Showing posts with label Stanford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stanford. Show all posts
Saturday, January 03, 2015
Random College Football Thoughts
So far the college football bowl season has been going good for a change. A few thoughts:
Sunday, December 08, 2013
College Football Playoffs
It likes like we will again have an SEC team play in the BCS championship game. Auburn vs. Florida State. Yawn. The SEC manages to continue to play in the championship game because the conference has a reputation of winning it. The strict formula of rankings and ratings almost guarantees it.
over
Luckily, next year there will be a college football playoff, albeit only of 4 teams. The teams will be chosen by a committee rather than a formula. Hopefully this will give us a better set of teams.
How would we pick teams if we did it this year?
Well, Florida State would definitely be in. They are the only undefeated team. Undefeated teams should always make it to the playoff. Otherwise there will still be other claimants to the championship. Even if a team such as Northern Illinois makes it through undefeated, they should be in the playoff.
After Florida State, we need to use some tools to find the best teams. The conference championships can be helpful for picking participants. Pac12, Big10, SEC, ACC, Mountain West, MAC and C-USA all have a championship game. While we can't include the winner of each game, we can reasonably exclude the losers. (We could consider it as a play-in round.)
The SEC and Pac12 have been the strongest conferences this year, so their champions should get the first look. Do they pass the smell test? Auburn's lone loss has by a couple touchdowns, but it came back in September. They have the best record in the conference, and have beat the next-best teams (Alabama and Missouri) in their last two games. Looks good.
Stanford has two losses. However, they have played one of toughest schedules in the country (#4 by Sagarin - the only teams with tougher schedules are teams that Stanford defeated.) They have more victories over Sagarin top-10 (3) and Sagarin top-30 (6) teams than any other team. The two losses were both close (and could have been wins if a single play would have gone a different way.) They have recovered from their last loss with 3 victories, including the last two against top-25 teams, with the most recent a strong road win over Arizona State. Also looks good.
Now who do we get for the last spot? Oregon and Alabama were both early season favorites with records equal to Auburn and Stanford. Alabama's loss came on a time-expired kickoff return. However, that was the last game they played. (Do we call it a play in game?) Oregon's loss to Stanford was more of a drubbing. Since then, they lost one more game, and had to struggle to beat rival Oregon State.
Michigan State is the Big-10 champion. Their lone loss was a 4 point defeat at Notre Dame. However, the recent victory over Ohio State is the lone signature win. Other than that, they have just a trio of wins over 8-4 teams that are worth talking about. Yet, they have beat all teams by at least 10 points. Maybe.
Baylor is the 1-loss Big-12 champion. However, their loss 32-point loss to Oklahoma State was just a few weeks ago. They also won a close game at TCU last week. Their signature win was over 2-loss Oklahoma. Other than that, there is just a win over an 8-4 Texas. Sorry Bears.
What about the AAC? Louisville and UCF both have a single loss from early in the season. Alas, they lack signature victories. UCF's best win was against Louisville. And then 8-4 Houston is it. For Louisville, its 9-3 Cincinnati and 8-4 Houston. Meh. Neither team has been dominating their opponents.
Northern Illinois has one loss, but that was in the MAC championship game. Fresno State lost one game, but that was last week. Neither team has played a very strong schedule. C-USA champion Rice has 3 losses. The top Independents are 8-4 BYU and Notre Dame. Sun Belt Champion Louisiana-Lafayette has 4 losses.
Without a better option, the fourth spot comes down to a battle between Alabama and Michigan State. They both suffered a narrow road loss to a good team. Alabama would be a strong pick and the likely higher-ranked team. However, their last game was a loss and their opponent is represented in the playoff. Why have a rematch when their are better options? Thus, the spot would go to Michigan State.
Thus the playoff would be:
#1 Florida State vs #4 Michigan State
#2 Auburn vs #3 Stanford
As it turns out, this year, all four teams will likely be playing in the Rose bowl, with Michigan State vs Stanford in the Rose Bowl game, and Florida State likely playing against Auburn in the championship game the next week. Perhaps we just need one more after that to declare a champion.
over
Luckily, next year there will be a college football playoff, albeit only of 4 teams. The teams will be chosen by a committee rather than a formula. Hopefully this will give us a better set of teams.
How would we pick teams if we did it this year?
Well, Florida State would definitely be in. They are the only undefeated team. Undefeated teams should always make it to the playoff. Otherwise there will still be other claimants to the championship. Even if a team such as Northern Illinois makes it through undefeated, they should be in the playoff.
After Florida State, we need to use some tools to find the best teams. The conference championships can be helpful for picking participants. Pac12, Big10, SEC, ACC, Mountain West, MAC and C-USA all have a championship game. While we can't include the winner of each game, we can reasonably exclude the losers. (We could consider it as a play-in round.)
The SEC and Pac12 have been the strongest conferences this year, so their champions should get the first look. Do they pass the smell test? Auburn's lone loss has by a couple touchdowns, but it came back in September. They have the best record in the conference, and have beat the next-best teams (Alabama and Missouri) in their last two games. Looks good.
Stanford has two losses. However, they have played one of toughest schedules in the country (#4 by Sagarin - the only teams with tougher schedules are teams that Stanford defeated.) They have more victories over Sagarin top-10 (3) and Sagarin top-30 (6) teams than any other team. The two losses were both close (and could have been wins if a single play would have gone a different way.) They have recovered from their last loss with 3 victories, including the last two against top-25 teams, with the most recent a strong road win over Arizona State. Also looks good.
Now who do we get for the last spot? Oregon and Alabama were both early season favorites with records equal to Auburn and Stanford. Alabama's loss came on a time-expired kickoff return. However, that was the last game they played. (Do we call it a play in game?) Oregon's loss to Stanford was more of a drubbing. Since then, they lost one more game, and had to struggle to beat rival Oregon State.
Michigan State is the Big-10 champion. Their lone loss was a 4 point defeat at Notre Dame. However, the recent victory over Ohio State is the lone signature win. Other than that, they have just a trio of wins over 8-4 teams that are worth talking about. Yet, they have beat all teams by at least 10 points. Maybe.
Baylor is the 1-loss Big-12 champion. However, their loss 32-point loss to Oklahoma State was just a few weeks ago. They also won a close game at TCU last week. Their signature win was over 2-loss Oklahoma. Other than that, there is just a win over an 8-4 Texas. Sorry Bears.
What about the AAC? Louisville and UCF both have a single loss from early in the season. Alas, they lack signature victories. UCF's best win was against Louisville. And then 8-4 Houston is it. For Louisville, its 9-3 Cincinnati and 8-4 Houston. Meh. Neither team has been dominating their opponents.
Northern Illinois has one loss, but that was in the MAC championship game. Fresno State lost one game, but that was last week. Neither team has played a very strong schedule. C-USA champion Rice has 3 losses. The top Independents are 8-4 BYU and Notre Dame. Sun Belt Champion Louisiana-Lafayette has 4 losses.
Without a better option, the fourth spot comes down to a battle between Alabama and Michigan State. They both suffered a narrow road loss to a good team. Alabama would be a strong pick and the likely higher-ranked team. However, their last game was a loss and their opponent is represented in the playoff. Why have a rematch when their are better options? Thus, the spot would go to Michigan State.
Thus the playoff would be:
#1 Florida State vs #4 Michigan State
#2 Auburn vs #3 Stanford
As it turns out, this year, all four teams will likely be playing in the Rose bowl, with Michigan State vs Stanford in the Rose Bowl game, and Florida State likely playing against Auburn in the championship game the next week. Perhaps we just need one more after that to declare a champion.
Monday, September 09, 2013
Stanford football
Stanford took care of business, winning the first game at San Jose State in decisive fashion. However, we'll have to see how good San Jose is with the new coach. If they are as good as last season, this might have been a great Stanford victory. If they are back in "old" SJSU form, then maybe not so good.What scares me more is some of the predictions. A few prognosticators have Stanford pegged as national champion. So much for the underdog roll. Stanford has the type of team that could beat anybody. The problem is, it is also the team that could lose to just about anybody. The Cardinal probably have the best chance of unseated an SEC team to win the final BCS championship. However, they have to get there first.
So far this season, we have already seen that odd things can happen. Each week, a top 25 team from the Pac-12 has been clobbered by an underdog. We saw a bunch of FCS teams beat up their opponents. Virginia beats BYU in the first game, seemingly setting the tone for the season. However, BYU turns around and clobbers Texas, while Virginia gets annihilated by Oregon. USC gets beaten by Washington State in a defensive struggle. Florida and Georgia both lose to ACC teams. I think we'll need a few more weeks to even begin to sort things out. Lets just hope the cardinal can make it.
As for pro football, the (Jim) Harbaugh connections did well this weekend. Former Stanford QB Andrew Luck won with the Indianapolis Colts. Former 49ers QB Alex Smith one with Kansas City. And of course, the 49ers won. It looks like he is quite the groomer of quarterbacks.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
The football player's virtual girlfriend
Manti Te'o had girlfriend that died of cancer. Only she never existed. Now the college football world is suddenly awash with plenty of stories covering this bizarre revelation. Well, what else are they going to write about today? You have Oregon's coach bolting for the NFL and San Diego State putting the nail in the Big East's coffin. But none of those have the drama of a media-induced "fake scandal".
Way back early in September, Manti Te'o lost his grandmother. He also found out that a female friend had also died around the same time. He went on to play the game of his life that day, and put himself on the shortlist for the Heisman trophy.
As the initial story was breaking my impression was that she was just a friend. She was somebody he would talk to and felt close to. It didn't appear that he was a "girlfriend". After all, they were on opposite sides of the country. Later, she turned in to a "girlfriend" and he was portrayed as being noble for staying with her even as she was hospitalized.
Why did she suddenly become a "girlfriend"? If we take the "innocent Manti" route, he initially told people that a friend died. The media start to report and ask questions. They here about female friend and string it together as "girlfriend". The poor guy says sure, she was my girlfriend. No point in denying a relationship for somebody that is now dead. He had lots of deep conversations with her. Even if they weren't a "couple", saying that he was a girlfriend helps show respect to her and her family. The media go and ask a few other people what they feel and they get some people to say what they want to hear. Now we get a great story about a guy's girlfriend dying. He gets caught up in it. After all, his grandmother did really die. The grief is there. And as far as he knows, a girl he was close to also died.
However, this close girl was only a virtual friend, somebody met online and over the phone. You can have a close online relationship. However, online relationships are still stigmatized. Terminology would be used that could be interpreted either way. You still "meet" somebody online. You still talk to them. He may have really thought he was meeting her in person. He thought he saw her up in a crowd at a game. They planned on meeting in Hawaii or someplace, but a flight was delayed or something just didn't work out. It could still be a "meeting" even though only one side saw it, right?
Even in later discussions, Te'o's speech was fairly guarded. There was not a lot of talk about seeing her in person. He was a special woman that inspired him, but there is not much talk of holding her hand or a personal relationship.
How were we to know she was a fake? Well, first off, there was zilcho reporting of her from the Stanford side. I remember looking around the Stanford newspaper shortly after the story broke. A student or recent grad getting in a car crash and dying of cancer would probably make the student paper. However, there was nothing. In fact, a google search came up with pretty much nothing more than the Te'o stuff. In retrospect that was a red flag. However, then, it could just be somebody that wants privacy.
As for Te'o learning that she was a fake and sitting on it? Well, just look at the press coverage now. Wouldn't you be embarrassed to find that out? You don't want that type of distraction when you are receiving rewards or preparing for the championship game. I imagine he initially must have been in denial. It took some time before he want to the school. However, he waited, and hoped that it would go away. He wanted to get a good spin on it first before going public. Alas, somebody beat him to it. It may have been somebody connected with the hoax. (After all, they tried to fess up to him, maybe they just had to get it out elsewhere.) More likely, it was somebody tangentially connected. Somebody may have heard something. Or somebody may have seen some snooping around. They thought there was something there, and wanted to find out more.
Te'o eventually played a sub-par game in the national championship and Notre Dame lost. Could this distraction have led to the problem? Perhaps it was a plot by Alabama fans all along. They inspire him to do well enough to get Notre Dame to the championship, then let him know at the end so that 'bama can easily roll to victory.
Baring Alabama conspiracy theories, we still have the the "why?" question. Perhaps this did start out as an innocent online relationship. The girl used a fake name in order to protect herself. She wanted to ingratiate herself with a famous football player. She saw things going too far, so she had herself injured in a car crash. However, she missed her time with him, so she had herself recover, but gave herself leukaemia so that she could kill herself off later if she got tired of the relationship. She saw that Te'os grandmother died and that it would be a dramatic time to kill herself off ending the relationship. She loved the publicity, but saw that people were snooping, so she deleted her accounts. She saw that Te'o was doing well, so kept quiet. Then, when he was getting the rewards, she just couldn't hold on any longer and wanted back in his life. But she was dead, so she had to come things. And that is where things started to unravel.
And until they come clean, there will be many other possible explanations.
Was there any crime committed? Possibly. Fake identity. Defrauding. I'm sure politicians will love to pass the Manti Te'o act to protect people from "catfishing". However, an assumed name and fake events are quite common on the Internet. A faked death? A little more rare. But if you want to end a relationship, that is the way to go. Did they do that to get gain? Well, there doesn't seem to be much gain on Manti's side. Perhaps the girl got some flowers or money. Or perhaps she was after some wealth when he became a star. (Maybe she did it thinking that he would go pro after his junior year, but thought she couldn't pull it off all the way through the senior season.)
As for Te'o himself, there is not a whole lot that could have been gained if he had fabricated it all himself. It would have made his story a little less dramatic. However, the performance after a grandmother's death was still had a lot to it. It would stand to cause a degree of embarrassment if it came out. It is hard to see much rationale for him to make it up. However, once the press started latching on to it, things could be different.
The moral: Don't believe what you see written in the media - especially if it is written about you
Way back early in September, Manti Te'o lost his grandmother. He also found out that a female friend had also died around the same time. He went on to play the game of his life that day, and put himself on the shortlist for the Heisman trophy.
As the initial story was breaking my impression was that she was just a friend. She was somebody he would talk to and felt close to. It didn't appear that he was a "girlfriend". After all, they were on opposite sides of the country. Later, she turned in to a "girlfriend" and he was portrayed as being noble for staying with her even as she was hospitalized.
Why did she suddenly become a "girlfriend"? If we take the "innocent Manti" route, he initially told people that a friend died. The media start to report and ask questions. They here about female friend and string it together as "girlfriend". The poor guy says sure, she was my girlfriend. No point in denying a relationship for somebody that is now dead. He had lots of deep conversations with her. Even if they weren't a "couple", saying that he was a girlfriend helps show respect to her and her family. The media go and ask a few other people what they feel and they get some people to say what they want to hear. Now we get a great story about a guy's girlfriend dying. He gets caught up in it. After all, his grandmother did really die. The grief is there. And as far as he knows, a girl he was close to also died.
However, this close girl was only a virtual friend, somebody met online and over the phone. You can have a close online relationship. However, online relationships are still stigmatized. Terminology would be used that could be interpreted either way. You still "meet" somebody online. You still talk to them. He may have really thought he was meeting her in person. He thought he saw her up in a crowd at a game. They planned on meeting in Hawaii or someplace, but a flight was delayed or something just didn't work out. It could still be a "meeting" even though only one side saw it, right?
Even in later discussions, Te'o's speech was fairly guarded. There was not a lot of talk about seeing her in person. He was a special woman that inspired him, but there is not much talk of holding her hand or a personal relationship.
How were we to know she was a fake? Well, first off, there was zilcho reporting of her from the Stanford side. I remember looking around the Stanford newspaper shortly after the story broke. A student or recent grad getting in a car crash and dying of cancer would probably make the student paper. However, there was nothing. In fact, a google search came up with pretty much nothing more than the Te'o stuff. In retrospect that was a red flag. However, then, it could just be somebody that wants privacy.
As for Te'o learning that she was a fake and sitting on it? Well, just look at the press coverage now. Wouldn't you be embarrassed to find that out? You don't want that type of distraction when you are receiving rewards or preparing for the championship game. I imagine he initially must have been in denial. It took some time before he want to the school. However, he waited, and hoped that it would go away. He wanted to get a good spin on it first before going public. Alas, somebody beat him to it. It may have been somebody connected with the hoax. (After all, they tried to fess up to him, maybe they just had to get it out elsewhere.) More likely, it was somebody tangentially connected. Somebody may have heard something. Or somebody may have seen some snooping around. They thought there was something there, and wanted to find out more.
Te'o eventually played a sub-par game in the national championship and Notre Dame lost. Could this distraction have led to the problem? Perhaps it was a plot by Alabama fans all along. They inspire him to do well enough to get Notre Dame to the championship, then let him know at the end so that 'bama can easily roll to victory.
Baring Alabama conspiracy theories, we still have the the "why?" question. Perhaps this did start out as an innocent online relationship. The girl used a fake name in order to protect herself. She wanted to ingratiate herself with a famous football player. She saw things going too far, so she had herself injured in a car crash. However, she missed her time with him, so she had herself recover, but gave herself leukaemia so that she could kill herself off later if she got tired of the relationship. She saw that Te'os grandmother died and that it would be a dramatic time to kill herself off ending the relationship. She loved the publicity, but saw that people were snooping, so she deleted her accounts. She saw that Te'o was doing well, so kept quiet. Then, when he was getting the rewards, she just couldn't hold on any longer and wanted back in his life. But she was dead, so she had to come things. And that is where things started to unravel.
And until they come clean, there will be many other possible explanations.
Was there any crime committed? Possibly. Fake identity. Defrauding. I'm sure politicians will love to pass the Manti Te'o act to protect people from "catfishing". However, an assumed name and fake events are quite common on the Internet. A faked death? A little more rare. But if you want to end a relationship, that is the way to go. Did they do that to get gain? Well, there doesn't seem to be much gain on Manti's side. Perhaps the girl got some flowers or money. Or perhaps she was after some wealth when he became a star. (Maybe she did it thinking that he would go pro after his junior year, but thought she couldn't pull it off all the way through the senior season.)
As for Te'o himself, there is not a whole lot that could have been gained if he had fabricated it all himself. It would have made his story a little less dramatic. However, the performance after a grandmother's death was still had a lot to it. It would stand to cause a degree of embarrassment if it came out. It is hard to see much rationale for him to make it up. However, once the press started latching on to it, things could be different.
The moral: Don't believe what you see written in the media - especially if it is written about you
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
Nerd Bowl
Maybe it is time to add a standardized test to the bowl festivities. Most major sports conferences have a smallish, private school that boosts the average SAT score, but usually serves as nothing more than a free "win" on the football schedule.
Apparently, these academic "doormats" didn't get the message.
Stanford has always been one of the most academic prestigious schools in the nation. A half-dozen years ago, the football program was a mere afterthought, with some pundits even calling on them to disband it as a worthless cause. Now, however, they have gone to through BCS bowl games in a row. If not for a few missed kicks last season, they would have been 3-0 in these bowls. The victory this year in the Rose Bowl was the first Stanford Rose Bowl victory since Nixon was president. Stanford has a young hot-shot coach who also happens to be an alum, and doesn't plan on going anywhere.
Northwestern is the private oddity among the big public schools in the Big-10. This season they won the Big-10s lone New Years Day game. This also happened to be Northwestern's first bowl victory since someone named Truman was president. If not for a few blown forth quarter leads, Northwestern could have been undefeated. (With just a couple small breaks for the Cardinal and Wildcats, we could have seen a truly "nerdy" national championship game.) Like Stanford, Northwestern is led by a young alum for a coach.
The SEC's nerd school also got in the action. Vanderbilt won its bowl game to rack up 9 wins, a number that has not been seen since World War I. While the coach doesn't have ties to the school, he did bolt from a "coach in waiting" position at Maryland to go to Vandy. He will be a much more likely "flight" risk than the other two.
In Texas, Rice also had a bowl win. The only "nerd" school that didn't win its bowl game was the ACC's Duke. It was, however, Duke's first bowl appearance in 17 years, so you need to start somewhere. Notre Dame is joining in the ACC (playing 5 ACC football games, and fully joining in all other sports.) They are a top 20 private school. This year they just happen to be playing for the national championship.
In this years US News rankings, Stanford is #6, Duke #8, Northwestern #12, and Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame are tied for #17. They make up all the schools in the US News top 20 that play top division college football.
It almost seems that the "scholar" is coming back to "scholar-athlete", with top-flight football universities actually fielding top-tier football teams. The schools have now got a new pitch for recruits: You can go get a top notch degree with endless possibilities - and if that doesn't work out, there is always the NFL.
Apparently, these academic "doormats" didn't get the message.
Stanford has always been one of the most academic prestigious schools in the nation. A half-dozen years ago, the football program was a mere afterthought, with some pundits even calling on them to disband it as a worthless cause. Now, however, they have gone to through BCS bowl games in a row. If not for a few missed kicks last season, they would have been 3-0 in these bowls. The victory this year in the Rose Bowl was the first Stanford Rose Bowl victory since Nixon was president. Stanford has a young hot-shot coach who also happens to be an alum, and doesn't plan on going anywhere.
Northwestern is the private oddity among the big public schools in the Big-10. This season they won the Big-10s lone New Years Day game. This also happened to be Northwestern's first bowl victory since someone named Truman was president. If not for a few blown forth quarter leads, Northwestern could have been undefeated. (With just a couple small breaks for the Cardinal and Wildcats, we could have seen a truly "nerdy" national championship game.) Like Stanford, Northwestern is led by a young alum for a coach.
The SEC's nerd school also got in the action. Vanderbilt won its bowl game to rack up 9 wins, a number that has not been seen since World War I. While the coach doesn't have ties to the school, he did bolt from a "coach in waiting" position at Maryland to go to Vandy. He will be a much more likely "flight" risk than the other two.
In Texas, Rice also had a bowl win. The only "nerd" school that didn't win its bowl game was the ACC's Duke. It was, however, Duke's first bowl appearance in 17 years, so you need to start somewhere. Notre Dame is joining in the ACC (playing 5 ACC football games, and fully joining in all other sports.) They are a top 20 private school. This year they just happen to be playing for the national championship.
In this years US News rankings, Stanford is #6, Duke #8, Northwestern #12, and Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame are tied for #17. They make up all the schools in the US News top 20 that play top division college football.
It almost seems that the "scholar" is coming back to "scholar-athlete", with top-flight football universities actually fielding top-tier football teams. The schools have now got a new pitch for recruits: You can go get a top notch degree with endless possibilities - and if that doesn't work out, there is always the NFL.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
college football working right?
Robert Griffin III, Andrew Luck, Russell Wilson are all rookie quarterbacks in the NFL. Luck has lead his team to a huge turnaround and a playoff appearance. Wilson is currently one of the hottest QBs and has helped push his team to the playoffs. RGIII is a rookie Pro-bowler who has his team on the cusp of the playoffs.
They are all hot-shot quarterbacks that have outplayed many of the veteran quarterbacks they have faced.
They also stayed in school longer than they had to. Luck was already considered to be the number one draft prospect before he decided to come back to finish his degree at Stanford.
Wilson and RGIII both graduated from college in three years. They both opted to stick around for graduate school rather than enter the NFL draft.
We can consider these three to be the anti-Cam Newton. They were taking full advantage of the education that could be provided in college. Rather than simply go there to play football, they were attending class also. Perhaps college football is really something more than a minor league for the NFL.
They are all hot-shot quarterbacks that have outplayed many of the veteran quarterbacks they have faced.
They also stayed in school longer than they had to. Luck was already considered to be the number one draft prospect before he decided to come back to finish his degree at Stanford.
Wilson and RGIII both graduated from college in three years. They both opted to stick around for graduate school rather than enter the NFL draft.
We can consider these three to be the anti-Cam Newton. They were taking full advantage of the education that could be provided in college. Rather than simply go there to play football, they were attending class also. Perhaps college football is really something more than a minor league for the NFL.
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Pac-12 schedule
The Pac-12 title game was this Friday. UCLA played Stanford. 6 days before, they also played each other. Who could have ever seen this coming? I mean, UCLA only played in the title game last season, and Stanford was second in their division. Not a chance of them coming on top, eh? You think they could have avoided them playing each other the last game of the season?
Or, better yet, avoid all cross-division games at the end of the season. Even a Washington State-Colorado game could potentially be a rematch game. (Maybe they both turn it around next year.)
The Pac-12 championship game has a lot to be desired. The conference plays a 9 game schedule with 12 teams. With 5 games against division opponents, that leaves 4 games against the other division. 4/6 means there is a 2/3rds chance that the championship game will be a rematch. Ugghh.
In the current Big-10 and ACC, they have an 8 game schedule. With 12 teams and 5 conference games, that leaves just 3 games in the other division, so a 1/2 chance of a rematch. The SEC (and future fourteen team ACC/Big-10) have 14 teams. 6 division games + 2 in the other division games leaves 2/6 or 1/3 chance of a rematch.
As for scheduling, the SEC has a "rivalry" game the last week. Most of these are non-conference games. The Pac-12 is instead trying to "create" a rivalry with Colorado and Utah. Why not let them play their natural rivals (BYU and Colorado State) on the last week? Then we can have all teams playing their natural rivals the last week.
As for the Notre Dame game? Well, they have the ACC deal now. Let them play a Boston College or someone like that in the final week and restore USC/UCLA and Cal/Stanford for the last week.
I wonder if the days of college football are numbered. They seem to be reaching too far for money, and alienating most of their core constituents. What happened to the good 'ol Saturday afternoon games? (I remember going home from games when it was still light outside. Now there are few games that even start with light in the sky.) And there were once local rivalry games you cared about and could actually travel to. Now, it is all about TV and money - until the NFL decides they should just make a development league and shut the colleges out altogether.
Or, better yet, avoid all cross-division games at the end of the season. Even a Washington State-Colorado game could potentially be a rematch game. (Maybe they both turn it around next year.)
The Pac-12 championship game has a lot to be desired. The conference plays a 9 game schedule with 12 teams. With 5 games against division opponents, that leaves 4 games against the other division. 4/6 means there is a 2/3rds chance that the championship game will be a rematch. Ugghh.
In the current Big-10 and ACC, they have an 8 game schedule. With 12 teams and 5 conference games, that leaves just 3 games in the other division, so a 1/2 chance of a rematch. The SEC (and future fourteen team ACC/Big-10) have 14 teams. 6 division games + 2 in the other division games leaves 2/6 or 1/3 chance of a rematch.
As for scheduling, the SEC has a "rivalry" game the last week. Most of these are non-conference games. The Pac-12 is instead trying to "create" a rivalry with Colorado and Utah. Why not let them play their natural rivals (BYU and Colorado State) on the last week? Then we can have all teams playing their natural rivals the last week.
As for the Notre Dame game? Well, they have the ACC deal now. Let them play a Boston College or someone like that in the final week and restore USC/UCLA and Cal/Stanford for the last week.
I wonder if the days of college football are numbered. They seem to be reaching too far for money, and alienating most of their core constituents. What happened to the good 'ol Saturday afternoon games? (I remember going home from games when it was still light outside. Now there are few games that even start with light in the sky.) And there were once local rivalry games you cared about and could actually travel to. Now, it is all about TV and money - until the NFL decides they should just make a development league and shut the colleges out altogether.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Losing by winning?
Stanford and Boise State both had decisive wins in the first week of college football. However, they both saw their chances at a national championship take a hit.
TCU lost to Baylor, taking the luster off of Boise's other future marque matchup.
Oregon fell hard to LSU, while Notre Dame lost to USF. There go a couple BCS-quality opponents. Then there was Oregon State's loss to an FCS team. But Oregon State always does poorly at the start of the season, so they may be able to recover.
Perhaps Georgia goes on to win the SEC, giving Boise a real shot at a national championship rematch. Oregon, Notre Dame and TCU could all find their way back to the top-10, their early season losses quietly disregarded.
Or we could just see another SEC champion...
TCU lost to Baylor, taking the luster off of Boise's other future marque matchup.
Oregon fell hard to LSU, while Notre Dame lost to USF. There go a couple BCS-quality opponents. Then there was Oregon State's loss to an FCS team. But Oregon State always does poorly at the start of the season, so they may be able to recover.
Perhaps Georgia goes on to win the SEC, giving Boise a real shot at a national championship rematch. Oregon, Notre Dame and TCU could all find their way back to the top-10, their early season losses quietly disregarded.
Or we could just see another SEC champion...
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
A Garage Full of Bikes
Our garage is full of bikes. Is the expense worth it?
We went many years without a car, and now have only one minivan, so for car-obsessed California, the answer would probably be yes. (In spite of having all sorts of "fancy" bikes we still haven't come close to spending as much on them as on the car.)
But are bikes the most economical way to travel?
At Stanford, biking easily beat out driving. (Even with the added expense of replacing a stolen bike.)
Cost of commuting to Stanford:
"A" parking permit: $747/year
or "C" parking permit: $291/year
Gas: ~ $4/day ~ $800/year
Thus, if there were a "freely available" car with no additional expenses (oil, maintenance, depreciation, insurance, etc.) the yearly cost to drive would be somewhere between one and two thousand dollars.
Bikes can park next to the building, while "C" permits are a 15 minute walk, and A permits can be a couple minutes walk away. A high-speed bike ride during rush hour can easily be faster than "C" parking, and even competitive with "A" parking. During off-peak times, however, driving can be faster. However, biking leaves you a bike on campus which allows for fast trips to other areas of campus (as well as journeys in to Palo Alto.)
Overall, the convenience of biking is similar (or perhaps better) than driving, with a significantly lower cost. It also provides exercise.
However, it is not the cheapest means to get to work. It requires purchasing a bike, along with maintaining it. Stanford also provides free bus and train passes. If timed right, a walk to the bus stop + bus + train + bus can be somewhat competitive with driving or biking. However, there is typically only one "fast" timing per day, with a few other "somewhat acceptable" timings. However, every few months a schedule change can change this timing (and sometimes, there is no good timing. A late bus can also throw everything off.
Thus transit is low cost, and can be comparable timewise - if you are lucky. But also provides limited options.
Now I'm working closer to home with free parking. Cost to drive to work would be around $1 per day in gas. Driving is a little faster, but not by much. (Stop signs and lights are more of the limiting factor. A fast bike ride during AM rush hour could easily be faster than driving.)
Biking's main advantage is in physical activity. In addition to biking to work, it makes it easier to go to the nearby gym (there is plenty of bike parking, but car parking can be hard to find.)
Transit would cost $4 per day and still require between 1.5-2 miles walking per day. (Or for $6/day you could get it down to less than a mile walking, but at the expense of a transfer and a much longer trip.
Walking the entire distance (without a bus) is also fairly reasonable, and only takes about as long as the drive/bike to Stanford. (But why walk if you can go faster?)
Walking would lead to shoes getting worn out faster. Biking would wear out pants faster. This would offset some of the cost savings. Add in a couple slices of bread to account for the extra calories consumed, and the cost advantage from not driving is almost totally eliminated. (The other costs from driving would probably not significantly impact costs. The extra 1000 miles driven would probably not impact insurance rates, registration costs, depreciation or maintenance.)
If I already had a car, but didn't have a bike, driving would win out in the strict monetary calculation. A decent low-cost bike well equipped for commuting (lights, fenders, rack, etc.) could cost a few hundred dollars. Add in rain gear and you are looking at years to earn back the investment.
Reverse the equation, however, and a bike really wins out. Adding a car would cost thousands of dollars in purchase cost, insurance, etc. If a bike can eliminate the need for a car, the savings pour in.
But do the bikes eliminate the need for a second car?
It would seem to be yes. However, looking at the past year, most of the trips could have been accomplished with one car and no bikes. It would, however, have required a great deal of shuttling people around and dropping then off at different places. The shuttling would result in increased gas and parking cost, and would probably be sufficiently large to have a small impact on the other costs of car ownership.
As for the few times that couldn't be solved by excessive shuttling, a rental car could probably be used. (Though this would require some advanced planning and expense.)
If we span these extra costs over a few years, we probably come close to the money we have spent on bicycles. However, bicycles are much more convenient than overloading car use.
Thus, the garage full of bikes is either a break-even proposition for a similar level of convenience, or a money saving alternative to a second car. Physical activity, exercise, easy communication and stress reduction? Well, that's the free bonus.
We went many years without a car, and now have only one minivan, so for car-obsessed California, the answer would probably be yes. (In spite of having all sorts of "fancy" bikes we still haven't come close to spending as much on them as on the car.)
But are bikes the most economical way to travel?
At Stanford, biking easily beat out driving. (Even with the added expense of replacing a stolen bike.)
Cost of commuting to Stanford:
"A" parking permit: $747/year
or "C" parking permit: $291/year
Gas: ~ $4/day ~ $800/year
Thus, if there were a "freely available" car with no additional expenses (oil, maintenance, depreciation, insurance, etc.) the yearly cost to drive would be somewhere between one and two thousand dollars.
Bikes can park next to the building, while "C" permits are a 15 minute walk, and A permits can be a couple minutes walk away. A high-speed bike ride during rush hour can easily be faster than "C" parking, and even competitive with "A" parking. During off-peak times, however, driving can be faster. However, biking leaves you a bike on campus which allows for fast trips to other areas of campus (as well as journeys in to Palo Alto.)
Overall, the convenience of biking is similar (or perhaps better) than driving, with a significantly lower cost. It also provides exercise.
However, it is not the cheapest means to get to work. It requires purchasing a bike, along with maintaining it. Stanford also provides free bus and train passes. If timed right, a walk to the bus stop + bus + train + bus can be somewhat competitive with driving or biking. However, there is typically only one "fast" timing per day, with a few other "somewhat acceptable" timings. However, every few months a schedule change can change this timing (and sometimes, there is no good timing. A late bus can also throw everything off.
Thus transit is low cost, and can be comparable timewise - if you are lucky. But also provides limited options.
Now I'm working closer to home with free parking. Cost to drive to work would be around $1 per day in gas. Driving is a little faster, but not by much. (Stop signs and lights are more of the limiting factor. A fast bike ride during AM rush hour could easily be faster than driving.)
Biking's main advantage is in physical activity. In addition to biking to work, it makes it easier to go to the nearby gym (there is plenty of bike parking, but car parking can be hard to find.)
Transit would cost $4 per day and still require between 1.5-2 miles walking per day. (Or for $6/day you could get it down to less than a mile walking, but at the expense of a transfer and a much longer trip.
Walking the entire distance (without a bus) is also fairly reasonable, and only takes about as long as the drive/bike to Stanford. (But why walk if you can go faster?)
Walking would lead to shoes getting worn out faster. Biking would wear out pants faster. This would offset some of the cost savings. Add in a couple slices of bread to account for the extra calories consumed, and the cost advantage from not driving is almost totally eliminated. (The other costs from driving would probably not significantly impact costs. The extra 1000 miles driven would probably not impact insurance rates, registration costs, depreciation or maintenance.)
If I already had a car, but didn't have a bike, driving would win out in the strict monetary calculation. A decent low-cost bike well equipped for commuting (lights, fenders, rack, etc.) could cost a few hundred dollars. Add in rain gear and you are looking at years to earn back the investment.
Reverse the equation, however, and a bike really wins out. Adding a car would cost thousands of dollars in purchase cost, insurance, etc. If a bike can eliminate the need for a car, the savings pour in.
But do the bikes eliminate the need for a second car?
It would seem to be yes. However, looking at the past year, most of the trips could have been accomplished with one car and no bikes. It would, however, have required a great deal of shuttling people around and dropping then off at different places. The shuttling would result in increased gas and parking cost, and would probably be sufficiently large to have a small impact on the other costs of car ownership.
As for the few times that couldn't be solved by excessive shuttling, a rental car could probably be used. (Though this would require some advanced planning and expense.)
If we span these extra costs over a few years, we probably come close to the money we have spent on bicycles. However, bicycles are much more convenient than overloading car use.
Thus, the garage full of bikes is either a break-even proposition for a similar level of convenience, or a money saving alternative to a second car. Physical activity, exercise, easy communication and stress reduction? Well, that's the free bonus.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Comparing the BCS humans to computers
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1152891
It is intriguing to compare the difference between the computer and "human" scores in the BCS rankings. The computer scores are prohibited from including margin of victory in their score calculations. A commanding 30 point road win counts as much as a last-second hail-Mary for a one point home victory.
From that, we can compare the rankings of the top 9 teams. These all conveniently have the same rankings in both human polls used. They also have no agreement between computers and humans.
This season, Oregon and Boise have been dominating just about everyone they've played. Unfortunately, a lot of their opponents have had fairly mediocre records. Thus, it would make sense to see the humans give them a boost that they computers can't.
LSU and Auburn, on the other hand, have beat a number of highly-touted teams. However, many of their victories have been less than impressive. (LSU only beat a mediocre Tennessee team because the Volunteers had 13 men on the field for the final play.) It makes sense to see these teams docked by the humans.
TCU is a little more difficult to explain. They have played dominated a schedule of "ok" teams. The domination would seem to imply a preference in the human polls. However, the computers slightly favor them. This may be do to the poor performance against a poorly-perceived San Diego State team, coupled with Notre Dame's victory over Utah. (TCU's previous marquee win.) Though perhaps the computers get this right in spite of their limitations. San Diego State's previous two losses can be at least partially attributed to late-game blown calls. The 5-point loss to TCU was their biggest loss of the season. This week Baylor, Utah and Oregon State all loss, hurting the ranking with the computers. However, even last week, the humans had them lower than the computers.
Stanford is another odd case. They are 5th in the computers, yet 8th in the human polls. Most wins have been of the impressive-domination variety. They were also ahead for a good portion of their loss to #1 Oregon. They recently destroyed a ranked Arizona team. Their close victories were over a ranked USC team and against Arizona State in Tempe.
The Stanford rankings are especially baffling when compared to Wisconsin. The Badgers also had a narrow win over ASU (though that game was in Madison). They also squeaked out a victory over the ranked Iowa team. They have had a few blowout wins over mediocre teams. They also had a nice victory over a ranked Ohio State, and a loss to a one-loss Michigan State. The top of the resume seems fairly comparable to Stanford's. At the bottom, however, you have 1-win San Jose State, and 2 win UNLV, Minnesota, and FCS Austin Peay. Stanford has 2 win Washington State and Wake Forest, as well as 6-4 FCS Sacramento State at the bottom. The computers seem to have things right. You have to wonder why the pollsters love Wisconsin so much.
Ohio State also gets the Wisconsin treatment, with a human ranking much higher than the computer ranking. In this case the name is the big factor. After all, the are Ohio State.
The 'name recognition' of Ohio State may also be what gives Nebraska the lower computer ranking. That, and the fact that Texas has shown itself to be really, really bad. Nebraska seems to be pulling the anti-Cal, putting up its worst performances at home.
Team Harris Coaches Comp. SOS
1. Oregon (1) 1st 1st 2nd T-87th
2. Auburn (2) 2nd 2nd 1st 12th
3. TCU (3) 4th 4th T-3rd 55th
4. Boise St. (4) 3rd 3rd T-6th T-87th
5. LSU (5) 6th 6th T-3rd T-8th
6. Stanford (6) 8th 8th 5th T-65th
7. Wisconsin (7) 5th 5th 12th 75th
8. Nebraska (8) 9th 9th 8th T-57th
9. Ohio State (9) 7th 7th 13th T-70th
It is intriguing to compare the difference between the computer and "human" scores in the BCS rankings. The computer scores are prohibited from including margin of victory in their score calculations. A commanding 30 point road win counts as much as a last-second hail-Mary for a one point home victory.
From that, we can compare the rankings of the top 9 teams. These all conveniently have the same rankings in both human polls used. They also have no agreement between computers and humans.
This season, Oregon and Boise have been dominating just about everyone they've played. Unfortunately, a lot of their opponents have had fairly mediocre records. Thus, it would make sense to see the humans give them a boost that they computers can't.
LSU and Auburn, on the other hand, have beat a number of highly-touted teams. However, many of their victories have been less than impressive. (LSU only beat a mediocre Tennessee team because the Volunteers had 13 men on the field for the final play.) It makes sense to see these teams docked by the humans.
TCU is a little more difficult to explain. They have played dominated a schedule of "ok" teams. The domination would seem to imply a preference in the human polls. However, the computers slightly favor them. This may be do to the poor performance against a poorly-perceived San Diego State team, coupled with Notre Dame's victory over Utah. (TCU's previous marquee win.) Though perhaps the computers get this right in spite of their limitations. San Diego State's previous two losses can be at least partially attributed to late-game blown calls. The 5-point loss to TCU was their biggest loss of the season. This week Baylor, Utah and Oregon State all loss, hurting the ranking with the computers. However, even last week, the humans had them lower than the computers.
Stanford is another odd case. They are 5th in the computers, yet 8th in the human polls. Most wins have been of the impressive-domination variety. They were also ahead for a good portion of their loss to #1 Oregon. They recently destroyed a ranked Arizona team. Their close victories were over a ranked USC team and against Arizona State in Tempe.
The Stanford rankings are especially baffling when compared to Wisconsin. The Badgers also had a narrow win over ASU (though that game was in Madison). They also squeaked out a victory over the ranked Iowa team. They have had a few blowout wins over mediocre teams. They also had a nice victory over a ranked Ohio State, and a loss to a one-loss Michigan State. The top of the resume seems fairly comparable to Stanford's. At the bottom, however, you have 1-win San Jose State, and 2 win UNLV, Minnesota, and FCS Austin Peay. Stanford has 2 win Washington State and Wake Forest, as well as 6-4 FCS Sacramento State at the bottom. The computers seem to have things right. You have to wonder why the pollsters love Wisconsin so much.
Ohio State also gets the Wisconsin treatment, with a human ranking much higher than the computer ranking. In this case the name is the big factor. After all, the are Ohio State.
The 'name recognition' of Ohio State may also be what gives Nebraska the lower computer ranking. That, and the fact that Texas has shown itself to be really, really bad. Nebraska seems to be pulling the anti-Cal, putting up its worst performances at home.
Team Harris Coaches Comp. SOS
1. Oregon (1) 1st 1st 2nd T-87th
2. Auburn (2) 2nd 2nd 1st 12th
3. TCU (3) 4th 4th T-3rd 55th
4. Boise St. (4) 3rd 3rd T-6th T-87th
5. LSU (5) 6th 6th T-3rd T-8th
6. Stanford (6) 8th 8th 5th T-65th
7. Wisconsin (7) 5th 5th 12th 75th
8. Nebraska (8) 9th 9th 8th T-57th
9. Ohio State (9) 7th 7th 13th T-70th
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Oh, Stanford
I should have known. Once Stanford makes it to the top 10, they're destined to lose the next game. But, I still had my hopes up. Could they even challenge for the championship? But, no. They jumped up to a big lead over Oregon in the first half, and then...
They decided not to show up for the second half. Oh well. There is still a chance for a good season.
More baffling is what happened in the rankings. Oregon turned on the quack attack for a second half pounding of Stanford. Boise State pummeled lowly New Mexico State (Boise's backups outscore NMSU on their own.) From a schedule perspective, all of Boise's previous opponents also won. Ohio State struggled with mediocre Illinois. Alabama also managed an annihilation of Florida. So it seemed obvious, Alabama, Oregon and Boise were the top three. But no, for some reason, Ohio State stays second and Oregon passes Boise for third. Oh whatever. Polls are always annoying.
They decided not to show up for the second half. Oh well. There is still a chance for a good season.
More baffling is what happened in the rankings. Oregon turned on the quack attack for a second half pounding of Stanford. Boise State pummeled lowly New Mexico State (Boise's backups outscore NMSU on their own.) From a schedule perspective, all of Boise's previous opponents also won. Ohio State struggled with mediocre Illinois. Alabama also managed an annihilation of Florida. So it seemed obvious, Alabama, Oregon and Boise were the top three. But no, for some reason, Ohio State stays second and Oregon passes Boise for third. Oh whatever. Polls are always annoying.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
College Admissions Selectivity Challenge
A Stanford professor determined that, despite perceptions, US colleges are actually much less selective now than they were 50 years ago. The evidence given includes a rise in 'college opportunities' that significantly exceeds the number of high school graduates. However, the top 10% of universities are acknowledged to be much more selective.
What does it mean?
Not much.
A few hundred years ago, a degree from Harvard was probably about as valuable as it is today. Back then, it indicated you were one of the few that actually had a college education (in a day when even a high school education was rare.) Today, the degree indicates you were able to attend one of the most selective colleges in the nation. Having the equivalent of an associates degree in 1810 would have been quite an accomplishment. Today, it might be the difference between upper lower class and lower middle class.
An explosion of post high school opportunities simply means that more education has become a 'requirement' for gainful employment. A few hundred years ago, an illiterate farmer could be 'middle class'. Fifty years ago, you would need at least a high school diploma. Now, some college level education is all but required.
So, yes, you could argue that it is much easier to access a college education now than it was 50 years ago. But, that is comparing apples to oranges. A more appropriate comparison would be between a high school education 50 years ago and a college education today. After all, both could get you to the 'median income'.
Another flaw comes in attempting to compare selectivity of colleges over a large time frame. A large University may have been a small junior college 50 years ago. Is there any relevance in comparing admissions across two totally different institutions?
Today, the most selective colleges tend to produce the highest paid and most influential graduates. The increasing selectivity is thus a significant concern. Arbitrary decisions by an admissions office could have significant impact on students' futures. Looking at overall access to education is of little use without looking at the value of this education.
Stanford Daily Article:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1037005
What does it mean?
Not much.
A few hundred years ago, a degree from Harvard was probably about as valuable as it is today. Back then, it indicated you were one of the few that actually had a college education (in a day when even a high school education was rare.) Today, the degree indicates you were able to attend one of the most selective colleges in the nation. Having the equivalent of an associates degree in 1810 would have been quite an accomplishment. Today, it might be the difference between upper lower class and lower middle class.
An explosion of post high school opportunities simply means that more education has become a 'requirement' for gainful employment. A few hundred years ago, an illiterate farmer could be 'middle class'. Fifty years ago, you would need at least a high school diploma. Now, some college level education is all but required.
So, yes, you could argue that it is much easier to access a college education now than it was 50 years ago. But, that is comparing apples to oranges. A more appropriate comparison would be between a high school education 50 years ago and a college education today. After all, both could get you to the 'median income'.
Another flaw comes in attempting to compare selectivity of colleges over a large time frame. A large University may have been a small junior college 50 years ago. Is there any relevance in comparing admissions across two totally different institutions?
Today, the most selective colleges tend to produce the highest paid and most influential graduates. The increasing selectivity is thus a significant concern. Arbitrary decisions by an admissions office could have significant impact on students' futures. Looking at overall access to education is of little use without looking at the value of this education.
Stanford Daily Article:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1037005
Friday, November 07, 2008
Why are college coaches paid so much?
A recent article about Mike Leach and Texas Tech. People are concerned he will leave for greener pastures because he has only 1 year left on his contract at $1.75 million. I'm sure there is a natural impulse for everyone to seek more money when possible. But, really, what can you do with all that money in Lubbock, Texas? There is a limit to how much home you can buy. Looking around zillow, the most expensive place I could find was just under a million dollars. You could easily buy that in cash, with one-years after-tax salary - and still have enough money to live on comfortably. Sure a coach's job may be in jeopardy. But, I'm sure many workers would love to have a 5 year guaranteed job, with a $500,000 severance package.
With bankers in New York, at least there are plenty of amenities to suck money away (uber-expensive real estate, posh private schools, exclusive clubs, charities, and more.) But in Lubbock? Or College Station? or Bloomington? There are just so many cars, electronics and whatnot you can buy before you make a total fool of yourself. Maybe a few vacation condos? Again, its probably not near enough to hang with the super rich, but way to much for anyone in a college town. (Don't confuse Manhattan, Kansas with Manhattan, New York.) The college coach is often the most famous person in town. I guess it just seems logical to make sure his paw dwarfs everyone else.
Stanford, is, ironically, one of the few schools that could justify a large salary. After all, the low-end in Palo Alto exceeds the high end in most any place else. Just to provide a comparable standard of living, Stanford would have to pony up a lot. Only they don't do it, and tend to be in the low end of the salary range. And even with the large pay, they would still play second fiddle to many other big name CEOs, sports stars and other celebrities. I guess having the "farm" in a city does have its benefits.
With bankers in New York, at least there are plenty of amenities to suck money away (uber-expensive real estate, posh private schools, exclusive clubs, charities, and more.) But in Lubbock? Or College Station? or Bloomington? There are just so many cars, electronics and whatnot you can buy before you make a total fool of yourself. Maybe a few vacation condos? Again, its probably not near enough to hang with the super rich, but way to much for anyone in a college town. (Don't confuse Manhattan, Kansas with Manhattan, New York.) The college coach is often the most famous person in town. I guess it just seems logical to make sure his paw dwarfs everyone else.
Stanford, is, ironically, one of the few schools that could justify a large salary. After all, the low-end in Palo Alto exceeds the high end in most any place else. Just to provide a comparable standard of living, Stanford would have to pony up a lot. Only they don't do it, and tend to be in the low end of the salary range. And even with the large pay, they would still play second fiddle to many other big name CEOs, sports stars and other celebrities. I guess having the "farm" in a city does have its benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)