Dolphins 2011 Draft Preview

It is an annual tradition for me to try and offer my free, unsolicited advice to the Dolphins, Timberwolves and Jazz on who they should draft. I feel much more confident in my basketball knowledge, but that still doesn't mean I don't get some fun out of doing a draft preview for the NFL. Anyway, if you were curious here is my short 2010 preview for the Dolphins. The Dolphins ended up going with option 1 and trading down. In retrospect I wish they would have gone with option 4 and picked Earl Thomas of Texas.

Option 1: Draft Ryan Mallett of Arkansas. The Dolphins need a quarterback and after watching a few Arkansas games, I came away impressed with Mallett. The character concerns don't bother me much, and I think the potential to get a really good player at a position of need is there.

Option 2: Trade down and draft Ryan Mallett of Arkansas. If the Dolphins want to gamble that he will still be available at the end of the 1st round or even the 2nd round then it makes sense to trade down and get an additional pick. This is risky though.

Option 3: Draft Jake Locker of Washington. I am not sold on him, but he is a good athlete and this article helped convince me that there would be worse picks out there.

Option 4: Draft Mike Pouncey of Florida. When in doubt draft an offensive lineman.

Option 500: Draft Mark Ingram of Alabama. In other words I am not going to be pleased if the Dolphins use their 1st round pick on a slow running back.

Taxes and Incentives

Lately, I have been following the budget discussions in DC. I enjoy thinking about financial issues and also the Republican leader (Paul Ryan) on this issue is a Miami University grad. My information gathering has centered around reading the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Star Tribune, Paul Krugman's blog and part of Paul Ryan's The Path to Prosperity. It is an interesting discussion going on in DC and I would like to add my thoughts on a small part of the discussion; taxes. Specifically, I would like to write a little about the incentives in our current tax code.

I was reading this article in the Star Tribune, and what really stuck out to me was "there are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even paying other taxes." The article then goes on to quote that "the tax code is filled with a total of $1.1 trillion in credits, deductions and exemption." Now, I am sure that that a lot of these deductions are legitimate, but I have a few questions about the logic behind two of them.

Why are we incentivizing Americans to take on a mortgage or have children?

It seems like the American government is trying to influence Americans into buying homes and having children. I find this baffling. There are definitely benefits to having children and owning a home, but I can't say that it without a doubt either benefits the American public. People who rent and don't have children might even benefit the American public more.

Renters generally live in places that are more urban, which according has certain advantages summarized in this Freakonomics article entitled Why Cities Rock. It is based on a book by Edward Glaeser called Triump of a City, which states that urban environments are "actually the healthiest, greenest, and richest (in cultural and economic terms) places to live" Also, one huge advantage of renting is the flexibility it provides the renters. When you rent you are in a better situation if the job market changes. Instead of being tied down to a certain area, you are able to go where there are jobs. When I was looking for a new job, it was extremely valuable to me that I was able to interview in North Carolina, Milwaukee and Minneapolis. If I owned a home that wouldn't have been nearly as easy.

Based on that above paragraph, it makes zero sense to me why Americans are allowed to deduct the interest they pay on their mortgage. Why are we subsidizing home ownership? The benefits to the public are debatable at best.

As for the child tax break that also seems even more surprising. Maybe there is something I am missing, but wouldn't it better for the public finances to have less children? Children equal higher hospital costs, school costs and more competition for jobs. Of course children also become the next innovaters and job creators, but my guess is that those children probably come from stable families that would have a child regardless of any tax breaks. It seems to make more sense to have a tax break for people that don't have kids. That incentive to not have children might result in that only people who really want to have kids would be the ones procreating. On average I think that the more somebody wants a child then the better parent that person will be.

I am not trying to be flippant about owning a home or having children. Both are two huge life changes that I would like to go through in my life. I look forward to the day of having a lazy weekend breakfast with M and our children in our own home. My main point isn't that I don't like home ownership or children. I do. I just don't think the government should be involved in either decision. The US government has no place tailoring their tax code to effect either behavior.

Living in Minnesota

In the movie The Shawshank Redemption there is a scene where Red is describing how Andy broke out of prison. The secret to tunneling through a prison wall for Andy's escape was "pressure and time." He might as well have been describing the process of trying to make close friends in Minnesota.

There is a lot I like about living in Minnesota. I love the many sporting event options (especially the Twins), the incredible restaurants and generally the pleasant nature of the people. There are many job options (21 Fortune 500 companies), and the people here are normally very hardworking. Also, the state's does a great job of providing for the public with excellent public schools, parks and city services. That is a huge advantage Minnesota has over my home state of Mississippi.

However, there are some things about Minnesota that I could be improved upon. I read this excellent article by Susanna Daniel on slate.com called Living in the Midwest. She was writing about her life in Madison, Wisconsin, but a lot of what she wrote easily could have described my life in Minnesota. I recommend you read the entire thing, but below are some of the highlights:

• She and her husband have a spreadsheet with "Things We Like" and "Things We Don't Like" about the Midwest. This could easily be M and I.
• Her line "Midwesterners are, true-to-reputation, kind and friendly, but they aren't particularly warm" was something that I think about often.
• "Which means they exist comfortably at a certain remove that can take years - and I mean years - to breach." That is what I meant by pressure and time.
• She talks about how a newspaper article referred to her as a "recent transplant" despite living there for 10 years and having a married someone from Madison. Being considered an outsider is definitely something I can feel despite having lived in Minnesota for 6 years.

The article is something that really resonated with me. I enjoy living in Minnesota. The pros outweigh the cons. I just wish that it would be easier to get closer friends. It isn't that I don't like the people here, but I just don't think they like me as much. In Mississippi if I enjoyed someone's company then I would have no problem spending day after day with the same people. When I go back to Mississippi, it isn't an effort to hang out with these people since I know we will see each other as much as possible. In Minnesota, I feel like I have allocate and rationalize my friendship differently. The idea of spending day after day with the same person here probably would scare off almost all of my local friends.

Right before I moved to Minnesota, I visited Minneapolis on a apartment hunting tour. I vividly remember reading a local magazine about "Minnesota Nice." The article described the unique nature of trying to become friends with Minnesotans that I would like to end this post on:

Minnesotans are extremely nice people. When asked, they will be more than happy to give you directions - to any place expect their their house.

College Fairs

The past two nights I have attended two college fairs representing Miami University as a volunteer recruiter. I do this partly because I like to help out Miami, and also partly because I have found that I really enjoy the college fair/high school environment. There is something invigorating about advising high school students on one of the biggest decisions of their life. As someone who thought a lot about what college I should attend, I feel like I have a unique perspective on the entire process.

Anyway, I was talking to M last night about the latest college fair, and she informed me that during my monologue I had used the word "interesting"about 7 times. Her advice was to pick another adjective. The point I was trying to make was that the whole college fair environment intrigued (how about that?) me. Below are some of the noteworthy (another one) thoughts I had from the two college fairs:

• My favorite question from both fairs was one student who asked if their was a Chipotle in Oxford, OH? I joked that she obviously had her priorities straight, but honestly that isn't a bad question. Most of the other questions (ACT score, student population) you can easily get online, but something that specific is something that I can answer and is a valuable piece of information for that high school student.
• There are many exceptions, but overall it is clear that female students are much more personable than their male counterparts.
  
• I finally was able to use my little synchronized skating knowledge with one student. She was wearing a synchronized skating sweatshirt and knew about Miami's national title winning program. I was able to reference Miami's seven straight national titles, which normally impresses no one.
• One father came up to me and gave me a little fist pump while saying "the MAC." I asked him what school he attend and he told me it was the fellow MAC school Northern Illinois. At this point I could have either taken the MAC pride as it was or talk a little trash about Miami's MAC championship upset over the Huskies back in December. I choose the latter.
• One of the more funny moments yesterday was when a blonde cheerleader (she was wearing cheerleading shirt) came up to me and started talking about Florida. She quickly realized (maybe it was the banner that had the large text "Oxford, OH" on it) that this Miami was not the one in Florida. Her friends started giggling and making fun of her immediately.
• I have to hand it to the Inver Hill Community College rep, who despite his college's reputation seemed to have no problem flirting with the Michigan Tech, Holy Cross, Indiana or Iowa State college reps.
  
• I never thought I would be impressing prospective college students with the success of Miami's hockey team. I used the fact that Miami has made it to 2 out of the past 3 Frozen Four's and was a #1 seed in the tournament this year many times. I don't know if it is more surprising that Miami is good at hockey or that I actually care about that.

Anyway, those are just some of the thoughts I had from being a college fair rep. It was something that I am glad that I do, and would love to do more of in the future.

The Lenten Season of My Life

Lent comes around every Spring and for certain Christians that means it is a time to give something up. (Yes, I know there has been a focus lately on taking things on, but I still think most people think of it as a time to give something up). For Catholics that means that you give up eating meat on Friday and try to find something personal (giving up candy) to sacrifice for 40 days. Growing up as an Episcopalian, I was allowed to eat meat on Fridays, but my parents did encourage me to give something up. For example I remember specifically giving up buying baseball/basketball cards in 5th grade.

Anyway, Lent is a good time to reflect on what you have and what you can do without. Also, it is helps you appreciate things like eating meat on a Friday or drinking Coke or buying baseball cards. There isn't a much better way of making you appreciate something than by taking it away.

For a variety of reasons, I feel like my life is now focused on what I do not have and what has been given up. M and I do not live close to our family. We do not own a home. We do not have children. We don't even have a dog. We have jobs we like, but I can't say that we have the absolute best career ever. We are newly married 28 year olds, who are focused on improving our finances, job skills, experiences and basically preparing for the next stages in our life.

One thing that comes from being in this down time in our life is that it gives us time to reflect on what we want in the future. I don't want to speak too much for M, but I think we both appreciate our families more now that we aren't around them. I genuinely enjoy hanging out with my family and hope to one day be closer to them. I would like to think I would still feel that way if I always lived within reasonable distance of them, but that might not be the case. There is no guarantee that if I always lived in Jackson that I wouldn't take them for granted or even worse resent them. Also, not owning a home has allowed us to have a few benefits:

• We are saving money for a down payment.


• We know so much more of what we don't want. (A garage door that actually opens when we want it to would be nice.)


• Flexibility to move


• A chance to take advantage of a stock market has gone up 13% over the past year.

Finally, the fact that we don't have kids, but do know many people that are at that life stage has really focused our attention on what it is going to be like with kids. M and I are planning a trip to Europe partly because we know that that type of trip is going to be so much more difficult if we have children. It is nice being able to see a little bit into the future (thanks E) and making the proper preparation. You don't get a chance to do life over again, so it is important to take advantage of each stage of life. We might not have many big things, but that gives us the freedom that we will cherish for as long as it lasts.

A few issues with hockey

Growing up in Mississippi, I never really followed hockey, which makes sense considering that Mississippi doesn't exactly have many backyard ice rinks. The sport was never discussed amongst my friends and family and for a sake of comparasion it really was a sport that was on par with cricket. (Big cricket match coming up on Wednesday between India and Pakistan if you were curious).

I then decided to make two decisions that forced me to change to recognize hockey as a sport. I went to school at Miami and then I moved to Minnesota. Miami ended up becoming a big time hockey program that recently has been a constant in the NCAA tournament. They have made it to a couple of Frozen Fours and lost one of the most heartbreaking games of my life back in 2009. Also, by moving to self-proclaimed "State of Hockey"I am surrounded by people who think hockey is the best sport. I didn't make either decision with hockey in mind, but both decision did end up involving hockey in a way that I would never have considered.

Now, I can understand a little bit about the appeal of hockey. It is a fast sport and there aren't many stops in the game. The consistent action and random nature of goals reminds me of a slot machine that pays a big amount every hour or so. You never really know when a goal is going to come, so it is hard not to get excited when it does happen. Also, the fact that isn't at all predictable makes it even that more addicting. Random rewards are more addicting than consistent, predictable rewards. Also, the fact that there aren't as many hockey teams out there means that if you do have a favorite hockey team then odds are better than in other sports that they will be competing in the postseason for a National Title. Finally, it gives relatively random teams (like Minnesota-Duluth or New Hampshire) a chance of winning a title. However, despite that there are a few issues I have with the sport.

1. Great play doesn't always mean anything on the scoreboard. I have watched enough hockey games to see one team outplay the other team for a long period of time without either team scoring a goal.


2. Goals are too random. A puck is deflected or ricocheted in just the right way and it leads to a goal. It seems like almost half the goals are the basketball equivalent of a banked in 3 pointer. They might take some skill, but there is also a lot of luck involved.


3. A shot to win or lose the game doesn't exist in hockey. In basketball, football or baseball there can be one play (a shot down 2, a hail mary down 4 or a possible 2 run home run down 1) where if it goes in one team's favor it is a win and if it doesn't it is a loss. In hockey if a team is down 2-1 the shot at the end would either lose or tie the game. It is more exciting when the shot is to win or lose and not lose or tie.


4. There isn't that much late game drama. If a team is down at the end they are more likely to win than in other sports. I have no data to back this up, but I feel confident that my statement is accurate. There just isn't much late game drama as there is in games like Butler-Florida or Ohio State-Kentucky.


5. Overtime is apparantly time to leave. I was reading Insidecollegehockey.com's recap of the Northeast semifinals and in the article the following appeared "The crowd thinned out once Merrimack and Notre Dame went to overtime." Really? I can't find a sport that exciting if fans leave once overtime starts. This would rarely happen in other sports because overtime should be even more exciting that regulation.


6. Hockey is unjust and they don't care. Miami was a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament and as such they were paired up against 4th seeded New Hampshire. Guess who had home ice advantage? New Hampshire. Why does an inferior team get to play on home ice as a 4 seed? There was never an explanation besides people on espn saying "it was a tough draw." How is hockey supposed to be taken seriously when their tournament isn't close to being neutral or fair?


7. The soccer issue is also in full effect with hockey. I missed the first 5 minutes of the Miami-New Hampshire game and ended up missing 2/3 of the non-empty net goals including the one and only Miami goal. This was similar to how I missed the only World Cup Final goal by Spain because I went downstairs to help M move something. My point being is that if you step out for 2 minutes to do something and miss the entire game, then the sport has some real issues. I spend all of hockey and soccer games fearful of going to the bathroom and missing the one and only goal.


8. Point allocation in the NHL. I was shocked to find out that way points were given out in the NHL. If you win the game in regulation you are given 2 points and the losing team gets 0. However, if the game goes into overtime the winner of the game still gets 2 points, but the losing team gets 1 point. Do the people in charge of hockey think that just because a game goes into overtime the game is now 50% more valuable to both teams? It is in both team's best interest to just go into overtime and ensure that each team gets at least one point. If I was a hockey coach I would try to make a deal with the opposing coach to just mess around in regulation and ensure overtime since that is mutually beneficial to both teams. The economics of this point allocation makes no sense to me. If you want to give the overtime loser some credit then I find that strange, but I'm at least ok with the concept of it if for example the winner got 1.5 points and the loser got 0.5 points. However, to give out more points just because the game went into overtime is just plain crazy. I don't understand why the NHL had to look at sports like basketball and football with their "wins" and "losses" and think to themselves that needed any sort of tweaking.

Anyway, that is all I can think of right now, but I am sure that next year at this time (the next time I watch hockey because of Miami) I will come up with a few more complaints.

The End of the 2010-2011 Duke Season

Duke's season ended last night in a 93-77 loss to Arizona. My prediction of the team losing in the Sweet Sixteen (read it here) was unfortunately spot on. When the brackets were announced I thought the team that was going to beat them was Texas, but because of some curious late game strategy it ended up being Arizona. It didn't matter. This Duke team's destiny was to lose in the Sweet 16.

The NCAA tournament is great for the casual fan, but for true fans there isn't any sporting event that is this cruel. The nature of a one and done tournament is that your season always ends on a loss or by winning the National Title. Last year they won the title. This year it was back to the norm. And the cruel thing about the NCAA tournament isn't that you remember the exciting wins (you do), but how difficult the losses linger. I can't tell you much about the 2001 Elite 8 win Duke had against Temple, but I can tell you my exact feelings about Uconn, VCU, West Virginia, Kansas, Indiana, Villanova and now Arizona. The losses stick with you more than the wins.

As for last night, I have already spent a lot of time and effort thinking about the game. Some of my thoughts are below:

• Duke had their chance in the 1st half. Without Derrick Williams playing out of his mind, Duke would have been up 20 at halftime. That last three Williams hit to cut the lead from 9 to 6 was extremely important and one of the best shots I have seen all year.
• I don't remember ever seeing a college basketball team play better than Arizona did in the 2nd half. They shot 57%, grabbed a ton of rebounds and made some tough outside shots. In the end it all equaled an offensive performance of 1.53 points per possession. That is crazy when you think about it. That would be the equivalent of Duke fouling a 76% free throw shooter every single possession.
• Mason Plumlee and the post players for Duke are terrible. No one watching the game last night should be able to truthfully say that Plumlee is an NBA talent. He seems lost out there and his play severely hurt Duke's chances of winning the game.
• Derrick Williams on the other hand was incredible. If the Jazz or Twolves get the 1st pick they have to take Williams. How can someone that big and strong be so smart, productive and athletic?
• Kyrie Irving might come back to Duke next year. I hope he grows 8 inches, because Duke still needs a post player.

Thank you Nolan Smith and Kyle Singler for returning Duke to their proper place in college basketball. Both of you comprised an excellent senior class and the loss to Arizona does nothing to change that. In 2007 both of you came in (with Taylor King) at a low point in Duke basketball. The year before the team lost to VCU in the first round. With Singler and Smith the team made it from the 2nd round to the Sweet Sixteen to a title and now back to the Sweet Sixteen. Both of them were a large part of 3 ACC championship teams. Against UNC the senior class was 5-4, which is pretty remarkable considering how talented those UNC teams were during that time. It would have been nice to lead Duke to consecutive titles, but given the starting point I would like to think that every Duke fan has nothing but gratitude for your 4 years on the basketball team.