Vampire books and Steinbeck (Vampire High, Breaking Dawn, New Moon, Eclipse, Cannery Row)

Breaking Dawn by Stephenie Meyer

New Moon by Stephenie Meyer

Eclipse by Stephenie Meyer

Vampire High by Douglas Rees

Cannery Row by John Steinbeck

Friendly vampires seem to be the rage today. I finished the Twilight series over Christmas vacation. Then Vampire High School. Both books took different approaches to 'vampire lore'. But in both, Vampires were mostly just overachievers living among us. They had some special powers, but also fragile personalities. And of course, they fell in love. (and both had a few token Romanians) And they were both told in a first-person stream-of-conscious fashion.

Vampire High was a much lighter book. It seemed to go a little overboard with cliches and stereotypes. But, it was a fun quick read. Perhaps its just a male thing. Quick and too the point. And a nice love story at that.

The Twilight books were much more serious. It seemed that each book in the series got longer and longer, but not necessarily better. Some parts were just not too believable. (Believable vampire books? Perhaps consistency is a better word.) It looks like editing was sacrificed in a rush to get the sequels out. They were good, but not great. It was a big downer to see Bella turn in to a Vampire at the end. I found myself much more interested in Alice and Jacob. The main characters (Edward and Bella) seemed to become bigger and bigger jerks as the story went on, while the supporting characters become more and more interesting. If she continues with the series, a focus on Jacob would probably be the way to go.

Finally, running out of happy vampire books, I picked up Steinbeck's Cannery row. After going to Monterrey this summer, I thought I might be able to 'relate' better to the geography. (Its always nice when you can actually identify certain locations- especially if they have totally changed since the time of the story.) I liked the way the story was told, with a series of very short chapters that could very well be stand-alone stories. Some of the chapters related directly to the main plot about "Mack and the gang" and "Doc", while others seemed to have absolutely no relationship to the main story (yet remained tangentially related to the community.)

Stupid Car Tricks

I saw a police car zooming down Olive Ave. in Sunnyvale with its sirens blaring. It reached Mathilda. Sirens still blaring. The commuters on Mathilda could care less. They kept going. One set of cars. Then another. Then another. Finally after multiple sets of cars went through, the police car was able to get by. (Did he have to wait for a red light?) Looks like busy streets are a serious public safety hazard.

Teenage pregnancy - good or bad?

The CDC report on births garnered attention for showing an increase in teenage pregnancies and births. While this my get headlines, it is not necessarily a bad thing.
The first issue is the arbitrary line drawn. A woman who gives birth the day before her 20th birthday is 'bad'. Wait one more day and the birth would be considered fine. 20 is a rather arbitrary age that does not hold significant meaning of societal responsibility (like 16, 18 or 21), nor does it mark a significant change in human development. Setting a line at 18 or high school graduation may be more appropriate.
Furthermore, the data actual shows a decrease in births to those younger than 15, while the heaviest increase was in the 18-19 group. Perhaps this means a decrease in teen pregnancies is being masked by high-school sweethearts deciding to start their families at a young age.
A better meter would be using unwanted vs. wanted pregnancies. If a couple get married as teenagers and want to have a baby, a pregnancy would be desired. If a 20 year old college student accidentally gets pregnant, that would not be desired. Unwed pregnancy would be a good indicator of 'unwanted' (though the lack of emphasis on marriage in today's culture could mean some of these 'unwed' births were actually desired.) For younger teenagers, unwed births have been going down. For 18 and 19 years olds they have been bouncing around in a narrow range, while for older groups they have been going up.
Another troubling part of the report is the increase in births to older women. These births tend to be much more expensive, requiring significant medical intervention. They also limit the parental involvement in the child's life. A family where each generation gives birth at 19 could easily have 3 generations participating in the raising of a child. A family where each generation gives birth at 39 would be unlikely to get even a second generation to help raising the child.
Younger parents are much more likely to have assistance from grandparents. This allows them to take advantage of child raising experience, while also having the youthful strength needed to care for the child. The child of a 'teenage' birth could actually be much better off than the child of a 'mature' birth.

End of college football season

College football season ended with its usual whimper. The final BCS game is so far removed from the regular season that it seems to lose its power. Some teams play their last game in November, and the BCS championship game isn't until the second week in January? Com'on. At many schools classes have already started for Winter Quarter.

At least, in the old bowl system there was some finality. New Years day had a bunch of bowl games that all had important implications. Now, we had TCU beating Boise State before Christmas; USC beating Penn State on New Years; Utah beating Alabama on the 2nd; and Texas beating Ohio State on the 2nd. Each of those games showcased a deserve undefeated or 1-loss team. However, none of the games had any real relationship to the others.

In the end, the Florida/Oklahoma game looked very sloppy compared to the others. If we tossed out the rankings and just looked at the games played, Utah and USC looked like the two best teams of the 'elite' bunch. But, having a big game optimized for TV helps to rake in the money. I guess it will stay, even if it means getting stuck with lesser games past they time when I care.

PAC-10 wins bowl derby

The Pac-10 has finished its bowl season undefeated. Three of the victories were over higher ranked teams, with USC and California being the only teams favored. (Those two were also both lucky enough to get games in their own backyard.) Even looking at victories alone, the SEC is the only conference that has the potential to obtain more bowl victories. However, the SEC already has two bowl losses. More bowl teams is often a sign of a better conference. However, in this case, things are rigged somewhat against the PAC-10. The SEC has two additional teams, so there are two additional opportunities for bowl berths. The PAC-10 also plays 9 conference games (vs. 8 for all other conferences.) This means that half the teams will lose an additional game. In the SEC, this game would probably be an easy victory over a IAA cupcake. Sprinkle an extra loss on the bottom half of the SEC and you'd lose a couple of their bowl victories, making the PAC-10 appear even more dominant.

Utah beats 'Bama and the SEC makes excuses

Utah continued there stretch of bowl victories by annihilating Alabama 31-17. After 10 minutes, the game was already over, with Utah scoring 21 points. The response from the SEC seems to be to make excuses (we had our star player suspended, we weren't prepared, we had injuries) Uh, nice try. Though don't mention that they were the de facto home team, playing a few hours from home near plenty of alumni. (Probably not a lot of Utah alums in the area.) They had also played the bowl game many times before and were quite familiar with the stadium and environs. Alabama also 'supposedly' had played big teams, and should have been ready for the game. Uh huh. When it comes down to it, Utah will end the season with no loses and victories over 2 teams that should end the season in the top 10. Alabama? Well, Georgia or Mississippi may end up in the top 15. With Wyoming's victory over Tennessee, that leaves the measly mountain west at 2-0 vs. the 'powerful SEC'.
USC gives us another example of west coat bias. They lost one game in the season, a narrow road loss to a 9-4 Oregon State. Florida also had one early loss, a narrow home loss to a 9-4 Mississippi. Both Florida and USC continued by destroying the other teams on their schedule. However, USC is deemed to have 'lost its chance' due to its loss. For Florida, on the other hand, the loss is brushed away.

Why is there such a desire to pander to the SEC (And to a lessor extent the Big-12)? It probably all comes down to money. The south lives for football. High school stadiums in Texas are larger than most IAA stadiums, and probably even comparable to some IA stadiums. The south lives off football. In Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina, the college game is the highest level of football for a population that lives for the game. These are the rapid fans that watch the games, buy the gear, and bring in the revenue. Out west? High School games are much less of a community affair. USC and UCLA may get a lot of people to games - but they are to top football teams in the nations 2nd largest city. (And USC is really good.) Other than that, you have teams like Stanford offering money back guarantees on season tickets. It only makes sense to pander to the core constituency in the south. Keep their teams up near the top so they can continue to have a strong interest and keep the revenue flowing.

Crepusculo (Twilight in Spanish)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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
  

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'...

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

College for Free

Business week had a little article about "free" colleges:
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.

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 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.