Shots From The Darkside

Are you a member of Mybloglog? If you aren’t you should sign up. Social networking is quite popular these days and it’s a great way to promote your site, get a few more links and perhaps even find great sites and make some internet friends. If you avent noticed, I’ve added the mybloglog widget. once you join, you can add your code to the widget and drag it into your sidebar. This will bring people to your site and will eventually make you money. Here’s the formula for success.

1. John MBL

2. Add it to your site

3. ?????

4. World Domination Continue reading “Meme: Mybloglog Community Exchange”

Tank Johnson got cut today. I think this situation was mishandled. if Tank was gonna be cut, it shoulda been when he was in trouble with the law. The Bears missed their chance and are now using this non-issue as a reason to cut bait. i’m not saying Tank should still be a Chicago Bear. I’m saying he should have been released a looong time ago. this sudden cut smacks of BullShit. He got pulled over for going 40mph in a 25mph. Goddamn it, boys, throw up the roadblocks - we got us a hard core criminal on board. i heard they found 10 kilo’s of crystallized cocaine in the spare tire.

I also heard thru the grapevine that he had 100 dead multi-poos in the trunk. Continue reading “Tank Johnson: The Bears waited to long to cut him. now they look dumb.”

Report:

The 23-year-old Jones, of Franklin, Tenn., faces two counts of
felony coercion stemming from allegations he threatened to kill club
employees and bit a bar bouncer on the ankle, according to a criminal
complaint filed in Clark County District Court.

Coercion is the act of threatening or
physically interfering with a person trying to do something that he or
she has a right and responsibility to do.

its good to know that MLB loves it fans…

MLB takes fantasy league to court

Attorneys representing Major League Baseball argued Thursday that online fantasy baseball companies cannot operate without paying license fees to MLB to compensate players for the use of their names.

A federal appeals panel of three judges seemed skeptical that MLB could take financial control of a game that uses publicly available statistics and widely known names of players.

“MLB is like a public religion. Everyone knows (the players’) names
and what they look like,” said U.S. Judge Morris Arnold. “This is just part of being an American, isn’t it?” Continue reading “MLB sues Fantasy Baseball leagues… WTF?”

The current NCAA system for deciding a champion is broken. There are several fixes available, but no one wants to be the first to take a step into the unknown. Its ironic, but for as a nonprofit organization, the NCAA is connected to several commercial organization via multi-billion dollars deals. One would think that this fact would force them to come up with an equitable system that personifies integrity. this has not been the case. there’s only anecdotal proof of this, but it seems that the Media Broadcast companies are the actual power in NCAA decisions. Teams in large markets with large followings seem to get the best breaks and more favorable deals. There are no studies to confirm this, but I believe that this is why colleges like the University of Southern California, Notre Dame, and Ohio State University receive so much media attention. The media has only begrudgingly begun t recognize other football powerhouses such as Florida University, Auburn and Texas. This hype seems to affect everything from sales to rankings. The most notable examples being undefeated seasons posted by Boise State and Auburn University. Finishing undefeated shouldnt automatically give one a national championship bid, but after the failings of the media darlings (Southern Cal and OSU), its obvious that the system is beyond broken. The only fair option seems to be a playoff which is vehemently  opposed by media companies and many sports fans. All arguments against such a play off are moot when viewed all other college sport is taken into account. There’s no good reason we cant have a playoff, they just wont give it to us.

College Football API rankings.
This is a calculation of ratings using methods publicized on
the Internet. The RPI ("Rating Percentage Index" or "Ratings Percentage Index")
assigns a numerical rating to each of a group of competing teams.
A ranking can be derived from the rating by ranking the team
with the highest RPI first, the next highest second, and so forth.
The NCAA uses the RPI to help select and seed teams for post-season
play in a number of sports, but not Division I-A football.
The formula as used by the NCAA probably varies somewhat between sports.

The basic formula for a team is the sum of

• Its winning percentage (as a decimal) times .25
  
• Its opponents’ winning percentage times .50
  
• Its opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage times .25.
  

how the averaging of opponents’ winning percentage will be done.

• Each opponent’s winning percentage is calculated without
  including that opponent’s game(s) with the team being rated.
  
• The opponents’ winning percentages are averaged and the
  result comprises the second item of the basic formula.
  
• If the team plays the opponent two or more times, then
  that opponent’s winning percentage is included in the
  average the same as the number of games they played the team.
  
• The opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage is calculated
  in exactly as above, but from the opponent’s point of view.
  One such number (as described above) is produced for each
  of the initial team’s opponents, and the resulting numbers are averaged.
  (In this case, it is the original team’s opponents that are
  "skipped"; games with the original team are included in the
  calculations.)
  
• As the average of these opponents’ opponents’
  average winning percentages is calculated, if the team in
  question plays that opponent two or more times, then that
  opponents "average opponents’ winning percentage" is included
  in the team’s average that number of times.
  

These rankings are based on the NCAA’s publicized RPI formula used for college sports other than football.
Unlike the official RPI calculations for other sports,
this calculation incorporates all Division
I-A games played, including the post season gamesNCAA Division I-A Football RPI Calculations
Based upon 792 games.
Calculated by John Wobus, 01/11/07Rnk Team Rating (W-L)
— —- —— —–
1 Florida 1.493 (13-1)
2 Boise St 1.326 (13-0)
3 Ohio St 1.267 (12-1)
4 Louisville 1.237 (12-1)
5 Southern Cal 1.235 (11-2)
6 Louisiana St 1.186 (11-2)
7 Auburn 1.132 (11-2)
8 Michigan 1.103 (11-2)
9 Wisconsin 1.064 (12-1)
10 West Virginia 0.998 (11-2)
11 California 0.976 (10-3)
12 Rutgers 0.947 (11-2)
13 Arkansas 0.902 (10-4)
14 Notre Dame 0.879 (10-3)
15 Oregon St 0.866 (10-4)
16 Tennessee 0.865 (9-4)
17 Oklahoma 0.836 (11-3)
18 Wake Forest 0.821 (11-3)
19 Boston College 0.787 (10-3)
20 Virginia Tech 0.769 (10-3)
21 Brigham Young 0.760 (11-2)
22 Texas 0.753 (10-3)
23 Georgia 0.746 (9-4)
24 Kentucky 0.673 (8-5)
25 South Carolina 0.662 (8-5)
26 Penn St 0.662 (9-4)
27 Maryland 0.634 (9-4)
28 Hawaii 0.602 (11-3)
29 Cincinnati 0.588 (8-5)
30 Georgia Tech 0.572 (9-5)
31 Tex Christian 0.571 (11-2)
32 South Florida 0.561 (9-4)
33 UCLA 0.548 (7-6)
34 Texas A&M 0.540 (9-4)
35 Oregon 0.537 (7-6)
36 Nebraska 0.532 (9-5)
37 Arizona 0.508 (6-6)
38 Clemson 0.466 (8-5)
39 Washington St 0.448 (6-6)
40 Arizona St 0.433 (7-6)
41 Houston 0.418 (10-4)
42 Missouri 0.393 (8-5)
43 Florida St 0.380 (7-6)
44 Texas Tech 0.349 (8-5)
45 Navy 0.343 (9-4)
46 C Michigan 0.341 (10-4)
47 Washington 0.321 (5-7)
48 San Jose St 0.309 (9-4)
49 Southern Miss 0.305 (9-5)
50 Oklahoma St 0.285 (7-6)
51 Miami Florida 0.281 (7-6)
52 Minnesota 0.271 (6-7)
53 Purdue 0.267 (8-6)
54 Kansas St 0.259 (7-6)
55 Pittsburgh 0.246 (6-6)
56 Utah 0.241 (8-5)
57 Alabama 0.223 (6-7)
58 Tulsa 0.212 (8-5)
59 Iowa 0.171 (6-7)
60 Nevada 0.157 (8-5)
61 Indiana 0.139 (5-7)
62 Rice 0.127 (7-6)
63 Middle Tenn St 0.116 (7-6)
64 East Carolina 0.114 (7-6)
65 Troy 0.084 (8-5)
66 Ohio 0.081 (9-5)
67 Western Mich 0.065 (8-5)
68 Connecticut 0.063 (4-8)
69 Kansas 0.020 (6-6)
70 Mississippi 0.017 (4-8)
71 Syracuse 0.012 (4-8)
72 Wyoming 0.003 (6-6)
73 Vanderbilt -0.007 (4-8)
74 Virginia -0.016 (5-7)
75 New Mexico -0.074 (6-7)
76 Mississippi St -0.099 (3-9)
77 Sou Methodist -0.099 (6-6)
78 N Illinois -0.106 (7-6)
79 Baylor -0.119 (4-8)
80 Michigan St -0.131 (4-8)
81 Northwestern -0.163 (4-8)
82 Louisiana Lfyt -0.172 (6-6)
83 Marshall -0.173 (5-7)
84 Air Force -0.189 (4-8)
85 North Carolina -0.204 (3-9)
86 Arkansas St -0.204 (6-6)
87 Tulane -0.208 (4-8)
88 Iowa St -0.216 (4-8)
89 Fresno St -0.234 (4-8)
90 N Carolina St -0.241 (3-9)
91 Florida Atl -0.263 (5-7)
92 Texas El Paso -0.267 (5-7)
93 UCF -0.283 (4-8)
94 Stanford -0.284 (1-11)
95 Ball St -0.292 (5-7)
96 Akron -0.314 (5-7)
97 Idaho -0.330 (4-8)
98 Kent St -0.335 (6-6)
99 Toledo -0.372 (5-7)
100 Colorado St -0.394 (4-8)
101 Colorado -0.404 (2-10)
102 San Diego St -0.411 (3-9)
103 Army -0.427 (3-9)
104 Louisiana Mnro -0.433 (4-8)
105 UAB -0.453 (3-9)
106 New Mexico St -0.474 (4-8)
107 Illinois -0.485 (2-10)
108 Louisiana Tech -0.529 (3-10)
109 Bowling Green -0.648 (4-8)
110 North Texas -0.650 (3-9)
111 Memphis -0.689 (2-10)
112 Nevada Las Vgs -0.689 (2-10)
113 Utah St -0.772 (1-11)
114 Miami OH -0.773 (2-10)
115 Buffalo -0.802 (2-10)
116 Duke -0.828 (0-12)
117 Temple -0.833 (1-11)
118 Eastern Mich -0.916 (1-11)
119 Florida Intl -1.200 (0-12)
— —- —— —–

This is the strength of schedule to close last season(NCAA.org):
Rank Name Wins Losses
1 Florida 108 57
2 South Carolina 99 55
3 Cincinnati 95 54
4 Michigan 96 56
5 Minnesota 94 56
6 Southern Cal 97 58
7 Kentucky 94 57
8 YoungstownSt. 83 51
9 Tennessee 95 59
10 Northeastern 70 44
11 Connecticut 84 54
12 Louisville 93 60
13 Stanford 86 56
14 LSU 92 60
15 Arizona 84 55
16 Massachusetts 96 63
17 NC St. 87 58
18 Arkansas 96 65
19 Oregon 90 61
20 Penn St. 90 62
21 Yale 55 38
22 West Virginia 88 61
23 Oregon St. 95 66
24 Iowa 90 63
25 Miss St. 82 58
– ——– – –

This information should be combined with the RPI and SOS of the upcoming season’s schedule to develop a reasonable pre-season top 25 poll. this would allow teams to benefit from playing tough schedules. Quality wins would count more. Quality losses wouldnt punish teams who have adventurous schedules.

ok. Sound off.

No Comments