working their way through the courts, but it also gives the association time to make changes to blunt those possible threats.”
“The NCAA was found guilty of illegal price-fixing in two courts, and the Supreme Court is allowing those rulings to stand,” Huma said. “This makes clear that the NCAA is not above the law and that college athletes deserve equal protection under the law.”
.
The NCAA agreed to send a bunch of players about $6,000 in the settlement. They have ruled the NCAA is a cartel and subject to anti-trust laws, but the Supreme court not hearing the case was a victory for the NCAA (fear of court ordered pay to play). Next up is Kessler case. This lawyer forced free agency on the NFL.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/02/07/ncaa-settlement-on-past-cost-of-attendance-stipends-is-not-nearly-enough-sports-lawyer-jeffrey-kessler
.
If you view the athletic financial exploitation by the NCAA through a racial lens this could well go nuclear using social pressure. I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t already. I suppose this is a wedge issue for the left as it pits academia vs race relations so the forces aren’t properly aligned. The social science departments are too busy naval gazing to look across campus, and I think there is endless resentment of athletics by the rest of academia. I think it would be wise for the NCAA to fix this before the court imposes the fix for them.
From Scharf Wapo Link: “If he and his clients win in court, Kessler reiterated Tuesday, no school will be forced to pay its football and basketball players. Schools would have the option to offer money to prized recruits, which Kessler contends would pave the way for a more equitable distribution of the billions of dollars generated at the top levels of college football and basketball.
“The NCAA’s position is they will fight to the death because if [Alabama football coach] Nick Saban had to give back a few million dollars out of his $9 million contract so some impoverished kids could get a little bit more of the financial benefits out of the millions of dollars they generate, the world of college football and basketball would collapse as we know it? It’s ridiculous,†Kessler said.”
….
Totally stupid and disingenuous quote from the plaintiff’s lawyer. As I have been pointing out before, the bigger schools can easily pay the players. The issue is whether there would be enough schools left after the weaker ones are killed off by the payments made by the more wealthy schools for there to be Division I college football. I would note that the article is one-sided and doesn’t quote from the NCAA or from NCAA briefs. Essentially, the Wapo gives an advocate his chance to spin the story, and doesn’t cover the rest of the story. Sort of what you expect from the Wapo and the NY Times.
JD
The link below is a good read for those posters like, I think, Harold W who wondered how the NCAA rule violations became a federal crime. I think that process whereby the feds have found ways of getting involved is worrying.
https://mises.org/blog/ncaa-violations-are-now-federal-crimes
Kenneth,
It’s another high profile PR stunt by those thugs at the FBI. I’m reminded of the prosecution of Martha Stewart for lying to a federal agent about something that wasn’t a crime. She did not engage in insider trading or they would have prosecuted her for that. But they didn’t want to come up empty on something that high profile so they trumped up the lying charge. The sad part is the jury bought it.
Kenneth,
Thanks for that article. Just as the carrot of federal largesse is followed by the stick of regulation (else the money stops flowing), it seems that expansion of police oversight is another inevitable consequence of federal aggrandizement.
NYT: How the N.C.A.A. Cheats Student Athletes
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/opinion/how-the-ncaa-cheats-student-athletes.html
.
“Lest you think I exaggerate, look up the case of the two athletes at the University of Iowa who started a T-shirt screening business and were threatened with ineligibility by the N.C.A.A. because their website mentioned that they met because they were both — brace yourself — swimmers. Or the more recent case of a cross-country runner at Texas A&M who was threatened with ineligibility for posting a YouTube video about a water bottle company he started.”
.
Clearly universities don’t want their athletes promoting the local strip club in their name so there are limits to what should be allowed, but the strait jacket is on with suffocating tightness currently.
If memory serves, and it may not, I remember the same arguments being made about how the rich, big city teams (now top college teams) would get all the best players when baseball players were trying to be able to control their own destinies, i.e. gain free agency. That is, the NY Yankees would win the World Series every year.
The NYY’s do have about a 3x advantage in salaries over the least funded teams. MLB runs kind of a hybrid with some profit sharing. A salary cap like the NFL is the best for parity and fans I think, but pure free agency is best for the players.
.
A comedian made fun of free agency in the NFL and said what fans are basically cheering for is their city’s uniforms playing another city’s uniforms. Kind of true. Free agency does lose the long term character of a team when players change so often.
In the latest spasm of political correctness gone wild, the Michigan State president issued a statement after a “noose” was found at a dorm. The noose ended up being shoelaces accidentally dropped by a student, ha ha. Probably best to allow the Office of Institutional Equity to complete their preliminary investigation before notifying the president.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/msu-noose-shoelace-student/
Tom,
And this is different from college sports how? College players only have four (or so) years of eligibility. It is exactly cheering for your uniforms.
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit is publishing a series on the so-called Russian hack of the DNC emails. The FBI looks like the Keystone Cops on this but not as funny. The evidence that it was the Russians is, to put it mildly, weak to non-existent. The DNC appears to be even more incompetent than expected. About half the emails that appeared on Wikileaks were dated after the DNC hired Crowdstrike to clean and protect their email servers.
Part I is here: https://climateaudit.org/2017/09/02/email-dates-in-the-wikileaks-dnc-archive/
Note that the entire Trump campaign Russian collusion meme appears to be based on attributing the DNC hack to the Russians.
Entire is pretty inclusive. How about “a lot of”?
The various meetings while likely innocent seem worth investigating.
j ferguson,
It’s the FBI and the Intelligence Community that need investigating, not the Trump campaign. If the DNC hack wasn’t Russian, then the meetings are meaningless.
A more important question is who hired GPS Fusion to concoct the phony Trump dossier and why did the FBI take this obviously phony dossier seriously? That’s what Mueller should be investigating. But that might cast a bad light on Comey, which isn’t going to happen as long as Mueller is in charge.
Tom Scharf,
It is true that there are big differences in total salary in MLB. That clearly makes some difference, but it is not an overwhelming one. A big reason is that the contracts signed by prized free agents are just about always guaranteed large salary deals. The unsurprising result when someone is going to receive $20 million a year independent of perfomance, their performance tends to become, shall we say, less important to them. It’s easy to point to lots of “albatross” contracts teams wish they hadn’t signed. When it gets really bad, the teams release the albatross… just to make room on their roster… even though they still pay the now non-player. If it were me signing the contracts, every one would have very generous incentives for performance, but very low guaranteed payouts.
SteveF (Comment #165335): “The unsurprising result when someone is going to receive $20 million a year independent of perfomance, their performance tends to become, shall we say, less important to them.”
I don’t think there is much evidence for that. What does happen is that money can’t stop aging. Baseball players peak around age 27 or 28, some earlier, some later. That is about the age when players start to become free agents, some earlier, most later. So players get to the point where they can cash in just about when their careers start to decline. Some players remain highly productive well into their 30’s, partly good genetics and partly by using experience to offset declining physical skills. Some deteriorate quickly after 30, they end up being a drag on a team’s payroll. The only recent big bucks player I can recall being released is Josh Hamilton.
It seems that teams have been gradually getting smarter about big contracts.
“The unsurprising result when someone is going to receive $20 million a year independent of perfomance, their performance tends to become, shall we say, less important to them.”
.
Tell that to mother effing Aaron Rodgers, ha ha. Give that stupid fool 90 seconds and the football with less than a one score lead and you might as well chalk up a loss and leave early to beat the traffic, but I digress…
.
Gambling on long term contracts for first year players became like meth addiction. Some monumental busts. They made a pretty funny commercial about it:
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7jD3/dish-network-going-back-to-college-ft-matt-leinart
.
There is athletic Einstein out there, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, etc. There might also be good baseball players in theory, ha ha. I think the draw is fans live vicariously through the exploits of their favorite players.
.
Another interesting factor is being a fan of a mediocre team means the pleasure from winning a title is magnified, expectations for the NYY are pretty high every year. The Rays winning the division against Boston and New York is like a monumental event. It happened twice in 20 years, the NYY won it 13 times, Boston 5 times. Money matters, but it’s not everything.
Mike M.: “The only recent big bucks player I can recall being released is Josh Hamilton.”
Pablo Sandoval was released this year, with about $50 million remaining on his contract. ARod and Carl Crawford last year, although for lesser sums of money.
.
My take on the original question — paying college athletes — is that it’s unfair to the athletes to limit their options. If the NCAA removed restrictions, I’m sure that there would be great changes. Just as when free agency came to baseball. I don’t think that it would end competition. MLB & its players union agreed to rules which restrict spending, in the interest of maintaining a competitive balance, so that the source of money (fans) wouldn’t tune out. I think something like that could be worked out with college athletes. Let’s face it, there isn’t a level playing field across all colleges as it is now. Yes, a new system might have knock-on effects on funding other college sports. I say, let the chips fall where they may — the most important factor is the increased contractual freedom for the athletes.
MikeM,
Yes, it is true that many free agents become that after their peak years, but the decline in production is often obscene after the contract is signed. Case in point: Pablo Sandoval, $19 million average a year, guaranteed for 5 years (Red Sox) they released him this year after he: 1) showed up for spring training grossly overweight, 2) couldn’t hit the side of a barn, and 3) couldn’t stop making HORRIBLE errors on routine ground balls. He was released by Boston because nobody would pick up even a portion of his contract…meaning he was WORSE than a randomly selected minor league player. He signed to a one year minimum salary swan song contract deal with San Francisco (where he started his career). Here is what Sandoval did since 2009, his first full season:
.
Year WAR Salary
2009 5.5 $401K
2010 1.5 $465K
2011 4.4 $507K
2012 2.4 $3.2 Million (arbitration eligible)
2013 3.0 $5.7 Million
2014 3.1 $8.25 million
2015 -0.9 $20 million
2016 -0.2 $17 Million
2017 -1.4 $17.5 million ($500K from SF)
2018 – $17 million
2019 – $5 million
.
The $95 million free-agent contract was signed between 2014 and 2015 (at age 28). I really doubt Sandoval became ‘old’ at 28. Similar stories have been repeated many times. When free agency comes later, players (shockingly) seem able to maintain performance until at least their early 30’s. The incentives of the free agency system are all wrong, and the resulting drop in performance is typically precipitous after the free agent contract is signed.
Looks like the NFL protests are turning against the players. The Miami owner made protesting players stay in the locker room yesterday and Dallas’s owner announced, you sit for the anthem, you sit for the game. Pence walked out of the SF-Colts game yesterday in what appeared to be a staged political protest.
.
The bully pulpit seems to be effective in this case, although one has to wonder how much Trump’s previous association with the defunct USFL has given him an ax to grind with the NFL.
.
Firing the players would go too far I think, so I doubt that will happen…directly. I would not be surprised to find that those who continue to protest (mostly second level players) are going to have a lifetime Scarlet Letter on them and will be Kaepernick’d out of the league ASAP. Let this be a sign for others…not that we all don’t learn that annoying your boss can have bad career consequences.
Tom Scharf,
“Let this be a sign for others… not that we all don’t learn that annoying your boss can have bad career consequences.”
.
Exactly why I have not had a boss for 25+ years. There are good bosses, of course, but the frequency of extreme a$$holes in ‘leadership’ positions at large corporations is frighteningly high. Seems to have something to do with the personal characteristics which are valued by upper managers in large corporations.
.
I remember one fellow who announced drastic reductions in retirement benefits (cutting expected retirement income for most employees by between 50% and 75%, while the company simultaneously ‘recovered’ most of the “excess” money that had been invested to fund future retirees). He became furious when he got negative comments from employees. Those that spoke out were…. let’s say… disfavored after that.
Every now and then the NYT man’s up…errr….person’s up…. and takes down one of their own using their ever changing moral lens of past behavior. They broke the Weinstein sexual harassment story (huge Hollywood left political donor) that got him fired within days and just wrote a story on how SNL decided to cut all jokes about him in what can only be kindly called an inconsistent application of comedy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/arts/television/snl-weinstein-jokes.html
.
Vox is quite open about protection: “But aside from his considerable legal defenses and Hollywood clout, Weinstein had another line of defense against possible accusations of impropriety: his longstanding and aggressively public commitment to championing progressive causes…he also spoke at length about how unfair it is that a report on his history of alleged sexual harassment did not discuss his record as a political activist.”
.
“Weinstein’s apparent belief that his history of supporting liberal causes should mitigate decades’ worth of sexual harassment allegations might explain the puzzling conclusion to the statement he gave the New York Times. “I’m going to need a place to channel that anger,†Weinstein writes, apparently referring to the anger that caused him to harass his employees, “so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention.â€
.
The blatant privilege of that old white man is appalling, ha ha. Hollywood and the NRA? Puhleeeeze. Every time the gun control debate opens up again, it is always fascinating to see the silence from the media on Hollywood’s glorification of gun violence. John Wick 1/2 have 128 close and personal total gun kills. For the record I liked those movies, so blame the viewers.
Tom,
Yeah…. when I first read the story all I could think was “Yeah. He’s so angry at himself he’s going to do precisely what he wants to do.”
If he was contrite, he’d release all the women who are bound to non-disclosures and allow them to talk. But he’s not contrite. So he won’t.
Obtaining free agency players and the potential for overpaying these athletes for their future performance is more understandable and reasonable if the potential marginal utility of the free agent to make a team a playoff contender or even league or world champion is considered in the business decision. The decision is not necessarily based on the players abilities as much as it is on the marginal utility the player can provide. An established player with a reputation to maintain and even allow consideration for a Hall of Fame candidate is more likely to play and train hard even when overpaid.
An example of that marginal utility would be overpaying a 5th starter for a major league team pitching staff where the difference between a 10 and 10 win/lose record and say a 5 and 15 record could well determine whether the team makes the playoffs.
I am rather surprised that many posters here take it as inevitable that colleges should spend so much time and effort recruiting athletes in order to provide winning teams that will in turn provide revenues for many athletic scholarships for lesser programs within the school. Emphasis appears to be circular and ever increasing that the colleges are increasingly in the business of sports and that that effort must detract from academics. I would think that a school student and alumnus spirit could be maintained just as well with athlete teams composed of truly student athletes.
Without the colleges providing a training ground for potential professional players, the athlete who is interested in a potential professional career would surely be compensated with signing bonuses and those professional teams interested in these athletes would surely have to pay signing bonuses and maintain some kind of minor leagues like professional baseball and hockey does.
We have not discussed what happens to those college athletes who do not obtain a proper college education and do not make it into professional sports – which is a very large percentage of the college athletes. The second link admits to academic failures of student athletes but in my mind uses circular reasoning in attributing a cause.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/7/9/5885433/ncaa-trial-student-athletes-education
http://time.com/3827196/why-student-athletes-fail/
Fritsch: “I am rather surprised that many posters here take it as inevitable that colleges should spend so much time and effort recruiting athletes in order to provide winning teams that will in turn provide revenues for many athletic scholarships for lesser programs within the school. Emphasis appears to be circular and ever increasing that the colleges are increasingly in the business of sports and that that effort must detract from academics.”
*****
To the extent that you are implying that I said that, I never said that. I have simply said that college athletics is not that profitable as a whole and that most players getting paid $200,000 –300,000 in effect for 4 or 5 years of work are doing reasonably well. Most people are assuming that most colleges make gads of profits off of college athletics which is not true. Personally, I like college football and it doesn’t bother me that the 15% of the really good football players may be subsidizing the other 85% who have no pro future as well as athletes in other sports. Others can have a different opinion.
Young players, the NFL, and any business person have the right to set up a league or some other structure to compete with college football. So far no one has done so. The overall system is not unjust. Some people get unfair results but that happens in every endeavor involving humans. It is interesting to note that in baseball, the majority of players drafted come out of college as opposed to those who bypass college. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_draft#The_Draft
Additionally, many college football players benefit from high level coaching and the patience that their 4 or 5 years of college permits coaches to have. For instance, Marshon Lattimore of OSU was drafted as the 11th pick and Malik Hooker was the 15th pick in last years draft (Of course, both players made large amounts of money) even though both only had 1 full year as a starter. Neither played as a freshman and both only played sparingly in their second year. Lattimore had serious hamstring problems that were only resolved in his 3rd year, and Hooker wanted to quit in his freshman year because of homesickness. Almost certainly both did better by being in a 4-year collegiate program than if they were in a development league.
I would add that I think that there are legitimate criticisms to the effect that the players are worked so hard athletically that they lack the time to give good effort to their studies, which I would remedy by giving them several additional scholarship years in addition to their athletic scholarships.
JD
The biggest thing football players need to understand is their actual odds. There are 1,083,000 high school football players and 251 people are drafted to the NFL. Your odds of making it to the NFL are 0.02% out of high school, 1.5% out of college.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/football
.
Compare that to the odds of getting an engineering job if you “participate” in college engineering (>90%?). If you factor in lifetime earnings of an engineer ($2M) versus an NFL player career ($6M) then it even looks like a less wise path to shoot for the NFL. You can of course do both, and an NFL career is only 4 years long typically.
.
It isn’t a bad idea to force football players to get an education while playing football if you view it through this lens. I question whether many college athletes truly understand their odds. The matheletes ironically know their odds the best no doubt.
.
Sadly engineers never get to work in stadiums full of people cheering them on and I have yet to see my name on the back of a jersey for sale (and I would even allow them to keep the royalties!). I suppose there is a bit of engineer worship out there for Elon Musk, Bill Gates, etc. I can proudly say I was a nerd before nerds were cool, ha ha.
JD Ohio (Comment #165347)
I did not have any one poster in mind in my comment. It was aimed more at the general lack of discussion of the basic question about increasing college emphasis on sports where their traditional emphasis was and should be, in my mind anyway, academics. Private schools can do as they please in this matter, but tax supported schools have to answer or should answer to the taxpayer. It may well be that most tax payers support more emphasis on sports in colleges. There are certainly lots of college sports fans out there that probably are much better informed about a colleges efforts in sports then in academics.
I also was interested in a discussion of those serious student athletes that have some hopes for a professional career and do not make it.
JD do not take my comments personally. I commented with the motivation to change some of the discussion to areas that interest me. That selfish approach does not work very often for me though.
Tom Scharf (Comment #165349): “The biggest thing football players need to understand is their actual odds. There are 1,083,000 high school football players and 251 people are drafted to the NFL. Your odds of making it to the NFL are 0.02% out of high school, 1.5% out of college.”
1 million high school players, 2000 pro players. That is about 0.2%, not 0.02%. Tom makes two errors: comparing flux to total and neglecting the fact that about 30% of NFL players were not drafted. I think the average length of career is about the same for high school, college, and pro players.
From Tom’s link, about 25,000 division I college players, so about 8% might be pros some day. Terrible job prospects compared to engineers, but probably better than most college majors.
Nevertheless, I agree that college athletes should be students first and athletes second. Hopefully, the Pacific Pro Football League will succeed and provide an alternative for those who don’t want to be students.
The contribution of college athletics to school spirit and community can be significant. But that does not require scholarships, as demonstrated by the Ivy League, Division II, and Division, III.
Mike M,
I was unaware of the Pacific pro league. Makes perfect sense to me, but it may take more than $50K per year to get some of the better prospects from high schools; double that and I think lots of top prospects,would not bother with college. Triple it, and I suspect they could have their picka. If the NFL has any sense, they will follow closely and invest in a minor league system if the new league has any success attracting high school talent. The best prospects in high school have a very good chance of a pro career, but they do need development… If that can be done outside the college system, it would not be a bad thing. Heck, MLB has a huge minor league system, and college players are only a portion of the total talent stream for MLB.
Switching back to electric vehicles and range anxiety, Morgan Stanley has priced developing charging stations worldwide at $2.7 T.
.
Don’t know if that’s a realistic number or not, but that’s large. And in order for it to have much of an effect on emissions, energy storage has to be addressed. Nobody wants to pull over to recharge and have to wait for the sun to come out, or the wind to pick up.
Mike M,
That data comes from the NCAA, whether or not they had an agenda I don’t know, but I think your numbers are closer to right.
.
I would make it an annual calculation as:
Number of players to make an NFL team out of college / Number of players to make a college team out of high school.
.
I can’t find those numbers. So total numbers
http://www.scholarshipstats.com/football.html
.
NFL 53 * 32 = 1,692 players
DIV 1= 15,167
All of NCAA = 92,642
.
DIV 1 (1692 / 15167) = 11% (better than I thought!)
NCAA (1692 / 92642) = 1.8%
High School (1692 / 1,086,720) = 0.15%
.
Average NFL career is 3.3 years.
Average NFL career for player making roster as a rookie is 6 years.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/240102/average-player-career-length-in-the-national-football-league/
.
30% of NFL players were not drafted.
87% of NFL players were DIV 1 (FBS) players
63% of NFL players come from the Power 5 conferences
17% of NFL players were SEC conference players
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1641528-where-does-nfl-talent-come-from
This is why the NFL must take action:
The N.F.L. Is Now One of the Most Divisive Brands in the U.S.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/11/upshot/trump-nfl-polarization.html
.
Examine the top graph on Trump voters view of the NFL. Ouch. I’m not sure there are many lessons for the NFL to learn here as they are mostly a victim of circumstances. Perhaps never letting divisive protests like this start in the first place by enforcing workplace standards is the lesson.
.
Those numbers can reverse quickly too, no doubt with a reversal on the other side of the ledger. Split the baby, must be respectful and stand during the anthem, protests allowed before and after.
HaroldW,
The answer is obviously to put windmills on top of electric cars, they will charge while driving. This logic is flawless, where is my patent application?
HaroldW,
It is a huge amount of $$. The budget would there if people really wanted electric cars. Someone would have an incentive to build.
The problem is: do significant numbers of people really want electric cars? I’m not so sure lots of people actively want them. I know they’d want them if they were cheaper, more reliable, not inconvenient and so on. That would just be economics. But even apart from the anxiety of running out of electrons before getting to a charger, right now “refueling” times are still larger for electric cars.
Time to make a trip matters to people. It takes something like 10 minutes at most to pull into a gas station, add ~13 gallons and leave.
City mileage is estimated at 25 mpg, highway at 30+.
How long does it take to recharge a battery? A: ” Placed along well traveled routes, a Supercharger provides up to 170 miles of range in as little as 30 minutes.”
https://www.tesla.com/charging
I’ll let you do the math. I know the frequency and length of delays is modest in my golf.
lucia,
My new car gets about 35 mpg on the highway. After a fill-up of its 15-gallon tank, it indicates over 500 miles to empty. So, 3x the range provided by a Supercharger, in about 1/3 the time.
.
And it’s not just that the trip time is longer. “Dead time” when traveling with small children can be fraught.
Even without small children. Some people take their pets on vacation.
Even if you don’t need to wait to access the recharging station, 30 minutes means you’ve got to find something to do. Pretty much no one takes 30 minutes to use the toilet. So: lunch?
But 170 miles/ (55 mph) means you need a half hour stop at a recharging station every 3 hours. That’s just not attractive. Granted: the recharging stations existing make it possible…. still… not convenient.
In order for people to love, love, love these cars relative to gasoline powered ones, they are going to need recharging to take 10 minutes or less. Until they get there, the cars will only be “loved” on some sort of intellectual levels where people really wish they had something less inconvenient.
Tom Scharf (#165358)
“where is my patent application?”
Unfortunately, the idea fails the “novelty” criterion.
See, e.g. here, or here. Other persons have proposed this idea, apparently seriously — just google.
Yeah, but my car windmills have blades made out of solar panels.
Tom —
Well, that *does* sound novel, to me at least. Go for it! 😉
Looks like Trump is trying to goad the left into his next “cultural killbox” (as the National Review referred to them). “We’re saying Merry Christmas again!”. Now that we have set fire to the NFL let’s throw Christmas in the political incinerator. I suppose Christmas trees with American flags on them will be in our near future. Make Christmas Great Again!
.
This is another one of these things the reflexively anti-Trump people should not take the bait on. Good luck in 2020 with anti-Flag, anti-Christmas labels stuck on you.