Bernie's Extraordinary, Unacknowledged Accomplishment

“Why Nobody ‘Wins’ the Iowa Caucus; Why the Iowa Caucus Matters – and Why it Doesn’t,” February 1, 2016, was deliberately written and posted by me before that evening’s Iowa Caucus even began – in order to eliminate any suggestion it was designed to favor one candidate over another. In that post I discuss the Caucus’ significance in terms of the national parties’ nomination process, the candidates’ campaigns, and the media. Not surprisingly, I concluded that its primary significance results from how the results are reported in the media. At that time, two days ago, I had no idea how prescient it was.

Before we get to how the media reported the Iowa Caucus, let’s start with some facts.

The Iowa Poll, considered to be among the most accurate for the Iowa Caucus, is our source for this data, available from “Tracking the Candidates in the Iowa Poll,” Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 3, 2016, p. A8.

How have the candidates fared over time? The data is from seven polls conducted in January, May, August, October and December of 2015, and early January, late January – and then the Caucus results on February 1, 2016.

Most candidates have gone up and down in the polls. Hillary, for example, went from a high of 57% in May to a low of 37% in August, and continued to fluctuate until the Caucus. Ted Cruz was at a high of 31% in December, dropped to a low of 23% in late January, and ended up with 28% in the Caucus. (the most of any Republican). Since August, Trump has ranged from a high of 28% to a low of 19%.

However, there are two candidates whose poll results have had unbroken increases every time they were measured.

Senator Marco Rubio started at 3% in January. The numbers in the following polls, in order, were 6%, 6%, 9%, 10%, 12%, 15% and finally 23% on Caucus night.

Senator Bernie Sanders started at 5% in January, and proceeded to climb in each succeeding poll to 16%, 30%, 37%, 39%, 40%, 42%, to a Caucus finish at 49.6%.

From December to Caucus Hillary increased from 48% to 49.8%, and Bernie went from 39% to his 49.6%.

Let’s compare these two candidates.

Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye, whether for good or ill, since the 1990s if not before – as the wife of Arkansas Governor and then President Bill Clinton, the point person for the Clinton’s health care plan, a United States Senator, previous presidential candidate (2008), a U.S. Secretary of State, and a long-anticipated presidential candidate – indeed, the presumed nominee. She and her husband have access to the financial resources of some of the wealthiest people in the world, in addition to their own wealth from campaign contributions and speaking fees from Wall Street firms, corporate leaders and other wealthy persons here and abroad. Theirs has been described as one of the most powerful political organizations in America, a solid part of “the Democratic Party establishment,” which gives them access to resources such as former staffers, friends, hangers-on, and thousands of contacts – including some of our country's most brilliant and experienced political and media advisers. (One of the many ways the Democratic Party Establishment rigs the outcome to favor themselves is the creation of the so-called “Super Delegates” – most of whom are, by definition, from the Party’s establishment. That’s why, although she and Bernie Sanders have won about equal numbers of the national convention delegates from Iowa, he now has a total of 29 and she, with the Super Delegates already pledged to her, sprints from a starting line way out in front of him, with 385.)

In the opposite corner of what the media insists on portraying as something like a boxing ring, we find a gray haired grandfather with wild hair who cares little for fashion and sometimes speaks with a facial expression, anger and volume reminiscent of Howard Beale in the movie “Network.” He's not exactly Hollywood's central casting's vision of a presidential candidate. And yet there's something wonderfully charming about the incongruity of someone once described as a 74-year-old democratic socialist Jew from Brooklyn living in Vermont attracting the largest crowds of any candidate. He's so opposed to the corrupting effect of billionaire's money in politics that he refuses to accept money from the only individuals able to make the multi-million-dollar contributions available to Hillary Clinton. He just started campaigning in Iowa anyway, with neither name recognition nor money. As people heard what he had to say, they came to know the name Bernie Sanders, liked his ideas, and found him to be authentic, consistent in his views over decades, and a really likable guy. His numbers climbed in the polls, and by Caucus night they were high enough that the number of “state equivalent delegates” he received was virtually the same as Hillary Clinton. That was a truly stunning accomplishment, given her overwhelming advantages.

So how were these results reported by the media?

Coming in third, Rubio might well have been described as having “lost” the Iowa Republican Caucus. After all, he wasn’t even second, a “runner-up.” But he was not so described. He was described as “surging” or “propelled.” The Gazette’s headline was typical, "Surge Propelling Rubio in GOP Race; Florida Senator's Third Place is 1 Point Short of Trump's Finish.” James Q. Lynch and Rod Boshart, “Rubio Leaves Iowa with Third-Place Finish, ‘Marcomentum;’ Florida Senator’s Surge to Third Place Propels Him Forward,” The Gazette (online), February 2, 2016, 3:32 p.m.; hard copy: James Q. Lynch and Rod Boshart, "Surge Propelling Rubio in GOP Race; Florida Senator's Third Place is 1 Point Short of Trump's Finish," The Gazette, February 3, 2016, p. A1. Note that Rubio was not even compared in the headline with the one who finished with the most support; he was compared with Donald Trump. (The Washington Post home page for February 3 headlined, "Establishment Candidates Target a Surging Rubio.”)

When I wrote “Why Nobody ‘Wins’ the Iowa Caucus" I wasn’t thinking about ties. My point was about the genuine story, and significance of the outcome of this first opportunity for citizens to participate in the nomination process. The Caucus can tell us which candidates demonstrate enough popular support to warrant their continuing to campaign into the subsequent primaries. For this purpose, probably something like 20-35 percent of the “state delegate equivalents” would be enough to warrant continuing.

There will be a winner and a loser next November 8. One can "win" an election. But there is nothing to “win” in the Iowa Caucus. Even if there were, it is clearly not "winner take all." Candidates are not elected president at the Iowa Caucus; they are not even nominated to run for the presidency. Even if, after the Iowa state conventions, a single candidate ended up with all of Iowa’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention it would have a minuscule impact on the Party’s ultimate selection of its presidential nominee.

The media can declare that the Caucus is a competitive contest that one candidate “wins” and all the others lose, but that doesn’t make it one –- except for the media owners looking for viewers and subscribers.

Moreover, to speak of a Democratic Party “winner” of the 2016 Iowa Caucus is even sillier than it normally would be -– because this year it was, from any rational and reasonable perspective, literally “a tie.”

Sanders' accomplishment was remarkable in light of the conventional wisdom that his support was limited to Black Hawk, Johnson, and Story counties, where the Regents’ three public universities are located. In fact, as one might expect in a tie, both candidates had support in counties all across the state -– with both usually well within percentages between 40 and 60 percent. However, Sanders' appeal to young people was unprecedented. “Of the estimated 31,000 young people who caucused for the Democrats on Monday, 84 percent supported Sen. Bernie Sanders — a much higher percentage than even Barack Obama garnered during his first run for the White House in 2008. During Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses eight years ago, then Sen. Obama won support from 57 percent of both the 17-24 age group and the 25-29 group . . ..” Vanessa Miller, “Percent of Youth Caucusing for Bernie Sanders Surpassed that for Obama in 2008; 'They're wanting to be a part of his political revolution,'” The Gazette (online), February 2, 2016, 5:20 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Election 2016: Wide Support for Sanders Among Young Iowa Voters; Obama Received Smaller Ratio in State's 2008 Caucuses," The Gazette, February 3, 2016, p. 8A.

And Sanders did all of this coming from nothing, an unknown in Iowa, with no pre-existing political machine in place, and no money -- refusing PAC money, he had to pay the bills with 2.3 million contributors averaging $27, finding supporters one at a time, while attracting the largest crowds of any candidate (nationally as well as within Iowa).

So how was Senator Sanders’ incredible accomplishment described by the media?

The CNN headline was typical: Tami Luhby and Nia-Malika Henderson, “Hillary Clinton Wins Iowa Caucuses,” CNN, February 3, 2016, 12:23 p.m.

In fairness, the Iowa branch of the Democratic Party Establishment contributed to this misrepresentation, whether deliberately or inadvertently, that Hillary was “the winner” (as she herself declared). Erin Jordan, “Slim Win for Clinton Sign of Lengthy Nomination Process; ‘Iowans Like a Contest , Not a Coronation,’”, The Gazette (online), February 2, 2016, 8:11 p.m.; hard copy: Erin Jordan, "Election 2016: Slim Clinton Win Signals Lengthy Fight Ahead; Close Race Raises Questions of Just How Well Caucuses Were Run," The Gazette, February 3, 2016, p. A1 (“The Iowa Democratic Party declared Clinton the winner at 2:30 a.m. Tuesday with all but one of the 1,683 precincts reporting. . . . Clinton had 49.8 percent of state delegate equivalents and Sanders had 49.6 percent, with 171,109 Democrats participating. . . . ‘The Iowa Democratic Party is declaring Hillary a winner and that is a victory for her,’ said Chris Larimer, University of Northern Iowa associate political science professor, who did not caucus Monday.”)

So why this disparity in reporting? Why is Hillary "the winner"? Why is Rubio “surging” and “propelled,” despite this “loser’s” third-place finish? Has not Sanders been "surging" and "propelled" as much or more than Rubio along the same glide path? Yet the media tells us that, notwithstanding Sanders’ at least equal, if not much greater unprecedented accomplishment, we should think of him as the "loser" and Hillary as the “winner” of the Iowa Democrats’ Caucus. Why is that?

How could I know the answer? I don’t. But there are some things I do know.

”[T] he media's owners are, by definition, well within the 1%. They have every possible financial, political, ideological, and social motive to try to prevent him [Senator Bernie Sanders] being taken seriously. Savvy media employees who wish to stay employed can't help but be aware of the advantages offered them if they will cut back on or eliminate coverage of him (see description of the shameful exclusion of him by "Meet the Press" in "Bernie's Media Challenge," June 19, 2015), and when unavoidable (perhaps because he is getting the largest number of contributors and audience members of any candidate) diminish his reputation with ridicule, marginalization, and dismissal as "a socialist" whose views are "out of the mainstream."

Second, with rare exceptions, profit-driven media do not have the space or time, or a sufficient number of highly educated, informed and analytical journalists, to present lengthy print, online, or televised discussions of major public policy issues in a way that will involve, inform, and hold an American audience. (See "Three-Legged Calves, Wolves, Sheep and Democracy's Media," Dec. 1, 2014.) Thus, even if media owners were supportive of Senator Sanders' views, they aren't really set up to present anyone's views at length. Thus, political coverage tends to focus on fundraising (e.g., Senator Rand Paul's mediocre contributions; Jeb Bush's $100 million), poll results (e.g., leading Republicans excluded from Fox News debate), gotcha moments (e.g., Governor Rick Perry's 2012 "oops" moment), the bizarre (e.g., Donald Trump's behavior, characterized by Dan Rather as somewhat similar to "a manure spreader in a windstorm"), physical appearance (e.g., the Donald's hair; women's clothing), and those portions of candidates' past history they'd rather forget (e.g., Hillary Clinton's Arkansas Whitewater, 1990s healthcare efforts, Benghazi, 50,000 emails).

”Senator Bernie Sanders and America's 'Mainstream',” July 25, 2015, 8:45 a.m.

And, from ”Bernie’s Media Challenge,” June 19, 2015:

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting's research discloses that between January 3rd and May 3rd of 2015, Meet the Press (NBC; host, Chuck Todd) made no mention whatsoever of Senator Bernie Sanders, notwithstanding 16 mentions of Hillary Clinton, 13 of Jeb Bush, 12 of Scott Walker, 11 of Chris Christie, and 10 each for Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee. In total, 24 presidential candidates received mentions during this four-month period. Bernie? Zero. "Meet the Press Breaks Its Silence on Bernie Sanders," Extra!, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), June 2015, vol. 28, no. 5, p. 3 ("Meet the Press host Chuck Todd . . . declared on the show's May 3 episode . . . 'I'm obsessed with elections.' Yet the one major candidate who had announced he was running that week -- Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who declared on April 30 he was running for the Democratic nomination -- was strikingly ignored on that same broadcast.")

Bernie Sanders is the only avowed "Democratic Socialist" serving in the United States Congress. Defeating both Democrats and Republicans, he served as Vermont's only member of the House of Representatives for 16 years (1990-2006). Sanders has now served in the United States Senate for more than nine years (2006 to the present). As acknowledged by Todd himself . . . , in all those years, Meet the Press never saw fit to have Sanders appear on "America's most watched...Sunday morning public affairs program" until September 14, 2014 when Sanders was interviewed about his "possible" run for the Presidency. (One month earlier than the October date initially cited by Todd in response to FAIR.)

Ernest A. Canning, "Bernie Who? Media Watchdog Documents NBC's 'Meet the Press' Marginalization of Sanders," The Brad Blog, May 11, 2015

Only following FAIR's report was an invitation extended, which Bernie accepted. "Meet the Press Transcript - May 31, 2015." While it certainly counted as an after-the-fact "mention" of his candidacy, it was scarcely an effort to explore his past and approach to the issues.

[T]he interview degenerated into full horse-race, candidate-personality mode. Specifically, Todd sought Sanders’s views on . . . Hillary Clinton. He began indirectly by asking Sanders to weigh the relative merits of Bill Clinton’s presidency versus Barack Obama’s. . . . [H]e asked Sanders to comment on Hillary Clinton’s apparent leftward movement on a number of issues, including “same-sex marriage, on immigration … on NAFTA, on trade, on the Iraq War, on Cuba. She has moved from a position, basically, in disagreement with you, to a position that comes closer to your view. So I guess is, do you take her at her word?”

Cue the horse race! To his credit, Sanders refused to take the bait. Instead, he expressed hope that “the media will allow us to have a serious debate in this campaign on the enormous issues facing the American people” and tried to move the conversation to his policy views. Todd, however, had no interest in having a serious debate on the issues . . ..

Matthew Dickinson, "Bernie Sanders and Chuck Todd's 'Meet the Press' fiasco: 50 shades of bad; Bernie Sanders deftly refused to engage in media-generated controversy and expressed hope that 'the media will allow us to have a serious debate in this campaign,'" Christian Science Monitor, June 1, 2015.

Both Clinton and Sanders have now agreed to an additional debate this Thursday evening at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. Alan Rappeport, “Bernie Sanders Says Yes to Debate Thursday Night,” New York Times (online), February 3, 2016, 11:18 a.m.

And who has NBC selected as a moderator for that debate, along with Rachel Maddow? That’s right, Chuck Todd.

# # #

Republicans' Iowa Straw Poll

August 15, 2011, 5:30 p.m.

Winning's Not "The Only Thing" In Politics or Golf
There were two major contests within the last 72 hours. Both resulted in someone being proclaimed "the winner."

First was the Iowa Republicans' "straw poll" Saturday [August 13] afternoon.

The headline proclaimed, ""Michele Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll." Jennifer Jacobs, "Michele Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll," Des Moines Register, August 14, 2011. (Other quotes from the story: "Michele Bachmann, the first woman to win the Iowa straw poll, is now the official front-runner in Iowa . . .. With 16,892 Iowans casting ballots, Bachmann won with 4,823 votes. . . . Bachmann’s win . . ..) [Photo credit: Charles Dharapak, Associated Press.]

What does "win" mean in this context?

Even if one candidate got 50% or more of the vote, they still wouldn't have won enough to buy deep fat fried butter on a stick at the Iowa State Fair.

Moreover, on this occasion (a) Bachmann only got 28% of the vote, and (b) Ron Paul virtually tied her with 27%. They were separated by only 152 votes out of 16,891. Does it make any sense to proclaim one a "winner" and the other a "loser," given those numbers out of 55 million registered Republicans?

Here is Jon Stewart's take on the mainstream media's virtual total dismissal of second place finisher Ron Paul:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

"Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier," August 15, 2011.

I have a lot more problems with that straw poll.

For starters, two of the Party's frontrunners -- Mitt Romney and Rick Perry -- weren't even on the ballot. Jon Huntsman was, but made no effort to garner votes. What does it mean to "win" a vote in which the two leaders haven't participated?

The straw poll is about as far as one can get from scientific polling. It's a fund raiser; it's a poll tax on steroids. It's Chicago politics with no holds barred.

To vote you first have to pay the $30 poll tax -- except that "you" don't have to pay, because the candidate will pay you to vote. Moreover, candidates can bus in voters from anywhere -- and do. Last time Romney paid $10 million to bus in and turn out straw poll voters. (This time he wisely chose to save the money.) [Thanks to "baune" for Aug. 17 blog correction/comment, below, "Not that it matters that much, but Mitt Romney's name was on the ballot for the straw poll." Thus, the first sentence, two paragraphs above, should have read: "For starters, two of the Party's frontrunners -- Mitt Romney and Rick Perry -- weren't even campaigning for votes."]

Maybe the vote is a measure of how much money candidates were able to raise, and willing to spend, on staff, organization, buses and poll tax tickets, but it's not much indication of Republican voters' preferences at this point.

Indeed, there is a suspicion that some voters "refused to stay bought." They went to the tent of the candidate with the best food and entertainment, accepted their $30 ticket, and then voted for whomever they pleased.

Finally, there's the matter of Republicans' judgment, to the extent the results were a measure of their genuine choice. Not that there aren't Democrats equally capable of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory, mind you, but it does say something about Iowa Republicans that less than 1/2 of 1% of them are willing to support the one candidate actually capable of attracting enough independents and even Democrats to defeat Obama in a head-to-head general election once it is heavily covered by the media. That candidate? Jon Huntsman.
_____
The other contest finished up on Sunday, August 14. It was the 2011 PGA Championship at the Atlanta Athletic Club in Johns Creek, Georgia.

Golf has always been more honorable than politics. Players' actual, and reported, numbers of strokes are far less likely to have been manipulated or distorted than a straw poll's number of votes.

And so it is that we know Keegan Bradley took one less stroke to finish a three-hole playoff than Jason Dufner required.[Photo credit: Kohjiro Kinno, Sports Illustrated.]

Thus, the headline proclaims that Bradley "wins PGA Championship." Gary Van Sickle, "First time's a charm for Bradley as he wins PGA Championship in a playoff," Sports Illustrated, August 15, 2011.

He deserved to win. He played spectacular golf throughout. I tend to agree with SI that "Bradley just might be that new golf star America so badly needs" -- though I may not be as confident as SI that America "badly needs" a golf star, as much as, say, to bring some of our wars to a close, create a few million jobs, and get our economy back on a growth curve.

How any human is capable of hitting a little golf ball with a stick some 200 to 300 yards and have it land within 15 feet of a flag is beyond me -- especially when most of that distance is over a lake. In fact, the only thing Bradley's game had in common with mine was his triple bogey on the 15th (where he did leave one in the lake).

The difference in ultimate outcome was that he was able to recover and Dufner was not, which is what sent them into a three-hole playoff which Bradley managed to finish with one stroke less than Dufner.

I understand about winning in sports. A baseball team can have better hitting and batting than their opponent for eight innings and still lose the game in the bottom of the ninth. A 1/100th of a second can make the difference between the gold and silver medals in swimming or downhill skiing. And some of the world's best golfers may be separated by no more than one to three strokes at the end of a tournament.

But after a sporting contest between the world's finest is over, it often seems to me that more needs to be said about the accomplishments of all the participants, not just the final score, or "winner's" time. I know that's not what some of the participants think. They want to "win." But it's what I think, as I review in my mind the unbelievable catch in the football game, the golfer's 30-foot putt, or approach shot that comes within a half inch of a hole in one.

Bradley and Dufner were no Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, of whom it was said, he was great, but she did everything he did, backwards and in high heels.

Neither Keegan Bradley nor Jason Dufner were were wearing high heels or walking backwards; both were playing on the same golf course.

But before the playoff, don't forget that out of all the championship golfers who made the cut for this tournament, it was only Jason Dufner who was able to tie the tournament score of America's new young golfing superstar -- who won the first major championship in which he played -- "that new golf star America so badly needs."

In my book Dufner's accomplishment is worthy of a little more recognition and respect than the characterization of Bradley as the "winner" and Dufner the "loser" of that championship. Clearly, Dufner is also a "golf star America needs."

And I'd say the same for Ron Paul's accomplishment in the straw poll -- brought about, I suspect, more from the wild enthusiasm from his Libertarian supporters than with busloads of strangers and lots of money.
# # #
Here's how the 16,892 straw poll votes ended up:

1st Michele Bachmann 4823 28.551977%
2nd Ron Paul 4671 27.652143%
3rd Tim Pawlenty 2293
4th Rick Santorum, 1657
5th Herman Cin 1456
6th Newt Gingrich 385
7th Jon Huntsman 69
8th Thaddeus McCotter 35

Coach Ferentz Provides Classy Variety of Wins

November 22, 2010, 11:20 a.m.; November 29, 2010, 9:30 a.m.

Winning Isn't Everything
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Packers Coach Vince Lombardi is often credited with Bruins Coach Red Sanders' line, "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing."

[It is attributed to UCLA Bruins football coach Henry Russell ("Red") Sanders, who spoke two different versions of the quotation. In 1950, at a Cal Poly San Luis Obispo physical education workshop, Sanders told his group: "Men, I'll be honest. Winning isn't everything. (Long pause.) Men, it's the only thing!"[1] The phrase is quoted in the 1953 film Trouble Along the Way by John Wayne's character, Steve Aloyosius Williams. In 1955, in a Sports Illustrated article preceding the 1956 Rose Bowl, he was quoted as saying "Sure, winning isn't every thing, It's the only thing."[2] . . . The quotation is widely attributed to American football coach Vince Lombardi; who probably heard the phrase from UCLA coach Henry Russell Sanders.[3] Lombardi is on record using the quotation as early as 1959 . . ..]

"Winning Isn't Everything; It's the Only Thing," wikipedia.org.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm as competitive as the next guy -- or woman. We may overdo competition (especially with the emphasis on test scores and grades throughout our educational system; as I remind law students in "So You Want to Be a Lawyer: A Play in Four Acts"). But the fact is, the military awards medals, seemingly every profession or endeavor has awards of some kind -- and all sporting events have winners, losers, and "championship" designations of various kinds.

In sports, winning determines in large measure which teams go to bowl games, how teams are ranked nationally, which players (and coaches) "go pro," the judgments of sports reporters, broadcast rights revenues, and the loyalty and enthusiasm of fans -- including their willingness to make contributions to the athletic program and buy season tickets for the following year. And although hopefully outside the purview of collegiate athletics, winning also determines who ends up with the tens of billions of dollars wagered on sporting events through the online and conventional gambling industries and privately among acquaintances.

Lest there be any doubt about the importance of winning to "the academy" (as university professors refer to themselves and their institutions), consider the content of their football coaches' contracts. Take Coach Kirk Ferentz' Feb. 1, 2010, contract for example. There is, of course, a brief section 3 on "compensation." But it is followed with the much lengthier section 4 on "supplemental compensation" for the really important part of his job description in working with "student-athletes." These are the "incentive bonuses" based on how the team ranks nationally (up to and including "National Champions"), within the Big 10, BCS and other bowl games, and various awards as "Coach of Year." (In fairness, there's also a modest payment (roughly 2%) if 70% of the players who could graduate do so.) Needless to say, insofar as the more significant of those payments are concerned it is indeed true that "winning is the only thing" insofar as the signatories to this contract are concerned -- the University President and Athletic Director (with the subsequent approval of the State's Board of Regents).

I watch fans leave a stadium during the third or fourth quarter of a football game their team will handily "win" or "lose." It always seems to me they are short-changing themselves by putting so much emphasis on final scores. There's a beauty, and a thrill, to every play, every move, in the game -- the foreplay that only culminates in a final score. Sure it's nice when the home team wins. But it's also nice to watch a quarterback place a pass with pin-point accuracy into the arms of a receiver accompanied by three opponents, an offensive line that gives him plenty of time to pass, the fast-forwarded ballet moves that enable a hard-charging runner to seemingly slip out of the grip of defenders during a long run, a well-placed kickoff or an especially skilled, long field goal.

Not only do we have a cultural emphasis on winning in all endeavors, and especially in collegiate athletics, but it is at a minimum just nice to win -- especially for a coach.

But there was so much more to write about that Iowa-Ohio State game than the sports writers' focus on the loss, what caused the loss, how it compared with other losses in this and prior seasons, the probability of losses in future seasons, and what the consequences of Saturday's loss would be. See, e.g., Andy Hamilton, below; Pat Harty, "Iowa Rarely Stays at an Elite Level," Hawk Central/Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 22, 2010, p. B1; Marc Morehouse, "8-4? Better than 7-5," The Gazette, November 22, 2010, p. B1.

[Nov. 29:] You can concentrate on the team's losses this season if you want to. Admittedly, November was not a good month for those whose football focus is myopically limited to the numbers on the scoreboard at the end of each game. But if you focus on how the team does throughout each game you discover that (I think this is true) they were winning or tied in every one of the 12 games they played -- an unbeaten season record -- at the 55-minute mark. That's not chopped liver. Of course, that's not 12 "wins" either; this isn't horseshoes. But it does rather neatly narrow the nature of the "wins" problem, and reflects the skill and strength of the players.

I have no doubt that Iowa's Coach Ferentz would have been much happier after the Ohio State game Saturday had his team had the larger score. A lot turned on the final score in that game.

All of which makes his post-game comments even more remarkable. As Andy Hamilton reported,

“You know, I’m not real big on that ['wouldas, couldas and shouldas'] game, especially since the guys played hard and competed,” Iowa coach Kirk Ferentz said. “I don’t know that they could have played any harder. Our guys couldn’t have. We didn’t do some things well enough to win. They played hard and competed, and that’s all you can ask against a very good team.”

Andy Hamilton, "Ohio State Loss Feels Like Deja Vu for Hawks," Hawk Central/Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 22, 2010, p. B1. The Iowa team couldn't have played any harder "and that’s all you can ask against a very good team.”

Nov. 29: More quotes from our Coach Ferentz before and after the Minnesota game, Nov. 27:

On sitting in outdoor stadiums in below-freezing weather: "'It's really not bad for coaches and players,' Iowa Coach Kirk Ferentz said. 'I've never understood why fans go. Coaches and players are working. It's not that big a deal. Would I go to one of those games? I don't think so.'" Mike Hlas, "Only Winning Makes New Stadium a Home," The Gazette, November 27, 2010, p. B1.

And the no excuses, no blame game response to the Minnesota loss? “They were more ready to go than we were today. They got what they deserved and we got what we deserved.” Andy Hamilton, "Iowa’s loss to Minnesota: ‘Something’s not going right,’" Hawk Central/Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 27, 2010.

I just thought that was a valuable, useful, compassionate and classy response to a major loss (just like his taking some public responsibility for an earlier one). I don't mean that the Pope should add him to the list of new Cardinals or anything like that. There are a lot of possible reasons for his saying what he did.

But it represents a useful observation, and orientation, we can all benefit from applying to ourselves, our children and our students.

President Lyndon Johnson used to say occasionally, "They call me 'Lucky Lyndon.' But I always find the harder I work the luckier I get." It's true in the study of law, and it's certainly true in athletic performance. That's what "strength training" is about. It's why and how Ricky Stanzi benefits from his four-hour sessions studying game videos.

[Andy Hamilton, "The education of Ricky Stanzi; Hawk QB a student of the game," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 23, 2010 ("Stanzi is a quarterback major this semester with a minor in football film study. His classroom is a dark chamber inside the Hayden Fry Football Complex where, in an average week, Stanzi spends nearly 20 hours — sometimes up to four a day — watching film and studying Iowa’s next opponent.").]

But once you really have worked at preparing yourself, and you're performing up to the level of your ability, whether you're a high school student with special needs in a play, or a star quarterback making plays on the field, "that's all you can ask" -- of yourself or of others.

"Winning" games really isn't everything. It does make a difference "how you played the game" [Grantland Rice: “[It's] not that you won or lost but how you played the game," wikipedia.org, supra], and what you said and how you behaved after the game.

Full effort, plus class, counts, too.

In fact, in the greater scheme of things it's probably the most important "win" of all.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #