![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From Twitter 10-23-2010
Oct. 24th, 2010 03:02 amTweets copied by twittinesis.com
Oct. 24th, 2010
Yes, this is IMPORTANT to read.
Oct. 24th, 2010 07:35 pmEight Fales Things the Public "Knows" Prior to Election Day
As Twain wrote, the danger's not in what we don't know, but what we know for certain that just ain't so.
As Twain wrote, the danger's not in what we don't know, but what we know for certain that just ain't so.
Yes, this is IMPORTANT to read.
Oct. 24th, 2010 07:35 pmEight Fales Things the Public "Knows" Prior to Election Day
As Twain wrote, the danger's not in what we don't know, but what we know for certain that just ain't so.
As Twain wrote, the danger's not in what we don't know, but what we know for certain that just ain't so.
First the observation.
For the last three years, Boise State's football team has been a legitimate contender for the national championship... anywhere except the BCS system, which is rigged to favor the richest colleges (and thus secure to them the revenues from the largest and most important bowl games).
In a fair world, there would be a playoff system, like in high school and professional sports. However, in those leagues the rulemaking authority creates and regulates the leagues and conferences. In college football, the leagues and conferences preceded the NCAA- indeed they created it. It has to obey the colleges, not the other way around. It is extremely unlikely that any true playoff system, or more important a redistricting of conferences to make them more equal, will ever happen.
The example of Boise State, and to a lesser extent Utah and TCU, does mean an unending string of bad press for the so-called BCS conferences. The situation of haves and have-nots and the rigged system that separates them is a perpetual annoyance and embarrassment to the big schools. They must have some incentive, if not to actually address the problem, to at least shut them up for a while.
For Boise State, this might actually present a solution: namely, apply for a transfer out of the Western Athletic Conference and into either the Pac 10 (which has ambitions of becoming the Pac 16) or the Big 12 (which next year drops to 11 teams with Colorado going to the Pac 10).
I doubt it'll happen, but it would accomplish two things for Boise State's program. It would guarantee them a schedule that the pundits would respect- no more playing Fresno and New Mexico State. And it would give them a shot at a guaranteed BCS bowl slot- something it doesn't have now. The BCS conferences, on the other hand, would be able to prove that their system really does work- programs that consistently produce superior teams could look forward to inclusion in the BCS system. (And, at the same time, once Boise's on the inside, a lot of the argument for redistricting or playoffs gets silenced.)
Anyway... that's my thought. On to the first serious (if the word can be used) look at this year's Stupor Bowl contenders.
For those who don't know, the Stupor Bowl is my hypothetical matchup of the two worst Division 1-A college football teams, based on worst win-loss record, in a last hope to salvage something from their season. The only hard and fast restrictions: each of the two teams must come from a different conference, and neither team may have won their final regular-season game. As a general rule I give preference to those teams which, from size or history, ought to have done better than they did.
( And if that bores you, stop reading now. )
There you go- fifteen teams remaining... oh, you want rankings? OK, from worst to least sucky:
1) AKRON (0-8)
2) NEW MEXICO (0-8)
all others with 1 win
3) WASHINGTON STATE (BCS school, win against I-AA, no close defeats)
4) DUKE (BCS school, win against I-AA, 2 close defeats)
5) NEW MEXICO STATE (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, no close losses)
6) UNLV (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, no close losses)
7) SAN JOSE STATE (non-BCS school, win against I-AA team, EXTREMELY hard schedule, 1 close loss)
8) MEMPHIS (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 1 close loss)
9) MARSHALL (non-BCS school, past history of excellence, win against I-A team with winning record, 1 close loss against Top 25 school)
10) MINNESOTA (BCS school, win against I-A, 2 close defeats)
11) WESTERN KENTUCKY (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
12) EASTERN MICHIGAN (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
13) NORTH TEXAS (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
14) FLORIDA ATLANTIC (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
15) BOWLING GREEN (non-BCS school, past history of excellence, win against I-A team, 3 close losses)
There's your standings for the time being. See you for more Stupor Bowl action next weekend...
For the last three years, Boise State's football team has been a legitimate contender for the national championship... anywhere except the BCS system, which is rigged to favor the richest colleges (and thus secure to them the revenues from the largest and most important bowl games).
In a fair world, there would be a playoff system, like in high school and professional sports. However, in those leagues the rulemaking authority creates and regulates the leagues and conferences. In college football, the leagues and conferences preceded the NCAA- indeed they created it. It has to obey the colleges, not the other way around. It is extremely unlikely that any true playoff system, or more important a redistricting of conferences to make them more equal, will ever happen.
The example of Boise State, and to a lesser extent Utah and TCU, does mean an unending string of bad press for the so-called BCS conferences. The situation of haves and have-nots and the rigged system that separates them is a perpetual annoyance and embarrassment to the big schools. They must have some incentive, if not to actually address the problem, to at least shut them up for a while.
For Boise State, this might actually present a solution: namely, apply for a transfer out of the Western Athletic Conference and into either the Pac 10 (which has ambitions of becoming the Pac 16) or the Big 12 (which next year drops to 11 teams with Colorado going to the Pac 10).
I doubt it'll happen, but it would accomplish two things for Boise State's program. It would guarantee them a schedule that the pundits would respect- no more playing Fresno and New Mexico State. And it would give them a shot at a guaranteed BCS bowl slot- something it doesn't have now. The BCS conferences, on the other hand, would be able to prove that their system really does work- programs that consistently produce superior teams could look forward to inclusion in the BCS system. (And, at the same time, once Boise's on the inside, a lot of the argument for redistricting or playoffs gets silenced.)
Anyway... that's my thought. On to the first serious (if the word can be used) look at this year's Stupor Bowl contenders.
For those who don't know, the Stupor Bowl is my hypothetical matchup of the two worst Division 1-A college football teams, based on worst win-loss record, in a last hope to salvage something from their season. The only hard and fast restrictions: each of the two teams must come from a different conference, and neither team may have won their final regular-season game. As a general rule I give preference to those teams which, from size or history, ought to have done better than they did.
( And if that bores you, stop reading now. )
There you go- fifteen teams remaining... oh, you want rankings? OK, from worst to least sucky:
1) AKRON (0-8)
2) NEW MEXICO (0-8)
all others with 1 win
3) WASHINGTON STATE (BCS school, win against I-AA, no close defeats)
4) DUKE (BCS school, win against I-AA, 2 close defeats)
5) NEW MEXICO STATE (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, no close losses)
6) UNLV (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, no close losses)
7) SAN JOSE STATE (non-BCS school, win against I-AA team, EXTREMELY hard schedule, 1 close loss)
8) MEMPHIS (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 1 close loss)
9) MARSHALL (non-BCS school, past history of excellence, win against I-A team with winning record, 1 close loss against Top 25 school)
10) MINNESOTA (BCS school, win against I-A, 2 close defeats)
11) WESTERN KENTUCKY (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
12) EASTERN MICHIGAN (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
13) NORTH TEXAS (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
14) FLORIDA ATLANTIC (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
15) BOWLING GREEN (non-BCS school, past history of excellence, win against I-A team, 3 close losses)
There's your standings for the time being. See you for more Stupor Bowl action next weekend...
First the observation.
For the last three years, Boise State's football team has been a legitimate contender for the national championship... anywhere except the BCS system, which is rigged to favor the richest colleges (and thus secure to them the revenues from the largest and most important bowl games).
In a fair world, there would be a playoff system, like in high school and professional sports. However, in those leagues the rulemaking authority creates and regulates the leagues and conferences. In college football, the leagues and conferences preceded the NCAA- indeed they created it. It has to obey the colleges, not the other way around. It is extremely unlikely that any true playoff system, or more important a redistricting of conferences to make them more equal, will ever happen.
The example of Boise State, and to a lesser extent Utah and TCU, does mean an unending string of bad press for the so-called BCS conferences. The situation of haves and have-nots and the rigged system that separates them is a perpetual annoyance and embarrassment to the big schools. They must have some incentive, if not to actually address the problem, to at least shut them up for a while.
For Boise State, this might actually present a solution: namely, apply for a transfer out of the Western Athletic Conference and into either the Pac 10 (which has ambitions of becoming the Pac 16) or the Big 12 (which next year drops to 11 teams with Colorado going to the Pac 10).
I doubt it'll happen, but it would accomplish two things for Boise State's program. It would guarantee them a schedule that the pundits would respect- no more playing Fresno and New Mexico State. And it would give them a shot at a guaranteed BCS bowl slot- something it doesn't have now. The BCS conferences, on the other hand, would be able to prove that their system really does work- programs that consistently produce superior teams could look forward to inclusion in the BCS system. (And, at the same time, once Boise's on the inside, a lot of the argument for redistricting or playoffs gets silenced.)
Anyway... that's my thought. On to the first serious (if the word can be used) look at this year's Stupor Bowl contenders.
For those who don't know, the Stupor Bowl is my hypothetical matchup of the two worst Division 1-A college football teams, based on worst win-loss record, in a last hope to salvage something from their season. The only hard and fast restrictions: each of the two teams must come from a different conference, and neither team may have won their final regular-season game. As a general rule I give preference to those teams which, from size or history, ought to have done better than they did.
( And if that bores you, stop reading now. )
There you go- fifteen teams remaining... oh, you want rankings? OK, from worst to least sucky:
1) AKRON (0-8)
2) NEW MEXICO (0-8)
all others with 1 win
3) WASHINGTON STATE (BCS school, win against I-AA, no close defeats)
4) DUKE (BCS school, win against I-AA, 2 close defeats)
5) NEW MEXICO STATE (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, no close losses)
6) UNLV (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, no close losses)
7) SAN JOSE STATE (non-BCS school, win against I-AA team, EXTREMELY hard schedule, 1 close loss)
8) MEMPHIS (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 1 close loss)
9) MARSHALL (non-BCS school, past history of excellence, win against I-A team with winning record, 1 close loss against Top 25 school)
10) MINNESOTA (BCS school, win against I-A, 2 close defeats)
11) WESTERN KENTUCKY (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
12) EASTERN MICHIGAN (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
13) NORTH TEXAS (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
14) FLORIDA ATLANTIC (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
15) BOWLING GREEN (non-BCS school, past history of excellence, win against I-A team, 3 close losses)
There's your standings for the time being. See you for more Stupor Bowl action next weekend...
For the last three years, Boise State's football team has been a legitimate contender for the national championship... anywhere except the BCS system, which is rigged to favor the richest colleges (and thus secure to them the revenues from the largest and most important bowl games).
In a fair world, there would be a playoff system, like in high school and professional sports. However, in those leagues the rulemaking authority creates and regulates the leagues and conferences. In college football, the leagues and conferences preceded the NCAA- indeed they created it. It has to obey the colleges, not the other way around. It is extremely unlikely that any true playoff system, or more important a redistricting of conferences to make them more equal, will ever happen.
The example of Boise State, and to a lesser extent Utah and TCU, does mean an unending string of bad press for the so-called BCS conferences. The situation of haves and have-nots and the rigged system that separates them is a perpetual annoyance and embarrassment to the big schools. They must have some incentive, if not to actually address the problem, to at least shut them up for a while.
For Boise State, this might actually present a solution: namely, apply for a transfer out of the Western Athletic Conference and into either the Pac 10 (which has ambitions of becoming the Pac 16) or the Big 12 (which next year drops to 11 teams with Colorado going to the Pac 10).
I doubt it'll happen, but it would accomplish two things for Boise State's program. It would guarantee them a schedule that the pundits would respect- no more playing Fresno and New Mexico State. And it would give them a shot at a guaranteed BCS bowl slot- something it doesn't have now. The BCS conferences, on the other hand, would be able to prove that their system really does work- programs that consistently produce superior teams could look forward to inclusion in the BCS system. (And, at the same time, once Boise's on the inside, a lot of the argument for redistricting or playoffs gets silenced.)
Anyway... that's my thought. On to the first serious (if the word can be used) look at this year's Stupor Bowl contenders.
For those who don't know, the Stupor Bowl is my hypothetical matchup of the two worst Division 1-A college football teams, based on worst win-loss record, in a last hope to salvage something from their season. The only hard and fast restrictions: each of the two teams must come from a different conference, and neither team may have won their final regular-season game. As a general rule I give preference to those teams which, from size or history, ought to have done better than they did.
( And if that bores you, stop reading now. )
There you go- fifteen teams remaining... oh, you want rankings? OK, from worst to least sucky:
1) AKRON (0-8)
2) NEW MEXICO (0-8)
all others with 1 win
3) WASHINGTON STATE (BCS school, win against I-AA, no close defeats)
4) DUKE (BCS school, win against I-AA, 2 close defeats)
5) NEW MEXICO STATE (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, no close losses)
6) UNLV (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, no close losses)
7) SAN JOSE STATE (non-BCS school, win against I-AA team, EXTREMELY hard schedule, 1 close loss)
8) MEMPHIS (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 1 close loss)
9) MARSHALL (non-BCS school, past history of excellence, win against I-A team with winning record, 1 close loss against Top 25 school)
10) MINNESOTA (BCS school, win against I-A, 2 close defeats)
11) WESTERN KENTUCKY (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
12) EASTERN MICHIGAN (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
13) NORTH TEXAS (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
14) FLORIDA ATLANTIC (non-BCS school, win against I-A team, 2 close losses)
15) BOWLING GREEN (non-BCS school, past history of excellence, win against I-A team, 3 close losses)
There's your standings for the time being. See you for more Stupor Bowl action next weekend...
Adventures in online video.
Oct. 24th, 2010 11:44 pmSo I missed tonight's broadcast of 60 Minutes, which included a story on my current favorite TV show (indeed one of only two live-action shows I follow on a regular basis anymore), Top Gear.
I wanted to watch the piece (which is a fairly bland and straightforward 'here's this show from Englandland' thing), so I went online and found the official streaming video source.
And... well, I won't be making a habit of "streaming" video any time soon. Even on DSL, I estimate four minutes of download time for every minute of actual film.
And content providers, would it really be too much to ask that you hold off on starting the damn film until at least some substantial portion of it is loaded? I would love a simple LOADING screen followed by a PLAY button, rather than enduring skipping and sound glitches until I get the pause and play buttons to obey.
Anyway, if you don't watch Top Gear yet, watch that story- it's a good summary of the show, if not much else.
And if you already do... there's no real need for you to watch, but if you're a real fan you'll do it anyway, because you can't help yourself.
I wanted to watch the piece (which is a fairly bland and straightforward 'here's this show from Englandland' thing), so I went online and found the official streaming video source.
And... well, I won't be making a habit of "streaming" video any time soon. Even on DSL, I estimate four minutes of download time for every minute of actual film.
And content providers, would it really be too much to ask that you hold off on starting the damn film until at least some substantial portion of it is loaded? I would love a simple LOADING screen followed by a PLAY button, rather than enduring skipping and sound glitches until I get the pause and play buttons to obey.
Anyway, if you don't watch Top Gear yet, watch that story- it's a good summary of the show, if not much else.
And if you already do... there's no real need for you to watch, but if you're a real fan you'll do it anyway, because you can't help yourself.
Adventures in online video.
Oct. 24th, 2010 11:44 pmSo I missed tonight's broadcast of 60 Minutes, which included a story on my current favorite TV show (indeed one of only two live-action shows I follow on a regular basis anymore), Top Gear.
I wanted to watch the piece (which is a fairly bland and straightforward 'here's this show from Englandland' thing), so I went online and found the official streaming video source.
And... well, I won't be making a habit of "streaming" video any time soon. Even on DSL, I estimate four minutes of download time for every minute of actual film.
And content providers, would it really be too much to ask that you hold off on starting the damn film until at least some substantial portion of it is loaded? I would love a simple LOADING screen followed by a PLAY button, rather than enduring skipping and sound glitches until I get the pause and play buttons to obey.
Anyway, if you don't watch Top Gear yet, watch that story- it's a good summary of the show, if not much else.
And if you already do... there's no real need for you to watch, but if you're a real fan you'll do it anyway, because you can't help yourself.
I wanted to watch the piece (which is a fairly bland and straightforward 'here's this show from Englandland' thing), so I went online and found the official streaming video source.
And... well, I won't be making a habit of "streaming" video any time soon. Even on DSL, I estimate four minutes of download time for every minute of actual film.
And content providers, would it really be too much to ask that you hold off on starting the damn film until at least some substantial portion of it is loaded? I would love a simple LOADING screen followed by a PLAY button, rather than enduring skipping and sound glitches until I get the pause and play buttons to obey.
Anyway, if you don't watch Top Gear yet, watch that story- it's a good summary of the show, if not much else.
And if you already do... there's no real need for you to watch, but if you're a real fan you'll do it anyway, because you can't help yourself.