Arena Apothecary - Good words on good sports by a good man

In his little corner of the intertubes my good friend Travis Lund operates a bastion of sports and commentary known as the Arena Apothecary.  Some of you know him for his musical talents, but he knows sports like he hates serialism, which for the uninformed is, well, a lot.  Check him out.

NFL Playoffs: Win the coin toss and kick, kick, kick

Overtime in the NFL has always been the subject of high drama and high debate. Most of us have no trouble understanding that in a sudden death playoff the team getting the ball first has a distinct advantage. This notion is borne out by the facts: from 2000 - 2007 there were 124 overtime games in which teams who won the coin toss won the game 60% of the time (and tied once). In 37 of those contests the kicking team never actually managed an offensive possession, a disparity that rules officials attempted to adjust by amending the overtime rules for playoff games (all rules quotes taken from this link). While this new system will most likely provide the intended effect (both teams get a possession) it also simply shifts the preferred outcome of a winning the coin toss from “receive” to “kick.”

As the team receiving the kick here is one way to win and that path is simply touchdown. Return the kickoff for a touchdown? Game over. Receiving team scores a touchdown on their first offensive possession? Game over. Any other outcome means that the kicking team will get the ball back, with the added benefit of knowing exactly how many points they have to score to win/tie.

Taking directly from the NFL’s rules page on the matter, even an onside kick carries maximal benefit to the kicking team and very little penalty: “A kickoff is considered an opportunity to possess for the receiving team” so a successful onside puts the kicking team in perfect position to travel the 20-ish yards to get into field goal range (which can now be kicked for the victory). If the onside attempt fails, barring a subsequent touchdown by the receiving team (who admittedly has good field position somewhere around the opposition’s 45) an unsuccessful onside giving up only a field goal will still reward the kicking team with both the ball and the knowledge of just how many points they need to win/tie.

What does this all mean? Under the new rules it’s just not an advantage to receive the kick anymore. By moving the kickoff line up to the 35 this season the NFL has increased the number of touchbacks on kickoffs from 18.8% to 45.9%, which certainly helps to stifle the gifted return men in the NFL today (also making that game ending opening drive touchdown even more elusive). Even once the kick is received, the offense is now not only burdened with scoring a touchdown but also must protect itself from any of the myriad things that can go wrong: defensive safety? Game over. Turn the ball over? Sudden death rules, since both teams have had a chance at possession. Blocked punt or field goal? Same issue, so unless Coach is certain his offense can score a touchdown and end the affair immediately there’s simply too many ways to fail and too few ways to succeed to make that first possession worthwhile.

Are there circumstances under which a team would still want to receive? If you’re one of the teams this year with an offense as productive as the defense is porous, it’s a perfectly good strategy. Why not put your faith in your offense if you’ve evolved to “My offense is better than your defense” mentality of say the Packers, Giants, Saints or Patriots. Speaking as a Giants fan I would much rather give Eli his chance to march down the field than hope our 7th and 8th string players in the secondary could hope to stop a playoff caliber offense from getting in the end zone.

What then is to be done? The new overtime rules should do what they set out to do, that is give both teams a chance a possession, but at what cost? There should be some sort of advantage from winning the coin flip, just not as large and advantage as the previous system did confer (and the new one will, wait and see). I am big fan of the sudden death format, if for no other reason the opening possession is now as much a “Don’t %#$@ it up” possession rather than a “Let’s end this thing” type of drive.

My solution? Return to the sudden death format, move the kickoff to the kicking team’s 45 and shorten the ball’s distance to go before it can be recovered by the offense to 5 yards. Should the kicking team decide to actually kick the ball away, moving the spot of the kick farther up the field will further increase the number the touchbacks (which should decrease the number of opening possession scoring drives which then provide more opportunity for both teams to get the football.) Decreasing the number of yards the ball has to travel would create an create something akin to a line out in Rugby. Given that the kicking team would know the play they wish to run and the accuracy of onside kickers, amending the distance to 5 years will give the kicking team some serious incentive to refine set onside pieces. While of course just conjecture, I would foam at the mouth a little to see a “my hands team versus your hands team” situation.

I realize that in this plan the major advantage toward overtime victory could come from a high drama play in the middle of field, but I would much rather confer such advantage that way than from the randomness of coin toss. By giving coaches the option of high risk/high reward play or a more conservative approach we enable coaches to plan overtime strategy on how their team is doing in that game (momentum, player health, etc.) by providing another option in strategy. Plus, could there be a more exciting way to kick off? Well, perhaps an Aussie Rules style Centre Bounce, but one step at a time. As an added bonus it would certainly increase the utility of a versatile kicker who may be needed as much for touch as leg strength. One of the reasons the NFL hasn’t done away with kick offs entirely is the possibility of the onside (and a great return now and again) so why not incentivize that option?

In any case we won’t know how the proposed rule changes effect the outcome of a game until, well, the rule changes actually effect the outcome of a game. I look forward to seeing which coaches agree with my assessment and which don’t, and if any of the stats we currently use for discussions like this will be relevant in a few years as the NFL fully transitions to a passer’s game. There will most certainly be analyst bedlam when we start to get some data on the new OT format, and I’m looking forward to hopefully getting some validation on these thoughts in the process. In any case look forward to seeing how the game evolves in the future in response to the rule and strategy changes of the game now; just as the creation of rules protecting quarterbacks and wide outs have ushered in a new aerial era of football I look forward to seeing just how the new overtime rules will affect strategy and outcome in these new and uncharted waters.

The many faces of football

It’s easy believe that the life of a football fan is a life of knuckle dragging, beer swilling, Sunday wasting misogynist who has nothing better to do than loudly yell at a flickering box that cannot talk back. It’s even easier to think of football as a game for the bloodthirsty, the outlet of the unsophisticated. I cannot speak for the fans that might fit that bill and the game apparently is having trouble speaking for itself but every do often I take stab at explaining just why the sport manages to hold such sway in on my Sundays. And Mondays. And Thursdays starting around Thanksgiving. And Saturdays after the college football season ends. After fruitlessly trying to come up with THE reason there’s only one explanation left – the true joy rests in the fact that the game is so multifaceted, if you're interested in anything there's a good chance you will find something you enjoy.

I thought of it as Church, listening to the color commentators as preachers, fans as rabid as the most devoted follower, whipped into frenzy by anticipation of their team getting their three hours to shine. The faithful pack into the stands as parishioners into the pews to get close to the action, as close to the spectacle as possible paying all they can for the opportunity and to support their love. In each the devotion can spill over to violence and hatred, but to the true practitioner there is only appreciation and amazement at what we are lucky enough to have been given.

I thought of it as theatre. Each quarter as an act, each drive an opening and falling of the curtain, each touchdown dance a spectacle grown from the strutting and fretting of a player’s hour on the stage. The head coach the director, the coordinators the choreographers. A play performed once a week but practiced daily, the script giving way to ad libbing and improv as things go wrong on the stage. We travel to the theaters of sport, gather in masse to see the spectacle then critique the performance compared to how we’ve seen the show go other times.
I thought of it as a soap opera. Anyone who likes characters falling down elevator shafts will simply love the NFL. Between injuries, fines, getting cut suspended or benched, the drama is ideally theatrical but often the story lines are quite trashy. Teams illegally filming other teams, players legally changing their given names to fit their nicknames (for jersey sales), players getting cut and rehired six times in a season, players resurrecting careers from the dead, the list can go on and on. Besides, while the players change constantly (the average NFL career is three years) while the game stays basically the same, how is that not the essence of soap?

I thought about it as war. If you don’t know why one can be seen like the other you are probably sleeping or have never actually watched football. The generals giving tactics to their soldiers who execute the commands of general and adjusting strategy as necessary for victory...I rest my case.

I thought of it as art. In the same way that an artist carefully chooses elements for his/her work (composition, contrast, perspective etc.) the coach will choose the play (based on down, distance, score and time remaining); the success of that choice will dictate future decisions about the overall work (the outcome). A well executed play certainly is pretty as a picture, but instead of color and contrast it can be seen in design and execution. I see it in the subtle adjustment of a receiver route to find the hole in the zone defense, the timing and connection of a quarterback and his wideout on a back shoulder three step drop, the guard who pulls to open a hole in the B gap. Like the point and beauty in any art, we cannot see it unless we know how to look, so to confirm this check your preconceived notions at the door, grab a knowledgeable friend who loves to answer questions and watch a game, you’ll thank me.

Thanks to fantasy football, I can even play my own game on top of and made from the games each week. How metta. A reason to learn every name on every team, care about every game each week. Since betting on fantasy football is illegal in my area will of I course merely mention how fun it would be to have the added motivation of having your own cash dollars riding on such weekly battles. Fantasy also helps salve the fact that each year: only one team can win the Super Bowl, only about five have a chance to win it and everyone else is just trying to keep their jobs and not get embarrassed.

I marvel at people doing things that I simply can’t; NFL players get hit for a living by those paid to be the biggest, fastest and strongest people on the planet. I’ve also considered what my life would have been as a pro athlete many times (talent not withstanding) and have decided that I could certainly deal with the pro soccer, baseball or golf lifestyles. Football though is beyond me; I simply can’t fathom getting both feet in bounds knowing I’m going to get clobbered by someone running full speed. I’m not designed to jump on a fumble when 1,200 pounds of person will immediately follow, trying anything and everything to wrestle the ball away. I can’t understand what it would be like to know I was shortening my life span and risking both my physical and mental health on every play. The average career of an NFL player is three years and the average lifespan is in the 50s: however much those athletes get paid is appropriate.

The players also toil under far greater uncertainty than other professions. Other than signing bonuses, guaranteed money in a contract and small injury provision a weekly paycheck is anything but guaranteed. On my own dear Giants middle linebacker Chase Blackburn was unsigned until two weeks ago, staying in game shape just in case a team called. Thanks to the unfortunate series of events that is inevitable as the season progresses, he received that call, he suited up and just yesterday intercepted a pass in front of almost 83,000 people. Football contracts aren’t guaranteed like other sports (especially baseball, now that’s the life), so each week you risk your future for the opportunity to continue to risk your future – how can one not appreciate the love and drive that these players have for the game?

Most of all though when you’re engaged in the game, football is makes a strong analogy to life. Psychologically it’s not the Team that wins, we win (if our team loses we say “they” lost, but that’s for another day). It’s more than a series of large people struggling to gain a few feet at a time. No, it’s a microcosm of life, the struggle to overcome our obstacles and deficiencies in spite of the external forces attempting to stop our progress. By playing only once a week, every Sunday is a major opportunity (not unlike that big promotion or meeting a new love)- every loss is a wasted opportunity from which it become harder and harder to recover. Just as the quarterback needs his protection and his outlets to successfully acquire the ground he needs so too do we need the same kinds of support to be successful. In a support system (our blockers) of people who can help us advance quickly (wide receivers) and in a slower more plodding style (the running backs). We also require a defense savvy to the attacks of others to protect ourselves from advances into our territory, attempting to impose their will against ours, to attain what we need to succeed (points). We blow obvious chances, pull rabbits out of hats (look up “The Helmet Catch”), try gimmicks that sometimes work and on a long enough timeline the most talented will frequently, but not always succeed.

Is the game perfect? Of course not: there are too many breaks in the action (TV Timeouts make me want to throw furniture), it certainly does glorify violence (also part of the appeal, what a double edge to the sword) and the commercials make us all a little worse than we were before (I can’t unsee the Man Up commercials). I sometimes I feel funny knowing that wealthy white owners run teams of predominately African American players (which is more reflective of unfortunate trends in larger society, just happens to be mirrored here two) who are treated like thoroughbreds (I’ve heard more than a few players be called “studs” on ESPN, just noticing) and it can be used as a springboard to propagate mindless base consumerism. This is all true, but then again a book about a whiny teenage inspired the death of John Lennon and shoot Ronald Reagan – it’s not it’s not the experience that’s the issue, but the consumer.

So try a few hours on the couch this Sunday. Whether you enjoy theory and strategy, mindless entertainment, theatre or soap you might just find what you need. Bring a book, magazine or your laptop to pass the commercial time (I also recommend the mute button, lovely feature) and see if you won’t thank yourself for the time well spent. Happy watching.

Habits, where we came from and where we're going.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about my habitual behaviors. Perhaps it’s sitting on the cusp of the wrong side of 30, maybe it’s the continuing glut of neuroscience literature to read, it could even just be a side effect of considering exactly what I want the rest of my life to look like; in any event the idea of the function and features of our habits has been in the forefront of my mind. Both good and bad, I am who I am because of and despite my habits. Some I would certainly like to change (I am excellent at sinking many of the opportunities I create, cannot seem to help it) and some I would certainly like to reinforce (I love feeding my habit of being active) but in either case it’s definitely worth a look as to what our patterned behavior actually is.

The habits we dislike may be considered our flaws, but they do not stem from some inherent weakness. Evolution necessarily shaped our minds to function on autopilot for as many operations as possible, programmed for basic survival and the opportunity to flourish. It makes perfect evolutionary sense for our ancestors to voraciously feast on anything available – where and when would the next meal be? The same goes with all of our animal habits of consumption be they drugs, sex, relationships, listening to pop music, collecting shoes, whatever: if you’re unsure when the next drought or saber toothed thing might come for you of course you’ll want to get while the getting is good.

The scarcity argument aside, remember just how automatic our ancestors were. Unless you’re in the creationist camp you probably believe that we evolved our mental abilities over thousands of years. While there are different theories of the evolution of our consciousness, it seems most reasonable that we ever so slowly gained some sort of independence from our automatic functioning and responses. As mentioned in yesterday’s post we didn’t just wake up with our full complement of cognitive powers – more likely we developed conscious access to ourselves on a strictly need-it-to-survive basis.

Further, just because we developed the potential to overcome our basic responses we still have to understand how fragile our store of willpower actually is. The idea may be a bit confusing but consider what happens the minute we’re compromised in any way (think hungry, angry, lonely, tired). Our lizard brains take right back over – how many diets have fallen to the stress of the holidays? How many bad relationships have been re-consummated when we’re not at 100%? Why do you think a bad day drives many people to the bar? The wash of chemicals we get from these behaviors on some level reinforces our most primal instincts for comfort and satiety.
The only difference now is that it isn’t the loss of half our tribe or threat of mammoth stampede that drives us, but our modern society. Between the business world wanting us uncomfortable (because consumers don’t consume when they are happy) and modern media telling us we aren’t beautiful or rich enough (because we aren’t like who we see, hear about etc.), we’re always in a somewhat compromised state.

There’s also the trouble of sophistication – at basic we do fit the hedonist principle of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. While we have as a race developed some additional powers of discernment we still do live by the maxim of getting the most of what we like and avoid as much of what we don’t as possible. It’s easy to want to disagree, it can be argued that even altruism can be considered part of this principle – we help other people at the expense of ourselves because it brings us more pleasure than the alternative of not providing altruistic service. We simply haven’t evolved enough to be able to push our higher values into our animal wiring.

It doesn’t seem so confusing then that we struggle with changing our habitual behavior; even in our best case scenario the fight is not only with our internal wiring but the external forces of society. The next time you’re ready to get down on yourself or someone else for what they are or are not able to change (or just how they are), it’s important to remember what we as humans in modern society are still ill equipped to navigate our situation. We’re wired to overdo it (scarcity principle) on a very basic system of needs (pleasure v. pain) with a consciousness that requires optimal conditions to transcend such predispositions (which is made even more difficult by continual comparison to some fantastical state of existence which no one being can hope to achieve). Where our peculiar habits come from is a topic for another day, but remember when you’re struggling to change yourself you’re fighting against not only your own lizard self but a world that often wishes to play on that that primal response for financial or personal gain. We are way more imperfect than we often like to think, so cut yourself or your loved one a break, we are truly doing the best we can with the little that we’re given.

It's not that we're dumb, just badly evolved

At first blush our brains are incredibly lazy. Even if the old adage that we only use 10% of it were true it would only seem to be because the other 90% has no desire to get off the couch. When I look at all the ways our minds deceive us, the shortcuts in logic, our problems with misperception how can I not wonder why we forget our keys in the door, our glasses on our head, miss the gorilla dancing through the frame. Why would this be so? Why haven’t we evolved more acute powers of observation? Why can’t we all behave as though we’re on our NZT-48 (Limitless, a better concept than movie but now streaming on Netflix anyway) all the time? How come we cannot comprehend more information, why do we make such obvious mistakes? This is not a new question and answering it would require far longer than the scope of this article, but it’s important to remember that we are way closer to our Cro-Magnon ancestors than we like to admit. It is not our minds that are lazy so much as evolution is efficient in changing as little as possible while ensuring our survival.

Consider how the evolution of our consciousness must have proceeded – it wasn’t as though we magically woke up endowed with the powers we have today. No, more likely we picked up exactly and only what we needed to survive, expanding our inner space as our increasing comfort and safety allowed. It makes some pretty basic sense that being endowed with the concept for division doesn’t help when the mammoth is bearing down on you and your flint and hide spear. More likely we acquired our concept of numbers from pack hunting, matching the number of animals to be hunted or planning coverage tactics and developing more abstract operations only as we had the leisure to ponder in safety. I would love to know exactly the steps between learning to count and developing currency systems, the evolution of mind had to occur. I hope one day we can at least construct such a timeline but in the meanwhile it’s at least important to point out that for a long stretch of our evolution having additional cognitive powers doesn’t provide nearly the advantage that being able to swing a club more ably than everyone else would.

Remember though that while our conscious cognition may be often severely lacking it is only because of the limitations of our conscious mind in relation to amount of sense data that is available to be perceived. We take in about two million bits of information but can only consciously process 134 bits per second. That’s a serious issue of scope and quite the burden for any mind to consider. It’s also the most likely the reason why our conscious mind is so terrible with willpower and attention; we’re so busy dealing with the other two million (.0067%) bits how can we possibly expect to right even most of the time? I’m amazed that we’ve progressed as a society as far as we have and removes some of the surprise I get when I read Literally Unbelievable; still entertaining, just less surprising.

And that’s just the information coming through our senses, saying nothing of the internal processes that we take for granted. Consider how difficult it is to control your breath, a feature that is at once both automatic and within our conscious control. As any beginning meditator or yogin (or just someone upset) can tell you simply breathing with some control is one of the most difficult things to do on command. But that isn’t all your mind is always responsible for; it also digests your food, beats your heart, filters your impurities and regulates your body temperature among the countless other things you do without realizing it. It’s not a far leap then to realize that more likely our cognitive abilities were carved out as best as our adaptation allowed – we’ve always been working at capacity, it just so happens that we’ve managed to get efficient enough to allow some behavior that we think we control above and beyond the old fight or flight.

Basically nature made us extremely flawed, but good enough as a group to make everything that we see before us. What we perceive as an actively thinking mind is for most if not all of us as primal as we can possibly possess while still living and growing hair. As mentioned in the brilliant movie Waking Life the difference between Aristotle and common man is grater than the difference between common man the ape. It may sound inflammatory but really makes some painful intuitive sense: since we’re operating near capacity at each waking moment, it stands to reason that such deviations in prowess from the average are the exception rather than the rule.

Our failures in cognition are perhaps even less surprising when you consider how poorly we reason under stress (see the phenomenon of Controlled Flight into Terrain) or in emotional circumstances. Suffice it for today to remember just how primal we actually are and in actuality just how few resources we have allocated in our minds for reason and logic. When you figure in issues such as habitual behaviors (created to free up cognitive space) and brain damage from environment, injury or consumption it makes so much more sense to praise effort rather than outcome. We succeed despite our wiring, not because of it, which is something to remember the next time your frustration at ineptitude surfaces; we’re all in the same kind of badly built glass house.