The NFL and the Sunk Cost Fallacy

A little business / sports crossover.  As many of you know I’m a die-hard Philadelphia Eagles fan.  For the past several years I had been the house game-day stadium organist at a Southern California Eagles bar (pre-COVID, of course).  This year Eagles Quarterback Carson Wentz has gone from top-tier to league-bottom in most statistical categories among NFL starting quarterbacks. This history of salvaging the career of an NFL quarterback in such a deep descent is not promising. All of the press about Carson Wentz highlights how the Eagles will be forced to play him through this year and all of next year because he signed a four year $128 million extension last year.  The “dead cap” hit of cutting him next year would be $69 million.

Now the business part.  Most of you are very aware of the Sunk Cost Fallacy.  Put simply, money spent previously - wisely or unwisely – was yesterday’s decision.  Today’s decisions should be based solely on what has the best chance of success going forward, irregardless of previous unrecoverable costs.  

The Sunk Cost Fallacy is not new, and it is not tightly-held wisdom. It has been taught to freshman business school students ever since there have been business schools. Most NFL owners are billionaires several times over. Most of them went to business school, and those that didn’t would probably not have become successful if the Sunk Cost Fallacy were a completely foreign concept.  Yet it is amazing how many NFL owners forget the business sense that put them in the position to buy an NFL team once they start running their teams.

Carson Wentz will be paid roughly $25 million a year for at least the next two years whether the Eagles play him or not. This year he is either the worst or second-worst non-injured NFL starting QB along with Sam Darnold of the winless New York Jets. If any other team could have Carson Wentz for free next week, would they play him over their current starter?  If the answer is no, then the Eagles shouldn’t consider him a competitive starter either.  Clearly the contract extension was an ex-post mistake, but is that enough of a reason to lock in such a clear competitive disadvantage going forward?  If you read the popular press, the Eagles are “locked in” and “have no choice” in 2021.  And apparently Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie forgets everything he learned in school and in life as soon as he puts on his Eagles hat.

Here’s a positive example of enlightened “sunk cost” thinking in the NFL.  In May of 2012 the Seattle Seahawks signed Quarterback Matt Flynn to a $26MM three year contract - very big money at the time -  after his short successful stint in Green Bay filling in for an injured Aaron Rodgers.  Once training camp started, Seattle Coach Pete Carroll noticed that his rookie third-round (75th overall) draft pick QB was outplaying Flynn significantly. The rookie was awarded the job and Flynn never started a game for the Seahawks.  The rookie was Russell Wilson, who has led the Seahawks to two Superbowl appearances, winning one and coming within one very questionable play call by his head coach from winning the other.  Pete Carroll may have lost that second Superbowl by deciding against handing the ball off to Marshawn Lynch from the 1 yard line, but he reached two Superbowls because he had the wisdom to eat the $26MM Matt Flynn contract and start Russell Wilson.  Carroll is still reaping the benefits of his decision eight years later with no apparent end in sight.

A Tale of Two Pollini's

I just listened to the new Pollini Op. 109-111. I find it markedly and puzzlingly inferior to his earlier recording.  One would think a priori if this were the case that my main reason for disappointment might be due to a deterioration of Pollini’s technique or mechanism, most likely manifesting in a lack of fluidity or a significant slowing of tempi rather than actual wrong notes.  This is not the case at all. The new recordings are dramatically inferior from a musical perspective.

There are two specific dimensions where I hear this manifest.  The first is in alarming lack of dynamic nuance, especially played side-by-side against his 1970’s recording.  Listen to the beginning of the fugue in Op.110.  The score calls for a slow and gradual increase in volume until a full ff is achieved as the break in the fugue is reached.  There are many diminuendos and crescendos along the way, but the dynamic arch of this section is clear and well-defined.  Most major interpreters from Schnabel through Levit play it this way, as did Pollini in 1977.  In the new recording his crescendo lasts only a handful of measures.  If he were the student in a master class the instructor would cut him off at that point and ask, “Where are you going?  You’ve left yourself nowhere to go.”   This is a recurring theme throughout the entire recording.  There is not nearly enough dynamic contrast, dynamic subtlety, adherence to the dynamics of the score, effective use of dynamics within and across phrases, or a concept of dynamics consistent with Beethoven’s compositional style. And it’s not just “wrong” in the concept of Op. 110 in specific or Beethoven in general.  It’s simply not musical.

My other major complaint has to do with  interpretation, structure, and conception. Beethoven’s script for Op. 110 is fairly straightforward. He notates the score carefully and he doesn’t make his narrative obscure or oblique. There is a story to be told.  The performer’s challenge is to balance the fact that he already knows the beginning, middle, and end of the story (as does much of the audience), but he also must convey a feeling of presence in the moment as the story plays out sequentially yet without losing track of the whole.  Schnabel in particular was a master of this, but most of the great Beethoven interpreters have found a way to achieve this balance.  And none of this precludes adding elements of personal interpretation, just as an actor reading a monologue would incorporate their unique voice. 

To my ears, Pollini’s new recordings make no effort to convey an unfolding of narrative. There is no journey, repose, wonder, or discovery.  There cannot be arrival without a journey and there is no journey.  We arrive too quickly, without any reflection, wonder, or curiosity.  We seem to always be at the end yet we never begin.  Again, what’s so curious is how this was most definitely not the case in his earlier recordings.  As musicians age, their musicianship usually deepens rather than diminishes. The means of execution are what often falls away.   The musically-enlightened cherish these mature recordings as we overlook the surface imperfections for the nuggets of musical wisdom. Here we appear to have the opposite – an elderly pianist who can still use his fingers masterfully but has either forgotten how or has lost his desire to play music.  I find it baffling and sad.