Prediction and Preference: stuff

Oscars
I admit that I am a sucker for the melodrama of those award shows.  I watched the Grammys a couple of weeks ago and, unlike the critics who hammered her, I was touched by Lady Gaga's salute to the late David Bowie; I enjoyed the Kendrick Lamar piece, and I was thrilled to see young (12 years old!) Joey Alexander playing solo jazz piano for the Grammy crowd.

The Oscars often get me worked up, too; the drama of the moment, the emotion (feigned or unfeigned, I often can't tell) of the winners.  Unfortunately, I think this year's Oscars will be one to put on the DVR and fast-forward through.  There may be some good performances, and I will want to see Chris Rock's rant in the first 15 minutes.  I don't think this has been a particularly stellar year, though.  There are worthy performances of various kinds, and the likelihood that the awards could be distributed fairly broadly (instead of concentrated on a single film), is for me a positive.

The big problem is that someone/everyone seems to know the winners of all the big awards, so there won't be much suspense.  I'm not referring to things like short films, or documentaries, which has some mystery because hardly anyone has seen the films.  If one goes to the "betting odds" on predictwise.com (mostly based on the non-US betfair betting site) and considers the 21 awards for feature films, there is one award (Costume Design) for which the betting favorite is at less than 50% likelihood, and three more at less than 65%.  Ten of them are at over 80%, with three of those over 95%.

My suggestion is to watch the first hour, which should have the Chris Rock intro and maybe a musical number, possibly the two supporting acting awards--which are among the most interesting ones--and fast-forward to the very last award, for Best Picture.  That is actually one of the ones for which the betting favorite is 64%, relatively low for this year's probabilities.

In terms of betting, if you are in a small pool, go for the favorites and take your chances with a more-or-less random bet on the documentary and live-action shorts.  In a larger pool, you have to take some chances if you want to win.  I suggest consideration of Rooney Mara, for Supporting Actress in "Carol", and Mark Rylance, for Supporting Actor in "Bridge of Spies".  The favorites are Alicia Wikander and Sylvester Stallone, but I think Mara has paid more dues, while Stallone's Golden Globes acceptance was an embarrassment I think Oscar will choose to avoid, while Rylance was outstanding (as an oddball Communist spy, the kind of performance that wins this award).

With regard to the "major" awards, I accept that this is Leo DiCaprio's year--he certainly went the extra mile for it in "Revenant"--and Oscar will continue the habit of giving Best Actress to a "woman in extreme distress in a nearly unwatchable film"--this year, to Brie Larson in "Room".  I would not quibble with the pick of Alejandro Inarritu for Director (he's an 87% favorite) if he had not won for "Birdman" last year:  maybe the fix is in, but I wouldn't be overly suprised if George Miller pulled an upset for "Mad Max".  Cinematography will indeed be, and should be, the Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki Award for the third year running (94%, for "Revenant"), while the favorites for screenplay, "Spotlight" and "The Big Short", for original and adapted (89% and 85%, respectively), seem correct and likely.

Best Picture:  "Revenant" is "only" a 64% favorite; the other two major alternatives are "Spotlight" (24%) and "The Big Short" (10%).  I can't (or won't) say whether I think there will be an upset here--I wouldn't exclude the possibility--but I will say that my vote would have been for "The Big Short" as Best Picture, for the remarkable achievement of an entertaining film on a very important, but seemingly uninteresting, subject.  Credit goes to the author of the original nonfiction book, Michael Lewis, for the design and research of the case studies which are at the heart of it, and to the director, Adam McKay, and cast, for making it fun.   "Spotlight", for me, was a journalism procedural, a good performance by Mark Rufalo (nominated, but not viewed as a likely winner by the bettors on Supporting Actor), not much suspense, and really not much better than another journalism procedural, "Truth", which got little recognition.

And "Revenant"?  A very intense, moral movie; I respect it, and admire the film-making technique, which I would describe as one part "The Master" (Paul Thomas Anderson's movie about a Scientology-type cult), one part "The New World" (Terence Malick's 1600's-Virginia story, cinematography by Lubezki), and one part "Unforgiven".   I think viewers in general will be more shocked by the violence than impressed by the message.  It is a historical fiction piece, from a period most would rather not think too much about (1823), due to the injustices of the time (quite evident in the movie).  There is a true incident that the "novel" which inspired the movie is based upon--my conclusion is that the movie is 95% invention, and my reaction to much of it was like the classic line of The Chief in "Get Smart":  "I find that hard to believe."  "Revenant" has the chance for a huge night, with 12 nominations, but it is favored for only four.  I'd say it is more likely that it will get five or six than only two or three.

Sports: Parity Makes for Interesting Gaming
First, I should mention NCAA basketball, for which I will not quote any betting odds--you must go to Las Vegas to bet legally.  The point is that this year will be one of the best ever for March Madness, because there is not a single, dominant team.   The top five spots in the polls have been shifting around continuously among 10-15 teams; they have been knocking each other off, and there have been a lot of games in which teams who are more like #50-150 have been beating teams in the top 10. As of today, there are two Division I teams with less than four losses (#5 Xavier, 24-3, and #1 Villanova), and they are playing each other tonight.   I would go with Kansas, Villanova, Oklahoma, and North Carolina as the most consistent teams with the best NCAA chances, but there at least 10 more who could win it--and don't forget last year's top team, Kentucky (no losses until the NCAA semifinal) and champion (Duke)--both were decimated by the NCAA draft, rebuilt with strong but overrated freshman recruiting, suffered early, but are now coming on strong.

Next, the NBA.  Golden State's regular-season has been record-making, and they are sitting at a shockingly good 50-5 mark, but San Antonio is only 3 1/2 games behind them in the West, and Cleveland has been dominant in the East (though Toronto is giving them a surprisingly good run in the standings, now only three games behind).  Oklahoma City and the Los Angeles Clippers are also conceded to have the potential to run the table in the West, but you have to hope for a Spurs-Warriors Western Conference final, which could be a classic.  In the East, Cleveland is the odds-on pick, but if I had to go for a darkhorse pick, though, I would go with Indiana, which is about 100-1 on predictwise to win the title, but they could pull a surprise against the Cavaliers in the second round.  (Predictwise's quoted probabilities for the title:  GSW 45%; Cleveland 24%, S. Antonio 16%; OKC 4%; Raptors and Clippers 2% each; "the field" 7%.)

It's early for baseball, as teams have just reported, but after a busy offseason there appears to be some significant realignment vs. last year (to refresh your memory, Royals defeated Mets in the World Series).  The long-suffering Chicago Cubs are the actual favorite, at 10%, to win the World Series--the outcome of the short series in the playoffs and W.S. being something of a crapshoot which levels the odds among the teams favored to make the playoffs (the NBA, though it has the same format, is much less likely to have significant surprises).   After that, it is quote close for teams two through twelve, all at 5-6% (rounded).   The teams currently second and third in the betting did not make the playoffs last year (Washington Nationals and Boston Red Sox), while the fourth, the Los Angeles Dodgers, and the Cubs were eliminated in the first round.  The Royals and Mets are at 7th and 8th, while 5th is the Giants, who have won the championship in the last three even-numbered years, and 6th is the Astros, who many see as the AL's rising powerhouse team.

Finally, the English Premier League is having its most interesting and competitive race for the title in a decade, due primarily to the weakness of last year's champion, Chelsea, and that of usual contenders Manchester United and Liverpool. Leicester City (pronounced "Lester"), which barely avoided being sent down (as one of the three worst teams) last year, has a two-point lead in the league over London teams Tottenham and Arsenal, with Manchester City (the 2014 champion) now fourth and barely in serious contention.  I think it will come down to the final weeks and the top three--Man City seems content for fourth and is focused on its chances in the Champions League, while the other three do not/will not have that as a distraction, after Barcelona completes its elimination of Arsenal in a couple of weeks--with Chelsea and the two Manchester teams having home games which may allow them to serve as potential spoilers down the stretch. My guess for the title winner would be Tottenham, which has looked the most consistent in recent weeks.  The oddsmakers currently favor Arsenal (41%) over Tottenham (25%) and Leicester (22%), but don't forget that the big-city bettors may favor the London teams unequally.

The Political Game
My strategy on predictit.org since the real electoral contests began has changed: I have completely dropped buying any shares on outcomes of polls and of debate-related questions. With regard to short-term trading, my strategy has been to buy on Clinton, Kasich, and Rubio when the odds have been favorable and short Trump, Cruz, and Sanders, when the money was too much in their favor, hedging when appropriate and when markets have provided opportunities.    So, for example, I have been buying or selling Clinton Yes on the final Presidency and Yes on "Female elected President" when the prices have diverged; I lost some on Trump winning New Hampshire and South Carolina, but won on Kasich and Rubio finishing second (and on Cruz to finish 3rd in SC).  In Nevada's Republican caucus, I got cheap prices early on each of the Big Three; I sold off the Trump shares for profits and took small losses on the other two.

In the next round of primaries, after the South Carolina Democratic one, for which the outcome is a foregone conclusion (Clinton is now at 98%), there is an abundance of choice, but little to choose from.  On the Republican side, with the exception of Texas, where Cruz is favored slightly in the market (and by me), Trump is an odds-on favorite in all the Super Tuesday states (the markets on Florida, and on Ohio, which are the two most interesting March primary states, are not yet opened). Betting against him on all is a loser, and betting for Trump to win them is not interesting in most of them (it ties up money with little to gain when the odds are 80/90% favorable)--the key is to pick a few where an upset is a live possibility and try to get a good payoff.   I have gone with Cruz in Oklahoma and Arkansas, with Rubio in Georgia, and with Rubio and Kasich in Minnesota, Virginia, and Vermont.  Clearly, not all these will pay out, but if half of them do (including either Rubio or Kasich in the last three) I will profit.

On the Democratic side, I have made some gains from bets on Hillary I have made on some of the upcoming states when Bernie was riding higher, before the Nevada voting; however, I am not putting much in for now.  I am looking to build up a little more to see if it makes sense to make a little larger play on some particular Stop Trump movement on the Republican side; so far, I am not impressed by the division of efforts among his rivals in upcoming states.

Rubio would do well to swear off Texas, for example, to give Cruz a clear shot there, and Kasich and Cruz should acknowledge that Rubio will need to stop Trump in Florida.  Rubio should sound out Kasich to see if he will commit to staying in for the Ohio primary on March 15 and hold him to it (and stay out); if he won't, he's got to go in there, too. The smart play is not to abandon the race to one rival, as that eliminates all chance for those who give up; it is to keep as many delegates as possible away from Trump and go for a contested convention.  I just don't think--based on the evidence so far--the Republicans are smart enough to see the danger and take the appropriate gaming maneuvers, whereas Trump's strategy is simple and effective enough:  attack anyone who gets in his way.

Update:  I have been tracking the post-mortem of the Spanish parliamentary elections held in December of last year, as they try to form a new government (they have not yet done so).  I have participated at a fairly low level in the predicit.org markets for the next Prime Minister.  My approach has been to avoid the previous incumbent and his party (Mariano Rajoy, and the PP, which translates as "Popular Party"), as his party was reduced in its share--though it is still the largest single party--and all the other parties have announced they would not join with them in a coalition.  That strategy is working so far; I have made some money on the leader of his chief historical rival, the Socialist party, and then have reinvested it when the price came down.  I've also got some of the alternatives covered.  The main question is whether it will ever be resolved.  The market has been a great one for prices bouncing up and down with the latest stories, with multiple sides, and thin trading.  
 

This Dust Just Won't Settle

The latest stir is the death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, aged 79, on a quail hunting trip at a luxury ranch in Texas.  Scalia, appointed during the Reagan administration, was the justice with the longest tenure on the Court, and he was the intellectual leader of the extreme right-wing faction (with Alito and Thomas).   He had an acerbic pen in his opinions and a sharp tongue in the oral arguments; no one needed to doubt where he stood on any subject. I will say that he was--mostly--sharp in his thinking as well, and that he did not have any significant integrity issues; some who knew him also attested to his personal qualities.  He was dead certain about his interpretation of the Constitution, and, generally, dead wrong.  Now, he's just dead, and, I hope, so are his mistaken, outdated ideas.  We offer our condolences to his family on his sudden passing.

His departure from the Court comes at a sensitive time, near the end of a session in which critical cases have come before it and are awaiting decision.  Because so many of the key cases in recent years have been decided by 5-4 decisions, until his seat is filled there could be a 4-4 vote for many of them.  In that event, the lower court ruling being appealed would normally stand.  Among the cases pending are ones on the legality of requiring public sector workers to contribute to unions, on the affirmative action program used by the University of Texas (that one may be resolved by a clear majority of seven voting justices, as Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself), a case testing the "one person, one vote" principle in drawing legislative districts, and a suit challenging the implementation of President Obama's executive order blocking (or better said, de-prioritizing) some deportations of undocumented immigrants.

The vacancy on the Court created by Scalia's death will provide additional intensity to the Presidential race now fully underway.  President Obama could go through the exercise of considering candidates to fill the seat and even nominate someone, and it it is certainly theoretically possible that a nominee could be vetted in committee and considered by the full Senate during this session of Congress, and before Obama's administration ends.  The problem is that the Senate is now controlled by the Republicans, and they would not cooperate with confirmation of someone who would substantially change the delicate balance of the Court (previously a right-leaning majority with 4 liberals, 3 extreme conservatives, and 2 less-extreme conservatives), and I know Obama would not want to nominate someone who would follow down Scalia's arch-conservative line of thought.  We shall see, but I think Obama--quite properly--will choose to announce that he will leave the task of nominating Scalia's successor to his own successor.  If he does try, it will provoke yet another knock-down, dragged-out war of words (with no resolution) in Washington, which would probably benefit anti-Washington candidates like Trump or Cruz.

Then There Were Six--and Two
Well, between their electoral failures in Iowa and New Hampshire, we've gotten rid of Huckabee, Santorum, Christie, Paul, and Fiorina (Stage direction:  Exeunt all of them.)  That's progress.   The race still has one superfluous candidate--Carson, who has enough funds to stay as long as he wants, but really has no purpose, given that his principal goal at this point would be revenge against Cruz, and he's too nice to attack him directly. Though he may have a couple percent of diehard support, we can disregard him going forward.

So, it looks like it will be Trump, Cruz, and Rubio--if Marco doesn't self-destruct--as the top three candidates for the next round of primaries and caucuses, with Bush and Kasich attempting to establish some legitimacy as contenders.  The hostility with which the top three are attacking each other is shocking; one can only hope that the Republican primary voters will reject them all, for their own (and the country's) sake.  We can be temporarily encouraged by the revival of Kasich's candidacy in New Hampshire, until we consider that his second-place finish there was probably due only to the influence of independent voters who were permitted to vote there; his appeals for decency and compromise are likely to continue to fall on deaf Republican ears elsewhere.

The contrast presented by the respectful, sensible, content-filled debate presence of the remaining Democratic candidates, on the other hand, is inspiring.  I honestly feel that the Sanders-Clinton debates (or Clinton-Sanders, if you prefer) will be remembered well and celebrated, long after the Republican party as we know it rots in the dumpster of history.  If I can draw a parallel with the most famous debates in American history, in the 1858 Illinois senatorial contest between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, Lincoln had the winning arguments but Douglas won the election.  I think it may be similar this year, with Sanders in the Lincoln role.  This is not to say that Sanders will be President in the next election cycle, but that the inheritors of his ideas may be the leaders of our nation in the next 20 years.

The Next 30 Days (Political Drama 2016:  Act II, Scene 3)
My predictions for the last scene were correct for the most part on both parties' side, but I underestimated the degree to which New Hampshire provided Bernie's Big Night.  The next 30 days will not be so kind to him, I think; he may win a couple of states (besides his home state of Vermont). The next test for the Democrats is the caucuses in Nevada on the 20th (the same night the Republicans will have their primary in South Carolina, which will probably gain more attention). Clinton historically has not done so well in the caucuses, though she should have some natural advantage in the composition of the voters there; I expect another narrow victory for her there, then a whopping margin in South Carolina a week later, and a dominant share of the delegates awarded on March 1, which are centered (though not exclusively) in the South.   The score is now 1-1, caucuses or primaries won; by March 15, I would predict it will be 19-5 (counting American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and Democrats Abroad), and, barring some catastrophe in the Clinton campaign, it should be clear she will be the eventual nominee.

The forecast on the Republican side is much more hazy, due to the multiple candidates, the likelihood that some of them will exit, and the fact that voters' loyalties are still very fluid.  Trump leads in the polls taken so far in most of the states (though many do not yet have a reliable base of polls taken), often by large amounts, but rarely does his support exceed 40%, so that his path to a quick victory will require either continued confusion among those who oppose him or his proving an ability to go beyond the rabidly loyal base he has maintained--despite all the outrageous things he has said--thus far.  The core of support he has is not likely to desert him, come what may; the risk is that his opponents combine effectively, either uniting behind a single challenger, or defeating him piecemeal by dividing up the states and ceding the challenge when theirs is not the best.  For example, Ted Cruz could take Trump 1-on-1 in Texas and more or less directly in some Super Tuesday states like Arkansas or Oklahoma, Rubio could be the focus of the challenge in Georgia and Virginia, and Kasich (if he survives probable bad results in SC on the 20th and in Nevada three days later) or Bush in some Midwestern or New England states.   By my count, 1149 delegates are at stake in the next 30 days, but with no winner-take-all states, Trump's share--even if he wins pluralities in most of them--is not going to exceed half of the delegates awarded.  I expect that after the contests following Super Tuesday in the week of March 6-12, he will have about 500, with Cruz 100-200 behind, and Rubio--who may not win first place in any of the states--in third with about one-third Trump's total to that point, with Bush and Kasich dividing the remaining 10-15% of the delegates.

Then we will come to the main event of Act II:  I expect the primaries of March 15 to identify the likely final nominee. Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio will vote that day, with Florida and Ohio being winner-take-all for the delegates, North Carolina being a very representative state for the national composition of the party, and the open primaries in Illinois and Missouri providing a test to demonstrate appeal beyond the party's base.  If Trump can win Florida and Ohio his path to the nomination will be cleared, as it would appear to me that, though Cruz is a formidable debating opponent and just as unprincipled as he is, Trump can beat him head to head.  Florida, in particular, will be critical, and will present Trump a chance to deliver the knockout blow to Bush and Rubio, if they are still in the race (and Ohio, to Kasich, if applicable). Right now, Trump leads in the polls in both states, but that is partly due to the crowded field.

I still find it incredible that Trump can be considered seriously as suitable Presidential material by anyone, but there is no substitute for celebrity, and his populist appeal is genuine--if disgusting.

Super Bo' L

I begin with my one and only Super Bowl story.  I attended XXIX, in 1996  (in Miami, San Francisco over San Diego, 49-26, in what is generally considered one of the worst, if not the very worst, of all the many bad Super Bowl contests--it was something like 28-0 after the first quarter).  In one of the stores near the stadium, I was picking through the mementos, and I found a commemorative cap for the game.  On the back part, it said, among other things, "Super Bo".  I thought that production error was quite appropriate (especially for a game played in the South), and I purchased the cap, which I have long since lost.  (There was also a seat cushion, at the stadium, that was tacky and fell apart, but I used for the seat of my car for some 20 years.)  The game was a circus, not worth watching, and filled with distractions, but it did help fill out my roster of championships. (That's for another time.) It's actually the only NFL game I have ever attended.

My relationship with professional football (American) is unlike that which I have with any other sport.  I have watched the game my whole life, but somehow I have always managed to avoid a lasting emotional attachment to any team.  In that, I was fortunate that the Cincinnati Bengals--one of the more disappointing franchises--started the year after I moved away from the Ohio River valley, so I never became ensnared (as I did with the Cincinnati Reds--also a story for another time).  In the '60's, I liked Don Meredith, in the '80's/'90's the 49ers of Bill Walsh.  I hated Vince Lombardi, and for a long time I rooted for any team playing the Packers (I have managed to overcome that aversion fairly recently).   Now, I watch a handful of regular-season games and those postseason ones that fit my schedule, without investing much emotional capital. It's plenty.

Today's game (it's wrapping up as I type), was a typically lousy Super Bowl contest, and it illustrated some of the most severe problems of the league.  It was a series of people stripping the ball from runners' and quarterbacks' hands, referee-call-dominated, the usual blurry decisioning (with the questionable help of the replay officials) about whether a catch was a catch, a fumble a fumble, a pass a pass, annoying announcers. (By the way, Phil Simms, Cam Newton had an opportunity to recover the fumble, despite not risking his neck and diving headfirst onto the loose ball--it squirted right by him.)  Basically, they keep playing with the rules to keep the offenses a step ahead of the defenses, and the defenses (of the best teams) keep improving faster than they can change the rules.  I was impressed by Carolina's regular season, but I am little surprised that the team with the prior Super Bowl experience was better able to handle the madness that is the AFL-NFL Championship game.

The First 50 -- Team by Team
There have been 100 appearances, and with 32 teams, an average team would have been in three Super Bowls, winning 1.6 of them.  There is a significant adjustment, though, as several of the teams have not been around for the full 50 years.  I recommend the Wikipedia site of the NFL timeline of all the franchises--it's full of potential trivia-winning information.

One example:  the San Diego Chargers are faced with the difficult decision whether to join the relocated Rams in Los Angeles, for which they have received a very attractive offer, or to challenge the voters of San Diego to put out big money to build them the dream stadium which would keep them there.  When I ridiculed the Chargers for looking to bail on their hometown, I was not aware that the Chargers actually played their first year in the old AFL as the Los Angeles Chargers (in 1960).

Denver's win brings their Super Bowl record to 3-5--they share with Dallas, Pittsburgh, and New England the highest number of appearances, at 8.  It brings AFL/AFC teams to 24-26 in the big game--that's according to the official league standings.  Measuring by the original (post-1960) league of the franchises, though, the AFL's record is less impressive, as they were "given" the franchises of Pittsburgh, Baltimore (which became Indianapolis),* and Cleveland (which became, sort of, the Baltimore Ravens),* which have a combined 10-3 record for the AFC.  For the NFC's part, they were given AFC-expansion franchise Seattle, and its 1-2 SB record.  Thus, by my reckoning, "original" AFL teams (including AFC-expansion teams) are 15-25, and "original" NFL teams (including expansions) are 35-25.

Here's a classification, by what league the team comes from, the beginning of their franchise (if post-1960), and their SB record:
NFL Teams
Distinguished:  San Francisco (5-1), Green Bay (4-1), NJ Giants (4-1), Pittsburgh (6-2).
Commendable:  Dallas (5-3), Washington (3-2).
Average:  Baltimore/Indianapolis (2-2, 0-1 in the NFL), Chicago (1-1), LA/St.L. Rams (1-2)
Have Some Excuse/Insufficient Data:  Atlanta '66 (0-1), Tampa Bay '76 (1-0), Carolina '95 (0-2), New Orleans '67 (1-0).
Special Case:*  Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens (2-0, all for the AFC).
No Excuse, But At Least They've Showed Up: Minnesota (0-4), Philadelphia (0-2), St.L./Arizona (0-1).
No Excuse Whatsoever:  Detroit (0-0).
AFL Teams
Good, Considering They're AFL Teams:  Oakland/LA Raiders (3-2), Miami '66 (2-3), Patriots (4-4), Broncos (3-5).
Insufficient Data (which isn't really very good):  NJ Jets (1-0), KC Chiefs (1-1), Chargers (0-1), Oilers/ Titans (0-1).
Have Some Excuse:  Jaguars '95 (0-0), Texans '02 (0-0), the reincarnated Browns '99* (0-0), Seahawks '76 (1-2, all for the NFC).
No Excuse, But at Least They've Showed Up:  Bills (0-4), Bengals (0-2).

Bloviating America's Favorite Game

*Here, for the particular benefit of our younger readers, we must explain, and point toward the two worst (but connected) episodes in the modern (post-merger) league.  The villain of part one was Baltimore Colts' owner Robert Irsay:  He arranged to relocate his team (the former NFL team, which had been shifted over to the AFC in the merger shortly after their historic loss to the Jets in the third Super Bowl game) from Baltimore to Indianapolis to get a better stadium deal.  To settle the uproar, he agreed to support a new team in Baltimore.  The team that became the Baltimore Ravens was moved there by the villain of part two, Art Modell, the owner of the Cleveland Browns.  Because of his dissatisfaction with his stadium deal, he got approval in 1996 to "discontinue" the Browns and "start" a new franchise in Baltimore.  Eventually, to satisfy the uproar from that betrayal, a new Cleveland Browns franchise was started a couple of years later.  I am treating the Ravens as the true inheritors of the old Browns, and the new Browns as an expansion franchise, which is at odds with the official NFL history.  

This scandalous owner behavior tops by a slight amount the sordid story of the Los Angeles teams, their betrayals of their fans--in Los Angeles, in Oakland, now in St. Louis, and possibly in San Diego. The NFL's behavior with regard to mental health has been properly eviscerated in the new movie "Concussion", and their labor practices have always been the worst in professional sport. The NFL is such a monstrous commercial success--it has now expanded its schedule to Thursday and to Saturday, beyond its traditional ownership of Sunday and Thanksgiving, and its previous conquest (45 years ago) of Monday night--that nothing seems to be able to derail its hold on the American public (at least most of the male portion of it). I will say, despite the ongoing Los Angeles fiasco that will soon be resolved in some way, that the league is much more stable in its past 20 years than its previous history.

My feeling, though, is that the game's defects are so egregious that it is headed for disaster.  My recommendations for it are radical:  The helmets, reinforced with further interior padding, should include, for all ball-using positions (eligible receivers and backfield), neck braces to protect the head against traumatic head shocks.  Wage insurance should be provided to all players signed to contracts; most football players can be cut at any time, and those who suffer disabling injuries are particularly susceptible.  The video challenge rules, the rules about pass receptions, about holding, about pass interference, and, worst of all, celebration limitation all detract from the pure enjoyment of the game and need additional reform. Finally, something must be done about the increasing trend to train defensive players to go after the ball instead of the ballcarrier--to punch at the ball whenever possible:  I'm thinking that the uniforms could include a ball-shaped "protection pocket" where the ball could be placed and carried, which would be proof against intentionally-created fumbles, and to protect further the passer's arm from interference while in the act of throwing.

Yeah, I know--these would change the game.  I say to that, it's about time.