CFP 2021: COLLEGE FOOTBALL’S PLAYOFFS -- STORY LINES AND THE SAME OLD STORY

On the last day of 2021, college football presents the semifinals of this season’s

playoffs. Though the CFP may expand and eventually include eight or even 12 teams, for now we have four. Despitetwo first time participants and another that hasn’t won a title, betting people likely see a familiar face – Alabama coach Nick Saban – hoisting the trophy on January 10 in Indianapolis.
                   
December 31’s semifinals match Alabamaagainst path breaking Cincinnati in one game and, in the other, two bluebloods with something to prove. Alabama meets the upstart Bearcats in what’s technically the Cotton Bowl in Arlington, Texas. Georgia and Michigan play the other semi in Miami in a game otherwise known as the Orange Bowl.They’re intriguing contests, but those hoping somebody other than Alabama wins it all probably must wait at least another year. We say “at least” because people who know college football think Alabama will have a better team next year than this year’s edition which struggled through late-season close calls against LSU, Arkansas, and Auburn and lost to Texas A&M.

Alabama-Cincinnati: Thinking the Unthinkable

By beating Georgia in the Southeastern Conference championship game, Alabamaearned the number one seed in the tournament and a game against fourth seeded Cincinnati. The Bearcats broke the glass ceiling by becoming the first Group of Five (American Athletic Conference, Mountain WestConference, Mid-America Conference, Sun Belt Conference, Conference-USA) member picked for the CFP.  Schools in these conferences play solid football, produce NFL prospects, and nurture successful coaches. They play, however, in smaller stadiums, attract less television exposure, and survive on thriftier budgets. When they play a team from the Power Five (Big 10, Pacific 12, Atlantic Coast Conference, Big 12, Southeastern Conference, plus Independent Notre Dame), they usually lose, sometimes by a lot.                                         

But not always. Group of Five teams do beat Power Five teams. Brigham Young, an independent often thought of and comparedwith Group of Five teams, in 2021 posted a 5-0 record against Pac 12 competition.  Cincinnati defeated Notre Dame in South Bend, 24-13, and stopped Big 10 member Indiana in Bloomington, 38-24, at a time the Hoosiers were still getting Top 25 votes.
Cincinnati’s near miss against Georgia in lastyear’s Peach Bowl encourages some in thinking the Bearcats could topple the Tide. Georgia won, 24-21, on a 53-yard field goal with :03 left. Given how that unfolded, and this year’s wins over Indiana and Notre Dame, Cincinnati’s players shouldn’t feel intimidated about facing Alabama.

Despite less than convincing wins over Navy, Tulsa, and Tulane, Cincinnati has talent throughout its lineup.  First, there’s quarterback Desmond Ridder, who hasengineered two straight undefeated regular seasons. Ridder is good enough that some NFL team might make him the first quarterback off the board next April, especially since this quarterback draft class lacks last year’s overall talent and depth. After Ridder, Cincinnati hastwo outstanding cornerbacks – Ahmad “Sauce” Gardner and Coby Bryant. Both are tall and fast and will pose a challenge for the Tide receivers. Alabama likely won’t have the dangerous John Metchie because of a knee injury suffered in the SEC Championship game. Cincinnati, therefore, may have a chance at throttling the Alabama passing game led byHeisman Trophy winning quarterback Bryce Young.  Finally, Cincinnati has athletic, 300-pound linemen who give the Bearcats the look of a high level, Power Five football team.

So, with all this, why is Alabama a two-touchdown favorite? Because Alabama has Nick Saban and Cincinnati doesn’t.

Michigan – Georgia: Exorcists Needed

Aside from the really good teams Michigan and Georgia have and aside from the tradition each represents in college football (Michigan has more victories than any other program), the intrigue around this game centers on the redemption both coaches seek. Before thisyear, Michigan hadn’t been to the CFP (Alabama has missed only once and has won three times). Georgia has been to the CFP, but suffered an excruciating 26-23 overtime loss to Alabama in 2017.

This year, in fact, has been something of a redemption tour for Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh. Brought to Ann Arbor from the NFLwith great fanfare, he’s been seen by many as a disappointment. Until this year’s team took down arch rival Ohio State, Harbaugh had lost to the hated Buckeyes five years in a row. He’s gotten the Wolverines to bowl games, but none in the CFP and not to the Big 10’s cherished consolation prize, the Rose Bowl. Harbaugh can exorcise ghosts by beating Georgia, then take his chances against Alabama, assuming a Tide win in the semifinals.

Georgia’s Kirby Smart occupies the same boat, but for different reasons. He’s won 81% of his games in six seasons in Athens. There’s one problem.  He can’t beat Alabama. Despitetop notch recruiting class after top notch recruiting class, Smart has zero victories over the Tide. This was supposed to be the year he put all that to bed.  Georgia dominated everyone they played – until Alabama. That loss resurrected the old story lines.
                                     

What else can we say? Let the games begin!        

 

CELEBRATING AMERICA’S RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY: A CHRISTMAS PRESENT FOR THE NATION

 

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…. 

 

  ---U.S. Constitution, First Amendment 

Though Americans increasingly celebrateChristmas in a secular way, it remains a religious holiday. The Christmas season, therefore, reminds us of the vital role religious freedom plays in our democracy. Americans live in a pluralistic society in which people practice many different religions, or no religion at all. We believe the nation should cherish this gift. Many countries don’t have it and we all must protect what we have. 

 

Americans United, an organization that promotes separation of church and state,  reported that over 2,000 distinct religious groups and denominations exist in the United States. As the American Civil Liberties Union advises, the fundamental religious freedoms spelled out in our constitution represent “a major reason why the [United States] has

managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart.” When Americans add up their blessings this holiday season, we hope they’ll count religious freedom among them. 

  

Two bedrock principles underlie religious freedom in the United States. The First Amendment to the constitution spells out those principles.  Initially, we have no state religion. Neither Congress nor any other legislative body can enact a law “respecting an establishment of religion.” Second, governmental agencies can’t prohibit “the free exercise” of religion, including the right to have no religion at all. 

 

No “Establishment” of Religion 

Some countries have an official state religion. Iran and Afghanistan, for example, proclaim themselves “Islamic Republics.” Many Americans may think of these countries as backward and run by authoritarian regimes that reject religious pluralism and tolerance. That conclusion rings true, but western nations also have state religion. The Anglican Church serves as the official Church of England. Other Christian denominations thrive in the United Kingdom, as do non-Christian faiths. About 300,000 Jews, for example, live in the UK, the fifth largest Jewish community in the world. Still, one Protestant denomination operates with the imprimatur of the state. We don’t have that in the United States. 

Some think we should mimic nations that have a state endorsed church. Because Christianity has historically been the leading religion in America, movements have urged that the U.S. declare itself a “Christian nation.” A group called the National Reform Association in 1864 pushed, unsuccessfully, for a “Christian nation” constitutional amendment. Today, some evangelical Christians and others on the far right advocate the same thing. Those who value our pluralistic tradition and diversity of faiths resist this idea because, as Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 1985 in Wallace v. Jaffree, “the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.” 

    

The founding fathers, though well aware of the nation’s connection to Christianity, kept the tie between Christianity and government loose, not tight. Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty granted freedom to profess “opinions in matters of religion” without diminishing, enlarging, or affecting one’s “civil capacities.”  The Washington and John Adams administrations oversaw negotiation and ratification of a treaty in which the country declared “[t]he government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….” The U.S. Senate unanimously ratified that statement in 1797 in what’s known as the Treaty with Tripoli. We made that agreement with a group of Muslim rulers from North Africa. We should leave it at that. The idea rang true then and has withstood the test of time. 

 

“The Free Exercise Thereof” 

In essence, the free exercise clause means every American can, without governmental interference, worship as he or she chooses or can decline to worship at all (government also can’t impose a “religious test” for holding public office as set out in Article VI of the constitution).  In short, in America, government must stay out of the business of regulating the worship practices of its citizens. 

Until the pandemic got in the way, one of us (Rob) saw the tangible benefits of religious pluralism every year. A group in his area called Faiths Together organized a holiday program that highlighted and celebrated the religious diversity of the community. True, some fundamentalist churches never participated, but that didn’t dampen the enthusiasm for the exercise. One of the larger mainline Protestant churches (think Episcopal or Presbyterian) usually hosted because they had a big enough auditorium and fellowship hall for the hundreds of people who attended. 

Christians of various stripes, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and others joined in putting on a holiday-themed program that celebrated the multitude of traditions represented in the community. Singing, skits, prayers, and informational speeches helped

attendees understand how each group practices its faith. Afterwards, the crowd gathered to break bread and share fellowship.  No one lost a thing by sharing in the faith traditions of others. 

Those fundamental freedoms spelled out in the constitution make possible events like the Faiths Together program in The Woodlands, Texas. Without government telling anyone they must  belong to a particular church or limiting

what kind of worship people can engage in, pluralism can flourish. The United States would make a terrible mistake if it didn’t do everything it can to keep such freedoms in place. Just like voting rights and the rule of law, our religious freedoms make us who we are.    

        

     

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

WHAT’S BEHIND THE MANCHIN – SINEMA SHOW: DOES IT MATTER?

                  

Many Democrats would enjoy knowing what’s up with West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema.  They’re either principled crusaders for fiscally

responsible government and bipartisanship or they’re bought and paid for captives of corporate lobbyists.  An answer to this question depends on one’s political approach and inclinations about how much credence a politician’s own explanations for his or her behavior should get. Progressives and people who don’t trust politicians will likely look at their political contributions list and decide it’s the latter. People who want less

governmental involvement in American life and/or who take people, including politicians, at their word will likely see it differently. In any event, Manchin and Sinema are the talk of Washington these days, so they merit exploration.

Outsized Influence

Had Democrats done better in last fall’s U.S. Senate elections, we might not now put so much focus on Manchin and Sinema.   But, they didn’t and ended up with only 50 seats.  Thanks to Vice President Harris, Democrats “control” the senate, meaning the two who have voiced the most serious objections to President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda have more influence than most these days. Both have used that influence in forcing a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure package when party leadership and House progressives wanted to wait on that bill until Biden’s “human

infrastructure” legislation – his Build Back Better program – was ready for a vote in both houses. They’ve also been the driving force behind reducing the size of Biden’s plan from $3.5 trillion to about half that.

Sinema also made sure most of the tax increases Biden wanted got stripped from the bill. She said she wouldn’t “support any legislation that increases burdens on Arizonans or American businesses and reduces our ability to compete either domestically or globally.” Vague though that statement may have been, when one vote means everything, if that’s how one senator

sees things, that view probably will rule the day. Sinema also goes to great lengths to extoll the virtues of bipartisanship. She argues bipartisan legislation leads to more enduring policies that won’t get wiped out in the next power shift in Washington.    

Manchin contends Biden’s bill would promote inflation, a claim the Congressional Budget Office disputes. He also claims the legislation

would damage the coal industry. He ignores the damage the coal industry does to the environment and how few coal jobs the legislation would actually put at risk. But that’s his story and he sticks to it zealously.

The Dark Side

Both Manchin and Sinema spout elegant pronouncements that find their footing in either pragmatism or high-brow political philosophy. Progressive activists see something else behind the positions they’ve taken –cold hard

campaign cash. Both have become magnets for contributions from conservative, Republican-leaning donors who want to encourage their resistance to progressive Democratic legislation.

Manchin, who isn’t up for re-election until 2024, took in $3.3 million in the first nine months of 2021, 14 times more than he raised during the same time in 2020. Sinema, who also isn’t up until 2024, raised $2.6 million in that time frame this year, two and a half times more than she collected in that time period in 2020.

Manchin has especially been the beneficiary of contributions from energy industry figures. They blanche at Biden’s climate change agenda, especially his plans for reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Pharmaceutical industry executives, in particular, helped fill Sinema’s coffers. She’s gotten significant sums from tech industry figures.  Both she and Manchin have declined comment on the spate of contributions.

So, Which Is It?

Are Manchin and Sinema noble political leaders who will keep the country safe from

inflation?  Are they the last line of defense against a partisan split that eats at democracy by promoting division, rendering us incapable of working with each other? Or, are they bought and paid for corporate puppets who’ll do anything in exchange for campaign contributions.

We aren’t in their heads, of course, but we wonder how anyone can dismiss the influence of the money. Sinema had a progressive image when she served in the Arizona legislature. She won her senate race in 2018 with considerable support from people of color and young progressives.  She gave few hints of the kind of obstructionist approach to progressive legislation she’s shown with the Biden program.  We wonder if she just saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. Many Republican donors giving her money say they want a “go to” person in the Democratic party. She has certainly given them that.

The question for Sinema, much more than for Manchin, is what impact her approach will have on her political base in Arizona. A lot of people who backed her in 2018 aren’t happy. Her approval ratings among the kind of people who helped her win that election have plummeted.

Manchin probably has no such worries in ultra-conservative West Virginia, a state that was once solidly Democratic but is now as red as they get. Threats to him come from the right, not the left.

In the final analysis, what’s driving Manchin and Sinema may not matter much. For now, both have decided that doing what they’re doing best serves their political ends. We should expect they will keep doing it.       

ARKANSAS’S SAM PITTMAN: A BETTER WAY TO PICK A COLLEGE FOOTBALL COACH?

 

College football’s postseason starts this month,

while we’re in the midst of another aspect of the sport worth watching. The coaching carousel has been spinning furiously.  As coaches get fired and hired, the amazing story of Arkansas’s Sam Pittman bears telling.

We’re all native Arkansans, though two of us (Henry and Rob) live elsewhere now. We retainan interest in what’s happening there, meaning we haven’t ignored the success of this year’s Arkansas Razorback football team.

Arkansas reached number eight in the polls before suffering a 37-0 loss to top-ranked Georgia and close defeats by Ole Miss and Auburn. The Razorbacks bounced back with narrow wins over Mississippi State and LSU and a convincing defeat of Missouri. They endured a hard-fought, down-to-the-wire loss to perennial power Alabama.

Arkansas finished tied for third in the rugged SEC-West, when the Razorbacks had been picked last in many pre-season polls. Most prognosticators forecast a five- win year. Arkansas finished the regular season 8-4 and will play Penn State in the Outback Bowl on January 1st. This all happened two seasons removed from a 20-game Southeastern Conference losing streak and embarrassing losses to teams like North Texas and Western Kentucky. How did the change happen? Start with the head coach, Sam Pittman.

 

An Unconventional Hire

When Arkansas athletic director Hunter Yurachek fired Chad Morris before the 2019 season ended, Yurachek sought out the usual suspects -- head coaches and coordinators who’d enjoyed success at schools at or just below Arkansas in college football’s pecking order. He got a less-than-enthusiastic reception. Some pointed out weaknesses in Arkansas’s roster and recruiting obstacles for a major school in such a lightly populated state. Others noted the difficulty of winning in the SEC West, viewed by some analysts as the toughest division in the sport.  Many candidates worried about how much money they’d make.

Yurachek remained patient, perhaps because he had

an intriguing prospect in his pocket.  Though  he’d never been a coordinator, the typical training ground for head coaches, Sam Pittman commanded a following. He served four years as Arkansas’s offensive line coach under Bret Bielema. Players Pittman coached lobbied Yurachek about making him the head coach.

Pittman left Arkansas for Kirby Smart’s Georgiastaff where he helped the Bulldogs win three straight SEC East titles. He developed a long list of offensive linemen taken in early rounds of the NFL draft. Most of all, he became known as a tenacious recruiter.

Pittman wasn’t obsessed with how much money he’d make. He accepted the Arkansas job not knowing the figure. He’s a bargain at $3.5 million a year, compared, for example, with Texas A&M’s Jimbo Fisher at $9 million. His Aggies also finished 8-4 this season.  Yurachek said, “Sam just wanted to be the head football coach at the University of Arkansas.” The 60-year-old Pittman says he’ll stay at Arkansas as long as the school will have him.

In 2020, Pittman’s first Arkansas team went 3-7 against a brutal all-SEC schedule in a pandemic-marred season. The eye test and scoreboard results said he was changing things. His team was competitive in every game except against national champion Alabama and in the second half of an opening day loss to Georgia. In 2021, the Razorbacks roared to a 4-0 start that included victories over a then-ranked Texas team and SEC West rival A&M, followed by the mid-year slump and late season comeback.

 

Pittman’s Way

We see lessons for leaders of all kinds in Pittman’s work at Arkansas. Consistent with his team approach, he embraced other successful Arkansas programs by inviting men’s basketball coach Eric Musselman and baseball coach Dave Van Horn to share with him the pre-game football experience. When the Arkansas women’s basketball team upset their sport’s goliath, Connecticut, last winter, Pittman told his players they should aspire to be like the Razorback women.  

He has constructed a physical, tough-minded team

that wins with a punishing ground game, an efficient passing attack, and solid defense. For much of this year Arkansas has been in the top five in the nation in rushing. It’s among the SEC leaders in many defensive categories. Quarterback K.J.Jefferson reflects his coach’s high character, competence, and commitment. Thanks to Pittman’s relentless emphasis, Arkansas has steadily moved up the recruiting rankings. The 2022 class might land in the Top 20.  

Pittman convinced Yurachek to give him money

that let him hire experienced assistants, including defensive coordinator Barry Odom, formerly head coach at Missouri. When he’s talked about this year’s victories, Pittman has deflected credit onto his assistants and players. When the team fell short, he’s taken the blame andpointed out things he must do better.  He has been transparent, making clear he won’t lie to the media, even if “sometimes I just don’t say anything about certain things.”

Whether other schools can emulate the Arkansas/Pittman experience isn’t clear. Maybe he’s an outlier who found the right place at the right time.

Even if he is, the Arkansas/Pittman experience offers a model for coaching searches. Find a coach who wants the job and cares more about doing it right than about the money it pays or how it sets him up for his next move. Find a coach who shares credit for success and accepts blame for failure. Find a coach who recognizes the importance of having good people around him and who’s transparent.  It’s a formula that makes recruiting easier. What parent wouldn’t want their child playing for someone following that philosophy?  

THE 2021 VIRGINIA ELECTIONS PART II: A DIFFERENT QUESTION FOR DEMOCRATS

In our last post, we explored possible reasons for the Democratic Party’s difficulties in the recent Virginia elections. Former Governor Terry McAuliffe lost to political newcomer Glenn Youngkin in his bid for another gubernatorial term and Republicans scored major gains in the Virginia legislature. Media predictions abounded that Virginia foreshadowed big Democratic losses in the 2022 midterms and potentially in the 2024 presidential election.

We suggested a number of possible reasons

for the Virginia outcome, but asked if Democrats should think about the issue differently. Perhaps a broader focus on what polices they should pursue now, instead of wringing their hands about the Virginia results, would better serve Democratic prospects for 2022 and 2024.

 

It’s the Income Inequality, Stupid

We assert that a credible, though not infallible, argument exists that if Democrats focus on waging war on behalf of the middle and working classes they can prevail in the upcoming elections.  By taking executive

actions and passing legislation that address the nation’s  income inequality problem, they can win. If they follow this course they could keep or expand their narrow majorities on Capitol Hill and retain control of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2024.

Democrats must make plain that since 1980 –the beginning of the Reagan Revolution – thetop one percent of the population has increased its share of the nation’s wealth from ten percent to 20%, a trend that continues unabated every year.  The pandemic only made it worse. The tax burden on the rich has been lowered, with no concomitant increase in jobs or other economic benefits for the middle and working classes.

This development has been well documented in books like The Triumph of Injustice: How theRich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman and Capital and Ideology by Thomas Piketty. These works demonstrate the degree towhich the rich have gotten richer while the rest of the population stagnates economically. They also show the impact of a regressive income tax system and of income inequality on our politics and people’s lives. 

President Biden’s human infrastructure bill –the one that hasn’t been enacted yet and that keeps getting trimmed and adjusted at theinsistence of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema – represents a start, but only a start. Democrats should pass legislation that increases taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. What increases, if any, will end up in the human infrastructure bill remains uncertain. Under the analysis we suggest, only meaningful tax reform that makes the rich pay their fair share will convince the working and middle classes that the Democratic Party really has their best interest at heart and insure Democratic victories in the upcoming elections.

 

Good Politics

The Virginia outcome demonstrated that a lot

of noise infects our politics. Misinformation about Critical Race Theory could muck up any election, despite the fact too many of the people yelling loudest about CRT know little or nothing about

it.  The truth is it probably can’t be explained in an intellectually honest way in this toxic environment, so Democrats should emphasize bread and butter issues. Americans know income inequality gets worse

each year. They know a progressive tax system built this country into what it became before 1980. Making income inequality the center piece of the Democratic Party’s governing effort may well present that rare situation in which good policy makes good politics.

We’ve pointed on several occasions to Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum’s book That Used to be Us as providing the best

explanation of what happens when the rich pay their fair share. The country blossoms and the proverbial rising tide lifts all boats. Getting back to that arguably represents the Democratic Party’s best route to sustained electoral success.

 

No Guarantees

Despite the appeal of this approach anddespite how it fits with the moral compass of many Democratic leaders and Democratic leaning voters, no assurance exists it will prevail in the upcoming elections. At least two things stand in the way. First, no one should underestimate the Republican party’s capacity for distortion and disinformation about whatever Democrats do or propose.
Despite the appeal of this approach and despite how it fits with the moral compass of many Democratic leaders and Democratic leaning voters, no assurance exists it will prevail in the upcoming elections. At least two things stand in the way. First, no one should underestimate the Republican party’s capacity for distortion and disinformation about whatever Democrats do or propose.  Republicans will turn every executive action, legislative proposal, and electoral appeal that takes this approach into “socialist class warfare” and exclusionary “identity politics.”Some Americans, even some who would benefit economically from the polices promoted here, will buy into these straw men. Democrats must, therefore, develop their own marketing strategy for selling their ideas. 

Second, as the battle between “moderate” and “progressive” Democrats in the House over the infrastructure bills demonstrates, real differences exist between Democrats over how hard the party should lean into policies

like those suggested here. Making income inequality the centerpiece of the Democratic Party’s appeal doesn’t have universal support within the party.  Some “moderate” Democrats fear objections to tax increases from middle class voters. Many tax proposals supposedly aimed at the rich end up affecting tax brackets to which middle class voters aspire or may fall into because of inflation.  A vote for a tax increase can create a

negative dynamic in any political race. When combined with divisive social issues like race, guns, and abortion, a vote for a tax increase may become another tool in the arsenal of a Republican claiming a Democrat is “too liberal.”

The arguments in favor of an attack on income inequality resonate strongly with us, both morally and practically. America must do something about this.  We’re aware, however, that powerful forces stand arrayed against a full assault on the problem. Not all those forces fall into the category of evil. Like most things in life, the country probably must find a compromise that addresses the problem, though perhaps less aggressively than it might in an ideal world.