How likely is it that LaFleur and Love ever win a Super Bowl together? It seems like enough players have regressed or failed to develop that the window is looking narrower than it did when we first traded for Micah

Why couldn’t we just QB sneak or tush push for a yard on more of the 3rd or 4th and 1 situations against the Bears?

Christmas party food question: what’s a snack or dessert that’s almost as automatic as a tush push on 4th and 1?

Pick 3 ingredients LaFleur could mix in to cook up something good on offense. Pick 3 ingredients to put into a delicious November soup.

Maybe we should’ve played for the FG 🙃 Love is usually good at not taking sacks but really bad on that front tonight

How worried are you about the secondary on a scale of 1 to 10? Why are we having coverage problems recently even though we were pretty successful with mediocre cornerback talent over the last year or two?

Sounds like a metaphor for American politics

If you could design one offensive play for the Packers to use this week, what would it be?
Food question: what’s a food or drink recipe that you love even though it sounds terrible?

If the Packers don’t win the Super Bowl this year, how would you want the season to go and how would you want it to end?

Good point. It’s possible multiple equilibria exist though. Tenure is an entrenched norm, and trying to unilaterally deviate sends a weird signal in a way it wouldn’t if it didn’t exist. I imagine part of UF’s problem was the political undertone and uncertainty over how evals would be done.

Lastly, it’s worth noting (anecdotally), that it doesn’t seem like tenured profs are generally unmotivated… academia is still a dynamic hierarchy with social status and financial rewards, so UF’s approach probably just poisoned all the trees to try to kill a few bad apples.

It’s also possible that tenure is valued enough by profs (as insurance) and that tenure has sufficiently non-negative (or positive) selection effects, such that raising salaries enough to offset the utility of losing tenure would be prohibitively costly.

In theory, some combo of higher pay without tenure could lead to positive selection and higher productivity. The key parameter is how much profs value tenure (in $). Then the question for the university is how much they want to pay for higher productivity.

Besides the general equilibrium counterfactual of removing tenure at all universities, I think the other counterfactual worth considering is how much UF would have to increase salaries to offset the negative selection effect of removing tenure.

A few top profs got bonuses after their post-tenure evaluations, but mostly this is a clear decrease in the value of the total package offered at UF. So profs valued tenure protection, lost it, and some looked elsewhere, and the better ones had better outside options.

1. This shows profs value the stability of tenure protection
2. It shows it’s a bad idea for a university to unilaterally remove tenure (it’ll drive good profs away to places they can keep tenure)
3. It doesn’t prove that if ALL universities removed tenure productivity wouldn’t improve

www.brookings.edu/articles/not....

A reasonable counter argument is that there’s a natural bias towards lower taxes in state/local gov’ts because the rich will move to where taxes are lower (a race to the bottom), even if a higher level of revenue / service provision is optimal. The total effect of that channel is small though.