Some Blog Site

I have seen a number of ceremonial first pitches this last week. Between the Biggest Loser homecoming show and the American Idol homecoming show, there were a few clips of the contestants throwing the ceremonial first pitches at the closest big-league stadia.

I have a couple of things I wonder about the ceremonial first pitch, in general.

The first is this: why is this ceremony limited to baseball? If I were to be some temporary ceremonial celebrity, I would want to perform the ceremonial first kick-off at a football game. Or even the ceremonial first puck-drop at a hockey game. But baseball?

Some of you may have noticed that I forgot to say that I would want to perform the ceremonial first basketball toss-up thingy. I didn’t forget – I don’t care much for basketball or baseball. I think I would rather be invited to a baseball game than a basketball game because at least baseball is outside and there are things to do other than watch the game.

The second is this: why does no one ever try to throw out the runner at first? If I were invited to throw the ceremonial first pitch, I would pull aside the first baseman and warn him to be ready. And I would have him tell the ump to prepare to call an out. Then, instead of throwing the first pitch to the catcher, I would instead throw it to first base.

In case you’re wondering why I would try to throw out a runner when there’s no one on first base: why throw out a first pitch when there’s no batter?

So now the rumor is that the Big Ten will increase to 16 teams. They skipped right over the 12-team format, which means they didn’t use my new Big Ten logo that was custom-made for 12 teams. Now I have to make another Big Ten logo update.

Here it is:

Betcha didn’t see that one coming, did you? It’s not at all like my previous logo. I know, I know, it’s a unique take on the traditional Big Ten logo – bold, yet subtle; progressive, yet retro.

Although I do like the history of the Big Ten and the tradition of the conference, perhaps it is time to change. That’s it – we need change! Let’s pass a College Football Reform bill!

Sorry, I got carried away.

Let me start over.

Maybe the Big Ten should change the name of the conference – take out the number. It works well for other conferences: SEC, ACC, MWC, MAC, WAC. You don’t need a number in your conference name. It’s either wrong or you have to keep changing it.

• If PAC-10 adds some teams, they could become the PCC (Pacific Coast Conference)
• If the Big 12 loses some teams, they could become the FSC (Flat States Conference)
• If the Big Ten really does add 5 more teams, they could be called something else:
  • If they absorb Notre Dame and NBC wants the rights to the games, they could become NBC (National Big Conference). Think of it – “The NBC on NBC”
  • If they want to keep their current deal with ABC, they could become ABC (America’s Best Conference). That could be sold as “The ABC on ABC, presented by TCBY.”

Today’s post will cover both the draft and the schedule but I didn’t want to put both those in the title. So I have a rather bland title.

The Draft

I didn’t pay too much attention to the draft, other than the fact that Tim Tebow was drafted in the first round. He wasn’t expected to be picked until the later rounds, but Coach McDaniels of the Broncos wanted him on the team.

McDaniels already has Kyle Orton and Brady Quinn, both of whom want to be the starting quarterback. Quinn was just brought in, so either McDaniels is trying to put some handwriting on the wall for Orton or he has other plans for Tebow.

I say he has other plans. Do you think it is just coincidence that the Broncos got rid of their tight end just days before drafting Tebow? I sense some trick plays up someone’s sleeves. Am I the only one who thinks McDaniels is going to put Tebow out at tight end? Apparently not.

I do think that Colt McCoy and Jimmy Clausen made the right choice in not attending the NFL draft in person. Unless you’re being discussed as one of the top three picks, you are just setting yourself up for disappointment. If you’re not picked right away, the cameras will be on you the whole time and people will be wondering why you have not been picked yet.

Tim Tebow also was invited but did not attend the NFL draft in New York. The correctness of his choice is not as obvious as the other quarterbacks’. Since Tebow was not slotted to be picked until the third round or so, there should have been no pressure. He could have gone, enjoyed the festivities, and not worried about not going in the first round. Then he would have been pleasantly surprised when he did go in the first round. Ah well, he certainly didn’t make the wrong choice. I’m not sure there even was a wrong choice in his case.

The Schedule

Shortly before the draft started, the NFL announced the 2010 schedule. Now that we know who will play whom and when, we can start predicting wins and losses.

I keep my predictions over at Some Fun Site. During the course of 2009, I saw that predictions based on the previous season’s results were just as good as predictions that updated themselves week-by-week. Results are here.

Now that the schedule is out, I have setup the 2010 predictions. Most of them are good for the first week only, but the two methods with “last year” in them are good for the whole season already. Here is my summary of the results:

• Of course, the generic prediction of Home Team Wins always forecasts each team to win half the games and lose half the games. So everyone gets an 8-8 record. Boring.
• The Isaacson-Tarbell Postulate (better record wins) was 63% accurate last season (in 2009, using 2008’s final numbers the whole season). It predicts this for 2010:
  • Arizona = 12-4
  • Atlanta = 9-7
  • Baltimore = 8-8
  • Buffalo = 3-13
  • Carolina = 7-9
  • Chicago = 5-11
  • Cincinnati = 12-4
  • Cleveland = 2-14
  • Dallas = 11-5
  • Denver = 7-9
  • Detroit = 1-15
  • Green Bay = 13-3
  • Houston = 10-6
  • Indianapolis = 16-0
  • Jacksonville = 5-11
  • Kansas City = 1-15
  • Miami = 6-10
  • Minnesota = 15-1
  • New England = 12-4
  • New Orleans = 16-0
  • New York Giants = 8-8
  • New York Jets = 10-6
  • Oakland = 4-12
  • Philadelphia = 13-3
  • Pittsburgh = 11-5
  • San Diego = 15-1
  • San Francisco = 8-8
  • Seattle = 4-12
  • St. Louis = 0-16
  • Tampa Bay = 2-14
  • Tennessee = 7-9
  • Washington = 3-13
• The More Points Wins method was 66% accurate last season (in 2009, using 2008’s final numbers the whole season). It predicts this for 2010:
  • Arizona = 12-4
  • Atlanta = 8-8
  • Baltimore = 14-2
  • Buffalo = 4-12
  • Carolina = 7-9
  • Chicago = 5-11
  • Cincinnati = 6-10
  • Cleveland = 2-14
  • Dallas = 13-3
  • Denver = 8-8
  • Detroit = 1-15
  • Green Bay = 16-0
  • Houston = 9-7
  • Indianapolis = 13-3
  • Jacksonville = 3-13
  • Kansas City = 3-13
  • Miami = 7-9
  • Minnesota = 13-3
  • New England = 14-2
  • New Orleans = 16-0
  • New York Giants = 7-9
  • New York Jets = 11-5
  • Oakland = 1-15
  • Philadelphia = 11-5
  • Pittsburgh = 11-5
  • San Diego = 15-1
  • San Francisco = 10-6
  • Seattle = 5-11
  • St. Louis = 0-16
  • Tampa Bay = 2-14
  • Tennessee = 5-11
  • Washington = 4-12
• Comparing ITP and MPW gets me this:
  Consensus:
  • Arizona = 12-4
  • Carolina = 7-9
  • Chicago = 5-11
  • Cleveland = 2-14
  • Detroit = 1-15
  • New Orleans = 16-0
  • Pittsburgh = 11-5
  • San Diego = 15-1
  • St. Louis = 0-16
  • Tampa Bay = 2-14

  Dissension:

  • Baltimore = 14-2 or 8-8
  • Cincinnati = 12-4 or 6-10

I just realized that I never updated Some Blog Site readers on the results of my Some Fun Site project to create a football prediction method that is more accurate than the Isaacson-Tarbell Postulate (ITP).

The methods I created – More Points Wins and More Yards Wins – are more accurate. Their downside is they take slightly more work, as average margin of victory and average yardage differential are not as commonly reported or available as win-loss record is.

The 2009 NFL season is long gone, and here are the results of the various methods:

• HTW: 57%
• ITP: 61%
• MPW: 66%
• MYW: 67%

For the ideas behind the methods, please visit the Some Fun Site page.

I also noticed, during the course of playing around with the NFL statistics, that basing predictions on the previous year’s results was equally effective. ITP says to look at the team’s current record. That resulted in a 61% chance of correctly predicting the winner of a football game.

By simply using the previous year’s final record, instead of the in-progress record, you can increase the accuracy to 63%. MPW is not affected – using last year’s numbers results in the same accuracy (only one game difference). I did not calculate MYW based on last year’s numbers – that is left as an exercise for the reader.

Since there is some debate about the best way to measure who won the Olympics (correct answer: “We all did”), I thought I would prepare the results using several different methods so that various countries could claim to be the winners.

Most of the debate, at least here in the USA, centers around do only golds count (Canada won) or do all medals count (USA won). The seemingly official method is to count all medals, but there are some other ways.

Since there are too much data to put into one post, I’ll summarize the results in this post and also point to another page that contains the unsummarized data.

Summary: Korea won the 2010 Olympic games.

I prefer to normalize the Olympic rankings by athletes or, as they are sometimes called, delegates. How many contestants did a country send to win medals? And how many medals did they win? It’s more of an efficiency rating, but I think it is better than comparing medals to the general population.

When one adjusts the points total by number of athletes sent to the Winter Olympics, South Korea is the winner. They were the only country to earn more than one point per athlete or, as I ranked them, less than one athlete per point.

For the complete data, please view the charts on the 2010 Olympics Results page.

The Game

• I do have some friends who are Colts fans (hi Paul), so I am sure they are not happy about the result. But sports are about cheering for a given team, which implies that you cheer against the other team. As it has worked out, He Who Must Not Be Named is the quarterback for the Colts. So I must root against them. If they had a different quarterback, I might have been rooting for them. So don’t take it personally, Colts fans, that I cheered for the Saints.
• Yes, I do also root against the Giants.
• Based on that, the Superbowl was fun to watch. I saw the first quarter and much of the second quarter. I missed halftime and the third quarter. But I got to see the fourth quarter. Apparently, I should have missed the first quarter and watched the third.
• If I don’t have a vested interest in the game, I pull for the more fun team. If you run a fake punt, you’re good in my book. That’s why I have liked Boise St. By that measure, the Saints came out ahead. Even though they didn’t run any fakes, they did have the onside kick and they did go for it on fourth and goal. I watch football to be entertained. Therefore, I like the team that provides more entertainment – the Saints.
• The Colts weren’t all bad though. I was pleasantly impressed that they did not use their timeouts at the end of the game. There are few things more annoying in a sporting event than to have the losing team call their timeouts (or, in the case of basketball, purposely foul) when it is hopeless. The Colts had two timeouts remaining, I think, and the Saints had possession with 45 seconds left. The Colts could have made the Saints do three kneel-downs instead of just one, but that would have accomplished nothing other than prolong the agony.

The Ads

Okay, okay, it is 2010 at this point, but the results are headlines as 2009 because they match with the 2009 predictions made in 2009 for the 2009 season. Also, the results are not all-haiku, just the predictions were. A more accurate title would be “Results for the All-Haiku Predictions made in 2009”.

Before the bowl games commenced for this past college football season, I made some predictions. Here, for your reading enjoyment, is the tally of those predictions. Note that the results are not in haiku form, in contrast to the predictions.

Results

Here is the list (correct predictions in green, incorrect in red):

Fresno State over Wyoming

UCF over Rutgers

Southern Miss over Middle Tennessee

Oregon St. over BYU

Utah over Cal

Nevada over SMU

Ohio over Marshall

Pitt over UNC

BC over USC

Kentucky over Clemson

Georgia over Texas A&M

UCLA over Temple

Miami over Wisconsin

Bowling Green over Idaho

Arizona over Nebraska

Houston over Air Force

Stanford over Oklahoma

Navy over Missouri

Iowa State over Minnesota

VT over Tennessee

Northwestern over Auburn

PSU over LSU

WVU over FSU

Oregon over Ohio State

Florida over Cincinnati

NIU over USF

UConn over South Carolina

OK St. over Ole Miss

Arkansas over East Carolina

Texas Tech over MSU

Boise St. over TCU

Iowa over Georgia Tech

CMU over Troy

Texas over Alabama

And here are the results of the various forecasting methodologies (see last year’s results for description of the methodologies) (also, use the word methodologies if you want to sound important; methods would work just as well and is shorter) :

• Some Blog Site picks were 15-19 (better than last year!)
• CBS120 picks were 19-15
• HTW was 20-14 for the official Home Team Wins (HTW)
• HTW was 11-23 for the Geographical Home Team (GHT)
• Isaacson-Tarbell Postulate (ITP) was 20-14 if using HTW
• ITP was 16-18 if using GHT

I won’t analyze the results as much as I did last year, mainly because I had more time and more sleep last year. But it was a bad year for GHT; last year it was by far the best method. Just goes to show that college ball isn’t as uniform and well-behaved as the NFL. Of course, by well-behaved, I mean the predictability of the statistics and games, not the manners of the players themselves.

Thoughts on the season’s results

1. What more does Boise St. have to do? They should be ranked second, not fourth, in the season-end polls. Texas didn’t prove they’re the second-best team in the country; they just proved they’re not the best. Boise St. had better get a top-5 pre-season ranking because they deserve the same presumption of excellence that any other big-name school (of which they are now one) would get.
2. Texas did not get a fair deal in the championship game with Colt McCoy taken out on the first drive. That is what happens during football sometimes, but it still felt like I was swindled. I was all set to watch the two Heisman candidates battle it out, and I didn’t get to do so.
3. I don’t personally know Nick Saban, but his expression and demeanor after the Gatorade bath really made me think that he is not friendly. Your team is about to win the championship, your players just dumped a cooler full of beverage on you to celebrate, and all you do is scowl? Maybe his all-business attitude helps him win, but he is the face of Alabama football and he needs to remember to help out the PR department a bit. Yes, winning a national championship is great PR. All I’m saying is that my main memory from the game is the expression on his face and how unhappy it looked. It was so out of place.

Conferences

Since the strength of the conference has something to do with the results, I thought I would tally each conference’s bowl game record for the 2009 (and the first bit of 2010) season.

• ACC: 3-4
• Big 10: 4-3
• Big 12: 4-4
• Big East: 4-2
• Independent: 1-0
• MAC: 1-4
• MW: 4-1
• PAC10: 2-5
• SEC: 6-4
• Sun Belt: 1-1
• USA: 2-4
• WAC: 2-2

So the best conference was the Mt. West and the worst was the MAC. Perhaps you could say that the SEC was the best because they had ten teams go to bowls. Or you could say the SEC was just the most popular conference.