Obama, NCAA Brackets, the Peter Principle and ESPN: Rising to Your Level of Incompetence

You remember the Peter Principle: People rise to the level of their incompetence (referring first to managers, but applicable generally). This "theory" is really an axiomatic fact, unless a person reaches the highest possible level, and is still competent at that level (not the usual case). How could it be otherwise, when a person is PROMOTED from every level at which the person is competent (sometimes, of course, when the person was not competent even at the lower level, which I would assert is the case with President Obama).

You may have heard that President Obama gave his NCAA bracket predictions on national TV (obviusly more interested in that than in the situations in Libya, Japan, etc.). You have to admire both President Obama AND ESPN, who have both apparently realized that they are victims of the Peter Principle.

You may not have paid any attention, but ESPN has a "guru" who predicted the temas who would compose the 68 teammm NCAA brackets. The Peter Principle at work (which appears to apply to EVERY single person at ESPN--a mainsteam media network definitely not worth watching, except for the games themselves).

First, there is the ESPN assertion that their "bracket guru" almost never misses--right 98% of the time in previous years (or some such number). In any real sense, this is a LIE, and shows the general incompetence of ESPN. First, you have to understand that EVERYONE, and his dog, KNOWS about 60 teams that are going to be selected by the NCAA selection committee. Everyone knew Duke was going to be selected. Ditto North Carolina. Ditto Ohio State. Ditto almost every team (11) in the Big East. Ditto BYU and San Diego State. In fact, 31 teams are AUTOMATIC selections, and there are only 37 "at large" selections. Of those 37, it is a foregone conclulsion as to about 30 of them (give or take one or two). Thus, the only "percentage" that matters is your percentage of picking the teams AT ISSUE. In this case--as, really, almost every year--the ESPN "expert" MISSED on at least 3 (and maybe 4, as I was not keeping exact count) of th elast teams to be selected (the ONLY reason for listening to him, besides seeding--which he also got wrong). That is more like a 50% error rate than a 2% error rate. In fact, ESPN went balistic because NO ONE on ESPN even mentioned two of the teams selected (VCU a nd UAB)--something which ESPN appeared to take personally (instead of realizing that it was merely the Peter Principle at work).

President Obama obviously watches ESPN, and realized that he is more QUALIFIED than these people (as most would appear to be) to predict both brackets and winners. And, despite their initial reaction to the brackets that it was the NCAA that was wrong, and not their PREDICTIONS of the selectiioins, ESPN obviously realized that its people are walking, talking examples of the Peter Principle. Further, President Obama has clearly recognized that he is an example of the Peter Principle at work--explaining why he appears totally uninterested in Presidential "leadershp" on any issue (budget, anyone?).

Therefore, you can understand why Obama was giving expert opinions on winners in the NCAA tournament. He must already be in line to REPLACE at least one of the incompetents on ESPN, after he announces he will not run for reelection in 2012. And ESPN has to realize that Obama will be MUCH better at replacing one of their incompetents than he is at being President. No, I am not endorsing Obama's "picks" (form picks), but I agree with ESPN that Obama--once he no longer has to worry about being President, no matter now little he is worrying about it now--has a good chance of moving down to his level of competence at ESPN. In all events, he cannot be worse than the "experts" they now have.

Doubt me? Well, don't. No, I won't discuss Obama's incompetence as President in detail. If you are not aware of that, there is nothing I can say to convince you. But look at that "expert" ESPN touted as its "guru" of the NCAA brackets. I mentioned how incompetent he was on selecting the teams selected for the 68 team field. But I saved the best for last (for you doubters). This idiot putDuke as a no. 2 seed, even though EVERYONE (and again, his dog) knew that Duke would be a no. 1 seed. This guy had NOTRE DAME as the fourth no. 1 seed. Notre Dame was not even the top of the no. 2 seeds--an honor which went to San Diego State. This was totally absurd, and disqualified this "guru" from being an "expert" in even a local office pool. Again, a good number of the seeds were obvious, and everyone knew about Ohio State, Kansas and Pittsburg. But after Duke swept through the ACC tournament, without even a challenge, evyonone but the ESPN "expert" knew that Duke was going to be the 4th no. 1 seed. And the ONLY sentiment for Notre Dame appeared to be (several) ESPN "experts". No, there were numberous other seeding errors by the "guru", and all of ESPN.

Yes, you can argue who SHOULD have received a spot in the tournament, or a seed. But many of these predictions--including this "guru---on ESPN were on which teams WOULD be selected, and for what seed. On that topic, by definition, the NCAA is right and ESPN wrong.

I know. Some reading this may suggest that I would be better at being an ESPN "expert" (bar obviously being really low) or a McDonald's clerk than a blog writer. But this is NOT an example of the Peter Principle at work, even if you are right. The job of ESPN "expert" (lowly as it obviusly is) and McDonald's counter person are BOTH steps UP from this blog. I am not paid a dime for this blog, and strain my eyes just to try to write the articles. So I tthink you can say I have reached my level of competence. You get these articles "free", and I am not getting paid for them. No way you can say I am "incompetent" for this position.

That is why I am encouraged by Obama AND ESPN seeming to recognize the Peter Principle at work, and being willing to take action to correct the situation. Obama NOT President has to be an improvement. And Obama taking the place of a basketball "expert" on ESPN HAS to be another improvement.

P.S. No, I have neither proofread nor spell checked the above, as usual, because of my poor eyesight. However, I DID notice that I kept typing "CNN" for "ESPN". I don't know if I caught all of those FREUDIAN SLIPS. Every single person at CNN is, of courfse, incompetent, and the entire network is an example of the Peter Principle at work (UNLESS you regard it as a case, like my blog, where the people are already as low as they can go--but they get PAID!!!!! Sigh). Yes, Eliot Spitzer has proven that Obama could not be regarded as an automatic improvement at CNN. However, he could not be WORSE than Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, or anyone else they now have.