Now that the "revolution" in Egypt is "over," I feel like I can weigh in on the situation.
First, the fact that the demonstrations were organized on the Internet and social media is a victory for both democracy and Islam. If the younger generations of a traditional Islamic nation can use something so non-traditional to peacefully organize, you have to think they made positive strides in changing the way Islamic doctrine is viewed around the world. Being Muslim is not about screaming at infidels, firing assault rifles into the air, and suicide bombing Western establishments. Muslims can be peaceful and use the Internet just as much as the rest of us.
For those who are concerned about how a new administration will be received by the United States, I have two words for you... Obama and oil. Whomever is elected, it's unlikely that this administration will challenge them. Obama will want a peaceful transition, but will keep a watchful eye on the new administration. Also, if the U.S. hassles the new government too much it would have an effect on all of our relations with Islamic countries... specifically a risk to our outsourced oil resources.
More importantly, I believe in a more isolated U.S.A. I realize we need strong relations with other countries as allies and trade partners, but I'm tired of our army playing World Police. I feel that the U.S. should only concern themselves with other nations when it comes to trading goods/resources. I understand that we like to think of ourselves as the human rights watchdogs, but isn't that what the UN is for?
As an extension of that argument, we better stay the hell away from the upcoming Egyptian elections. Any meddling of any kind will be dangerous for us because the Islamic radicals are just waiting for another reason to attack us. If they elect someone we don't approve of, then Obama can handle it diplomatically. If there is unrest and fraud, then that's their lesson learned.
Congradulations, people of Egypt, I hope you get what you wanted.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
St. Valentine Be Praised, It's Another College B-Ball Rankings
Some might call this the stretch run. Everyone has 4-6 games left and the bubble is getting smaller as teams start to file into order. Here are the rankings:
1: Kansas
2: Georgetown
3: Texas (Big 12)
3: Pittsburgh (Big East)
5: Brigham Young (MWC)
6: Ohio State (Big Ten)
7: Florida (SEC)
8: Notre Dame
9: San Diego State
10: Connecticut
11: North Carolina
12: Duke (ACC)
13: Purdue
14: Vanderbilt
15: Kentucky
16: Wisconsin
17: Villanova
18: Syracuse
18: St. John's
18: West Virginia
21: Louisville
22: Arizona (Pac-10)
23: Xavier (A-10)
24: Tennessee
25: Texas A&M
26: Missouri
27: Minnesota
28: UCLA
29: UNLV
30: George Mason (Colonial)
31: Washington
32: Kansas State
33: Illinois
34: Colorado State
35: Michigan State
36: Boston College
37: Memphis
38: Old Dominion
39: Temple
40: Georgia
41: Marquette
42: UAB (C-USA)
43: St. Mary's (WCC)
44: Butler
45: Michigan
46: Florida State
47: Baylor
48: Utah State (WAC)
49: Valparaiso (Horizon)
50: Oklahoma State
51: Missouri State (MVC)
52: Oakland (Summit)
53: Princeton (Ivy)
54: Coastal Carolina (Big South)
55: Long Beach State (Big West)
56: Kent State (MAC)
57: Charleston (Southern)
58: Belmont (A-Sun)
59: Bucknell (Patriot)
60: Vermont (Amer. East)
61: Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)
62: Montana (Big Sky)
63: Fairfield (MAAC)
64: Murray State (OVC)
65: Long Island (NEC)
66: Hampton (MEAC)
67: Texas Southern (SWAC)
68: Texas State (Southland)
First 4 Out: Cleveland State, Wichita State, Southern Miss, UTEP
Next 4 Out: Cincinnati, VCU, Alabama, Harvard
1: Kansas
2: Georgetown
3: Texas (Big 12)
3: Pittsburgh (Big East)
5: Brigham Young (MWC)
6: Ohio State (Big Ten)
7: Florida (SEC)
8: Notre Dame
9: San Diego State
10: Connecticut
11: North Carolina
12: Duke (ACC)
13: Purdue
14: Vanderbilt
15: Kentucky
16: Wisconsin
17: Villanova
18: Syracuse
18: St. John's
18: West Virginia
21: Louisville
22: Arizona (Pac-10)
23: Xavier (A-10)
24: Tennessee
25: Texas A&M
26: Missouri
27: Minnesota
28: UCLA
29: UNLV
30: George Mason (Colonial)
31: Washington
32: Kansas State
33: Illinois
34: Colorado State
35: Michigan State
36: Boston College
37: Memphis
38: Old Dominion
39: Temple
40: Georgia
41: Marquette
42: UAB (C-USA)
43: St. Mary's (WCC)
44: Butler
45: Michigan
46: Florida State
47: Baylor
48: Utah State (WAC)
49: Valparaiso (Horizon)
50: Oklahoma State
51: Missouri State (MVC)
52: Oakland (Summit)
53: Princeton (Ivy)
54: Coastal Carolina (Big South)
55: Long Beach State (Big West)
56: Kent State (MAC)
57: Charleston (Southern)
58: Belmont (A-Sun)
59: Bucknell (Patriot)
60: Vermont (Amer. East)
61: Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)
62: Montana (Big Sky)
63: Fairfield (MAAC)
64: Murray State (OVC)
65: Long Island (NEC)
66: Hampton (MEAC)
67: Texas Southern (SWAC)
68: Texas State (Southland)
First 4 Out: Cleveland State, Wichita State, Southern Miss, UTEP
Next 4 Out: Cincinnati, VCU, Alabama, Harvard
Thursday, February 10, 2011
My Problem with Limited Options
I want to begin by saying that I want this to be a non-partisan discussion. In fact, that's the problem. That I should even have to preface this with that disclaimer is ridiculous.
It's my opinion that when democracy was founded, they intended for a diverse range of opinions to heard in political discussions. Now, I understand that human society has a tendancy to group together; and I know the loudest voice (or the most voices together) is more easily heard. That being said, I can see how we ended up with a two-party representative government (and I'm not saying it doesn't work), but hear me out.
Hypothetically, let start over with the 2012 election. ALL political offices would be up for election from the POTUS to your town sheriff. If you would like to run for office, you are required to cut your political affiliations and submit an open description of your opinions/beliefs/policital desires/voting record. This document will be made available to everyone in the district/state/country, so that it can be reviewed by those that will vote for you. You can change these at any time but the change will also be publicized.
Now, if parts of the country want to band together with similar policital views/goals into say a political party they can. Ideally it should be very specific, like the "We Approve of Stem Cell Research" party or the "Fund the Military Industrial Complex" party. Each group or party would then be able to endorse any candidate in any election... thus forming a coalition of sorts. So we could have a candidate running for office with endorsements as Pro-Choice, Pro-Gun, Anti-involvement in the Middle East, Pro-Social Welfare, Anti-China, Pro-Environment, Anti-Immigration, and Anti-Budget Reduction... just to name a few.
Isn't it frustrating to have only two choices for office? Especially when you take issue with the politics of both candidates in some way? Too often people are voting for a candidate out of frustration with the incumbent of the previous official's party. For example, in my first official election as a Missourian (2004), I voted for Matt Blunt for Governor. I was upset with the democratic administration for cutting spending for high education (a direct affect on me) and over-spending. Do I regret my decision? Yes. If I had other options, I might have voted a different way.
I know what you're saying... third party candidates never win. I know, that's why we have to do away with the Democrat vs. Republican thing. If someone wants to run for office, they shouldn't have to be a slave to either Republican or Democrat rhetoric/party unity. Believe me, there is such a thing as a Pro-Life, aetheist, who thinks we should continue with our foreign policy and start using our own oil resources. But whom would that person vote for in the 2012 election?
I open this for criticism. I studied some of the (unsuccessful) coalition governments in Latin America and believe that if they had a stronger base of government and less opportunity for corruption, it would have worked out in places like Nicaragua. Let me know what you think.
It's my opinion that when democracy was founded, they intended for a diverse range of opinions to heard in political discussions. Now, I understand that human society has a tendancy to group together; and I know the loudest voice (or the most voices together) is more easily heard. That being said, I can see how we ended up with a two-party representative government (and I'm not saying it doesn't work), but hear me out.
Hypothetically, let start over with the 2012 election. ALL political offices would be up for election from the POTUS to your town sheriff. If you would like to run for office, you are required to cut your political affiliations and submit an open description of your opinions/beliefs/policital desires/voting record. This document will be made available to everyone in the district/state/country, so that it can be reviewed by those that will vote for you. You can change these at any time but the change will also be publicized.
Now, if parts of the country want to band together with similar policital views/goals into say a political party they can. Ideally it should be very specific, like the "We Approve of Stem Cell Research" party or the "Fund the Military Industrial Complex" party. Each group or party would then be able to endorse any candidate in any election... thus forming a coalition of sorts. So we could have a candidate running for office with endorsements as Pro-Choice, Pro-Gun, Anti-involvement in the Middle East, Pro-Social Welfare, Anti-China, Pro-Environment, Anti-Immigration, and Anti-Budget Reduction... just to name a few.
Isn't it frustrating to have only two choices for office? Especially when you take issue with the politics of both candidates in some way? Too often people are voting for a candidate out of frustration with the incumbent of the previous official's party. For example, in my first official election as a Missourian (2004), I voted for Matt Blunt for Governor. I was upset with the democratic administration for cutting spending for high education (a direct affect on me) and over-spending. Do I regret my decision? Yes. If I had other options, I might have voted a different way.
I know what you're saying... third party candidates never win. I know, that's why we have to do away with the Democrat vs. Republican thing. If someone wants to run for office, they shouldn't have to be a slave to either Republican or Democrat rhetoric/party unity. Believe me, there is such a thing as a Pro-Life, aetheist, who thinks we should continue with our foreign policy and start using our own oil resources. But whom would that person vote for in the 2012 election?
I open this for criticism. I studied some of the (unsuccessful) coalition governments in Latin America and believe that if they had a stronger base of government and less opportunity for corruption, it would have worked out in places like Nicaragua. Let me know what you think.
Monday, February 7, 2011
College Ranks + Super Analysis
The Packers won with a better secondary and less mistakes. I'm proud to say that my fantasy quarterback is bringing home the MVP.
Enough football... until the draft it's nothing but basketball. Here are this week's rankings:
1: Kansas
2: Brigham Young (MWC)
3: Georgetown
4: Texas (Big 12)
5: Pittsburgh (Big East)
6: Ohio State (Big 10)
7: Connecticut
8: Notre Dame
9: San Diego State
10: Florida
11: Purdue
12: Kentucky
13: Villanova
14: West Virginia
15: North Carolina
16: Syracuse
17: Duke (ACC)
18: Vanderbilt
19: Wisconsin
20: Arizona (Pac 10)
21: Louisville
22: Minnesota
23: Tennessee
24: St. John's
25: Texas A&M
26: Xavier (A-10)
27: Illinois
28: Missouri
29: UNLV
30: Kansas State
31: UCLA
32: George Mason (Colonial)
33: Washington
34: Marquette
35: Temple
36: Boston College
37: Michigan State
38: Butler
39: Old Dominion
40: Georgia
41: Colorado State
42: Florida State
43: Wichita State (MVC)
44: UAB
45: Cincinnati
46: Memphis
47: St. Mary's (WCC)
48: Utah State (WAC)
49: Cleveland State (Horizon)
50: Southern Miss (C-USA)
51: Alabama (SEC)
52: Oakland (Summit)
53: Princeton (Ivy)
54: Kent State (MAC)
55: Charleston (Southern)
56: Long Beach State (Big West)
57: Coastal Carolina (Big South)
58: Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)
59: Belmont (A-Sun)
60: Vermont (Amer. East)
61: Bucknell (Patriot)
62: Murray State (OVC)
63: Northern Colorado (Big Sky)
64: Fairfield (MAAC)
65: Long Island (NEC)
66: Hampton (MEAC)
67: Texas Southern (SWAC)
68: Northwestern State (Southland)
First 4 Out: Oklahoma State, Valparaiso, Missouri State, Baylor
Next 4 Out: UTEP, VCU, Duquense, Harvard
Enough football... until the draft it's nothing but basketball. Here are this week's rankings:
1: Kansas
2: Brigham Young (MWC)
3: Georgetown
4: Texas (Big 12)
5: Pittsburgh (Big East)
6: Ohio State (Big 10)
7: Connecticut
8: Notre Dame
9: San Diego State
10: Florida
11: Purdue
12: Kentucky
13: Villanova
14: West Virginia
15: North Carolina
16: Syracuse
17: Duke (ACC)
18: Vanderbilt
19: Wisconsin
20: Arizona (Pac 10)
21: Louisville
22: Minnesota
23: Tennessee
24: St. John's
25: Texas A&M
26: Xavier (A-10)
27: Illinois
28: Missouri
29: UNLV
30: Kansas State
31: UCLA
32: George Mason (Colonial)
33: Washington
34: Marquette
35: Temple
36: Boston College
37: Michigan State
38: Butler
39: Old Dominion
40: Georgia
41: Colorado State
42: Florida State
43: Wichita State (MVC)
44: UAB
45: Cincinnati
46: Memphis
47: St. Mary's (WCC)
48: Utah State (WAC)
49: Cleveland State (Horizon)
50: Southern Miss (C-USA)
51: Alabama (SEC)
52: Oakland (Summit)
53: Princeton (Ivy)
54: Kent State (MAC)
55: Charleston (Southern)
56: Long Beach State (Big West)
57: Coastal Carolina (Big South)
58: Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)
59: Belmont (A-Sun)
60: Vermont (Amer. East)
61: Bucknell (Patriot)
62: Murray State (OVC)
63: Northern Colorado (Big Sky)
64: Fairfield (MAAC)
65: Long Island (NEC)
66: Hampton (MEAC)
67: Texas Southern (SWAC)
68: Northwestern State (Southland)
First 4 Out: Oklahoma State, Valparaiso, Missouri State, Baylor
Next 4 Out: UTEP, VCU, Duquense, Harvard
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Conspiracy Theories I Believe In
Let's see if I can keep this going... a sports blog on Mondays and a non-sports blog on Thursdays. A schedule you can check in on regularly, right? A little something for everyone, right?
Sometimes I think I'm a little crazy, and it's usually confirmed by facts and evidence. But, sometimes enough time goes by that my silly brain isn't stopped from building a conspiracy theory. Then there are existing theories that I actually find some validity to.
- Flu shots are a hoax. Now I'm not saying they're meant as some sort of mind control serum, but I think they are a placebo. It's sounds crazy that in order to prevent a virus, you inject that virus into your body. This is why during "epidemics" babies and the elderly always get the first crack at the shots... they are easiest to convince it works.
- The NCAA favors certain programs when conducting investigations. Sometimes the evidence starts to pile up too high, so the NCAA stalls for just long enough (Ex: They took so long on the USC football investigation that Pete Carroll had time to wait for the right NFL job to open up). Yes, they bust some premiere programs, but usually after they've worn out their welcome (see Florida State football 2008 or Tennessee basketball 2010). When was the last time you saw a powerhouse program have their National Championship season derailed by NCAA sanctions?
- The 2-party political system is intended to keep the populous fickle and in a constant state of debate to avoid revolution/uprising. We've been dealing with this frustrating "lesser of 2 evils" system for about 200 years. Raise your hand if you agree with EVERYTHING the party you associate with stands for... didn't think so. When it comes to ONE, single issue, it's really easy to chose sides. But does it make you a bad Republican if you are anti-welfare and pro-choice? I could imagine it would difficult to have a strong (read: controlling) government if each elected official formed their own political stance based on the views of a majority (at least) of their district. I believe that politics are too diverse to limit representatives to just two options. I'll explain my zeal for coalition governments in a later blog.
- Video games have an "F-You" mode. Those of us that play video games, specifically a large amount of one game have come to notice that you can't win every time. This can be seen specifically in sports games, such as Madden. No matter how good you get, every so often the computer goes into "F-You" mode and insists that you will lose. It conveniently happens when you least expect it... like going into a home game against an inferior opponent when you're riding a 22-game winning streak. (Note: It even happens on the easiest skill levels.)
- The media pays athletes and celebrities to make news. Look, I love ESPN. Without it, I probably wouldn't have gone into journalism and failed at it. Have you noticed how much of the "news" is about celebrities (and athletes) acting abnormally? I think there is a strong possibility that someone in the media is paying the Lohan family to keep being stupid. What about the chance that ESPN paid Brett Favre to be so wishy-washy about his comebacks? How else would you explain Jennifer Anniston never finding love (other than personal hygiene)?
- Whomever deals out karmic justice is being paid off. It's the main reason most people don't believe it karma... when you think your time has come, it doesn't.
Sometimes I think I'm a little crazy, and it's usually confirmed by facts and evidence. But, sometimes enough time goes by that my silly brain isn't stopped from building a conspiracy theory. Then there are existing theories that I actually find some validity to.
- Flu shots are a hoax. Now I'm not saying they're meant as some sort of mind control serum, but I think they are a placebo. It's sounds crazy that in order to prevent a virus, you inject that virus into your body. This is why during "epidemics" babies and the elderly always get the first crack at the shots... they are easiest to convince it works.
- The NCAA favors certain programs when conducting investigations. Sometimes the evidence starts to pile up too high, so the NCAA stalls for just long enough (Ex: They took so long on the USC football investigation that Pete Carroll had time to wait for the right NFL job to open up). Yes, they bust some premiere programs, but usually after they've worn out their welcome (see Florida State football 2008 or Tennessee basketball 2010). When was the last time you saw a powerhouse program have their National Championship season derailed by NCAA sanctions?
- The 2-party political system is intended to keep the populous fickle and in a constant state of debate to avoid revolution/uprising. We've been dealing with this frustrating "lesser of 2 evils" system for about 200 years. Raise your hand if you agree with EVERYTHING the party you associate with stands for... didn't think so. When it comes to ONE, single issue, it's really easy to chose sides. But does it make you a bad Republican if you are anti-welfare and pro-choice? I could imagine it would difficult to have a strong (read: controlling) government if each elected official formed their own political stance based on the views of a majority (at least) of their district. I believe that politics are too diverse to limit representatives to just two options. I'll explain my zeal for coalition governments in a later blog.
- Video games have an "F-You" mode. Those of us that play video games, specifically a large amount of one game have come to notice that you can't win every time. This can be seen specifically in sports games, such as Madden. No matter how good you get, every so often the computer goes into "F-You" mode and insists that you will lose. It conveniently happens when you least expect it... like going into a home game against an inferior opponent when you're riding a 22-game winning streak. (Note: It even happens on the easiest skill levels.)
- The media pays athletes and celebrities to make news. Look, I love ESPN. Without it, I probably wouldn't have gone into journalism and failed at it. Have you noticed how much of the "news" is about celebrities (and athletes) acting abnormally? I think there is a strong possibility that someone in the media is paying the Lohan family to keep being stupid. What about the chance that ESPN paid Brett Favre to be so wishy-washy about his comebacks? How else would you explain Jennifer Anniston never finding love (other than personal hygiene)?
- Whomever deals out karmic justice is being paid off. It's the main reason most people don't believe it karma... when you think your time has come, it doesn't.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Bracket-Science 1/31
Okay, so I promised my next post wouldn't be sports, but this time I mean it. Here are this week's rankings, with conference leaders in BOLD and First Four participants in ITALICS.
1: Kansas
2: Connecticut
3: Brigham Young (MWC)
4: Notre Dame
5: Georgetown
6: Texas (Big 12)
7: Pittsburgh (Big East)
8: Ohio State (Big 10)
9: Purdue
10: Kentucky
11: San Diego State
12: Villanova
13: West Virginia
14: North Carolina
15: Louisville
16: Duke (ACC)
17: Minnesota
18: Florida
19: Syracuse
20: Tennessee
21: Texas A&M
22: Xavier (A-10)
23: Washington
24: Vanderbilt
25: Wisconsin
26: Arizona (Pac 10)
27: Illinois
28: St. John's
29: Missouri
30: UNLV
31: Penn State
32: Michigan State
33: Marquette
34: Kansas State
35: Boston College
36: Old Dominion
37: Butler
38: Memphis (C-USA)
39: Temple
40: Florida State
41: Georgia
42: St. Mary's (WCC)
43: Colorado State
44: George Mason
45: UAB
46: UCLA
47: Utah State (WAC)
48: Cleveland State (Horizon)
49: Missouri State (MVC)
50: VCU (Colonial)
51: Kent State (MAC)
52: Oakland (Summit)
53: Long Beach State (Big West)
54: Harvard (Ivy)
55: Bucknell (Patriot)
56: Austin Peay (OVC)
57: Alabama (SEC)
58: Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)
59: Coastal Carolina (Big South)
60: Belmont (A-Sun)
61: Wofford (Southern)
62: Montana (Big Sky)
63: Maine (Amer. East)
64: McNeese State (Southland)
65: Fairfield (MAAC)
66: Long Island (NEC)
67: Jackson State (SWAC)
68: Bethune Cookman (MEAC)
First 4 Out: Cincinnati, Wichita State, Valparaiso, Northern Iowa
Next 4 Out: Washington State, Baylor, UTEP, Duquesne
1: Kansas
2: Connecticut
3: Brigham Young (MWC)
4: Notre Dame
5: Georgetown
6: Texas (Big 12)
7: Pittsburgh (Big East)
8: Ohio State (Big 10)
9: Purdue
10: Kentucky
11: San Diego State
12: Villanova
13: West Virginia
14: North Carolina
15: Louisville
16: Duke (ACC)
17: Minnesota
18: Florida
19: Syracuse
20: Tennessee
21: Texas A&M
22: Xavier (A-10)
23: Washington
24: Vanderbilt
25: Wisconsin
26: Arizona (Pac 10)
27: Illinois
28: St. John's
29: Missouri
30: UNLV
31: Penn State
32: Michigan State
33: Marquette
34: Kansas State
35: Boston College
36: Old Dominion
37: Butler
38: Memphis (C-USA)
39: Temple
40: Florida State
41: Georgia
42: St. Mary's (WCC)
43: Colorado State
44: George Mason
45: UAB
46: UCLA
47: Utah State (WAC)
48: Cleveland State (Horizon)
49: Missouri State (MVC)
50: VCU (Colonial)
51: Kent State (MAC)
52: Oakland (Summit)
53: Long Beach State (Big West)
54: Harvard (Ivy)
55: Bucknell (Patriot)
56: Austin Peay (OVC)
57: Alabama (SEC)
58: Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)
59: Coastal Carolina (Big South)
60: Belmont (A-Sun)
61: Wofford (Southern)
62: Montana (Big Sky)
63: Maine (Amer. East)
64: McNeese State (Southland)
65: Fairfield (MAAC)
66: Long Island (NEC)
67: Jackson State (SWAC)
68: Bethune Cookman (MEAC)
First 4 Out: Cincinnati, Wichita State, Valparaiso, Northern Iowa
Next 4 Out: Washington State, Baylor, UTEP, Duquesne
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Football is Over; Now Basketball Can Start
I know, there's still the Super Bowl and Pro Bowl; and basketball season started over 2 months ago, but as far as where my focus has been, now is the time my brain shifts over.
The Chiefs were eliminated (much later than expected) and I have little vested interest in the Super Bowl. That being said, I'd rather have the Packers win, but I'm leaning towards the Steelers (and a ring for Ziggy Hood). Also, I'll take the AFC in the Pro Bowl.
So, not that were here, it's time to start my own "Bracketology" for college basketball. As before, each team is ranked by averaging their AP, ESPN, RPI and SOS ranks. Each conference leader (automatic bid) is in BOLD, and the teams in the First Four are in ITALIC.
1: Kansas
2: Connecticut
3: Pittsburgh (Big East)
4: Brigham Young (MWC)
5: Syracuse
6: Notre Dame
7: San Diego State
8: Georgetown
9: Villanova
10: Texas (Big 12)
11: Ohio State (Big 10)
12: Kentucky
13: Purdue
14: Duke (ACC)
15: Michigan State
16: Florida (SEC)
17: West Virginia
18: Illinois
19: Vanderbilt
20: Minnesota
21: Texas A&M
22: Washington (Pac 10)
23: Tennessee
24: Wisconsin
25: St. John's
26: Xavier (A-10)
27: North Carolina
28: Arizona
29: UNLV
30: Louisville
31: Missouri
32: Penn State
33: Boston College
34: Kansas State
35: California
36: Florida State
37: Old Dominion
38: Butler
39: Temple
40: George Mason
41: Georgia
42: UCLA
43: Miami (FL)
44: Memphis (C-USA)
45: Oklahoma State
46: Colorado State
47: Missouri State (MVC)
48: St. Mary's (WCC)
49: Oakland (Summit)
50: Cleveland State (Horizon)
51: VCU (Colonial)
52: Long Beach State (Big West)
53: Utah State (WAC)
54: Harvard (Ivy)
55: Bucknell (Patriot)
56: Charleston (Southern)
57: Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)
58: Coastal Carolina (A-Sun)
59: Austin Peay (OVC)
60: Northern Colorado (Big Sky)
61: Belmont (Big South)
62: Maine (Am. East)
63: Bethune-Cookman (MEAC)
64: Ball State (MAC)
65: Fairfield (MAAC)
66: Long Island (NEC)
67: Jackson State (SWAC)
68: Lamar (Southland)
First 4 Out: Wichita State, Virginia Tech, Portland, Valparaiso
Next 4 Out: Cincinnati, UAB, Baylor, Duquesne
So, this would mean, under the new formula, Fairfield would play Lamar and Long Island would play Jackson State for the right to be 16-seed fodder for Kansas and Connecticut. Also, UCLA would play Colorado State and Miami (FL) would play Oklahoma Stae for basically 11- or 12-seeds.
I promise, my next blog will be non-sports related.
The Chiefs were eliminated (much later than expected) and I have little vested interest in the Super Bowl. That being said, I'd rather have the Packers win, but I'm leaning towards the Steelers (and a ring for Ziggy Hood). Also, I'll take the AFC in the Pro Bowl.
So, not that were here, it's time to start my own "Bracketology" for college basketball. As before, each team is ranked by averaging their AP, ESPN, RPI and SOS ranks. Each conference leader (automatic bid) is in BOLD, and the teams in the First Four are in ITALIC.
1: Kansas
2: Connecticut
3: Pittsburgh (Big East)
4: Brigham Young (MWC)
5: Syracuse
6: Notre Dame
7: San Diego State
8: Georgetown
9: Villanova
10: Texas (Big 12)
11: Ohio State (Big 10)
12: Kentucky
13: Purdue
14: Duke (ACC)
15: Michigan State
16: Florida (SEC)
17: West Virginia
18: Illinois
19: Vanderbilt
20: Minnesota
21: Texas A&M
22: Washington (Pac 10)
23: Tennessee
24: Wisconsin
25: St. John's
26: Xavier (A-10)
27: North Carolina
28: Arizona
29: UNLV
30: Louisville
31: Missouri
32: Penn State
33: Boston College
34: Kansas State
35: California
36: Florida State
37: Old Dominion
38: Butler
39: Temple
40: George Mason
41: Georgia
42: UCLA
43: Miami (FL)
44: Memphis (C-USA)
45: Oklahoma State
46: Colorado State
47: Missouri State (MVC)
48: St. Mary's (WCC)
49: Oakland (Summit)
50: Cleveland State (Horizon)
51: VCU (Colonial)
52: Long Beach State (Big West)
53: Utah State (WAC)
54: Harvard (Ivy)
55: Bucknell (Patriot)
56: Charleston (Southern)
57: Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)
58: Coastal Carolina (A-Sun)
59: Austin Peay (OVC)
60: Northern Colorado (Big Sky)
61: Belmont (Big South)
62: Maine (Am. East)
63: Bethune-Cookman (MEAC)
64: Ball State (MAC)
65: Fairfield (MAAC)
66: Long Island (NEC)
67: Jackson State (SWAC)
68: Lamar (Southland)
First 4 Out: Wichita State, Virginia Tech, Portland, Valparaiso
Next 4 Out: Cincinnati, UAB, Baylor, Duquesne
So, this would mean, under the new formula, Fairfield would play Lamar and Long Island would play Jackson State for the right to be 16-seed fodder for Kansas and Connecticut. Also, UCLA would play Colorado State and Miami (FL) would play Oklahoma Stae for basically 11- or 12-seeds.
I promise, my next blog will be non-sports related.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)