KOL to the Rescue

Can the Kings of Leon solve our dependence on foreign oil? Overthinkingit.com notes that rock music quality (as judged by songs on Rolling Stone magazine's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time) is directly correlated with US Oil Production (although they had to take out Alaska to make the numbers work). We need more rock, people!

While this analysis is a great example of the old maxim that correlation doesn't prove causation (take note, Al Gore), I find the list of the greatest rock songs ridiculous. According to rock music snobs, the vast majority of great rock songs were written in the 60's and 70's. Granted, the 80's was a weak decade for rock, but the last two decades have produced rock that has rocked as much as the rock from the golden age of rock. Nirvana, Rage Against the Machine, Radiohead, the White Stripes? To quote Norm McDonald: "Ridiculous. Completely ridiculous. Can you believe these characters? Way out of line. Way out of line... You know what hurts the most is the lack of respect."

Hat tip Freakonomics.

Economists on Recruiting

Bad news: the nation's top recruit, Terelle Pryor, is heading to Ohio State. Well, Ohio State has a 40.2% chance anyway (Michigan has a 37.9% chance). A couple economists have a computer model that can accurately predict the destinations of the top high school football prospects (ht Freakonomics). The model has correctly picked the schools for 72.5% of the Rivals.com top 100 recruits over a two year period. This model puts science to the whims of these teenage phenoms. The model includes more than two dozen variables and reveals some surprises: recruits don't care how many players you put in the NFL, or how stacked you are at their position. Also, recruits from the West and Northeast were less likely to stay close to home than those from the Midwest and the South. What was most important? "According to the model, they usually will pick the BCS-conference school nearest their hometown that has the biggest on-campus stadium and won the most games last season. Not the past five seasons, mind you."

Freakonomics and Sports Betting

I don't bet on sports, but I found this story about how Vegas sets point spreads interesting. The authors of Freakonomics (check out their blog) show that bookies do not just try to get half the bets for the favorite and half for the underdog, as you might expect. Losers have to pay 10% on top of their wager, so that would net the bookie 5% of the total wagers. However, the bookie knows that people tend to like the favorite a little more than they should and are biased toward certain teams (recently the Bears and the Bengals have been favored by more fans over equally good teams like Seattle and Carolina) and sets the spread accordingly, tempting them into bad bets. I also learned that if you bet home underdogs in the NFL you will, on average, beat the bookies. Anyway, check out the article if you like the Freakonomics stuff.