Unimportant musings on sport, work, and life.

More College Football Surprises...

2007-11-27T08:56:00.000-07:00

After another couple weeks, it should be no surprise that there were so many unexpected events--this season has been like that all along.

Missouri and Kansas took care of business the week before their big showdown, which set up a game that would cement the winner front-runner status for a spot in the National Championship Game. Oklahoma, who will face Missouri in the Big XII Championship, did not.

Of course, neither did LSU, who had the clearest path, or Arizona State, who had a very solid chance to capitalize on that opportunity.

Thus, the seven are down to three. Missouri will have a spot if they beat Oklahoma--that much is certain. The other spot is less clear; currently, West Virginia leads Ohio State, but they still have a game against Pitt. This shouldn't be a difficult contest, but even a win will drag down their schedule strength in the formulas, and an unimpressive win may give some voters second thoughts. (However, Oklahoma will probably beat Missouri again, rendering the "beauty pageant" irrelevant.)

As teams now stand, the BCS automatic qualifiers are West Virginia (Big East) and Ohio State (Big Ten). The leaders from the other affiliated conferences are currently Missouri (which faces Oklahoma in the Big XII Championship), Virginia Tech (which faces Boston College in the ACC Championship), LSU (which faces Tennessee in the SEC Championship), and USC (which faces UCLA in their cross-town rivalry game; a loss would open a door for Arizona State... unless Arizona State also loses, which would cause the conference to have four teams with three losses tied for the crown). Georgia and Hawai'i will have at-large bids secured if they remain at (or above) their current rankings; a non-conference-champion ranked in the top four qualifies automatically, and a conference champion from outsider conference qualifies automatically at 12th place. The remaining eligible teams for the two final spots are Kansas or Oklahoma, Boston College, and Arizona State.

Missouri and West Virginia would play for the national championship. The Rose Bowl would be USC and Ohio State. LSU would go to the Sugar Bowl, and Virginia Tech to the Orange Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl would pick Kansas to replace Missouri, the Big XII Champion. The Orange Bowl would be all too pleased to match Georgia with Virginia Tech. The Fiesta Bowl would then select Arizona State, rather than Boston College, to play Kansas. This would leave the Sugar Bowl with LSU and Hawai'i.

However, there are games yet to be played. As I see it, the only current front-runner to lose is Missouri. Thus, the bowls will be reordered something like this:
Championship: West Virginia and Ohio State
Rose: USC and Georgia (replacing Big Ten Champion)
Orange: Virginia Tech and Missouri
Fiesta: Oklahoma and Arizona State
Sugar: LSU and Hawai'i

The wrench in the works would be if Illinois rises high enough to be eligible, and the Rose Bowl wants a traditional-looking matchup of USC-Illinois. This would please the Orange Bowl, which could pick up Georgia, but infuriate the Big XII, as the Fiesta Bowl would not be able to pick a second team from their conference, and select Arizona State, once again leaving Hawai'i in the Sugar Bowl. With possibly three teams in the top ten, the conference could be left with only one in a BCS Bowl. The other possibility is back-room pressure that squeezes Arizona State out of the Fiesta in favor of Hawai'i; but make no mistake, it's looking like someone is going to get the shaft: either the Rose Bowl won't get a Big Ten team, the Big XII won't get a second team in, or the Fiesta Bowl won't get what it wants.

College Football

2007-11-16T09:38:00.000-07:00

Well, now that Oregon has gone down, the national championship game is much easier to project: the champion of the Big 12 (Kansas, Oklahoma, or Missouri) will be in, unless they lose a game to someone else (Missouri @ Kansas State, Kansas hosting Iowa State, and Oklahoma @ Texas Tech or hosting Ok. State). If that happens to the team that ends up winning the championship, that could open an extra spot for someone else. The other spot will be LSU's, unless they lose @ Arkansas, or hosting Mississippi, two easy games, or in the SEC Championship, probably against Tennessee or Georgia.

If LSU does lose, though, or the eventual Big 12 champion loses a game it shouldn't beforehand, then there is a chance for West Virginia, Ohio State, or Arizona State, but it's still unclear about who would be the top choice of that group, as they are very closely packed right now. Arizona State would seem to have the advantage; their remaining games are against USC and Arizona, two solid opponents that would bolster strength of schedule and look impressive to pollsters. (If they win, of course.) Ohio State and West Virginia actually face teams of similar difficulty, Ohio State against Michigan, and West Virginia facing Cincinnati and Connecticut, along with an easier game against Pittsburgh. Unfortunately for Ohio State and West Virginia, winning their remaining games are likely to push each of their opponents out of the top 25. West Virginia may be left without any wins over ranked opponents, and Ohio State will be left with their best wins being against Wisconsin and Penn State, who will be ranked in the twenties. Additionally, their losses coming against South Florida and Illinois, which are worse losses than that of Arizona State to Oregon.

The NBA

2007-11-02T14:24:00.000-06:00

Congratulations to the Spurs on getting their rings for last season. There may have been a few people that were surprised at the Spurs winning out, but those people are the ones that don't understand basketball very well...

There was really only one upset during the playoffs: Golden State defeating Dallas.* All other series either had teams of similar skill levels, or ended with the better team being victorious. The same thing seems likely to happen again this season--San Antonio, Dallas, and Phoenix were superior to every other team in the league. Then, there was a second tier of teams: Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Utah, and Houston. Then, there's everyone else. (Golden State exceeded expectations.) This coming season, Boston will likely join the second tier, becoming a popular pick to even reach the Finals, but the end results should look essentially the same. Anybody else that manages to reach the playoffs will almost certainly lose in the first round.

And yet, we will still hold a full 82-game season anyway. The regular season is a lot more tolerable if I instead think of it as the "NBA Qualifying Round"; similar to how individual continental federations hold competitions in the run up to the World Cup. The best teams will generally win during the season, but like Argentina or Brazil, sometimes a team like San Antonio will coast for weeks at a time, knowing that each individual game doesn't matter too much. Of course, there is an incentive to finish first--not only does it provide home-court advantage in each round of the playoffs, but it means that a team can dodge the tough 2v3 matchup in the second round, which proved fatal for Detroit last year--Cleveland faced a much easier opponent (New Jersey) than Chicago and Detroit, which played each other. The same thing could have happened in the West, had Dallas not been the unfortunate team to have been upset.

In keeping with that pattern, look for San Antonio** to dispatch Boston in five next June.

*In fact, with only one other exception, each time a team played an inferior opponent, the series lasted five games or less. In every match of relatively even teams, the series lasted no fewer than six games.

**Or Dallas. Really, the bigger match will be San Antonio over Dallas in seven in the Western Conference Finals.

I've been gone a while, to nobody's surprise...

2007-11-02T14:23:00.000-06:00

I've never been good at keeping a journal. Not totally sure why, but there it is.

Game #4: Road Construction in Catan and the Value of Wheat

2007-03-12T18:23:00.000-06:00

Another five-player game with Cinderella's family yesterday. 47 wood, 40 brick, 52 wheat, 75 sheep, 67 ore, and 21 discovery counters. (Once again we used jungles.)

Three times, players gave up cards when seven was rolled: 2 wood, a brick, 6 wheat, 2 sheep, and an ore. CindyBro and CindySis both used "Year of Plenty" cards to get a wood, 2 brick, and a wheat. CindyBro and Cinderella both had sheep ports, which came in handy in a very sheep-laden game, using them seven times for brick, thrice for wheat and ore, and twice for wood. CindySis used the ore port once, to get wood. Other trades with the bank were 4:1; ore for wheat twice, as well as ore for brick, ore for wood, and sheep for wood. No wood, no brick, 4 wheat, 34 sheep, and 18 ore were exchanged for 5 wood, 9 brick, 5 wheat, no sheep, and 3 ore. Including the "7" discards and the "YoP"s, that's 2 wood, 1 brick, 10 wheat, 36 sheep, and 19 ore surrendered, and 6 wood, 11 brick, 6 wheat, no sheep, and 3 ore obtained.

When a mixed group of counters and resources were exchanged for development cards, it was most common that the counters were used to replace wheat. In eight mixed purchases, seven counters were used for wheat, four for ore, and one for sheep. I still haven't figured out how to merge this data with the trading model I espouse, but it's a very good way to compare the relative values of wheat, sheep, and ore. Right now, I suspect that it is a mix of using the counters as substitutes for the high-value resources--usually wheat, and sometimes ore--and seeing an opportunity to obtain value while effectively discarding disposable sheep. (Four of the eight mixed purchases in this game were a sheep and two counters, and three were a counter, a sheep, and an ore. The remaining purchase was using the counter as a sheep, which is quite an outlier.)

The trading model indicates that in this game, brick was the most valuable resource, followed closely by wood. Three of the players spent the mid- to late game racing for the Longest Road bonus; CindyBro used up all 15 of his road pieces, and Cinderella, who won the race, used nearly all. CindySis would have used more than 11, but she no longer had room to catch back up with Cindy's road, so she stopped. CindyDad and I pursued a different strategies, though. I was built near both jungles, so I raised the Largest Army (eight soldiers), but had little success drawing other development cards--the only other type I drew was a single Longest Road. CindyDad tried to build in a balanced manner, but didn't build across the board like his children.

Cinderella proved victorious, with the Longest Road, a VP card, 2 cities, and 3 settlements. I had a chance to win, but drew too many soldiers, finishing with Largest Army, 2 cities, and 3 settlements. CindySis had 4 cities, CindyDad had 2 cities and 3 settlements, and CindyBro had 2 cities and 2 settlements. CindyBro was the first to get Longest Road, which put him ahead on points and drew the robber to the rich pasture that provided so many sheep for his port.

My problem: I wasn't able to build on a great wheat field early in the game. Instead, I chose to get a spot on the second jungle. This helped me buy development cards, but turning settlements into cities proved expensive, and slowed my economic growth. Cinderella, who, like her brother, used a "Sheep-O-Matic" strategy, was successful by having more than one pasture to rely on, and looking sufficiently non-threatening enough through the early game to keep from gaining too much attention. While CindyBro was leading, others were generally more willing to use her port to obtain needed resources, which prevented him from collecting the "user fee" that makes oft-used ports (especially the sheep port) valuable. This helped her catch up and build on more pastures, increasing her own flexibility. Lessons: in a five-player game, being able to build roads is important, as it allows a player to expand to other desirable locations, which are in abundance in such a game. Thus, brick and wood were the two most desirable resources. However, wheat is still important, and if pursuing a card-building or city-building strategy, it is the most important resource to have in abundance, as it is always valuable.

Data and Observations from Games 1-3: Development Cards Are Nice.

2007-03-04T13:11:00.000-07:00

Game #1
In Thursday night’s game of The Settlers of Catan, played with Cinderella, FD&C Yellow Dye #4, and Eto Camoe, I recorded the resources produced by the board, as well as the trades made with the bank, discarded resources from 7 being rolled, cards taken from the bank on “Year of Plenty” cards, and the cards used in concert with Discovery counters obtained from the jungle.* The resources produced were 48 wood, 14 brick, 53 wheat, 47 sheep, 31 ore, and 5 discovery counters. Only once did a player (me) have to discard resources on a seven; I threw away 3 wood and a sheep. The “Year of Plenty” was used to produce two ore, which were used on that turn to construct a city—a typical use of a YoP. The discovery counters were used alone once, then two were used with a wheat once.

Without a port, trading with the bank requires trading four resources of one type for one of another. This steep cost means that many players are unable or unwilling to make such a trade. However, three times, wood was traded for brick, and once each was wood traded for sheep, wheat for brick, and wheat for sheep. The four “generic” ports allow 3:1 trading, and it was used once to trade brick for ore. (Notably, this came immediately after Cinderella used a “Monopoly” card to take everyone’s brick. Otherwise, giving up three bricks, even to get a valuable ore, would not have made sense.) Resource-specific ports played a very large role in the game; unsurprising in a game with so little brick and ore. Yellow Dye #4 started play with the “Sheep-O-Matic” strategy; he had settlements next to two great pastures: 6 and 8. Obviously, having the sheep port helped YD4 greatly. Trading two sheep for another resource happened often: four times each for brick and ore, twice for wheat, and once for wood. Cinderella soon built the wheat port, which she used thrice for Brick, and once each for wood, ore, and sheep. I built the ore port, but never used it. YD4 also built the wood port, and used it to get ore three times. In total, 22 wood, 3 brick, 20 wheat, 22 sheep, and no ore were traded to the bank for 2 wood, 11 brick, 2 wheat, 3 sheep, and 9 ore.

When combined with the previous instances, this sums to 25 wood, 3 brick, 21 wheat, 23 sheep, and 0 ore were sent to the bank and 2 wood, 11 brick, 2 grain, 3 sheep, and 11 ore were collected from the bank through the decisions of the players. Knowing how players chose to give and take cards from the bank shows the difference between optimal and actual resource production. Obviously, in a game like this, the players believed that wood was produced far too much when compared with its perfect complement, brick. (Not a surprise.) This lack of road-building material drove up the production of cities and development cards through a substitution effect. Since players couldn’t build as many roads, they built other things. By the end of the game, an unusually high 14 development cards were bought, Eto Camoe and YD4 had built all four of their allowed cities (and one more settlement each), and I had built three cities. Cinderella, who had taken brick with a monopoly card, had no ore production, so she used her wheat port primarily to buttress road and settlement building, and finished with only one city, but used all five of her settlements.** Since her strategy ran contrary to the city-building of the rest of us, it was not difficult for her to expand over much of one side of the board and gain the Longest Road.

In this game, ore was the most valuable resource, used for the cities and development cards that often prove useful. Only slightly less valuable was brick, the perfect compliment to the plentiful wood. Trading to get brick is also easier to immediately use than ore, in many cases; if a player would like to build a city, it takes three ore; to build a road, only one brick and one of the plentiful wood are needed. Since wheat and sheep were also plentiful, the same circumstances apply to settlement-building. This made bricks valuable in the early game, when building only one road was often enough to get to a new settlement site. Later, though, when the best sites were taken and Cinderella had Monopolized brick, the other players focused on cities.

The other resources were far less valuable, but wheat was still more valuable than sheep and wood, likely because of its many possible uses; everything but roads requires wheat. Sheep were actually slightly more valuable than wood in this game, but it took wood being produced at about three and a half times the rate of brick for this to happen. Although wood is usually more common than brick (since there are three hills and four forests in a 4-player game), it is usually less than even the 33% difference that would be randomly predicted, because players will recognize the relative scarcity of brick while placing their initial settlements.

I managed to eke out a victory in the game—10 points to the 9 of every other player, on 3 cities, Largest Army (five soldiers [one unplayed]), and two victory point cards. Eto Camoe and YD4 had 4 cities and a settlement, and Cinderella had a city, five settlements, and Longest Road. Close game, fun game. I always enjoy playing with people that know what they’re doing. This game also highlighted the importance of buying development cards; the eight I purchased were vital. Cinderella’s “Monopoly” kept Eto Camoe from winning on his next turn at that point of the game. Moral of the story: development cards are awesome. When you’ve got four points, start considering the purchase of development cards. When you’ve got five points, start buying if you haven’t yet. When you’ve got six, development cards need to be your top priority.***

*We played a variant that involved a “jungle” tile, rather than a desert. The jungle doesn’t produce resource cards; when the number on its chit is rolled, it produces a counter that can be used as a wild card for wheat, sheep, or ore when purchasing a development card. They may not be traded or used to purchase any other item.

**Each player has only four cities, five settlements, and 15 roads. Using all of the roads is rare, but it is relatively common for a player to have all of their city or settlement pieces in play. When a player has built all of their cities, they may not upgrade another settlement; when they have built five settlements, they must upgrade one to a city in order to once again be able to place a settlement.

***Unless you’re playing the road-building strategy. Then you’ve got to start thinking about cities once you’ve got three settlements, and making it a priority when you’ve got four settlements, because once you’ve got five, you’re a bit stuck. The way to win here is five settlements, Longest Road, a city, and a victory point. (Or a second city instead of one of those settlements.) The problem with this strategy is that the points are obvious to every other player, which attracts attention. If you play this way, you need to be an expert politically, able to convince other players that the development cards face-down in front of card-building players like The Franchise are victory points.

Game #2
Friday, Cinderella and I played with her younger siblings. This game had far more statistical balance: 31 Wood, 35 Brick, 50 Wheat, 36 Sheep, and 35 Ore. Wheat was something of an outlier, but due to its value, its frequency was welcome. In a game like this, with relatively equal production amounts, the trades made with the bank were more due to short-term trends than the overall production during the game, in serious contrast to Thursday’s game. This game was standard Settlers, without any variant rules. Most of the resources that players elected to give or take from the bank were in port trades, but I once gave 4 wood to the bank on a 7,* and gained 2 wheat from a “Year of Plenty” card.

CindyBro chose to start the game with the wheat port, so the port trades in the early game were mostly conducted by him, trading to get brick and wood once each, and ore four times. Cinderella built the brick port, and traded for brick thrice, wheat twice, and ore once. CindySis built the sheep port, but since she had low sheep production, and built the port when I was shifting my focus to development cards, so demand for sheep had increased. As such, she used the sheep port once each to get wheat and brick. Strangely, she used the ore port more frequently, twice for wheat, and also for brick and wood. Cinderella once used a generic port to trade sheep for wheat. 4:1 trades, which were not present on Thursday, were relatively common, as players traded sheep for wood, wood for wheat, and sheep for wheat.

In sum 4 wood (8 including discards), 12 brick, 12 wheat, 15 sheep, and 8 ore were exchanged for 6 wood, 3 brick, 8 wheat (10 including “Year of Plenty”), no sheep, and 5 ore. Clearly, sheep were the least valuable resource; no player needed to trade for sheep at any point. Despite the outsized wheat production in the game, it still seems to have been slightly more valuable than ore. Unsurprisingly, in a game that had roughly equal production of wood and brick, the two were roughly equal in value; with the slightly rarer wood having a slightly higher value over the course of the game.

CindyBro and CindySis played balanced strategies; she had 3 cities and 2 settlements, he had 2 of each. Cinderella played a road-building strategy, with a city, 4 settlements, and Longest Road. If I had not won on my turn, she would have had enough to build a city on her turn and win. At the start of my final turn, I had three cities, a settlement, and Largest Army. I had bought six development cards (four soldiers, [one unplayed] a “Year of Plenty,” and an unplayed “Road Building”), and each of the other players had one soldier.

Conclusions: once again, it was clear to me that whenever possible, one should start buying development cards when at about 5 VPs. This game strongly suggests wheat is the most valuable resource; even when it was considerably more common than other resources, it was still in high demand by most players, as evidenced by it being the most common objective of elective bank transactions. Wood, ore, and brick were of similar values, with only very slight differences in value, but seem to be valued in that order, likely due to wood’s slight scarcity. Relatively new players also seem to have a greater predilection for road-building, which likely increased the value of wood and brick to Brother and Sister, who were each playing in their third game.

*On my final turn, I had a wood, 2 brick, 2 wheat, 2 sheep, and 3 ore when I rolled a 7. Since I could win by either building a settlement or a city, and could do either one, I am omitting my choice from the data. Either way, a brick and a sheep would have been discarded, but the other three cards would depend on what I would use to win. Either way, I would definitely keep a wheat (probably both).

Game #3
We had another game Saturday afternoon. Same cast as the last one, except with Cinderella’s Dad as well. Only his second game, but the guy has a mind like a steel trap, so I was not surprised that he became the strongest opponent. I ended up having to throw him under the bus to ensure my win, encouraging CindyBro to get Longest Road. (Sorry about that one, CindyDad.) Playing with 5-6 players requires a larger island, so there are two more of each productive land type, and another desert. Or jungle, in this case, as I love that variant, since it means that more development cards are in play, which makes the game more complex. Always a good thing, I think. (It also strengthens my “card builder” strategy, so I’m always in support of it…) There are also more ports on a 5-6 player map; in addition to the five resource-specific and four generic ports of the standard game, there’s a second sheep port and a fifth generic port. Large games also allow players a “special build phase” between players as well, when they can build if they have the exact resources needed, but they may not trade with other players or the bank. Largely, this rule is to help players from having to discard too frequently when sevens are rolled, but it also introduces some odd side effects.*

Unlike the last game, this match saw a return of uneven production, with 51 wood, 36 brick, 56 wheat, 71 sheep, 23 ore, and 19 discovery counters. Thus, it is no surprise that ore was the most sought-after resource in the game, as players needed it badly to produce development cards and cities. With a larger map and more players, trading with the bank was also rarer, as people were more likely to get what they needed from one another.

Trades with the bank were mainly to obtain ore. Cindy had sheep ports, so she traded in sheep often; six times for ore, thrice each for brick and wood, and twice for wheat. CindyDad’s wheat port was used once, for ore. He also made 4:1 trades with sheep and wood to get ore. In sum, 4 wood, no brick, 2 wheat, 32 sheep, and no ore were traded for 3 wood, 3 brick, 2 wheat, no sheep, and 9 ore. On sevens, 6 wood, a wheat, and 3 sheep were discarded, and CindyBro once used a “Year of Plenty” to get wheat and wood. In total, 10 wood, no brick, 3 wheat, 35 sheep, and no ore were voluntarily given to the bank, and players elected to collect 4 wood, 3 brick, 3 wheat, no sheep, and 9 ore.

CindyBro and I were the ones built by the jungle, so we frequently used discovery counters to buy more development cards. When development cards were purchased with a mix of counters and cards, four times it was a wheat and 2 counters, and once each it was a wheat, a sheep, and a counter; a sheep, an ore, and a counter; and a sheep and 2 counters. In mixed sets, counters were used for 2 wheat, 4 sheep, and 6 ore. I’m still not sure how to account for this data in relation to the resources given/chosen model, but it’s definitely important, especially in further highlighting the value of ore during this game. The mild surprise here is that sheep were not the least-substituted of the resources, but this was largely due to my unusually high wheat production during the endgame, when I was buying a development card approximately once per turn, (I had a city on one jungle and two settlements on the other, so I would get two counters on such rolls, and could spend them very rapidly) and CindyBro’s predilection for only getting development cards once he had three counters.

When ore is produced at such a low rate by the board, it is unsurprising players used most of their bank exchanges to augment their ore supplies. Having jungles in such circumstances is highly useful for producing development cards, which saves the valuable ore for use in city-building. Having jungles makes a “card building” strategy very effective, even when wheat or ore are relatively rare.

On the opening of my last turn, I had 2 cities, 2 settlements, Largest Army (6 soldiers), and a Victory Point card. CindyDad had a city and five settlements; Cindy had 2 cities, 3 settlements, and a VP card; CindyBro had a city, 3 settlements, and Longest Road (9 segments); and CindySis had 2 cities and 2 settlements.

When I placed settlements for this game, I had no access to brick or wood, (I bordered two fields, a pasture, two mountains, and a jungle) but strangely, it was not especially difficult to expand to two additional sites. The ease with which I did so was largely because of my access to wheat and ore—wheat due to its value to all strategies, and ore because of how rare it was in this game. As a result, it was quite easy to get 1:1 trades with other players to collect building materials, and combined with early use of soldiers, which allowed more access to more resources, I was able to keep the robber away from my own productive sites and even, on occasion, steal the resources I needed to expand. I had actually intended to upgrade my first expansion site to a city before worrying about the second, but when I managed to get the wood and brick I needed without having to overpay, I did, which had the added effect of denying other players a solid expansion site.

*Players cannot use a development card purchased during that turn, but they can buy a card during the build phase immediately before that turn, then use the card before rolling. (Of course, using a non-soldier card does not offer a benefit.)

Starting points and destinations (More Catan)

2007-03-04T13:10:00.000-07:00

Collecting data—in only three games—has had a strange side effect on me; it has become more obvious than ever how difficult it is to get the ten point needed to win without getting extra points with Longest Road, Largest Army, and/or VP cards.* Points “on the board” in the form of cities (2 points) and settlements (1 point) are useful because they produce more resources, but they are often more expensive than the cost of a few road segments or a couple development cards. Buying many development cards or building roads to far-off locations early delays one’s own economy, and means productive capacity will be outstripped by rivals, but trying to win with 4 cities and 2 settlements or 3 cities and 4 settlements is essentially impossible; even getting that many sites is difficult, especially in a four-player game.** Usually, those that try such a strategy lose with about seven or eight points, as others are able to get cheaper but unproductive points more rapidly in the endgame. Thus, knowing when to switch from building up one’s productive capacity to buying the non-productive points is vital in The Settlers of Catan. This has an interesting parallel to how individuals and nations use their own money and economies—how big a focus should be placed on short-term consumption, and how much should be invested toward the future?

This naturally leads to a discussion of the basic placement and play strategies available at the outset of the game. The ultimate beginner’s strategy is to place settlements on the sites that have the most resources available—the tiles surrounding them have a lot of pips. This often means that a player does not get all of the resources they need very often, so making such a strategy work relies on adept trading or poor decisions by other players. (Actually, the ultimate beginner’s strategy is to place settlements completely at random, but that lacks any hallmarks of “strategy.”)

Soon enough, though, players recognize that they need resources that can work in concert with one another, which leads to three plans. The first is to place to get some of each resource: a balanced approach. This allows players to be more self-reliant, which is good for players that are not as adept at trading; they can avoid doing so very often. The drawback to this strategy is that it can be difficult to build up an army or gain longest road this way, and chasing both usually means accomplishing neither, but it does provide a great deal of flexibility, whereas the other strategies are less so. If it becomes evident that no players are pursuing one of the two +2 VP bonuses, a balanced player can take advantage of such a circumstance, and if they move quickly, such a player can sometimes get both.

The first specialized strategy people become interested in is usually “road building,” emphasizing brick and wood. Building long roads and numerous settlements can be a great way to get ahead, especially early in a game. To get to ten points, this strategy requires either one city, five settlements, Longest Road, and a victory point; or two cities, four settlements, and Longest Road. This strategy can often be difficult to get past nine points on, but a player with this strategy does not get “boxed in.” This strategy is often less damaged by the robber, which is good, since it generates fewer soldiers to chase the robber away.

The second specialized strategy is “city building,” emphasizing ore and wheat, and upgrading the initial settlements to cities as soon as possible. This strategy generally requires building to one or two more settlement sites and upgrading those to cities, as well as buying enough development cards to get Largest Army. Winning with this strategy usually entails three or four cities, Largest Army, and possibly 2 Victory Point cards. Having the robber placed on a productive site can be very damaging to someone pursuing this strategy, so building up an army to chase the robber away is important.

Sometimes, the result of the above strategies is an overabundance of another resource. If the port for that resource is in a good location, a player can sometimes place on that port and another good spot to generate the chosen resource. Since sheep are often a plentiful, but less useful commodity, this strategy is often called “Sheep-O-Matic.” Using it for other resources is generally less successful, but I’ve seen wood utilized as well, when most players were pursuing city-building strategies and brick was in short supply. Such a strategy can allow the player to exact a “tax” or “user fee” on their turn, using their port by proxy for another player, at the cost of another resource card.

The final, and riskiest, placement strategy is to seek out the rarest resource—usually brick or ore, as they have only three tiles—and building on the best spots available for that resource. When other players need that resource, it will be possible to get advantageous trade offers. Unfortunately, it may also attract the robber’s attention, as an opponent may try to steal the valued resource.

*Victory Point development cards are worth 1 point each, Longest Road and Largest Army are worth two points each, but come at minimum costs of 5 road segments or 3 soldiers. To take one of these titles away from another player requires building a longer road or a larger army; in the case of a tie, the initial player to build to that size retains the points. This makes Largest Army especially secure; the player with it knows exactly how large each players’ army is, and can buy more development cards when they notice a rival doing the same, and only one development card can be used by a player on any specific turn. Longest Road is harder to keep, since players can build as much road as they can afford on any turn.

**There are only four city and five settlement pieces available to each player, so a five city win is not possible.

More Catan: Mechanics of the Robber and Why Everyone Should Love Development Cards.

2007-03-04T13:06:00.000-07:00

The robber, as well as the purchase and use of development cards, are subjects I have not yet covered in detail in my Catan crash course. When a seven is rolled at the outset of a player’s turn, all players with more than seven resource cards must discard half (rounded down). The player that rolled then must move the robber to another location. (Interestingly, this is the only time that a game mechanic is tied to the player rolling the dice.) The robber prevents the tile he is on from producing resources, even when its number is rolled, so it is a good way to keep the player that is in the lead from getting the resource one believe they would find most helpful. Additionally, when a player moves the robber, they can choose to steal a resource card at random from any player with a settlement or city bordering the new location of the robber.

Fortunately, players can do something about the pesky robber always being around them: they can build an army. Doing so requires “development cards,” purchased at a cost of a wheat, a sheep, and an ore. Unlike the resource cards, these cards can’t be traded, and only one can be used each turn—and not on the turn it was purchased. Of the twenty-five development cards, five are Victory Point cards. These are an exception to the limitations on development cards; they can be played on the same turn as other development cards, and can be played immediately. These cards should only be played on the turn that a player wins; they are very useful because holding these cards is less obvious than having another settlement or city on the board in plain view. Six cards are special “Discovery” cards of three varieties: “Monopoly,” “Road Building,” and “Year of Plenty.” “Monopoly” is commonly believed to be the strongest card in the game; it allows a player to name a resource and confiscate all of that type from the other players. “Road Building” allows a player to put down two additional roads anywhere on the board, and “Year of Plenty” allows a player to take two resources of any kind(s) from the bank, which is often useful for big purchases, when a player needs to get two resources that are particularly scarce in that game. For those counting along at home, this leaves 14 development cards to fall into the “soldier” category. These brave men can be called upon at any point in one’s turn—even before rolling the dice—to chase the robber off to a distant place. Each soldier can only be used once, but keep his card after playing it, because having the Largest Army (minimum 3 soldiers) is worth a bonus of 2 Victory Points. Playing a soldier card triggers all of the mechanics of the robber—one must choose a new location for the robber, allowing one to steal a card from a neighbor of that tile and blocking future production.*

*In the 5-6 player expansion, there are nine more cards—six soldiers and one each of each “discovery” type. There is also a blank card that can be used to represent the place of a lost/damaged card, or stand in as another Victory Point. However, I’ve concluded that doing so makes the strategies I like slightly more powerful, so I’m going to avoid such play in the future and recommend against it to others.

How'd that work out for you? Early indications of Denver's trade for Allen Iverson

2007-02-25T20:14:00.000-07:00

Like David Berri (the author of The Wages of Wins, not Dave Berry the humor columnist), who I spoke with the day after the trade, I was confused by Denver's acquisition. Yes, Carmelo Anthony was going to be out for fifteen games on a suspension, but that's not a very temporary thing; it shouldn't hurt a team by more than five games--if that--and he was be available again quite soon. As Dr. Berri pointed out, the trade was bad for both teams! Philadelphia would still be unlikely to make the playoffs, but adding Andre Miller would mean they could win more games, which would decrease their chances of picking first or second in the draft and getting Greg Oden or Kevin Durrant. Iverson wasn't playing with the team, and they weren't getting any really good offers, so they could have continued to not play him, which would hurt their team, but not add anyone else. Then, after the season has ended, they could shrug their shoulders and accept approximately the same deal that Denver was offering.

Denver gave up a true point guard. This is always a mistake. There are two near-essential elements for an elite-level NBA team: a point guard and a quality Center or Power Forward. The top teams in the league are: Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, and Utah. Of these, only San Antonio lacks a true point, but they are able to mitigate this shortcoming through solid unselfish play by Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. Before the trade, they were in contention for a mid-level playoff spot in the very difficult Western Conference. Finishing even fifth would have been a serious accomplishment, and the more likely sixth-place finish would still be very respectable. Instead, they're in eighth, and only by a small margin. Unless the team gets much better results than the 2-7 they currently have recorded in the games Iverson and Anthony both play in, they won't reach the playoffs, but they also gave up their draft pick, so they wouldn't even have a small chance at a top three pick in this great draft, either.

In short, both teams were hurt by this deal, unless Philadelphia still manages to win a top lottery spot, despite decreasing their chances for such an outcome.

Economics of The Settlers of Catan

2007-02-24T15:11:00.000-07:00

As some of you may know, this is my favorite board game. I enjoy it quite thoroughly, and play it whenever I can convince at least two others that they need to be involved as well. I've decided to write about the economics of the game, explaining what is usually valuable and what usually is not. For those unfamiliar with the game, it's one of the world's greatest board games, accessible to newcomers, yet sufficiently complex enough that it can hold a more serious gamer's interest. Ideally, the basic game should be played with four players, though it is possible to play with three, and I also have the expansion pack that allows five or six players. Here, I will focus on the 'pure' four-player version.

The board is made up of hexagons that are randomly assembled to create a larger hexogonal island with three of the small hexagons on each side. There are six kinds of land present on the island of Catan; four each of forests, fields, and pastures, three each of hills and mountains, and one desert. Forests produce wood, hills=brick, fields=wheat, pasture=wool, and mountains=ore, while deserts produce nothing. Each of these tiles are randomly placed as part of the island at the begining of the game, and then small tokens with numbers between 2 and 12 (but not 7s) are placed on them. When a number is rolled, the tiles with that number produce the corresponding resource for all of the players that have settlements or cities bordering the tile. Obviously, since hills and mountains are only 75% as common as the other productive tiles, brick and ore are often less common as a result.

Each of the resources have specific uses. To build roads leading from one's intial settlements to other locations to build new settlements costs a wood and a brick. Building a new settlement requires a wood, a brick, a wheat, and a wool. Turning a settlement into a city (which will then provide twice as many resources from adjacent tiles) requires two wheat and three ore. Buying a Development Card (which provide certain benefits I'll examine later) requires a wheat, a wool, and an ore. (The game even comes with handy reference cards for each player that provide this information.)

What will be immediately obvious to many is that there are some resources that are complimentary to one another. Wood and brick, for example, are perfect compliments; they must be used together each time in a fixed ratio. (1:1) These resources are used for roads and settlements, but not anything else. Wheat is nearly a perfect compliment for ore; when ore is used, it requires either a 3:2 or 1:1 ratio with wheat. Ore is not quite as good a compliment for wheat, though, as building a settlement requires everything but ore. Sheep are an odd exception; they are produced with great frequency in many games, but when compared with other resources, are relatively less valuable, as they are only used for towns and development cards. Wheat is a perfect compliment to sheep, but the reverse is not true. Consequently, sheep are often the resource in greatest stock during a game.

Players are able, on their turns, to trade resources they have with those of other players in any amount or combination found mutually agreeable. Players may also trade with the 'bank', but at steep rates; four resources of one type for a single card of another. (There are also specific "ports" on the coast that, if a player has a settlement or city on, allow 3:1 trades, or two of a specified resource for one of any other.)

During future games, I intend to determine the relative values of each of the resources to the groups playing as a collective. This can be measured by recording the amounts of each resource being produced through a game and seeing how often each resource is given up or collected in trades with the bank, as well as documenting the cards given up when a seven is rolled. (In such a circumstance, instead of the board producing resources, all those with more than seven cards must discard half of their holdings. Sevens also trigger the 'robber', a game dynamic I will also discuss another time.) The resources that are most valuable should become apparent; players will infrequently trade these resources with the bank to gain others or discard them when a seven is rolled. Additionally, these will be the resources that players are trading with the bank to obtain. I predict that wheat will turn out to be the most valued resource, followed by ore, brick, wood, and finally, sheep. Obviously, in some games, the relative values of these resources will vary, but this is the general pattern I expect to see emerge.

College Football: End of Year Rankings

2007-01-10T09:57:00.001-07:00

Here's the deal: Ohio State getting beaten should not have been as big a surprise as it was. OSU had played against two teams in the top 25: Michigan and Texas. Michigan was a close game, and they'd played Texas when Colt McCoy was quite new. That said, here's the final top 26.

1. Boise State. 13-0. A team can only win the games it plays, and BSU did just that. Do I think they'd be favored against Florida? No. However, they weren't against Oklahoma, either.
2. Florida. 13-1. Tough schedule and only one loss.
3. Louisville.
4. USC. 11-2. Two last-second losses in a great conference. Great Rose Bowl win.
5. LSU. 11-2. Two close losses in a great conference. Nice Sugar Bowl win in front of the home crowd.
6. Ohio State. 12-1. Only one loss, but didn't look competitive.
7. BYU. 11-2. If it seems odd that I've ranked my alma mater this high, go watch the games against Oregon and TCU again.
8. Michigan 11-2.
9. Wisconsin. 12-1. The weakest of the one-loss teams, Wisconsin had few quality opponents.
10. Cal. 10-3. The best of the three-loss teams. I considered putting them ahead of Wisconsin.
11. West Virginia. 11-2.
12. TCU. 11-2. The hangover loss to Utah is the only real blemish.
13. Rutgers. 11-2. Yes, the top of the Big East really was that good.
14. Texas. 10-3. Imagine if Colt McCoy hadn't been hurt against K-State---they could be in the top five.
15. Auburn. 11-2. Strange to consider an SEC team as the worst of the two-loss category.
16. Oklahoma. 11-3. No glaringly bad losses, but clearly not better than Texas.
17. Hawai'i. 10-3. If they always played at home, they'd be in the top half-dozen. Colt Brennan = Crazy Good.
18. Virginia Tech. 10-3. Strongest team from an unusually weak ACC.
19. Tennessee. 9-4.
20. Arkansas. 9-4.
21. Boston College. 10-3. Beat BYU in overtime.
22. Georgia. 9-4. Half of the SEC is on this list. A conference of cheaters, but they've got some good football.
23. Penn State. 9-4.
24. Wake Forest. 10-3. ACC champions ain't what they used to be.
25. Oregon State. 9-4. Beat USC, good game against Boise State.
26. Notre Dame. 10-3. Weakest of the three-loss teams. Once again, though, #26 was too close to #25 for me to feel good about leaving them out.

Honorable mention: The rest of the Pac-10 (except Stanford), the Big East's bowl wins (5-0, albeit against weaker teams), Navy, Houston, and Central Michigan.

Dishonorable mention: the fight between FIU and University of Miami players (the only thing uglier than FIU's actual play), Oregon's new helmets.

Being at my family's home is interesting.

2007-01-10T09:53:00.000-07:00

Technically, I still don't know if I have a place to live in Utah just yet. I'm heading up tomorrow. Strangely, I don't think this is a problem.

Being at my family's home is odd. I've realized just how private a person I am. Unsurprisingly, I'm not going to offer any further explanation. But I will post about football, which is nearly as good.

Why Oregon lost by so many points.

2006-12-23T16:19:00.000-07:00

#1. Oregon was unmotivated. That much was obvious.

#2. At least one (and maybe more) of Oregon's coaching staff disrespected the opponent. Coach Bellotti has done some good things for the U of O, but before the game, he said that BYU couldn't compete with the better teams in the Pac-10, with the insinuation that his team was in that group. There's really no good time to say something like that about an opponent. Saying it beforehand motivates one's opponent, even if it's true. Saying it after a win is unsporting, and saying it after a loss is stupid. Incidentally, when asked about his words after the game, he said that he stood by his previous remarks. Sportswriters in Oregon did not approve.

#3. Quarterback controversy. It is possible to use more than one player at quarterback. Florida does it nicely with Leak (the passer) and Tebow (the runner). [Incidentally, it's worth remarking that the pocket passer is black and the athletic scrambler is white at Florida. Don't believe common stereotypes.] However, Oregon was switching between the two not because they believed in both, but because they believed in neither one. The coaching staff should have decided on a guy (probably Leaf) in advance, and given him as much confidence and first-team practice time as possible. Instead, both were playing with one eye at the sideline, wondering if they'd get pulled if that drive didn't go well. It usually didn't, and they usually did sit down again.

#4. Oregon's great pair of running backs couldn't get outside very easily against BYU's fast linebackers, and couldn't run inside, because of a slow-looking offensive line.

#5. BYU's patchwork secondary held up. During the Utah game, injuries to cornerbacks hurt the team's ability to slow down the Ute offense. Apparently, though, Miyahira was up to speed on his responsibilities at corner, and Robinson's shoulder was in good enough shape to intercept two passes. Perhaps he would have had that third one as well if he were at full strength.

#6. Curtis Brown did enough on the ground. In the past, Brown often struggled against tough defenses because he didn't always commit to his first cut. (Direction change, for the football novices.) Against fast defenses, that meant linebackers could quickly converge. This time, he read his blockers well, and didn't try to do it all himself. On his touchdown runs, he read the block ahead of him, and wasn't touched before he crossed the goal line either time. That trust in his blockers to make the right play motivates them to do it again the next time, because they know it's helping the team. When a runner is indecisive, blockers often recognize that what they do doesn't really matter, and they consequently make less effort.

#7. Jonny Harline knew what routes to run. in zone coverages, he read the seams (the spots between where different defenders are covering) well, making catches before defenders could reach him. When single covered, he ran deep routes, effectively using his size advantage against safeties or his speed advantage against linebackers to get open deep down the field.

#8. BYU's routine. They did the same things as had been planned on last year's trip to the same bowl game, staying at the same hotel, practicing the same amount, going to the same Blue Man Group show, etc. Routine brings familiarity, familiarity brings confidence. Perhaps this sense of familiarity helped calm them in a jittery first quarter, as...

#9. John Beck stayed calm early. On BYU's first three drives, receivers dropped balls, and he made a couple poor throws. He didn't try to force the issue, and stuck with what had worked all year. It started clicking on the last drive of the quarter, and BYU scored right after the second quarter began. In fact, he only threw one bad ball all night, even though he had two interceptions. The interception on the last play of the first half was not a bad decision on his part; he threw it down to the goal line without any time left. A BYU touchdown was overwhelmingly more likely than an interception returned 99 yards. Good decision, even if it didn't work out on that play. Even after Matt Allen's second drop, Beck kept looking to him, and Allen made a big catch late in the game when BYU was putting the Ducks away.

#10. The sea of blue. The fans in attendance were overwhelmingly Cougar faithful---at least 80%, and possibly 90%. That's a very real home-field advantage on a supposed neutral site. Reviewing BYU's performance at home this year is impressive; the closest games were blowouts--25 point wins against New Mexico and Tulsa. Road games were much tougher, including an overtime loss to Boston College, a last-play loss to Arizona, and a last-play win against Utah. In fact, every road game for BYU was closer than every home game. Not to say BYU was poor on the road---they were quite good. They were just dominating wire-to-wire in home games, and the Las Vegas Bowl was a home game. It's not Sam Boyd Stadium, it's South BYU Stadium.

Not to much to ask (not sports)

2006-12-20T11:08:00.000-07:00

I would like a modicum of privacy in a restroom. I can't imagine that other guys don't have such a preference as well. Somehow, though, an unusual number of restrooms do not have dividers between urinals. Is this too much to ask?

An autopsy of the BCS selection process, in case you wondered why teams ended up in specific places.

2006-12-03T21:53:00.000-07:00

The BCS bowls have some automatic ties:
The Tournament of Roses has the champs from the Big 10 and Pac 10. (Ohio State and USC)
The Fiesta Bowl has the Big XII champ. (Oklahoma)
The Sugar Bowl has the SEC champ. (Florida)
The Orange Bowl has the ACC champ. (Wake Forest)
The Big East champ does an automatic bid, but not assigned to a specific bowl. (Louisville)

Michigan and LSU finished high enough this year that they automatically qualified, and Boise State finished high enough as an outside conference champion to also earn a bid.

That left one open spot. Other Big 10 and SEC teams were disqualified because there were already two teams from their conference. Only at-larges in the top 14 are eligible, so either #11 Notre Dame or #13 West Virginia could be invited to fill the final spot, but choosing one would eliminate the other from the selection pool.

The bowls that have their linked conference champions taken for the Championship pick first, so the Rose Bowl (since Ohio State is #1) could pick Michigan, LSU, Louisville, Boise State, Notre Dame, or West Virginia. They picked Michigan to replace OSU, which set their match-up as USC-Michigan, a traditional matchup for a game built on tradition. The Sugar could pick from next to replace Florida. They chose LSU, since LSU is nearby and would be a great storyline.

The bowls with open spots rotate selection order each year. This year, the Sugar Bowl picked first. The choices now were Louisville, Boise State, Notre Dame, and West Virginia. They chose Notre Dame, because even though LSU will probably cream them, because Notre Dame draws well on TV. (Thus, West Virginia is out of luck.)

The Orange Bowl had the next pick, and could select either Boise State or Louisville to play Wake Forest. Quite reasonably, they believed Louisville would draw better in Florida than Boise State would. This meant the Fiesta Bowl was required to take Boise State.

In summary,
Championship: Ohio State vs. Florida
Rose: USC vs. Michigan
Fiesta: Oklahoma vs. Boise State
Sugar: LSU vs. Notre Dame
Orange: Wake Forest vs. Louisville

In case you wonder why I've been talking so much about sports and not about work or life:

2006-12-02T18:09:00.000-07:00

I resigned from my soul-crushing job at NASA. It wasn't the right job for me, and I wasn't the right person for the job. I've got nothing against the people I worked with--some of them could have done more to help me be more at home. Even then, it wouldn't have been right for me in the long run, and expecting people to always live up to my needs and expectations is a good way to be disappointed most of the time, so I'm not too wound up about it.

Being in Houston also limits my "life," too. I'm not really attached to very many people out here, as I've noted before.

This means I have little reason to stay here in Houston, so I've decided to move--probably to Salt Lake City, where the person I care about most is, and many of my other friends are nearby. I like that idea quite a bit.

The last week of regular-season college football

2006-12-02T16:30:00.000-07:00

Firstly, congratulations to Central Michigan. The Chippewas looked great against the Miami Bobcats as they won the Mid-American Conference title game. Second, congratulations to the local (for the moment) Houston Cougars, who beat Southern Mississippi in the Conference USA title match. Additionally, the most well-known college football rivalry game was held this week; the Midshipmen of the U.S. Naval Academy were victorious against the Cadets. Now, for the games with greater financial impact:

Louisville easily dispatched UConn, and if the Scarlet Knights of Rutgers slip up against the West Virginia Mountaineers, the one-loss Cardinals will be in a BCS game. (And maybe even if they don't.)

In the ACC title game, which was the weakest of the BCS conferences this year, Wake Forest got three field goals to Georgia Tech's two. Thus, the Demon Deacons of Wake Forest will be competing in the Orange Bowl. There was another outcome of the game as well, though--the losses this week and last will likely knock Georgia Tech out of the top 25. This doesn't seem like a big deal, but it is to another team--the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. Notre Dame lost big to Michigan and USC, the two top teams they've played. Their best wins are against Penn State, Navy, and Georgia Tech, who will probably all be in the "Also Receiving Votes" category. Ths may be enough to convince a BCS game to invite Louisville instead of Notre Dame.

Who am I kidding? Notre Dame not deserving to get a spot doesn't matter. They'll have one anyway, but it will seem much more defensible if Rutgers loses and there's only one single-loss Big East team.

USC lost to UCLA when a late drive to win was stopped at the ten by an intercepted pass. USC will be in the Rose Bowl. Rivalry games have a tendency to be close, because players on struggling teams often look to that single game as a chance to redeem their unimpressive seasons. (E.g. BYU-Utah was also quite close, Georgia Tech lost to Georgia, Stanford threatened Cal, Army was not totally dominated by Navy, A&M edged out Texas.)

Florida is up on Arkansas at the half, and Rutgers @ West Virginia is just underway; Florida may have a chance at the championship with a win tonight, and Rutgers will be in a BCS game with a win, but Louisville is cheering for West Virginia. Also almost underway is the Big 12 championship between Nebraska and Oklahoma... can I cheer for both of them to lose?

I'll post again later tonight after the important games have ended.

Non-Conference Opponents: Why USC is a better pick for the Championship game than Florida or Michigan

2006-12-01T16:33:00.000-07:00

USC won solidly against Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Arkansas. Those are some very good opponents; each of them could legitimately be playing in BCS bowls.

Michigan won solidly against Notre Dame, Central Michigan, and Vanderbilt. This set of teams is not as impressive. Don't underestimate Central Michigan; the Chippewas were the MAC champs this year, but even so, they're not in the same class as Nebraska or Arkansas. Vanderbilt is not a good team--sure, they're in the SEC, but they're historically the worst team in that conference. They also had a game against the Ball State University Cardinals that was much closer than it ought to have been--Michigan beat a not-very-good MAC team visiting their stadium by only a touchdown.

Florida dominated against I-AA Western Carolina, but they're not even a good team at that level of play. Wins against Southern Miss (an above-average Conference USA team) and Central Florida (a below-average C-USA team) were also by convincing margins, but the game against Florida State was quite close. This usually would be a good thing, but Florida State is not very good this year.

When those non-conference games are considered in light of current conference strengths--the Pac-10 is slightly better than the SEC this year, and the Big 10 is quite a bit behind either one. (And Michigan is hurt in conference, too; they did not face Wisconsin, their conference's third-best team, or Purdue, who finished fifth.)

As a whole, USC has beaten six teams with winning records, two from Sagarin's top ten and all in the top thirty. Michigan has beaten only three winning teams, none from the top ten and only two in the top thirty. Florida has drawn a tough SEC schedule--the only teams they don't face are the two worst in the conference--and like USC, they have half a dozen wins thus far, and two from the top ten--but two of them are not top thirty teams.

Hey, Utah Fans...

2006-11-27T20:42:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not going to taunt you. Your team played well. In fact, the Utes aren't a bad team this year: look at how they've played against really good teams: sure, they were solidly defeated by Boise State and UCLA, but they beat TCU and they were more than competitive against BYU. The team shouldn't have lost to New Mexico and just came out flat against Wyoming--perhaps the TCU game left them emotionally drained or vulnerable to an upset the next week.

This team should be 8-4, but they lost two games they should have won, but only won one that they should have lost. They'll play in the Armed Forces Bowl in Fort Worth, and probably do quite well there against a Conference USA team, probably Rice or SMU. Utah is better than any C-USA team, and this game cannot be against either of the top two teams in the conference, who are committed to other bowls. Thus, this game will be quite winnable. Go buy tickets and enjoy a trip to DFW. It's a great place.

In other Mountain West Conference news, TCU has officially accepted an invitation to the Poinsettia Bowl in San Diego against an at-large team, which will probably mean one of the weakest teams eligible from the MAC or Sun Belt. The Frogs should win handily. New Mexico will be invited to stay in town for the imaginatively named New Mexico Bowl and play either Nevada or San Jose State, as Hawaii is going to the Hula Bowl and Boise State to the Fiesta. (The other team will play in the MPC Computer Bowl in Boise.) This will be relatively difficult compared to what TCU or Utah face, but the Lobos can win--especially since it is essentially a home game, and they are likely to be facing San Jose State, the weaker of the two possible WAC opponents.

It is clear that the most difficult match-up for the Mountain West will be the Las Vegas Bowl, where BYU will play Oregon (unless UCLA beats USC, then UCLA will be there). Whatever the opponent, though, BYU will be favored, in part because they will effectively be the home team.

This week in the BCS

2006-11-27T19:07:00.000-07:00

Ohio State is the Big 10 Champ; USC is the Pac 10 Champ. Oklahoma and Nebraska play in the Big 12 Championship (Oklahoma should win easily); Georgia Tech and Wake Forest play in the ACC (pick Georgia Tech, even though they're not great); and Florida and Arkansas in the SEC (probably Florida). In the Big East, Rutgers beat Louisville head-to-head, so if they win against West Virginia, they are the champion, but if they lose, Louisville need only beat an unimpressive UConn squad to win the conference. (If West Virginia beats Rutgers and Louisville loses, all three will have two conference losses, and the tiebreaker situation becomes quite complicated, but Louisville won't lose.)

As mentioned last week, Michigan isn't a conference champion, but is high enough (currently #3) to get an automatic spot. Boise State is from the WAC, which is not a conference that gets automatic representation, but (currently #8) they get an automatic spot, too. (Any team in the top four, any conference champion in the top twelve, and Notre Dame in the top nine get automatic spots.) That leaves two other spots open. LSU, after beating Arkansas, has played a very difficult schedule and would be a great story, so they probably get a spot, even though they're not in the SEC championship game. Wisconsin and the loser of the SEC championship game would be great picks, but since no conference is allowed three teams, those teams are out of luck. Instead, the spot will go to either Louisville (assuming both they and Rutgers win,) or Notre Dame. Louisville (#6) is markedly better, but Notre Dame (#10) has better name recognition, which will probably be enough to overcome their two crushing defeats. Of course, if either Louisville or Rutgers lose, including Notre Dame would make sense--even if they'd get crushed by anyone other than Wake Forest in a BCS series game.

So, all said, here are the most likely match-ups:

National Championship: Ohio State is in. USC will be the opponent if they beat UCLA; if they don't, Michigan will get a rematch with the Buckeyes. USC in an upset.

Rose Bowl: Since USC and Ohio State will be taken for the national championship, the Rose Bowl gets to pick replacement teams first. They'll certainly take Michigan, since having a Big 10 team is traditional, and also have either LSU or the Big East champ (Louisville or Rutgers). LSU travels better, so that's who they'll pick to fill USC's spot. Michigan would be the favorite, but not by much.

Fiesta Bowl: They have the Big 12 champ (Oklahoma or Nebraska), and Boise State, who would be an unlikely team for the Sugar or Orange Bowls to be really excited about. Oklahoma would be favored here, but Boise State should not be misunderestimated.

Sugar Bowl: They have the SEC Champion (Arkansas or Florida), and will also want Notre Dame. Notre Dame should lose badly to either team.

Orange Bowl: They have the ACC Champ (Georgia Tech or Wake Forest), and probably will end up with the Big East champ (Rutgers or Louisville) as well. The ACC is unimpressive on top this year, so if Louisville is here, expect them to win. If it's Rutgers, the game will be harder to predict, but I'd still give the edge to New Jersey's state university over either ACC squad.

Overlooked BCS storylines

2006-11-19T20:52:00.000-07:00

An overlooked storyline: the Rutgers loss means Boise State is in significantly less danger of falling to thirteenth. Texas could perhaps pass them with wins against A&M and another win against Nebraska, but even if that happens, Auburn would also have to pass them, which cannot happen, since Auburn has finished their regular season. All the Broncos need to do is beat a quite good Nevada team in Reno. This is the most difficult game they will have this year. (Yes, Hawaii is better than Nevada, but Boise played at home against Hawaii this year; the same was the case against Oregon State.)

After this weekend, much more will be clear about the automatic-qualifying conference championships. USC and Ohio State are in, Arkansas and Florida will play for the SEC championship. The Big 12 is a little more complex, with Nebraska playing either Texas (if they beat A&M or if Oklahoma loses) or Oklahoma (if they beat Oklahoma State and Texas loses) for the championship. Texas is the favorite. The ACC is slightly more complicated, with one more possible team: Georgia Tech will be in the championship game, and will play Wake Forest (if they beat Maryland), Boston College (if they beat Miami and Wake Forest loses), or Maryland (if they win and BC loses). The Big East is still unclear, with two games left for each of the contenders. I'll just say that West Virginia has the inside track, then Louisville, then Rutgers.

Still not too illuminated about the fourth at-large, either. Boise State and Michigan are automatic qualifiers by rule, and Notre Dame is too big a draw not to invite if they qualify. (Which they almost certainly will, even if they lose to USC.) The main candidates for the final spot would be the SEC runner-up, LSU, and the Big East runner-up. SEC teams generally have more credibility, and the SEC commissioner is the one that runs the BCS, so they may have an in. LSU, runner-up to Arkansas in the SEC West division, does not deserve a spot more than a division winner, but they draw better than Arkansas does, so if Florida beats Arkansas, be on the lookout for a cash-related shafting. The Big East is probably out of luck; any of the three SEC teams with two losses would probably be a stronger draw than a one-loss Rutgers (if they beat West Virginia) or Louisville (if West Virginia beats Rutgers). Even though the Big East is a better conference than the SEC this year--which is not the usual state of the world, but is the case this year.

A Top 25 College Football Ranking that isn't absurd

2006-11-18T22:57:00.000-07:00

1. Ohio State
2. Michigan (a)
3. USC
4. Florida
5. Arkansas
6. Wisconsin
7. Notre Dame
8. Louisville
9. West Virginia (b)
10. Boise State
11. Texas
12. LSU (c)
13. BYU (d)
14. Boston College
15. Oklahoma
16. Georgia Tech
17. Virginia Tech
18. Rutgers (e)
19. Tennessee
20. Auburn (f)
21. Hawaii
22. California
23. Nebraska
24. Wake Forest
25. TCU
26. (g) Clemson

a. Yes, they lost, but it was a close game on the road to the best team.
b. The Big East is better than many are saying.
c. The last of the relatively easy to place teams.
d. Sure, call me a homer. Then, go look at how they've been playing--and after Arizona has beaten Oregon and Cal as well, that last-second loss doesn't look as bad as it once did. Neither does the overtime BC loss; Boston College is a legitimate contender for the ACC title.
e. Yes, this is a big drop. But they looked really bad today and have only a couple good wins--which teams above them would they really beat most of the time?
f. The most over-rated team right now. I'm not impressed.
g. Okay, so that's 26, not 25. I want to show that I'm thinking of Clemson, but they're just not better than TCU, Wake Forest, or Nebraska. And stick it to The Man for trying to limit my list to an arbitrary number.

Oh, and the national championship game really should be a rematch. I wouldn't be too bothered by USC or Florida, but Arkansas or Notre Dame would be quite the poor pick indeed.

How much is playing at home worth?

2006-11-18T17:47:00.000-07:00

According to Sagarin, about three points, which is the margin by which Ohio State defeated Michigan. I think it's pretty clear that Michigan is the second-best team in the country, so it seems appropriate that they should play for the national championship in January. Of course, there is a preference among many to avoid rematches whenever possible, so that may not happen. However, I'd like to note that I believe that only USC and Florida now have a chance. If both of those teams lose, or perhaps even if they win unimpressively, Michigan will get a rematch.

That said, New Mexico plays better on the road than at home, which is rather odd. But BYU won in another impressive victory. This is a very good team. I came away from the game thinking, "That didn't seem too good. We'll play better next time." Taking that away from a 42-17 win against a respectable opponent is a good thing.

With so many choices, what's the answer?

2006-11-17T21:49:00.000-07:00

The Ohio State University and the University of Michigan play their final games of the season tomorrow. Or rather, final game, as it is against one another. Both teams are currently undefeated, and currently are ranked #1 and #2 nationally. The winner obviously gets into the National Championship game. The question, though, is who would deserve to be #2, and get to oppose either the Buckeyes or Wolverines? There are a few options, and I'll look at them in order of likelihood to reach such a game...

The University of Southern California. The Men of Troy looked like they were out of it three weeks ago, when a comeback against Oregon State fell short--they were unable to get a two-point conversion that would have tied the game. However, since then, they've looked good, even as other teams that had moved ahead faltered, and in most cases, lost. Surprisingly, the Trojans are back as the top contender. However, they have three games remaining, and none of them are especially easy. This both hurts and helps, though; if they beat California, Notre Dame, and UCLA, they will be the most obvious candidate. Their schedule strength may end up as the hardest in the country, so that will help them appear better than any other one-loss team.

Florida has the next best chance. They are in the Southeastern Conference, which isn't really that impressive this year, but has a storied tradition and a great reputation, which is far better than current excellence, as far as public opinion goes. However, they are currently just behind USC, and while they also have three games remaining, only one has a real chance of impressing voters or computers: the SEC Championship against Arkansas. Western Carolina, (a I-AA team) and a quite unimpressive Florida State will do little to help, even if Florida wins big.

The loser of OSU-UM. Sure, they'll have a loss, but it will be to the best team in the country! Especially if Michigan loses a close one on the road, we could see an all-Big 10 rematch in January.

Rutgers is undefeated, but have played a much easier schedule and don't have many impressive wins under their belt. The Scarlet Knights have a close win against Louisville that was quite the impressive comeback, but their only other really impressive win was against Navy. Nothing else was particularly notable. If they have a great win against West Virginia, they can move past Notre Dame, but probably not USC or Florida, unless those teams lose. Before then, they will play Cincinnati and Syracuse. Cincinnati is thoroughly average, (which makes them one of Rutgers' better opponents,) so a win there doesn't help unless it's in spectacular fashion. Syracuse isn't good. Even a relatively close win in that game will hurt Rutgers' chances at moving up.

Notre Dame's fans may like to think they have a chance. They don't. They've got a better record than I expected this year, but that is due, in large part, to close wins. I don't think their luck holds against USC, even though beating Army this week won't require much luck at all. The biggest strike against them is their loss--a thorough beating at the hands of Michigan... in South Bend. If Ohio State wins, it's hard to see voters putting Notre Dame ahead of Michigan. If Michigan wins, it's tough to see voters wanting a rematch of a game that was incredibly lopsided. However, they'll still get a BCS invitation, which will likely end badly for the team.

Arkansas has a similar problem as Rutgers, and they've dropped a game already. They've got quite a bit of ground to make up in the polls, and beating Florida in the SEC Championship will certainly help, but they were beaten far too badly by USC at the beginning of the season. Beating Mississippi State won't impress anyone, but a solid win against Louisiana State will be a feather in their cap, but it won't be enough.

Boise State has two solid wins, against Utah and Oregon State. However, they have too many close games against weak teams. West Virginia, Louisville, and Wake Forest are too far back, and Wisconsin never got a crack at Ohio State and lost to Michigan, so they won't move up far enough.

Two-loss teams are out of contention for the championship game, obviously, so Texas, LSU, California, and BYU are all clearly watching on TV.

About the rest of the BCS invitations:

Interestingly, this season has a simple requirement to be certain of a BCS game: don't lose twice. (Or once, in Boise State's case, since their path has been easier.) There may be a one-loss team left out of the ten selected teams--or even two of them--but they will be the third-place teams from the Big 10 and the Big East. Incidentially, the Big East isn't as bad as some commentators seem to think--it's actually one of the better conferences this year. Not quite as good as the Pac-10, but still quite good. The problem is that the non-conference opponents of the best Big East teams were generally impressive. In any case, Wisconsin--and probably Rutgers, if they lose to West Virginia--will be out, even with only one loss.

Adding a fifth bowl this year means there are four at-large spots available. The teams for those spots currently look to be Boise State, Notre Dame, the OSU-Michigan loser, and either the Big East or the SEC runner-up.

I'll be watching plenty of football tomorrow, so if I've got something to say, you'll hear it. (Or read it, really...)

Not-So-Sweet Love Down by the Fire

2006-11-12T06:46:00.000-07:00

Where, one may wonder, have I been? Well, I'll tell you. Some other time. But first, I mentioned something last time around...

First, people may not be (in Protestantese,) convicted about sexual immorality. If we've only been seeking to live up to the expectations of other people, (rather than God,) our conduct will come to include discrepancies, as we will seek to please different people with different expectations at different times. This sort of decision-making process will generally lead one to unhappiness.

Second, we may know what is expected of us, but our will is different. This is especially unsatisfying for people. Amulek noted, "I was called many times and I would not hear; therefore I knew concerning these things, but [he] would not know." When this sort of dissonance exists between what we know God wants for us and what we want, sometimes we become especially skilled at ignoring God's will, and often even strengthen our resolve to do what we want to anyway.

Third, it's fun. Who isn't interested in things that are fun? I know am!

Fourth, we may crave security. Sex is about togetherness, so it holds a strong appeal when we're lonely or believe we don't really have a safe place yet. This has certainly been the case in my experience--girls that were dating me or my friends that had little to no significant emotional support from one or both parents (especially fathers) were much more likely to be interested in a more sexual relationship.

Fifth, we don't want to reject the other person. They may be taking things a bt farther than we would like to, but we care for them, and feel uncomfortable with the thought of telling them no.

Sixth, the appropriate emotional context for sex may have been created already--this is especially possible for engaged couples. The wedding ceremony is a formal ratification of relationship that the couple has created. Unsurprisingly, as our feelings develop, we seek for a way to express those stronger ties--in the case of romantic relationships, that includes, in part, their sexual relationship.

I'm sure I've got more to say about that sometime, but for now, I'm going to go take a shower. It's cold this morning, and the heat hasn't been switched on, so I'm looking forward to this!

College Football rankings

2006-09-22T12:25:00.000-06:00

I've put off the serious article for another day or two. No internet at home is a problem.

Notre Dame is ranked #12. That seems a bit high, but not too bad. I wonder what it will look like when the polls are released that take into account their whooping from Michigan.

What was that?

No, you must be mistaken.

I guess not.

So, as it turns out, that is their ranking after being absolutely destroyed. In South Bend.

The Notre Dame mystique continues. If I were to rank a team that highly, it would be because I believed they were better than the teams ranked immediately behind them. That is clearly not the case for Notre Dame. Does anyone really believe that the USC game last year was their typical performance? It was not. It was actually their best game of the year. (Second best was the BYU game.) How many teams with winning records did they actually beat? One. Michigan, who was a not-too-impressive 7-5. A better example was the Fiesta Bowl, in which they were steamrolled by Ohio State. This year, they will be creamed by USC in L.A. They will almost certainly also lose to Tennessee. I'd also be surprised if they didn't drop at least one more game. And yet, there they are at #12. And Brady Quinn is being talked about as the first pick of the draft. Memo to NFL GMs: If a guy is not even the best player on an unspectacular team, don't pick him first in the draft. (Is there any way to send this back in time for the Houston Texans? No? Darn.)

Anyway, not too many certain classic games this week--there will be a team that threatens to win a game they shouldn't, but those are tough to predict. Best bet for a good game: Notre Dame at Michigan State. As outlined above, Notre Dame is not as good as advertised, and last week's game may have given them a certain dose of self-doubt that may make them even more vulnerable in a game against a solid, but unspectacular opponent. Arizona State vs. Cal is also likely to be a good one, if it's available in your area.

A Short Post.

2006-09-11T15:13:00.000-06:00

I was recently reading a story posted by someone I know. A bit of background included to set the scene threw me for a loop, because I didn't expect to read something quite like that in such a setting. Very jarring.

In other news, my lesson in Elders' Quorum on Sunday was awesome. Not sure why, but I was asked to do a Teachings of our Times lesson, which is usually reserved for fourth weeks. That was okay, though, because I got to use talks by Elder Hinckley and Elder Holland from last conference. If you don't remember these talks, go read them. Hopefully, you'll come away with a better understanding of what repentance is. (Hint: it's not just about being sorry for the bad things you've done and not doing them any more.) I try to post about unimportant things, though, so I won't go into too much detail. Just go read the talks and figure it out.

Next time, on The Franchise: "Why people commit sexual sins."

(And no, I'm not kidding. That's really what I'm working on writing. I apologize in advance for once again talking about important things.)

People Who Need People

2006-08-26T20:44:00.000-06:00

Living far away from almost everyone I care about is pretty much the suckiest thing ever. I don't really have a peer group here. I went to a stake YSA FHE activity a couple weeks ago. Not my thing; nobody there I could relate to. Just a lot of frenetic young people. I felt like 26 was much too old to be included.

I'm very much looking forward to the start of fall institute. Apparently, earlier in the year, YSA reps asked some of the older (over 25) singles why they did not attend FHE or Institute. The main reason given was that those activities are exactly what I experienced--they're full of 18-year-olds. Not that 18YOs are bad, but they're loud, and require extra patience. Thus, the idea of a 25-40 Institute class was born. The summer class ended right before I arrived (actually, the night after; but unsurprisingly, I wasn't there) and the class has not yet restarted. I think it does next week--or maybe the week after that. Anyway, soon. That will be nice. And maybe I'll even have home teachers sometime. That would also be a plus.

Even better, I'll be in Utah next weekend. I'm very pleased about this.

Oh, and "WNBA sucks."

Meetings, cable TV, and staying up

2006-08-17T09:01:00.000-06:00

I attend a lot of meetings. At these meetings, things are discussed. However, the foreign dialect of acronyms is often so thick that I have only the vaguest idea of what's actually going on. When the discussions are less technical, I understand a lot more; Tuesday had two largely comprehensible meetings. The first had scientists discussing the projects they planned to try out if they received discretionary funds, and the second involved someone wanting some of our department's money--which we didn't have much of anyway, so they were out of luck.

My cable tv was connected Wednesday. I've got digital cable, so I feel good about that, but I won't be able to get NFL Sunday Ticket. Quite unfortunate, really. However, I can start watching Smallville and The Office again.

Tuesday, I went to a baseball game. Yes, I have some animosity towards Major League Baseball, but Roger Clemens was pitching, and I got a free ticket. It turned out to be an 18-inning game. Yeah. I was tired.

I Don't Exist! (Or maybe I do. It's one or the other.)

2006-08-10T10:59:00.000-06:00

I lack an email address at NASA, and I don't have access to hotmail here.

I don't have internet access at home, and I don't feel like going to the library.

Actually, I'm quite proud of my lack of an email address or network log-in here. Other people that arrived the same day I did got theirs almost immediately. Not me. Instead, I'm working. Mostly. Usually, I don't quite understand everything about the work I'm doing--or most things about it, come to think of it--but I can do the actual pressing task, once given some substantial directions. And that's pretty good for the fourth day, I think. Thus, I'm well on my way. I still don't understand most of it, but I know that I will get there. My first day, I wasn't quite sure about that.

Sorry about writing about something somewhat important. At least it's just my job, though, so you can't tell me it's really important. Oh, and I do accounting stuff for people that work with moon rocks. We work in the same building as those people, and it's far enough away from everything to feel like we're on the moon ourselves, as we never see anyone else.

A Productive Day

2006-07-29T19:06:00.000-06:00

It took me six hours to do my laundry. I'm just not paying attention. Instead, I've been musing on the route to take to get to Houston. All sorts of options, really. That means that there isn't a good way to go, just a lot of not-so-direct ones. It's like flying somewhere that will require two layovers, and you're not even leaving the country. (Or, even worse, the second layover is in Toronto, but then you head back across the border.) It looks like I'll go through Spanish Fork Canyon (a beautiful drive, but no radio reception--good thing I've got a working CD player this time), through Moab and Monticello, then to Cortez in SW Colorado, and it's off to the Res. (or are those of us that are not from the Four Corners allowed to call it that? I'll have to check on that one), passing through Shiprock, and eventually reaching Gallup. From there, I've got plenty of interstate 40, the soulless replacement to route 66. And I'll be moving pretty fast, just like all the poor sods in Cars, ignoring the natural beauty of New Mexico. Through Albuquerque, then to Amarillo, where I'll switch to 287, which cuts ESE to Dallas, then the 45 SSE to Houston. Sounds good, don't it?

I got some important Civilization IV time in. The Arabs need me. They can't prosper without my guidance, and I've been away too long. I'm sorry, little digital Saladin. With five opponents, I've founded Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Confucianism, and Taoism. I'm about to get Christianity, and probably will get Islam as well. For those of you keeping count, that's all seven religions. None have been or will be founded in a foreign land. Yeah. I'm awesome. My economy has recovered from building so nine outlying cities, and most of them are growing quite rapidly. (The two that aren't give me access to gems and fish, so that's worth it. Now, I'm churning out Great Leaders regularly, I'm ahead technologically, have iron and horses, and I'll be surprised if there are two more wonders that aren't built by my people. All I need to do now is wait for knights, then wipe out the Germans. I could probably even convince the Romans to help. If I can get that done before meeting the other three civilizations, then my advantage will go from clear-cut to "start the next game on a higher difficulty level." And before any of you mention it, yes, I am sad for those that have not had Civilization in their lives. (And if you're not familiar with it, look up Tolkien Boy's blog. It's the funniest one I've read, and definitely worth a read, whether you know him or not.)

Moving Away

2006-07-29T00:41:00.000-06:00

I no longer have an apartment in Provo. I don't have an apartment anywhere, actually. This is cause for concern, as it would be nice to have one before beginning work in nine days. I am also awake when I should be asleep. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's one of those "important" things. Darn. At least I don't have an ulcer again.

I did get to toss horseshoes a couple days ago. I'm not bad at it. The trick is to keep the shoe from rotating while aloft. Hence, toss. Not throw.

I also got to play X-Box. I usually don't. My thoughts: Halo 2 is pretty good. Star Wars: Galactic Battlefields 2 is not. Usually, I'm not angry at a game for being bad. However, I'm making an exception for this one. I'm predisposed to liking SW games. The various games I've played in the past have often been treated especially well in my mind because I like the characters. However, this was too much. I like to play shooting games in a methodical manner. This game is intended to be played in completely the opposite way as much as possible. The controls are poor, the weapons seem too much alike and take too long to charge or reload, it's difficult to know how much ammunition you still have, there are poorly designed flight segments, enemies are respawned when killed... it seems like the game designers found a list entitled "things The Franchise hates in first-person shooter games," and decided to cram as many in as possible. If that was the objective, they succeeded.

At least I got to play with a dog best described as "fetching awesome."

Hey! A comment!

2006-07-20T08:55:00.000-06:00

Due to a comment appearing from him, I have decided to link to Bawb. Since he was the first to do so, I also linked to Ambrosia's blog, which gives more updates on him than his own does, anyway. Here's the lesson, kids: if you want to be linked to, post a comment. Hopefully, it will amuse me. If I'm amused, I will give you a link.

Yes, I know. I'm a giver. What can I say?

Major League Baseball. Why I don't like it.

2006-07-18T14:44:00.000-06:00

The league is not actually interested in preventing players from using dangerous and illegal performance-enhancing drugs or HGH. Everything they've done thus far to supposedly combat this problem has been slow. I want the game to be pure, but the league loves having fast pitches and home runs. Two things: I want the players to perform well because they are able to combine natural skill with great training, and I don't like to watch that sort of game, anyway. Smallball is a more enjoyable game to watch, with a greater demand on strategy, which is especially important in baseball, a game that is really quite simple for a team sport.

I'd also like ties to occur. I like tied games. There's a certain beauty in recognizing the equality of two combatants; overtime games in most sports are too often ugly; there is a clear winner, and often in dramatic fashion, but too often it is due to mistakes by the losing team rather than greatness by the winners. This is especially evident in long extra-inning baseball games. Of course, that problem is not limited to baseball alone, but is rooted in the American sports psyche, which sees sport as a surrogate struggle for personal supremacy. (Or some such psycho-babble.) Some days, though, there shouldn't be a winner and a loser.

Not unimportant

2006-07-15T15:47:00.000-06:00

Yes, I'm breaking the guideline in the title. I state quite explicitly that my musings are "unimportant." Currently, though, I feel like explaining that. There are big things going on in my life. As most of the readers that actually know me are aware, I had been married. Now I'm not. However, we still care for one another. I want her to be happy, and she wants the same for me. If either of us felt like telling someone more than that, we would. (Or have, in some cases.)

As mentioned at the close of the last post, I'm now seeing someone--Cinderella. While I have been on dates with several women in recent months, and even saw one exclusively for a short time, things with Cindy seem like they could be long-term, even though I'm moving away in a couple weeks. I doubt I'll be using this as a platform for examining my relationship with her, though, so that's something not to look forward to, dear readers. (All three of you.)

I don't examine these issues here for good reason. I don't think blogs are a good format for self-examination. This is not a private journal. It's not even a small chat with close friends. It's a call to the world, and as such, I don't believe intensely private experiences, thoughts, or feelings are quite appropriate. However, it is a great place to talk about the random amusing (or infuriating) events of my life. So that's what I do.

Here's something odd I noticed yesterday: in the early episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, the main cast members have started wearing a new style of uniform, while extras are still sporting the old ones. The old style is ugly. And of course, Will Riker looks a lot better with a full beard.

While I was writing that last post...

2006-07-13T14:02:00.000-06:00

A young woman called me. A friend of mine. We'd gone on a couple dates, but not serious--the dates were three weeks apart, and a couple months ago. At the end of the last one, she dropped the "just friends" line. It was awkward and somewhat unpleasant, (after all, who enjoys rejection by attractive people?) but I figured that she's a smart and perceptive woman; if she didn't think it would be best to date each other, I trusted her judgement.

Since then, we've talked a couple times, but haven't seen each other in person. So today's call was out-of-the-blue, while she was at work. I vaguely wondered why she was calling. (She's on my IM list, so if she just wanted to congratulate me on the NASA job, it was possible to have done so already.) We talk for a while, catching up, when she mentions that we should "go out and celebrate sometime." To me, this sounds like kind-of-shy-girl code for "you should ask me out again." However, since she didn't explicitly mention the potential event as a date, it was difficult to mention I was currently seeing Someone. Oy Vey.

My car. I love it, and hate it.

2006-07-13T13:53:00.000-06:00

The turn signal broke. Not really the turn signals, though. Just the lever that activates the turns signals. I was pushing it up to signal a right turn, and it snapped in half quite unexpectedly. Quite bizarre, really. I've never seen anything like that happen to a car. It's rather difficult to use just the stub of it that I have left, though. I'll see if duct tape can fix it, but I doubt it.

This comes on the heels of the crankshaft breaking, which caused the power steering and water pump to lose power, which put the car in serious peril. However, the engine did not fully overheat, which would have been a disaster. Nor did the lack of power steering lead to a collision. Thus, repair costs were limited to merely $450. This was weeks after replacing the air conditioner's compressor and the stereo. Combined cost: $1150.

Maybe it really is time to start looking for a new car. (Or, it will be time, once I actually start working and have a certain amount of money.

It absolutely, positively got here overnight.

2006-07-06T16:04:00.000-06:00

So, this morning, I was cleaning the apartment. Oddly, I was naked. This was because I had intended on taking a shower, but then felt like cleaning the living room and washing dishes, so I started doing that. I didn't really see the point in putting clothes back on again, since I was still planning on that shower. (And, it's summer, so the apartment is warmer than I like it to be, so not wearing clothes was more comfortable.) The doorbell rang. Due to the aforementioned circumstances, I didn't open the door right away. I know that wouldn't stop a German, but it did stop me. Or delay me, at least.

After covering my nakedness, I discovered that the doorbell-ringing individual had departed already, but had left behind a package from NASA. Plenty of paperwork stuff; mostly signing papers that I only read in a cursory manner, signed, then felt self-concious and actually read. Fortunately, I have not promised to sign over any of my future children to my employer. That's good. However, I am left wondering if I actually returned the selective service (draft) card I filled out all those years ago. I'm pretty sure I did, but I don't recall mailing it. I bet I did--I should be impressed that I even remember filling it out at all.

Then, I finished the cleaning (now clothed) and took that shower. Like many showers, it was great. Does anyone else like washing their hair as much as I do?

The NBA Draft. Is there any event more overrated?

2006-06-29T13:09:00.000-06:00

Of course, the answer is a clear "yes." The NFL draft is far worse: more time per pick, fewer guys you've heard of, more rounds. I can't understand how anyone can watch that one. The NBA draft ain't bad. At least, not the first round, anyway. (Which is well over half of the broadcast time, unlike the NFL draft.)

Anyhow, here's my main thought: what the heck is wrong with some of these teams? The point of trading up to the #2 spot was to get Adam Morrison. If Portland didn't want him, they shouldn't have made the deal. Aldrige is a great player, the pick wasn't a bad one. However, he still would have been available two spots later.

That was the most interesting thing about the draft. The top seven guys were all pretty comparable. It was probably unwise to pick Bargnani first, but he's not clearly worse than any of the guys picked after him--the biggest problem is that he's the wrong guy for Toronto's team to add. What were they thinking?

Yeah. So here I am, in case you were wondering.

2006-06-28T20:05:00.000-06:00

So I decided to start posting a blog. Mostly because I'm likely to move very far away very soon. (To Houston, if the NASA thing works out.) How much self-disclosure actually occurs here remains to be determined; I like to keep things close to the vest whenever possible.

Everyone should be cheering for Ukraine. If you need that to be explained, let me know.