Monday, July 4, 2016

My All-Entertainment NBA Team

After today’s news that the Golden State Warriors changed their names to the MONSTARS, I decided to draft my most entertaining hypothetical NBA roster. I stress most entertaining, because this isn’t a hypothetical “Best Team” one could assemble (although there is significant overlap), but rather which group of basket-ballers would ensure that on any given night you were sure to see something you hadn’t before.

I limited this hypothetical to only those players I’ve watched live TV at ten and older (1997 and sooner), which still includes His Airness, but precludes the Showtime Lakers, and other greats.

Starting Five: 

PG: Mid 2000s Steve Nash - There was a point where he was averaging 50/40/90 and crossing up
 helpless defenders all while his floppy hair seemed to rub it in with a “sup bro.” His signature move was dribbling under the hoop, appearing lost with no real destination in mind, and then suddenly either hitting a wide open 10 foot jumper or lobbing a jaw-dropping oop to Amare. Bonus: He and Kobe play 1 on 1 soccer before games on turf field put on the court.


SG: MJ | Kobe - Two of the greatest competitors to ever lace em’ up, and perhaps the two greatest shooting guards of all time. The hypothetical is even better when we throw in this kicker: Before each game, the two must battle in a one-on-one competition of the fans’ 
choosing to determine who starts that evening’s game. One night it may be Table Tennis, the next could be Checkers, and the next night could be a 50m breast-stroke swim. The competitions are recorded
and aired in the arena during halftime, further incentivizing fans to attend in person (video of the competitions aren't released to the public for 48 hours). On the court, we could expect plenty of showmanship, dunks, and defense. Best of all, each would enter the arena with the competitive fury of a bull at a rodeo.

SF: Vince Carter – For pure entertainment value, there are few who top Air Canada. Nothing against LeBron, but despite LeBron being a better all-around player, Carter’s dunking portfolio is 2nd to none. With Vince in the starting line-up, fans are going to do whatever they have to do to make sure they are in their seats at tip-off. 



PF: Shawn Kemp | KG – Supremely athletic power forwards with a mean streak, both could dunk with the power of a center and the finesse and creativity of a shooting guard. KG is the better player, but as Kemp’s #1 dunkshows, it’s hard to beat Kemp’s almost comical insanity. As with Kobe & MJ, these two would have to battle each night to determine who starts. KG & Shawn would compete in a trash talk battle a la Nick Cannon’sWild n’ Out (sorry parents, this
definitely wouldn’t be a PG event). The team would bring in different judges each night to determine the starter, including local celebrities for away games.

C: Shaq – As great as Shaq was, he was also a genuinely funny dude. You’d want him on the team just for his soundbites, much less his ability to break a backboard. Bonus: Shaq has to take all of his free throws from the three point line. Double Bonus: He has to play point guard on 25% of his possessions.

Reserves

Steph Curry: Dude is ballet in basketball shoes and provides instant offense. Some would want him to start over Nash, but Nash gets the nod due to his passing ability. Bonus: He would have to wear his white shoes during each game. Kids would participate in a raffle to draw in colored pencil on the shoes before each game. Double Bonus: The other team is assessed a free throw for every 5 seconds his mouth-guard is out of his mouth.

Allen Iverson - Not my favorite athlete, but the “pound for pound…” comment rings true and he’s nothing if not entertaining. Bonus: He intros the team’s “Practice” segment before each game.

LeBron James: He doesn’t start over Vince Carter, but he probably finishes each game if it’s close. Bonus: He anchors a segment called “The Decision” that features team management and some of the decisions they have to make.

Antoine Walker – This team would obviously be winning by a large margin in most games; Antoine’s only on this roster for his shimmy.

Rasheed Wallace – Talk about entertainment value! From the Malice at the Palace to his litany of other technical fouls, this guy is the best “goon” basketball has seen. His volatile nature detracted from his play, but Mr. Wallace could most definitely ball. 


Hakeem Olajuwon – What could be better than pairing the almost zen-like Olajuwon with ‘Sheed? In my view, Hakeem is one of those greats who is still underrated (he has the most blocks in NBA history {granted, they weren’t recorded when Russell was playing}). He was also more athletic in his Phi Slamma Jamma days than may remember. The “Dream Shake” is also perhaps my favorite move (slightly edging Dirk’s one-legged fadeaway).

Dirk – It’s my list and I’ll add who I want, even if gangly white dudes draining threes may not provide great entertainment value. Bonus: watching the 7' Shaq to 7' Dirk drive and dish.

Woody Harrelson – Woody brings his “White Men Can’t Jump” role from the silver screen to the hardwood and becomes a mesh of everyone’s favorite hometown walk-on and B-list celebrity. Bonus: Woody stays in character just to incite drama with ‘Sheed and A.I.




Coach – Bobby Knight. Despite this team going 80-2, Bobby would still find a way to throw a chair.


Tell me you wouldn’t pay decent money and $11 for beers to watch this team?

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Are Pro Sports Franchises a Public Good?

Are Pro Sports Franchises a Public Good? | 6.11.2016

It's a random fall Sunday with nothing on your social calendar other than avoiding the dread of the coming work week. You and your friend text a few emojis to commiserate the lack of events around town on this gloomy Sunday. Given the lack of activities and the impending rainstorm, you default to watch the big game, eat some brats, drink some beers, and reminisce about John Madden.

You could be described as a lukewarm fan, despite the recent success of the Omaha Omicrons, who have won 3 of the last 4 pigskin championships. Your interest in their rivalry game with the Little Rock Lizards is a half-notch above mild, but you know that your friend has been a lifelong Omicron fanatic, and he sports all of the jerseys, table coasters, and frozen mugs to match. You sit down to watch the game, and begin your slow march through a pack of brats and the newest Lincoln Lager varietal (don't ask why I picked Nebraska for this hypothetical). You enjoy the rest of the game, and even jump out of your seat when the Omicrons defeat the Lizards on a ridiculous last second fake-punt double reverse throwback to the eligible tackle. After the ensuing chest-bump and beer spill, you exit and make your way home to get ready for the week, your mood slightly better than it was 3 hours earlier.

During your walk home, you notice a flyer urging citizens to vote against using public dollars to fund the Omicrons proposed new stadium. You had heard about the new stadium, and despite the relative newness of the current Omicron Palace (you remember throwing up after you ate too much funnel cake in 5th grade), you hadn't thought much of the proposed stadium until now. The flyer emphasizes the nearly $200 million that taxpayers would have to put toward the stadium, and how these public funds would either raise tax dollars or impact other publicly funded initiatives. You whistle at the magnitude of this sum of money, and continue on your way home.

The rest of your walk was uneventful, other than nearly tripping over the curb, as your mind wandered back to the flyer. Although your daytime job was in accounting, your real passion was music and art, and a week hardly ever passed without you visiting the local Arts Center. You always enjoyed seeing school-children in attendance or others learning, and you were glad that the city had decided to help subsidize the cost of attendance and other exhibits. Your wife was a doctor, but she enjoyed finding time to help tend to the city's community garden, which was located inside one of the larger parks. You knew that while both the Arts Center and park both received private donations, the park especially benefited from tax dollars - there was hardly a day or weekend that went by when the park wasn't hosting an event or festival which were free to attend.

Thinking more about the $200 million the Omicrons wanted the public to spend to support their new stadium, you began to wonder what other initiatives that amount of money could support. How many teachers could we pay? How many miles of sidewalk or playgrounds could we build? How many jobs training programs could we implement? How many new parks could we build and maintain and how many new bus routes could start? Maybe we could finally increase our city staff's wages to reduce turnover and improve efficiency. You thought back to the game watching sauage-fest and recalled that despite the crazy ending everyone was talking about, your mood and emotional state were remarkably similar to what they were prior to kick-off. However, to be fair had to admit that your friend's weekend was actually transformed by the last second victory.

You began to float the $200 million stadium, the emotional rollercoaster the Omicrons' games seemed to always create, and the joy that you and your wife received from other publicly funded initiatives in your head, and the following questions began to percolate from your receding hairline:

  • Were you simply an art loving elitist who wanted to suck the joy and happiness from every blue collar person out there? 
  • Was a $200 million public investment in a football stadium, and the subsequent guarantee that your town would retain its sports team (and thus entertainment and a default 16 calendar events) worthwhile?
  • Would this investment be justified if it were a more reasonable magnitude, as in, something closer to the value of the parks department's annual budget?
  • Is a local sports team more intrinsically valuable than a local symphony, opera or theatre troup?
=========

This post isn't to debate whether it is economically effective for public entities to spend tax dollars funding stadiums. From a pure profit and loss analysis, the evidence is so one-sided against that it's not worth discussing. Sports teams are better at swindling public tax dollars to support them than they are fielding, receiving, dunking, or skating. And lately, sports teams are less and less satisfied with their current home, choosing to leave when the stadiums are hardly old enough to vote (Braves after ~20 years, Rangers after 22 years, Hawks renovating after <20 years, Mavericks already planning their next venue after 15 years).

Sports franchises are becoming increasingly more bold, threatening to leave not only if they don't receive public funding for their stadium, but if they don't receive public funding for state of the art facilities (even going so far to define state of the art as in the top 25% of all facilities!). In the excitement of tall cranes, shiny steel and massive jumbotrons, we often forget that the teams that we love to cheer are private businesses, allegedly part of the capitalist framework in which most other businesses operate.

This brings us to a philosophical question at the heart of the issue: do we consider our pro sports teams a public good? My open-ended thought of the evening I tried to capture in this hypothetical but all-too-real story is how much do we value having a sports team in our town? Are sports teams not only a local attraction but also an indicator of significance, in the same way that local Fortune 500 companies or being an airline's hub puts us "on the map?" Is it worth spending millions of dollars a year to be able to say "we have a team!?"

This isn't to say that I want to eradicate all pro sports leagues and franchises. While the fanaticism of certain sports (North American football) is specific to this country, the insanity for soccer and other sports around the global indicates that Americans are not alone in our passion for sport. Atlanta's Arlington's (TX) are not alone in appearing compelled to ensure they keep their sports teams in town (sorry Thrashers fans), even if it means shelling out huge subsidies, tax breaks, and wheel-barrows of cash. No mayor or city council person wants to have had the local fan-favorite team leave on their watch. 

League defining teams like the L.A. Lakers, New York Yankees, Boston Celtics, and Dallas Cowboys are entrenched in their respective regions and leagues, and are as synonymous as Hollywood, pizza rats, cannolis, and big hair, to their respective cities. However, these regions would likely be able to afford at least a few of their local sports teams with no public subsidy due to their population and reputation. However, I would imagine that many smaller markets would not be able to generate the same level of support for a team, as much to do lack of available season ticket holders as any other factor. 

Is it wrong for smaller regions to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on sports teams to "legitimize" their city? Would Sacramento be a better place to live if they hadn't invested in the Kings or Salt Lake City the Jazz? (also, you left New Orleans 4 decades ago, time for a name change) Would the average Joe or Jane embrace their region spending $500 million over 30 years on a new symphony hall and theatre...knowing that these places would charge $200 a ticket and $9 for beer?

I have no problem with jurisdictions spending public tax dollars on recreational goods like parks, school athletic facilities, trails, and similar facilities. I also have no problem with jurisdiction spending public dollars to  support educational institutions such as museums, art centers, symphonies, and theatres. I can sympathize with those who don't agree with this support, although part of my reasoning for supporting these causes is that they are typically not profit driven nor owned by billionaires.

 Yet, when billionaires, many of whom treat owning sports teams as a hobby or investment, request public funds and threaten to leave if they don't receive them, I have a problem. When public tax dollars are used on a massive scale to support a for-profit enterprise, even when the team and sport provide hard-to-quantify ancillary benefits such a "legitimacy," default social activities, and an excuse to wear ill-fitting mesh apparel, I have a problem.

Massive public support isn't limited to big cities. A tiny Mississippi town spent tens of millions to lure a minor league Braves franchise. According to Bloomberg, this resulted in the town's credit rating being lowered, and increased taxes, in effect the fiscal double play.

Interestingly, these subsidies are as prevalent as ever, despite the increasing reach of television and technology. The number of sports and streaming packages is as plentiful as ever, meaning that if you are a die-hard St. Louis Rams fan, you can still watch your team...even if they reside in L.A. As transient as many people in our current global economy, I think it's then fair at some level to ask, "who cares...? if your team leaves town for greener pastures. You can still watch them, and save the money for a festival, local college team, or wherever else you want to spend your hard earned cash.

If we wanted to restrict public funding to pro sports franchises, I'm sure there are multiple options, although most would likely require some level of government intervention. One idea that might provide flexibility but temper funding would be to cap stadium funding at the level of some other budget item or percent of a budget item. Below are a few examples:

  • Stadium funding (and tax subsidies for the team) cannot exceed X% of the city's total annual school budget
  • Stadium funding cannot exceed X% of total arts funding
  • Stadium funding cannot exceed X% of jobs training programs
While this is most definitely government intervention, I am am hopeful that many sensible individuals could see the benefits of these strings to stadium and pro sports franchise funding. It would be nearly impossible for the federal government to pass such a law, but without federal intervention, teams would consistently move to states with fewer regulations (side note: If only a few states held out, it would be funny to see the entire NBA in 6 states. I can see it now...5 city councils in Montana and South Dakota vote to give $200 million for new arenas. Bison get in free), creating a nation-wide pro-sport franchise game of prisoner's dilemma.

There is no silver bullet to this issue, but there is likely a bundle of solutions that would help to address the public support of private sports enterprises. Consider talking to your respective city council members and mayors, and not giving a dime to your local sports franchise - you've already given your tax dollars!


Saturday, April 2, 2016

Thoughts on Tipping

Tipping. Often our brain's last remaining useful application of mental math. You've had a nice meal with friends or your date and then the bill comes back. The stress begins and you tug at your collar or fidget with your jewelry as the thought bubbles begin to flood your mind:

How much to tip? (15%?)
Was the service really that bad? (20%?)
Was it really that good? (let's compromise at 18)
Who do I blame for that salty pork chop? (18?...Shit, I need a calculator)
I wanted ranch on the side!!! (I'll just round to the nearest dollar)
I know I tip the bellman but what about the person who cleans my room? (Carry the 1...)
I know restaurants are at least X percent, but what about the nail salon?
-Quick - let's leave before they see what we wrote!

While a stressful practice stateside, tipping is not practiced extensively in most developed countries, and it can even be considered rude.  From restaurants and bars to nail and hair salons, tipping is woven into many of society's transactions.  If not for credit cards, you'd need more $1's than Blondie if you were to take a cab from the airport to your upscale hotel, make a quick trip to the nail salon before dinner and then meet a friend for dinner.  As part of the tipping debate, it's necessary to emphasize that in many of these service industries, those receiving these tips rely on them as a significant part of their income, and without them, many of these workers would not earn what most consider a living wage.

A recent discussion prompted me to consider why we tip. Is it a customary procedure to keep our STEM skills sharpened?  Is it to reward those who are exceptional at their job - to in effect give micro-bonuses? As someone who is privileged/spoiled to have very limited service industry experience, I have no firsthand knowledge of the effort, patience and energy it takes to work these jobs.  Furthermore, this same privilege and desired career track has led me to a salaried position that provides 8 hours' pay, even when some hours are admittedly more productive than others. Most days I believe I add value to the projects I'm working on and teams I'm a part of; however, some days my mind drifts more than it perhaps should or I didn't sleep well or one or a hundred possibilities.
---
Pretend it's 4:00 on Friday, just before your 3 day weekend begins and the office is already nearly empty.  Or maybe you're not feeling well but can't afford to take time off.  Or maybe you've had a death or serious illness in your family but are still at work, trying to push through until the funeral.  Whatever the reason - hangover or heartache, many of us have the privilege of being able to continue billing hours, even when we know we're not giving our best work, and we know there will likely be no direct impact.  No one bills these hours at a lower rate or tells their supervisor - "I didn't deserve my full salary today when I was thinking about my ill family member...or my upcoming vacation"  Yet, conversely, how many of us start to wonder if we deserve a bonus after a few focused 10 hour+ days, weekend warrior campaigns, or back to back weeks of exceptional effort?
---
After that tough day at the office, you head to the nearest restaurant to avoid the effort of cooking and cleaning.  Your service is a little slow, the food isn't cooked to your liking, and they forgot to put ranch on the side.  Or, after heading to the salon after a long day at the office you notice your new 'do doesn't look quite as fresh as it usually does or perhaps your cab driver missed a street on the way home, adding precious minute(s) to your trip home.
In how many of these instances does your waitress/stylist/driver deserve a lower tip?  Most would argue that we tip on performance, just as salaries/bonuses are similarly influenced by production.  Yet, it could be argued that in service industries, the relationship between performance and compensation is both more immediate and greater in magnitude than in most professional industries.

Most professional jobs come with higher salary ceiling than most service industry jobs. Should society further reduce service industry workers' wages if they aren't at the very top of their game 100% of the time?  An alternative compensation structure would be to increase service workers' hourly wages so that they can earn a decent living without tips, and then encourage society only to tip when service is extraordinary.  If service is average, then the servers/stylists/etc will receive no additional money, but if they go above and beyond, you can leave an additional 5 or 10%, knowing that the worker will see this gesture to indicate a job well-done.  Workers are still incentivized to get it right and give extra effort, but are not punished severely on off-nights.
In addition to perhaps becoming a small solution to the nation's growing income mobility and inequality issues, this policy would simplify our shopping, dining, and transportation experiences.  Forget calculating the tip.  That $15.00 quinoa burger & kale fries might come with sticker shock, but the listed price would capture the true cost of preparing it for you and paying the wait staff, not $12.49 + whatever tip you think should be added.

Paralleling other wage-related and inequality issues, the American service industry should re-consider its stance on tipping and transition from an industry where its workers often rely on tips to one where tips are merely appreciated.  If they work 40 hours a week, stylists, waiters, taxi drivers and many other service industry workers should make enough in base salary to cover their own food and shelter needs.  If they give great service, then diners and others should be encouraged to give an additional tip for a job well done - like an immediate micro spot bonus that many of your companies may give.  If service was average, customers can leave without tipping but with the knowledge the person serving them was still paid a decent wage. Service workers can do their jobs without the stress of worrying about rude college kids leaving a 10 cent tip on a 40 dollar meal, while still having an incentive to provide impeccable service.

Research: http://tippingresearch.com/uploads/Waiter_Survey_Initial_Report__1_.pdf

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/04/everything-dont-know-tipping.html
Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353031.htm