More NCAA FUN!

I'm totally shocked. Usually by this stage of the tournament I've got one region left alive on my Yahoo bracket. This year I got 7 out of 8 right in the Elite 8. My only miss was Mizzou over Memphis. But seeing Memphis lose was worth it. Of course the danger now is that Mizzou is going to spoil the party by beating UConn -- which is a very real possibility. That team can play.

Now on to the women's party where parity is beginning to emerge. But I'm fairly certain UConn has enough grit to make it through to the title and a perfect season. Unless the good old girls network at the NCAA assigns one of their favorite incompentent refs to do the Stanford-UConn semifinal. I don't know how things look and sound in other parts of the country, but over the last 5-10 years the group of elite female head coaches who have been around since the 80's appear to have a chip on their shoulder. Especially over men like UConn's Geno getting good press. But not just the guys. They seem to resent the rise of the new coaches like Coales, and Goestetnerkor? and they definitely never liked Carol Peck. When I read between the lines on what I see and hear in the interviews is a sense that they resent these folks who've crashed their party uninvited. And it's the uninvited part that's clear. They've got their proteges, but its the other up and coming coaches that seem to rankle their feathers and whose success they begrudge. Maybe it's just me reading too much into it, but it sure seems that way. And it seems like Summitt, VanDerveer, and Conradt and the other greats have had too much sway in the tournament committee. Of course now that UConn has become a powerhouse and an ESPN media darling they get special treatment as well. But I like them so it doesn't bug me to see that!

Big Beast?

Results from the first day of the Sweet 16 suggests we may see something like 1985 once again. For those who wonder, that was the year 3 out of the Final Four were from the Big East and Villanova shocked Georgetown for the title. Now for Louisville and the 'Cuse to uphold the league's destiny tonight.

But, just in case the Big Beast is clawless, the Big XII is showing some real muscle as well -- can you say MISSOURI Tigers (not Memphis! bye, bye Calipari and the perfect hair.)

Substantive Polling

We speak of a politician being poll-driven in only negative terms. The implication is that if a pol uses polling to help set their governing strategy they are simply pandering. In this op-ed Friedman describes a way in which polling data is incredibly useful in real governance. It's using polls to understand what is being heard. And then tailoring your message accordingly, not to manipulate, but to inspire or lead the people toward greater good.

More AIG Fun

The AG's of NY and CT have been blustering about "naming names" and threatening to force the public disclosure of those who just got retention payments from AIG. I'm real unhappy that we've thrown money into Wall Street where folks worshiped the god of the free market and haven't let the firms suffer the wrath of the god they've served. But Cuomo and Blumenthal are little more than publicity hounds -- they're grandstanding knowing full well that the culprits behind the meltdown have all moved on. (Check out this link to a resignation letter from a top AIG exec).

And that's the way it always seem to be when folks stop looking long term, get overly focused on short term results and reward those producing those short term gains without regard for the long term consequences. Some folks catch on to the game right away, drive short term results recklessly ignoring the fallout, and then ride the wave up to promotions with other firms (where they repeat the process). Only a few hang around to deal with their messes. I saw this in the grocery business. And I saw the loyal and ethical employees pay the price. Why were these charlatans rewarded and the good guys penalized? Because the top of the food chain at the companies were ignoring anything except the immediate gain. And why were they managing in that way? Because that's what the Board of Directors was looking at - the short term stock price gains. And why would directors recklessly drive a company into the ground? In one case with one company I worked for it was because of outside pressure from a take-over group that labeled the company as "under-producing" and a likely target for a leveraged buy-out and subsequent sale of the pieces. Which meant that long term results were irrelevant to the job security of upper management. And that all those stock options they were being paid thanks to the structure of the tax code had more value by playing the traders' game than if they ran the company in the best interests of investors. By the time the company was sold and dismantled all the hot shots were long gone. The only people left were those older employees who were hoping to hang on until retirement, those lifers who "believed" in the company, and those of us who were too dumb to read the writing on the wall or whose options were too limited to let us escape. After all, if every other candidate for new jobs is showing incredible numbers on their resumes and you've got only solid gains to put on stage the only folks looking for you are the ones who see the house of cards for what it is. And since so many companies were in the house of cards group and so few looking long term the job opportunities for the responsible folks aren't very many.

So, am I bitter? No. Just tired of watching us go round and round on this same old merry-go-round and seeing that the talk radio/tv talking heads don't get it and that the public is -- in the words of Willie Stark -- hicks.