February 8, 2026

By Stephen Stofka

In the AFC championship game between the Denver Broncos and the New England Patriots, the Broncos scored in the first quarter (Source). On a subsequent possession, the Broncos were deep in Patriots territory and chose to run a 4^th and short yardage rather than take an easy field goal. They were unsuccessful and turned the ball over to the Patriots at that point. To many fans, the decision seemed reckless. Why turn down an easy field goal in the early part of the game? As the weather turned ugly in the 2^nd half of the game, that field goal represented the difference in the final score, Patriots 10 – Broncos 7. This week I want to explore the theme of careful. In sports as in life, we must take calculated risks. When are we too careful or not careful enough?

A high school graduate may decide to take a job offer rather than continue their education. In the short term, this can be a prudent decision. Presumably, that person gains some financial and emotional stability as they begin to build a career. But data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the time, effort and cost to earn a college degree has a better long-term outcome. Which is the more careful decision? It depends on the time frame.

The 2008 financial crisis exposed a Ponzi scheme with an estimated market value of $65 billion. The mastermind of the scheme was Bernie Madoff, whose securities firm helped develop the digital quotation market that became NASDAQ. Madoff also ran an investment advisory firm that employed the Ponzi scheme. For about thirty years, Madoff issued statements to his clients showing consistent returns of 10 – 12%. He achieved these abnormally consistent returns using a proprietary risk and timing strategy based on his long experience in the stock market. At least that’s what his clients believed. His scheme lasted so long because he was careful. Despite that carefulness, the scheme unwound in late 2008 and Madoff went to jail.

Joe McCarthy was a Republican Senator in the post-war period who rode a wave of Communist fear. Like Donald Trump, he drew attention by making unsubstantiated claims against prominent people. In a 1950 address, McCarthy claimed to have a list of Communists who were working in the State Department. A Senate subcommittee determined that McCarthy’s claims were a hoax but his claims gained credibility when a former State Department employee, Alger Hiss, was convicted of lying about his Communist associations during the 1930s (Source, Source). For three years, McCarthy led a Senate committee that investigated hundreds of people. The committee found not one Communist but ruined the careers of many in government and the media (Source). Casting about for a likely target, McCarthy turned his sights on the Army in 1954. This showdown was carried on the TV networks where the public witnessed his bullying tactics, his reckless accusations and his fondness for drink. McCarthy was politically marginalized and died three years later from cirrhosis of the liver. He was only 48.

Donald Trump has not made careful investing decisions with the money that his father gave all his children while they were growing up. He has branded himself as a builder but often leaves the building and management to other companies. Before becoming President, Trump’s role as the star of a reality show was his chief accomplishment. That, and a showy, gilt-edged product known as the Trump brand. His poor financial decisions led to six bankruptcies. Nearing 70 in 2015, his losses and reckless spending had made him a pariah to banks (Source). His 2016 run for the Presidency was a long shot with little chance of success but guaranteed to keep his name in the news.

Trump’s cruel comments and behavior drew media attention in a crowded field of Presidential candidates. The Bush administration had spent eight years “spinning” the Iraq war. Spin was a euphemism for the carefully constructed blather from Washington that was designed to cover up policy failures and judgment errors. The Obama administration had spun the government’s response to the financial crisis and the passage of Obamacare. The public was skeptical of carefully chosen words and chose a candidate that shunned political convention.

Some of us make careful choices in our diets and living habits yet we still get cancer, arthritis and other diseases. On average, careful choices should protect us from harm. A feeling of betrayal descends on us when we are diagnosed with a debilitating or life threatening disease despite our carefulness. McCarthy drank too much and died of cirrhosis. That makes sense. Cause and effect. Random events frighten us. Getting heart disease despite prudent lifestyle choices makes no sense. Being diagnosed with arthritis at the age of 30 seems like a cruel prank.

Where is the dividing line between careful and timid? We may have a caution that is inappropriate to the risk involved. A teenage boy may not ask someone out for fear that they will be rejected. Most of our parents and grandparents who grew up during the Great Depression have died. Many never bought a stock or mutual fund during their lives. The 1929 stock market crash and subsequent Depression had taught them that stocks were dangerous. Careful investors put their money in guaranteed savings accounts. They bought a house, CDs or government bonds.

The other avenue I want to explore are institutions. I have been talking about the degree of carefulness that individuals have, but we create institutions that feature carefulness, or the lack of it. A pass receiver who throws himself through the air to catch a football, then gets slammed by a defender, is not being careful. From the safety of our couch, we enjoy that practiced lack of carefulness. Two boxers face each other, each being careful to avoid a punch from their opponent. However, to throw an effective punch, a boxer must let his guard down for a moment, effectively reducing his level of carefulness. It is a dance of alternating defense and offense with split second timing.

Nations build a military to protect their sovereignty. Smaller nations seek alliances with larger powers, being careful not to threaten a nation dominant in their region. The political scientist John Mearsheimer has argued that an eastward expansion of NATO, the U.S.-European defense alliance, was a threat to Russia. In the late 1990s, Putin stated that position clearly to President Clinton. Despite those warnings, U.S. and European nations have continued that expansion (Source). Is the war in Ukraine the result of a lack of carefulness? A cause of many wars can be attributed to a miscalculation of risks and response.

There are many industries where careful precision is critical. The computer industry is probably the ultimate in precision manufacturing. The foundation of the legal profession is a precision with words. Lawyers draft contracts with a string of verbs that are near synonyms. An example of a verb string in a contract is sell, assign, transfer, convey, or dispose of. Lawyers do this to close loopholes in the interpretation of two words with similar but not exact meanings. Often lawmakers use wiggle room words like reasonable in order to secure some legislative consensus. Lawyers and judges must then apply these broad terms to specific cases. When there is conflict in interpretation, the Supreme Court becomes the final arbiter of how the term should be applied.

The Supreme Court has three levels of scrutiny. This describes how carefully they read a government statute which has an impact on individual freedom or rights. The most careful approach is strict scrutiny. The government has to show a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Most arguments do not survive strict scrutiny. One of the few was Grutter v Bollinger (2003), in which the court held that race-conscious admissions at a university had educational benefits. The court stipulated that each admission must be based on an individualized review of the candidate’s circumstances and strengths. Secondly, the law could not stipulate any quotas like 25% of a particular race.

The second level of judicial carefulness is intermediate scrutiny and is the most used standard. Under this type of scrutiny, a law only has to further a legitimate government interest. Regulations of speech that are content-neutral are a justified restriction of individual freedom. There is a clear connection between the means and the ends that those means serve. Noise ordinances are an example. The least restrictive interpretation is rational basis. The court basically defers to the government body claiming a health, safety or moral public interest.

That brings me full circle to today’s Super Bowl. In 2018’s decision Murphy v NCAA, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could ban online sports betting, but could not force states to keep it illegal. At the heart of the decision was the concept of federalism, the separation of federal and state authority. The decision states “Congress may not simply ‘commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program’” (Source). Today, the majority of states do not ban sports betting because it is a source of state revenue (Source). Illinois and Delaware charge a 50% tax on the winnings from sports betting (Source). Although many fans are careful with the amount of money they bet, approximately 25% of those surveyed by the National Council on Problem Gambling report some problems (Source).

So be careful this Super Bowl Sunday and I hope to see you next week.

/////////////////

Photo by Vivek Doshi on Unsplash