“Most of us have an instinctive faith in talent and genius, but it isn’t just that people make organizations perform better. The organization also makes people perform better. In fact, few stars would change employers if they understood the degree to which their performance is tied to the company they work for.” (Groysberg, Nanda, & Nohria, 2004, p. 4)

Well, he’s done it. Tom Brady has now won his 5th Super Bowl! He is now the greatest quarterback of all time, period. I haven’t written a blog in a while and I’m pretty tired so why not try to make a coherent argument against the notion of using “team wins”, a team level unit of analysis, as a measure of an individual’s greatness. That is to say, we can certainly examine how the individual influences a “team win” as an outcome variable but it seems disingenuous to try to then use “team wins” as a measure of individual greatness as though we have the ability to isolate the variable in an interdependent sport like football.

This flawed logic will make an appearance in social media, general media, and especially sports media. There are a myriad of problems with a victory, in this game, being used as a measure of greatness. Wins, playoff appearances, Super Bowl MVPs, etc. are poor measures to define *individual* greatness in Football- The king of “team” sports.  (Oh Hey, ESPN: http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=18628373). Unlike Basketball, the other team sport that conflates greatness with championships, football has 3 different phases that ultimately impact a win or loss. The Quarterback is *1* of over 33 positions (there are multiple units for special teams but they are used as needed) influencing the game. LeBron James is *1* of 5 active positions and 1 of maybe 8 or 9 that rotate throughout the game. Moreover, each of the 5 players account for both offense and defense so time of possession cannot be used to minimize the effect a single player may have on the game. This is important because the idea that Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning because the Patriots beat the Colts only makes sense if Tom Brady and Peyton Manning also played defense… or if you created two teams exactly the same and added Peyton to one team and Tom Brady to the other like a video game.

Tom Brady IS a System Quarterback and Bill Belichick IS the System:

Popular football analysis and logic is very inconsistent when it comes to labeling a person a system quarterback. Rather than getting into the minutia of explaining how the myriad of interdependent variables and their interactions make isolating a single variable (i.e., one player) very difficult… We can just look at the circumstantial evidence. The jury calls on Matt Cassel.

Matt Cassel (and Jimmy G this year) is the greatest evidence suggesting Tom Brady is a system quarterback. In 2008 Matt Cassel lead the Patriots to 11-5 record in his first season as a starting quarterback since high school. I’ll let that marinate for a while. Many people downplay that Matt Cassel was not a starter in college. This is not a minor detail as one should not expect an NFL quarterback’s first starting season since high school to yield an 11-5 record. “But Bob! The previous year they went undefeated #bradygoat.” Ah, I’m glad you brought this to my attention. That must mean in 2009… oh. in 2009 Brady’s Patriots went 10-6. So using the 2007-2008 logic to dispute Cassel you must also use the 2008-2009 logic to dispute Brady, no? After all, I would suspect that Cassel’s second year would have been better than his first so if he went 11-5 he would have done better than Brady’s 10-6, no? One author seemed to make this mistake along with suggesting Brady can’t be a system QB because the System changes. That, of course is called good coaching hence the coach is the system. Check that article out here: (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/09/is-it-fair-to-question-tom-bradys-legacy-after-the-patriots-3-0-start).

Of course, we would never know but this illustrates the lengths we go to confirm our bias that it is Brady, the fearless leader, that is the source of the Patriot’s success. Unfortunately for Brady there is a full season’s worth of data that suggests with or without Brady the Patriots will win. And despite what some might say, a full season is as good of a sample size you are going to get (see 2015 Cowboys). Don’t believe me? Did you, yes you reading this, assume the Patriots would go 3-1 or 4-0 during Brady’s suspension with Jimmy G starting? If you did assume this then you’re implicitly endorsing the idea that Brady is just another cog in the Patriots’ system.Which means, Belichick is more important to the success of the Patriots than Brady such that Non-Brady quarterbacks are expected to win 11 games in a season and 4 games during a suspension. What this does prove is that Belichick is the greatest coach of all time and Brady is lucky enough to be along for the ride (lets not forget Bledsoe won a playoff game leading to one of Brady’s Super Bowl Victory. Another example of winning without Brady).

KSAs -> Task Performance: The “Madden” Ratings Argument

Instead, it is better to define a person’s “greatness” as having the attributes to have high task performance- controlling for variables like coaching, opponent ability, supporting cast (i.e., linemen, wrs, running backs, etc.)- over a sustained time period (defined as a enough observations to have a useful sample).

Understanding the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) necessary to succeed at an individual position is a great start to untangling the “greatness” of an individual. We see this often in the Talent Management and Human Capital literature using different methods of measuring a person’s value to the company. Similarly, these same methods should be used when discussing the greatness of football players. While the focus of this blog is on the Tom Brady discussion we will be having over the next week, then month, then years, then forever and ever… Lets use the running backs debate to set the stage.

When a person says “Who is the greatest running back of all-time?” there are many different approaches. You’ll often see Barry Sanders or Walter Payton discussed as the greatest. Some will say Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, Dickerson, etc. Then there’s the one camp that says Emmitt Smith. They point to yards and the mythical KSA of “longevity”. Curiously, this camp is often dismissed due to the all-star offensive linemen, Troy Aikman, and Michael Irving. People suggest, instead, “Barry is better than Emmitt in every metric, speed, elusiveness, agility, vision, etc.” And they are mostly correct. The assumption is Emmitt is a great running back but he isn’t the greatest such that there are a handful of running backs that given the same opportunity would yield similar results. *Noticeably missing is the number of championships.*

Yet, when we discuss quarterbacks we all of the sudden use winning as a metric rather than referring to the KSAs used in every other position. The change in measurement is how we arrive at a place where Tom Brady is now referred to as the “greatest quarterback of all time” when the only KSA objectively agreed as him owning above the rest is winning which of course isn’t a KSA. And that is where a Madden-like Rating system approach is helpful. The same way we debate greatest running backs based on the KSAs necessary to excel in task performance (i.e., a hypothetical real life Madden Rating), we should do so for Quarterbacks.

Cian Fahey of presnapreads.com does this by proxy by examining each play and attributing the success or failure of the play based on what is expected of the quarterback embedded in a system. He is also noted for making the argument that Tony Romo should have started when he was healthy because he was the best quarterback on the team (A KSA argument)… Rebuking the idea that Dak Prescott winning is more important than finding out who the *greater* quarterback was (coincidentally if Dak was better than Romo… there would have been a QB controversy *before* Romo got hurt.)

I think it is fair to ask how many great throws did Tom Brady make in this game? I can think of a couple and one that should have been intercepted and happened to hit somebody’s leg and float in the air (I must note that others will review the tape and can answer this question a bit more definitively). Tom was accurate but rarely had to throw a ball in tight coverage. Moreover, any time he was pressured the slightest bit he threw below the greatness of peer quarterbacks whom regularly face pressure (see Philip Rivers). Which raises the question: How many quarterbacks could be inserted into the Patriots offense and be successful given the number of times the WRs are schemed to be open? If we are being realistic there are a few (I could make the argument that Sam Bradford would do very well in the Pat’s offense given his ability to throw those crossing routes and make every throw Brady made in the Super Bowl).

And unlike the Cassel season we see backup QBs fail to live up to the star starter around the league. The Steelers look like a shell of themselves when Ben is hurt. The Colts had the number 1 pick when Peyton was hurt. The cowboys looked rough without Romo in 2015.  Which gets us back to the question: Is Tom Brady the greatest of all time? The evidence suggests he’s a great quarterback in an even greater system. The same way Graham Harrell is considered a system quarterback despite breaking numerous NCAA records and leading Texas Tech to an 11-2 season.

It is very difficult to believe Bill Belichick has the ability to make anybody a star and then exclude Tom Brady from the discussion. When Bill Belichick gets rid of Wilfork, Jones, Welker, Collins, etc. we all say “Bill does it again! Always winning with no talent!” At some point we have to conclude that Bill knows his system and the value added from each player. Why, then, do we treat Tom Brady differently given the Matt Cassel/Jimmy G experience?

 

I’m tired. I have more to say but here are some good reads on the dangers of attempting to disentangle the individual from the system. Specifically, Brady is largely benefiting from not having to switch teams which makes the Cassel case our only opportunity to pinpoint the “greatness” of Brady relative to the system. In The Risky Business of Hiring Stars check out the section on The Drivers of Star Performance:

Groysberg, B., McLean, A. N., & Nohria, N. (2006). Are leaders portable?. Harvard Business Review, 84(5), 92.

Groysberg, B., Nanda, A., & Nohria, N. (2004). The risky business of hiring stars. Harvard business review, 82(5), 92-101.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of management review, 24(1), 31-48.

 

One of the more compelling stories of late is the recent recall of Samsung Galaxy Note 7’s. A few months ago there were anecdotal stories of Samsung 7’s blowing up. Not blowing up in the colloquial explosion of interest and sales— blowing up in the literal explosion of batteries.

The plural of anecdote became data and the data became evidence and the evidence suggested a nice equation: Samsung Galaxy Note 7 + Charger = Boom. Samsung eventually had to concede that the initial explosions were a symptom of a larger product failure rather than defective outliers.

Unlike many defective parts in the cell phone competitive space, this particular defect brought with it more than intrigue and inconvenience. Indeed, consumers can handle insufficient charges due to weak conduction of electricity between the charger and the battery or a faulty battery that needs to be replaced. But this event is heating up consumers everywhere. Such a dangerous defect has even caused airliners to ban the Galaxy Note 7.

So the question is: Will Samsung Survive the Galaxy Note 7 Crisis?

Reputation and Switching Costs: When we think of sources of competitive advantage we consider the resources, capabilities, and core competencies of an organization that are valuable, rare, inimitable, non-substitutable and able to be leveraged by the organization. One of the most important sources of competitive advantage is reputation. Specifically, reputation is socially complex and has path dependency which makes it difficult for other firms to capture their economic rents. Consider the cell phone competitive space. The resistance to the disruptive vision of what Apple believed a cell phone should be came, in part, because Apple was not known as a cell phone company. Moreover, one could argue that Apple hadn’t achieved their reputation as visionaries and innovators in the electronic space. Fast forward to the present where we see Apple put forward an idea, like getting rid of the head phone jack, and many consumers and journalists find themselves in a position of criticizing the move while also assuming an asymmetrical knowledge gap between conventional wisdom and Apple wisdom. Thus, this competitive advantage has accumulated over the years allowing Apple to make a series of what appears to be less than optimal strategic decisions not hurt their adoption rates and market share.  After all, remember the time Steve Jobs told us we really wanted a portable computer in our pockets that has the bonus feature of making calls?

Samsung’s reputation is slightly different but equally socially complex and path dependent. Samsung is a conglomerate with over 70 years’ worth of evidence that they create reliable products.  Samsung’s reputation across a spectrum of electronics is that you will get a high quality product with top of the line specs. In the cell phone competitive space this has been demonstrated by their emergence as the preferred Android phone. The Samsung Instinct was seen as the comparable competitor to the first iPhone and subsequently the galaxy and note became the alternative to the iPhone. In this way, Samsung’s reputation became intertwined with Apple in the cell phone space rather than Nokia, RIM (Blackberry), or Motorola whom were in the cell phone space but in the vanishing flip and brick phone segment.

Another isolating mechanism for Apple and Samsung is the iOS and Android platforms perceived switching costs. Apple has done a masterful job integrating their platform such that all of their products communicate well with each other but not so well with other platforms such as Android and Windows. As consumers we now have perceived switching costs associated with our decision to switch platforms. These are not just financial costs but other economic costs such as time, stress, sunken costs (i.e., I just bought a new iPad!), etc. These are the classic debates with family and friends about how clunky one interface is or whether a back button is a right afforded to us by the constitution.

But more than that, switching costs in the cell phone space includes a certain level of comfort with one platform over another. These two components, reputation and switching costs in the competitive space, are why I believe Samsung is in a unique position to overcome a short term loss of market POWer (explosion puns are more difficult than you think). But there is a particular attribute of Samsung that provides the necessary context for their ability to withstand the blowback- product offerings.

Product Offerings: So now that we have a decent sense of the importance of reputation and perceived switching costs as a source of competitive advantage we should explore market dependence and product offerings. First, it might be helpful to imagine a scenario where the iPhone 7 was exploding. How would things be different?

In line with our previous discussion, Apple’s reputation is often associated with innovation and pushing the limits of technology. As such, faulty electronic equipment might be seen as a flaw in the design of the product tied to engineers exceeding their capacities. Implications of the event in regard to overall reputation might lead consumers to believe Apple bit off more than they could chew.

In contrast, Samsung’s reputation is that of excellence in quality. Samsung has developed a surplus of technological social capital such that a defect this serious can be seen as an exception rather than a rule. After all, their televisions haven’t blown up trying to keep up with the Kardashians. It is the existence of concurrent electronic success that will, in my opinion, enable Samsung to bounce back.

A second component worth considering, then, is the overall product offering. But more importantly the market dependence of the cell phone industry and the product lines in the industry. So back to our counterfactual; if the iPhone had to be recalled what happens to Apple? Apple’s portfolio is heavily reliant on the cell phone market and the iPhone (and the s version) are the only products in the competitive space. Therefore, Apple does not have many options to mitigate the risks associated with the overwhelming reliance on this one product. Thus, the impact of an event like this to Apple might be catastrophic (insert meteor, explosion, extinction, impact crater joke here) as a recall of the iPhone leaves consumers with little to no options in the iOS market. *It should be noted that a narrow product offering is a strategic choice and has worked thus far for Apple.

So what about Samsung? Unlike Apple, Samsung has multiple product offerings in the cell phone space which means they have the ability to respond to this crisis in a way that mitigates further damage. So if you made it this far through the blog, this is where we tie it up.

Samsung’s reputation for creating quality products has created a surplus of social capital such that we are more willing to see this as an isolated and abnormal event. Samsung has multiple product offerings in the cell phone competitive space so a total recall of the Galaxy Note does not eliminate their ability to compete in the space and meet demand. Moreover, because there are high switching costs associated with switching platforms  Samsung only needs to convince consumers hesitant to leave android that it is easier to switch from a Galaxy Note 7 to a Galaxy S7 (or J7, etc.) than it is to go to iPhone. As long as Samsung is viewed more favorably than HTC and LG, the refund or exchange recall will probably see many consumers simply switch from the Galaxy Note 7 to the Galaxy S7 rather than take on the switching cost to a new manufacturer (e.g., HTC or LG) or a new operating system (i.e., Apple iOS).

So I tend to believe Samsung will only take a short term hit. However an important caveat is how they manage the crisis. If Samsung can ensure they are taking the proper steps to identify and correct the issue then they can rely on their past reputation to mitigate the scrutiny. Moreover, because Samsung is the premier maker of Android phones they can still capture consumers deterred by high perceived switching costs. Thus, as note(d) previously, it’s Samsung’s Galaxy and we’re just living in it. Unless this issue is more pervasive than we suspect… then we’ll see which star emerges to fill the void left by the collapsing  star once known as Samsung (one time for the out of this world space puns).

*this was written on my SAMSUNG PHONE without Internet connection during my flight from Dallas to Charlotte for SMA. Please let me know if there are any inaccuracies, typos, or any clarifications needed.  I plan on posting this when I land in the rough form as more of a diary entry. Also, the flight attendant said, “At this time we need all small portable devices on airplane mode. Hopefully that device isn’t a Samsung Note 7”*

Many clichés have been used to describe the NFL’s decline in viewership. Whether the NFL is being sacked, ratings are being fumbled, viewers are being intercepted, etc., the fact remains—the NFL ratings are taking a hit. I would like to suggest, however, the NFL ratings are not taking a hit to the head because the 17 percent drop on Monday nights and the 10 percent fewer viewers overall is certainly causing a headache but are definitely unforgettable (yes, that was a concussion joke).

Many outlets and blogs have offered a myriad of opinions on the cause of this crisis. I will briefly discuss a couple of these causes then introduce and explain what I consider to be an underappreciated but salient problem for the NFL and viewership:

The Kaepernick Effect (And Political Season): Some suggest that the decline in viewership and the emergence of National Anthem protests have a causal relationship. To these individuals it isn’t merely coincidence that the presence of the National Anthem protests and the decline in viewership happened at the same time. Mike Ozanian at Forbes has a series of articles positing that the National Anthem protests remains the single largest driving force behind the decline. Citing a Sporting News article, Ozanian suggests 32 percent of adults say they’re less likely to watch NFL game telecasts because of the player protests. I would find it difficult to believe, however, that a handful of players’ behavior would drive diehard football fans away from watching their favorite teams. Oh, and presidential debates and the overall entertainment of the Trump vs. Clinton election.

The On-field Product: Penalties, No Fun League, and Are These Guys Any Good?:  Many people suggest that the decline in viewership is due to the lack of fluidity in today’s game due to the growing number of penalties which contributes to an overall decline in the on-field product.  The issue of excessive penalties is multifaceted so let’s tackle a couple of the contributing factors. The first factor to consider is the use of penalties as punishment for deviant unsportsmanlike behavior. The propagation of penalties as a corrective intervention to keep players from dancing, showboating, and um having fun is creating a culture that takes the personality out of the game (read: certain personalities). The anticipation of watching TO and Chad Ochocinco’s (but really Johnson because by Ochocinco he wasn’t scoring many TD’s) celebrations brought a lot of interest to the sport. Watching Cam Newton do his Superman Celebration or Dab on them folks’ brought thousands of people to the stadiums and millions of viewers at home. Now that the No Fun League is legislating these behaviors out of the game—we are essentially watching a board game (yes, that was a play on board and bored… you’re welcome).

So that’s one part—The No Fun League. The next part is that penalties disrupt the flow of the game and often have a large influence on a drive. When a controversial call/noncall changes the fortunes of a drive/game, viewers are rightfully upset. With the increase in technology and the introduction of replay, viewers are unsatisfied with “human error” in ways that were previously nonexistent. In this way, viewers see miscalls as incompetence, eroding the legitimacy of the game.

Finally, who are these GM’s and coaches that put together these terrible teams? The mission of the NFL is that any given Sunday a team can win or lose. This is predicated on the idea of competitive parity which is structurally introduced by draft orders, salary caps, etc. However, as resource based view (and knowledge base view) of the firm suggest, heterogeneity between firms exist even given the same or similar tangible resources due to the bundling of those tangible resources with the intangible resources (e.g., knowledge of the coaching staff, talent scouts, etc.) creating capabilities and competencies possessed by the specific firm/team.  As such, certain teams with certain coaching staffs seem to enjoy abnormal performance over time as other teams are perennial bottom feeders in the league. Teams, searching for a quick fix, often disrupt their own ability to develop these socially complex and path-dependent capabilities and core competencies by firing coaches early or making frequent personnel changes. The result is that any given Sunday in many ways describes the low probability of actually seeing a good game.

So What’s the Real Reason?: This should go without saying but I shall say this anyways—I am by no means suggesting the reasons stated previously are not contributing to the decline in viewership. I do think, however, that many pundits and observers are missing what I consider to be potentially the biggest reason: Fantasy Football.

But Bob, Fantasy Football is why football viewership increased! How can it be the reason it is decreasing? That’s a fair point. Many people have suggested that the rise in Fantasy Football and the new daily fantasy football apps increased the interest in football and, therefore, increased the viewership. This might have been true at first but hear me out. To understand how these two things can be true, let me first describe what we call “core rigidities”.

For simplicity I will borrow businessdictionary.com’s definition of core rigidity, “Flip side of core competencies, and caused by overreliance on any advantage(s) for too long. While a successful firm’s management relaxes its improvement efforts, others keep on getting better and obsolete its competitive advantage.” In other words, firms identify what gives them their competitive advantage, focus and invest in those core competencies, and sometimes becomes too reliant on the past to see the need to develop new capabilities to compete in the future. The firm stifles innovation due to the focus on the current competencies and then falls victim to inertial forces within the firm. Ok, so what does this have to do with Fantasy Football?

Well, instead of focusing on the product, the NFL has invested and partnered with ESPN, Yahoo, DraftKings, and others to promote the use of Fantasy Football. As such, the NFL became comfortable with the assumption that as long as we give the people fantasy football podcasts, updates, apps, etc. they will be willing to watch whatever product as long as it is the NFL. This is evident by the introduction of Thursday Night Football which has almost no benefits other than it being another night for advertisement. The on-field production naturally suffered due to the quick turnaround and lack of mental and physical preparation for the teams. Moreover, because schedules are made before the season, many of the Thursday night matchups are simply not appealing. But, because we have fantasy football we will tune in to see how many points Tom Brady is going to get me, right?

Well, kind of. That was the bet. That is why the NFL, ESPN, and others have invested so heavily in creating the best fantasy football product irrespective of the actual on-field product. What the NFL and others didn’t bet on was the willingness of individuals to live life without cable or satellite. The demographics of the cable cutters and the fantasy football enthusiasts are often overlapping as both require some level of technological sophistication (assuming individuals are opting for Netflix, Hulu, and other streaming services instead of cable). It is this often younger demographic that represents the shift in the external environment that makes the NFL’s reliance on fantasy football as a driver of viewership a core rigidity rather than a core competency. How? Because we have figured out that we do not need to WATCH Julio Jones’ 300 yard receiving performance to know that he will be the reason I win my Fantasy Football game. Instead, I can follow the progress of the games through apps and websites. In fact, this is in many ways optimal because I can keep up with my entire fantasy football team and the Kardashians at the same time—watching relevant highlights on NFL.com.

And after all, isn’t that what society is about in 2016? The popularity of Vine, Twitter, and Snapchat signal a shift toward short frequent consumption of media rather than long duration (Oh, hey 3 hours + football game!). Fantasy football and the complementary apps, websites, shows, etc. have now convinced a rather large segment of consumers that the NFL action/time ratio is on par with soccer (or um real football depending on who you ask). Indeed, many of us used to argue that in 90 minutes of soccer there were 10 minutes of action. Now we are realizing that 3 hours of football can be cut down to 5 minutes of highlights which are the 5 minutes that I need to see my fantasy football players score or make big plays. Thus, the introduction of fantasy football once increased our interest in football leading many to watch games they would otherwise not watch to see their fantasy football players. However, with the massive infrastructure surrounding fantasy football, we no longer need to watch play-by-play because we can get updates and watch the highlights we need to watch. In this way, watching an NFL game to watch your fantasy football player was NEVER about being committed to watching bad games. It was just a means to an end. And now people are utilizing other means that do not involve the time investment of watching the Dolphins play the Browns to see all 5 passes to Jarvis Landry. We now have a whole segment of consumers that used to enjoy watching the game of football but now enjoy following the game of Fantasy Football and it turns out that those are not as inextricably linked as the NFL and their partners thought.