The Christmas season is a time for concern towards those less fortunate than us. In a nation that prides itself on its democratic principles, the residents of the District of Columbia certainly qualify. They are nowhere in Congress represented with a vote on national issues.
When I, a Virginian, wrote to one of my Congressman (one of my Senators, actually) several years ago about the DC voting rights issue, I got back this nice letter saying that all is well on Capitol Hill. The US Constitution--Article 1, Section 8--mandates that Congress control Washington, DC. The exact wording is "The Congress shall have Power to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District."
So, in essence, what he was saying was "don't fret about DC being left out in the cold, all of Congress is looking out for her." But about the only time one ever hears about a Congressperson doing something notable in the D of C it's a sex scandal.
The federal government admitted that the Constitution was wrong about slavery, citizenship and voting rights when it passed the 13th through 15th amendments. And it went partway in recognizing the inequitable situation of DC when it passed the 23rd amendment giving Washingtonians a say in presidential elections. If they're allowed to vote for the presidency but have no vote in Congress, that's a glaring inconsistency!
When I, a Virginian--or a Texan, Iowan, New Yorker, Missippian, Arizonan, Minnesotan, Californian, North or South Dakotan, North or South Carolinian, Hannah Montanan, Georgian, Missourian, Floridian, New Mexican, Minnesotan, Pennsylvanian, etc.--want to query or comment to someone in Congress, I've got three people at the top of my list and they've all got a vote--my two Senators and my Congressional District Representative. And they're accountable to voters like me because I voted them into office and I can vote them out.
Now imagine you're a schoolteacher in the District of Columbia--assigned to give a civics lesson on democracy. What are you going to tell them? That at the time the Constitution was written, Washington DC was not a city? That the founding fathers didn't expect Congress to be in session more than a couple of months per year? That DC is a hostage to partisan politics? That home-rule was a failure? Though true, these are not very satisfying answers.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that something is wrong with this picture. Anytime you're calling somebody a "shadow delegate"--she can walk and talk all she wants, she just can't vote--you know it's a farce.
A Public Relations Nightmare
It's a bad thing for the United States--not only because it's wrong, but because it's downright embarrassing. How can you project your image across the world as the defender of democratic ideals, and an enforcer of democratic elections, when within your own nation's capital, the entire populace is disenfranchised? That's about 600,000 people! It's absurd!
Don't think that this disparity between what we say others should do and what we do ourselves--this apparent hypocrisy--escapes the world politic. There are plenty of media outlets covering the US for an international audience these days. Every vote in Congress against DC Voting Rights, and every rally for it, gives networks like Al Jazeera and R-TV another excuse to take a potshot at ole' Uncle Sam.
Surely there's room for compromise. To wit, DC gives up its bid for statehood & senators in return for a full-fledged voting member in the House. Call it the US congressional voting district of Columbia. Making it happen this year would be a good New Year's resolution.
steve kearney
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
NFL Should Enforce Safety Rules on Helmets
The NFL this week fined three players tens of thousands of dollars each for particularly brutal tackles involving leading with the helmet.
There's been a backlash among defensive players who say they're just playing hard, that they don't know any other way to play, and so on. One of the fined players wasn't even called for a penalty on the field. Something's wrong with this picture!
According to NFL rules, a tackler may not use his helmet to butt, spear or ram an opponent. It's a 15-yard penalty.
So those who are saying that fining players is wrong because it will compel the defenders to play soft should realize that hitting with the helmet is already prohibited. They've just been getting away with it for years.
Look at footage of games in the 60's and you'll see none of this tackling with the helmet as a weapon. It got started with the Raiders in the 70's and was considered cheap shots. They paralyzed Patriots WR Stingley.
In recent years, it's been all about protecting the QB--leaving receivers and runners free game for assault. The only helmet-contact-related rule they're enforcing seems to be helmet-to-helmet contact.
But helmet-to-anything contact is forbidden by the aforementioned anti-spearing rule. And it should be. The helmet is a protective device, not meant to be a weapon. You're supposed to tackle with your body.
If the NFL would enforce its rule on anti-spearing--maybe, say, sending a memo out to all defensive coordinators and special-teams coordinators that they will be penalized 15 yards every time a tackler leads aggressively with his helmet--you should see the number of such incidents decline substantially.
Steven (Starjet) Kearney
There's been a backlash among defensive players who say they're just playing hard, that they don't know any other way to play, and so on. One of the fined players wasn't even called for a penalty on the field. Something's wrong with this picture!
According to NFL rules, a tackler may not use his helmet to butt, spear or ram an opponent. It's a 15-yard penalty.
So those who are saying that fining players is wrong because it will compel the defenders to play soft should realize that hitting with the helmet is already prohibited. They've just been getting away with it for years.
Look at footage of games in the 60's and you'll see none of this tackling with the helmet as a weapon. It got started with the Raiders in the 70's and was considered cheap shots. They paralyzed Patriots WR Stingley.
In recent years, it's been all about protecting the QB--leaving receivers and runners free game for assault. The only helmet-contact-related rule they're enforcing seems to be helmet-to-helmet contact.
But helmet-to-anything contact is forbidden by the aforementioned anti-spearing rule. And it should be. The helmet is a protective device, not meant to be a weapon. You're supposed to tackle with your body.
If the NFL would enforce its rule on anti-spearing--maybe, say, sending a memo out to all defensive coordinators and special-teams coordinators that they will be penalized 15 yards every time a tackler leads aggressively with his helmet--you should see the number of such incidents decline substantially.
Steven (Starjet) Kearney
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Boise State BCS Controversy
It's a long season, but the Boise State Broncos took a big first step forward by defeating highly-ranked Virginia Tech. This raises the possibility of another unbeaten season, and all of the controversy that will occur if once again they are denied a place in the BCS Championship Game due to overall weakness of schedule.
A lot of people think that college football needs a playoff system to decide the national champion--which team is #1--and I agree. The current system is flawed because, though it's called the Bowl Championship Series, all it really involves is the two top-ranked teams playing each other in a championship game. When is one game a "series"?
Solving the problem seems simple enough: include either the top-4 or top-8 teams, seed them 1 through 4, or 1 through 8 and have a standard playoff like every other sport does. It's not rocket science!
However, an 8-team playoff might be too inclusive, and it would take too long. But a 4-team playoff seems too exclusive because there's a good chance it would leave out an undefeated minor conference champion or two--such as Boise State or Utah in recent years.
So I would like to suggest a compromise between a 4-team and an 8-team playoff. Call it a 4-team-plus playoff. The "plus" would include any other team that wins all its games--call them "wild cards" (WC). If there's one such team (WC-1) then they would play the #4 team in what the NCAA basketball tournament refers to as a "play-in" game. If there are two such teams, the lesser-ranked team (WC-2) would be matched against the #3 team, and so on.
This proposed playoff system would not extend the season at all. The #1 vs #4/WC-1 and the #2 vs #3/WC-2 games would be alternated among the major bowl games, and the BCS championship game would be played the following week--same as now--only the participants would be the victors of those two designated bowl games.
This system would give teams like Boise State a shot at the title, but they'd have to earn it---by beating the #4, #1 and #2 or #3 (or an undefeated team that had beaten #2 and #3)in consecutive weeks.
A lot of people think that college football needs a playoff system to decide the national champion--which team is #1--and I agree. The current system is flawed because, though it's called the Bowl Championship Series, all it really involves is the two top-ranked teams playing each other in a championship game. When is one game a "series"?
Solving the problem seems simple enough: include either the top-4 or top-8 teams, seed them 1 through 4, or 1 through 8 and have a standard playoff like every other sport does. It's not rocket science!
However, an 8-team playoff might be too inclusive, and it would take too long. But a 4-team playoff seems too exclusive because there's a good chance it would leave out an undefeated minor conference champion or two--such as Boise State or Utah in recent years.
So I would like to suggest a compromise between a 4-team and an 8-team playoff. Call it a 4-team-plus playoff. The "plus" would include any other team that wins all its games--call them "wild cards" (WC). If there's one such team (WC-1) then they would play the #4 team in what the NCAA basketball tournament refers to as a "play-in" game. If there are two such teams, the lesser-ranked team (WC-2) would be matched against the #3 team, and so on.
This proposed playoff system would not extend the season at all. The #1 vs #4/WC-1 and the #2 vs #3/WC-2 games would be alternated among the major bowl games, and the BCS championship game would be played the following week--same as now--only the participants would be the victors of those two designated bowl games.
This system would give teams like Boise State a shot at the title, but they'd have to earn it---by beating the #4, #1 and #2 or #3 (or an undefeated team that had beaten #2 and #3)in consecutive weeks.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
AT&T's Slick Ad End
An often-seen TV commercial boasts about how AT&T covers 97% of "USAmericans" (as long as they don't stray into certain rural or wilderness areas).
The commercial is a visual feast of American architecture--Gateway Arch, Hoover Dam, etc.--getting covered in orange drapes a la the artist Christo. They didn't actually do it--it was computer-generated.
At the very end, they cut to a satellite view of northern North America--you can see the Great Lakes near the bottom of the screen--the shot only lasts for a couple of seconds, so one supposes it's not an effort at boosting service to Canada.
But the continent is noticeably painted uniformly the same orange color--which might be described as rust- or copper-colored. This makes the shot eerily resemble all those depressing Gulf oil slick TV news bits people have been seeing the past three months.
That's certainly not the kind of association AT&T would have wanted. One can only surmise that the commercial was tested out on focus groups before the Gulf oil disaster.
And, wouldn't you know it, in-between drafts of this paper, there was a major oil line rupture in the Great Lakes area!
Steven (Starjet) Kearney
The commercial is a visual feast of American architecture--Gateway Arch, Hoover Dam, etc.--getting covered in orange drapes a la the artist Christo. They didn't actually do it--it was computer-generated.
At the very end, they cut to a satellite view of northern North America--you can see the Great Lakes near the bottom of the screen--the shot only lasts for a couple of seconds, so one supposes it's not an effort at boosting service to Canada.
But the continent is noticeably painted uniformly the same orange color--which might be described as rust- or copper-colored. This makes the shot eerily resemble all those depressing Gulf oil slick TV news bits people have been seeing the past three months.
That's certainly not the kind of association AT&T would have wanted. One can only surmise that the commercial was tested out on focus groups before the Gulf oil disaster.
And, wouldn't you know it, in-between drafts of this paper, there was a major oil line rupture in the Great Lakes area!
Steven (Starjet) Kearney
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Bad Names for Cars (that sound good until you consider what they mean:
Miasma Fiasco Entropy
Cretin Crony Craven
Mirage Enigma Phantom
Forerunner Penultimate Vacillator
Delilah Jeremiad Pariah
Sundry Desultory Slacker
Novice Dilettante Tyro
Angina Atrophy Aphasia
Edema Vapid Exiguous
Cretin Crony Craven
Mirage Enigma Phantom
Forerunner Penultimate Vacillator
Delilah Jeremiad Pariah
Sundry Desultory Slacker
Novice Dilettante Tyro
Angina Atrophy Aphasia
Edema Vapid Exiguous
Monday, July 5, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Goal for World Cup: Get It Right!
Argentina's controversial goal in its World Cup round-of-16 win over Mexico is another example of the difficulty officials have when the demands put on them exceed the abilities of normal human vision. This goal marked the third time in the past few days (the second today) that officials obviously were wrong on a goal scored/not scored call.
The goal-scorer in this instance, Carlos Tevez, was clearly closer to the goal than any opponent--offsides--when the ball was kicked by Lionel Messi. We know that because we can view the instant replay from the side. However, no official was so fortuitously located.
The play, as is often the case in soccer, unfolded quickly. The offsides could not have been anticipated, and so no official could have hoped to get into a spot where he could view the play from that side angle.
In fact two defenders had Tevez nearly bracketed at the moment Messi kicked the ball, and by the time it reached Tevez, they were dead-even with him. The officials were naturally looking at Messi when he kicked it, and their eyes followed the ball to where it reached Tevez--who by then was no longer offsides.
The offsides rule is a difficult one to enforce accurately because it is based on where player A is when player B kicks the ball. Humans have two eyes but they cannot focus separately. We must shift our eyes'collective focus back and forth. During that process, time lapses and things change.
We can clearly see the advantages of instant replay: a choice of viewing angles, the ability to freeze the picture frame, repeat viewing.
So why not give each team the opportunity to challenge up to, say, two scoring/not scoring calls per game? In soccer, where every goal is critical, it makes sense to bring in the instant replay on goals scored/not scored calls.
Play is stopped for a while anyway after a goal while the scorers celebrate and then everyone moves to midfield area. Give the coach, say 30 seconds after goal is scored to protest it.
Have the fourth official hooked-up to review the instant replay immediately and if the call appears questionable, bring in the referee to decide it. The referee remains the final arbiter so his/her authority is not undermined.
If the call is upheld, the challenging team is one-and-done in that department. If the call is reversed, the challenging team can do so one more time.
It's a bit trickier with goals that should have been counted but were missed--like England's in loss to Germany or USA's in draw with Slovenia. That's partly because play ordinarily continues after the non-goal.
Perhaps an electronic monitor could be triggered whenever the plane of the goal is broken. But they'd need to be able to distinguish between the ball and a player (pattern recognition), and/or have "hits" referred to instant replay. Quickly flagging these possible missed goal calls would avoid interrupting fast breaks going the other way. They might take a cue from the National Hockey League's use of sirens.
This system would work in the cases like the English goal that wasn't seen by the referee. The electronic trigger would alert the fourth official who would check the videotape. If it looks like a score (ball completely over the goal line), the referee would be asked to make a determination. If, however, it's ultimately ruled no-goal, play would simply resume at the place the ball was last touched by the team last touching it.
Probably most difficult to correct are subjective situations such as the USA goal that was disallowed because the referee thought there was a foul by the Americans on the play. Since the ball went in the net, a point was taken off the scoreboard--so it should definitely be a challengeable call. The challenge should be restricted to the call that caused the goal to be disallowed.
The coach should be given 30 seconds from the time the goal is disallowed to challenge the call. The referee would then review the videotape to determine whether the disallowance should stand or a goal be tallied.
July 2, 2010
The headline question of the day is: Can Ghana Gana Again? (Or: Is Ghana Gonna Gana Again?)
Steven (Starjet) Kearney
The goal-scorer in this instance, Carlos Tevez, was clearly closer to the goal than any opponent--offsides--when the ball was kicked by Lionel Messi. We know that because we can view the instant replay from the side. However, no official was so fortuitously located.
The play, as is often the case in soccer, unfolded quickly. The offsides could not have been anticipated, and so no official could have hoped to get into a spot where he could view the play from that side angle.
In fact two defenders had Tevez nearly bracketed at the moment Messi kicked the ball, and by the time it reached Tevez, they were dead-even with him. The officials were naturally looking at Messi when he kicked it, and their eyes followed the ball to where it reached Tevez--who by then was no longer offsides.
The offsides rule is a difficult one to enforce accurately because it is based on where player A is when player B kicks the ball. Humans have two eyes but they cannot focus separately. We must shift our eyes'collective focus back and forth. During that process, time lapses and things change.
We can clearly see the advantages of instant replay: a choice of viewing angles, the ability to freeze the picture frame, repeat viewing.
So why not give each team the opportunity to challenge up to, say, two scoring/not scoring calls per game? In soccer, where every goal is critical, it makes sense to bring in the instant replay on goals scored/not scored calls.
Play is stopped for a while anyway after a goal while the scorers celebrate and then everyone moves to midfield area. Give the coach, say 30 seconds after goal is scored to protest it.
Have the fourth official hooked-up to review the instant replay immediately and if the call appears questionable, bring in the referee to decide it. The referee remains the final arbiter so his/her authority is not undermined.
If the call is upheld, the challenging team is one-and-done in that department. If the call is reversed, the challenging team can do so one more time.
It's a bit trickier with goals that should have been counted but were missed--like England's in loss to Germany or USA's in draw with Slovenia. That's partly because play ordinarily continues after the non-goal.
Perhaps an electronic monitor could be triggered whenever the plane of the goal is broken. But they'd need to be able to distinguish between the ball and a player (pattern recognition), and/or have "hits" referred to instant replay. Quickly flagging these possible missed goal calls would avoid interrupting fast breaks going the other way. They might take a cue from the National Hockey League's use of sirens.
This system would work in the cases like the English goal that wasn't seen by the referee. The electronic trigger would alert the fourth official who would check the videotape. If it looks like a score (ball completely over the goal line), the referee would be asked to make a determination. If, however, it's ultimately ruled no-goal, play would simply resume at the place the ball was last touched by the team last touching it.
Probably most difficult to correct are subjective situations such as the USA goal that was disallowed because the referee thought there was a foul by the Americans on the play. Since the ball went in the net, a point was taken off the scoreboard--so it should definitely be a challengeable call. The challenge should be restricted to the call that caused the goal to be disallowed.
The coach should be given 30 seconds from the time the goal is disallowed to challenge the call. The referee would then review the videotape to determine whether the disallowance should stand or a goal be tallied.
July 2, 2010
The headline question of the day is: Can Ghana Gana Again? (Or: Is Ghana Gonna Gana Again?)
Steven (Starjet) Kearney
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
"Gay-isms"
In recognition of Gay Awareness month, here are some proposed "GAY-ISMS"
SUPERLATIVES
That's remarkgayble!
How fabgaylous!
Simply spectacgaylar!
You're ungaylievable!
DRAMA QUEENS
"To gay or not to gay...."
"all for gay and gay for all"
GAY SOCIETY
they're gayting
how fascigating
he's a gayonnaire
Grand Gayman Island
your luckgay day
they're engayged
a party invigaytion
a big celegaytion
a gayted community
"way to gay"
adopting a gayby
found on e-gay
take a vagaytion
happy holigays
JOHN LAW NEWS
on the Togay Show
the instigaytor
esgayped from prison
chase on the expressgay
armed and gayngerous
you can gayggle him
under investigaytion
MISCELLGAYNEOUS
you're exaggergayting
are you OGay?
oh it's all gay, it's all gay!
United States of Amerigay
yestergay's news
gay-tech
a gaynabler
a false gaylarm
SUPERLATIVES
That's remarkgayble!
How fabgaylous!
Simply spectacgaylar!
You're ungaylievable!
DRAMA QUEENS
"To gay or not to gay...."
"all for gay and gay for all"
GAY SOCIETY
they're gayting
how fascigating
he's a gayonnaire
Grand Gayman Island
your luckgay day
they're engayged
a party invigaytion
a big celegaytion
a gayted community
"way to gay"
adopting a gayby
found on e-gay
take a vagaytion
happy holigays
JOHN LAW NEWS
on the Togay Show
the instigaytor
esgayped from prison
chase on the expressgay
armed and gayngerous
you can gayggle him
under investigaytion
MISCELLGAYNEOUS
you're exaggergayting
are you OGay?
oh it's all gay, it's all gay!
United States of Amerigay
yestergay's news
gay-tech
a gaynabler
a false gaylarm
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Soccer's Scoring Drought: Analysis and Suggested Remedies
With nearly all the teams having played their opening match, it's already clear that the lack of scoring in World Cup soccer has gotten absurd. To illustrate, through the first 14 games in South Africa:
Teams are scoring on average less than a goal per game--.8 of a goal;
In 9 of the 14 games--64%--at least one of the teams failed to score;
In 10 of the 14 games--71%--neither team scored more than 1 goal;
In 12 of the 14 games--86%--no more than 2 total goals were scored by both teams combined;
Only one of the first 28 teams to play scored more than 2 goals in their first game (Germany got 4);
6 games, that's 43%, were ties;
Goal-scoring has become so rare that fluke goals--such as the English goalkeepers fumble and the Danish wrong-way ricochet header--are decisive;
The crowds have so little to cheer about that they resort to blowing on deafening horns en masse to entertain themselves;
The International Soccer Federation (FIFA) is reportedly considering enlarging the goal to boost scoring. However, such a move could have negative repercussions on how the game is played. And it would compel millions of people to redo or replace their goal structures.
There are other ways to make it easier to score. Taking a cue from thoroughbred racing/exercise programs, officials could "handicap" the goalies by fitting them with ankle weights. Or they could enforce penalties by making the goalie wear a patch over one eye or tying one hand behind his/her back. A really heinous violation might be punished by strapping the offending player ball & chain-style to the goalie. While these scenarios may sound like torture, sitting through a typical soccer game today is already a torturous experience for many.
Reference
Increasing Soccer Goal Size is Questionable!!! (website).
Steven (Starjet) Kearney
Teams are scoring on average less than a goal per game--.8 of a goal;
In 9 of the 14 games--64%--at least one of the teams failed to score;
In 10 of the 14 games--71%--neither team scored more than 1 goal;
In 12 of the 14 games--86%--no more than 2 total goals were scored by both teams combined;
Only one of the first 28 teams to play scored more than 2 goals in their first game (Germany got 4);
6 games, that's 43%, were ties;
Goal-scoring has become so rare that fluke goals--such as the English goalkeepers fumble and the Danish wrong-way ricochet header--are decisive;
The crowds have so little to cheer about that they resort to blowing on deafening horns en masse to entertain themselves;
The International Soccer Federation (FIFA) is reportedly considering enlarging the goal to boost scoring. However, such a move could have negative repercussions on how the game is played. And it would compel millions of people to redo or replace their goal structures.
There are other ways to make it easier to score. Taking a cue from thoroughbred racing/exercise programs, officials could "handicap" the goalies by fitting them with ankle weights. Or they could enforce penalties by making the goalie wear a patch over one eye or tying one hand behind his/her back. A really heinous violation might be punished by strapping the offending player ball & chain-style to the goalie. While these scenarios may sound like torture, sitting through a typical soccer game today is already a torturous experience for many.
Reference
Increasing Soccer Goal Size is Questionable!!! (website).
Steven (Starjet) Kearney
Friday, June 11, 2010
World Cup Soccer: US Hopes to Tar and Feather British
Dunce Cap Fits BP Well
The huge Dunce Cap placed over the erupting BP (aka British Petroleum) oil well in the Gulf of Mexico has been partially successful. The Dunce Cap is a better fit than anything else BP has tried. That said, the wound is still hemorrhaging.
Enter: World Cup Soccer--US Hopes to Tar and Feather the British in Showdown Saturday.
The British are heavy favorites, having more internationally experienced players. But the Americans have youth and enthusiasm on their side.
The US also has a history of surprising victories over the Redcoats--such as the stunning 1950 win by a score of 1-0.
On top of that, the US will be playing with the anger of a nation behind them. This, of course, is because of the tremendous devastation wreaked on the US Gulf Coast this spring by British Petroleum's massive Oil Spill.
A US soccer fan says he hopes "that when the American players hit the field they'll run circles around the Brits--make 'em look like they're mired in muck, like all those pelicans of ours."
One fan says that if any other country had spewed-out all of that oil, many Americans would consider it an act of war or terrorism. But this Euro-trashing of the Gulf Coast has been gotten away with. The perpetrators are predominantly White and English-speaking, not like your typical profiled enemy or terrorist.
A fan of the American Tea Party agreed that it would be fun to see the British humiliated in a Revolutionary victory. "People might think that we'd be pro-water-fouling, given our history, but actually we're more pro-waterfowl. The Audubon Society has some very influential chapters in Massachusetts."
Sarah Palin is rumored to have quipped that if she'd ever caught Vladimir Putin drilling for oil off the Alaska Coast, she'd have shot him in the buttocks with a crossbow.
Afterwords
How it turned out: 1-1 tie--a "moral victory" for the USofAers. The most likely tar & feathering would have been by British fans of their owngoalie who let an easy shot get by him.
BP Followup
A BP robot has evidently knocked the Dunce Cap off the well head! The company's CEO could not be reached for comment as he was busy unwinding from a nerve-wracking yacht race over the weekend. A BP spokesman said they'd likely try to put the Dunce Cap back on. It was unclear whether the robot, which reportedly had said "Woops, my bad!" would be asked to play any role in the retrofitting.
The huge Dunce Cap placed over the erupting BP (aka British Petroleum) oil well in the Gulf of Mexico has been partially successful. The Dunce Cap is a better fit than anything else BP has tried. That said, the wound is still hemorrhaging.
Enter: World Cup Soccer--US Hopes to Tar and Feather the British in Showdown Saturday.
The British are heavy favorites, having more internationally experienced players. But the Americans have youth and enthusiasm on their side.
The US also has a history of surprising victories over the Redcoats--such as the stunning 1950 win by a score of 1-0.
On top of that, the US will be playing with the anger of a nation behind them. This, of course, is because of the tremendous devastation wreaked on the US Gulf Coast this spring by British Petroleum's massive Oil Spill.
A US soccer fan says he hopes "that when the American players hit the field they'll run circles around the Brits--make 'em look like they're mired in muck, like all those pelicans of ours."
One fan says that if any other country had spewed-out all of that oil, many Americans would consider it an act of war or terrorism. But this Euro-trashing of the Gulf Coast has been gotten away with. The perpetrators are predominantly White and English-speaking, not like your typical profiled enemy or terrorist.
A fan of the American Tea Party agreed that it would be fun to see the British humiliated in a Revolutionary victory. "People might think that we'd be pro-water-fouling, given our history, but actually we're more pro-waterfowl. The Audubon Society has some very influential chapters in Massachusetts."
Sarah Palin is rumored to have quipped that if she'd ever caught Vladimir Putin drilling for oil off the Alaska Coast, she'd have shot him in the buttocks with a crossbow.
Afterwords
How it turned out: 1-1 tie--a "moral victory" for the USofAers. The most likely tar & feathering would have been by British fans of their owngoalie who let an easy shot get by him.
BP Followup
A BP robot has evidently knocked the Dunce Cap off the well head! The company's CEO could not be reached for comment as he was busy unwinding from a nerve-wracking yacht race over the weekend. A BP spokesman said they'd likely try to put the Dunce Cap back on. It was unclear whether the robot, which reportedly had said "Woops, my bad!" would be asked to play any role in the retrofitting.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Name That Horse
Since we haven't had a Triple Crown winner in 32 years, a lot of horseracing people are looking to change something. Take a look at the names of the 11 horses who have won a Triple Crown, and you'll see assertiveness, strength and triumph. Names like Gallant Fox, War Admiral, Assault, Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed.
Now we've got horses running around with names like "dude this' and "dude that". If Seattle Slew had been called Seattle Slaw, he might not have gotten as much respect. Ditto if Affirmed had been named Denied. Look at two of the last three horses to get to the Belmont Stakes with a chance for a triple crown: Funny Cide and Smarty Jones. You've got to be kidding!
Here are some good names for horses:
Get Bet Soon
Rainmaker
Morse Colt
Medicine Horse
Pole Star
Tonal Rail (has a nice ring to it)
Lustrous Finish
Wire to Wire
Record Setter
Go Figure Go (lineage of Go and Go)
Four Legs Good (from Orwell's Animal Farm)
Post Time Traveler
Surf In Turf (son of a mudder)
Bridle Wreath
Horse With A Name (ref. America song)
Runaway Charm (ref. my song)
ThoroughBroad (a filly)
Stretch Limo
by Steven (Starjet) Kearney
Now we've got horses running around with names like "dude this' and "dude that". If Seattle Slew had been called Seattle Slaw, he might not have gotten as much respect. Ditto if Affirmed had been named Denied. Look at two of the last three horses to get to the Belmont Stakes with a chance for a triple crown: Funny Cide and Smarty Jones. You've got to be kidding!
Here are some good names for horses:
Get Bet Soon
Rainmaker
Morse Colt
Medicine Horse
Pole Star
Tonal Rail (has a nice ring to it)
Lustrous Finish
Wire to Wire
Record Setter
Go Figure Go (lineage of Go and Go)
Four Legs Good (from Orwell's Animal Farm)
Post Time Traveler
Surf In Turf (son of a mudder)
Bridle Wreath
Horse With A Name (ref. America song)
Runaway Charm (ref. my song)
ThoroughBroad (a filly)
Stretch Limo
by Steven (Starjet) Kearney
Friday, June 4, 2010
Umpire's Mistake Explained
"Galarraga's Perfect Game Ruined by Umpire"--the headlines blare. Why did the umpire--Joyce--miss the obvious game-ending out call at first base? It seems he must have choked, right?
Maybe an explanation comes from the way baseball umpires are trained. On a bang-bang play like the one at first base, the umpire looks for the foot touching the base and LISTENS for the ball hitting the mitt. However, on this particular play, Galarraga caught the ball snow-cone style. So there was no sound of the ball going "thump" while impacting the pocket of the glove.
The reason umpires listen for the ball is a simple limitation of human vision. We can only focus on one spot at a time. The umpire at first base stands down the line several feet from the base. On this play--a grounder to the 1st baseman with the pitcher covering the base, the umpire needs to focus on the base at the crucial time because he must evaluate two things in that visual spot--the hitter's foot arriving and the pitcher's foot arriving and often groping for the base. If the umpire takes his eye off the base for a split second to look for the ball, he may miss the pitcher's foot touching or straying from the base, and so miss the call.
Why, then can we all watch this instant replay and see the call was wrong? To begin with, the speed is usually slow so we have time to go back and forth with our eyes. Furthermore, glove and base are much closer together in the field of view on a TV screen compared with what the umpire sees.
The grounder to first baseman off the bag with pitcher covering is one of the more difficult to handle defensively and to umpire. It involves an intricate interplay between four principals--pitcher, first baseman, hitter/runner and umpire. So many things can go wrong: pitcher slow to react gets to base late; pitcher pressed for time looks for throw while groping for base; 1st-baseman aims at base and misses pitcher or aims at pitcher and misses base; 1st baseman leads the pitcher just as he's stopping; 1st-baseman prematurely anticipates pitcher stopping so throw goes behind him; pitcher and hitter/runner get tangled up; controversial call by umpire involving pitcher's foot on/off bag or ball caught cleanly/juggled.
The subjective judgment of umpires is clearly a part of the game. This is most evident on ball/strike calls. It's also apparent on tags and diving catches in the outfield. Unfortunately, what sells an above-the-wall circus catch--snow-cone ball--is cause for doubt in the play at first as it brings up the issue of possession. Understanding that the umpire was listening for, not looking at the ball, any inclination he might've had to reverse his call was squelched by that protruding ball.
While it may seem crazy to us now that this umpire--Joyce--would error on the side of ruining the perfect game, consider what would've happened if on the instant replay it was obvious that Armando Galarraga was juggling the ball. Joyce would be mocked as the soft-hearted umpire, the "yes" man umpire, the blind umpire,the wimpire, and so on. Galarraga's deed would be called the imperfect game, the umperfect game, the Quote "perfect" game, and so on.
PS Regarding limits of human vision. Ditto in other sports. Basketball out-of-bounds ball contested by 2+ players: the referee needs to watch the ball to see who touches it last and also monitor contact for fouls. In Football on a fumble: the official needs to watch for the carrier's knee touching ground and also the ball coming loose unexpectedly and possibly the ball and/or the runner going out-of-bounds, as well as a bunch of players diving for the loose ball.
These sports have wisely implemented instant replay on plays such as these. Baseball would be wise to do so on plays like the one that cost Galarraga his no-hitter.
Maybe an explanation comes from the way baseball umpires are trained. On a bang-bang play like the one at first base, the umpire looks for the foot touching the base and LISTENS for the ball hitting the mitt. However, on this particular play, Galarraga caught the ball snow-cone style. So there was no sound of the ball going "thump" while impacting the pocket of the glove.
The reason umpires listen for the ball is a simple limitation of human vision. We can only focus on one spot at a time. The umpire at first base stands down the line several feet from the base. On this play--a grounder to the 1st baseman with the pitcher covering the base, the umpire needs to focus on the base at the crucial time because he must evaluate two things in that visual spot--the hitter's foot arriving and the pitcher's foot arriving and often groping for the base. If the umpire takes his eye off the base for a split second to look for the ball, he may miss the pitcher's foot touching or straying from the base, and so miss the call.
Why, then can we all watch this instant replay and see the call was wrong? To begin with, the speed is usually slow so we have time to go back and forth with our eyes. Furthermore, glove and base are much closer together in the field of view on a TV screen compared with what the umpire sees.
The grounder to first baseman off the bag with pitcher covering is one of the more difficult to handle defensively and to umpire. It involves an intricate interplay between four principals--pitcher, first baseman, hitter/runner and umpire. So many things can go wrong: pitcher slow to react gets to base late; pitcher pressed for time looks for throw while groping for base; 1st-baseman aims at base and misses pitcher or aims at pitcher and misses base; 1st baseman leads the pitcher just as he's stopping; 1st-baseman prematurely anticipates pitcher stopping so throw goes behind him; pitcher and hitter/runner get tangled up; controversial call by umpire involving pitcher's foot on/off bag or ball caught cleanly/juggled.
The subjective judgment of umpires is clearly a part of the game. This is most evident on ball/strike calls. It's also apparent on tags and diving catches in the outfield. Unfortunately, what sells an above-the-wall circus catch--snow-cone ball--is cause for doubt in the play at first as it brings up the issue of possession. Understanding that the umpire was listening for, not looking at the ball, any inclination he might've had to reverse his call was squelched by that protruding ball.
While it may seem crazy to us now that this umpire--Joyce--would error on the side of ruining the perfect game, consider what would've happened if on the instant replay it was obvious that Armando Galarraga was juggling the ball. Joyce would be mocked as the soft-hearted umpire, the "yes" man umpire, the blind umpire,the wimpire, and so on. Galarraga's deed would be called the imperfect game, the umperfect game, the Quote "perfect" game, and so on.
PS Regarding limits of human vision. Ditto in other sports. Basketball out-of-bounds ball contested by 2+ players: the referee needs to watch the ball to see who touches it last and also monitor contact for fouls. In Football on a fumble: the official needs to watch for the carrier's knee touching ground and also the ball coming loose unexpectedly and possibly the ball and/or the runner going out-of-bounds, as well as a bunch of players diving for the loose ball.
These sports have wisely implemented instant replay on plays such as these. Baseball would be wise to do so on plays like the one that cost Galarraga his no-hitter.
Spanish Version of Take Me Out to the Ballgame
It would be cool if people here sang Take Me Out to the BallGame in Spanish every Cinco de Mayo.
However, most translations are unsatisfactory because:
*They don't get the correct meanings of some of the words, particularly the sports lingo--to "root" for a team doesn't mean to root around in the ground or trace one's ancestry.
*They lack a sense of rhythm, use too many words/syllables and so are clumsy/rushed when sung.
*They don't translate everything--leaving bits and pieces of English.
So here goes:
Llevame al partido de beisbol
Llevame con la multitud
Compreme cacahuetes y Galleta Jack
No me importa si nunca vuelvo
Rugir, rugir para los Cachorros/Diamantes/Atleticos/Nacionales/Yanquis/etc.
Si no ganan, que lastima
Porque es uno, dos, tres y ponchado
En el pasatiempo grandioso!
However, most translations are unsatisfactory because:
*They don't get the correct meanings of some of the words, particularly the sports lingo--to "root" for a team doesn't mean to root around in the ground or trace one's ancestry.
*They lack a sense of rhythm, use too many words/syllables and so are clumsy/rushed when sung.
*They don't translate everything--leaving bits and pieces of English.
So here goes:
Llevame al partido de beisbol
Llevame con la multitud
Compreme cacahuetes y Galleta Jack
No me importa si nunca vuelvo
Rugir, rugir para los Cachorros/Diamantes/Atleticos/Nacionales/Yanquis/etc.
Si no ganan, que lastima
Porque es uno, dos, tres y ponchado
En el pasatiempo grandioso!
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Lost in the Gulf of Mexico
Odd Things: Paradise(s) Lost
Has anybody else noticed the strange similarity between fact and fiction in the news. It's a real "synchronicity"!
5/23/10: in TV's most awaited show in recent memory--Last Episode of Lost (TV's top drama--filmed in Hawaii)--the focal point was a large stone plug in the Earth that was pulled out by the character Desmond--releasing a large amount of radiant energy--and subsequently put back in by the show's lead character (Jack). The plug site was deep in a cave, accessed by a running brook including a waterfall estimated at 50-100feet.
This aired about 5 weeks after the tragic Gulf of Mexico Oil Rig Disaster that is the leading news story of the year in US. Most nights the networks lead with it in their evening news and the situation only worsens. The oil company has been unable to plug up the oil-spewing hole on the gulf floor--about 500 feet below sea level--or effectively clean up the mess. Nothing they've tried (steel condom, drinking straw, toxic dispersant, blame game, mud pies) has worked very well--as of 5/30.
In the finale of Lost, the heroic plugging/unplugging is seen as pivotal to the islanders as they eagerly ask one another "did it work?" or state "it worked" or "it didn't work." There was another important hole in the ground in an earlier episode this season. One or more of the characters fell/jumped down into it in order to pull some sort of lever that had something to do with blowing the island up (The show was notoriously hard to pin down).
Of course, the final episode of Lost was surely written and probably filmed prior to the oil eruption. You'd almost think--wishfully--that the oil blowout was part of another plot twist. But, alas, the show is over, while the reality of the Big Spill gets more horrible every day.
Has anybody else noticed the strange similarity between fact and fiction in the news. It's a real "synchronicity"!
5/23/10: in TV's most awaited show in recent memory--Last Episode of Lost (TV's top drama--filmed in Hawaii)--the focal point was a large stone plug in the Earth that was pulled out by the character Desmond--releasing a large amount of radiant energy--and subsequently put back in by the show's lead character (Jack). The plug site was deep in a cave, accessed by a running brook including a waterfall estimated at 50-100feet.
This aired about 5 weeks after the tragic Gulf of Mexico Oil Rig Disaster that is the leading news story of the year in US. Most nights the networks lead with it in their evening news and the situation only worsens. The oil company has been unable to plug up the oil-spewing hole on the gulf floor--about 500 feet below sea level--or effectively clean up the mess. Nothing they've tried (steel condom, drinking straw, toxic dispersant, blame game, mud pies) has worked very well--as of 5/30.
In the finale of Lost, the heroic plugging/unplugging is seen as pivotal to the islanders as they eagerly ask one another "did it work?" or state "it worked" or "it didn't work." There was another important hole in the ground in an earlier episode this season. One or more of the characters fell/jumped down into it in order to pull some sort of lever that had something to do with blowing the island up (The show was notoriously hard to pin down).
Of course, the final episode of Lost was surely written and probably filmed prior to the oil eruption. You'd almost think--wishfully--that the oil blowout was part of another plot twist. But, alas, the show is over, while the reality of the Big Spill gets more horrible every day.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
American Idol Contestant Goes Overboard for Sponsor
American I Dough
Crystal Bowersox's lyrical gaffe on Beatles' Come Together was mostly substituting "coca cola" for "mojo filter" in final verse. "Coca cola" was used earlier in the song correctly, so she evidently had the show's big sponsor on her mind.
Crystal Bowersox's lyrical gaffe on Beatles' Come Together was mostly substituting "coca cola" for "mojo filter" in final verse. "Coca cola" was used earlier in the song correctly, so she evidently had the show's big sponsor on her mind.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
American Idol Meets the Rolling Stones
Which Rolliing Stones songs should they sing on American Idol?
American Idol--week of the Final 12 (Pick 6)
Some Rolling Stones songs good for a female vocalist:
Wild Horses*
You Can't Always Get what You Want*
Heart of Stone*
Lies
Come On
Bitch
Gimme Shelter
Under My Thumb*
Paint It Black
Happy
Shattered
Tumbling Dice (it's already been covered by e.g. Linda Ronstadt)
Last Time
That's How Strong My Love Is
*Of course, several of these would need to have the lyrics modified slightly (to keep them heterosexual): for example "he's under my thumb". Actually, it's surprising just how many of 'em don't require any lyric changes, and the ones that do--not that much.
So how did it turn out?
They (the women) sang:
Wild Horses
You Can't Always Get...
Paint It Black
Ruby Tuesday
Play with Fire
Honky Tonk Woman
Pretty safe--they're all on Hot Rocks (I). I'm not sure they actually made gender change in lyrics in Wild Horses, Can't Always Get, or Ruby Tuesday (poss. not necessary in this one--or even the other two, for that matter). They did make the changes w/Honky Tonk.
Conclusion: Despite being at times quite sexist, the music of the Rolling Stones is surprisingly adaptable to a female singer. This is particularly so when you consider the possibilities of irony and parody--issues of a greater complexity than something like American idol presents, short of Adam Lambert.
Cover artists, and even original songwriters, might do well to contemplate greater unisexuality in this era of greater gender equality. Of course, it also doesn't hurt to have a ton of great songs to choose from, like The Stones.
Ditto as regards Bruce Springsteen--although his music is entirely different in tone from the Stones. A talented female vocalist could probably pull off a lot of it as there is a substantial amount of tenderness, pathos, sentimentality, melodrama, romanticism, etc. throughout his repertory.
Some good Bossongs for female vocalist: Factory, Cover Me, Price You Pay, Point Black, 57 Channels, Incident on 57th St., NY City Serenade, Dancin' in the Dark, Does this Bus Stop at 82nd St., Brilliant Disguise, Human Touch, 10th Ave. Freeze-Out, Kitty's Back, Rising, Bobby Jean, Ties that Bind, Two Hearts, Workin' on a Dream, Wreck on the Highway, The Way, Thunder Road, I'm a Rocker, My Love Will Not Let You Down, Car Wash...
Steven (Kearney) Starjet
American Idol--week of the Final 12 (Pick 6)
Some Rolling Stones songs good for a female vocalist:
Wild Horses*
You Can't Always Get what You Want*
Heart of Stone*
Lies
Come On
Bitch
Gimme Shelter
Under My Thumb*
Paint It Black
Happy
Shattered
Tumbling Dice (it's already been covered by e.g. Linda Ronstadt)
Last Time
That's How Strong My Love Is
*Of course, several of these would need to have the lyrics modified slightly (to keep them heterosexual): for example "he's under my thumb". Actually, it's surprising just how many of 'em don't require any lyric changes, and the ones that do--not that much.
So how did it turn out?
They (the women) sang:
Wild Horses
You Can't Always Get...
Paint It Black
Ruby Tuesday
Play with Fire
Honky Tonk Woman
Pretty safe--they're all on Hot Rocks (I). I'm not sure they actually made gender change in lyrics in Wild Horses, Can't Always Get, or Ruby Tuesday (poss. not necessary in this one--or even the other two, for that matter). They did make the changes w/Honky Tonk.
Conclusion: Despite being at times quite sexist, the music of the Rolling Stones is surprisingly adaptable to a female singer. This is particularly so when you consider the possibilities of irony and parody--issues of a greater complexity than something like American idol presents, short of Adam Lambert.
Cover artists, and even original songwriters, might do well to contemplate greater unisexuality in this era of greater gender equality. Of course, it also doesn't hurt to have a ton of great songs to choose from, like The Stones.
Ditto as regards Bruce Springsteen--although his music is entirely different in tone from the Stones. A talented female vocalist could probably pull off a lot of it as there is a substantial amount of tenderness, pathos, sentimentality, melodrama, romanticism, etc. throughout his repertory.
Some good Bossongs for female vocalist: Factory, Cover Me, Price You Pay, Point Black, 57 Channels, Incident on 57th St., NY City Serenade, Dancin' in the Dark, Does this Bus Stop at 82nd St., Brilliant Disguise, Human Touch, 10th Ave. Freeze-Out, Kitty's Back, Rising, Bobby Jean, Ties that Bind, Two Hearts, Workin' on a Dream, Wreck on the Highway, The Way, Thunder Road, I'm a Rocker, My Love Will Not Let You Down, Car Wash...
Steven (Kearney) Starjet
Monday, March 15, 2010
First Contact Opportunity: Zavijava Could Be the One
A perceptive amateur astronomer could play a key role in first extraterrestrial contact. Numerous successful asteroid/comet hunters and nova finders can attest that a lot can be said for looking in the right place at the right time. This time, it could be you.
There is a chance that some ETI or other would try to contact us from light-years away. A smart ETI may rightly suppose our resources for listening are limited, and so toss us an easy pitch to hit--timing-wise. The hours of transit are the most logical landmark event in space-time for them to use as they represent a predictable, recurring phenomenon. They'd simply need to have a good fix on our distance from them and orbital period in order to time their signal so that it reaches here at the transit event.
To make the most of these situations, we could program an antenna to pretty much follow the "anti-Sun" around the ecliptic--flitting from star-to-star like a hummingbird in a flower garden.
It would make sense to focus on nearby promising stars, such as Zavijava in Virgo (aka beta-Virginis). This ecliptic star, ranked #12 on the Terrestrial Planet Finder list, is very much like the Sun (type F8 to Sun's G2; similar estimated age). Zavijava is the nearest single,stable, Sun-like star located on the ecliptic. Transits of planets can only be observed from points along the ecliptic. Earth transits for Zavijava right around March 21-22, annually. Hope springs eternal.
So, potentially scheduled to arrive here March 21/22, any year: a contacting signal sent our way from a planet (or moon) orbiting the 3.61-magnitude star Zavijava in the constellation Virgo, timed so that that it would reach Earth just as we're transiting in front of the Sun from their viewing angle.
While it is hoped that radio astronomers will be listening in, it is possible that such a signal would come optically as a nova-like laser pulse/flash--noticeable to the naked eye. Anybody could be the first contactee.
*It's quite possible that planetary/solar/stellar alignments--such as transits and conjunctions--are a standard timing mechanism for ETI contact signaling.
*Alignments are objective, significant, measurable, predictable, recurring phenomena. Objective in the sense that you can figure out what another party is seeing if you have sufficient measurement and observational skill to put up a comprehensive model of the sky from otherworldly viewpoints.
*Such astronomical research luminaries as Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute, Ray Villard of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Richard Conn Henry of Johns Hopkins, Steve Kilston of the Henry Foundation, and NASA astrophysicist Robin H. Corbet at Goddard Space Flight Center have advocated using transits for contact purposes.
"But why the star Zavijava?" you ask. "What makes it so special?"
Short Answer
A thorough study of relevant star charts and tables has led to the realization that Zavijava is the only single, stable, Sun-like star within 40 light years of us that is located on our ecliptic belt (aka the zodiac). The importance of the ecliptic is that it provides one with a privileged point-of-view for planetary transits and conjunctions.
Long Answer
Zavijava (aka beta-Virginis) is the star that best meets these seven criteria for high "contactability":
1) Single (it's not in a multiple star system);
2) Sun-like (it's a spectral type F9, which is very similar to the Sun's G2);
3) Stable (it's not a variable or flare star) for a good while--at least, say, 2 billion years;
4) High metal content (which is conducive to forming rocky planets: Zavijava's metallicity is a bit greater than the Sun's;
5) Old enough (to have given rise to an intelligent civilization. Zavijava age is estimated between 2.8 and 4.7 billion years--a decent chance to have been an ample amount of time)
6) Nearby (Zavijava lies a mere 35.6 light years away. To understand how near that is, if you imagine our galaxy being the size of the United States, then Zavijava's would be just 1 1/2 miles from us);
7) Being located on our ecliptic belt gives Zavijavanetis a privileged line-of-sight. The transit and conjunction phenomenon are perfectly logical timing tools--no hocus-pocus. All that's necessary is that the two parties be willing and able to put themselves in each others' shoes. That's something that many ordinary human adults do several times a day without too much difficulty. So there is no need to invoke futuristic technology like ESP, mind-reading, telepathy, time travel, quantum entanglement, or astrology for this scenario to work.
"But why now?" you may ask.
Zavijava's distance from Earth--35.6 LY--makes our present era a special one because the round-trip time for a signal--71.2 years is roughly equal to the amount of time that has passed since our first substantial TV broadcasts--in the 1930's.
So anyone there with a really good receiver might have begun watching our early TV programming--like the 1936 Berlin Olympics--around 1972, taken it in for a couple of years, and sent a review that we could be receiving right about now.. Eat your heart out, Jodie Foster. The scenario in the movie 'Contact' may truly be applicable to us, only the relevant star is Zavijava, not Vega (too young to have produced an intelligent civilization).
Default Contact Star: Rosetta Star
Skeptics might argue that the odds against an intelligent civilization having arisen in any particular star system could be astronomically high. However it may be worthwhile to consider the possibility that a sophisticated, mobile ETI would have a base on Zavijava from which they could transmit to Earth.
In the event that our section of the galaxy is already substantially settled, Zavijava may function as a sort of default mechanism for contact with Earth. That is to say, ETIs in some kind of federation would likely have an outreach committee responsible for drawing in any nascent civilizations. They would already be well aware of life on Earth and the emergence of human civilization, and could come here if they wanted.
But rules of protocol might favor signal transmissions from a moderate distance. Realizing the special status of Zavijava with respect to Earth--being a nearby sister of the Sun located in our ecliptic--they might set up a broadcasting station from that system, even if there is no native civilization in it, reasoning that we would likely be listening and looking for signals emanating from there.
Lightning in a Bottle
A galactic federation might be sure to contact an emerging civilization like Earth's before we go off colonizing other star systems because then we're potentially invading their realm. So their message to us may be part greeting, part warning.
Whatever the message, the first signal, if laser optical, will likely be meant to get our attention. You would just need to be looking for a bright flash at the right place and time in the night sky. Message details would follow in a suitable way via radio waves and can be processed by SETI professionals.
Culturally, Zavijava, or Al Zawiah, means angle or corner of the kennel of the barking dogs in Arabic. In its Greco-Roman mythological role of beta-Virginis, the star is positioned as the left shoulder of the maiden facing us.
Between Two Superstars
Of course, knowing where to look in the sky for Zavijava would be helpful, as it's not particularly bright (magnitude 3.61). Anyone in northern temperate latitudes who has spent time during the Spring or Summer looking southward in the night sky must be familiar with the brilliant blue star Spica (alpha-Virginis, magnitude 0.98 in the constellation Virgo). Moving westward, the next really bright star over is regal Regulus (alpha-Leonis, magnitude 1.36--in the adjacent constellation of Leo). Zavijava is the star of modest brightness most exactly midway between Spica and Regulus.
Sky Party
Being on the ecliptic makes Zavijava a sort of landmark for the planets as they go passing through. And it's also a golden opportunity to catch lightning in a bottle should Zavijavanetis be sending us a laser pulse just then. It would be quite a story if some amateur astronomers out photographing a nice conjunction look at the images they've taken and detect an anomalous brightness in one of the pictures--right where the star Zavijava should be barely visible.
The next big thing in this part of the sky, relevant to Zavijava, will probably be in October 2015. Venus Mars and Jupiter will form a tight 3-in-a-row (a la Orion's belt) points almost directly at Zavijava on October 22 and 28. The three also form a tight near-perfect isosceles triangle pointing directly at Zavijava along one of the long axes on Oct 15.
History Lessons
Zavijava already has been utilized by astronomers on at least one such occasion. In 1922, Arthur Eddington journeyed to Wallal, Australia and photographed Zavijava in conjunction with a total solar eclipse on September 21 in order to measure the angle of starlight deflection caused by the Sun's gravity. The results of this, and a few similar excursions, helped confirm Einstein's general theory of relativity--supplanting Newtonian mechanics. Some might wonder whether Eddington and his crew might have unwittingly received a message from Zavijavaland.
All nearby Sun-like stars, including Zavijava, have previously been surveyed for transmissions by SETI projects such as Phoenix, SERENDIP, Big Ear, META and BETA. However, there is no indication that timing was in any way a consideration. Project META recorded 37 anomalous transmissions that failed to recur upon follow-up--usually several days, weeks, or even months later. The randomness of such would have missed a transit-timing sender's likely repeat bursts over a one-to-two-day window or precisely a year later. Only BETA has had a mechanism for promptly double-checking promising signals. None have focused attention on the ecliptic belt or on longitudinal lines extended at transit/opposition time. For Zavijava, that time is right around March 21-22, annually.
Big Sister
Close examination of Zavijava reveals that, in comparison with the Sun, she is 25% more massive, 70% wider, 3.5x more luminous (with an absolute magnitude of 3.40), and 40% more metal-rich. You might say Zavijava is a bit more like the Sun's big sister than her twin or clone.
As a result of living large, Zavijava the star is not long for this world. Though stable for most of her life, Zavijava has already started to balloon up--the beginning of its dying throes. Any advanced planetary civilization there likely would have already done the equivalent of an Earth-to-Mars migration.
Naturally, they would also be looking for a longer term home--some place like Earth, perhaps. Having watched a few years' worth of our early TV programming, they may well figure that here is a nearby planet well-suited for life and presently being overrun by buffoons.
Some might misconstrue the absence of a signal from Zavijava as indicative of an impending sneak attack by them. With the little we know, cannot rule out the possibility of a huge flotilla of Zavijavanetis arriving anytime.
However, our Sun may have only 500 million to 1 billion years left before it starts acting up. So, we have reason to hope that outward-bound Zavijavanetis would take the high road and relocate to one or more of the many nearby red dwarf systems--terraforming planets there--instead of trying to take us over. Red dwarfs typically live 100 billion years.
So it's plausible that a Zavijavaneti society might not bother contacting us as their plate could be pretty full and there isn't much that we can do to help them out. On the other hand, they may have already moved elsewhere but left a monitoring/communications contingent there. It really wouldn't be much trouble, or take much equipment, to do stuff like signal us at least once every (Earth) year--say, at transit-time March 21-22. Hope does spring eternal.
TABLE
STAR LIST
Nearby single, Sun-like stars along the ecliptic (that might host habitable planets or moons of planets):
*Zavijava (aka beta-Virginis): RA 11.50.41.7, DEC +1.45.52.9 (ecliptic dec. is at approx. +2 at that RA), type F8 or F9, 35.6 LY away, magnitude 3.61, will be occulted by Venus in 2069, #12 TPF target.
*HD 172051 (aka HR 6998) (in Sagittarius): RA 18.38.53.49, DEC -21.03.06.7 (ecliptic dec. is at approx -23 at that RA), type G5, 42 LY away, magnitude 5.86, #98 TPF target.
*111 Tauri: RA 5.24, DEC +17.23, (ecliptic dec. is approx +20 at that RA), type F8, 48 LY away, magnitude 5.0, #40 TPF.
Nearby single, Sun-like stars fairly near ecliptic (that might host long-term habitable planets or moons of planets) :
*HD 192310 (aka HR 7722) (in Capricorn): RA 20.15, DEC -27.01 (ecliptic dec. is approx. -20 at that RA), type K0, 29 LY away, magnitude 5.73, #72 TPF.
*Iota Piscium: RA 23.39, DEC +5.37, (ecliptic dec. is approx. -2 at that RA), type F7, 45 LY away, magnitude 4.13, #23 TPF.
*Psi Capricornus: RA 20.46, DEC -25.16, (ecliptic dec. is appprox. -18 at that RA), type F5, 48 LY away, magnitude 4.13, #29 TPF.
*HR 7898 (in Capricorn): RA 20.40, DEC -23.46 (ecliptic dec. is approx.18 at that RA), type G8, 48 LY away, magnitude 6.36.
*Chi Cancri: RA 8.20, DEC +27.13, (ecliptic dec. is approx. +20 at that RA), type F6, 59 LY away, magnitude 5.13, #59 TPF.
Known nearby single stars along the ecliptic that are not like the Sun (but could conceivably host habitable planets or moons of planets--excludes flare stars)
*Teegarden's star: RA 2.53.00.85, DEC +16.52.53.3 (ecliptic dec. is approx. +16.3 at that RA), type M7 in Aries, 12 LY away, magnitude 15.
*Von Maanen's star (in Pisces): RA 00.49.09.8892, DEC +5.23.19.007 (ecliptic dec. is approx. +6 at that RA), warm white dwarf (6750 K), 14 LY away, magnitude 12.3.
Nearby single star fairly near the ecliptic and not like the Sun (but still considered possibly conducive to life):
*Gliese 876 (in Aquarius): RA 22.53, DEC -14.15, (ecliptic dec. is approx. -7 at that RA), type M4, 15 LY away, magnitude 10.17.
Within each group, stars are listed from near to far. Magnitudes are apparent. Variable stars are excluded.
Abbreviations: RA=right ascension; DEC=declination; approx.=approximately; TPF=Terrestrial Planet Finder mission.
ABBREVIATIONS
BETA=billion-channel extraterrestrial assay
DEC= declination
ETI=extraterrestrial intelligence
LY=light year
META=mega-channel extraterrestrial assay
NASA=national aeronautics and space administration
RA=right ascension
SETI=search for extraterrestrial intelligence
TPF=terrestrial planet finder
SOURCES
Corbet, Robin H.D., Synchronized SETI--The Case for "Opposition"; Astrobiology magazine, Mary Ann Liebert Inc., July 5, 2004.
Doyle, L.R., Deeg, H.J. and Jenkins, J.M., Discovering Worlds in Transit; Astronomy mag., 2001.
Kaler, Jim, Zavijava; on Stars website (accessed 2009).
Neave, Paul, planetarium website, 1999-2009.
Powell, Richard, Atlas of the Universe (website): Stars Within 50 Light Years, last updated July 30, 2006.
Red dwarf stars within 10 parsecs; Sol Company (website) 2005.
Scheffer, Lou, Aliens Can Watch 'I Love Lucy'; Contact in Context v2i1/lucy.pdf (website), accessed 2009.
Shostak, Seth, Cheap Communication Schemes for ETI; SETI Institute (online), April 1, 2004.
Shostak, Seth, Good Timing; SETI Insitute (seti.org), June 12, 2008.
Shostak, Seth, Making the Search Simple; SETI Institute (online), December 14, 2006.
Skindrud, Erik, The Big Question; Science News Online, September 7, 1996.
Sol Station.com, Zavijava (beta-Virginis) (website, accessed 2009).
Team Hopes to Use New Technology to Search for ET's (SETI Institute website), June 2, 2008.
Terrestrial Planet Finder article in State Master Encyclopedia (online),accessed 2009.
Wikipedia, List of Extrasolar Planets, (online encyclopedia) updated November 7, 2009.
Wikipedia, Occultation, accessed Nov. 2009.
Wikipedia, Zavijava, accessed October 2009.
Excerpt from Cosmic Web by Steve Kearney.
There is a chance that some ETI or other would try to contact us from light-years away. A smart ETI may rightly suppose our resources for listening are limited, and so toss us an easy pitch to hit--timing-wise. The hours of transit are the most logical landmark event in space-time for them to use as they represent a predictable, recurring phenomenon. They'd simply need to have a good fix on our distance from them and orbital period in order to time their signal so that it reaches here at the transit event.
To make the most of these situations, we could program an antenna to pretty much follow the "anti-Sun" around the ecliptic--flitting from star-to-star like a hummingbird in a flower garden.
It would make sense to focus on nearby promising stars, such as Zavijava in Virgo (aka beta-Virginis). This ecliptic star, ranked #12 on the Terrestrial Planet Finder list, is very much like the Sun (type F8 to Sun's G2; similar estimated age). Zavijava is the nearest single,stable, Sun-like star located on the ecliptic. Transits of planets can only be observed from points along the ecliptic. Earth transits for Zavijava right around March 21-22, annually. Hope springs eternal.
So, potentially scheduled to arrive here March 21/22, any year: a contacting signal sent our way from a planet (or moon) orbiting the 3.61-magnitude star Zavijava in the constellation Virgo, timed so that that it would reach Earth just as we're transiting in front of the Sun from their viewing angle.
While it is hoped that radio astronomers will be listening in, it is possible that such a signal would come optically as a nova-like laser pulse/flash--noticeable to the naked eye. Anybody could be the first contactee.
*It's quite possible that planetary/solar/stellar alignments--such as transits and conjunctions--are a standard timing mechanism for ETI contact signaling.
*Alignments are objective, significant, measurable, predictable, recurring phenomena. Objective in the sense that you can figure out what another party is seeing if you have sufficient measurement and observational skill to put up a comprehensive model of the sky from otherworldly viewpoints.
*Such astronomical research luminaries as Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute, Ray Villard of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Richard Conn Henry of Johns Hopkins, Steve Kilston of the Henry Foundation, and NASA astrophysicist Robin H. Corbet at Goddard Space Flight Center have advocated using transits for contact purposes.
"But why the star Zavijava?" you ask. "What makes it so special?"
Short Answer
A thorough study of relevant star charts and tables has led to the realization that Zavijava is the only single, stable, Sun-like star within 40 light years of us that is located on our ecliptic belt (aka the zodiac). The importance of the ecliptic is that it provides one with a privileged point-of-view for planetary transits and conjunctions.
Long Answer
Zavijava (aka beta-Virginis) is the star that best meets these seven criteria for high "contactability":
1) Single (it's not in a multiple star system);
2) Sun-like (it's a spectral type F9, which is very similar to the Sun's G2);
3) Stable (it's not a variable or flare star) for a good while--at least, say, 2 billion years;
4) High metal content (which is conducive to forming rocky planets: Zavijava's metallicity is a bit greater than the Sun's;
5) Old enough (to have given rise to an intelligent civilization. Zavijava age is estimated between 2.8 and 4.7 billion years--a decent chance to have been an ample amount of time)
6) Nearby (Zavijava lies a mere 35.6 light years away. To understand how near that is, if you imagine our galaxy being the size of the United States, then Zavijava's would be just 1 1/2 miles from us);
7) Being located on our ecliptic belt gives Zavijavanetis a privileged line-of-sight. The transit and conjunction phenomenon are perfectly logical timing tools--no hocus-pocus. All that's necessary is that the two parties be willing and able to put themselves in each others' shoes. That's something that many ordinary human adults do several times a day without too much difficulty. So there is no need to invoke futuristic technology like ESP, mind-reading, telepathy, time travel, quantum entanglement, or astrology for this scenario to work.
"But why now?" you may ask.
Zavijava's distance from Earth--35.6 LY--makes our present era a special one because the round-trip time for a signal--71.2 years is roughly equal to the amount of time that has passed since our first substantial TV broadcasts--in the 1930's.
So anyone there with a really good receiver might have begun watching our early TV programming--like the 1936 Berlin Olympics--around 1972, taken it in for a couple of years, and sent a review that we could be receiving right about now.. Eat your heart out, Jodie Foster. The scenario in the movie 'Contact' may truly be applicable to us, only the relevant star is Zavijava, not Vega (too young to have produced an intelligent civilization).
Default Contact Star: Rosetta Star
Skeptics might argue that the odds against an intelligent civilization having arisen in any particular star system could be astronomically high. However it may be worthwhile to consider the possibility that a sophisticated, mobile ETI would have a base on Zavijava from which they could transmit to Earth.
In the event that our section of the galaxy is already substantially settled, Zavijava may function as a sort of default mechanism for contact with Earth. That is to say, ETIs in some kind of federation would likely have an outreach committee responsible for drawing in any nascent civilizations. They would already be well aware of life on Earth and the emergence of human civilization, and could come here if they wanted.
But rules of protocol might favor signal transmissions from a moderate distance. Realizing the special status of Zavijava with respect to Earth--being a nearby sister of the Sun located in our ecliptic--they might set up a broadcasting station from that system, even if there is no native civilization in it, reasoning that we would likely be listening and looking for signals emanating from there.
Lightning in a Bottle
A galactic federation might be sure to contact an emerging civilization like Earth's before we go off colonizing other star systems because then we're potentially invading their realm. So their message to us may be part greeting, part warning.
Whatever the message, the first signal, if laser optical, will likely be meant to get our attention. You would just need to be looking for a bright flash at the right place and time in the night sky. Message details would follow in a suitable way via radio waves and can be processed by SETI professionals.
Culturally, Zavijava, or Al Zawiah, means angle or corner of the kennel of the barking dogs in Arabic. In its Greco-Roman mythological role of beta-Virginis, the star is positioned as the left shoulder of the maiden facing us.
Between Two Superstars
Of course, knowing where to look in the sky for Zavijava would be helpful, as it's not particularly bright (magnitude 3.61). Anyone in northern temperate latitudes who has spent time during the Spring or Summer looking southward in the night sky must be familiar with the brilliant blue star Spica (alpha-Virginis, magnitude 0.98 in the constellation Virgo). Moving westward, the next really bright star over is regal Regulus (alpha-Leonis, magnitude 1.36--in the adjacent constellation of Leo). Zavijava is the star of modest brightness most exactly midway between Spica and Regulus.
Sky Party
Being on the ecliptic makes Zavijava a sort of landmark for the planets as they go passing through. And it's also a golden opportunity to catch lightning in a bottle should Zavijavanetis be sending us a laser pulse just then. It would be quite a story if some amateur astronomers out photographing a nice conjunction look at the images they've taken and detect an anomalous brightness in one of the pictures--right where the star Zavijava should be barely visible.
The next big thing in this part of the sky, relevant to Zavijava, will probably be in October 2015. Venus Mars and Jupiter will form a tight 3-in-a-row (a la Orion's belt) points almost directly at Zavijava on October 22 and 28. The three also form a tight near-perfect isosceles triangle pointing directly at Zavijava along one of the long axes on Oct 15.
History Lessons
Zavijava already has been utilized by astronomers on at least one such occasion. In 1922, Arthur Eddington journeyed to Wallal, Australia and photographed Zavijava in conjunction with a total solar eclipse on September 21 in order to measure the angle of starlight deflection caused by the Sun's gravity. The results of this, and a few similar excursions, helped confirm Einstein's general theory of relativity--supplanting Newtonian mechanics. Some might wonder whether Eddington and his crew might have unwittingly received a message from Zavijavaland.
All nearby Sun-like stars, including Zavijava, have previously been surveyed for transmissions by SETI projects such as Phoenix, SERENDIP, Big Ear, META and BETA. However, there is no indication that timing was in any way a consideration. Project META recorded 37 anomalous transmissions that failed to recur upon follow-up--usually several days, weeks, or even months later. The randomness of such would have missed a transit-timing sender's likely repeat bursts over a one-to-two-day window or precisely a year later. Only BETA has had a mechanism for promptly double-checking promising signals. None have focused attention on the ecliptic belt or on longitudinal lines extended at transit/opposition time. For Zavijava, that time is right around March 21-22, annually.
Big Sister
Close examination of Zavijava reveals that, in comparison with the Sun, she is 25% more massive, 70% wider, 3.5x more luminous (with an absolute magnitude of 3.40), and 40% more metal-rich. You might say Zavijava is a bit more like the Sun's big sister than her twin or clone.
As a result of living large, Zavijava the star is not long for this world. Though stable for most of her life, Zavijava has already started to balloon up--the beginning of its dying throes. Any advanced planetary civilization there likely would have already done the equivalent of an Earth-to-Mars migration.
Naturally, they would also be looking for a longer term home--some place like Earth, perhaps. Having watched a few years' worth of our early TV programming, they may well figure that here is a nearby planet well-suited for life and presently being overrun by buffoons.
Some might misconstrue the absence of a signal from Zavijava as indicative of an impending sneak attack by them. With the little we know, cannot rule out the possibility of a huge flotilla of Zavijavanetis arriving anytime.
However, our Sun may have only 500 million to 1 billion years left before it starts acting up. So, we have reason to hope that outward-bound Zavijavanetis would take the high road and relocate to one or more of the many nearby red dwarf systems--terraforming planets there--instead of trying to take us over. Red dwarfs typically live 100 billion years.
So it's plausible that a Zavijavaneti society might not bother contacting us as their plate could be pretty full and there isn't much that we can do to help them out. On the other hand, they may have already moved elsewhere but left a monitoring/communications contingent there. It really wouldn't be much trouble, or take much equipment, to do stuff like signal us at least once every (Earth) year--say, at transit-time March 21-22. Hope does spring eternal.
TABLE
STAR LIST
Nearby single, Sun-like stars along the ecliptic (that might host habitable planets or moons of planets):
*Zavijava (aka beta-Virginis): RA 11.50.41.7, DEC +1.45.52.9 (ecliptic dec. is at approx. +2 at that RA), type F8 or F9, 35.6 LY away, magnitude 3.61, will be occulted by Venus in 2069, #12 TPF target.
*HD 172051 (aka HR 6998) (in Sagittarius): RA 18.38.53.49, DEC -21.03.06.7 (ecliptic dec. is at approx -23 at that RA), type G5, 42 LY away, magnitude 5.86, #98 TPF target.
*111 Tauri: RA 5.24, DEC +17.23, (ecliptic dec. is approx +20 at that RA), type F8, 48 LY away, magnitude 5.0, #40 TPF.
Nearby single, Sun-like stars fairly near ecliptic (that might host long-term habitable planets or moons of planets) :
*HD 192310 (aka HR 7722) (in Capricorn): RA 20.15, DEC -27.01 (ecliptic dec. is approx. -20 at that RA), type K0, 29 LY away, magnitude 5.73, #72 TPF.
*Iota Piscium: RA 23.39, DEC +5.37, (ecliptic dec. is approx. -2 at that RA), type F7, 45 LY away, magnitude 4.13, #23 TPF.
*Psi Capricornus: RA 20.46, DEC -25.16, (ecliptic dec. is appprox. -18 at that RA), type F5, 48 LY away, magnitude 4.13, #29 TPF.
*HR 7898 (in Capricorn): RA 20.40, DEC -23.46 (ecliptic dec. is approx.18 at that RA), type G8, 48 LY away, magnitude 6.36.
*Chi Cancri: RA 8.20, DEC +27.13, (ecliptic dec. is approx. +20 at that RA), type F6, 59 LY away, magnitude 5.13, #59 TPF.
Known nearby single stars along the ecliptic that are not like the Sun (but could conceivably host habitable planets or moons of planets--excludes flare stars)
*Teegarden's star: RA 2.53.00.85, DEC +16.52.53.3 (ecliptic dec. is approx. +16.3 at that RA), type M7 in Aries, 12 LY away, magnitude 15.
*Von Maanen's star (in Pisces): RA 00.49.09.8892, DEC +5.23.19.007 (ecliptic dec. is approx. +6 at that RA), warm white dwarf (6750 K), 14 LY away, magnitude 12.3.
Nearby single star fairly near the ecliptic and not like the Sun (but still considered possibly conducive to life):
*Gliese 876 (in Aquarius): RA 22.53, DEC -14.15, (ecliptic dec. is approx. -7 at that RA), type M4, 15 LY away, magnitude 10.17.
Within each group, stars are listed from near to far. Magnitudes are apparent. Variable stars are excluded.
Abbreviations: RA=right ascension; DEC=declination; approx.=approximately; TPF=Terrestrial Planet Finder mission.
ABBREVIATIONS
BETA=billion-channel extraterrestrial assay
DEC= declination
ETI=extraterrestrial intelligence
LY=light year
META=mega-channel extraterrestrial assay
NASA=national aeronautics and space administration
RA=right ascension
SETI=search for extraterrestrial intelligence
TPF=terrestrial planet finder
SOURCES
Corbet, Robin H.D., Synchronized SETI--The Case for "Opposition"; Astrobiology magazine, Mary Ann Liebert Inc., July 5, 2004.
Doyle, L.R., Deeg, H.J. and Jenkins, J.M., Discovering Worlds in Transit; Astronomy mag., 2001.
Kaler, Jim, Zavijava; on Stars website (accessed 2009).
Neave, Paul, planetarium website, 1999-2009.
Powell, Richard, Atlas of the Universe (website): Stars Within 50 Light Years, last updated July 30, 2006.
Red dwarf stars within 10 parsecs; Sol Company (website) 2005.
Scheffer, Lou, Aliens Can Watch 'I Love Lucy'; Contact in Context v2i1/lucy.pdf (website), accessed 2009.
Shostak, Seth, Cheap Communication Schemes for ETI; SETI Institute (online), April 1, 2004.
Shostak, Seth, Good Timing; SETI Insitute (seti.org), June 12, 2008.
Shostak, Seth, Making the Search Simple; SETI Institute (online), December 14, 2006.
Skindrud, Erik, The Big Question; Science News Online, September 7, 1996.
Sol Station.com, Zavijava (beta-Virginis) (website, accessed 2009).
Team Hopes to Use New Technology to Search for ET's (SETI Institute website), June 2, 2008.
Terrestrial Planet Finder article in State Master Encyclopedia (online),accessed 2009.
Wikipedia, List of Extrasolar Planets, (online encyclopedia) updated November 7, 2009.
Wikipedia, Occultation, accessed Nov. 2009.
Wikipedia, Zavijava, accessed October 2009.
Excerpt from Cosmic Web by Steve Kearney.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Resolving the NCAA Football Playoff Controversy
BCS Options: Two New Ideas
Here are a couple of novel solutions to the college football championship controversy about possibly adding a playoff. I call them my Fun Option and my Best Option.
Most people want a college football playoff. But there are several serious problems with that. It would detract from the regular season, detract from the bowl games, and cause scheduling difficulties for the student-athletes who are the players.
THE FUN OPTION
The BCS people have almost got it right. The championship game comes about a week after the last major bowl game. Keep it that way, only let the BCS panel vote immediately after the last major bowl game. Their choice of the #1 team goes to the championship game. Their opponent would be selected promptly by the FANS! Hey, we're good enough for American Idol and Dancing with the Stars!
In all likelihood we'll wind up with winners of two of the major bowl games facing off. This would keep the bowl folk happy.
This idea may have started out in jest, but when you look at all the "cons" (vs "pros") of the playoff proposals out there, you get to thinking that less is more.
PLAYOFF PROBLEMS
Here are some detailed problems with extended playoff proposals:
*Even if you just take 8 teams, most proposals include the 6 major conference winners in that group. But a conference winner could have accumulated 3,4 even 5 losses in a competitive conference and with some non-conference-game losses. For example, Virginia Tech had 4 loses in 2008 when they got invited to the Orange Bowl as ACC conference champs--and they won the game, too. So if that were the first round off an 8-team tournament, then they'd have been in the final 4! It wouldn't matter that they'd lost to lowly East Carolina University.
So you can be sure that sooner or later a team with 4 or more losses will win the championship in an 8-team tournament format. This would run contrary to 140 years of division-1 college football tradition. Only once has a team with more than 2 losses been awarded any kind of championship: Nebraska in 1981 was named champion by one organization, The National Championship Foundation, despite only going 9-3. And even they only had 2 losses at the time of the vote, which was taken pre-bowls.
* Extended playoff systems inevitably come into conflict with final exams or Christmas or the NFL playoffs or the start of Spring semester. We shouldn't forget that these players are students-athletes, not professionals. And the bowl sponsors want to keep the big bowls after Christmas and around New Year's. They've got their festivals and parades that bring out a lot of people.
But if you make big bowls into your first and second rounds of an 8-team playoff (the best extended playoff option), you have to move them up to Christmas or earlier in order to avoid colliding with the NFL playoffs in January, which feature two games on both Saturday and Sunday for their first and second round. It also violates an unwritten rule not to play/televise college and pro games on the same day(s).
* A bowl playoff system would lead to overexposure of some teams and underexposure for others. In an 8-team bowl playoff system, two teams would play in 3 bowl games each, and another two teams would play in two bowl games apiece. Four teams that would otherwise be in a major bowl game would be replaced by the multiple-gaming of the playoff round winners. The effect would trickle down to the minor bowls with the net effect that 4 teams would be shut-out from the bowls altogether. Of course, they could add a couple of bowl games to
compensate.
BEST PLAYOFF OPTION
One playoff option that seems to have been overlooked is a 4-team playoff, integrated with the bowl system. The pre-bowl, top-4-ranked teams would be seeded (#1 vs #4, #2 vs #3) in two of the major bowl games. The winners would clash in the Championship game the following week.
Major bowls (probably the current BCS "gang of 4"--Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta) would rotate participatory roles in the playoffs. This would include the hosting of the Championship game, which could either be the bowl game associated with the given venue (as the BCS championship was from 1998/99--2005/6) or follow that bowl game by about a week (as the BCS championship has been doing since 2007/8).
If the older method is applied, each of the four bowl sites would rotate through the following four roles, in whatever order is chosen: 1) host of #1 vs #4 seed; 2) host of #2 vs #3 seed; 3) host of the championship game; 4) out of the playoff loop--host to two other top-ten teams.
If instead they opt for the newer method, each of these 4 bowl sites would segue through a slightly different set of roles: host of #1 vs #4 seed; 2) host of #2 vs #3 seed; 3) host to a non-playoff bowl game and then host to the championship game; 4) out of the playoff loop--host to two other top-ten teams.
An advantage of the latter option is that the bowl festivals could go on as regularly scheduled every year around New Year's day/weekend, and the tradition of their games being played on or very close to New Year's day would be maintained. In other words, you wouldn't need to separate, say, Rose Bowl game from the Rose Bowl parade by about a week every 4th year. While that's not a big deal for die-hard football enthusiasts, it matters to the areas' chambers of commerce/tourism-related businesses.
Either way, there's one improvement that could be made in choosing the four playoff contenders. Call it the Boise State (or Utah) clause. Any unbeaten team ranked #5 through #10 gets an opportunity to play-in to the championship tournament. If there is one such team, they would play vs #4 seed a week before the scheduled bowl game. If there are two such teams, match the better-ranked one against #4, seed and match the lesser-ranked one against #3 seed. In the highly unlikely event there are three unbeaten teams ranked from 5th to 10th, simply include #2 seed in the pre-bowl fray. Ditto as regards # 1 seed team in the extremely unlikely event of four unbeaten teams in the bottom half of the top-10.
Play-in games would not be considered bowl games in of themselves, but rather prequels to the big bowls They would be played at or near the home of the higher-ranked team. Those in cold-weather climates could have a backup domed-site option. For instance, Big-Tenners might have an arrangement with the Metrodome in Minneapolis and/or Ford's Field in Detroit in case of a blizzardy-white Christmas. The only team(s) far from home on Christmas would be the Cinderellas who would be so excited to have a chance that they wouldn't mind the inconvenience. The loser(s) of the play-in would still receive top-ten treatment: this includes an invitation to one of the three non-playoff BCS bowl games.
We could still call it the BCS, but now it really would be a "bowl championship series."
TASKS OF A PLAYOFF SYSTEM
It shouldn't be absolutely necessary to be undefeated in order to win the championship. But it should not be possible for a one-loss team to win the championship as long as there are any unbeaten teams left.
It should be possible for a top-notch team to win championship with one loss, provided there are no unbeaten teams left at the end.
Any team that is unbeaten should be ranked in the pre-bowl top-10.
In the end, here should be no unbeaten team that is not #1.
In the end, there should be not more than one team that is unbeaten.
It should be highly unlikely for a team with two losses to win championship and virtually impossible for a team with more than two losses.
A system where it is possible for a team to lose one game and still have a chance at the championship, yet not a certain chance, suitably values the regular season.
A system that guarantees that the champion will be a winner of a major bowl game suitably values the bowl system.
A system that features a national championship game which is the final event of a tournament that has included the #1, #2, #3, #4 teams, plus any other team that is unbeaten, suitably fulfils the national desire for a consensus national champion.
Here are a couple of novel solutions to the college football championship controversy about possibly adding a playoff. I call them my Fun Option and my Best Option.
Most people want a college football playoff. But there are several serious problems with that. It would detract from the regular season, detract from the bowl games, and cause scheduling difficulties for the student-athletes who are the players.
THE FUN OPTION
The BCS people have almost got it right. The championship game comes about a week after the last major bowl game. Keep it that way, only let the BCS panel vote immediately after the last major bowl game. Their choice of the #1 team goes to the championship game. Their opponent would be selected promptly by the FANS! Hey, we're good enough for American Idol and Dancing with the Stars!
In all likelihood we'll wind up with winners of two of the major bowl games facing off. This would keep the bowl folk happy.
This idea may have started out in jest, but when you look at all the "cons" (vs "pros") of the playoff proposals out there, you get to thinking that less is more.
PLAYOFF PROBLEMS
Here are some detailed problems with extended playoff proposals:
*Even if you just take 8 teams, most proposals include the 6 major conference winners in that group. But a conference winner could have accumulated 3,4 even 5 losses in a competitive conference and with some non-conference-game losses. For example, Virginia Tech had 4 loses in 2008 when they got invited to the Orange Bowl as ACC conference champs--and they won the game, too. So if that were the first round off an 8-team tournament, then they'd have been in the final 4! It wouldn't matter that they'd lost to lowly East Carolina University.
So you can be sure that sooner or later a team with 4 or more losses will win the championship in an 8-team tournament format. This would run contrary to 140 years of division-1 college football tradition. Only once has a team with more than 2 losses been awarded any kind of championship: Nebraska in 1981 was named champion by one organization, The National Championship Foundation, despite only going 9-3. And even they only had 2 losses at the time of the vote, which was taken pre-bowls.
* Extended playoff systems inevitably come into conflict with final exams or Christmas or the NFL playoffs or the start of Spring semester. We shouldn't forget that these players are students-athletes, not professionals. And the bowl sponsors want to keep the big bowls after Christmas and around New Year's. They've got their festivals and parades that bring out a lot of people.
But if you make big bowls into your first and second rounds of an 8-team playoff (the best extended playoff option), you have to move them up to Christmas or earlier in order to avoid colliding with the NFL playoffs in January, which feature two games on both Saturday and Sunday for their first and second round. It also violates an unwritten rule not to play/televise college and pro games on the same day(s).
* A bowl playoff system would lead to overexposure of some teams and underexposure for others. In an 8-team bowl playoff system, two teams would play in 3 bowl games each, and another two teams would play in two bowl games apiece. Four teams that would otherwise be in a major bowl game would be replaced by the multiple-gaming of the playoff round winners. The effect would trickle down to the minor bowls with the net effect that 4 teams would be shut-out from the bowls altogether. Of course, they could add a couple of bowl games to
compensate.
BEST PLAYOFF OPTION
One playoff option that seems to have been overlooked is a 4-team playoff, integrated with the bowl system. The pre-bowl, top-4-ranked teams would be seeded (#1 vs #4, #2 vs #3) in two of the major bowl games. The winners would clash in the Championship game the following week.
Major bowls (probably the current BCS "gang of 4"--Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta) would rotate participatory roles in the playoffs. This would include the hosting of the Championship game, which could either be the bowl game associated with the given venue (as the BCS championship was from 1998/99--2005/6) or follow that bowl game by about a week (as the BCS championship has been doing since 2007/8).
If the older method is applied, each of the four bowl sites would rotate through the following four roles, in whatever order is chosen: 1) host of #1 vs #4 seed; 2) host of #2 vs #3 seed; 3) host of the championship game; 4) out of the playoff loop--host to two other top-ten teams.
If instead they opt for the newer method, each of these 4 bowl sites would segue through a slightly different set of roles: host of #1 vs #4 seed; 2) host of #2 vs #3 seed; 3) host to a non-playoff bowl game and then host to the championship game; 4) out of the playoff loop--host to two other top-ten teams.
An advantage of the latter option is that the bowl festivals could go on as regularly scheduled every year around New Year's day/weekend, and the tradition of their games being played on or very close to New Year's day would be maintained. In other words, you wouldn't need to separate, say, Rose Bowl game from the Rose Bowl parade by about a week every 4th year. While that's not a big deal for die-hard football enthusiasts, it matters to the areas' chambers of commerce/tourism-related businesses.
Either way, there's one improvement that could be made in choosing the four playoff contenders. Call it the Boise State (or Utah) clause. Any unbeaten team ranked #5 through #10 gets an opportunity to play-in to the championship tournament. If there is one such team, they would play vs #4 seed a week before the scheduled bowl game. If there are two such teams, match the better-ranked one against #4, seed and match the lesser-ranked one against #3 seed. In the highly unlikely event there are three unbeaten teams ranked from 5th to 10th, simply include #2 seed in the pre-bowl fray. Ditto as regards # 1 seed team in the extremely unlikely event of four unbeaten teams in the bottom half of the top-10.
Play-in games would not be considered bowl games in of themselves, but rather prequels to the big bowls They would be played at or near the home of the higher-ranked team. Those in cold-weather climates could have a backup domed-site option. For instance, Big-Tenners might have an arrangement with the Metrodome in Minneapolis and/or Ford's Field in Detroit in case of a blizzardy-white Christmas. The only team(s) far from home on Christmas would be the Cinderellas who would be so excited to have a chance that they wouldn't mind the inconvenience. The loser(s) of the play-in would still receive top-ten treatment: this includes an invitation to one of the three non-playoff BCS bowl games.
We could still call it the BCS, but now it really would be a "bowl championship series."
TASKS OF A PLAYOFF SYSTEM
It shouldn't be absolutely necessary to be undefeated in order to win the championship. But it should not be possible for a one-loss team to win the championship as long as there are any unbeaten teams left.
It should be possible for a top-notch team to win championship with one loss, provided there are no unbeaten teams left at the end.
Any team that is unbeaten should be ranked in the pre-bowl top-10.
In the end, here should be no unbeaten team that is not #1.
In the end, there should be not more than one team that is unbeaten.
It should be highly unlikely for a team with two losses to win championship and virtually impossible for a team with more than two losses.
A system where it is possible for a team to lose one game and still have a chance at the championship, yet not a certain chance, suitably values the regular season.
A system that guarantees that the champion will be a winner of a major bowl game suitably values the bowl system.
A system that features a national championship game which is the final event of a tournament that has included the #1, #2, #3, #4 teams, plus any other team that is unbeaten, suitably fulfils the national desire for a consensus national champion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
