Indiana hosted Michigan State last night in what could be an important game in the final conference standings.  I saw parts of the game while mostly watching Miracle on ABC instead.  The post-game recap and accompanying in-game blog in Sports Illustrated's college basketball page had a pretty good summation of the mood of the IU fans.  Not surprisingly, it sounds like before the game started, and while the outcome was in doubt, many in attendance were against Kelvin Sampson.  When it became clear the Hoosiers were going to win, the fans were happy with Sampson.  The coach better hope his team somehow finds a way to hold of Purdue on Tuesday night, or the mood among the fans at Assembly Hall could be very ugly.

Here's the summation of the fan perspective from SI.com's recap:

On Wednesday, the NCAA accused the Hoosiers coach of five major rules violations, including providing false and misleading information to investigators. On Friday, university officials announced it would conduct a second internal investigation, which is supposed to be completed by next Friday.

Fans refused to wait that long to voice their opinions.

Supporters waved signs that read ''Save Sampson'' and ''If O.J. is innocent, so is Sampson.'' Proponents of firing Sampson countered with placards reading ''Sampson get off the phone'' and ''Every IU student prefers Knight, see ya Sampson,'' a reference to former Indiana coach Bob Knight.

Others could be overheard talking about the risky move Indiana made when it hired the former Oklahoma coach two years ago. And for the second straight home game, Sampson drew more boos than cheers during pregame introductions.

I'm not so sure that a sign equating O.J. Simpson's innocence with Sampson's innocence is exactly someone who supports the embattled coach, but I suppose it's possible that some deranged student who thinks O.J. is actually innocent thinks this is a witty reference and somehow helps the coach.  With friends like those...

As for Sampson drawing more boos than cheers during the pregame introductions, I believe the game before MSU came to town was Wisconsin a few nights ago, which was right after the NCAA allegations broke.  And IU went out to lose to the Badgers and break a fairly long home winning streak (or Big Te(leve)n home winning streak, or whatever).  So hardly surprising that by the time another ranked opponent shows up, the fans were ready to dump on the embattled coach.

The in-game blog accompanying the story is classic fan reaction.  Here's the relevant sequence:

Bloomington Sharks Swarming
09:49 PM | During the four-minute media timeout, the ESPN broadcast showed a montage of Indiana fans just killing Kelvin Sampson for the alleged violations which threaten to tarnish the reputation of a program known for its immaculate reputation. Say what you want about Bob Knight but the guy ran a clean program. Remember, this is a school which hasn't had an NCAA violation since 1960.

Oh no, it sounds awful.  The fans are in an uproar!  But wait:

Students Cheer Embattled Coach
11:02 PM | Indiana calls a timeout with 1:48 remaining and the Hoosiers holding a 78-59 lead -- an opportunity to get his deeper reserves some burn. Kelvin Sampson is hugging his players going into the huddle like it's a Monday night in April. Meanwhile, the Indiana student section chants his name in a show of support.

Huh.  Eighty minutes elapse, and all's well with the world.  I guess going from 8 down to 19 up makes everything all right.

Should the team keep winning (and depending on D.J. White's injury and status along with everything else swirling around the program that's certainly a tall order) it's going to be a very tough spot for the administration at the end of their "investigation."  Should make good sports theater, which I suppose has the cubicle jockeys in Bristol, CT, the happiest guys in sports.

It's probably been over 10 years ago that Marv Albert got involved with some unsavory business with a woman in a hotel room.  I don't remember the details, and quite frankly I don't care to do an online search to find them again.  All I remember about it are charges that Albert bit the woman, and at some point in the encounter, he lost his wig.

The whole episode was predicted by many to be end of Albert's long and memorable career as a sports broadcaster.  Turns out, after some time away from work and rehabilitating his image, Albert's now been back in sports broadcasting for years, and my guess is hardly anyone remembers the entire episode (obviously, Marv and the woman involved aside).

Kelvin Sampson's troubles at IU are not nearly as lurid as the ones Marv Albert brought on himself.  But I see this morning that one of the ESPN.com columnists has predicted that Sampson will be fired by the end of the week.

We'll see.  I have no problem if Sampson is fired, whenever it may happen.  But I was very much in the minority years ago when I predicted that Marv Albert would be back and no one would care what he may have done in that hotel room.  Perhaps Sampson will indeed be fired within a week.  But I'm taking a wait and see approach for now.  Let's hit the highlights of the story:

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Indiana University president Michael McRobbie, with his thick Australian accent and grim facial expressions, stood before a group of reporters Friday afternoon and announced that the school would conduct its own investigation into NCAA allegations against Hoosiers basketball coach Kelvin Sampson and two of his assistants.

It was only fitting that McRobbie's news conference took place in a moot courtroom at IU's School of Law.

At this point, Indiana's investigation is a moot point.

Sampson is gone.

There is nothing Sampson can say or do to save his hide. He is a two-time loser when it comes to breaking NCAA rules, and his latest attempt at cutting corners has embarrassed a school that prides itself on doing things the right way. Indiana hasn't been hit with major rules violations in any sport since 1960.

Strong stuff.  Nothing really to disagree with here.  Moving on:

Let's be clear: Indiana officials won't spend the next seven days looking for evidence to defend Sampson against the NCAA's allegations. The only reason the school is conducting its own investigation is to ensure it won't have to pay Sampson the remaining money he is owed on his contract that runs through the 2012-13 season. Providing Sampson one week of due process will also avoid a wrongful termination lawsuit down the road.

I'm no employment law guru, but it seems to me that if the employer has set up a sham process, with a predetermined outcome, with the specific intent only of trying to avoid a wrongful termination lawsuit, then that's not a very good strategy.  If even an ESPN.com columnist can figure out this what the employer is doing, I would think a decent attorney representing Sampson can see through it and make a decent argument in his client's favor.  Moving on:

Without question, Indiana will move so quickly that Sampson won't be coaching the No. 12 Hoosiers a week from now. The only reason Sampson will coach in home games against No. 9 Michigan State on Saturday night (ESPN, 9 ET) and No. 23 Purdue on Tuesday (ESPN, 7 ET) is because his contract doesn't allow Indiana officials to suspend him right now.

Under the terms of Sampson's contract, athletics director Rick Greenspan will decide whether the coach should be terminated for allegedly breaking NCAA rules. Greenspan is expected to make that recommendation to McRobbie on Feb. 22. If Greenspan recommends Sampson be fired, and McRobbie upholds the decision, Sampson can then be suspended without pay. Sampson will then have 10 days to appeal to McRobbie to save his job.

Here's where we get to the specific time-line part of the prediction of Sampson's demise.  I suppose this is possible, but my own cynical read of this is that, should Sampson's team tank this week against MSU and Purdue, putting them out of the hunt for the Big Te(leve)n title, the firing prediction looks pretty good.  But if the troops somehow rally 'round the embattled coach and win these games, vaulting them to the top of the conference standings, then the administration may allow this whole mess to play out over the remainder of at least the regular season, and possibly through the NCAA tournament under the guise of not trying to punish the innocent players for the sins of the coach.  Also, this whole section seems to argue against the whole timing of the firing.  Specifically, the 10 day appeal period seems to mean Sampson won't be gone in a week, but instead could limp through the end of the regular season and maybe into the Big Te(leve)n tournament.

Again, time will tell.  Moving on:

Indiana officials seem pretty confident in the NCAA's findings. The three-person committee appointed by McRobbie to investigate Sampson's behavior won't even interview the recruits who accused the coach of breaking NCAA rules. Instead, the school will rely on transcripts from those players' interviews with NCAA investigators, according to Indiana University spokesman Larry MacIntyre said.

So much for defending your coach.

Even more telling? McRobbie said he hasn't spoken to Sampson since Indiana received a 14-page letter from the NCAA on Feb. 8. Now Sampson can't pick up the phone? The coach has gone into relative hiding, aside from coaching the Hoosiers in games. He canceled a scheduled news conference on Friday, in which he and his players were supposed to discuss the Michigan State game. The school had already informed media members that the team would not take questions about the NCAA's case.

McRobbie and other Indiana officials are saying the right things. They insist Sampson will be given a fair shake.

"I want to make it clear that all of us are going into this with no presumptions," McRobbie said. "I do not know what conclusions the investigators will come to regarding these new allegations."

But conclusions have already been made.

Sampson is guilty as charged. Phone records don't lie.

I actually find this last portion of the story the most persuasive in furthering the author's point that this whole investigation by IU is a show trial.  If they're simply using what the NCAA has already put together, it certainly seems reasonable to conclude that they've already made up their minds.

Too bad IU couldn't have convinced Mark Few, head coach at Gonzaga, to move to Bloomington when Mike Davis was sent packing.  Perhaps they'll make a big push to make that happen this off-season.

The continuing saga of Kelvin Sampson and the Indiana University men's basketball program brings us an update in the discussion this morning on the Mike and Mike radio show on ESPN.  Guest Jay Bilas, a former Duke basketball player, law school graduate, and now ESPN college basketball analyst, put his formidable skills to use to inform the world that he doesn't think the rule on phone calls is a good one, and his reason for disliking it is that coaches shouldn't be prohibited from doing something that anyone in the free world can do.

Fortunately I didn't have my coffee cup to my lips when he came out with this, or I would have had a ruined computer screen and keyboard.  Coaches should be allowed to do anything that a person in the free world can do?  Last time I checked, people in the free world can not only make phone calls, but they can send letters, give gifts, take people to dinner, recommend people for jobs, and lots of other things.  I guess old Bilas is all set to eliminate all restricted activity in recruiting college athletes.  He should have had confidence in his convictions and come right out with that vision of a bold new future where anything goes in luring athletes onto college campuses to rent their services for a few years.

It took the common sense of former NFL defensive lineman and Notre Dame grad Mike Golic to point out that, while you may not like the rule on telephone calls, it's still an NCAA rule that everyone is supposed to comply with.  And more importantly, the rules on telephone calls are EXACTLY the ones Sampson has already been found to have violated while he was at Oklahoma, so he certainly knows about those rules.

Thank goodness Golic hasn't had his judgment impaired with three years of a law school education.

The news out of Bloomington, Indiana, continues to swirl around what may happen to Indiana University men's head basketball coach Kelvin Sampson.  The latest story this evening indicates University officials are exploring their options, and of course one of the big factors in their deliberations is going to be how much it may cost them under the various scenarios.

From the story:

According to the contract signed in April 2006, Indiana pays Sampson an annual base salary of $500,000. With five years left on the deal, the cost could reach at least $2.5 million.

Sampson's deal includes termination clauses for violations of university or NCAA rules that eliminate the payments. Attorneys, however, have differing views on whether the accusations, which include providing false or misleading information to investigators, would allow Indiana to fire Sampson with cause and get off the financial hook.

Athletic director Rick Greenspan acknowledged Wednesday these are only allegations since the NCAA has not yet made a ruling, and the distinction could be important.

"It (the contract) talks about significant, intentional or repetitive violations, so the question becomes when does it become a violation?" said Indianapolis attorney Stephen Backer, a former trustee at Indiana who works in contractual law. "That's the issue. I'm sure that's what they're meeting about today."

Hiring a coach who has already run afoul of NCAA recruiting regulations means it would have probably been malpractice for any lawyer for IU not getting a termination clause in Sampson's contract.  That said, it sounds from this description of the contract that the University's lawyers didn't exactly go the mattresses to protect the school from Sampson turning out to be every bit the weasel he had been in Oklahoma.

Let's apply some common sense.  Your hiring someone who will receive potentially the highest salary for any employee paid by the taxpayers of the state of Indiana.  This may have come up on my blog before, but if not, then it's probably something I've heard discussed on sports radio, but there are many states where the highest paid taxpayer funded salary goes to a university football or basketball coach.  Think Florida, Georgia, Texas, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and most likely Indiana.  Head coaches of big time programs make a lot of coin.  Sampson's base salary is $500K.  No way Indiana's governor gets that kind of salary.

So, you need to get this contract done, but the guy you're bringing in has some baggage.  He's been nabbed by the NCAA for recruiting violations in his previous position, something that has never happened in your lifetime for the Indiana basketball program.  You want to make sure that program continues to be one of the premier programs in the country.  You want to protect it and make sure that, if this new guy screws up and sullies the name by getting in trouble with the NCAA, he's gone.

With that in mind, I would hope you give the University maximum flexibility to drop the hammer if they need to.  You don't just say "violations of NCAA rules" can trigger the termination clause and hope for the best.  You consider the NCAA investigative process and how charges are handled.  Not just any allegation that winds up in the NCAA's files is enough.  But if the NCAA winds up sending a letter to the University outlining major recruiting violations under the new coach, then the University has the OPTION to kick him to the curb.  Not every contingency can be foreseen, but there is certainly enough precedence with NCAA investigations for the University and its lawyers to know how the system works and how they would want to structure a contract provision so that they can axe a coach before the NCAA investigation has completely run its course.

This should be simple.  But now it's going to get messy and complicated because that's how lawyers make their money.  And the Indiana taxpayers can now see their money thrown away not only potentially to a possibly corrupt and none-too-bright coach, but also the lawyers for the University as they have to slog through the NCAA investigation caused by that coach and the fight over whether the University can fire the coach.  It sounds more and more like this is going to be a long, slow decline that leads up to Sampson's termination from IU.  Hoosier fans better start thinking about reputable, winning replacement candidates soon.

It's Thursday, so that can only mean one thing.  Yep, I read the USA Today this morning over a cup of coffee at Panera.  The feature story in the business section is on the new business strategy being implemented by Borders bookstores' new management team.  Here's the gist of it:

... Borders' newest retail strategy: a digital center where you can download music or books, burn CDs, research family histories, print pictures and order leather-bound books crammed with family photos — with help from clerks who know how to do those sorts of things and won't embarrass you if you don't.

Borders, the nation's second-largest bookstore chain, hopes to reverse years of sluggish sales by reinventing itself as a hub for knowledge, entertainment and digital downloading. Exhibit A is the new store that will open to the public here Thursday — the first of 14 that Borders plans to unveil this year. Borders' plans underscore the anxiety in the bookstore industry, which has been hurt by the growing footprint of online-only sellers.

Can it work? CEO George Jones thinks so.

"We had to build something that would cause the consumer to drive five or 10 minutes past the competitor's store to come here," says Jones, who joined the company 1½ years ago from Saks.

My initial reaction thought is to wonder why they think people will go another 5 to 10 minutes past a competitor's store to do something that they can do online at Amazon.com.  Or Barnes and Noble's web site.  But, as I am not wise enough to understand why Volkswagen's re-badging of a Chrysler minivan with a VW nameplate is somehow a bold move into the mid-life family market, I am probably also too limited in my knowledge to see the wisdom of this move from Borders.

Reading on:

At the Borders concept store, new themed book islands are built around lifestyle genres, including travel, cooking and health. The digital centers, meantime, are geared to welcome people of all levels of tech know-how. Staffers will guide customers through the process of burning music to CDs, downloading songs to most digital music players (except iPods, which, for now, work only with Apple software) or books to a Sony digital reader. They'll even print the cover art and fold it into a CD cover for you.

Burning music to CDs?  Do they actually have marketing research that indicates people have a desire to go to the store and create their own CDs the way you can go to a paint-your-own furniture or pottery store?  I have to assume they do, but I find it hard to believe.  Maybe it's been sitting on someone's desk since 1992 and they somehow fudged the dates and sold it to Borders as a fresh new concept.  I hope for the sake of all the Borders employees that they are right on this, but so far it sounds kind of lame.

Granted, the idea of downloading to a digital music player makes sense at the outset, but the fact that they can't do anything with an iPod, which has, what, 90% of the digital music player market makes you wonder what they're doing.  Are they pinning their hopes on Microsoft's Zune to somehow take off?  Are there enough people with cell phones that also act as digital music players who will actually seek out this service at Borders?  Maybe.  My hope is that Borders is working feverishly with Apple to somehow get them on board with this.  If not, my guess is it's DOA.

Continuing on:

By the end of April, Borders plans to launch its own website and take back control of Borders.com from Amazon, which has been operating the Borders site for nearly seven years. Under the arrangement, orders on Borders' website are filled by Amazon with Amazon's inventory and staff. Amazon gets credit for the sales, though Borders gets a percentage it won't disclose.

Once this change is completed, the interactive kiosks in Borders' stores will allow customers to do more online shopping in a store and even buy books, if they prefer.

Yes, you've read that correctly.  It's 2008 and Borders does not have it's own website.  I'm glad to see they are trying to get this business back in-house from Amazon, but how much confidence in Borders are the young, tech savvy customers that seem to be important for this strategy to succeed going to have in a business that is trying to not only incorporate all these digital and on-line features in their store AS WELL AS run their own website for the first time ever?  Sounds like a pretty big bite for Borders to be able to chew and swallow all at once.  Maybe they have the tech people and training to pull it all off.  After all, it's only a handful of stores at the outset.  But to get the entire chain working on this kind of platform?  Sounds like a lot of training and equipment, meaning a lot of money and time, which would make me very nervous if I were a Borders executive.

Yes, during Bob Knight's tenure in Bloomington, Indiana, as the head coach of the men's basketball team he was a hot-head, and a jerk, and he offended loads of people.  But the one thing you always knew about the program Knight ran at IU was that it was clean.  The only hint of an actual NCAA violation that I can remember is the ridiculous incident involving IU and Indiana High School Basketball legend Steve Alford posing for a charity calendar in violation of NCAA rules.

When Kelvin Sampson was hired to replace Mike Davis, I was a little nervous.  Sampson had some run-ins with the NCAA over real issues like recruiting contact violations, and seemed to have a slightly more flexible view of the rules when it came to running a basketball program.  So when Sampson was hit with charges of violating NCAA rules while at Oklahoma and forced to restrict his role in recruiting while at IU, I thought perhaps Sampson would be gone from Bloomington before his first season was over.

But still he coaches in Bloomington.  And today, we get news of more NCAA charges coming against Sampson because of apparent recruiting violation at IU.

I hope the charges are incorrect.  But if they are not, then from what I have read in the story, it doesn't seem like the behavior at issue is that bad at first blush - participating in phone calls with recruits in which he was not supposed to be involved.

But it kind of sounds like this is more of the same sort of rule violation that was found at Oklahoma and for which Sampson has already been punished.  So if he's been caught doing the same thing or a variation thereof in violation of rules, I'm not sure if I'd be more upset with the rules violations, or the stupidity of not learning from getting caught the first time.

Either way, it's sad to see a once elite program whose reputation was beyond questtion become just another possibly shady, sneaky, oily operation where rules are for chumps and other guys.  And I'd shed no tears if Kelvin Sampson isn't coaching the Hoosiers next year.

Today is Abraham Lincoln's birthday.   So I was a little surprised to see Refdesk.com's choice for Today's Birthday.  In case you have never visited the site, it is chock full of links to web sites for newspapers, magazines, television networks, etc.  I have used it for years as a jumping off point to access many different online news sources.

In their center column on the page, they typically have various current and historical stories for the day, including a birthday of note.  So if Abraham Lincoln is not the featured birthday of the day, who could they possibly have chosen?  William Roscoe Estep.  Who?  A Baptist theologian born in 1920.

I'm willing to concede that Mr. Estep was a wonderful man who did many important things for his church.  But William Roscoe Estep as the birthday of the day instead of Abraham Lincoln?

Ok, maybe I'm over-reacting.  I mean, it's not like Refdesk doesn't have other featured items for the day, including a "This Day in History" blurb and link.  Surely on the day of Abraham Lincoln's birth that would be the subject of interest, and it would explain having to go to William Roscoe Estep for the Birthday feature.

But looking at "This Day in HIstory" we find something else.  Something of such importance that my guess is that if you asked 1,000 people at random even on the streets of Washington, DC, what happened on this day of historical significance, not a single one would come up with it.  Some of them might guess Lincoln's birthday.  Some may even guess Washington's birthday.  Heck, a few may even guess Reagan's birthday.  But I can't believe anyone would remember or note that on this day in history Bill Clinton was acquitted by the Senate.

It's still a good site to use as a way to access other, more important news.  So for that, I'm glad.

Reading through this morning's post at Urgent Agenda, the final item of the entry made me stop and laugh.  I knew at once what it reminded me of, and exactly where I could find it.  My lovely wife indulged me by giving me boxed sets of DVDs of The Dick Van Dyke Show, one of my favorite television shows of all time.  When we married, I had a box of VHS tapes (actually, the tapes are probably still in the basement) that I had made and saved with every episode of the 5 year run of the show.  They are now the emergency back-up archive of material.

Anyway, one of the more famous episodes of The Dick Van Dyke Show is the first episode of the third season, " That's my boy?," which aired on September 25, 1963, and was written by Bill Persky and Sam Denoff.  No, I'm not so scary as to be able to know that information offhand.  But technology can be a wonderful thing, so after seeing the story below that jogged my memory, and checking online to see when the show aired, I pulled out the Season 3 DVDs and put the first disc into the iMac.  I then pulled up the menu, fired up the disc, and transcribed the relevant scene as Rob tries to break the news to Laura that he believes they brought the wrong baby home from the hospital:

Rob:    Honey, how much do you like that baby?

Laura:    Oh Rob, don’t tell me you’re jealous already.

Rob:    No, honey, I’m not gettin’ jealous.

Laura:    Oh that Dr. Spock knows everything.  That man is a genius!

Rob:    He doesn’t know everything in the whole world!  For instance, he doesn’t know that you are one in 50 million.

Laura:    Thank you, darling.

Rob:    Don’t thank me. Laura, did you know that one out of every 50 million women has the wrong baby?

Laura:    Well that’s a cute trick.  How does she manage it?

Rob:  Honey, she doesn’t have it while she’s havin’ it.  After she has it, she has it!

So what does this show have to do with something in the news over 40 years later?  Here's the blurb from Urgent Agenda:

•   Finally, I don't want to ruin your weekend, but I must sadly report a new and grave threat to the values of privacy and dignity that we hold dear.  It turns out that wills written by England's royal family may not remain private for long.  I know you're shocked.  I know you're outraged.  But restrain yourself just long enough to study the matter.  The story in London's Telegraph tells us:

    The Royal Family's right to keep their wills secret could be overturned after a court victory for a man who claims he is the illegitimate son of the late Princess Margaret.

    Jersey accountant Robert Brown, 53, believes he could be the love child of Princess Margaret and Group Captain Peter Townsend - who had an ill-fated romance with the Princess - making him 12th in line to the throne.

I don't believe I've ever heard of someone claiming to be an unknown, illegitimate child of a famous mother.  It seems like it would be incredibly difficult to hide something like the birth of a child by a woman like Princess Margaret.  From the Telegraph story, it looks like Mr. Brown has won some kind of procedural victory, so in the end his story may fall apart on the merits of what he claims.  Still, I hope someone brings this matter to Carl Reiner's and Dick Van Dyke's attention, and that they get at least a chuckle out of it.

Another story that caught my eye yesterday in the USA Today was a small blurb, with accompanying photo [ed. - you'll have to wait for the link - indulge me with the setup, you won't be disappointed], about Volkswagen finally making a comeback in the US minivan market.  I know, you're probably thinking, "Whoa, they're finally ready to put the redesigned Microbus on the market?!  Cool!"

Not quite.  Let's travel back to 2001 when the "retro" Microbus concept was unveiled at auto shows.  Having spent a lot of hours and traveled a lot of miles in VW Microbuses in my youth, I was very excited to think that the engineers at VW had decided to do for the Microbus what they had done for the Beetle.  Sure, the new Beetle is a far cry from the real thing that was my introduction into driving, but at least it looked interesting and fun and had some personality.  While I still yearn for an air cooled, rear mounted engine design in the new model, I can appreciate the nod to history in the new design.

So, what about a redesigned Microbus?  In a word, awesome.  Check out these links to photos and write-ups.  Especially check out the Motor Trend story.  Here's the bottom line from Motor Trend on the reaction to this proposed vehicle:

VW's Microbus Concept stole the hearts of everyone who attended the North American International Auto Show in Detroit-not an easy task, as nearly every manufacturer served up at least one "world debut" concept vehicle. But the talk of the show floor, among media and the public alike, was, "Didja see that totally cool VW bus?!"

Even my lovely bride, who is part of the women's automobile market that hated the idea of ever driving a minivan, agreed that, when VW put that baby in showrooms, I was cleared hot to dump whatever I was driving at that point (most likely it would have still been my 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee at that time) and bring home a Microbus.

So what happened?  VW delayed the model, and eventually scrapped it in 2004 or 2005.  The Wikipedia entry on the Microbus Concept indicates merely that it was cancelled in 2005, but I have found this article from May, 2004, indicating the project had been at least significantly changed enough that the Microbus was being seen as cancelled at that point.  Here's the summary:

Volkswagen AG has announced that they have decided not to pursue the current direction with the planned retro-styled Microbus due to costs and market conditions. With the Microbus being primarily targeted at a highly competitive and price sensitive minivan market in the US market Volkswagen is finding it difficult to price the Microbus competitively. The Microbus was planned to be built in Hanover, Germany on the T5 Eurovan platform which further added to the high costs of production. Most minivans in the US market are built on car platforms where shared components can keep costs low and give consumers a vehicle with more car-like characteristics. Volkswagen's decision to build the Microbus on a commercial truck platform in Hanover was driven primarily by a labor agreement which put the project on uneven footing from the onset.

At this point in an effort to try and keep the labor agreement intact, VW has announced that they plan to still build some type of van with "emotional" styling that can be sold in the U.S. and in the European market giving the vehicle a broader market base. Volkswagen isn't disclosing a lot of details about this "new" van, but has clarified that it won't be a retro-styled Microbus as pictured above. Will Volkswagen offer something like the current T5 Eurovan again or will it be more similar to the Sharan sold in Europe. Time will tell as VW has committed to bringing the vehicle to market in 2007.

Huh.  So VW was still promising something with "emotional" styling to be sold in the US.  From the enthusiasm in the Motor Trend story above, it sounds like their concept vehicle was certainly on the mark as far as "emotional" styling and the reaction it earned from attendees at the 2001 car shows.

So what has VW now come up with for the US market that is going to generate this same kind of excitement, nostalgia and overall "wow"?  Hold on to your hats:

CHICAGO — Volkswagen is returning to the U.S. minivan market that it pioneered in the 1950s with its flat-nose, rear-engine Transporter (aka Microbus). Instead of a retro van, however, VW will sell a modified Chrysler minivan.

Yes, you read that correctly.  It's a Chrysler minivan with a VW emblem slapped on the front.  And it gets better.  Here's the response from an industry analyst from the story announcing the new vehicle:

"They would have been better off with the Microbus," says Rebecca Lindland, director of the auto group at forecaster Global Insight. She expects sales to be about half VW's projection but notes the Routan does give the brand's loyalists a VW for their family years.

Not exactly a breathless, "Didja see that totally cool VW bus?!"

And this analyst is cutting VW's projected sales in half right out of the gates.  How many vehicles are we talking?  From the story:

The automaker hopes to sell 45,000 the first year, a big number for VW in the USA.

All right, VW thinks it can sell 45,000.  The analyst, Ms. Lindland, calls it half that.  Even if it's somewhere in the middle, will this be a success for VW?  Let's go back to the story on what the brain trust in Wolfsburg is saying about their company's efforts in the US automobile market:

"The USA is a critical factor in our global strategy," VW board member Ulrich Hackenberg said. "We can't be a global player without having a larger presence in" the USA.

Yes, larger presence.  Always important in an industry like this.  So what is VW's presence in the market now?  Immediately after the above comment from Herr Hackenberg, we get this:

VW's share of U.S. new vehicle sales is 1.4%; its Audi brand has 0.6%, says Autodata.

1.4%.  All right.  How big is the pie?  Well, the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics gives us some idea.  The latest data, for 2005, show total new vehicle sales and leases of passenger vehicles (I'm excluding light trucks as minivans are considered passenger vehicles) were 7,667,000.  That puts VW's total number of sales and leases in this segment at 107,338 (1.4%).

Now, with crude crunching of numbers and assuming the same number of overall new vehicle sales and leases, if VW sells 45,000 Phaetonvans, they would have 152,338 new vehicles on the road, for a whopping 1.99% of the US market.

Alternatively, if Ms. Lindland is closer to the mark with a guess at 22,500 Phaetonvans, VW winds up with only 1.69% of the US market.

Doesn't sound like a huge uptick for VW to me, but I suppose depending on how you look at the numbers, it may be significant.  For instance, there are apparently 596 VW dealers in the US.  So if they sell 45,000 Phaetonvans, that's approximately 75 per dealer during a calendar year.  That's just about 6 vans a month.  Dealers may not be too unhappy with that.  I don't know what the economics and financial structures are for a new car dealer to be able to tell how many vehicle sales per month would be profitable.

But if sales are closer to Ms. Lindland's estimate, moving Phaetonvans out the doors at the clip of about 3 per month, I would guess the dealers would not be very happy.  So is it possible that the difference between selling 3 and 6 minivans per dealer per month in the US is critical to Volkswagen's global strategy?  Seems like an awfully small margin for error overall.

In any event, it looks like I won't be bringing home a new Microbus anytime soon, if ever.  My expectation is that the new VW branded Chrysler will be a dud as well.  Honda and Toyota are already chewing up the minivan market.  VW's only hope to shake things up would have been to go full bore with the retro Microbus.  Instead, they'll likely limp along for a few years as they sell off their accumulated stock of Canadian-made Phaetonvans, and then cut their losses.

My dad and I have talked many times about the decisions businesses make.  He's been successful running a family-owned small business that is now over 100 years old.  It's evolved over the years and would be perhaps be only partially recognizable to my great grandfather who started the business.  But it's still plugging along.

When we see the movers and shakers at big companies like the auto manufacturers, multi-billion dollar banks, pharmaceutical giants, and other high tech businesses, our assumption is that these people must know what they're doing.  They play for big stakes, in fiercely competitive markets, against players from all over the world.

But somehow, they still come up with New Coke.  And Phaetons.  And expansions, acquisitions, or mergers that get reversed in short order.

Something tells me that all VW had to do to figure out how to be a global player with a larger presence in the US market would have been to conduct the following market research:  Put up promotional material in its 596 US dealers and have customers vote on which of the two minivans they wanted VW to bring to market.  My guess is the vote would have been about 95 - 5 in favor of the Microbus.  But I guess I'm no Ulrich Hackenburg.

In what I suppose is as close as I have come so far to creating a recurring feature of this blog, I return to a Thursday blog entry on a story that interested me from the day's USA Today.  Inside the front section, there was an article on the Vatican's announcement of revisions to the prayers to be said as part of the Latin Mass on Good Friday.  The sidebar from the story provides a pretty good summation of the history of the prayer at issue:

Changes In Friday's Prayer

-- Before 1960, the Latin liturgy offered a prayer "for the faithless Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts (and) for the blindness of that people, that they may be delivered from their darkness."
-- In 1970, after Vatican II, the liturgy said: "Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant, ... (and) may arrive at the fullness of redemption."
-- Pope Benedict's revised text, for the old Latin liturgy only, asks God to "enlighten" the hearts of the Jews so "they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men."

While the wording is different in the three versions, I think it's fair to read them as essentially consistent from the standpoint that, if you take Catholic doctrine seriously, then part of what you should hope and pray for is that everyone comes to accept Jesus as the Son of God and as the savior of mankind.  Perhaps the pre-Vatican II language is too harsh for our now politically correct world, but it's not as if there is anything here that borders on the whole "convert at the point of the sword" mentality that would truly be problematic.

The story reminded me of an incident from several months ago involving Ann Coulter.  Here's a recap of what she said and the controversy that erupted:

Coulter's comments came during Monday's episode of CNBC's The Big Idea, but received little notice until Media Matters' report Wednesday and the NJDC's criticism Thursday.

Host Donny Deutsch asked Coulter what her ideal picture of America looked like and she recalled the 2004 Republican convention in New York City.

"People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America," she said.

Deutsch asked, "It would be better if we were all Christian?" Coulter replied "yes," and reitereated her declaration again later in the interview, although she denied wanting to wipe all Jews off the map.

"We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say," Coulter said.

Deutsch, a practicing Jew, said he was personally offended by Coulter's remark, and she tried to defend herself.

"I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean, [Rev. Jerry] Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is 'Christ died for our sins,'" Coulter said. "We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all."

My own theological knowledge is pretty limited, so the term "perfected Christian" was new to me.  From the conversation between Dennis Prager and Ms. Coulter on Prager's October 30, 2007 radio show, my understanding is that a perfected Christian is one that is complete in the sense of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior.  More interestingly, Prager, who is Jewish and has written various books on religion and anti-semitism, was in complete agreement with Coulter that she had not said anything inherently offensive or problematic.

Coulter typically says things to generate outrage and publicity, and my guess is she knew that her statements would be picked up as some kind of outrageous attack on Jews.  But this still obscures the larger theological point that Christians, if they really believe what their church teaches them, should want everyone to believe in Jesus in the same way they do.  So telling someone that, even if their religion predates yours and is perhaps in a way its big brother, is not automatically offensive.  It is certainly a difference of belief, opinion, faith, etc., but as Prager wrote in his column on October 16, 2007:

What is wrong with a person believing that it would be better if another person adopted their faith? Is there one liberal who doesn't believe that a conservative would be better -- "perfected," if you will -- by embracing liberal beliefs and values? Why is it laudable for a liberal to hope that conservatives convert to liberalism, but dangerous and hate-filled when a Christian hopes that Jews or anyone else will go to heaven (that is, after all, Ann Coulter's and most other Christians' primary concern) by believing in Jesus?

It struck me as amusing that Pope Benedict and Ann Coulter could find themselves involved in such similar "controversies."  Hopefully, there are enough people out there like Dennis Prager with the common sense to see that the changes to the Good Friday prayers are not a sign of antagonism between Catholics and Jews.

Sports Illustrated's Extra Mustard has a link to an online slide show on the SI.com website where the magazine gears up for the looming swimsuit issue by having some of their swimsuit models "rate" the hottest couples in sports.  Hilarity ensues.

Most of the quotes below are by some model named Julie.  She's got a big future ahead of her doing commentary on celebrity news coverage if she can manage to maintain her honesty.  For instance:

Here's the page for Greg Norman and Chris Evert (I think they were married recently).

The comments?  Probably not what you would have said in the card accompanying your wedding gift for the happy couple:

It looks like they were beautiful when they were young, but they still rock.

It's good to see an old couple like this together. They are kind of hot.

Ok, how about another tennis player on the list.  Here's Pete Sampras and his wife, Bridgette Wilson.

The comment?

I didn't know who he was and I barely know who she is. I think I saw her in one movie. But I am just 21.

Ouch.  I guess that 14th Grand Slam win at the 2002 U.S. Open really is ancient history.

And finally, here's a shot of San Antonio Spurs point guard Tony Parker and his wife, actress Eva Longoria.

And the comment?

I never really understood them as a couple, I guess. I don't see it.

Well okay then.

It was certainly very said when actor Heath Ledger, a young father of a very young little girl, died recently.  The latest news report via Breitbart and the AP indicates that Ledger died of an accidental drug overdose.  Here's the intro from the story:

NEW YORK (AP) - Heath Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday.

The cause of death was "acute intoxication by the combined effects of oxycodone, hydrocodone, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam and doxylamine," spokeswoman Ellen Borakove said in a statement.

I happened to hear a bit of Laura Ingraham's radio show just before lunch.  She was interviewing Dr. Drew Pinsky, a psychiatrist who has been knocking around the cable networks like MTV and VH-1, and perhaps others, for a while now.  No disrespect is meant toward Dr. Pinsky - he seems to be actually involved in trying to bring help to people, sometimes in untraditional formats with television, radio and computer technology.  He has also apparently written several books, including one that he and Ms. Ingraham mentioned in relation to the Heath Ledger story, Cracked.

Pinsky's comments on Ledger's death were interesting, as Pinsky made it very clear that all the evidence and material he is aware of as it relates to Ledger is that Ledger was suffering from addiction, that Ledger was using/abusing multiple substances, and that it was this addiction that ended in Ledger's death.

Certainly seems to be a defensible position in light of the laundry list of drugs apparently found in Ledger's body according to the spokeswoman quoted above.

But what really set Pinsky off was when Ms. Ingraham read for him the following statement issued by Ledger's family and which is also in the AP story:

In a statement released through Ledger's publicist, the actor's father, Kim, said Wednesday: "While no medications were taken in excess, we learned today the combination of doctor-prescribed drugs proved lethal for our boy. Heath's accidental death serves as a caution to the hidden dangers of combining prescription medication, even at low dosage."

Pinsky sees this as just another instance of the Hollywood culture circling the wagons to prevent true scrutiny into the destructive lifestyles that are all too frequently indulged in by celebrities.  I believe Pinsky even commented that the family's statement showed the type of enabling and unwillingness to face the reality of addiction that led to Ledger's death is continuing even AFTER the death itself.

Sadly, even if Pinsky is right, it's hard to imagine a scenario where Hollywood and the media that covers the celebrity scene will ever take seriously his argument that these people's addictions need to be acknowledged and treated.  Celebrity drug use, overdose, and death has just become an unfortunate by-product of the entertainment industry.  And any destructive effects it may have in getting non-celebrities involved in drugs and addictive behaviors will continue to be ignored.

Sol Stern is the author of an interesting article on education reform on the City Journal website.  The entire piece is well worth reading, and I'll provide a couple of lengthy excerpts here:

During the 15 years since the first voucher program got under way in Milwaukee, university researchers have extensively scrutinized the dynamics of school choice and the effect of competition on public schools. The preponderance of studies have shown clear benefits, both academically and otherwise, for the voucher kids. It’s gratifying that the research confirms the moral and civil rights argument for vouchers.

But sadly—and this is a second development that reformers must face up to—the evidence is pretty meager that competition from vouchers is making public schools better. When I reported on the Milwaukee voucher experiment in 1999, some early indicators suggested that competition was having just that effect. Members of Milwaukee’s school board, for example, said that voucher schools had prompted new reforms in the public school system, including modifying the seniority provisions of the teachers’ contract and allowing principals more discretion in hiring. A few public schools began offering phonics-based reading instruction in the early grades, the method used in neighboring Catholic schools. Milwaukee public schools’ test scores also improved—and did so most dramatically in those schools under the greatest threat of losing students to vouchers, according to a study by Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby.

Unfortunately, the gains fizzled. Fifteen years into the most expansive school choice program tried in any urban school district in the country, Milwaukee’s public schools still suffer from low achievement and miserable graduation rates, with test scores flattening in recent years. Violence and disorder throughout the system seem as serious as ever. Most voucher students are still benefiting, true; but no “Milwaukee miracle,” no transformation of the public schools, has taken place. One of the Milwaukee voucher program’s founders, African-American educator Howard Fuller, recently told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “I think that any honest assessment would have to say that there hasn’t been the deep, wholesale improvement in MPS [Milwaukee Public Schools] that we would have thought.” And the lead author of one of the Milwaukee voucher studies, Harvard political scientist Paul Peterson, told me: “The research on school choice programs clearly shows that low-income students benefit academically. It’s less clear that the presence of choice in a community motivates public schools to improve.”

It's the last sentence that made me stop.  If there's unlimited choice, then I guess my economics training would tell me that in such a scenario you would have a maximum possibility of improvement in the public schools.  But common sense tells me that in reality there is no such thing as unlimited choice.  There are only so many Catholic schools, charter schools, etc., and only so much money that is going to go into creating and maintaining these alternatives to the existing public education system.  So it seems to me more likely that competition will only work to a point in motivating public schools to improve.  After the well runs dry for vouchers, and you hit the limit on private schools (both capacity of existing schools and funds for creation of new schools) to which vouchers or other funds will go, there is unlikely to be more improvement in public schools unless there is some change in the overall philosophy of the administrators of the public school system.

Another interesting portion of the article as it wraps up:

But the new reliance on markets hasn’t prevented special interests from hijacking the curriculum. One such interest is the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project—led by Lucy Calkins, the doyenne of the whole-language reading approach, which postulates that all children can learn to read and write naturally, with just some guidance from teachers, and that direct phonics instruction is a form of child abuse. Calkins’s enterprise has more than $10 million in Department of Education contracts to guide reading and writing instruction in most of the city’s elementary schools, even though no solid evidence supports her methodology. This may explain why, on the recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests—widely regarded as a gold standard for educational assessment—Gotham students showed no improvement in fourth- and eighth-grade reading from 2003 to 2007, while the city of Atlanta, which hasn’t staked everything on market incentives, has shown significant reading improvement.

One wonders why so many in the school reform movement and in the business community celebrate New York City’s recent record on education. Is it merely because they hear the words “choice,” “markets,” and “competition” and think that all is well? If so, they’re mistaken. The primal scene of all education reform is the classroom. If the teacher isn’t doing the right thing, all the cash incentives in the world won’t make a difference.

Those in the school reform movement seeking a case of truly spectacular academic improvement should look to Massachusetts, where something close to an education miracle has occurred. In the past several years, Massachusetts has improved more than almost every other state on the NAEP tests. In 2007, it scored first in the nation in fourth- and eighth-grade math and reading. The state’s average scale scores on all four tests have also improved at far higher rates than most other states have seen over the past 15 years.

The improvement had nothing to do with market incentives. Massachusetts has no vouchers, no tuition tax credits, very few charter schools, and no market incentives for principals and teachers. The state owes its amazing improvement in student performance to a few key former education leaders, including state education board chairman John Silber, assistant commissioner Sandra Stotsky, and board member (and Manhattan Institute fellow) Abigail Thernstrom. Starting a decade ago, these instructionists pushed the state’s board of education to mandate a rigorous curriculum for all grades, created demanding tests linked to the curriculum standards, and insisted that all high school graduates pass a comprehensive exit exam. In its English Language Arts curriculum framework, the board even dared to say that reading instruction in the early grades should include systematic and explicit phonics. Now a professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas, Stotsky sums up: “The lesson from Massachusetts is that a strong content–based curriculum, together with upgraded certification regulations and teacher licensure tests that require teacher preparation programs to address that content, can be the best recipe for improving students’ academic achievement.”

The Massachusetts miracle doesn’t prove that a standard curriculum and a focus on effective instruction will always produce academic progress. Nor does the flawed New York City experiment in competition mean that we should cast aside all market incentives in education. But what has transpired in these two places provides an important lesson: education reformers ought to resist unreflective support for elegant-sounding theories, derived from the study of economic activity, that don’t produce verifiable results in the classroom. After all, children’s lives are at stake.

Nature / nurture, yada yada yada.  So competition and free market ideas can produce some beneficial results in improving education.  But so can changes in the instructional philosophies and methods in the school system itself.  That certainly makes sense.

After reading through the entire piece, I was a little surprised that the role of parents and families is completely ignored.  The author is obviously trying to focus only on the school systems and what the various camps within the educational reform debate have to say about what would help improve the state of education in the country generally.  But I would think that another major component in evaluating the performance of any school system is to figure out the backgrounds of the students and families being served by that school system, as well as the role of parents and families in helping the children to learn and the schools to do their job.  By ignoring that part of the picture, it seems to me that you run into the same brick wall of marginal gains being achieved by either competition or instructional changes to the curriculum being stopped at various points of improvement because of socio-cultural issues outside the school's control that impact on the children and their development and education.

Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton has an interesting editorial in today's WSJ.  It's too bad Bolton was not confirmed to serve as U.N Ambassador and wound up leaving the post after the expiration of his recess appointment.  It would be nice to think we have at least one serious person in a high ranking position working on international affairs and national intelligence work.

News out of Lubbock, Texas, this morning is that Coach Bob Knight has retired effective immediately and his son, Patrick, is taking over as the Texas Tech head coach.

Thanks for the great memories of watching your Hoosier teams play, Coach, and I hope that you enjoy a long, healthy, happy retirement.