After hearing Paramore's "Decode" on an internet radio station, I decided I'd like to see Twilight. The song was really good, and even a bad movie with a good soundtrack can be worth it. (And it helped that my wife really loved the book and was eager to see it.) It turns out the movie was played as the second song in the closing credits - but we sat through the very end. The movie was ok. Things seemed a little disjointed, and the Edward's character did not seem all that interesting. (Though Bella seemed to be pretty good.) There also seemed to be a lot of holes in the 'Vampire-lore' that was spun around the story. My wife told me that the book was better and would fill in a lot of the wholes.
So, I went ot the library to get the book.
Only, they didn't have any copies in stock, and had a gazillion holds on every copy that was checked out. But, they did have a Spanish copy in stock. It had been a while since I read a Spanish book, but I figured a teenage fiction book wouldn't be too hard. (And it helped that I had already seen the movie!) It was actually a pretty easy read. I had to grab the dictionary for a few words. (And then it seemed those words were used over and over again.)
After reading the book, it seems that both leads were horribly miscast. In the movie, Bella was way too cute, and Edward was not nearly cute enough.
The script, however, seemed to do a good job of distilling the essence of the book in two hours. It somehow managed to also include just about all the key scenes from the book. (Though this probably led to the jumpiness in the movie - if you don't pay attention to minute details, you wont catch what's happening unless you have read the book.)
The book itself, I found somewhat tedious. It seemed to be overly repetitive. (Not necessarily in plot, but in the the way that things were explained.)
The vampire lore and the characters of Carlisle and Alice seemed to have a lot of potential to be explored in greater detail. Even more history of Edward could have really helped add to the book.
Monday, December 22, 2008
College football: Pac-10 vs Mountain West
The Mountain West was 6-1 versus the Pac-10 during the regular season. Add in the bowl games, and it comes to a still respectable 6-2. Is the MWC really that much better than Pac-10? Well, probably not. Half of the wins were top teams in the MWC defeating bottom-feeders in the Pac-10. If we exclude those, and include just the teams in similar positions in the standings, it looks much closer. In a battle of 6th place teams, the MWC's UNLV edged the Pac-10s ASU. Arizona (#5 in Pac-10) came out even, beating MWC #3 BYU, and losing to MWC #7 New Mexico. Then it comes down to the two remaining games - #1 Utah over #3 Oregon State and #4 Cal over #5 Colorado State. In both cases, the higher ranked team won. However, Cal's victory was a blowout, while Utah squeaked out a last second win over OSU. In the end, head to head competition looks pretty much even.
*(1) Utah > (3) Oregon State
(3) BYU > (8) UCLA
(3) BYU > (10) Washington
*(5) Arizona > (3) BYU
*(6) UNLV > (6) Arizona State
*(7) New Mexico > (5) Arizona
(2) TCU > (7) Stanford
*(4) Cal > (5) Colorado State
Comparing the teams by conference standings yields similar results:
(1) usc > utah
USC has done great in big games, but let its guard down a bit in the 'easy ones'. Utah has managed to pull off some 'last minute miracles' against the two best teams it has played. If they played in Salt Lake, Utah would have a chance. Otherwise, it would likely be a USC blowout.
(2) oregon < tcu
Both teams have two losses to to 10 BCS teams. Oregon also has a loss to Cal.
(3) oregon state = byu
At the start of the season, BYU had a clear edge. During the late middle season, the edge was OSU. At the end, they both came off bad rivalry loses. Both lost at Utah, though Oregon State was closer. Both blew out UCLA, though BYU had a wider margin.
(4) Cal > Air Force
Tough one to call. Both have only lost to teams with winning records. Both are 8-4. However, Cal beat Colorado State by wider margin. Cal also had a good win over Oregon, while Air Force's best win was against Houston.
(5) Arizona = Colorado State
Another tough one to call. Both had some bad losses, but have been finishing strong with a bowl wins over higher rated opponents (both of which had BCS aspirations at the season's start.) Colorado State handily beat New Mexico, got blown out by Cal, and narrowly lost to BYU. Arizona lost to New Mexico, got beat handily by Cal and beat BYU.
(6) Arizona State < UNLV
UNLV beat ASU in the regular season
(7) Stanford > New Mexico
Both had some good wins and some bad losses. Head to head, Stanford lost badly to TCU, and narrowly beat Arizona. New Mexico beat Arizona by a decent margin, and lost badly to TCU. Stanford did have a nice win versus Oregon State, so that gives them the edge.
(8) UCLA = Wyoming
Both beat Tennessee. When UCLA won at the start of a season, it was a sign of how good UCLA was. When Wyoming did at the end, it was a sign of how bad Tennessee was. Both were also shut out by BYU. Neither beat a 1A team with a winning record.
(9) Washington State < San Diego State
Washington State's victories were against winless Washington and a IAA team with a losing record (Portland State). San Diego State actually showed some signs of life at the end of the season by beating UNLV (and keeping them out of a bowl). Their other victory was against a 2 win Idaho team.
(10) Washington < Nobody
Washington is so bad, the Mountain West gets credit by not having a 10th team.
Pac10 3
MWC 4
Draw 3
By both measures, the MWC is slightly better than the Pac-10, though it comes down mostly to the Pac-10 having some really pathetic teams in Washington.
*(1) Utah > (3) Oregon State
(3) BYU > (8) UCLA
(3) BYU > (10) Washington
*(5) Arizona > (3) BYU
*(6) UNLV > (6) Arizona State
*(7) New Mexico > (5) Arizona
(2) TCU > (7) Stanford
*(4) Cal > (5) Colorado State
Comparing the teams by conference standings yields similar results:
(1) usc > utah
USC has done great in big games, but let its guard down a bit in the 'easy ones'. Utah has managed to pull off some 'last minute miracles' against the two best teams it has played. If they played in Salt Lake, Utah would have a chance. Otherwise, it would likely be a USC blowout.
(2) oregon < tcu
Both teams have two losses to to 10 BCS teams. Oregon also has a loss to Cal.
(3) oregon state = byu
At the start of the season, BYU had a clear edge. During the late middle season, the edge was OSU. At the end, they both came off bad rivalry loses. Both lost at Utah, though Oregon State was closer. Both blew out UCLA, though BYU had a wider margin.
(4) Cal > Air Force
Tough one to call. Both have only lost to teams with winning records. Both are 8-4. However, Cal beat Colorado State by wider margin. Cal also had a good win over Oregon, while Air Force's best win was against Houston.
(5) Arizona = Colorado State
Another tough one to call. Both had some bad losses, but have been finishing strong with a bowl wins over higher rated opponents (both of which had BCS aspirations at the season's start.) Colorado State handily beat New Mexico, got blown out by Cal, and narrowly lost to BYU. Arizona lost to New Mexico, got beat handily by Cal and beat BYU.
(6) Arizona State < UNLV
UNLV beat ASU in the regular season
(7) Stanford > New Mexico
Both had some good wins and some bad losses. Head to head, Stanford lost badly to TCU, and narrowly beat Arizona. New Mexico beat Arizona by a decent margin, and lost badly to TCU. Stanford did have a nice win versus Oregon State, so that gives them the edge.
(8) UCLA = Wyoming
Both beat Tennessee. When UCLA won at the start of a season, it was a sign of how good UCLA was. When Wyoming did at the end, it was a sign of how bad Tennessee was. Both were also shut out by BYU. Neither beat a 1A team with a winning record.
(9) Washington State < San Diego State
Washington State's victories were against winless Washington and a IAA team with a losing record (Portland State). San Diego State actually showed some signs of life at the end of the season by beating UNLV (and keeping them out of a bowl). Their other victory was against a 2 win Idaho team.
(10) Washington < Nobody
Washington is so bad, the Mountain West gets credit by not having a 10th team.
Pac10 3
MWC 4
Draw 3
By both measures, the MWC is slightly better than the Pac-10, though it comes down mostly to the Pac-10 having some really pathetic teams in Washington.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Drive through transit
Stanford University offers free Caltrain GO passes and VTA ecopasses to all its employees. The audience for these passes would seem to be employees who take transit to work, and then rely on the free Stanford shuttles and walking to get around campus. However, to get the passes, one has to go to the parking office. Hmm...
And to make things worse, the parking office is on the edge of campus, next to, well you guessed it, a big parking lot.
The campus shuttles don't stop near the parking office, though they do stop only a couple of blocks away. However, there is no crosswalk or sidewalk connecting the route from the bus stop to the parking office. I guess you can just chalk it up to another half-hearted effort to accommodate transit without hurting cars.
And to make things worse, the parking office is on the edge of campus, next to, well you guessed it, a big parking lot.
The campus shuttles don't stop near the parking office, though they do stop only a couple of blocks away. However, there is no crosswalk or sidewalk connecting the route from the bus stop to the parking office. I guess you can just chalk it up to another half-hearted effort to accommodate transit without hurting cars.
It's all about when you lose
One thing clear from the final BCS ratings: if you are going to lose, lose early, and do it before your big win. The Big-12 is a great example. Oklahoma was the first of the top-3 to lose. They followed it up with their 'signature' wins over Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Missouri, and are now ranked #1. Texas had great wins over Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas. However, they were all before they lost to Texas Tech. After losing to Tech, their best win was over 7-5 Kansas. That puts them at #3. Unfortunate Tech lost to Oklahoma near the end of the season. They had no signature win after that (beating only lowly Baylor). That leaves them at #7. USC had a signature win over Ohio State early in the season, before their Oregon State loss. Afterward, they proceeded to blow out most of their remaining opponents, including #17 Oregon. Florida, however, had the benefit of having their big games after the Mississippi loss. Their signature win came at the end of the season. Thus, they are playing in the championship game.
Alabama, TCU, and Oklahoma State show there is one exception: it is ok to lose after your signature win as long as the team is ranked above you. TCU is a nice example. Their Oklahoma loss dropped them from the rankings. Then their BYU victory propelled them back up. The loss to Utah had them fall a little - though they seemed to recover most of the fall.
Alabama, TCU, and Oklahoma State show there is one exception: it is ok to lose after your signature win as long as the team is ranked above you. TCU is a nice example. Their Oklahoma loss dropped them from the rankings. Then their BYU victory propelled them back up. The loss to Utah had them fall a little - though they seemed to recover most of the fall.
1. Oklahoma 12-1
L: #3 Texas
W: #7 Texas Tech
#13 Oklahoma State
#21 Missouri
2. Florida 12-1
L: #25 Mississippi
W: #15 Georgia
#4 Alabama
#26 Florida State
3. Texas 11-1
L: #7 Texas Tech
W: 7-5 Kansas
4. Alabama 12-1
L: #2 Florida
5. USC 11-1
L: #27 Oregon State
W: #17 Oregon
6. Utah 12-0
W: #11 TCU
#16 BYU
#27 Oregon State
7. Texas Tech 11-1
L: #1 Oklahoma
8. Penn State 11-1
L: 8-4 Iowa
W: #18 Michigan State
9. Boise State 12-0
W: #17 Oregon
10. Ohio State 10-2
L: #8 Penn State
W: #23 Northwestern
11. TCU 10-2
L: #6 Utah
W: 8-4 Air Force
12. Cincinnati 11-2
L: 7-5 Connecticut
W: #20 Pittsburgh
13. Oklahoma State 9-3
L #3 Oklahoma
14. Georgia Tech 9-3
L: 8-4 North Carolina
W: #15 Georgia
Monday, December 08, 2008
How close did the BCS get
The final BCS rankings are out. How close did they get to choosing the best teams? And who got left out?
The table below shows how the top 27 BCS teams did against other teams in the BCS rankings. (#26 Florida State and #27 Oregon State since they showed up frequently and seemed to be before a big drop off in points.) Only wins against the top 27 are counted, while all losses are shown. The other loses of ranked teams are also shown.
If a team lost to a lower ranked team, they were docked their highest ranked win (x). Extra credit is given for nonconference wins (*). If a team lost to more teams than it has good wins, then it gets multiple x's. Teams playing in BCS bowls are marked with (+).
Oklahoma looks like a clear bet as the best team. Even after docking their best win (due to the Texas loss), they still have 4 wins over top 27 teams, including two wins over non-conference teams. There are five teams with 2 non-docked wins. Texas Tech beat the best teams. Even if they were to move up to 2nd, they could still keep both wins. However, moved there, Texas wouldn't be penalized for the loss, and would move ahead. A solution would be to take next-in line Utah. They are also have the highest quality wins that include a non-conference opponent. Florida does have a quality nonconference win, but they don't appear until after Utah. Statistically, Oklahoma vs. Utah would be the best championship game. However, Oklahoma vs. Florida is not too far off.
As for BCS bowl participants, having 6 games would make things clearer. There seems to be a pretty clear separation between the top 12 and the remainder. Since there are only 10 teams, the simple formula is to take all schools, order them by number of non-docked wins. In each group, order those with non-conference wins first, then in each subgroup, order the teams by highest ranked wins. If a reordering would cause a team to drop, then we go back to the BCS rating. (In this case, Texas is before Texas Tech - if Texas Tech were moved ahead, Texas would no longer be docked for its Texas Tech loss, and would thus moved ahead, which would cause it to be docked again... Similarly, Ohio State would move in to the 'two win' category, ahead of USC. However, by doing so, it would be docked its best win, and USC would get a good non-conference win, and move ahead.) The teams that got 'shortchanged' from the BCS were all non-traditional powers: Boise State, TCU and Texas Tech. The 'rules' give the spots to less deserving conference champions (Cincy and Virginia Tech) while excluding Texas Tech. Pure politics denied TCU and Boise State the spot going to Ohio State.
Complete details
The table below shows how the top 27 BCS teams did against other teams in the BCS rankings. (#26 Florida State and #27 Oregon State since they showed up frequently and seemed to be before a big drop off in points.) Only wins against the top 27 are counted, while all losses are shown. The other loses of ranked teams are also shown.
If a team lost to a lower ranked team, they were docked their highest ranked win (x). Extra credit is given for nonconference wins (*). If a team lost to more teams than it has good wins, then it gets multiple x's. Teams playing in BCS bowls are marked with (+).
Oklahoma looks like a clear bet as the best team. Even after docking their best win (due to the Texas loss), they still have 4 wins over top 27 teams, including two wins over non-conference teams. There are five teams with 2 non-docked wins. Texas Tech beat the best teams. Even if they were to move up to 2nd, they could still keep both wins. However, moved there, Texas wouldn't be penalized for the loss, and would move ahead. A solution would be to take next-in line Utah. They are also have the highest quality wins that include a non-conference opponent. Florida does have a quality nonconference win, but they don't appear until after Utah. Statistically, Oklahoma vs. Utah would be the best championship game. However, Oklahoma vs. Florida is not too far off.
As for BCS bowl participants, having 6 games would make things clearer. There seems to be a pretty clear separation between the top 12 and the remainder. Since there are only 10 teams, the simple formula is to take all schools, order them by number of non-docked wins. In each group, order those with non-conference wins first, then in each subgroup, order the teams by highest ranked wins. If a reordering would cause a team to drop, then we go back to the BCS rating. (In this case, Texas is before Texas Tech - if Texas Tech were moved ahead, Texas would no longer be docked for its Texas Tech loss, and would thus moved ahead, which would cause it to be docked again... Similarly, Ohio State would move in to the 'two win' category, ahead of USC. However, by doing so, it would be docked its best win, and USC would get a good non-conference win, and move ahead.) The teams that got 'shortchanged' from the BCS were all non-traditional powers: Boise State, TCU and Texas Tech. The 'rules' give the spots to less deserving conference champions (Cincy and Virginia Tech) while excluding Texas Tech. Pure politics denied TCU and Boise State the spot going to Ohio State.
Team Rank of 'undocked' victories
------------- ----------------------------
+Oklahoma: *11,*12, 13, 21
+Utah: 11,*27
+Florida: 15,*26
+Penn State: 18,*27
+Texas: 13, 21
Texas Tech: 3, 13
Boise State: *17
+Alabama: 15
TCU: 16
+USC: 17
-------------------------------
+Ohio State: 18, 23
Oklahoma State: 21
+Cincinnati:
Georgia Tech:
Georgia:
BYU:
Oregon:
Michigan State:
+Virginia Tech: xx
Pittsburgh: xx
Missouri: x
Ball State: x
Northwestern: x
Boston College:
Mississippi: xx
Florida State:
Oregon State:
Complete details
1. Oklahoma
W: x#7 Texas Tech
*#11 TCU (other loss to #6 Utah)
*#12 Cincinnati (other loss to 7-5 Conecticut)
#13 Oklahoma State (Other losses to #3, #7)
#21 Missouri (others, #3, #13, 7-5 Kansas)
L: #3 Texas
2. Florida
W: x#4 Alabama
#15 Georgia (other losses: #14 Georgia Tech, #4 Alabama)
*#26 Florida State (7-5 Wake Forest, #24 Boston College, #14 Georgia Tech)
L: #25 Mississippi
3. Texas
W: x#1 Oklahoma
#13 Oklahoma State (#1, #7)
#21 Missouri (#3, #13, 7-5)
L: #7 Texas Tech
4. Alabama
W: x#15 Georgia (#2, #14)
L: #2 Florida
5. USC
W: x*#10 Ohio State (#8 Penn State)
#17 Oregon (#9 Boise State, 8-4 California)
L: #27 Oregon State (#6 Utah, #8 Penn State, 5-7 Stanford)
6. Utah
W: #11 TCU (#1 Oklahoma)
#16 BYU (#11 TCU)
*#27 Oregon State (#5, #8, 5-7 Stanford)
7. Texas Tech
W: #3 Texas
#13 Oklahoma State (#1, #3)
L: #1 Oklahoma
8. Penn State
W: x#10 Ohio State (#5 USC)
#18 Michigan State (#10 Ohio State, 8-4 California)
*#27 Oregon State (#5,#6, 5-7 Stanford)
L: 8-4 Iowa
9. Boise State
W: *#17 Oregon (#5, 8-4 California)
10. Ohio State
W: #18 Michigan State (#8, 8-4 California)
#23 Northwestern (#18, 3-9 Indiana)
L: #8 Penn State
#5 USC
11. TCU
W: #16 BYU (#6 Utah)
L: #1 Oklahoma
#6 Utah
12. Cincinnati
W: x#20 Pittsburgh (7-5 Rutgers, 6-6 Bowling Green)
L: #1 Oklahoma
7-5 Connecticut
13. Oklahoma State
W: #21 Missouri (#1, #3, 7-5)
L: #1 Oklahoma
#3 Texas
#7 Texas Tech
14. Georgia Tech
W: x#15 Georgia
x#24 Boston College
x#26 Florida State
L: #19 Virginia Tech
5-7 Virginia
8-4 North Carolina (#28)
15. Georgia
W:
L: #2 Florida
#4 Alabama
#14 Georgia Tech
16. BYU
L: #6 Utah
#11 TCU
17. Oregon
W: x#27 Oregon State
L: #5 USC
#9 Boise State
8-4 California
18. Michigan State
W: x#23 Northwestern
L: #8 Penn State
#10 Ohio State
8-4 California
19. Virginia Tech
W: x#24 Boston College
x#14 Georgia Tech
xx
L: #26 Florida State
9-4 East Carolina
#24 Boston College
7-5 Miami
20. Pittsburgh
W: xx
L: 7-5 Rutgers
6-6 Bowling Green
#12 Cincinatti
21. Missouri
W: x
L: #1 Oklahoma
#3 Texas
#13 Oklahoma State
7-5 Kansas
22. Ball State
W: x
L: 8-5 Buffalo
23. Northwestern
W: x
L: #18 Michigan State
#10 Ohio State
3-9 Indiana
24. Boston College
W: x#19 Georgia Tech
x#26 Florida State
L: #14 Georgia Tech
#19 Virginia Tech
7-5 Clemson
8-4 North Carolina
25. Mississippi
W: x#2 Florida
xx
L: 6-6 Vanderbilt
7-5 Wake Forest
#4 Alabama
7-5 South Carolina
26. Florida State
W: x#19 Virginia Tech
L: #2 Florida
#14 Georgia Tech
#24 Boston College
7-5 Wake Forest
27. Oregon State
W: x#5 USC
L: #8 Penn State
#6 Utah
#17 Oregon
7-5 Stanford
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Is the internet making us dumb?
I stumbled across this article in the Atlantic monthly (ironically, while googling something totally different.) The author notes that the ability of so much data online allows us to get information quickly, greatly reducing what were once long hours in the library. However, in the process, we have lost some of the ability to concentrate in deep thoughts and long text.
It was funny, that I even found the article itself to be much longer than a typical internet read. It sounds like he is right on. Google is in fact making us stupid - while at the same time augmenting our intelligence in other areas, just as writing and publishing have done earlier.
The scariest part about this is the strong interdependence. With more and more dependent on the net, we find it difficult to function without it. I've seen an office pretty much shut down when the internet connection goes down. What work can you do without the net? I remember 10 years ago finding it a real challenge to work when the company had blocked outgoing internet connections. And that was back when offices were not nearly so net-dependent. Attempts to serve as a company gatekeepers can be a challenge both to productivity and morale. But, the lack of connectivity can be devastating. And even more worrisome is the central 'google' gatekeeper. It seems search results have been getting worse - probably as a result of more junk out there. But other times, the junk filtering eliminates the valuable results that you are in fact looking for. Will we one day have a great index tied in to our brains? By that time the computers may just decide they've had enough of this 'slavery'...
It was funny, that I even found the article itself to be much longer than a typical internet read. It sounds like he is right on. Google is in fact making us stupid - while at the same time augmenting our intelligence in other areas, just as writing and publishing have done earlier.
The scariest part about this is the strong interdependence. With more and more dependent on the net, we find it difficult to function without it. I've seen an office pretty much shut down when the internet connection goes down. What work can you do without the net? I remember 10 years ago finding it a real challenge to work when the company had blocked outgoing internet connections. And that was back when offices were not nearly so net-dependent. Attempts to serve as a company gatekeepers can be a challenge both to productivity and morale. But, the lack of connectivity can be devastating. And even more worrisome is the central 'google' gatekeeper. It seems search results have been getting worse - probably as a result of more junk out there. But other times, the junk filtering eliminates the valuable results that you are in fact looking for. Will we one day have a great index tied in to our brains? By that time the computers may just decide they've had enough of this 'slavery'...
Monday, December 01, 2008
BCS rankings, November 30, 2008
The new BCS rankings were released today. This is the second poll to include the US News rankings. At the top, Texas and USC seem to be marching towards the championship game. Only a disaster against UCLA or a huge jump by Florida could keep USC out.
For at large teams, the loser of the SEC championship game should be a fairly sure bet, as should Oklahoma. The last spot could be more interesting. For the last spot, Ohio State, Boise State, Georgia Tech, TCU, Ball State and Boston College are all eligible for at-large selection. Boston College is probably out of the mix - if they win the ACC championship, they'll be in, while if they lose, they'll likely fall out of the at large range. Georgia Tech is a possibility. However two of their 9 wins came against IAA teams. Would this even count? This leaves 3 non-BCS teams and Ohio State. OSU is slightly ahead of BSU (do primarily to higher US News score), and thus should get the bid.
Last week's ranking
For at large teams, the loser of the SEC championship game should be a fairly sure bet, as should Oklahoma. The last spot could be more interesting. For the last spot, Ohio State, Boise State, Georgia Tech, TCU, Ball State and Boston College are all eligible for at-large selection. Boston College is probably out of the mix - if they win the ACC championship, they'll be in, while if they lose, they'll likely fall out of the at large range. Georgia Tech is a possibility. However two of their 9 wins came against IAA teams. Would this even count? This leaves 3 non-BCS teams and Ohio State. OSU is slightly ahead of BSU (do primarily to higher US News score), and thus should get the bid.
Last week's ranking
| Rank | Team | Harris | US News | Computer | BCS Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas | 0.9115 | 0.2885 | 0.9400 | 0.7133 |
| 2 | USC | 0.8418 | 0.5577 | 0.7300 | 0.7098 |
| 3 | Florida | 0.9271 | 0.2692 | 0.8200 | 0.6721 |
| 4 | Alabama | 0.9965 | 0.0000 | 0.9200 | 0.6388 |
| 5 | Oklahoma | 0.9094 | 0.0000 | 0.9800 | 0.6298 |
| 6 | Penn State | 0.7706 | 0.2885 | 0.6700 | 0.5764 |
| 7 | Texas Tech | 0.7398 | 0.0000 | 0.8700 | 0.5366 |
| 8 | Utah | 0.7473 | 0.0000 | 0.8500 | 0.5324 |
| 9 | Ohio State | 0.6570 | 0.1923 | 0.5900 | 0.4798 |
| 10 | Boise State | 0.6857 | 0.0000 | 0.7400 | 0.4752 |
| 11 | Georgia Tech | 0.3770 | 0.3846 | 0.4500 | 0.4039 |
| 12 | TCU | 0.5317 | 0.0000 | 0.6100 | 0.3806 |
| 13 | Ball State | 0.5402 | 0.0000 | 0.5500 | 0.3634 |
| 14 | Boston College | 0.2952 | 0.4038 | 0.3800 | 0.3597 |
| 15 | Northwestern | 0.1465 | 0.8654 | 0.0000 | 0.3373 |
| 16 | Stanford | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.3333 |
| 17 | Cincinnati | 0.5044 | 0.0000 | 0.4400 | 0.3148 |
| 18 | Duke | 0.0000 | 0.9231 | 0.0000 | 0.3077 |
| 19 | Georgia | 0.2949 | 0.1731 | 0.4100 | 0.2927 |
| 20 | Rice | 0.0042 | 0.7308 | 0.0000 | 0.2450 |
| 21 | Vanderbilt | 0.0000 | 0.7115 | 0.0000 | 0.2372 |
| 21 | Notre Dame | 0.0000 | 0.7115 | 0.0000 | 0.2372 |
| 23 | California | 0.0064 | 0.6731 | 0.0000 | 0.2265 |
| 24 | BYU | 0.3504 | 0.0000 | 0.2900 | 0.2135 |
| 25 | Virginia | 0.0000 | 0.6154 | 0.0000 | 0.2051 |
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Who should play in BCS bowl games?
Assuming that USC beats UCLA and Oklahoma beats Missouri, the pool of possible at-large teams will include the loser of the Florida-Alabama game, Ohio State, TCU, Ball State, Boise State, Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. With the Big 6 conference champions and Utah filling 7 spots, that leaves 3 at large spots. If USC loses to UCLA, they will likely fall out of at-large consideration. If Missouri wins, Texas will likely jump to one of the top 2 spots, making no other big-12 team eligible for the BCS. (and leaving 2 remaining at-large spots)
Who should fill the final spot? One simple metric is to look at the quality of teams they have beating (as well as the ones they have lost to.) Simply looking at bowl eligible teams, Boise State has beating 8 teams that can go to the post season, and has no loses. Florida has also beaten 8, but would have two loses (1 to an unranked Mississippi, and another if it loses the SEC title game.) If Alabama loses the SEC title game, they would be next in line with 6 wins (and a loss to a top 4 team). Texas would be next with 6 wins, and a loss to a top 7 team. That would take care of the three at-large picks. (Boise State, the SEC loser and Texas)
Of course, looking at most predictions, it looks like Ohio State is likely to grab the spot from Boise State. After all, its all about money, rather than performance. One way to twist it around would be to give the top 12 teams 50% of BCS payout, and then give the other 50% to the actual participants. At least it would equalize the money, and those that don't play in the game could still earn a nice paycheck.
Another interesting note: if Florida beats Alabama, none of the possible at-large teams will have any loses to teams outside the BCS top 10. On the other hand, all of the conference champions (except Oklahoma) would have loses to teams outside the BCS top 10. Do we really want to keep the automatic conference champion qualification?
Quality wins of at large teams:
Boise State: 8 bowl eligible
Oregon: 9-3
Hawaii: 7-5
Nevada: 7-5
Louisiana Tech: 7-5
Freson State: 7-5
Bowling Green: 6-6
San Jose State: 6-6
Southern Miss: 6-6
Florida: 8 bowl eligible (loss: unranked)
Georgia: 9-3
Florida State: 8-4
Hawaii: 7-5
Miami: 7-5
LSU: 7-5
South Carolina: 7-5
Kentucky: 6-6
Vanderbilt: 6-6
Tennessee: 5-7
Arkansas: 5-7
Alabama: 6 bowl elgible
Georgia: 9-3
Mississippi: 8-4
Clemson: 7-5
LSU: 7-5
Kentucky: 6-6
Arkansas State: 6-5
Arkansas: 5-7
Tennessee: 5-7
Auburn: 5-7
Texas: 6 bowl eligible (loss: #7)
Oklahoma: 11-1
Missouri: 9-3
Oklahoma State: 9-3
Rice: 9-3
Kansas: 7-5
Florida Atlantic: 6-6
UTEP: 5-7
Arkansas: 5-7
Colorado: 5-7
Texas Tech: 5 bowl eligible (loss: #2)
Texas: 11-1
Oklahoma State: 9-3
Nebraska: 8-4
Kansas: 7-5
Nevada: 7-5
Kansas State: 5-7
Ball State: 4 bowl eligible
Western Michigan: 9-3
Central Michigan: 8-4
Navy: 7-4
Northern illinois: 6-6
Akron: 5-7
Ohio State: 4 bowl eligible (loses: #5, #8)
Northwestern: 9-3
Troy : 7-4
Minnesota : 7-5
Wisconsin: 7-5
Illinois: 5-7
TCU: 3 bowl eligible (loses: #2, #6)
BYU: 10-2
Air Force: 8-4
Colorado State: 6-6
UNLV: 5-7
Stanford: 5-7
Oklahoma State: 3 bowl eligible (loses: #2, #3, #7)
Houston: 7-5
Troy: 7-4
Missouri: 9-3
Colorado: 5-7
Who should fill the final spot? One simple metric is to look at the quality of teams they have beating (as well as the ones they have lost to.) Simply looking at bowl eligible teams, Boise State has beating 8 teams that can go to the post season, and has no loses. Florida has also beaten 8, but would have two loses (1 to an unranked Mississippi, and another if it loses the SEC title game.) If Alabama loses the SEC title game, they would be next in line with 6 wins (and a loss to a top 4 team). Texas would be next with 6 wins, and a loss to a top 7 team. That would take care of the three at-large picks. (Boise State, the SEC loser and Texas)
Of course, looking at most predictions, it looks like Ohio State is likely to grab the spot from Boise State. After all, its all about money, rather than performance. One way to twist it around would be to give the top 12 teams 50% of BCS payout, and then give the other 50% to the actual participants. At least it would equalize the money, and those that don't play in the game could still earn a nice paycheck.
Another interesting note: if Florida beats Alabama, none of the possible at-large teams will have any loses to teams outside the BCS top 10. On the other hand, all of the conference champions (except Oklahoma) would have loses to teams outside the BCS top 10. Do we really want to keep the automatic conference champion qualification?
Quality wins of at large teams:
Boise State: 8 bowl eligible
Oregon: 9-3
Hawaii: 7-5
Nevada: 7-5
Louisiana Tech: 7-5
Freson State: 7-5
Bowling Green: 6-6
San Jose State: 6-6
Southern Miss: 6-6
Florida: 8 bowl eligible (loss: unranked)
Georgia: 9-3
Florida State: 8-4
Hawaii: 7-5
Miami: 7-5
LSU: 7-5
South Carolina: 7-5
Kentucky: 6-6
Vanderbilt: 6-6
Tennessee: 5-7
Arkansas: 5-7
Alabama: 6 bowl elgible
Georgia: 9-3
Mississippi: 8-4
Clemson: 7-5
LSU: 7-5
Kentucky: 6-6
Arkansas State: 6-5
Arkansas: 5-7
Tennessee: 5-7
Auburn: 5-7
Texas: 6 bowl eligible (loss: #7)
Oklahoma: 11-1
Missouri: 9-3
Oklahoma State: 9-3
Rice: 9-3
Kansas: 7-5
Florida Atlantic: 6-6
UTEP: 5-7
Arkansas: 5-7
Colorado: 5-7
Texas Tech: 5 bowl eligible (loss: #2)
Texas: 11-1
Oklahoma State: 9-3
Nebraska: 8-4
Kansas: 7-5
Nevada: 7-5
Kansas State: 5-7
Ball State: 4 bowl eligible
Western Michigan: 9-3
Central Michigan: 8-4
Navy: 7-4
Northern illinois: 6-6
Akron: 5-7
Ohio State: 4 bowl eligible (loses: #5, #8)
Northwestern: 9-3
Troy : 7-4
Minnesota : 7-5
Wisconsin: 7-5
Illinois: 5-7
TCU: 3 bowl eligible (loses: #2, #6)
BYU: 10-2
Air Force: 8-4
Colorado State: 6-6
UNLV: 5-7
Stanford: 5-7
Oklahoma State: 3 bowl eligible (loses: #2, #3, #7)
Houston: 7-5
Troy: 7-4
Missouri: 9-3
Colorado: 5-7
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Interesting maps
A site has a few controversial maps. Redrawing the US map to reduce the number of states and realign the boundaries. It would be interesting to see how things would turn out if something like that happened. Imagine the New York Metro Area being one state, and not having to deal with those 'upstate' folks. Though it may be useful to also divide up California a little more.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Re: Corn consumption
Americans eat a whole lot of corn. Don't you love government subsidies?
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/05/food-consumption-around-world.html
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/05/food-consumption-around-world.html
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
New BCS poll released
The new BCS rankings were released today. This is the first poll to include the US News rankings. At the top, Texas has pulled clearly ahead of Oklahoma and will have the inside track to the BCS championship game - if it can get past A&M. USC should have a lock on the BCS championship game unless something disastrous happens against UCLA or Notre Dame. Utah remains in the 8th spot, and should have a lock on the BCS spot for non-"big 6" conferences.
For at large teams, the loser of the SEC championship game should be a fairly sure bet, as should Oklahoma. The final spot will probably go to Ohio State.
For at large teams, the loser of the SEC championship game should be a fairly sure bet, as should Oklahoma. The final spot will probably go to Ohio State.
| Rank | Team | Harris | US News | Computer | BCS Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas | 0.9042 | 0.2885 | 0.9600 | 0.7176 |
| 2 | USC | 0.8375 | 0.5577 | 0.7100 | 0.7017 |
| 3 | Florida | 0.9277 | 0.2692 | 0.7800 | 0.6590 |
| 4 | Alabama | 0.9961 | 0.0000 | 0.9700 | 0.6554 |
| 5 | Oklahoma | 0.9116 | 0.0000 | 0.9000 | 0.6039 |
| 6 | Penn State | 0.7674 | 0.2885 | 0.7300 | 0.5953 |
| 7 | Texas Tech | 0.7432 | 0.0000 | 0.8900 | 0.5444 |
| 8 | Utah | 0.7414 | 0.0000 | 0.8600 | 0.5338 |
| 9 | Georgia | 0.5639 | 0.1731 | 0.6900 | 0.4757 |
| 10 | Ohio State | 0.6411 | 0.1923 | 0.5700 | 0.4678 |
| 11 | Boise State | 0.6670 | 0.0000 | 0.6300 | 0.4323 |
| 12 | Oklahoma State | 0.5688 | 0.0000 | 0.5800 | 0.3829 |
| 13 | Missouri | 0.5691 | 0.0000 | 0.5200 | 0.3630 |
| 14 | Northwestern | 0.1158 | 0.8654 | 0.0200 | 0.3337 |
| 15 | Stanford | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.3333 |
| 16 | TCU | 0.4449 | 0.0000 | 0.5100 | 0.3183 |
| 17 | Duke | 0.0000 | 0.9231 | 0.0000 | 0.3077 |
| 18 | Ball State | 0.4723 | 0.0000 | 0.4000 | 0.2908 |
| 19 | Cincinnati | 0.3863 | 0.0000 | 0.4300 | 0.2721 |
| 20 | Boston College | 0.1884 | 0.4038 | 0.1800 | 0.2574 |
| 21 | Georgia Tech | 0.1456 | 0.3846 | 0.2400 | 0.2567 |
| 22 | Rice | 0.0004 | 0.7308 | 0.0000 | 0.2437 |
| 23 | Vanderbilt | 0.0000 | 0.7115 | 0.0000 | 0.2372 |
| 23 | Notre Dame | 0.0000 | 0.7115 | 0.0000 | 0.2372 |
| 25 | California | 0.0158 | 0.6731 | 0.0000 | 0.2296 |
Monday, November 24, 2008
BCS changes selection criteria
American Football Coaches Association President Tyrone Willingham announced that, effective immediately, the coaches will not permit their poll to be used in the BCS selection procedure. AFCA executive director Grant Teaff indicated that it was "a violation of coaching ethics to allow the coaches to have such a key roll in the BCS championship process. It is unfair to allow certain coaches, with their vote to determine who their opponents will be, and whether they can play in the championship game. We have seen things reach a crisis situation this year with the Big-12 championship being decided by the BCS ranking. This gives some coaches an unfair advantage in picking their own league championship. We would be better off just using a coin flip."
In response to the situation, BCS coordinator John Swofford announced that the US News and World Report "Best National Colleges and Universities" rankings will be used in place of the coaches rankings. "US News does a good job of ranking our nation's colleges. We think it will be a great opportunity to show that academics really do play an important role in collegiate athletics." These rankings will make up one third of the BCS selection criteria, just as the coaches poll had previously.
Shortly after the change was announced, some conference realignments were announced. Jim Delany announced that "effective in the academic year 2009-2010, University of Chicago will resume playing football in the Big-10. They were one of the charter members of the Big-10's predecessor conference. After they dropped football in the pre-war days, we had lost track of them. We have recently discovered that they had been playing Division III ball. It was just unfair to have them playing at a lower level, so we invited them back to the Big-10"
University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer announced on his web site that the University had received a "significant sum of money" in return for having their football program resume play in the Big-10. "Big-10 commissioner Jim Delany said we would be a shoe-in for an at-large BCS bowl with our high US News Ranking. They offered us an endowed chair in the physics department as well as additional library funding in exchange for allowing the big-10 to share in some of the BCS money."
The Big-12, perhaps in response to the big-10 becoming another "big-12" announced its own expansion. Commissioner Dan Bebee said "we had always wanted Rice to be a member of the Big-12. We just didn't another team in the north division to balance the conference. Now that Washington University in St. Louis has joined the conference, those problems are allayed." He also announced that the conference would be renamed Big-14, because "unlike other conferences, we know how to count."
There have been rumors of further realignment. An Emory University spokesman reported that they had received requests from both the SEC and ACC to join their conferences. However "I will reiterate, that Emory does not have a football program, and has no intention of starting one." Rumor has it that the SEC is still on the lookout for additional member, but is not very hopeful. According to an anonymous source "This brains thing really got us. After all, we're in the southeast, where football is king, and academics, well, they'll take a back seat. We do have Vandy, but after that, there is not a whole lot to pick from. We're thinking of sending a few thugs out to help get people to vote Florida in the top 25."
Not all conferences are thinking expansion. Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen stated that the Pac-10 has no intentions of expanding. "With Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC the Pac-10 already has 4 of the top 5 west coast schools. And Caltech dropped football 15 years ago." The ACC is also content with their standings. "We have Duke and Virginia in the top 25 with USA Today. We figure, every other team has made it in the top-25 of the coaches poll, so this will only further add to the parity of the conference."
Notably silent has been the Big East. According to some anonymous tipsters, they are attempting negotiations to merge with the Ivy league. However, they have had major hangups on how to integrate the non-basketball schools. The Ivy league is also contemplating a switch to the Football Bowl Division on their own. The return of the "Harvard-Yale" national championship games does seem appealing to some. Though others would prefer the Ivy League just remain to itself.
In response to the situation, BCS coordinator John Swofford announced that the US News and World Report "Best National Colleges and Universities" rankings will be used in place of the coaches rankings. "US News does a good job of ranking our nation's colleges. We think it will be a great opportunity to show that academics really do play an important role in collegiate athletics." These rankings will make up one third of the BCS selection criteria, just as the coaches poll had previously.
Shortly after the change was announced, some conference realignments were announced. Jim Delany announced that "effective in the academic year 2009-2010, University of Chicago will resume playing football in the Big-10. They were one of the charter members of the Big-10's predecessor conference. After they dropped football in the pre-war days, we had lost track of them. We have recently discovered that they had been playing Division III ball. It was just unfair to have them playing at a lower level, so we invited them back to the Big-10"
University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer announced on his web site that the University had received a "significant sum of money" in return for having their football program resume play in the Big-10. "Big-10 commissioner Jim Delany said we would be a shoe-in for an at-large BCS bowl with our high US News Ranking. They offered us an endowed chair in the physics department as well as additional library funding in exchange for allowing the big-10 to share in some of the BCS money."
The Big-12, perhaps in response to the big-10 becoming another "big-12" announced its own expansion. Commissioner Dan Bebee said "we had always wanted Rice to be a member of the Big-12. We just didn't another team in the north division to balance the conference. Now that Washington University in St. Louis has joined the conference, those problems are allayed." He also announced that the conference would be renamed Big-14, because "unlike other conferences, we know how to count."
There have been rumors of further realignment. An Emory University spokesman reported that they had received requests from both the SEC and ACC to join their conferences. However "I will reiterate, that Emory does not have a football program, and has no intention of starting one." Rumor has it that the SEC is still on the lookout for additional member, but is not very hopeful. According to an anonymous source "This brains thing really got us. After all, we're in the southeast, where football is king, and academics, well, they'll take a back seat. We do have Vandy, but after that, there is not a whole lot to pick from. We're thinking of sending a few thugs out to help get people to vote Florida in the top 25."
Not all conferences are thinking expansion. Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen stated that the Pac-10 has no intentions of expanding. "With Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC the Pac-10 already has 4 of the top 5 west coast schools. And Caltech dropped football 15 years ago." The ACC is also content with their standings. "We have Duke and Virginia in the top 25 with USA Today. We figure, every other team has made it in the top-25 of the coaches poll, so this will only further add to the parity of the conference."
Notably silent has been the Big East. According to some anonymous tipsters, they are attempting negotiations to merge with the Ivy league. However, they have had major hangups on how to integrate the non-basketball schools. The Ivy league is also contemplating a switch to the Football Bowl Division on their own. The return of the "Harvard-Yale" national championship games does seem appealing to some. Though others would prefer the Ivy League just remain to itself.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Boise State's long odds
Could Boise State still make a BCS bowl? Well, yes they still could. However, at the moment, they would have to be picked over USC and Ohio State for an at-large spot. USC is ranked a few spots higher and would be a really hard sell. If Oregon State loses to Oregon, then USC will take the Pac-10 spot. However, "pedigreed" Ohio State will likely still get it over Boise State. The only way to 'guarantee' a Boise State spot would be for a string of upsets to prevent a second team from any of the major conferences (other than Big-12) from being in the At-large pool. This would require a couple of really bad Florida losses to get them out of the top 14. However, even that is no guarantee for Boise, as it will likely open the possibility for Ball State or TCU to be at-large candidates. (TCU looked quite convincing in its schedule, though 2 losses may be a stretch for the BCS. Ball State may endure Letterman fans.)
Florida State beats Florida
Georgia Tech beats Georgia
Auburn beats Alabama
Alabama beats Florida
Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma
Maryland beats Boston College
Virginia beats Virginia Tech
Florida State beats Georgia Tech
Oregon beats Oregon State
Texas Tech, Texas, USC, Boise State, Missouri, Ball State, Cincinnati win out
1. Texas
2. USC
3. Utah
4. Texas Tech
5. Alabama
6. Penn State
7. Oklahoma
8. Boise State
9. Oklahoma State
10. Ohio State
11. TCU
12. Florida State
13. Ball State
14. Cincinnati
15. Florida
16. Missouri
17. BYU
Texas, USC
Alabama, Penn State, Florida State, Cincinnati
Utah, Texas Tech
Ohio State, Boise State
Florida State beats Florida
Georgia Tech beats Georgia
Auburn beats Alabama
Alabama beats Florida
Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma
Maryland beats Boston College
Virginia beats Virginia Tech
Florida State beats Georgia Tech
Oregon beats Oregon State
Texas Tech, Texas, USC, Boise State, Missouri, Ball State, Cincinnati win out
1. Texas
2. USC
3. Utah
4. Texas Tech
5. Alabama
6. Penn State
7. Oklahoma
8. Boise State
9. Oklahoma State
10. Ohio State
11. TCU
12. Florida State
13. Ball State
14. Cincinnati
15. Florida
16. Missouri
17. BYU
Texas, USC
Alabama, Penn State, Florida State, Cincinnati
Utah, Texas Tech
Ohio State, Boise State
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Microsoft offering free security software
Microsoft will be offering free security software. The stocks of security makers McAfee and Symantec were subsequently hammered, though they tried to spin this as a 'capitulation' on Microsoft's part. They are probably right.
Microsoft security software, will pretty much only set the baseline for hackers to work around. Windows is supposedly 'secure', yet hackers have been finding holes and vulnerabilities for years. An extra layer of Microsoft software will only create another layer to hop through. If it becomes widely used it could make the computing world much less secure. Uniformity and ubiquitousness makes things easier of hackers. Also, if it is 'too secure', it will often be bypassed to enable comfortable computer usage. If it is not secure enough, it will not prevent basic attacks.
The computer world could learn from agriculture. Large monocultures are highly susceptible to pests and diseases. An organism that attacks corn would find a heyday in acres of Iowa corn fields. Some extreme weather can also ruin crops all around. To counter this, large amounts of pesticide and other means are used to help fight the problem. And even these means are limited, as pests can evolve resistance.
On the other end, small scale organic cooperative farms are much less vulnerable, even without pesticide. Should the corn pest be in the vicinity, it may not even make it to the farm's corn crop. And even if it does, it would only impact a small portion of the farm (instead of wiping everything out.)
A computer culture with a diversity of platforms is much less vulnerable to widespread attacks. There are very few reports of Mac or Linux attacks. Are those platforms inherently more secure? Well, they may have some security advantages that make them more challenging to attack. But, a dedicated hacker could overcome them if they really wanted to. There main advantage is lack of monoculture. Linux and MAC platforms make up a much smaller share of the computing ecosystem. And even in that share, there are many different versions of the mac and linux operating systems. It would take a much greater effort to create a virus that could successfully attack these systems. And once created, propagation would be more difficult, because there are so many Windows 'dead ends'. It is much easier to create a bug to attack the dominant monoculture.
In the windows monoculture, a variety of 'pesticides' can help prevent spreading of bugs. If everyone used the same security software, then it would be simple matter of creating 'resistant' bugs that could overcome them. If there are a variety of different security systems, then the bug would have to be able to bypass all of them - a much more difficult task.
Microsoft security software, will pretty much only set the baseline for hackers to work around. Windows is supposedly 'secure', yet hackers have been finding holes and vulnerabilities for years. An extra layer of Microsoft software will only create another layer to hop through. If it becomes widely used it could make the computing world much less secure. Uniformity and ubiquitousness makes things easier of hackers. Also, if it is 'too secure', it will often be bypassed to enable comfortable computer usage. If it is not secure enough, it will not prevent basic attacks.
The computer world could learn from agriculture. Large monocultures are highly susceptible to pests and diseases. An organism that attacks corn would find a heyday in acres of Iowa corn fields. Some extreme weather can also ruin crops all around. To counter this, large amounts of pesticide and other means are used to help fight the problem. And even these means are limited, as pests can evolve resistance.
On the other end, small scale organic cooperative farms are much less vulnerable, even without pesticide. Should the corn pest be in the vicinity, it may not even make it to the farm's corn crop. And even if it does, it would only impact a small portion of the farm (instead of wiping everything out.)
A computer culture with a diversity of platforms is much less vulnerable to widespread attacks. There are very few reports of Mac or Linux attacks. Are those platforms inherently more secure? Well, they may have some security advantages that make them more challenging to attack. But, a dedicated hacker could overcome them if they really wanted to. There main advantage is lack of monoculture. Linux and MAC platforms make up a much smaller share of the computing ecosystem. And even in that share, there are many different versions of the mac and linux operating systems. It would take a much greater effort to create a virus that could successfully attack these systems. And once created, propagation would be more difficult, because there are so many Windows 'dead ends'. It is much easier to create a bug to attack the dominant monoculture.
In the windows monoculture, a variety of 'pesticides' can help prevent spreading of bugs. If everyone used the same security software, then it would be simple matter of creating 'resistant' bugs that could overcome them. If there are a variety of different security systems, then the bug would have to be able to bypass all of them - a much more difficult task.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Three BCS teams from the Big12?
Could the Big-12 land three teams in BCS bowls? From the BCS eligibility criteria, the top 2 teams, and the winners of the Big 6 conferences get automatic bids. The "no more than two teams" rule is not mentioned until the discussion of at-large criteria. How far fetched would it be? Actually, not too far.
Suppose Tech beats Oklahoma and Baylor and goes to the Big-12 championship game undefeated. Alabama, looking forward to Florida, lets its guard down and loses to Auburn. The end of season standing would look something like this:
1) Tech
2) Texas
3) Florida
4) USC
5) Alabama
6) Utah
7) Oklahoma
So, we come to the championship games. Alabama's 'preparation' pays off, and they beat Florida. Missouri comes alive and nips Tech. Missouri gets the big-12 championship, and tech falls down to #2 in the BCS rankings. This leaves the championship game as a rematch between Tech and Texas. But wait, the champion of the Big-12 is also guaranteed a spot in the Fiesta bowl. So, Missouri would end up there.
Another interesting scenario would be Oklahoma beating Tech coupled with some rivalry losses, leaving three Big-12 south teams in the top 3. If one loses the championship game, they would likely be 'stuck' with three BCS teams.
Still it requires a lot of things to fall right this season, though nothing that is too far fetched.
The Big-10, however, is almost set up for it. With each team not playing two other teams each season, there could be a possibility that 3 teams end up undefeated in conference play. There if they never played each other, the team that scheduled the fewest number of IAA teams would get the Rose Bowl birth. So suppose, Penn State and Ohio State finished undefeated, but each schedule one IAA team. Northwestern managed to go undefeated in conference play, but scheduled all IA nonconference teams - and lost them all. They would still get the Rose Bowl - even if the other two were ranked one and two.
Suppose Tech beats Oklahoma and Baylor and goes to the Big-12 championship game undefeated. Alabama, looking forward to Florida, lets its guard down and loses to Auburn. The end of season standing would look something like this:
1) Tech
2) Texas
3) Florida
4) USC
5) Alabama
6) Utah
7) Oklahoma
So, we come to the championship games. Alabama's 'preparation' pays off, and they beat Florida. Missouri comes alive and nips Tech. Missouri gets the big-12 championship, and tech falls down to #2 in the BCS rankings. This leaves the championship game as a rematch between Tech and Texas. But wait, the champion of the Big-12 is also guaranteed a spot in the Fiesta bowl. So, Missouri would end up there.
Another interesting scenario would be Oklahoma beating Tech coupled with some rivalry losses, leaving three Big-12 south teams in the top 3. If one loses the championship game, they would likely be 'stuck' with three BCS teams.
Still it requires a lot of things to fall right this season, though nothing that is too far fetched.
The Big-10, however, is almost set up for it. With each team not playing two other teams each season, there could be a possibility that 3 teams end up undefeated in conference play. There if they never played each other, the team that scheduled the fewest number of IAA teams would get the Rose Bowl birth. So suppose, Penn State and Ohio State finished undefeated, but each schedule one IAA team. Northwestern managed to go undefeated in conference play, but scheduled all IA nonconference teams - and lost them all. They would still get the Rose Bowl - even if the other two were ranked one and two.
College for Free
Business week had a little article about "free" colleges:
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2007/
pi20071113_819956.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2007/
pi20071113_819956.htm
The http://www.geekstack.com blog has a link to a similar post, that
took a slightly different approach (looking at conventional 'pay'
colleges that had ways of going free.)
I wonder how many "free" opportunities will survive this economic
downturn. It actually seems that many schools use school as a
measure of pride. (I recall hearing a story that Northwestern was
seen as an 'average' school until they bumped up tuition.) And with
financial age, tuition really only impacts the upper middle class.
(For the wealthy, the cost is peanuts. For the middle class,
financial aid will cover most of the difference - with many of the
elite schools moving towards mostly grant-based aid.) However, it is
still nice to schools actually encouraging academic achievement.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Non-BCs: Hope for OSU loss
It's quite simple. Non-BCS teams should hope for OSU losses. If both Oregon State and Ohio State lose, the path is clear for a second non-BCS team to be an at large team. Going down to the top 18, to take in those at the cusp of the at large pool, things are fairly clear. A whole bunch of SEC and Big12 teams are there, so each conference is likely to get an at large bid. For other conferences, the Big East doesn't appear until 19 and the ACC at 22. Even if there are some severe upsets, it would be almost impossible for an at-large team to make it in from either of those. The only worrisome teams are the three Big10 teams and USC sitting in the top 18. Since #8 Penn State and #15 Michigan State play each other, that should sort itself out, leaving one of those outside the at-large pool. A Penn State win would keep Michigan State out. A Michigan State win could actually help the non-BCS. That would give the championship to Ohio State, and make it unlikely that a second Big-10 would be chosen at large. There is also the remote possibility that Michigan State could stay at #15 after the win. However, an Ohio State loss to Michigan would really be the only full-proof way to keep a spot free.
The Pac-10 is more worrisome. If USC gets upset, then they will be out of there. Their remaining games are rivalry matches against UCLA and Notre Dame, so there will be some intensity. However, those two teams are clearly overmatched by USC. Should Oregon State win out in its next two games, they will get the Pac-10 spot, and USC will surely get the at-large spot.
If there is a second at-large spot, it looks like the BCS representatives would be the BYU-Utah winner and Boise State. Ball State has slipped out of the top-14 (due to a fall in computer rankings). However, their next two games against solid MAC opponents should bolster those rankings (if they win.) TCU has a game remaining against a solid Air Force team, so they may have a chance at sneaking up to the top 14 (and like Ball State, have never played in a BCS game. Should Utah win, they could get the pick over Boise State.)
As it stands now, one non-BCS team will definately playing in a BCS bowl. Utah and BYU both have just their rivalry game remaining, and the winner will surely be in the top-16 and above the highest ranked ACC or big east team.
The Pac-10 is more worrisome. If USC gets upset, then they will be out of there. Their remaining games are rivalry matches against UCLA and Notre Dame, so there will be some intensity. However, those two teams are clearly overmatched by USC. Should Oregon State win out in its next two games, they will get the Pac-10 spot, and USC will surely get the at-large spot.
If there is a second at-large spot, it looks like the BCS representatives would be the BYU-Utah winner and Boise State. Ball State has slipped out of the top-14 (due to a fall in computer rankings). However, their next two games against solid MAC opponents should bolster those rankings (if they win.) TCU has a game remaining against a solid Air Force team, so they may have a chance at sneaking up to the top 14 (and like Ball State, have never played in a BCS game. Should Utah win, they could get the pick over Boise State.)
As it stands now, one non-BCS team will definately playing in a BCS bowl. Utah and BYU both have just their rivalry game remaining, and the winner will surely be in the top-16 and above the highest ranked ACC or big east team.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The ACC and bowl games
The ACC's top team has 3 losses. However, in part thanks to this parity, it is still possible that all teams achieve bowl eligibility. Even in the worse case scenario, 9 teams will be eligible for the post season. (The SEC is the only other conference that could potentially equal that feat - though it would require some major upsets.)
The mass eligibility is reflecting in part by non-conference records. No team has a losing non-conference record. However, the cupcake padding is apparent, with teams like Georgia Tech playing 2 IAA schools. And non-conference wins against ranked opponents? Well, Cal was ranked 23 at the time they lost to Maryland. Though it doesn't look like any team from another conference that lost to an ACC team is currently ranked. And with the three ranked ACC teams losing this week, it remains possible that no team beaten by an ACC will be ranked. (However, its likely that a couple new ACC teams will creep in to the bottom of the rankings.)
This bowl season should be fairly lucrative for the ACC. With enough teams to fill all 9 bowl tie-ins plus a BCS bowl, they should be able to maximize their revenue. An interesting statistic may be (post season revenue)/(total BCS rankings). The mountain west could very well end the season with 3 teams ranked higher than any ACC team, and yet be shut out of BCS and New Years bowls. The MWC tie-ins would likely result in some great snoozers against mediocre Pac-10 teams. (If by some miracle, UCLA beats Arizona State and USC, we could get the 4th BYU-UCLA game in 2 seasons) If Boise State and Utah both win out, Boise State's reward would be a home game against a lower tier ACC team. (Great fun!) At least they could take some solace in that the team they are playing probably beat the team playing in the big BCS bowl.
Why does the ACC get this special treatment? They have some teams that won some championships a few years back. Florida State and Miami both have fairly recent championships. Clemson, Georgia Tech and Maryland have also won championships in the past. The Mountain West also has past champions in BYU and TCU, but the most recent is 1984. However, this would favor the Mountain West over the Big East, where Pittsburgh has the most recent championship in 1981 (1976 if you stick only with major polls). Syracuse and Rutgers can also claim championships, but you have to go back to 1869 to find Rutgers' most recent one. The conferences seem to benefit more from inertia, than current progress. The mediocrity of the ACC actually helps it look like a good conference - after all, they have no absolute bottom-feeders like those teams in Washington. But, it does make for some less than desirable games.
We are stuck with an annoying hybrid situation that seems only intent on maximizing television revenue. It would be more satisfying to go back to an old bowl system. A few major bowls. Mostly on New Years. Take some of the conference champions along with some of the better teams. There is no pretext about championship. If a team really wanted to prove it was the best, it would have to go thump some major powers in non-conference play, then win its conference. This would eliminate the cupcake beatings to pander to the polls. If we are going to use some magic formula to determine the champions, why do we even bother playing bowl games? Just plug some numbers in to the formula and voila, a champion emerges.
Why do college football rankings change?
A few games last week among top-ranked teams.
#2 Tech (#2 : 0) beat #9 Oklahoma State (#13 : -4) 56-20
#8 Utah (#7 : 1) beat #12 TCU (#18 : -6) 13-10
#7 USC (#6 : 1) beat #21 Cal (Unrated : ->4) 17-3
unrated Iowa beat #3 Penn State (#8: -5) 24-23
In all the games, the home team won. Three of the wins would be expected, with the higher rated team winning at home. The Penn State game was an upset, though it was close. Did TCU suddenly become a worse team because they barely lost to a team that was better than them? Oklahoma State got blown out by a higher rated Tech team. But does this just show there is a bigger gap between the top teams and the rest?
Even more baffling is the relative difference of the changes. Why did TCU fall 6 spots after barely losing on the road to a higher ranked Utah, while Penn State only dropped 5 spots while losing to an unranked Iowa? And why did Cal fall so far after losing to a much higher ranked USC?
The seemingly excessive gyrations help explain the cupcake non-conference scheduling. A loss to a better team hurts a lot. Beating an inferior team helps a little. Thus, the goal is to avoid better teams as much as possible, and schedule all games where wins can be expected.
Perhaps it would be better just to do away with this BCS garbage and "pseudo championship" and go back to the old bowls as bowls.
BCS bowls for the non-BCS
The current state of BCS bids. There are 10 spots in BCS bowls. Two go to the top-ranked two teams, 6 go to the BCS conference champions. One goes to the highest ranked non-BCS team (provided they are ranked high enough.) And any remaining spots go to at-large teams in the top-14, with a limit of two teams per conference.
So, what scenarios would be best for the non-BCS teams?
First, the top 2 need to be conference champions. As it looks now, the winner of the SEC championship game should be there. As long as Missouri doesn't win the big-12, the big-12 champion should also be in the top 2.
Then, the at-large pool in the top-14 needs to be favorable. The ideal situation would have the 6 BCS conference champions and 8 non-BCS teams, guaranteeing 4 non-BCS spots in the bowls. Next best would be for one conference to dominate the top-14, with non-BCS filling the remaining spots. Since only one team from that conference will make it in, that leaves 3 spots for the non-BCS.
How do things look today? Well, currently, only 3 conference champions are in the top-14. North Carolina is barely out at 16. The big-12 representatives are down at 21 and 22. For the pac-10, USC is in the top group - but Oregon State is currently the conference leader.
As the standings look right now, the 3 at large BCS bids would probably go to Texas, Florida and USC. Should Oregon State (or USC) lose, the at large spot would probably go to Ohio State. Now if Oregon State and Ohio State lose, things get interesting. The big-10 title and rose-bowl berth would probably end up with the winner of the Michigan State-Penn State game. The loser would likely fall out of the available at-large range. Next in line to be at-large eligible would be North Carolina, Florida State, BYU, TCU, LSU, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. North Carolina and Florida State would likely end up in the ACC championship game, with the winner getting an automatic bid, and the loser out of the at-large range. BYU and TCU are non-BCS teams, and LSU is pretty much out due to the many SEC teams ahead of it. Cincinnati and Pittsburgh play each other, with the winner likely getting the Big Easts's automatic bid, and the other out of contention. This would leave Boise State, Ball State and one of the Mountain West teams as possible at large teams (after at large spots were taken by Big12 and SEC teams.)
How likely is this? Well, Michigan-Ohio State is a fierce rivalry, so an upset could be possible there. Illinois has given OSU a beating before, but it looks doubtful this year. Oregon State has tough games against Arizona, Oregon and Cal. Running the table will be a challenge (though not impossible.) USC losing against Notre Dame, Stanford or UCLA look less likely (though they lost to Stanford at home last year.) Penn State also appears to be taking care of Indiana.
Up higher in the BCS rankings, there do not seem to be many things that can potentially change the non-BCS odds. Oklahoma's games against Oklahoma State and Texas Tech could reshuffle the big-12 standings, but the big-12 south champion will probably still end up in the national title game. The big-12 north champion (currently Missouri) could throw some kinks in the national championship game if the beat the south champion. However, this will likely not impact the non-BCS teams as the big-12 is pretty much guaranteed two BCS spots (with a maximum of two available per conference.) However, I'm sure there will be plenty of anger about BCS rules if the big-south loser of the championship game ends up left out.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Presidential vegetables
First Bush the first bad mouthed broccoli, and now Obama has an
aversion to beets. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/
first_family_food) Why do presidents always pick on my favorite
vegetables?
aversion to beets. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/
first_family_food) Why do presidents always pick on my favorite
vegetables?
Just so no to auto industry bailout
Why is it that capitalists love the free market until they get in
trouble? Perhaps the current financial crisis is a sign that its not
good to let companies get too big. (Unfortunately, the result is the
opposite, with big banks swallowing up other 'sick' big banks.) At
least with banks, the government has been willing to let some fail.
If we really want to bailout the auto industry, we should declare a
"Bear Stearns", "Washington Mutual" and "Lehman Brothers". After we
let those go away, we could start bailing out other automakers. So,
lets see, how 'bout we let GM, Ford, and Chrysler all go belly up.
Then we can bail out Tesla.
American auto companies lost their way a while ago, as the foreigners
have produced better cars, and built better labor relations in the
US. Sure, they employ lots of people. But, they have also laid off a
lot of people. If one were to shut down, would that make much of a
dent in the past decade's overall layoff count?
We should let the dinosaurs go. In the short term, our auto needs
could easily be filled by the Japanese and European carmakers. They
could probably even buy off some of the better Big-3 plants and
convert them over. In the long wrong, new, more nimble transportation
providers will evolve. Cars as we currently know it are on their way
out. We might as well let the companies that build them go that way
also.
trouble? Perhaps the current financial crisis is a sign that its not
good to let companies get too big. (Unfortunately, the result is the
opposite, with big banks swallowing up other 'sick' big banks.) At
least with banks, the government has been willing to let some fail.
If we really want to bailout the auto industry, we should declare a
"Bear Stearns", "Washington Mutual" and "Lehman Brothers". After we
let those go away, we could start bailing out other automakers. So,
lets see, how 'bout we let GM, Ford, and Chrysler all go belly up.
Then we can bail out Tesla.
American auto companies lost their way a while ago, as the foreigners
have produced better cars, and built better labor relations in the
US. Sure, they employ lots of people. But, they have also laid off a
lot of people. If one were to shut down, would that make much of a
dent in the past decade's overall layoff count?
We should let the dinosaurs go. In the short term, our auto needs
could easily be filled by the Japanese and European carmakers. They
could probably even buy off some of the better Big-3 plants and
convert them over. In the long wrong, new, more nimble transportation
providers will evolve. Cars as we currently know it are on their way
out. We might as well let the companies that build them go that way
also.
Open Street Map
Open Street Map looks like a great alternative to the TeleAtlas/
NavTeq maps in mapquest/google/yahoo land. By providing the data in
the public domain it should allow for a plethora of new applications
(such as bike routing). However, its only as good as the data
provided. Luckily the Bay area is filled with techie geeks!
NavTeq maps in mapquest/google/yahoo land. By providing the data in
the public domain it should allow for a plethora of new applications
(such as bike routing). However, its only as good as the data
provided. Luckily the Bay area is filled with techie geeks!
Why do we have public schools?
Why do we have public schools? Is it to educate students or to maintain property values? Or perhaps it is to provide "day care" so parents could work. Or maybe its just a jobs program or a vehicle for community stabilization.
Education still remains the primary "acceptable" reason for public schools. Most debates usually find some way to tie things to education, even when seeking other goals. Any possible education 'side effect' will be given primary focus to make the goal more palatable.
Property values is one argument that is also fairly acceptable to make in the open. The reputation of a school and schools district can have a significant impact on property values. Reputation can also be a virtuous circle. Schools with a good reputation are more likely to attract families that care a lot about education. This in turn will produce high performing schools, which will further improve the reputation. In urban areas, reputation can make a significant difference in property values. In Sunnyvale, a house in the Cupertino district may sell for a a few hundred thousand dollars more than a similar house a block away in the Sunnyvale school district. This occurs even in cases where both schools' performance are similar. (And in spite of the fact that both school s feed in to the same high school district.) Cupertino simply has a better reputation and all of its schools exceed state standards. Sunnyvale's reputation is 'ok', with some schools exceeding state standards and some schools falling way behind. (The quality of the schools is more a reflection of the population demographics than education, with the more poorer schools primarily being in low-income areas.) The reputation of the Cupertino district makes it more desirable, driving up housing prices. The reputation of the 'good' schools in the Sunnyvale correlates with higher property values than in the areas with bad schools (though not as high as the Cupertino district.) This may serve as a 'feedback' loop to encourage the continued economic segregation.
Though how much do the schools themselves really impact property values? As long as a school in a high-value area is 'adequate', the reputation will continue to attract good students, and the test scores will continue to look good. A school would have to be exceptionally good or exceptionally bad to break out of the trend. Thus, education and property values diverge significantly. From a property values perspective, the main goal is to minimize risk. Bold education moves may make teachers unhappy, or harm scores. Running schools in uniform way, and throwing extra dollars at it to minimize murmuring will keep everyone happy.
Community stabilization seems to come out as an excuse for other arguments. People don't want their local school closed, in part because they worry about property values. Or teachers don't want vouchers or charter schools because they worry about jobs. "Neighborhood" schools are, alas, an endangered species. In urban areas, school choice, charter schools, magnet schools, racial balancing, and a host of other factors have lead to a reduction in true neighborhood schools. In suburban areas, it is often distance and consolidation that play the leads. Its cheaper to build one larger school. And if everyone will be driving their children to school, it is just as easy to go to a magnet school of choice. Past experiences in forced integration often drove the wealthy out of public schools (either by moving, or choosing private schools.) The results may have been slightly more integrated schools - but much less integrated districts. A key side-effect was the decline in the influence of schools as a community pillar.
And that brings us to the jobs program. The prime proponent of this argument is the teachers' union. Often the public assume that the union's goal is to improve education. The union is willing to play along with this belief for the political benefits. However, its fiduciary duty is to the union and its members. The union would be successful if nobody learned anything in schools - as long as the teachers had fulfilling secure careers. However, the union is unlikely to go to this extreme. Teaching is more satisfying when students are learning. In general teachers want what they think is best for their students' education. However, teaching remains for most, a job. Working conditions and job security are of key importance.
For the union, stable membership is also important. Though a college professor would be more than qualified to teach a high school AP course, in most states they would not be qualified to teach. They have to go through a teacher training program and pass a certification test. It probably doesn't do much to improve teaching ability, but it would make them more committed to public education (and thus to the union.) In California, even private school teachers have to go through the certification process. Most states also dictate minimum instructional hours and curriculum to be taught in schools. This makes moving from job to job more straightforward. A tenure and seniority process, on the other hand, encourages teachers to stay (while also limited the ability of districts to dismiss teachers.) The barriers to entry help to prevent too much competition in the field, while the relative standardization allow for many different job opportunities. Since schools are located just about everywhere, this is an ideal job program.
An ideal job program should not be confused with an ideal educational program. The need for public school teaching credentials is commonly accepted, though there are plenty of people opposed. As a policy, it probably does a good job keeping most total idiots out of public schools. On the negative side, it probably prevents a lot of really great teachers from becoming public school teachers. The seeming homogenization of teachers allows schools to be more like assembly lines. Once qualified, a teacher can be plugged in as a cog on the education line. The union makes sure the salaries do not dip too low, while the standardization prevents salaries from rising too high. This also reduces the application of creative energies. (Thus creativity in education is often shown by classroom decorations rather than innovative teaching plans.) This encourages greater equality, but reduces the possible areas for innovation (or even custom adaptation).
As an entity, it is unions' duty to fight against competition. Compulsory education laws with high dropout age help to keep the target audience intact. Mandatory curriculum and days of instruction help limit competing schools. Mandatory teacher credentials for private schools makes it even more difficult for other schools to appear. School vouchers must be attacked - though they may allow more money per student in the public schools - put it would also lead to elimination of public teaching jobs (and be an indictment of the quality of public education). And besides, if public education is that bad, you can probably find a rich foundation that will subsidize students - allowing them to leave the schools without any loss of revenue. (Washington D.C. schools have announced an attack on tenure, noting that public school tenure only benefits adults. Attacking a job program during an economic downturn may seem odd - but D.C. schools do have a really bad reputation. And the plan is also an "opt in" plan that gives huge raises - funded by a foundation - in exchange for giving up some tenure rights.) Finally, it is also important to grow the membership by encouraging policies such as class size reduction and public preschool.
Preschool brings us to the daycare argument. Public schools watch children during the day, allowing parents to work. The schools are a cheaper alternative to daycare, and provide learning to boot. After-school programs help to fill out the day. This argument is not as common as the others - probably due to conflicts. (If a goal is daycare, shouldn't school days match working days? Are students up to days that long? And who would work all that time? Would that help or hinder education?)
In the end, the multiple competing interests have produced a decidedly average public education system. Students get a good (but not great) education. Teachers have good (but not great) jobs. Property values are maintained at a consistent level, and parents get a partial day break from their children. Is this what we want in public education?
Education still remains the primary "acceptable" reason for public schools. Most debates usually find some way to tie things to education, even when seeking other goals. Any possible education 'side effect' will be given primary focus to make the goal more palatable.
Property values is one argument that is also fairly acceptable to make in the open. The reputation of a school and schools district can have a significant impact on property values. Reputation can also be a virtuous circle. Schools with a good reputation are more likely to attract families that care a lot about education. This in turn will produce high performing schools, which will further improve the reputation. In urban areas, reputation can make a significant difference in property values. In Sunnyvale, a house in the Cupertino district may sell for a a few hundred thousand dollars more than a similar house a block away in the Sunnyvale school district. This occurs even in cases where both schools' performance are similar. (And in spite of the fact that both school s feed in to the same high school district.) Cupertino simply has a better reputation and all of its schools exceed state standards. Sunnyvale's reputation is 'ok', with some schools exceeding state standards and some schools falling way behind. (The quality of the schools is more a reflection of the population demographics than education, with the more poorer schools primarily being in low-income areas.) The reputation of the Cupertino district makes it more desirable, driving up housing prices. The reputation of the 'good' schools in the Sunnyvale correlates with higher property values than in the areas with bad schools (though not as high as the Cupertino district.) This may serve as a 'feedback' loop to encourage the continued economic segregation.
Though how much do the schools themselves really impact property values? As long as a school in a high-value area is 'adequate', the reputation will continue to attract good students, and the test scores will continue to look good. A school would have to be exceptionally good or exceptionally bad to break out of the trend. Thus, education and property values diverge significantly. From a property values perspective, the main goal is to minimize risk. Bold education moves may make teachers unhappy, or harm scores. Running schools in uniform way, and throwing extra dollars at it to minimize murmuring will keep everyone happy.
Community stabilization seems to come out as an excuse for other arguments. People don't want their local school closed, in part because they worry about property values. Or teachers don't want vouchers or charter schools because they worry about jobs. "Neighborhood" schools are, alas, an endangered species. In urban areas, school choice, charter schools, magnet schools, racial balancing, and a host of other factors have lead to a reduction in true neighborhood schools. In suburban areas, it is often distance and consolidation that play the leads. Its cheaper to build one larger school. And if everyone will be driving their children to school, it is just as easy to go to a magnet school of choice. Past experiences in forced integration often drove the wealthy out of public schools (either by moving, or choosing private schools.) The results may have been slightly more integrated schools - but much less integrated districts. A key side-effect was the decline in the influence of schools as a community pillar.
And that brings us to the jobs program. The prime proponent of this argument is the teachers' union. Often the public assume that the union's goal is to improve education. The union is willing to play along with this belief for the political benefits. However, its fiduciary duty is to the union and its members. The union would be successful if nobody learned anything in schools - as long as the teachers had fulfilling secure careers. However, the union is unlikely to go to this extreme. Teaching is more satisfying when students are learning. In general teachers want what they think is best for their students' education. However, teaching remains for most, a job. Working conditions and job security are of key importance.
For the union, stable membership is also important. Though a college professor would be more than qualified to teach a high school AP course, in most states they would not be qualified to teach. They have to go through a teacher training program and pass a certification test. It probably doesn't do much to improve teaching ability, but it would make them more committed to public education (and thus to the union.) In California, even private school teachers have to go through the certification process. Most states also dictate minimum instructional hours and curriculum to be taught in schools. This makes moving from job to job more straightforward. A tenure and seniority process, on the other hand, encourages teachers to stay (while also limited the ability of districts to dismiss teachers.) The barriers to entry help to prevent too much competition in the field, while the relative standardization allow for many different job opportunities. Since schools are located just about everywhere, this is an ideal job program.
An ideal job program should not be confused with an ideal educational program. The need for public school teaching credentials is commonly accepted, though there are plenty of people opposed. As a policy, it probably does a good job keeping most total idiots out of public schools. On the negative side, it probably prevents a lot of really great teachers from becoming public school teachers. The seeming homogenization of teachers allows schools to be more like assembly lines. Once qualified, a teacher can be plugged in as a cog on the education line. The union makes sure the salaries do not dip too low, while the standardization prevents salaries from rising too high. This also reduces the application of creative energies. (Thus creativity in education is often shown by classroom decorations rather than innovative teaching plans.) This encourages greater equality, but reduces the possible areas for innovation (or even custom adaptation).
As an entity, it is unions' duty to fight against competition. Compulsory education laws with high dropout age help to keep the target audience intact. Mandatory curriculum and days of instruction help limit competing schools. Mandatory teacher credentials for private schools makes it even more difficult for other schools to appear. School vouchers must be attacked - though they may allow more money per student in the public schools - put it would also lead to elimination of public teaching jobs (and be an indictment of the quality of public education). And besides, if public education is that bad, you can probably find a rich foundation that will subsidize students - allowing them to leave the schools without any loss of revenue. (Washington D.C. schools have announced an attack on tenure, noting that public school tenure only benefits adults. Attacking a job program during an economic downturn may seem odd - but D.C. schools do have a really bad reputation. And the plan is also an "opt in" plan that gives huge raises - funded by a foundation - in exchange for giving up some tenure rights.) Finally, it is also important to grow the membership by encouraging policies such as class size reduction and public preschool.
Preschool brings us to the daycare argument. Public schools watch children during the day, allowing parents to work. The schools are a cheaper alternative to daycare, and provide learning to boot. After-school programs help to fill out the day. This argument is not as common as the others - probably due to conflicts. (If a goal is daycare, shouldn't school days match working days? Are students up to days that long? And who would work all that time? Would that help or hinder education?)
In the end, the multiple competing interests have produced a decidedly average public education system. Students get a good (but not great) education. Teachers have good (but not great) jobs. Property values are maintained at a consistent level, and parents get a partial day break from their children. Is this what we want in public education?
Being cheap vs. Being Green
What is the difference between being cheap and being green? In many cases they are the same. Consuming less is cheaper, and better on the environment. Using an existing good for a longer period of time reduces costs, and reduces the impact on the environment.
However, there are also cases where cheapness and greenness are on opposite sides. Imported produce may be cheaper than local organic produce, but much more damaging to the environment. There is also a large murky middle ground. A hybrid car may be more expensive and "less green" to manufacture. However, it is cheaper and more green to operate. The lower operating costs could increase driving, thereby negating any green or cost benefits. Or, if a heavy driver retains the constant driving habits, it could be more green and more economical. Or if driving distance is already low, the savings may never exceed the purchase premium. However, the premium could be seen as a "green investment" in an improved technology.
The difference between "cheapness" and "greenness" can be identified by sorting out the true costs of goods. On basic level, most everything has a "raw material" and a "labor" cost involved. Sort out the two, and get a true cost from the "raw material" cost. But labor itself also involves raw materials. Perhaps a cleaner way would be to separate "energy" and "markup". The energy cost can further be separated in to "renewable" and "nonrenewable" categories. Markup can include basic profit margins, as well as taxes, subsidies, and other "rent seeking" behavior in the production.
Research and development can also be considered part of the markup. R&D, however, does not necessarily green in itself. Often it leads to improvements that reduce the amount of energy inputs needed. However, at other times, it may increase the inputs (while at the same time increasing selling prices.) Costs are also not uniformly applied. Drug companies, for instance, may sell the same drug at very different costs in different countries, even though manufacturing and research remain unchanged.
Economic analysis can also lead to distortions. A time-discounted method could render future energy savings moot. A short term value of time could also lead to consumption of heavily processed foods, in spite of the health and cost disadvantages. However, with a thorough analysis, the economic view should end up similar to the 'green' view for most commodity items.
With non-commodities, social impacts and desires can make a difference. On an individual level, the decision to not own a car, and walk or bike everywhere is a more green behavior. However, it could also be argued that not everybody is willing to do that now. Buying a fuel-efficient hybrid is a way to help support auto-industry improvements that will allow everyone else to be more green. However, these improvements may allow others to drive longer, delaying the point when they give up their car. Perhaps a personal long term 'cheapness' analysis is the best way to remain green.
However, there are also cases where cheapness and greenness are on opposite sides. Imported produce may be cheaper than local organic produce, but much more damaging to the environment. There is also a large murky middle ground. A hybrid car may be more expensive and "less green" to manufacture. However, it is cheaper and more green to operate. The lower operating costs could increase driving, thereby negating any green or cost benefits. Or, if a heavy driver retains the constant driving habits, it could be more green and more economical. Or if driving distance is already low, the savings may never exceed the purchase premium. However, the premium could be seen as a "green investment" in an improved technology.
The difference between "cheapness" and "greenness" can be identified by sorting out the true costs of goods. On basic level, most everything has a "raw material" and a "labor" cost involved. Sort out the two, and get a true cost from the "raw material" cost. But labor itself also involves raw materials. Perhaps a cleaner way would be to separate "energy" and "markup". The energy cost can further be separated in to "renewable" and "nonrenewable" categories. Markup can include basic profit margins, as well as taxes, subsidies, and other "rent seeking" behavior in the production.
Research and development can also be considered part of the markup. R&D, however, does not necessarily green in itself. Often it leads to improvements that reduce the amount of energy inputs needed. However, at other times, it may increase the inputs (while at the same time increasing selling prices.) Costs are also not uniformly applied. Drug companies, for instance, may sell the same drug at very different costs in different countries, even though manufacturing and research remain unchanged.
Economic analysis can also lead to distortions. A time-discounted method could render future energy savings moot. A short term value of time could also lead to consumption of heavily processed foods, in spite of the health and cost disadvantages. However, with a thorough analysis, the economic view should end up similar to the 'green' view for most commodity items.
With non-commodities, social impacts and desires can make a difference. On an individual level, the decision to not own a car, and walk or bike everywhere is a more green behavior. However, it could also be argued that not everybody is willing to do that now. Buying a fuel-efficient hybrid is a way to help support auto-industry improvements that will allow everyone else to be more green. However, these improvements may allow others to drive longer, delaying the point when they give up their car. Perhaps a personal long term 'cheapness' analysis is the best way to remain green.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)