I was inspired to see "Up In The Air" partially due to all of the Golden Globe awards it has been nominated for (Best Actor, Supporting Actress (2), Picture, and Screenplay). Plus, I don't feel like there are too many interesting movies out right now.
Overall, I feel it was a very poignant movie "given our current economic climate" (I hate that term by the way, it is very overused). George Clooney's character travels the U.S. for a company that takes care of firing people. He travels constantly (at one point, he reveals he spent 46 days "at home" last year). Without giving too much away, the overall theme of the movie is "what is really important in life". While it was kind of uncomfortable to literally see like 50 people get fired, I enjoyed it. Stacey didn't like the ending and gave it 1/2 thumbs up. I don't need a "neat and tidy" ending as much, so I gave it 3/4 thumbs up.
On the way home, I had to think how I would handle being fired. Right now, I think I have as much job security as anyone could have. Our center's business is doing very well, especially G.O.C.E.C., and I am the only experienced person working there. But if I were ever fired, I think I would cry a little, try to ask why, and then quietly leave. I don't think I would be borderline violent, yell, or try to negotiate. I think understanding the relative importance of things is critical to keeping oneself grounded. To every life shattering problem, "there's a billion Chinese who don't care" ...or something. It may take a little while, it may take a long while, but everyone eventually moves on. Not just from losing your job, but from everything. And I think that developing that perspective, being able to understand how trivial some problems really are and to move on, is the way I've grown up most in the past two years.
Monday, January 18, 2010
If Mike played college basketball
...his name would be Mark Titus. Enjoy: http://clubtrillion.blogspot.com
(Especially the video he posted).
Strangely enough, I didn't hear about him on local news or around campus. I read about him on Sports Illustrated's website.
(Especially the video he posted).
Strangely enough, I didn't hear about him on local news or around campus. I read about him on Sports Illustrated's website.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Help
I can't believe it has almost been two years since I signed my car lease. I was looking back at my posts when I first got it and had a few laughs...
"I am actually more excited for Dontrell Willis than Miguel Cabrera." (Yes, I actually fucking said that).
In response to my criticism of the Atlanta Falcons cutting a ton of people on their roster:
"I love what the Falcons are doing! Get rid of all that garbage and let's build something new. Roddy White turned out to be the first decent receiver they've had in years, and if they get a Matt Ryan in the draft they'll have a Ryan/Turner/Norwood backfield. A young backfield, but it's something to build upon. I think they're taking the necessary steps." - Mike (frickin' genius)
My first reaction to the Sentra:
"So tonight I test drove my first car, the Nissan Sentra. The car handles very well - it has some revolutionary transmission so you can't feel it shift. I love the look of the Sentra - especially in black."
My next post:
"I am still really happy with my new car. That's all I have to say in this paragraph - I love it."
...and now I treat it like crap and it's covered in salt.
Anyway, I need to figure out what to get by March 1st. I don't want a new Sentra, I can't get a Scion tc because that is what Stacey drives. And I probably don't want to spend more than $20,000 (though I am looking to lease). I need suggestions!
"I am actually more excited for Dontrell Willis than Miguel Cabrera." (Yes, I actually fucking said that).
In response to my criticism of the Atlanta Falcons cutting a ton of people on their roster:
"I love what the Falcons are doing! Get rid of all that garbage and let's build something new. Roddy White turned out to be the first decent receiver they've had in years, and if they get a Matt Ryan in the draft they'll have a Ryan/Turner/Norwood backfield. A young backfield, but it's something to build upon. I think they're taking the necessary steps." - Mike (frickin' genius)
My first reaction to the Sentra:
"So tonight I test drove my first car, the Nissan Sentra. The car handles very well - it has some revolutionary transmission so you can't feel it shift. I love the look of the Sentra - especially in black."
My next post:
"I am still really happy with my new car. That's all I have to say in this paragraph - I love it."
...and now I treat it like crap and it's covered in salt.
Anyway, I need to figure out what to get by March 1st. I don't want a new Sentra, I can't get a Scion tc because that is what Stacey drives. And I probably don't want to spend more than $20,000 (though I am looking to lease). I need suggestions!
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Annual BCS Post
(Note: Most of this was written before the bowl season began, so at that point Florida hadn't obliterated Cincinnati. When you read this, consider the overall picture of the BCS and try not to get caught up in a specific situation.)
We all know that the BCS is monopolistic, unfair, biased, inept, etc. I am sick of sportswriters using the late November/early December timeframe to write their own variation of the same column each year. However, it is too interesting of a sports story to ignore it. I want to focus on this year's rendition and a point that I have never heard from a single sportswriter. College Football this year, as it has in recent years, has given an unfair advantage to teams in the Big 12 and the SEC.
National Championship Games By Conference
When you look back at the history of the BCS National Championship, you have to throw out 2003 because there was not an undisputed champion and the top two teams didn't play in a BCS Championship game. Besides teams in the SEC and Big 12, only 5 teams have ever played in a national championship game (Miami, Virginia Tech, OSU, USC, Florida State). Below is a breakdown by conference of the number of teams represented.
Pac 10 2
Big 10 3
Big East 3 (Miami and Virginia Tech were B.E. teams at the time)
ACC 3
SEC 5
Big 12 6
People this season have been treating the SEC like the Big 12 was last year - as a power conference with several great teams. Last year, Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma were truly exciting to watch week in and week out. It is a shame that only one of them could participate in the National Championship even though they each only lost to each other. Oklahoma State, Missouri, and Nebraska were strong teams as well, so it was understandable that one spot in the National Championship game was reserved for the winner of the Big 12 even though USC and Penn State each only lost one game as well.
This year, the BCS voters and the media had the same attitude for the winner of the SEC championship game even though Cincinnati finished undefeated as well. Outside of Florida and Alabama, however, LSU has 3 losses, Mississippi has 4, and a whole bunch have 5. That is hardly the competitive level of a "power conference" that deserves an "automatic pass" to the national championship game. When you consider how the different conferences have performed this bowl season, the Mountain West Conference is 4-0, Big East is 4-1, and the Big 10 is 3-2 while the Big 12 is 3-3 and SEC is 4-4 (As of post time - 7:30pm on 1/2). Those hardly indicate the strength of the Big 12 and SEC this year.
Looking at the list of national championship competitors, you'll notice that none of the current Big East teams have ever made it there. I think this is a major reason why Cincinnati wasn't ever seriously considered for the the National Championship game this year. (Again, I agree Alabama and Texas are probably the two best teams. However, there is something wrong when Cincinnati was never really considered.)
Teams Benefit/Hurt From BCS Voting By Conference
I think it is important to look deeper into the history to consider situations where controversial BCS voting has benefitted teams in certain conferences and hurt others. To define the terms of "benefit" and "hurt", I have used the following criteria:
-A team benefits if they had the same record at the end of the regular season as another but made it into the championship game. The contrary team(s) are considered hurt by the system.
-I don't consider a team "hurt" if they lost to one of the teams in the championship game.
-The same is true if they lost to another team with same number of losses as themselves because they have less of an argument to be there.
-While I respect TCU, Utah, and Boise State, I am only considering BCS Conference teams because those are the competitive conferences and those 6 conferences are supposed to be on equal footing. I think the system should be changed to allow them to participate more, but that is a whole 'nother post.
Using that criteria, here's a look at the history of the BCS championships. The rankings used are the final regular season AP rankings.
1998 - #1 Tennessee (0 losses) over #2 Florida State (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: OSU, UCLA, Kansas State, Arizona (lost to UCLA), Wisconsin (lost to OSU),
1999 - #1 Florida State (0 losses) over #2 Virginia Tech (0 losses)
2000 - #1 Oklahoma (0 losses) over #3 Florida State (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: Miami (Beat FSU), Washington, Oregon State (lost to Washington), Virginia Tech (lost to Miami)
2001 - #1 Miami (0 losses) over #4 Nebraska (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: Oregon, Maryland, Illinois
2002 - #2 OSU (0 losses) over #1 Miami (0 losses)
2003 - #2 LSU (1 loss) over #3 Oklahoma (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: USC, Michigan
(Although, remember we are throwing out 2003 since there was a split national championship)
2004 - #1 USC (0 losses) over #2 Oklahoma (0 losses)
Other 0 loss: Auburn
2005 - #2 Texas (0 losses) over #1 USC (0 losses)
2006 - #2 Florida (1 loss) over #1 OSU (0 losses)
Other 1 loss: USC, Louisville, Wisconsin, Michigan (lost to OSU)
2007 - #2 LSU (2 losses) over #1 OSU (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: Kansas
Other 2 losses: Oklahoma, Georgia, Virginia Tech, USC, West Virginia, Arizona State (lost to USC), Missouri (lost to Oklahoma)
2008 - #1 Florida (1 loss) over #2 Oklahoma (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: USC, Penn State, Alabama (lost to Florida), (Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma each lost to each other)
2009 - #1 Alabama (0 loss) meets #2 Texas (0 loss)
Other 0 loss: Cincinnati
Of the 12 years, there have been 3 without controversy among BCS conference teams. That brings the final "Benefit vs. Hurt" tally to:
Benefit:
SEC 4
Big 10 1
Pac 10 1
Big 12 4
Big East 0
ACC 2
Hurt:
SEC 2
Big 10 4
Pac 10 6
Big 12 3
Big East 4
ACC 2
The system has clearly helped the SEC and Big 12 whenever one of their teams has an equal record as a team from another conference because of a perceived superiority among voters. The Big East, Big 10, and Pac 10 have been slighted as a result. When teams play a 12 game schedule, roughly 75% of which is comprised of conference games, how can we truly compare the skill level of the BCS conferences against one another? I think it is not surprising that the Pac 10 has been hurt the most and demonstrates the East Coast bias in college football (particularly against teams not named USC). Consider another aspect of the 2009 college football season, the Heisman Trophy race.
The Heisman Race
RB A: 1736 yards, 26 TDs, 5.6 yds/carry
RB B: 1542 yards, 15 TDs, 6.2 yds/carry
RB C: 1145 yards, 11 TDs, 5.7 yds/carry
Quick - if you chose a RB to give your Heisman vote to, which one is the best based on their regular season stats??
Ok, this one was obvious. If you've been following college football closely enough this season, you can guess that A was Toby Gerhart and B was Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram. Running back C was CJ Spiller, who finished 6th in Heisman voting and received 26 first place votes despite finishing 28th in the NCAA in rushing yards and tied for 38th in rushing TDs. The Heisman race, in my opinion, has been rendered completely irrelevant since Jason White, Chris Weinke, and Eric Crouch won the award. Recently, it has been awarded to the best player on the best two teams, as evidenced by the fact that only 2 people in the past 10 years have won the award without making an appearances in the national championship game (Tim Tebow and Carson Palmer). Predictably, half of the last 14 Heisman trophy winners have come from the SEC or Big 12.
The Bowl System Defense
The bowl system has become a complete farce. College presidents and other BCS proponents argue that it is a great tradition in sports. You tell me what is really involved when the Flomax Bowl Update provides all of the scores from Capital One Bowl Week games, including the Chick-Fil-A Bowl. They have watered down the system to the point where we have mediocre teams playing games in mediocre cities (Toronto, Birmingham, St. Petersburg) sponsored by mediocre companies (I'm talking to you, Beef O'Bradys and San Diego County Credit Union). The rule used to be that teams must have a winning record to be bowl eligible. Now, you can go 6-6 (You can watch the Insight Bowl that features two of them!). Our very own Michigan State even has a losing record against Division I-A teams! Some teams don't even seem to want to go to a bowl game. Notre Dame declined any invitation because of their "unique circumstances" and rumor had it that MSU was privately campaigning for a trip to the Pizza Bowl to save on costs and increase revenue possibilities. Consider also the number of players that are ineligible for bowl games due to academic and disciplinary reasons (again, MSU boasts 8 plus the ones we kicked off the team earlier this season). Add that to the coaching carousel that occurs at the end of the season and you have many teams that appear to be shells of their regular season rosters. Of the 40 bowl games this season, I feel there are only a solid 10-15 that appear to be interesting games.
Of all of the factors that could lead to a playoff system (pressures from Congress, undefeated teams like Cincinnati being shut out, growing dissatisfaction from fans), I feel that the aspect that is most likely to lead to a playoff system is the current economic climate. After all, money is the major reason why we have so many bowl games. Companies are starting to pull back expenses everywhere and one of the first things to be cut are sponsorships. This year, Pepsi has cut all of their Super Bowl ads. Car companies, some of the most heavily invested brands in sports advertising, have been forced to drop most of their sponsorships (including the Motor City Bowl). Fans with less discretionary spending are less likely to make the trip and buy tickets to a game that is considered a disappointment for their team. The answer for athletic departments and college presidents could be a smaller number of bowls and a small playoff system. While there will always be a debate over who was left out no matter the size of a playoff, giving more teams a chance at the championship will reduce the level of controversy and will reduce the conference bias that favors the 24 teams in the SEC and Big 12. An 8 team playoff would allow the 6 BCS-Conference Champions and two additional teams an even playing level for the title without causing a serious disruption to the current system.
We all know that the BCS is monopolistic, unfair, biased, inept, etc. I am sick of sportswriters using the late November/early December timeframe to write their own variation of the same column each year. However, it is too interesting of a sports story to ignore it. I want to focus on this year's rendition and a point that I have never heard from a single sportswriter. College Football this year, as it has in recent years, has given an unfair advantage to teams in the Big 12 and the SEC.
National Championship Games By Conference
When you look back at the history of the BCS National Championship, you have to throw out 2003 because there was not an undisputed champion and the top two teams didn't play in a BCS Championship game. Besides teams in the SEC and Big 12, only 5 teams have ever played in a national championship game (Miami, Virginia Tech, OSU, USC, Florida State). Below is a breakdown by conference of the number of teams represented.
Pac 10 2
Big 10 3
Big East 3 (Miami and Virginia Tech were B.E. teams at the time)
ACC 3
SEC 5
Big 12 6
People this season have been treating the SEC like the Big 12 was last year - as a power conference with several great teams. Last year, Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma were truly exciting to watch week in and week out. It is a shame that only one of them could participate in the National Championship even though they each only lost to each other. Oklahoma State, Missouri, and Nebraska were strong teams as well, so it was understandable that one spot in the National Championship game was reserved for the winner of the Big 12 even though USC and Penn State each only lost one game as well.
This year, the BCS voters and the media had the same attitude for the winner of the SEC championship game even though Cincinnati finished undefeated as well. Outside of Florida and Alabama, however, LSU has 3 losses, Mississippi has 4, and a whole bunch have 5. That is hardly the competitive level of a "power conference" that deserves an "automatic pass" to the national championship game. When you consider how the different conferences have performed this bowl season, the Mountain West Conference is 4-0, Big East is 4-1, and the Big 10 is 3-2 while the Big 12 is 3-3 and SEC is 4-4 (As of post time - 7:30pm on 1/2). Those hardly indicate the strength of the Big 12 and SEC this year.
Looking at the list of national championship competitors, you'll notice that none of the current Big East teams have ever made it there. I think this is a major reason why Cincinnati wasn't ever seriously considered for the the National Championship game this year. (Again, I agree Alabama and Texas are probably the two best teams. However, there is something wrong when Cincinnati was never really considered.)
Teams Benefit/Hurt From BCS Voting By Conference
I think it is important to look deeper into the history to consider situations where controversial BCS voting has benefitted teams in certain conferences and hurt others. To define the terms of "benefit" and "hurt", I have used the following criteria:
-A team benefits if they had the same record at the end of the regular season as another but made it into the championship game. The contrary team(s) are considered hurt by the system.
-I don't consider a team "hurt" if they lost to one of the teams in the championship game.
-The same is true if they lost to another team with same number of losses as themselves because they have less of an argument to be there.
-While I respect TCU, Utah, and Boise State, I am only considering BCS Conference teams because those are the competitive conferences and those 6 conferences are supposed to be on equal footing. I think the system should be changed to allow them to participate more, but that is a whole 'nother post.
Using that criteria, here's a look at the history of the BCS championships. The rankings used are the final regular season AP rankings.
1998 - #1 Tennessee (0 losses) over #2 Florida State (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: OSU, UCLA, Kansas State, Arizona (lost to UCLA), Wisconsin (lost to OSU),
1999 - #1 Florida State (0 losses) over #2 Virginia Tech (0 losses)
2000 - #1 Oklahoma (0 losses) over #3 Florida State (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: Miami (Beat FSU), Washington, Oregon State (lost to Washington), Virginia Tech (lost to Miami)
2001 - #1 Miami (0 losses) over #4 Nebraska (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: Oregon, Maryland, Illinois
2002 - #2 OSU (0 losses) over #1 Miami (0 losses)
2003 - #2 LSU (1 loss) over #3 Oklahoma (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: USC, Michigan
(Although, remember we are throwing out 2003 since there was a split national championship)
2004 - #1 USC (0 losses) over #2 Oklahoma (0 losses)
Other 0 loss: Auburn
2005 - #2 Texas (0 losses) over #1 USC (0 losses)
2006 - #2 Florida (1 loss) over #1 OSU (0 losses)
Other 1 loss: USC, Louisville, Wisconsin, Michigan (lost to OSU)
2007 - #2 LSU (2 losses) over #1 OSU (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: Kansas
Other 2 losses: Oklahoma, Georgia, Virginia Tech, USC, West Virginia, Arizona State (lost to USC), Missouri (lost to Oklahoma)
2008 - #1 Florida (1 loss) over #2 Oklahoma (1 loss)
Other 1 loss: USC, Penn State, Alabama (lost to Florida), (Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma each lost to each other)
2009 - #1 Alabama (0 loss) meets #2 Texas (0 loss)
Other 0 loss: Cincinnati
Of the 12 years, there have been 3 without controversy among BCS conference teams. That brings the final "Benefit vs. Hurt" tally to:
Benefit:
SEC 4
Big 10 1
Pac 10 1
Big 12 4
Big East 0
ACC 2
Hurt:
SEC 2
Big 10 4
Pac 10 6
Big 12 3
Big East 4
ACC 2
The system has clearly helped the SEC and Big 12 whenever one of their teams has an equal record as a team from another conference because of a perceived superiority among voters. The Big East, Big 10, and Pac 10 have been slighted as a result. When teams play a 12 game schedule, roughly 75% of which is comprised of conference games, how can we truly compare the skill level of the BCS conferences against one another? I think it is not surprising that the Pac 10 has been hurt the most and demonstrates the East Coast bias in college football (particularly against teams not named USC). Consider another aspect of the 2009 college football season, the Heisman Trophy race.
The Heisman Race
RB A: 1736 yards, 26 TDs, 5.6 yds/carry
RB B: 1542 yards, 15 TDs, 6.2 yds/carry
RB C: 1145 yards, 11 TDs, 5.7 yds/carry
Quick - if you chose a RB to give your Heisman vote to, which one is the best based on their regular season stats??
Ok, this one was obvious. If you've been following college football closely enough this season, you can guess that A was Toby Gerhart and B was Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram. Running back C was CJ Spiller, who finished 6th in Heisman voting and received 26 first place votes despite finishing 28th in the NCAA in rushing yards and tied for 38th in rushing TDs. The Heisman race, in my opinion, has been rendered completely irrelevant since Jason White, Chris Weinke, and Eric Crouch won the award. Recently, it has been awarded to the best player on the best two teams, as evidenced by the fact that only 2 people in the past 10 years have won the award without making an appearances in the national championship game (Tim Tebow and Carson Palmer). Predictably, half of the last 14 Heisman trophy winners have come from the SEC or Big 12.
The Bowl System Defense
The bowl system has become a complete farce. College presidents and other BCS proponents argue that it is a great tradition in sports. You tell me what is really involved when the Flomax Bowl Update provides all of the scores from Capital One Bowl Week games, including the Chick-Fil-A Bowl. They have watered down the system to the point where we have mediocre teams playing games in mediocre cities (Toronto, Birmingham, St. Petersburg) sponsored by mediocre companies (I'm talking to you, Beef O'Bradys and San Diego County Credit Union). The rule used to be that teams must have a winning record to be bowl eligible. Now, you can go 6-6 (You can watch the Insight Bowl that features two of them!). Our very own Michigan State even has a losing record against Division I-A teams! Some teams don't even seem to want to go to a bowl game. Notre Dame declined any invitation because of their "unique circumstances" and rumor had it that MSU was privately campaigning for a trip to the Pizza Bowl to save on costs and increase revenue possibilities. Consider also the number of players that are ineligible for bowl games due to academic and disciplinary reasons (again, MSU boasts 8 plus the ones we kicked off the team earlier this season). Add that to the coaching carousel that occurs at the end of the season and you have many teams that appear to be shells of their regular season rosters. Of the 40 bowl games this season, I feel there are only a solid 10-15 that appear to be interesting games.
Of all of the factors that could lead to a playoff system (pressures from Congress, undefeated teams like Cincinnati being shut out, growing dissatisfaction from fans), I feel that the aspect that is most likely to lead to a playoff system is the current economic climate. After all, money is the major reason why we have so many bowl games. Companies are starting to pull back expenses everywhere and one of the first things to be cut are sponsorships. This year, Pepsi has cut all of their Super Bowl ads. Car companies, some of the most heavily invested brands in sports advertising, have been forced to drop most of their sponsorships (including the Motor City Bowl). Fans with less discretionary spending are less likely to make the trip and buy tickets to a game that is considered a disappointment for their team. The answer for athletic departments and college presidents could be a smaller number of bowls and a small playoff system. While there will always be a debate over who was left out no matter the size of a playoff, giving more teams a chance at the championship will reduce the level of controversy and will reduce the conference bias that favors the 24 teams in the SEC and Big 12. An 8 team playoff would allow the 6 BCS-Conference Champions and two additional teams an even playing level for the title without causing a serious disruption to the current system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)