Miles To Go.

Charlie Green, author of Trusted Advisor

(MS) Since there is so much buzz around Sharing, (I’ve written about it recently here, here and here) and it’s key component, Trust, I’ve asked some experts to lend their opinions on my blog to fill out the color commentary. Here’s Charlie Green;

Whether you call it “the sharing economy” or “collaborative consumption,” there’s a fascinating new economic and social phenomenon going on.  While not identical, both terms refer to markets for the sharing of products and services between individuals.

It may seem obvious that the role of trust is pretty critical. But just what that role is turns out to be not so obvious.    

Background

The chroniclers of the movement are Rachel Botsman (Botsman & Rogers, What’s Mine is Yours), and Lisa Gansky (The Mesh: Why the Future of Business is Sharing). Botsman characterizes three sub-markets: product-services systems (like ZipCar), redistribution markets (eBay), and collaborative lifestyles (CouchSurfing).

Some of those sub-markets hint at huge scale economies: how many zillions of available-seat-miles go unused on the nation’s streets and highways on driver-only trips? How many available car-hours per day are actually used for driving, as opposed to uselessly hogging valuable real estate? And for nearly every traveler vacationing, there’s an empty house back home going unutilized.

Other sub-markets are more akin to intriguing social experiments: imagine a global foreign exchange student program run for adults, only faster, bigger, and with do-it-yourself vetting, and you’ve got something like CouchSurfing.

In an odd way, “markets” is precisely the wrong way to describe the social experiment part of the phenomenon – it’s anti-market, in a sense, to focus on collaboration and reduced consumption, rather than on increased sales and  intermediating exchanges.

But in more traditional senses, these are very much markets, with loads of interest. Technologies are enabling peer-to-peer interactions; but unlike stock exchanges and book-buying, many of them exist to facilitate real flesh-and-blood interactions. Subletting your house or apartment to someone, or simply hosting an out-of-town visitor, is no trivial social exercise. And lending out your car or tools, while not necessarily social, also involves a social risk.

Which is where trust comes in.

Trust in the Sharing Economy

If you’re going to open up your house to someone you’ve never met before, you will make some form of trust calculus about the possible guest.

The reverse is true as well: if you’re going to go spend some time as the house-guest of a perfect stranger, you also will make some assessment along the lines of, “Do I, or do I not, trust these people?”

Might there be a secondary market here for trust. Indeed, there might.  (Disclosure: I have a small relationship with one such venture, TrustCloud). Suddenly, the decision to trust has economic, and possibly very personal, consequences.

Trusting and Being Trustworthy.  People often talk about “trust” as if it were a single thing.  It’s not.  “Trust” is the result of a trustor and a trustee arriving at an agreement. Trusting is not the same as being trusted. Trust is, if you’ll pardon the abstract language, an asymmetric relationship.

To be clear, the one doing the trusting (the trustor) is the one taking the risk. If I loan my tools or house to you, you might abuse them. The trustee, by contrast, takes little risk.

The trustor’s decision is based partly on the perception of the trustworthiness of the trustee. Wouldn’t it be great, the thinking goes, if we could come up with the equivalent of a FICO credit score for would-be trustees.

The search for trustworthiness metrics goes in two directions. One is reputation;  the other is behavior. Reputation is relatively easy to assess; unfortunately, it’s also easy to game, and can easily be confused with notoriety. Kim Kardashian may score high on reputation, and even influence – but does that mean you trust her?

Behavior is harder to game: to fake behavioral dependability, I would have to establish a track record of dependable behavior – which is, after all, the point. It can be faked, of course, but such an elaborate con requires a level of effort quite out of proportion to the benefit, not to mention out of character.

Trusting. It’s easy to focus just on measuring trustworthiness, particularly in the product-services and redistribution markets, where the trustor wants information about the trustee to mitigate downside risk.

But in the collaborative lifestyles segments of the movement, it’s not just the trustworthiness of the trustee that is important, but also the trustor’s propensity to trust. In the fascinating sub-movement that is Couchsurfing, the parties aren’t just looking to cut risk: they want upside potential in terms of fascinating people willing to take social risks in order to meet others. They want trustors.

The 60s Redux?

The parallel with the 60s is instructive. Some of the era’s social experimentation didn’t make it out of the 70s. But the Beatles, Steve Jobs, and the Grateful Dead were all once-radical types who created models that are mainstream business today.

Even the hard-core economic segments of the sharing economy aren’t as radical as we think. The timeshare industry “shared” underutilized vacation home capacity; so did distributed computing in the 70s-80s. McDonalds’ discovery of breakfast was another capacity utilization play that paid off big.

In any case, we’re all going to be talking more about trust. And that’s likely a good thing for us all.

Mom always said sharing was good.

I am asked a lot about my investment criteria, but lately many of the questions have focussed on my criteria in the sharing economy. This is pretty amazing, because less than a year ago, I could not have told anyone what the sharing economy was.

Now sharing is something I do love, as I abhor waste and adore ways to get more out of any asset. Ask my wife.

In the past year, a movement has surfaced that is global (big) , reflective of our economic state (sucks), green (uses our planets assets more effectively), driven by a connected group (mobile powered millennial), and highly disruptive to a bunch of  old models of doing business. It is alternatively called the Sharing Economy and Collaborative Consumption, depending on who you ask. I like the former because I have a hard time spelling the latter, but either will do.

But overall, there are big and sustainable trendwaves. The kind that I like to ride. (Disclaimer: my favorite investment in sharing so far is TrustCloud, probably). So, within the Sharing economy, this is how I break down the key ingredients to my angel investing options:

Networks or Platforms: Many winners, or winner takes all. This is emerging as a very big theme for me, and depends on what stage one enters the market development. I believe every new trend breaks into two types of opportunities; networks within a trend become a story of many winners. For reference, look at the online ad nets, with plenty of $100M+ businesses. Look as well at the mobile ad-tech business, and the several winners to date in the networks (Millennial Media’s monster IPO, and sales by Admob, Quattro, even Amobee). Now look at the platforms that sold picks and shovels in ad-tech: Atlas ($6B), DoubleClick ($14B or $3B, depending on who’s counting) and the incumbent adserver in mobile (another Vaux investment, I wrote about here).

The point is, the networks are great businesses that scale quickly and become an exercise in good sales and marketing systems. The barriers to entry are low, and scale counts. But margins erode at the top end of the scale, because they rarely have a technology platform underneath. I’ve seen it before, trust me.

On Leadership: Bold enough to be early, seasoned enough to run a fortress. In an age of SUPER angels, I am anything but. I don’t have the braincells or the checkbook to attempt 500 startups, the coding passion of prgrammer king FAKEGRIMLOCK, or the patience to do the TechStars or Foundry stuff. But I have the courage to be early and the capital to be patient. So when we latch onto an idea we like, I can land on a beach with a team of Startups SEALS, secure a niche and talk my way inside the castle walls before claiming the fortress to support a large organization. Teams of five are fun, teams of five hundred are awesome. I’ve led both. As such, passive roles and stakes just don’t excite me. Frankly, they distract me.

Karma: Makes me feel good, as in “I did that!” To be frank, I think the best monuments in the world are contained in the Emerson Poem “If” (that my father recited at my wedding, amazingly). To have made the world a better place, even in subtle ways, is sure gratifying. To point to a logo, an event, or even a business process and say “I helped to build that” is really special. Sharing makes me feel that way. Up top now, anyways

Lean: develop a product for $250, acquire users for $250. Scale with real capital. These days, I gravitate to digital media because it doesn’t cost much to develop a product that solves a need. (and almost all the proceeds are for just that- product). Then, a little more to ramp users, again within angel range. But sooner or later, most digital media companies will need big capital to scale, which is where access to VC (where I have again been blessed) is key.

Partners: Coachable entrepreneurs. I’ve said it before, and each day it gets more relevant: life is short, and I have long ago given up having to work with buttheads (knowingly). While most of the entrepreneurs I work with are younger, they all possess a common thread and that is the thirst to learn and the courage to recognize and work on their mistakes. It helps not that I am the most direct guy around, so the chances for setting people back is always there. But I speak the truth, and I always speak the same in front of people as I do behind them.

Of course, there are many more criteria for selecting a sharing business, but these are some that ring true. I will be discussing them with a panel next month at the Shared Squared event, and I’m sure there will be more added to it.

Oh, one more reason I like sharing: my mother always said it was kind.

Doug Krugman, Greg Matusky, Roo Rogers, (M) and Xin Chung @S2 Learning Even

the woods are lovely, dark and deep
but I have promises to keep
and miles to go before I sleep
miles to go before I sleep

Robert Frost, in a poem of simplicity itself, captures the essence of the foundations of trust: promises kept.

I was at Shared Squared NYC’s monthly learning event last night, where a whole lot of people made good on a whole lot of promises. And there was lots of chatter about trust, as the social networks have spawned so much peer to peer interaction (and the P2P has spawned its share of weird interactions).

In short, the problem that is emerging is that people, for better or worse, form  judgements based upon online information, make promises and commitments, and then are disappointed with the related offline episodes. Happens all the time, across a variety of peer to peer actions. There are a gazillion examples of the difficulties of this toggle, like

• Lady GaGa tickets bought through Craigslist for cash at the last-minute
• A Wimdu rental, where the pics were great, but the pillows just plain smell.
• A RelayRide renter who changes his plans last minute and screws up the rest of your calendar

But the upside of getting trust right in the sharing economy (and in P2P lending, and in dating, etc etc.) is that more trust leads to more and faster transactions and interactions within a community. I think Stephen MR Covey (son of 7 Habits Stephen) had it right quite awhile ago when he wrote The Speed of Trust. You can add his good work to these recent pieces on the subject:

• The Trust Projects recent manifesto…
• Letters and outreach to the community by Scaffold and Legit
• Neal Gorenflo doing everything possible to forward the sharing conversation via shareable (Nice work!)
• Shared Squared finally announcing an event calendar in NYC

But, at some point, in order to truly scale, I really passionately believe the sharing economy must deliver an indicator of trust between the two parties in a transaction increases if not ensures the assets at risk. The only product in the market that is out there, doing it today and in increasing numbers with both communities and users is TrustCloud. (You can claim your TrustCloud here). And yes, I am an investor and have blogged on the topic here, here and here.

Eventually, they will be compelled to ensure trust is sufficient. And just as airbnb has done, others will need to underwrite that risk. People- and perhaps their insurers! – will want better answers to questions like:

• Will my car be returned in good order?
• Will my apartment be sacked while a couchsurfer is there?
• Will my boat he left on the rocks by this drifter that borrowed it?
• Is my daughter safe with this tutor who comes to the house?
• Will I ever see my lawn mower again?
• Will this ride share going to get me to work, or roll me out of the car in Mexico?

And all that attention has forwarded the discussion, but trust is not an absolute from the get go. We as humans observe behavior and actions before trust is earned,  and we frequently reassess trust levels along the way. It can work between online and offline as long as it is observed, recorded and elegantly presented in context.

So, not unlike the man in Frost’s Poem…

The accumulation of recorded behavior, events and affinities that leads to the confidence to exchange something of value, tangible or intangible is IMHO the most accurate and applicable definition of Trust that any P2P marketplace can rely on.  

And this is why, simply, behavior trumps reputation every time.

PS: I’d love to hear what you think of the new TrustCloud. Enter your comments below, or on their site. Mine is above at the top of my blog.

Fred w phone. No unlimited data plan just yet...

There is a yawning gap emerging in the world and I think this gap will define the advancement of societies, the creation of jobs,  and even the happiness of populations in the decades to come: it is access to mobile data and I call it Flintstones vs. Jetsons. (shout out to April Rudin for the headline).

• Generation segue: Some of us remember Fred Flintstone. Worked in a quarry, drove a foot pedal car. Loved to bowl and eat steaks. Life was simple, and there was not a lot of reason to innovate. Pebbles and BamBam didn’t seem to be a big generational culture gap. A loveable guy in the Jackie Gleason vein.
• And his cartoon counterpart, George Jetson. Worked are Spacely, drove an automated space scooter. Astro walked himself, Rosie the Robot did the chores. Skyped with the office, used the tele-puter on his wrist. Loveable knucklehead is in a fast-moving world, but he kept adapting and he kept pace.

So my point, my belief, is that we have arrived at a crucial inflection point in our history, where people, countries, leaders (and entire industries) are choosing to go Flintsone or Jetson. And the catalyst for this decision is, clearly, the smart phone and the data it generates. The Flintstone are content with how things are. They have found ways to live until now without technology, and they resolved they would coast from here on in, whether in their carreers or their lives. Financial planners are on the list. So is much of the financial services (non retail) industry. Traditional media has hated the transition. KONY is no fan. Nor is Assad, or Mubarak. People of a certain age (but not all!). There are lots more.

Meanwhile, the Jetsons accelerate. The gap has not even yet begun to present itself.

mOcean at Mobile World Congress

If you have any doubt of how quickly this industry has grown, check out the Mojiva/Mocean (I am an investor) booth at The Mobile World Congress. MWC was, five years ago, just a bunch of suits from Nordic and Asian countries wielding flip phones for voice and text. Today, MWC is heralded as the biggest and the best mobile technology event in the world. According to conference organizer the GSMA, this year’s event played host to a record number of attendees, topping out at 67,000 visitors from 205 countries; an 11% increase over the 2011 show. The four-day conference and exhibition attracted mobile operators, software companies, equipment providers, Internet companies and media and entertainment organizations, as well as government delegations from across the globe. More than 50 percent of this year’s attendees hold C-level positions, including more than 3,500 CEOs.

Most telling perhaps, CEO’s were wearing jeans, T’s and blazers…

So here’s the shocker datapoint from cisco: 40% of the worlds smartphone data is consumed by… 1% of the world population. That means a small group of people are gaining an unfair (perhaps) advantage because of their access to information

• The subways are down: take the bus.
• This new place is overcrowded: here’s another local option.
• Gas prices are skyrocketing, but discounted in NJ this weekend.
• This client has spent xxx seconds on the site and is ready to take the next buying step
• Yo Twitter! The rally to unseat the government has been moved to the following sidestreet!

The examples go on and on. A few minutes saved. A better solution for the moment. A bit more background before the interview. A better way, on the way. Compound that millions of times over billions of people and guess what: you have a new gap between the haves and the have-nots. Food for thought before you make your choice between Flintstone or Jetson!

Ride share with this gang?

I’ve been spending some time learning more about the sharing economy and some of its players. As an angel investor accustomed to clearly defined problems, grand solutions and natural revenue models, it seems like the beginning of the story. Kinda like a lot of people showing up in munchkin land- somewhat disoriented, terribly excited, not sure of the path forward.

Dorothy was pioneer when it came to couchsurfing (wimdu perhaps?), but she woke up in a terribly different world. She had to make snap judgments about people, and she had very little context to help (The Good Witch of the North notwithstanding). She was taking very real risks with herself, her dog, and her ruby slippers. But she had to rely on her wits: no help from web 2.0 and social media to help her make big decisions on risk  (one of the great segues of all time folks).

Nowadays, there are more ways to make an assessment about people. People vouch for each other on sites like LinkedIn, Honestly, and Connect.me. People accumulate likes and helpfuls from sites like TripAdvisor, Facebook and Yelp. And some products go further, combining those elements plus offline verification to develop multi-layers scores, like TrustCloud (I’m an investor). Through all these inputs, we have begun to infer things about people based on their actual behavior over time. Here’s how a well-designed trust solution might have helped with her key judgments:

1. The Scarecrow- great domain expertise and happy to assist. Probably a contributor to Yelp or TripAdvisor and frequently tagged helpful.
2. The TinMan- experienced and analytical, probably has people vouching for him like the static inputs of Honestly and Connect me
3. The Lion- I have this guy tagged as a reputation guy. Very proud and looking to clean up what people think of him. Uses Reputation.com a lot.
4. The Wizard- He’s all about influence, which means he spends most of this time on klout.
5. Dorothy- a teambuilder and leader. Probably destined for LinkedIn. But having trouble verifying place of residence!

The point is (and I have taken a veritable yellow brick road to get there) that we no longer live in Oz. There is real, relevant data out there that when properly gathered, weighted, and presented can really help the sharing economy navigate their challenges. (Here’s a great blog from Charles Greene on Trust). But no single point of reference and no rigid formula will serve the Trust needs of every community, let alone every situation.

This is a challenge and a journey that requires multiple layers, great heuristics, and the power of the network effect. (which is one super reason for all these layers to work together). I look forward to watching how this evolves, and who gets to the Emerald City first.

Janet Lee; nine ball machine

I once beat Janet Lee, the famous black widow, at nine ball in a giant exhibition. * **

While you’ll have to read to the bottom for the whole truth, let me at least  explain partially: it was excellent training for starting and growing  companies. Really. Here is what I used over the next 20 years from what I learned in  that one game:

The crowd is mostly noise: forget about them. So many startups  compete in crowded fields, with others releasing news and versions day after  day. While it’s good to be in tune, an entrepreneur has to be about supreme  focus on the task at hand. Nothing else matters.

The break sets it all up- that’s the team and launch. The entire DNA  of the table emerges with the first big shot- the break. Same goes for the  launch in entrepreneurs. Get it right and give it your all. Otherwise, the table  is a mess and takes more effort to clean up.

Know the speed of the table- market. Nothing ruins a well  executed shot than a misread of the felt. Rollers become bouncers, or never  make it to the pocket. You have to know how fast a surface you are playing on,  in either game.

Miracle shots also come with consequences. It’s amazing how  many wild triple bank shots present themselves in any nine ball game. But they  are low percentage shots. Worse still, they may leave your opponent an easy angle to finish you off, then and there. Calculate the odds, both of the shot,  and of the consequences.

Momentum is real. Make a bank shot, a lefty and a combo and you begin to feel you are invincible. You see the table with possibility, and your stroke has a confidence that could achieve anything. It feeds on itself, and it is certainly picked up by your opponent.

Think ahead: making the 3 ball does not mean you are in position for the 4. Ah, yes, the essence of nine ball is actually the next shot. Players and entrepreneurs both have to look down the table at what could be, and how their next move positions them.

Don’t think ahead too much: getting a good leave for the 4 ball only counts if you sink the 3 ball. And the reverse corollary to the rule above is: think longer term, but don[t forget to execute on the little things right before you. Otherwise, there will be no next shot.

Nothing counts as much as the last ball: run eight in a row and scratch and you lose anyways. Funny how people can stroke smoothly and confidently on 1-8 and suddenly look twice at an easy 9 ball shot. Miss and the opponent suddenly has you over a barrel in a way uncommon to the previous 8 shots. For entrepreneurs, this might be analogous to the exit: blow that and  it’s a re-rack, plus probably a waste of several of your best years.

Be a creative problem solver: there are more than one ways  to sink the shot. My game really improved when I began playing on several  levels, mostly to include banks, combos and the occasional jumper shot. But  basically, this is looking at a set of circumstances (the balls and their table  position) and figuring out the best shot for your abilities and for the odds of  leaving nothing good for your opponent. I also shoot left and righty (which  most people don’t know and makes me good money on side bets). And the  last comment is likely safe because pool players don’t read many blogs!

Don’t confuse luck and skill. I had a little of the latter, and for a moment a ton of the former. In any case, don’t stay too long at any table. Knowing when to walk is a life saver.

Shake hands and be a gentleman, win or lose. Perhaps most  importantly, the handshake acknowledges that you won or lost fair and square,  and were a sportsman throughout. This plays equally in nine ball and  entrepreneurship. Get used to it; you are going to lose a few. Handle yourself  with dignity and learn a few lessons for the next game.

*And now, the technicalities: Janet Lee was hosting the Brunswick table at  the Chicago Housewares show at McCormick Center, in the mid 90′s which is a large exhibition  hall (ok, everyone else was there for blenders and hooks!). The fact I was walking the floor looking for companies (and  eventually found a deal I did there) should not get in the way of a good story. I have lots of bizarre analogies, this is but one.

**She challenged me to ONE GAME and sank a  ball on the break. She sank two more before trying a two-banker, perhaps  playing to the crowd. In my finest nine ball moment, I sank the next six  including the 9 ball for the win. She has gone on to tremendous success as a  touring pro, and wants to learn about digital media. Knowing the odds were long  I ever would beat her in any rack again as long as I lived, I retired from  competitive nine ball that afternoon and used the lessons for angel investing  and creating businesses.

Join me in liking Janet Lee on Facebook and Twitter and thanking her for all she has done for  start-ups!

How long can Ben float?

Years ago I got my start on Wall Street and was assigned to read business plans for a tiny investment banking boutique named Beuret & Co. I saw a lot of crap, but nothing near what the deficit “super committee,” must be analysing this week.

I didn’t have any financial background aside from a knack for knowing what added up and what didn’t, in a spooky kind of way. By my own count, people had wheeled in something like 10,000 plans, which I digested and, in many cases called the hapless entrepreneur and told them why it wouldn’t work, IMHO of course. One habit that I had been to take a little 3×5 piece of scrap paper and staple it to the cover of the plan with some basic facts, just to rememebr what plan I was talking about. What industry. Problem and solution. Stage of development. Unique properties. Raise and use of capital. And profit and loss basics. When I was asked about this deal or that, I had a handy reference, but later in life I realized that, once you get it you rarely needed more than those basics. (See my many references to investing like a child). When asked later in life how I came to read plans so quickly and asses a companies prospects in a flash, my only explanation was that when you see 10,000 of anything wrong by process of elimination you begin to know what is right.

Which is why, when I read this balance sheet and income statement on USA Inc. from Mary Meeker at the end of her Mobile Update, I nearly cried.

It came at the end of her regular update on digital media, now done under the auspices of Kleiner Perkins. She has routinely walked through the basics of income, expense, assets ans liabilities much the way I would have done it sitting in my little cubicle on Wall Street. As an American citizen, listening to this deadpan presentation is a must-do.

“By the standards of any public corporation, USA Inc.’s financials are discouraging,” she writes in an introduction to the report. “True, USA Inc. has many fundamental strengths. On an operating basis (excluding Medicare and Medicaid spending and one-time charges, the federal government’s profit and loss statement is solid, with a 4% median net margin over the last 15 years. But cash flow is deep in the red (by almost $1.3 trillion last year, or ~$11,000 per household) and USA Inc.’s net worth is negative and deteriorating. That net
worth figure includes the present value of unfunded entitlement liabilities but  not hard-to-value assets such as natural resources, the power to tax or mint  currency, or what Treasury calls ‘heritage’ or ‘stewardship assets’ like National Parks. Nevertheless, the trends are clear, and critical warning signs are evident in nearly every data point we examine.”

If the United States of America was a start-up, no one would give it any more money. More likely we would just take it out back and shoot it.  Luckily, USA is not a start-up, but unfortunately it still takes a boatload of faith and capital to run the thing. While unlikely to actually go out of business, the cost of keeping the lights on gets higher and higher as the faith goes lower.

This does not bode well for us. But we can do something about it. If we really try.

More likely, it will get kicked to 2012 instead.

Hopes. Dashed.

Ugh.

I grew up in the shadow of PSU, the veritable Emerald City for athletes like me. For my  generation it was hope incarnate; now it’s blown to bits.

Let’s face it, most of us in Western PA were headed for the coal mines or the steel mills, and distinguishing oneself on the gridiron was one way out, longshot but true. (See an early Tom Cruise in All the Right Moves for a taste of what I’m talking about). Every kid on my team knew that Beaver Country, PA produced an incredible number of NFL QB’s, (Namath, Unitas, Marino, Kelly, Hanratty, Blanda, Gannon top the list) and perhaps one of us would have the chance to join them.

I love the quote “Man never forgets where he ran as a boy”. No doubt, this is one reason why.

If we could just get a break we often thought to ourselves, and get noticed at one of the big programs… Hope can be so powerful, but so misleading at times. It was that hope that lured and betrayed young men at Happy Valley. And it was the almost deific influence of one man who allowed people to replace doing what’s right with doing what must be done. Penn State will never be the same, but that’s probably good in the long run.

Greg Matusky covers it perfectly in a larger piece in his Gregarious blog: (his words)

Penn State, like many colleges and universities, has become the ultimate bubble. Where football trumps education. Where binge drinking is celebrated and institutionalized. Where on any given fall Saturday, 100,000 people engage in a false culture of alcohol-fueled friends and good times. It’s where the 84-year-old head coach, who isn’t really coaching, has that fact covered up by assistants. Where students are encouraged to mortgage their futures by taking on mountains of debt. Where too many families part with their lives’ savings to fund educations that employers don’t want, while jobs in engineering and the sciences go begging.

It’s where tuition dollars fund climbing walls. Where free laundry service has more promotional value than a new physics lab. And it’s where  uality is set by a ranking in U.S. News & World Report. In this alternate reality, is it any wonder that a coach, an athletic director, a college president could overlook child abuse to protect one of their own? Two years ago, Chicago Public Radio’s “This American Life” ran a horrifying piece about Penn State and its love of alcohol and abhorrent behavior. When I told my Penn State friends about it, they denied all of it. When now-disgraced former Penn State President Graham Spanier came to power, it was as a reformer. But he soon caved to alumni and  hometown pressure to keep the wine flowing. The party going. In the “This American Life” segment, Spanier almost sounds proud that PSU was named the top party school in America.

Need further proof of just how far colleges have distorted our perceptions? Google “the best college in America.” You get thousands of hits by schools identifying themselves as the best. Google “the worst schools in America,” and you find few lists or reporting. Clearly marketers have swamped objective reporting and commenting when it comes to reviewing colleges and universities. In their world, they are all the best.

But long before Greg’s piece was Peter Thiel who has railed against the Higher Education Bubble for some time now, for reasons outside of sport. But if you tie together his arguments with Greg’s, it becomes more clear.

 …for Thiel, the bubble that has taken the place of housing is the higher education bubble. “A true bubble is when something is overvalued and intensely believed,” he says. “Education may be the only thing people still believe in the United States. To question education is really dangerous. It is the absolute taboo. It’s like telling the world there’s no Santa Claus.”

Like the housing bubble, the education bubble is about security and insurance against the future. Both whisper a seductive promise into the ears of worried Americans: Do this and you will be safe. The excesses of both were always excused by a core national belief that no matter what happens in the world, these were the best investments you could make. Housing prices would always go up, and you will always make more money if you are college educated.

Like any good bubble, this belief– while rooted in truth– gets pushed to unhealthy levels. Thiel talks about consumption masquerading as investment during the housing bubble, as people would take out speculative interest-only loans to get a bigger house with a pool and tell themselves they were being frugal and saving for retirement. Similarly, the idea that attending Harvard is all about learning? Yeah. No one pays a quarter of a million dollars just to read Chaucer. The implicit promise is that you work hard to get there, and then you are set for life.  It can lead to an unhealthy sense of entitlement. “It’s what you’ve been told all your life, and it’s how schools rationalize a quarter of a million dollars in debt,” Thiel says.

This bubble was fueled by sport and its spectacle. More specifically, football.

Joe Paterno was the golden goose (some estimate he raised $1,000,000,000 of revenue for PSU in his time there). He spent 60 years doing what was right. He brought dollars to campus, hope to aspiring athletes and their hope-fully promoted coaches, and unfortunately, through an assistant coach to whom he was too loyal, brought young boys into the care of moral monsters. That the whole PSU system was unable to summon the courage to do what must be done- instead of simply what was simply right- is a tragedy.

It may well change higher education forever. It saddens me that so much had to be abused, from young men to good names to hope itself- before real action is taken. I mourn the victims.

Søren Kierkegaard said: Life can only be understood looking backward, but it must be lived going forward.