Sad news to report. I'm sitting here in between rounds at MSHSAA districts checking on the game time for the Big 12 championship (Seriously, did KU, OU, and TX all lose??) I notice something catch the light, just below the screen. I try to wipe it away.
No luck.
Now I scrape a bit, trying to get it off.
Still no luck.
I'm afraid, as of 11:41 am CST, my iPhone is no longer new. There's a hairline fracture about 1.5 millimeters long parallel to the screen just to the left of the home button. If I were a betting man, I'd bet Apple doesn't replace 17 month old equipment for cosmetic reasons. It's a darn shame.
Ooh, but the pizza arrived. All is not lost.
3/14/2009
3/04/2009
1/20/2009
it's finally here
Some people have been waiting all weekend for this! And some have been waiting for months. Some of us have spent the last 8 years in anticipation of today.
And of course, some folks have been waiting for this moment all their lives.
It is good to have things to anticipate. It is also good for those moments to arrive.
We approach today from a variety of angles, of perspectives, of needs, of hopes, of places, but we come to this place united, indivisible, seeking liberty and justice for all.
And of course, some folks have been waiting for this moment all their lives.
It is good to have things to anticipate. It is also good for those moments to arrive.
We approach today from a variety of angles, of perspectives, of needs, of hopes, of places, but we come to this place united, indivisible, seeking liberty and justice for all.
1/02/2009
and the numbers are in
Well, if I've done the data entry in Quicken correctly, here's the excitement for my 2008 accounts. There's both a sense of suprise at just how large the drop is, but also, I must admit, a tad bit of excitement at just how not boring the year has been. We don't know exactly what longer term political shifts will result from the tumultuous nature of the economy at the end of the Bush Administration, but it seems clear that we're finally shattering the bubble that kept issues of poverty and hardship in our economy out of mainstream discourse.
Wages can only fall so much until the wealth built upon them, things like housing prices and corporate profits, fall in response. Capital and labor have some tradeoffs at the margin, but the point is that in the big picture, both rise and fall together. You can't have a rich ownership class and a poor labor pool functioning side by side in the same economy indefinitely because both inputs are important in creating wealth; either there's a positive feedback loop with one input investing in the other, or there's a breakdown, with the suffering factor dragging the other down with it. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but I think homeowners, for example, are starting to realize that their home is only worth what some entry-level worker can afford to pay for it.
I'm generally in the optimistic camp, believing that the past year, far from upending basic investing principles, revealed just how important they are in trying times. Have an emergency stash of cash. Separate your short-term savings from your long-term savings. Don't expect variable asset prices (like real estate and stocks) to rise steadily every year. Have a plan that allows for extreme short-term fluctuations. Don't confuse speculation and day-trading with long-term investing. And most basically, save regularly and live below your means; how much is really an afterthought, something you can worry about once you've established that discipline.
There are public policy options that can help us restore an economic playing field that is more stable and more equitable and more productive than what we have now, but at the same time, there is also the individual responsibility of taking care of yourself, regardless of the barriers around you. Employers have essentially jettisoned the responsibility of retirement savings from their compensation packages for workers, and I think it's important to have both a societal response and an individual response to that dramatic change. It's too simplistic to simply blame other people for your lack of savings, but at the same time, it's rather dishonest to simply blame individuals for not saving enough while ignoring the larger policy changes that have suppressed wages and shifted risk from a collective nature to the individual.
So, for 2008:
My Roth IRA is down a nice 42.6%
My 403(b) [nonprofit 401(k)] is down about 38.4%
My 'Balanced' fund is down-only!-about 32.2%
And for good measure, my cash accounts made about 2.5%
Woohoo :)
Wages can only fall so much until the wealth built upon them, things like housing prices and corporate profits, fall in response. Capital and labor have some tradeoffs at the margin, but the point is that in the big picture, both rise and fall together. You can't have a rich ownership class and a poor labor pool functioning side by side in the same economy indefinitely because both inputs are important in creating wealth; either there's a positive feedback loop with one input investing in the other, or there's a breakdown, with the suffering factor dragging the other down with it. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but I think homeowners, for example, are starting to realize that their home is only worth what some entry-level worker can afford to pay for it.
I'm generally in the optimistic camp, believing that the past year, far from upending basic investing principles, revealed just how important they are in trying times. Have an emergency stash of cash. Separate your short-term savings from your long-term savings. Don't expect variable asset prices (like real estate and stocks) to rise steadily every year. Have a plan that allows for extreme short-term fluctuations. Don't confuse speculation and day-trading with long-term investing. And most basically, save regularly and live below your means; how much is really an afterthought, something you can worry about once you've established that discipline.
There are public policy options that can help us restore an economic playing field that is more stable and more equitable and more productive than what we have now, but at the same time, there is also the individual responsibility of taking care of yourself, regardless of the barriers around you. Employers have essentially jettisoned the responsibility of retirement savings from their compensation packages for workers, and I think it's important to have both a societal response and an individual response to that dramatic change. It's too simplistic to simply blame other people for your lack of savings, but at the same time, it's rather dishonest to simply blame individuals for not saving enough while ignoring the larger policy changes that have suppressed wages and shifted risk from a collective nature to the individual.
So, for 2008:
My Roth IRA is down a nice 42.6%
My 403(b) [nonprofit 401(k)] is down about 38.4%
My 'Balanced' fund is down-only!-about 32.2%
And for good measure, my cash accounts made about 2.5%
Woohoo :)
12/24/2008
polls and computers
With the holidays approaching, it means it's time for some final pre-BCS bowl rankings.
I suppose the place to start the discussion is at the top. In my rankings, my number 1 team didn't play. My number two team lost. My number 3 team won. Voila, a straightforward 1 vs 2 matchup for the national championship. Conveniently, the BCS computers agree with me here. Texas and Oklahoma are the two best teams in the country. The BCS system is set up to play the top two teams against each other.
Except, oh wait, we have to make room for the SEC. The Harris and USA Today polls decided Florida has had a better season than Texas. Makes you wonder what criteria they use (other than, an SEC team has to make it). Let's take a gander:
Texas has a win against a top team. Florida has a win against a top team. The team Texas beat is better than the team Florida beat.
Texas' loss was on the road. Florida lost at home. The team Texas lost to is better than the team Florida lost to.
Texas played four games against teams that won at least nine games. Florida played two.
Texas won its bowl game last season. Florida lost.
This is the problem with not having criteria for how to determine success in college football. The answer doesn't have to be a playoff; a playoff is merely one option in the larger approach of having predictable and clearly defined criteria. But I'm not going to spend too much time on this, because unlike last year, when things were debatable, this year, the Big 12 is clearly superior to the SEC. The FL/AL matchup in the SEC championship was notable largely because the teams didn't play each other in the regular season. In fact, Texas played more 10 win teams than Alabama and Florida combined. For that matter, USC, Penn State, and Texas Tech also played more 10 win teams during the regular season, but of course none of them received any serious discussion about displacing Florida.
Farther down, I run into the problem of what to do with the teams that finished 12-0. I'm putting them between the one loss and two loss teams. The problem is they're really not top teams; neither of them played anything approaching a challenging schedule. There are lots of teams from the major conferences that could have gone undefeated with the schedules of Utah and Boise State. But at the same time, they did win all their games. It's also worth noting that there were four 12-0 teams before conference championships. Both teams that played a 13th game lost (Alabama and Ball State). Makes you wonder what Utah and Boise State will do in their 13th game.
So here's how I'd match up the BCS if it were up to me.
Oklahoma/Texas - national championship
Virginia Tech/Florida
USC/Penn State
Alabama/Cincinnati
Utah/Boise State (or Texas Tech, if three Big 12 teams were allowed)
However, if OU/FL is going to be the title, it would be nice for TX and AL to play each other, and it would be good to give the two undefeated teams a chance to play each other. Instead, TX and AL are faced with games they're expected to win, only making news if they lose. Really, if Alabama beats Utah, what does that signify? And if Ohio State gets in as a second Big Ten team over an undefeated team, why not a second ACC team like Georgia Tech or Boston College instead of Utah? Texas, after all, beat several Big 12 teams that themselves beat a Mountain West opponent, yet that's not quality enough to get Texas into the title game.
1 B-12 Texas 11 - 1
2 B-12 Oklahoma 12 - 1
3 SEC Florida 12 - 1
4 B-12 Texas Tech 11 - 1
5 B-Ten Penn State 11 - 1
6 P-10 USC 11 - 1
7 SEC Alabama 12 - 1
8 MW Utah 12 - 0
9 WAC Boise State 12 - 0
10 B-Ten Ohio State 10 - 2
11 B-E Cincinnati 10 - 2
12 B-12 Oklahoma State 9 - 3
13 B-12 Missouri 9 - 4
14 SEC Georgia 9 - 3
15 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 3
16 B-E Pittsburgh 9 - 3
17 B-Ten Northwestern 9 - 3
18 ACC Virginia Tech 9 - 4
19 ACC Boston College 9 - 4
20 ACC Georgia Tech 9 - 3
21 P-10 Oregon 9 - 3
22 ACC Florida State 8 - 4
23 B-Ten Iowa 8 - 4
24 MW TCU 10 - 2
25 MAC Ball State 12 - 1
As for bowl predictions, here's what I think.
Big 12: 5-2
Big East: 4-2
SEC: 5-3
MWC: 3-1
Pac 10: 3-2
ACC: 5-5
Big Ten: 3-4
I suppose the place to start the discussion is at the top. In my rankings, my number 1 team didn't play. My number two team lost. My number 3 team won. Voila, a straightforward 1 vs 2 matchup for the national championship. Conveniently, the BCS computers agree with me here. Texas and Oklahoma are the two best teams in the country. The BCS system is set up to play the top two teams against each other.
Except, oh wait, we have to make room for the SEC. The Harris and USA Today polls decided Florida has had a better season than Texas. Makes you wonder what criteria they use (other than, an SEC team has to make it). Let's take a gander:
Texas has a win against a top team. Florida has a win against a top team. The team Texas beat is better than the team Florida beat.
Texas' loss was on the road. Florida lost at home. The team Texas lost to is better than the team Florida lost to.
Texas played four games against teams that won at least nine games. Florida played two.
Texas won its bowl game last season. Florida lost.
This is the problem with not having criteria for how to determine success in college football. The answer doesn't have to be a playoff; a playoff is merely one option in the larger approach of having predictable and clearly defined criteria. But I'm not going to spend too much time on this, because unlike last year, when things were debatable, this year, the Big 12 is clearly superior to the SEC. The FL/AL matchup in the SEC championship was notable largely because the teams didn't play each other in the regular season. In fact, Texas played more 10 win teams than Alabama and Florida combined. For that matter, USC, Penn State, and Texas Tech also played more 10 win teams during the regular season, but of course none of them received any serious discussion about displacing Florida.
Farther down, I run into the problem of what to do with the teams that finished 12-0. I'm putting them between the one loss and two loss teams. The problem is they're really not top teams; neither of them played anything approaching a challenging schedule. There are lots of teams from the major conferences that could have gone undefeated with the schedules of Utah and Boise State. But at the same time, they did win all their games. It's also worth noting that there were four 12-0 teams before conference championships. Both teams that played a 13th game lost (Alabama and Ball State). Makes you wonder what Utah and Boise State will do in their 13th game.
So here's how I'd match up the BCS if it were up to me.
Oklahoma/Texas - national championship
Virginia Tech/Florida
USC/Penn State
Alabama/Cincinnati
Utah/Boise State (or Texas Tech, if three Big 12 teams were allowed)
However, if OU/FL is going to be the title, it would be nice for TX and AL to play each other, and it would be good to give the two undefeated teams a chance to play each other. Instead, TX and AL are faced with games they're expected to win, only making news if they lose. Really, if Alabama beats Utah, what does that signify? And if Ohio State gets in as a second Big Ten team over an undefeated team, why not a second ACC team like Georgia Tech or Boston College instead of Utah? Texas, after all, beat several Big 12 teams that themselves beat a Mountain West opponent, yet that's not quality enough to get Texas into the title game.
1 B-12 Texas 11 - 1
2 B-12 Oklahoma 12 - 1
3 SEC Florida 12 - 1
4 B-12 Texas Tech 11 - 1
5 B-Ten Penn State 11 - 1
6 P-10 USC 11 - 1
7 SEC Alabama 12 - 1
8 MW Utah 12 - 0
9 WAC Boise State 12 - 0
10 B-Ten Ohio State 10 - 2
11 B-E Cincinnati 10 - 2
12 B-12 Oklahoma State 9 - 3
13 B-12 Missouri 9 - 4
14 SEC Georgia 9 - 3
15 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 3
16 B-E Pittsburgh 9 - 3
17 B-Ten Northwestern 9 - 3
18 ACC Virginia Tech 9 - 4
19 ACC Boston College 9 - 4
20 ACC Georgia Tech 9 - 3
21 P-10 Oregon 9 - 3
22 ACC Florida State 8 - 4
23 B-Ten Iowa 8 - 4
24 MW TCU 10 - 2
25 MAC Ball State 12 - 1
As for bowl predictions, here's what I think.
Big 12: 5-2
Big East: 4-2
SEC: 5-3
MWC: 3-1
Pac 10: 3-2
ACC: 5-5
Big Ten: 3-4
12/16/2008
first snow of 2008
We didn't exactly get a whole lot of snow this week. But we did get enough to be annoying.
And with I-64 closed now in our neck of the woods, it makes for some great pictures!
And with I-64 closed now in our neck of the woods, it makes for some great pictures!
11/28/2008
getting close
mmm, Happy post Turkey day.
Seeing as how it's almost Saturday again, I better get these posted quick.
The trouble I'm having at the top is the Boise State, Utah, Ball State conundrum. Either they should be ranked 2, 3 and 4, or I really don't think they deserve to be in the top ten at all.
What I just can't bring myself to do is put them in between, what I think is really a cop out by a lot of voters. If the 1-loss teams are having a better season than the undefeated mid-majors, then the two-loss teams are, also. Note that several of these teams can still lose, with the potential to elevate the undefeateds. For my rankings, that third loss is the only way they're moving down.
At the other end, there's a logjam as the ACC and Pac-10 figures out who are its top teams, so as that gets sorted out, I've got Mississippi, TCU, BYU, South Carolina, Nebraska, and a few others waiting to replace the losers. And note my satisfaction that long-since dropped teams from my listing are finally getting nationally dropped, like LSU and Auburn. I think Iowa is most deservedly moving into my rankings, the least-discussed 8 win team in the land.
1 B-12 Texas 10 - 1
2 SEC Alabama 11 - 0
3 B-12 Oklahoma 10 - 1
4 SEC Florida 10 - 1
5 B-12 Texas Tech 10 - 1
6 B-Ten Penn State 11 - 1
7 P-10 USC 9 - 1
8 B-12 Oklahoma State 9 - 2
9 B-12 Missouri 9 - 2
10 SEC Georgia 9 - 2
11 B-Ten Ohio State 10 - 2
12 B-E Cincinnati 9 - 2
13 WAC Boise State 11 - 0
14 MW Utah 12 - 0
15 MAC Ball State 12 - 0
16 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 3
17 B-E Pittsburgh 7 - 3
18 B-Ten Northwestern 9 - 3
19 ACC Boston College 8 - 3
20 ACC Florida State 8 - 3
21 ACC Georgia Tech 8 - 3
22 ACC Virginia Tech 7 - 4
23 P-10 Oregon State 8 - 3
24 P-10 Oregon 8 - 3
25 B-Ten Iowa 8 - 4
Seeing as how it's almost Saturday again, I better get these posted quick.
The trouble I'm having at the top is the Boise State, Utah, Ball State conundrum. Either they should be ranked 2, 3 and 4, or I really don't think they deserve to be in the top ten at all.
What I just can't bring myself to do is put them in between, what I think is really a cop out by a lot of voters. If the 1-loss teams are having a better season than the undefeated mid-majors, then the two-loss teams are, also. Note that several of these teams can still lose, with the potential to elevate the undefeateds. For my rankings, that third loss is the only way they're moving down.
At the other end, there's a logjam as the ACC and Pac-10 figures out who are its top teams, so as that gets sorted out, I've got Mississippi, TCU, BYU, South Carolina, Nebraska, and a few others waiting to replace the losers. And note my satisfaction that long-since dropped teams from my listing are finally getting nationally dropped, like LSU and Auburn. I think Iowa is most deservedly moving into my rankings, the least-discussed 8 win team in the land.
1 B-12 Texas 10 - 1
2 SEC Alabama 11 - 0
3 B-12 Oklahoma 10 - 1
4 SEC Florida 10 - 1
5 B-12 Texas Tech 10 - 1
6 B-Ten Penn State 11 - 1
7 P-10 USC 9 - 1
8 B-12 Oklahoma State 9 - 2
9 B-12 Missouri 9 - 2
10 SEC Georgia 9 - 2
11 B-Ten Ohio State 10 - 2
12 B-E Cincinnati 9 - 2
13 WAC Boise State 11 - 0
14 MW Utah 12 - 0
15 MAC Ball State 12 - 0
16 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 3
17 B-E Pittsburgh 7 - 3
18 B-Ten Northwestern 9 - 3
19 ACC Boston College 8 - 3
20 ACC Florida State 8 - 3
21 ACC Georgia Tech 8 - 3
22 ACC Virginia Tech 7 - 4
23 P-10 Oregon State 8 - 3
24 P-10 Oregon 8 - 3
25 B-Ten Iowa 8 - 4
11/09/2008
week 11 rankings
We are nearing the end of the 2008 season. All in all, the last couple weeks have shaped up nicely. As I said after the first part of the season, the Big East was underrated and the SEC overrated. The Big East now has five bowl eligible teams, as many as the ten team Pac-10, and with a sixth team with a winning record, actually has more teams with a winning record at the moment. The SEC, meanwhile, is already settled. That's right. With two more weeks of football, we already know Alabama and Florida will meet in the SEC championship. While I'd still rank the SEC #2 overall, the race for a champion is becoming downright boring. The ACC and Big Ten have much more exciting things going on these last two weeks.
And of course, the freak that is the Big 12 this year has five teams with legitimate shots at winning 11+ games and becoming the conference champ. Last year, the Big 12 had three 11+ win teams (more than the SEC and Big Ten combined!), and none of them were sent to the national championship game, not even the #1 ranked team in the BCS, Missouri. Is it possible the Big 12 could have four 11+ win teams this year, and none of them will be sent to the national championship?
This week I've decided to start including Boise State and Ball State. Neither have even played a ranked team, but since the Big 12 can't fill four at large spots, somebody has to get into the BCS. While I think teams like Michigan State, Ohio State, Georgia, and Florida State/Virginia Tech are better than them, I'm willing to go along if the B-States go undefeated.
1 B-12 Texas Tech 10 - 0
2 SEC Alabama 10 - 0
3 B-12 Texas 9 - 1
4 B-12 Oklahoma 9 - 1
5 SEC Florida 8 - 1
6 P-10 USC 8 - 1
7 B-Ten Penn State 9 - 1
8 B-12 Oklahoma State 8 - 2
9 B-12 Missouri 8 - 2
10 B-Ten Ohio State 8 - 2
11 SEC Georgia 8 - 2
12 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 2
13 MW Utah 10 - 0
14 ACC Florida State 7 - 2
15 ACC North Carolina 7 - 2
16 B-E Cincinnati 7 - 2
17 MAC Ball State 9 - 0
18 WAC Boise State 9 - 0
19 B-E Pittsburgh 7 - 2
20 ACC Georgia Tech 7 - 3
21 B-Ten Northwestern 7 - 3
22 B-Ten Minnesota 7 - 3
23 MW TCU 9 - 2
24 MW BYU 9 - 1
25 ACC Virginia Tech 6 - 3
And of course, the freak that is the Big 12 this year has five teams with legitimate shots at winning 11+ games and becoming the conference champ. Last year, the Big 12 had three 11+ win teams (more than the SEC and Big Ten combined!), and none of them were sent to the national championship game, not even the #1 ranked team in the BCS, Missouri. Is it possible the Big 12 could have four 11+ win teams this year, and none of them will be sent to the national championship?
This week I've decided to start including Boise State and Ball State. Neither have even played a ranked team, but since the Big 12 can't fill four at large spots, somebody has to get into the BCS. While I think teams like Michigan State, Ohio State, Georgia, and Florida State/Virginia Tech are better than them, I'm willing to go along if the B-States go undefeated.
1 B-12 Texas Tech 10 - 0
2 SEC Alabama 10 - 0
3 B-12 Texas 9 - 1
4 B-12 Oklahoma 9 - 1
5 SEC Florida 8 - 1
6 P-10 USC 8 - 1
7 B-Ten Penn State 9 - 1
8 B-12 Oklahoma State 8 - 2
9 B-12 Missouri 8 - 2
10 B-Ten Ohio State 8 - 2
11 SEC Georgia 8 - 2
12 B-Ten Michigan State 9 - 2
13 MW Utah 10 - 0
14 ACC Florida State 7 - 2
15 ACC North Carolina 7 - 2
16 B-E Cincinnati 7 - 2
17 MAC Ball State 9 - 0
18 WAC Boise State 9 - 0
19 B-E Pittsburgh 7 - 2
20 ACC Georgia Tech 7 - 3
21 B-Ten Northwestern 7 - 3
22 B-Ten Minnesota 7 - 3
23 MW TCU 9 - 2
24 MW BYU 9 - 1
25 ACC Virginia Tech 6 - 3
11/05/2008
week 10 rankings
1 B-12 Texas Tech
2 SEC Alabama
3 B-12 Texas
4 B-Ten Penn State
5 B-12 Oklahoma
6 B-12 Oklahoma State
7 SEC Florida
8 P-10 USC
9 B-12 Missouri
10 B-Ten Ohio State
11 SEC Georgia
12 ACC Georgia Tech
13 MW Utah
14 B-Ten Michigan State
15 ACC Florida State
16 B-Ten Northwestern
17 SEC LSU
18 ACC North Carolina
19 ACC Maryland
20 P-10 California
21 B-E Cincinnati
22 B-E West Virginia
23 B-E South Florida
24 B-Ten Minnesota
25 B-12 Kansas
2 SEC Alabama
3 B-12 Texas
4 B-Ten Penn State
5 B-12 Oklahoma
6 B-12 Oklahoma State
7 SEC Florida
8 P-10 USC
9 B-12 Missouri
10 B-Ten Ohio State
11 SEC Georgia
12 ACC Georgia Tech
13 MW Utah
14 B-Ten Michigan State
15 ACC Florida State
16 B-Ten Northwestern
17 SEC LSU
18 ACC North Carolina
19 ACC Maryland
20 P-10 California
21 B-E Cincinnati
22 B-E West Virginia
23 B-E South Florida
24 B-Ten Minnesota
25 B-12 Kansas
11/03/2008
one more day
That's all I'm going to say. After like two years of this, tomorrow is it.
One more day!
One more day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)