I thought that changing the Omaha Royals' name to the Omaha Storm Chasers was stupid, but changing the MLS's Kansas City Wizards to Sporting Kansas City is, like, stupider. That sounds more like the name of some rent-seeking sports activist group.
They're definitely on the right track, though. I think the problem is that they just haven't taken the fan voting and the focus groups and the branding expertise quite far enough. I'm just spitballing here, but how's about ... BenevolentRailBombingHuskerStorms?
Neyer is rightly skeptical about the influence of a "fan vote." The comments to this Omaha World Herald article are simply scathing. I know a comments section is not a random sample of fans, but given how vociferous the commenters are against the name change, Neyer's probably right that marketing people were more influential than a fan vote.
Here's one of the new mascots, Stormy.
A picture of the actual mascot is here. What is this supposed to be? It looks like the Philly Phanatic. Is that supposed to be a tornado on the nose?
I'm glad my sons and I took in one last game at Rosenblatt Stadium this summer on our minor league road trip. I knew that the 'blatt was doomed, but I didn't know the O-Royals' name was also doomed.
So, the IOC got their underwear in a knot because the Candian women's hockey team celebrated their gold medal with adult beverages and cigars. From John Palmer who emailed me this link and wrote "and they were concerned about beer and cigars." Apparently there was a concern about other adult activities:
as if anymore proof is needed that a wild Olympic atmosphere permeates
B.C.'s largest city, now there's an apparent condom shortage.
right. As you read this, an emergency shipment of condoms is
desperately making its way across Canada to the West Coast city.
officials in Vancouver have already provided 100,000 free condoms to
the roughly 7,000 ahtletes and officials at the Games. That's about 14
condoms per person. But as of Wednesday, those supplies started running
14 per person? They ain't married! That's all I can say.
My university has an Olympic bronze medalist. Nina Tikkinen, a player with the Finnish women's hockey team, is bringing home a medal. Bonus: she's an Economics major in my department (even though the first link says she is a history major at MSU). Congratulations Nina.
So the International Olympic Committee is saying it is going to investigate the behavior of the gold medal winning Canadian women's hockey team for returning to the ice after the medal presentation and drinking beer and champagne and smoking stogies.
C'mon! It's not like they trashed a hotel room, accosted strippers, or bilked taxpayers out of billions of dollars. What they did was a very typical celebration. Pro baseball players do the same thing here in North America when they win a divisional, league, or world series title. Tony Kornheiser had the appropriate take on his radio show at ESPN980 in DC this morning: "What they did was one of the coolest things ever and one of the most human things ever."
The nervous defenders of the Bowl Championship Series' bogus "national
championship" think they have gotten it right this time. No muss, no
fuss, no uncomfortably awkward idiocy like last year when the wrong
team (Oklahoma) ended up in the title game.
Alabama vs. Texas.
...While I'm fairly confident that No. 1-ranked Alabama is the best team
in the country, why not let a playoff format decide it, not a
convoluted computer program? And while we're on the subject, who's to
say Texas really is the second-best team in the country? That ugly
struggle against a 9-4 Nebraska in the Big 12 championship game didn't
inspire much confidence now, did it?
Why shouldn't 12-0 TCU, the third-ranked team in both polls, get a
chance to prove its worth in the title picture, or 13-0 Boise State? I
don't want to hear anyone say that they know for sure that Texas is the
second-best team in the country. Why? Because the Longhorns didn't beat
a single team that finished in the Top 20 until the Big 12 championship
Then he breaks out the antitrust language:
So until Congress can break up this power-conference cartel, I will not
accept it as the national title game and neither should anyone else.
The BCS is and always will be about the business of preserving a
monopoly of the power football conferences, which have little if any
interest in sharing the wealth with everyone else. A true playoff
system would certainly provide an opportunity for an enormous payoff
for everyone, just like the NCAA basketball playoffs. But that would
mean sharing all that cash on a more equitable basis with the entire
upper tier of Division I football schools.
It won't be the first time that the NCAA has run afoul of antitrust laws. Remember your monopoly theory from Principles of Micro. Monopolies, because they face no competition by definition, restrict the access to a product and, in so doing, drives the price higher than otherwise.
Similarly, cartels between businesses limit competition between themselves which results in higher prices for consumers.
But without an effective enforcement mechanism, there is a strong incentive for members to cheat on the cartel agreement. By cutting a side deal and, the cheater can capture a larger market share than agreed upon and, of course, higher profits. Without a way to punish members for cheating, the cartel falls apart.
When it comes to college football telecasts, the league (or the teams, depending on the league agreement) is the supplier and the consumer are media providers. Back in the 1970's and early 1980's, people would be lucky to find three games on television on a given Saturday.
According to Rod Fort's Sports Economics text (second edition, chapter 13 table 13-10) there were 28 games on television in 1982 and in 1983. The price paid for media rights per game in 1982 was $4.09 million (all prices quoted in this post are in real 2004 dollars). In 1983, that price was $4.3 million per game.
Nowadays conferences such as the Big 10 and the Big XII have nearly every game televised. What happened?
Back in the early 80's, Oklahoma and Georgia didn't feel their programs were on the telly enough. Unable to convince other schools that they should have their games on the telly more often, they sued the NCAA, a suit that made it to SCOTUS. In short, the NCAA lost in a landmark 1984 case.
What happened in the market for media rights? Almost immediately, the number of games on the telly increased and the price paid for media rights fell. In 1984, there were a total of 36 games on television and the price per game paid by media providers fell by over $3 million per game to $1.1 million.
One year later in 1985, there were 42 games on television and the price per game was at $1.12 million. Ten years later in 1995, there were a total of 71 games on television and the price per game paid by the media was $1.07 million.
The NCAA television case was a textbook case not only of monopoly power but also of how individual interests tend to chip away at the power of cartels. It's a classic prisoners' dilemma game.
Now, I'm not so sure that the federal government (i.e. congress or the executive branch) should busy itself with a playoff system. Like they say, there's still no cure for cancer. Instead, it seems that the judicial branch is the way to go given the antitrust laws already in place.
Then again, in order to run afoul of antitrust laws, the NCAA needs to be sued. Which member school is up for that given what happens when a cartel gets broken up?