Ohio State will be losing some offensive line depth next season, as fourth-year junior offensive lineman Evan Lisle will reportedly transfer to Duke University next season.Bucknuts of 247Sports was the first to report. Duke Athletics confirmed that Lisle had joined the program officially on Jan. 11.Lisle, a 6-foot-7, 308 pound native of Centerville, Ohio, backed up multiple positions this year on the line. Last season, the junior saw playing time on special teams, including extended time on the offensive line against Rutgers.Even with the praise of the backup offensive line from OSU by coach Greg Studrawa in the preseason, Lisle had limited time in the trenches for the Buckeyes this year. Lisle is a graduate transfer, and will be available immediately for the Blue Devils next season. While the departure might hurt the depth of the offensive line, it aids in OSU meeting the scholarship limit of 85. The Buckeyes currently have 91 players on scholarship, which includes the incoming 2017 recruiting class, with that number likely to grow as more members of the commit to OSU for 2017.Editor’s Note: This article has been updated with confirmation from Duke Athletics
Safe government jobs for friends and family. Sweetheart real estate deals: properties sold to the politician for far less than they are worth, with a loan just waiting for their signature. I know something about bribery. When I was a teenager, my dad was in the construction business in Chicago. So, as soon as I got my driver’s license (at 16), I was sent out delivering bribes. That’s just the way things were done, and my dad let me drive a fancy car (with an FM radio!) to make the deliveries. I delivered leather coats to wives, envelopes to government offices, other envelopes to politicians at their fundraisers, booze to lots of people, and in one case, the answers to the state driver’s exam to a guy in… um… a different line of work. I extricated myself from these chores fairly quickly. Aside from the cool car, it made me uncomfortable. These escapades did, however, give me a fairly good understanding of how bribery in America works. Big League Bribery Most of the bribery I did as a kid was fairly mundane – minor league stuff. The one exception was the political fundraiser. That was big league bribery. Following explicit orders, I dressed up and stood in a greeting line for as long as it took to come face to face with the politician. I handed him the envelope and told him precisely who it was from. I shook his hand and he told me to please enjoy the buffet. I thanked him, then stepped away. This was done in a gala ballroom, with hundreds of people in the meet-and-greet line. Almost every man was in a suit, and the women were in fancy dresses. Everything was pristine. That’s the way bribery is done in the big leagues. I know there are people who will say, “Campaign donations are legal, so they can’t be considered bribery,” but I know precisely why all these people were standing in line to give the politician money. I lived this for a period of time and watched it for a much longer period of time. All of these people wanted something and expected to get it in return for their “donation.” “Legal” or not, in honest words this is called bribery. Approved bribery, polished bribery, but bribery just the same. It’s Big Business The national election of 2012 brought in over six billion dollars of donations, and that was just for a few hundred races. I can’t find figures on all the state and local elections, but since they include many thousands of races, I have to assume that they involve even larger amounts of money. So, I think it’s probably safe to say that a minimum of twelve billion dollars are spent as campaign contributions each year. That’s a fairly large business, and the vast majority of it – everything beyond the “hopeful granny” money – is donated on a quid pro quo basis. People donate so they can get more back. But this is only part of the whole. Many more billions are given to politicians each year in back-door payoffs. These bribes come in forms like these: Ownership shares of local businesses. A swimming pool for their yard, after giving a construction project to the right person.
Last December, Stephen Hawking warned that it could “spell the end of the human race.” You’re reading this, so “it” hasn’t happened yet. And I don’t think it will. But who am I to argue with Professor Hawking? “It,” by the way, is full artificial intelligence. Hawking told the BBC that it “would take off on its own, and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate.” Eventually, it would supersede humans. That’s a far-off worry. Hawking can fret about it for us. In the meantime, I’m concerned about another computer-related problem: investors are turning to robo-advisors and ignoring their portfolios. Robo-advisors are a cheap tool for managing your investments. They use a series of algorithms to pick stocks and rebalance your portfolio for you. They’re supposed to make investing fun. In my experience, investing is only fun when you make money. When you lose money, it’s not. No gadget or gizmo can change that. So, if you want a robo-advisor to help you have this type of fun, keep these three points in mind: 1. Use your own judgment. Both humans and robots make errors. As a tool, a robo-advisor is only as good as the information you provide. Answer its questions accurately, then decide for yourself if its recommendations are right for you. 2. Don’t be penny wise and pound foolish. A good financial advisor might charge 1% of your overall portfolio to help manage your money. For a $1 million portfolio, that’s $10,000 per year, regardless of performance. While robo-advisors aren’t free, they are less expensive. Maybe you don’t want to pay for ongoing advice. I get it. But at least ask for help when you start using a robo-advisor. Otherwise, you might learn the true meaning of “garbage in, garbage out.” Philip van Doorn shared a telling example of an iffy robo projection with MarketWatch: “If I stuck with the plan, I would be ‘on track’ to build a nest egg of $4.3 million by March 2047, with a required minimum annual return of 9.7%.” 9.7%? Yeah right! Sure, it might happen. But even in boom times, the conservative estimate for long-term planners was 6%. A human can serve as the ultimate reality check. You don’t want to wake up in 2047 thinking, “I had the perfect plan. If only I’d consistently earned 9.7%.” 3. Monitor your results often. Using a robo-advisor does not mean you can set it and forget it. Things change. The Fed’s zero-interest-rate policy was unthinkable in 2007. Then it happened. Eventually, another unthinkable market scenario will become reality. When it does, you’ll need to adjust your plan. A robo-advisor can be a useful tool—but it’s only a tool. Just like a hammer, it needs a human to wield it.