So, this summer a school in Mississippi decided to (finally) drop it's ridiculous race based school government election system.
Yes, it alternates.
Why?
Every other year, the race of certain student government positions alternates. While on the surface this promotes equality, it really only limits how students can get involved and when.
And yes, it only alternates between white and black. What about other races/ethnicities?
Whatevs, I have nothing further to say on the matter.
-- Knuttel
9.06.2010
The mining debacle
Stand Back, and bear with me, as I attempt to clear out my bookmarks once again. This time, however, I likely shall write articles on each one.
Mineral Management Service
The article points out the difficulties a governmental organization can have when, by nature, it has a conflict of interest.
The mineral management service has had the dual task of forging partnerships with corporations for mineral extraction and exploration, while at the same time regulating said partnerships and projects.
Oddly enough it goes against the very nature of the federal government; it has no checks and balances. It should be structured so one government body deals with these corporations and forges partnerships for mining etc (I don't think it would necessarily fly in this country if the government itself did its own mining) and have another government body, entirely separate, that deals with if these mining sites are all up to standard and following proper protocols.
The article goes in length to describe how congress repeatedly blocked offshore oil drilling for most of the coastline. Sadly, this might have had the effect of forcing wells into deeper water within the western gulf region, the only region largely open to drilling.
Really, the issue with the BP well disaster was two-fold -- there was little to no regulation on a well that clearly was not up to code; the well was in deep water territory.
Deep water, by itself, wouldn't be that big of an issue. On the surface, it simply means larger operating costs (larger and deeper platforms) and longer trips to refineries. When something does go wrong, which should be very rare if proper regulation is in place, it means repairs must be done remotely (the water is too deep for scuba crews). Repairs, therefore, take much much longer to complete -- hence the long time-frame of the oil spill.
So what should the legal ramifications of this matter be?
Obviously, the well was not built within regulation, but the regulators weren't doing any regulating...
Should, then, the regulators be held responsible for this? Given the power and influence of a large multi-national corporation of British Petroleum, it's likely the regulators will get thrown under the bus, while BP gets away with so much as a slap on the wrist and a marred public image. Should they be put under criminal charges? Probably, especially given the ecological damage. The courts would be wiser to focus on the business impact of the burst well, lest they be cast off by conservative media outlets as a hippie court (liberal media outlets would likely support the prosecution regardless, though I wouldn't be surprised to hear a few legislators trying to focus on the environmental impact). I wonder if there is actually any precedent for anything like this, maybe some mine leaking waste water into a river, polluting it. I dunno.
This article likely edited out anything about this perilous relationship existing between congress and lobby groups (both left and right). It would be interesting to find a way to accurately fix this, seeing as how there are few other jobs for a voted-out congressman than to work for lobby groups close to whatever their cause happened to be. For former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, this turned out to be a healthcare related lobbying firm. This lobbying job then prevented him from becoming the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Anyways, I digress.
The Mineral Management Service needs to be split. Regulators must not have their favor curried if we expect the law to be carried out.
-- Knuttel
Mineral Management Service
The article points out the difficulties a governmental organization can have when, by nature, it has a conflict of interest.
The mineral management service has had the dual task of forging partnerships with corporations for mineral extraction and exploration, while at the same time regulating said partnerships and projects.
Oddly enough it goes against the very nature of the federal government; it has no checks and balances. It should be structured so one government body deals with these corporations and forges partnerships for mining etc (I don't think it would necessarily fly in this country if the government itself did its own mining) and have another government body, entirely separate, that deals with if these mining sites are all up to standard and following proper protocols.
The article goes in length to describe how congress repeatedly blocked offshore oil drilling for most of the coastline. Sadly, this might have had the effect of forcing wells into deeper water within the western gulf region, the only region largely open to drilling.
Really, the issue with the BP well disaster was two-fold -- there was little to no regulation on a well that clearly was not up to code; the well was in deep water territory.
Deep water, by itself, wouldn't be that big of an issue. On the surface, it simply means larger operating costs (larger and deeper platforms) and longer trips to refineries. When something does go wrong, which should be very rare if proper regulation is in place, it means repairs must be done remotely (the water is too deep for scuba crews). Repairs, therefore, take much much longer to complete -- hence the long time-frame of the oil spill.
So what should the legal ramifications of this matter be?
Obviously, the well was not built within regulation, but the regulators weren't doing any regulating...
Should, then, the regulators be held responsible for this? Given the power and influence of a large multi-national corporation of British Petroleum, it's likely the regulators will get thrown under the bus, while BP gets away with so much as a slap on the wrist and a marred public image. Should they be put under criminal charges? Probably, especially given the ecological damage. The courts would be wiser to focus on the business impact of the burst well, lest they be cast off by conservative media outlets as a hippie court (liberal media outlets would likely support the prosecution regardless, though I wouldn't be surprised to hear a few legislators trying to focus on the environmental impact). I wonder if there is actually any precedent for anything like this, maybe some mine leaking waste water into a river, polluting it. I dunno.
This article likely edited out anything about this perilous relationship existing between congress and lobby groups (both left and right). It would be interesting to find a way to accurately fix this, seeing as how there are few other jobs for a voted-out congressman than to work for lobby groups close to whatever their cause happened to be. For former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, this turned out to be a healthcare related lobbying firm. This lobbying job then prevented him from becoming the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Anyways, I digress.
The Mineral Management Service needs to be split. Regulators must not have their favor curried if we expect the law to be carried out.
-- Knuttel
9.03.2010
Taco Burgers
The taco burgers were created within a day or two of the first attempt at the salsa.
You may see, however, that this post is well after...
For that reason, even though they were a monstrous hit, I cannot give the specific recipe for the taco burgers. I can only give some key ingredients, and the background story, the inspiration.
It all began when I was watching a Totino's pizza rolls commercial, the one where they are eating the taco flavored pizza rolls, and the one kid takes a bit and exclains, "My pizza tastes like tacos!" Anyway, I took this to heart. If a faceless paste drunk/little kid food company can make one food taste like another, why can't us?
So I began with the obvious, to make one classic ground beef dish taste like another ground beef dish.
Basically I had to reconcile a few key differences. Tacos remain in ground-esque form and are placed in a tortilla of some kind. Hamburgers are formed into patties and placed inside buns.
I, therefore, had to make tacos that could be formed into patties and placed inside buns, if I in fact wanted this hamburger to taste like a taco.
To use a taco kit would be wasteful. I had no intention of using the pre-packaged tortillas, was going to make my own salsa, and would have liked more control over the seasoning process. This also eliminated the possibility of getting a packet of taco seasoning. Not to mention with the size of the event where these would be unveiled, I'd have to do some maths as far as how many and a half packets to use. Plus those things are loaded with unneeded salt (though I think I did use a fair share of salt in mine).
So there was step one. Make my own taco mix. Really, it's not so hard. Just get some chili powder, ground cayenne pepper, paprika, and perhaps most importantly, cumin (I guess those actually all are chili powders...). This is where I ran into another issue -- no chili powder in the house.
I had heard of this Mexican Grocery store near me, on Street road, in like Bensalem or something, so I go there, figuring I can find some good stuff. Digression -- This is the most dice place known to man. It is only like two aisles, YET THEY LITERALLY HAD EVERYTHING. In fact here is where I'd link their website if they had one. Anyways, I spend a lot of time browsing the store and all, and of course the store owners don't know any English, so they're trying to get me to move along, but neither of us understand each other. Really, it was kind of humorous. Anyways, I grab some bitchin' chili powder (with like a hint of lime in it, so dice), and I see in the bean section they got some re-fried black beans. At most of our gringo stores, I only ever see regular red/brown re-fried beans. Eu-fucking-reka. Black beans would make this thing just killer. The color of black beans would more closely resemble cooked beef than the brighter red/brown of other re-fried beans. I could blend this in perfectly, and those who don't notice the bean would only notice it tasting more taco-ish, those who do would appreciate the subtle touch.
I put a few other usual hamburger spices in (Worcestershire sauce, etc, you know the drill), make up the patties, and voila.
The only caveat I have is the beans may have affected their structure a little negatively. If one is not careful when flipping or moving these as they cook, they can, and will, crumble.
I have no pictures cos We ate them all.
You may see, however, that this post is well after...
For that reason, even though they were a monstrous hit, I cannot give the specific recipe for the taco burgers. I can only give some key ingredients, and the background story, the inspiration.
It all began when I was watching a Totino's pizza rolls commercial, the one where they are eating the taco flavored pizza rolls, and the one kid takes a bit and exclains, "My pizza tastes like tacos!" Anyway, I took this to heart. If a faceless paste drunk/little kid food company can make one food taste like another, why can't us?
So I began with the obvious, to make one classic ground beef dish taste like another ground beef dish.
Basically I had to reconcile a few key differences. Tacos remain in ground-esque form and are placed in a tortilla of some kind. Hamburgers are formed into patties and placed inside buns.
I, therefore, had to make tacos that could be formed into patties and placed inside buns, if I in fact wanted this hamburger to taste like a taco.
To use a taco kit would be wasteful. I had no intention of using the pre-packaged tortillas, was going to make my own salsa, and would have liked more control over the seasoning process. This also eliminated the possibility of getting a packet of taco seasoning. Not to mention with the size of the event where these would be unveiled, I'd have to do some maths as far as how many and a half packets to use. Plus those things are loaded with unneeded salt (though I think I did use a fair share of salt in mine).
So there was step one. Make my own taco mix. Really, it's not so hard. Just get some chili powder, ground cayenne pepper, paprika, and perhaps most importantly, cumin (I guess those actually all are chili powders...). This is where I ran into another issue -- no chili powder in the house.
I had heard of this Mexican Grocery store near me, on Street road, in like Bensalem or something, so I go there, figuring I can find some good stuff. Digression -- This is the most dice place known to man. It is only like two aisles, YET THEY LITERALLY HAD EVERYTHING. In fact here is where I'd link their website if they had one. Anyways, I spend a lot of time browsing the store and all, and of course the store owners don't know any English, so they're trying to get me to move along, but neither of us understand each other. Really, it was kind of humorous. Anyways, I grab some bitchin' chili powder (with like a hint of lime in it, so dice), and I see in the bean section they got some re-fried black beans. At most of our gringo stores, I only ever see regular red/brown re-fried beans. Eu-fucking-reka. Black beans would make this thing just killer. The color of black beans would more closely resemble cooked beef than the brighter red/brown of other re-fried beans. I could blend this in perfectly, and those who don't notice the bean would only notice it tasting more taco-ish, those who do would appreciate the subtle touch.
I put a few other usual hamburger spices in (Worcestershire sauce, etc, you know the drill), make up the patties, and voila.
The only caveat I have is the beans may have affected their structure a little negatively. If one is not careful when flipping or moving these as they cook, they can, and will, crumble.
I have no pictures cos We ate them all.
8.14.2010
The Knuttel attempts to make salsa
Hey, look, it's been over a month since I last posted. Whaddya know. Whatevs, working out shit and junk, guess some of it's cleared up. Some has become murkier.
Regardless, my garden has been spitting out a shitton (it's an actual measurement) of hot peppers, so I made myself a nice big batch of salsa.
Ingredients:
-Shitton Cayenne Peppers (green or red, doesn't really matter, in fact cayenne is simply a marker for the kind of peppers I've been producing)
-Pint of Jersey Tomatoes
-4 Large Bell Peppers (I used green, but etc etc)
-1 Vidalia Onion (added sweetness)
-4 - 5 cloves of garlic
-Olive oil
-2 Cans of Tomato Paste
-Lemon Juice
-Salt
-Pepper
-Powdered Cayenne Pepper
-Chili Pepper Flakes
-Chili Powder (I used this bitchin lime flavored one I got at the Mexican grocery store)
-Oregano
-Thyme
-Thai Basil
Step 1:
Roast or Broil tomatoes and all peppers (chili and bell). You can do this by placing them over a grill, but if you don't feel like setting up the grill for this short step, just pop them in the oven at a 500 degree broil. Don't worry about burning, as the skin will get peeled off, but keep turning them to make sure of an even cook. Like 5-10 minutes a side should be good.
Step 2:
Remove skins of tomatoes and peppers. The skins of these fruits often get in the way of getting a proper salsa texture, so removing them is highly recommended. To do this immediately, take fruit out of heat element and throw in a pool of ice water. Remove skins by rubbing it to get it loose and pulling away.
Step 3:
Dice peppers and onion. Pull apart tomato (this should be fairly easy without the skin). Throw in blender/food processor (though be careful not to liquefy it, you still want to be able to identify the ingredients)
Step 4:
Chop garlic and put in a pot with enough olive oil to cover the whole bottom. Throw some salt, pepper, pepper flakes, cayenne pepper, and chili powder in there too. Keep it moving, cos burnt garlic tastes like ass. Put the burner on high heat.
Step 5:
Put Pepper, onion, and tomato mixture into pot. Drop heat to low. Add Tomato Paste. Cover and let simmer for x time. Keep it moving.
Step 6:
Add herbs (thyme, oregano, thai basil (thai basil has a little bit of a spicier kick to it, i think, and is slightly better suited for this kind of thing than regular sweet basil, though sweet basil should work fine)) and lemon juice. Stir.
Step 7:
Check for taste and adjust accordingly (salt, pepper, etc). Cover back up and let simmer for like half an hour or an hour or so until you get the thickness you want (tomato acts as a thickening agent, see). Keep stirring.
Step 8:
Take off heat and let cool. Put in dishes and junk. Eat.
I only have a picture of it mid-cook, so, let's just say, it's pretty damn awesome. The only thing I can think of is maybe it would work better with only 1 can of tomato paste. I dunno, I guess I can try that out later. It's got a nice little hint of citrusy, some good tomato texture, and the heat is good but not overpowering, has staying power too (like any good heat should).
Next up, the Knuttel attempts to make "taco burgers" (burgers that taste like tacos)
-- Knuttel
Regardless, my garden has been spitting out a shitton (it's an actual measurement) of hot peppers, so I made myself a nice big batch of salsa.
Ingredients:
-Shitton Cayenne Peppers (green or red, doesn't really matter, in fact cayenne is simply a marker for the kind of peppers I've been producing)
-Pint of Jersey Tomatoes
-4 Large Bell Peppers (I used green, but etc etc)
-1 Vidalia Onion (added sweetness)
-4 - 5 cloves of garlic
-Olive oil
-2 Cans of Tomato Paste
-Lemon Juice
-Salt
-Pepper
-Powdered Cayenne Pepper
-Chili Pepper Flakes
-Chili Powder (I used this bitchin lime flavored one I got at the Mexican grocery store)
-Oregano
-Thyme
-Thai Basil
Step 1:
Roast or Broil tomatoes and all peppers (chili and bell). You can do this by placing them over a grill, but if you don't feel like setting up the grill for this short step, just pop them in the oven at a 500 degree broil. Don't worry about burning, as the skin will get peeled off, but keep turning them to make sure of an even cook. Like 5-10 minutes a side should be good.
Step 2:
Remove skins of tomatoes and peppers. The skins of these fruits often get in the way of getting a proper salsa texture, so removing them is highly recommended. To do this immediately, take fruit out of heat element and throw in a pool of ice water. Remove skins by rubbing it to get it loose and pulling away.
Step 3:
Dice peppers and onion. Pull apart tomato (this should be fairly easy without the skin). Throw in blender/food processor (though be careful not to liquefy it, you still want to be able to identify the ingredients)
Step 4:
Chop garlic and put in a pot with enough olive oil to cover the whole bottom. Throw some salt, pepper, pepper flakes, cayenne pepper, and chili powder in there too. Keep it moving, cos burnt garlic tastes like ass. Put the burner on high heat.
Step 5:
Put Pepper, onion, and tomato mixture into pot. Drop heat to low. Add Tomato Paste. Cover and let simmer for x time. Keep it moving.
Step 6:
Add herbs (thyme, oregano, thai basil (thai basil has a little bit of a spicier kick to it, i think, and is slightly better suited for this kind of thing than regular sweet basil, though sweet basil should work fine)) and lemon juice. Stir.
Step 7:
Check for taste and adjust accordingly (salt, pepper, etc). Cover back up and let simmer for like half an hour or an hour or so until you get the thickness you want (tomato acts as a thickening agent, see). Keep stirring.
Step 8:
Take off heat and let cool. Put in dishes and junk. Eat.
I only have a picture of it mid-cook, so, let's just say, it's pretty damn awesome. The only thing I can think of is maybe it would work better with only 1 can of tomato paste. I dunno, I guess I can try that out later. It's got a nice little hint of citrusy, some good tomato texture, and the heat is good but not overpowering, has staying power too (like any good heat should).
Next up, the Knuttel attempts to make "taco burgers" (burgers that taste like tacos)
-- Knuttel
7.04.2010
On America
Today is July 4th, the day the declaration of Independence was signed way way back in 1776. Because of this, it is often held to be the "birthday" of the United States of America. Of course the revolutionary war had been going on for roughly a year by this point, and the declaration itself was written on the 2nd, and the original government charter for the United States quickly became obsolete, so really I guess you could even say the nation wasn't born until the constitution was written many years later.
But really, I digress.
What is it to be American then?
Given the nature of our nation's birth, it is directly within our right to question authority. Given the nature of our nation's democratic elections, it is directly within our right to hold our elected officials accountable.
But there is a line, and I think we all know it.
It is most often crossed by those who are they themselves losing an argument, simply wishing to carry everyone down with them. Once this line is crossed, they cannot win. It is a simple matter of fact. Frankly it just sullies the entire system of argumentation and debate. It makes the actual idea of democracy seem unwanted, unfeasible, or even unnecessary.
The line is absurd comparisons. Most often it takes the form of Hitler comparisons, but really it could any force seemingly radical. And both sides (left and right wing nuts) are incredibly guilty of it.
Let me put it this way. Hitler was a human being (shocking, I know), and he ran a functioning government body (horrible, but functioning). Naturally, perhaps by mistake, his government and he were bound to do things right once in a while, naturally he might have had some human tendencies, being a human.
It is known he tried getting into art school as a painter. Does this make painters evil? Is the medium of painting forever tarnished by his youthful dream of becoming a painter?
That's really just one example, and it would really be a painstaking chore to try and redeem him anymore. Frankly, I don't think it should be done, but I was just trying to make a point.
You compare someone or something to Hitler and/or the Nazis, and you lose the argument. It shows you've lost respect for the argument itself.
Let's try it a different way, shall I?
George Washington was a butcher who was responsible for the deaths of many many lives, and was potentially a self-hating racist because a lot of them were British (Washington himself being of some sort of WASP heritage, as most of the founders were).
Of course all of these were during the course of war, both the Revolutionary and the French and Indian War. Facts can lie sometimes. They love to lie when you take them out of context.
The shocking thing is no one seems to bat an eye when this happens.
Being loud doesn't make your point right, and maybe if you listen to the other side you'll learn something. Insularity breeds ignorance.
Maybe we should compare our president to Hannah Montana.
I dunno, just spit-balling. Maybe it's less apt because Hannah Montana (despite her name) has never been involved with any sort of governing bodies.
-- Knuttel
But really, I digress.
What is it to be American then?
Given the nature of our nation's birth, it is directly within our right to question authority. Given the nature of our nation's democratic elections, it is directly within our right to hold our elected officials accountable.
But there is a line, and I think we all know it.
It is most often crossed by those who are they themselves losing an argument, simply wishing to carry everyone down with them. Once this line is crossed, they cannot win. It is a simple matter of fact. Frankly it just sullies the entire system of argumentation and debate. It makes the actual idea of democracy seem unwanted, unfeasible, or even unnecessary.
The line is absurd comparisons. Most often it takes the form of Hitler comparisons, but really it could any force seemingly radical. And both sides (left and right wing nuts) are incredibly guilty of it.
Let me put it this way. Hitler was a human being (shocking, I know), and he ran a functioning government body (horrible, but functioning). Naturally, perhaps by mistake, his government and he were bound to do things right once in a while, naturally he might have had some human tendencies, being a human.
It is known he tried getting into art school as a painter. Does this make painters evil? Is the medium of painting forever tarnished by his youthful dream of becoming a painter?
That's really just one example, and it would really be a painstaking chore to try and redeem him anymore. Frankly, I don't think it should be done, but I was just trying to make a point.
You compare someone or something to Hitler and/or the Nazis, and you lose the argument. It shows you've lost respect for the argument itself.
Let's try it a different way, shall I?
George Washington was a butcher who was responsible for the deaths of many many lives, and was potentially a self-hating racist because a lot of them were British (Washington himself being of some sort of WASP heritage, as most of the founders were).
Of course all of these were during the course of war, both the Revolutionary and the French and Indian War. Facts can lie sometimes. They love to lie when you take them out of context.
The shocking thing is no one seems to bat an eye when this happens.
Being loud doesn't make your point right, and maybe if you listen to the other side you'll learn something. Insularity breeds ignorance.
Maybe we should compare our president to Hannah Montana.
I dunno, just spit-balling. Maybe it's less apt because Hannah Montana (despite her name) has never been involved with any sort of governing bodies.
-- Knuttel
7.02.2010
The final moments of Uraguay v Ghana according to Knuttel
dude handballed it, and he was all "not in my house" and then the ref was all like, damn straight, not in my house, and he redcarded his ass. then the ghana dude came in for the pk and was all like "AFRIIIIICCAAAAA" but he kicked it too hard so the goalie was all like, "yessuah".
then it went to pk's and they both made the first two, then uraguay makes it and ghana misses, and uraguay's all like "hell yeah", then the next chump for uraguay misses it, and ghana's like, "haha, shit yeah, motherfucker." but then the dude kicks it straight at the goalie and the goalie's all like, "ill be taking that" so then the fifth uraguay dude comes up and he's all amped up to take the PK, and he charges the shit out of the ball, and ghana's goalie is all like "oh shit, what the hell is this motherfucker doing" and then uraguay's dude just chips it past the goalie as he's leaping across the line, and he's just standing there, cool as a cucumber
-- from an interwebs conversation, trying to put into words exactly how nuts it was.
-- Knuttel
then it went to pk's and they both made the first two, then uraguay makes it and ghana misses, and uraguay's all like "hell yeah", then the next chump for uraguay misses it, and ghana's like, "haha, shit yeah, motherfucker." but then the dude kicks it straight at the goalie and the goalie's all like, "ill be taking that" so then the fifth uraguay dude comes up and he's all amped up to take the PK, and he charges the shit out of the ball, and ghana's goalie is all like "oh shit, what the hell is this motherfucker doing" and then uraguay's dude just chips it past the goalie as he's leaping across the line, and he's just standing there, cool as a cucumber
-- from an interwebs conversation, trying to put into words exactly how nuts it was.
-- Knuttel
7.01.2010
The Greatest Scientific Discovery Known To Man
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10461066.stm
Shit yeah
The largest whale has been discovered (at least so far as we know).
It is huge.
It is a toothed whale with more in common with the badass Orcas and Sperm Whales than the huge Blue Whales.
It is bigger than Megaladon, the largest Shark known.
Leviathan Melvillei and Megaladon were contemporaries.
I'm just gonna let this all sink in, and maybe read Moby Dick again.
epic song for an epic find
-- Knuttel
Shit yeah
The largest whale has been discovered (at least so far as we know).
It is huge.
It is a toothed whale with more in common with the badass Orcas and Sperm Whales than the huge Blue Whales.
It is bigger than Megaladon, the largest Shark known.
Leviathan Melvillei and Megaladon were contemporaries.
I'm just gonna let this all sink in, and maybe read Moby Dick again.
epic song for an epic find
-- Knuttel
6.23.2010
6.16.2010
A Specter Hangs Over Pennsylvania
Ok, so the original line was "a specter hangs over Europe," but then it wouldn't be about Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter.
I guess it's about a month ago now (shit have I put this off) that Specter was defeated in the Democratic Primary for re-election to his Senate seat. Oddly enough, he had switched parties about a year earlier because odds were he wasn't going to win the Republican nomination. Damnit, Pat Toomey just had to run EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME against him. What does he even do anyway, except act as nemesis? Whatevs.
Anyways, Specter's career in politics is hella long, as he is hella old. He started out as a Philadelphia democrat, then switched parties so he could win the position of Philadelphia District Attorney. Around this time he came up with the famous "magic bullet" theory for the assassination of Jack Kennedy. Yes, Arlen Specter is hella old, that has already been established. He eventually got into his Senate Seat in 1981.
Think about that -- Senator from 1981 - 2011. That is 5 terms. That is more terms than any other Pennsylvania Senator has held.
In this time he forged a path as a defiant moderate -- clashing with his own party on major topics such as Bork's Supreme Court nomination and President Clinton's impeachment hearings.
However, in the end, it seemed he started to lose his identity. While a major party switch would seem an identity defining moment for most politicans, his seemed more out of frustration, lashing out against a party that didn't seem to want him. The Arlen Specter we Pennsylvanians knew would have stuck out in his old party and kicked the whipper snappers ass, alas political climate has changed since the 80s and 90s, and primaries just don't care for moderates anymore. It would appear primaries hate America, by extension, or at the very least a working democratic process.
In the end, whoever takes this seat from Specter will have big shoes to fill. Toomey seems to have only an "anti" definition, which I don't usually like in electoral politics (when you're running for a position, I usually think you should stand for things, rather than against them). Sestak is unproven, I think. We don't really know what we'll get from him, politically speaking that is. He has a long and very illustrious career in the US Navy, where he attained the rank of Rear Admiral. His selection was possibly largely due to an overarching dissatisfaction with incumbents, as Specter had virtually every "established" endorsement a politician can get.
As he is old, hella old, I suspect his political career is over, much like Bob Dole's political career basically ended when he lost the '96 Presidential Campaign to Bill Clinton.
So here's to whatever.
-- Knuttel
I wish to someday be a chrono naut, how much more badass would that be than astronaut, cosmonaut, or even spacekanaut?
I guess it's about a month ago now (shit have I put this off) that Specter was defeated in the Democratic Primary for re-election to his Senate seat. Oddly enough, he had switched parties about a year earlier because odds were he wasn't going to win the Republican nomination. Damnit, Pat Toomey just had to run EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME against him. What does he even do anyway, except act as nemesis? Whatevs.
Anyways, Specter's career in politics is hella long, as he is hella old. He started out as a Philadelphia democrat, then switched parties so he could win the position of Philadelphia District Attorney. Around this time he came up with the famous "magic bullet" theory for the assassination of Jack Kennedy. Yes, Arlen Specter is hella old, that has already been established. He eventually got into his Senate Seat in 1981.
Think about that -- Senator from 1981 - 2011. That is 5 terms. That is more terms than any other Pennsylvania Senator has held.
In this time he forged a path as a defiant moderate -- clashing with his own party on major topics such as Bork's Supreme Court nomination and President Clinton's impeachment hearings.
However, in the end, it seemed he started to lose his identity. While a major party switch would seem an identity defining moment for most politicans, his seemed more out of frustration, lashing out against a party that didn't seem to want him. The Arlen Specter we Pennsylvanians knew would have stuck out in his old party and kicked the whipper snappers ass, alas political climate has changed since the 80s and 90s, and primaries just don't care for moderates anymore. It would appear primaries hate America, by extension, or at the very least a working democratic process.
In the end, whoever takes this seat from Specter will have big shoes to fill. Toomey seems to have only an "anti" definition, which I don't usually like in electoral politics (when you're running for a position, I usually think you should stand for things, rather than against them). Sestak is unproven, I think. We don't really know what we'll get from him, politically speaking that is. He has a long and very illustrious career in the US Navy, where he attained the rank of Rear Admiral. His selection was possibly largely due to an overarching dissatisfaction with incumbents, as Specter had virtually every "established" endorsement a politician can get.
As he is old, hella old, I suspect his political career is over, much like Bob Dole's political career basically ended when he lost the '96 Presidential Campaign to Bill Clinton.
So here's to whatever.
-- Knuttel
I wish to someday be a chrono naut, how much more badass would that be than astronaut, cosmonaut, or even spacekanaut?
6.14.2010
So there IS something in Afghanistan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100614/ap_on_bi_ge/us_afghanistan_mineral_treasures
Woah.
Though the article doesn't give any numbers, granted, if it did, I wouldn't really know what to make of them.
But think about it. Now this is just like Iraq.
We can no longer claim the pure moral highground in this scenario, doing this purely out of the interests of the people in Afghanistan and abroad. Nope. If the west controls that area, they can mine it.
And don't say they won't, cos as soon as the war at least settles down a bit (like it was mid-decade, say) you know western mining companies are gonna be all up ons the ground there like a chipmunk on Tuesday.
Yes, instead of the oil richness in an otherwise desolate Iraq, there is the general mineral wealth in an otherwise desolate Afghanistan (unless you count the poppy fields).
That being said, why can't we just get this war over with and mine the hell out of it? American companies would be able to get into these minerals the quickest and most efficient, and it's not like we're digging up old growth forest here. There's like no forest. It's perfect for mining.
So do it already. End this war so we can get some new batteries damnit. Hybrids aren't gonna hold a charge themselves, you know.
While we're at it, we should detonate the state of Ohio and check it for mineral wealth. I think we'll be moderately surprised, and we also won't have to deal with Ohio. Of course, we may have to put down the native Ohioans first. I guess something will get figured out.
-- Knuttel
Woah.
Though the article doesn't give any numbers, granted, if it did, I wouldn't really know what to make of them.
But think about it. Now this is just like Iraq.
We can no longer claim the pure moral highground in this scenario, doing this purely out of the interests of the people in Afghanistan and abroad. Nope. If the west controls that area, they can mine it.
And don't say they won't, cos as soon as the war at least settles down a bit (like it was mid-decade, say) you know western mining companies are gonna be all up ons the ground there like a chipmunk on Tuesday.
Yes, instead of the oil richness in an otherwise desolate Iraq, there is the general mineral wealth in an otherwise desolate Afghanistan (unless you count the poppy fields).
That being said, why can't we just get this war over with and mine the hell out of it? American companies would be able to get into these minerals the quickest and most efficient, and it's not like we're digging up old growth forest here. There's like no forest. It's perfect for mining.
So do it already. End this war so we can get some new batteries damnit. Hybrids aren't gonna hold a charge themselves, you know.
While we're at it, we should detonate the state of Ohio and check it for mineral wealth. I think we'll be moderately surprised, and we also won't have to deal with Ohio. Of course, we may have to put down the native Ohioans first. I guess something will get figured out.
-- Knuttel
6.13.2010
Knuttel Clears Out His Bookmarks
OK, so these are all things I bookmarked over the past few weeks with the intention of writing small or full sized articles on them (what's the difference, I dunno, I never wordcount anyway).
Yay, Cleveland does something productive, besides set their river on fire (again).
http://www.usatoday.com
Something on the Oil Spill, in a little more non-traditional way I guess.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Stuff on Israel and it's recent handling of the blockades.
Washington Post
Washington Post
Shit, that's alot of Washington Post I guess.
-- Knuttel
P.S. if there are any bookmarks on any other computers in my house or whatevs, I'll put them up in like an edited post or something.
Yay, Cleveland does something productive, besides set their river on fire (again).
http://www.usatoday.com
Something on the Oil Spill, in a little more non-traditional way I guess.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Stuff on Israel and it's recent handling of the blockades.
Washington Post
Washington Post
Shit, that's alot of Washington Post I guess.
-- Knuttel
P.S. if there are any bookmarks on any other computers in my house or whatevs, I'll put them up in like an edited post or something.
PUCK THE SYSTEM: A season in review
AAAHHHHHH. PUCK THE SYSTEM. AAAHHHH. PUCK THE SYSTEM PUCK THE SYSTEM.
I WANT TO PUCK THE SYS
I WANT TO PUCK THE SYS
So, I haven't been very good about maintaining this regularly. I briefly contemplated picking it back up during the playoffs, but the Flyers were doing well. I knew there was about a zero percent correlation, but it seemed like a good idea.
Anyways.
The season review will be as thus -- The Knuttel shall look at his pre-season predictions, and assess them
Prediction 1: Ovechkin will average more than one goal a game, and challenge for Gretzky's, if not Hull's, scoring record.
Assessment: Ovie finished the season with exactly 50 goals in 72 games. I do not recall if injuries affected his play in the games which he actually did compete, but that's still less than one goal a game, and not the full 82 games. Still he finished in third place for goal scoring. He also tied for second in overrall points, putting in a very good Assists total of 59. I would like to note right here that this is more assists than Crosby in his 81 games.
Prediction 2: Someone else will come close.
Assessment: Well, I guess this is more of a 1A type of deal here, but alas here goes -- Both Crosby and Steve Stamkos of the Lightning scored 51 goals. Both of them also played more games, but that's not the issue. These three were the only 50 goal scorers. Patrick Marleau of the Sharks was next in line with 44 goals.
Prediction 3: Malkin will end the season with 50 more points than Crysby, but everyone will still insist Crysby is the better player. They will both still refuse to play defense.
Assessment: Malkin had an injury shortened 67 game season, compared to Crysby's almost complete 81 game season. Malkin scored 77 points, Crysby 109. So Crosby had a more productive year. He also led the team in +/- with an unremarkable 15. Both still refuse to play defense.
Prediction 4: PHEONIX WILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS
Assessment: Yep, they did. Wait a minute...
Prediction 5: hah, no they won't
Assessment: fuck
Prediction 6: Chicago will not compete for a playoff spot at all after making a decent playoff run for the first time in like 15 years last season.
Assessment: They ended up with the number 2 seed for the playoffs in the west, and won the Stanley Cup in 6 games over the Philadelphia Flyers. I couldn't have been more wrong than on this prediction. It will be interesting to see how they keep this young core together with the salary cap and all.
Prediction 7: Tampa Bay will have 2 40 goal scorers, but they will not win 25 games.
Assessment: They did not have 2 40 goal scorers. They had 5 20 goal scorers, however, including one 50 goal scorer. Two of these players also had more than 90 points. As far as 25 games, that was an exaggeration I suppose. The lowest number of games won by any team was 27 by Edmonton. Tampa Bay finished with 34 wins (34-36-12 80).
Prediction 8: The Toronto Maple Leafs will correct their grammar and go as the "Toronto Maple Leaves".
Assessment: Nope. The Maple Leafs refuse to use the President's English.
Prediction 9: Shit, these predictions are too mild. whatevs. wait for the season to actually start.
Assessment: I never made any further predictions after the season began.
Prediction 10: I refuse to make any predictions or write about the Canucks, Oilers, and Flames, due to their proximity to where nickelback is from. If the teams were to take it upon their own hands to eliminate this band, physically, I'll reconsider.
Assessment: I still have yet to write about these teams, and these teams still have yet to take up the offer. I guess that's a push.
So I guess that's not awful, considering how predictions rarely ever pan out, especially over the course of an entire 82 game season. I wonder if Puck the System will be back next year. I wonder if this was Gary Bettman's last year as commissioner. I wonder if NBC will expand its coverage of the NHL, or if VS. will reach an ESPN-esque level of viewership.
-- Knuttel
6.10.2010
THE BCS IS DEAD, THE BCS IS DEAD
THE BCS IS DEAD
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/06/report-colorado-to-announce-move-to-pac-10-on-friday/1
Colorado has officially left the Big 12 for the Pac-10. This means Nebraska's bid to leave is very much legit and most of the Big 12 south will vacate to go to the Pac-10.
If the Big 12 dissolves, and the Big Ten and Pac-10 become "super" conferences, the BCS will become very meaningless, if not now, then within a few years at least.
My fear is the BCS may undergo a new moniker, such as its previous incarnations as the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition, or whatever it used to be.
With these super conferences, and the huge wave of public support in a playoff system though, I think this is at least the path to something constructive.
-- Knuttel
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/06/report-colorado-to-announce-move-to-pac-10-on-friday/1
Colorado has officially left the Big 12 for the Pac-10. This means Nebraska's bid to leave is very much legit and most of the Big 12 south will vacate to go to the Pac-10.
If the Big 12 dissolves, and the Big Ten and Pac-10 become "super" conferences, the BCS will become very meaningless, if not now, then within a few years at least.
My fear is the BCS may undergo a new moniker, such as its previous incarnations as the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition, or whatever it used to be.
With these super conferences, and the huge wave of public support in a playoff system though, I think this is at least the path to something constructive.
-- Knuttel
PUCK THE SYSTEM:almost finale
AAAAAAAHHHHH. PUCK THE SYSTEM. AAAAAAAHHHHH. PUCK THE SYSTEM PUCK THE SYSTEM.
The season is now over.
It is not over because the Stanley Cup champion has been crowned, but rather because the Flyers have been eliminated from play. They just happenned to make it this far.
I shall later put up a post recapping the season, looking at my outlandish predictions, etc.
This post is for the Flyers.
The team hang in all year long. They were never outstanding, they were never awful, they just kept on keeping on.
The Flyers had a midseason coaching change and numerous goalie changes -- some due to injuries. Preseason single year contract goalie Ray Emery went down fairly early with a possibly season ending injury, worked his ass to get back, and went down for the count when the injury flared back up.
Brian Boucher, who's peak was in the earlier part of the decade, was just supposed to be a backup, a spot starter. Michael Leighton, league journeyman, was claimed off waivers mid season. Both came up HUGE in the playoffs. Which bugs me that I even ask the question "What if?" when thinking about the goaltending. What if Emery hadn't gotten hurt in the season and had been available in the post-season? Would they have made the post-season? What if Boucher hadn't gotten hurt in the series against the Bruins? He goaltended them into the playoffs and exorcised the demons of his rookie year, beating the Devils in the first round 4-1, losing the series in 2000 after being up 3-1. Not to mention the Flyers were in the middle of a series comeback against the Bruins when he got hurt. What if Michael Leighton had been better at plugging his 5 hole? He had 3 post-season shutouts.
In the end, it appears the Flyers hopes and dreams went along with their defense. When their defense played well, when Pronger stayed on the ice, they did well. The Flyers have 4 defenders that could be in any other teams top Defensive pairing -- Pronger, Carle, Timmonen, and Coburn. What if the other 2 had stepped up to the plate better? Parent had played well all season and post-season, until it was apparent he wasn't fast enough to keep up with the blackhawks, and was scratched from the rest of the series.
The forwards, I have no complaints about. Perhaps they had too much depth -- any game could have different 3 or 4th liners scratched. When Laperriere went down, Carcillo stepped into his role fine -- fine enough to raise questions when Laperriere returned, it was either Carcillo or Van Riemsdyk who had to not dress. Briere and Carter scored when the team needed points. Richards led the team hard, pounding both ends of the ice. Hartnell didn't stop, couldn't stop, won't stop.
In the end it just wasn't enough to win the cup, and that's fine. This team was the underdog in every single series they were in. They were almost swept in the second round by the Bruins, before they made one of the most memorable comebacks in sports history. The fact that they made it to the playoffs was an accomplishment enough, given they didn't have a berth until they beat the Rangers in a shootout on the last day.
The only bad coincidence is that the Phillies also made it to the Finals and lost (also in 6 games).
-- Knuttel
6.09.2010
Big Ten continued
So I saw that during a break in Jeopardy, so I had to post it, but alas, I had no time to expound and elaborate. Isn't that what this website is about?
So anyways.
Let's assume that this is it for Big Ten expansion, that no more schools will come forward and join them.
-- An East/West division system is likely. The East will probably be Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, and Purdue. The West will probably be Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwester, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska.
-- The Pac-10 will likely move in and take a good chunk of the southern schools of the Big12. This will likely spell the end of the Big 12. Given numbers, this means the Big Ten will become the new Big 12.
-- The SEC may also open up to and bid for some of the Texas schools, sensing a conference collapse, and possibly seeking to reunite Arkansas with some of its former conference mates.
-- If no conferences take any further Big 12 schools, the Big 12 itself may seek to re-shift and get some other school to fill the 12th spot, and maintain that championship game. Possible candidates for this include TCU, or possibly even some former Southwestern Conference members. Either the new school will join the Northern division, or Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, or Texas Tech will. I see the former option more likely, from 15 years of playing in these divisions and building up rivalries.
If the Big Ten is not done expanding, this is almost positive evidence that they are also adding Missouri. Missouri seemed like a sure shot to join the Big Ten, and if Nebraska is jumping ship, then Missouri will likely follow. This also means that there probably will be another east coast team to balance out everything geographically. Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn will open the conference to the New York market, and Pitt and West Virginia have geography and historic rivalries with Penn State. They may also contemplate another 2 teams on top of that, making a 16 team super group. The other two teams could really be any I've listed, plus Notre Dame, and maybe even Texas.
If the Big Ten and Pac-10 turn into huge 16 team conferences, the BCS will basically become useless. With the BCS useless, Notre Dame will have to join a conference in order to partake in this playoff system and have the chance at a national title.
If the Big Ten and Pac-10 turn into huge 16 team conferences, the SEC and ACC will likely follow suit, absorbing whatever schools are left over from the Big 12 and Big East.
The Texas legislature may be the biggest obstacle here. What power they have over these schools' conference alignment is unclear exactly to me, but they seem determined to keep these 4 schools in the Big 12 together. I guess because Rice, TCU, and SMU are private, they have no control over where they go, but Houston is not, and has not been with these Big 12 schools since 1996. Obviously Texas and Texas A&M are the two big targets here, being the two with the biggest football histories. Texas Tech has had some very exciting recent years, both in record and in play, so they are a target, however the coach responsible for these changes has been fired. Baylor seems like the odd one out. They're a team on the rise, so they may be able to compete in the Pac-10 or SEC. Not getting into one of these, however, basically amounts to relegation, which means less revenue, dramatically.
Notice all of the ifs in this post. This is all one writer's crazy speculation.
Orangebloods seems to be keeping up with this. Considering how theyre affiliated with Texas, I wonder if there's some ulterior motive.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1092612
-- Knuttel
So anyways.
Let's assume that this is it for Big Ten expansion, that no more schools will come forward and join them.
-- An East/West division system is likely. The East will probably be Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, and Purdue. The West will probably be Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwester, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska.
-- The Pac-10 will likely move in and take a good chunk of the southern schools of the Big12. This will likely spell the end of the Big 12. Given numbers, this means the Big Ten will become the new Big 12.
-- The SEC may also open up to and bid for some of the Texas schools, sensing a conference collapse, and possibly seeking to reunite Arkansas with some of its former conference mates.
-- If no conferences take any further Big 12 schools, the Big 12 itself may seek to re-shift and get some other school to fill the 12th spot, and maintain that championship game. Possible candidates for this include TCU, or possibly even some former Southwestern Conference members. Either the new school will join the Northern division, or Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, or Texas Tech will. I see the former option more likely, from 15 years of playing in these divisions and building up rivalries.
If the Big Ten is not done expanding, this is almost positive evidence that they are also adding Missouri. Missouri seemed like a sure shot to join the Big Ten, and if Nebraska is jumping ship, then Missouri will likely follow. This also means that there probably will be another east coast team to balance out everything geographically. Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn will open the conference to the New York market, and Pitt and West Virginia have geography and historic rivalries with Penn State. They may also contemplate another 2 teams on top of that, making a 16 team super group. The other two teams could really be any I've listed, plus Notre Dame, and maybe even Texas.
If the Big Ten and Pac-10 turn into huge 16 team conferences, the BCS will basically become useless. With the BCS useless, Notre Dame will have to join a conference in order to partake in this playoff system and have the chance at a national title.
If the Big Ten and Pac-10 turn into huge 16 team conferences, the SEC and ACC will likely follow suit, absorbing whatever schools are left over from the Big 12 and Big East.
The Texas legislature may be the biggest obstacle here. What power they have over these schools' conference alignment is unclear exactly to me, but they seem determined to keep these 4 schools in the Big 12 together. I guess because Rice, TCU, and SMU are private, they have no control over where they go, but Houston is not, and has not been with these Big 12 schools since 1996. Obviously Texas and Texas A&M are the two big targets here, being the two with the biggest football histories. Texas Tech has had some very exciting recent years, both in record and in play, so they are a target, however the coach responsible for these changes has been fired. Baylor seems like the odd one out. They're a team on the rise, so they may be able to compete in the Pac-10 or SEC. Not getting into one of these, however, basically amounts to relegation, which means less revenue, dramatically.
Notice all of the ifs in this post. This is all one writer's crazy speculation.
Orangebloods seems to be keeping up with this. Considering how theyre affiliated with Texas, I wonder if there's some ulterior motive.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1092612
-- Knuttel
Big Ten Expansion
It appears the Big 10 is now the Big 12, and the Big 12 now the Big 11, that is until everyone else leaves
http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/06/09/sports/doc4c0f8f017a8e2219807698.txt
http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/06/09/sports/doc4c0f8f017a8e2219807698.txt
6.08.2010
What did they expect, it's the Interwebs?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/25/AR2010052504396.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980
Personally I think it's one part stupid people, two parts internet trolls.
The fact that they brag about their twitter followers is alarming.
Seriously, why are politicians concerned about tweets?
Whatevs, that's what happens when you trust your public policy to "a series of tubes".
-- Knuttel
Personally I think it's one part stupid people, two parts internet trolls.
The fact that they brag about their twitter followers is alarming.
Seriously, why are politicians concerned about tweets?
Whatevs, that's what happens when you trust your public policy to "a series of tubes".
-- Knuttel
Conference Expansion: The end of the bcs?
If one were to listen to ESPN, one would assume all is peachy keen in bcs land, that this is the perfect system to last for eons, the constant force (which changes formulas almost every year) by which we decide who our College Football National Champion is.
Oddly enough, the conferences are making it look as if the bcs's days are numbered.
You see, the conferences are the foundation of the bcs. It is the reason there are bcs conferences and non-bcs conferences. To have a perfectly stable Big Ten, ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, and Notre Dame is what makes the bcs work as it does. (It is true that about a decade ago, the ACC poached some of the Big East's best schools, but the Big East responded by poaching some of the rising non-bcs talent in the eastern half of the country, and focusing more on becoming a basketball conference).
As we speak, the conferences are out in their meetings, in their own little bubbles, plotting and planning on expansion.
Namely the Big Ten and the Pac-10.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747
It's been common knowledge that the Big Ten has been looking to expand, though they haven't really shown their hand at how or how large. Already, despite their name, they have 11 schools (one can see it in the logo), though current NCAA rules state a conference needs 12 schools to have a conference championship game -- otherwise the conference gives the title away by conference standing, which is outrageous, Penn State has technically been co-champions for both of their Big Ten championships, both with Ohio State, a team that they also beat in both of those seasons.
Alas, I digress. Common sense seems to dictate Notre Dame is a target, seeing as how it almost joined the Big Ten in recent history, has rivalries with many Big Ten teams, and lies in the heart of Big Ten territory (Indiana, on the outskirts of Chicagoland). Simply adding Notre Dame would make it 12, and enable a conference championship game. But Notre Dame likely won't go for this, citing tradition (bs) and playing service academies out of respect (padding the schedule, they don't play airforce though, and have FINALLY started losing to Navy). So the Big Ten will likely target other schools. They can either go east, west, or arguably both.
East-ways they can give Penn State some east-coast company by taking a Big East school -- rumored candidates include Rutgers, Pitt (which would re-enable the fabled PSU/Pitt rivalry), Syracuse, and West Virginia.
West-ways they'll likely target some Big 12 schools, and this is where it gets really interesting. Missouri is all but looking for an excuse to jump to the Big Ten. They already have a rivalry with Illinois in basically every sport, and don't like the Big 12's revenue sharing model, which directs most of the funds to the University of Texas. They can also target Iowa State (to complete the Iowa pair), Nebraska, and maybe even Colorado or Kansas (getting Kansas with Missouri would keep that rivalry intact). They also are rumored to target the University of Texas itself.
This is where the Pac-10 comes in. They are looking to expand eastward, get into some new markets. The link I provided earlier (which isn't as much hearsay as one may believe, I've seen similar info on other sites) shows the Pac-10's plan to annex UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado -- making it a 16 team conference. The six invited Big 12 schools would likely form a division with Arizona and Arizona State, making an inland division and coastal division.
IF something like this were to go down PRECISELY like this, it would effectively end the Big 12 as a conference (though to be fair it's only like 15 years old anyway). The northern teams head east to the Big 10, the southern teams head west to the Pac-10.
The problem is, not every Big 12 school is on board with this.
Texas has no incentive to leave the Big 12, so long as it stays intact. It gets the most money from the revenue sharing model and is still a member of a bcs conference.
Texas A&M may not want to play so many games on the west coast. Already school officials have grumbled about past games on the west coast, and students being forced to return very late. If they were to join the Pac-10, this would be a very regular occurrence. Also, while they are a chief rival of Texas, they may want to get out of their shadow. Alternate plans show this school heading to the SEC if the Big 12 crumbles.
Which brings me to my next thing -- Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may want to also head to the SEC to get out of the Big 12. It would reunite them with fellow former Southwest conference member Arkansas, and would move them away from Texas, who as was previously stated, takes a substantial piece of revenue.
The legislature of the State of Texas may also mess this scenario up, as they may want to keep the 4 Texas schools of the Big 12 together (notice I have never mentioned Baylor until just now). It may also affect the other Texas schools of division 1 football -- Houston, Rice, SMU, TCU, Northern Texas, and UTEP (the first 4 of those former members of the Southwest football conference).
I wonder if the Pac-10 is also looking at the non-bcs risers of late. All of them fit in the geographic region that is either typically covered by the Pac-10, or is targeted by them now. Boise State and Utah being in the former category, TCU in the latter.
So all of this, in the end, focuses on the State of Texas. Why? The same reason Texas gets most of the money in the Big 12's revenue sharing agreement now -- Television.
The Big Ten Network has been a large success for the conference (after a bumpy start getting it broadcast) and has shown an effective way for a conference to monopolize and control the television coverage, and therefore incoming revenue, of the conferences sports, while also giving the conference a way to show it's other athletics which wouldn't usually get televised (soccer, swimming, track, etc). Notre Dame would hypothetically open the conference up to a national audience, though I don't think Notre Dame has the same national pull it had in, say, 1948. Which brings us to Texas. Texas is the second most populous state in the nation (California, the first, is under a pretty tight Pac-10 grip), and thus the target of many of these conferences. Plus it is in the middle of the country, so it's not like the Big East is asking for USC, it's the conference moving either east-ward or west-ward.
The large market is also the reason some of the Big East schools are targets of the Big Ten -- getting Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn would open the conference to either the state or city of New York. Pitt and West Virginia are both geographically closer to the Big Ten and have ties with Penn State.
Anyways -- what does this mean for the bcs?
Well, let's assume the Big Ten expands to 16 schools (what they are is kind of irrelevant, and will just be a large puzzle making excercise for me), the Pac-10 also wants to expand to 16-ish schools so it can compete. The SEC and ACC pick up the scraps of the Big 12 and Big East and also create 16 team conferences (again, I don't really care if the numbers are off by a little). BOOM. 4 Conference champions. 4 team playoff for the national champion -- just like that. Yes, this would likely exclude the non-bcs conferences, in the grand scheme of things the big conferences don't care about the little ones -- Joepa I feel usually speaks out against the conferences out of his own frustration of being continuously left out while Penn State was independent until the 90s (that's over 20 years of putting up with that shit, I don't care if he's 80 something, you have to remember that). Maybe it will force the non-bcs conferences to consolidate into their own bigger conferences -- this would be much easier if the current powers don't jump to higher grounds -- and they can enter into the playoff process. BOOM. 8 team playoff for the national champion. The problem of working around the current Conference format to slide in some sort of national championship is no more.
Expanding the conferences not only makes the "selection" process that much simpler, but it also destroys the historic bowl ties, that nostalgia loosely holds in place. Where does the Cotton Bowl go if the State of Texas is split up? Will People want to see a Rutgers/Colorado Rose Bowl? Sure, they'll probably still exist, but they'll probably have a better chance of surviving as consolation games, and nothing else (though to be fair, when there's like 40 bowl games, they're pretty much all consolation games).
The bcs is complaining about how long and painful a playoff system would be, yet the NCAA is considering adding even more teams to their annual basketball tournament. It's already at 65, which would be about half of Division 1-fbs football.
People must hate that tournament if they have to add even more schools to get people to watch it.
-- Knuttel
Oddly enough, the conferences are making it look as if the bcs's days are numbered.
You see, the conferences are the foundation of the bcs. It is the reason there are bcs conferences and non-bcs conferences. To have a perfectly stable Big Ten, ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, and Notre Dame is what makes the bcs work as it does. (It is true that about a decade ago, the ACC poached some of the Big East's best schools, but the Big East responded by poaching some of the rising non-bcs talent in the eastern half of the country, and focusing more on becoming a basketball conference).
As we speak, the conferences are out in their meetings, in their own little bubbles, plotting and planning on expansion.
Namely the Big Ten and the Pac-10.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747
It's been common knowledge that the Big Ten has been looking to expand, though they haven't really shown their hand at how or how large. Already, despite their name, they have 11 schools (one can see it in the logo), though current NCAA rules state a conference needs 12 schools to have a conference championship game -- otherwise the conference gives the title away by conference standing, which is outrageous, Penn State has technically been co-champions for both of their Big Ten championships, both with Ohio State, a team that they also beat in both of those seasons.
Alas, I digress. Common sense seems to dictate Notre Dame is a target, seeing as how it almost joined the Big Ten in recent history, has rivalries with many Big Ten teams, and lies in the heart of Big Ten territory (Indiana, on the outskirts of Chicagoland). Simply adding Notre Dame would make it 12, and enable a conference championship game. But Notre Dame likely won't go for this, citing tradition (bs) and playing service academies out of respect (padding the schedule, they don't play airforce though, and have FINALLY started losing to Navy). So the Big Ten will likely target other schools. They can either go east, west, or arguably both.
East-ways they can give Penn State some east-coast company by taking a Big East school -- rumored candidates include Rutgers, Pitt (which would re-enable the fabled PSU/Pitt rivalry), Syracuse, and West Virginia.
West-ways they'll likely target some Big 12 schools, and this is where it gets really interesting. Missouri is all but looking for an excuse to jump to the Big Ten. They already have a rivalry with Illinois in basically every sport, and don't like the Big 12's revenue sharing model, which directs most of the funds to the University of Texas. They can also target Iowa State (to complete the Iowa pair), Nebraska, and maybe even Colorado or Kansas (getting Kansas with Missouri would keep that rivalry intact). They also are rumored to target the University of Texas itself.
This is where the Pac-10 comes in. They are looking to expand eastward, get into some new markets. The link I provided earlier (which isn't as much hearsay as one may believe, I've seen similar info on other sites) shows the Pac-10's plan to annex UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado -- making it a 16 team conference. The six invited Big 12 schools would likely form a division with Arizona and Arizona State, making an inland division and coastal division.
IF something like this were to go down PRECISELY like this, it would effectively end the Big 12 as a conference (though to be fair it's only like 15 years old anyway). The northern teams head east to the Big 10, the southern teams head west to the Pac-10.
The problem is, not every Big 12 school is on board with this.
Texas has no incentive to leave the Big 12, so long as it stays intact. It gets the most money from the revenue sharing model and is still a member of a bcs conference.
Texas A&M may not want to play so many games on the west coast. Already school officials have grumbled about past games on the west coast, and students being forced to return very late. If they were to join the Pac-10, this would be a very regular occurrence. Also, while they are a chief rival of Texas, they may want to get out of their shadow. Alternate plans show this school heading to the SEC if the Big 12 crumbles.
Which brings me to my next thing -- Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may want to also head to the SEC to get out of the Big 12. It would reunite them with fellow former Southwest conference member Arkansas, and would move them away from Texas, who as was previously stated, takes a substantial piece of revenue.
The legislature of the State of Texas may also mess this scenario up, as they may want to keep the 4 Texas schools of the Big 12 together (notice I have never mentioned Baylor until just now). It may also affect the other Texas schools of division 1 football -- Houston, Rice, SMU, TCU, Northern Texas, and UTEP (the first 4 of those former members of the Southwest football conference).
I wonder if the Pac-10 is also looking at the non-bcs risers of late. All of them fit in the geographic region that is either typically covered by the Pac-10, or is targeted by them now. Boise State and Utah being in the former category, TCU in the latter.
So all of this, in the end, focuses on the State of Texas. Why? The same reason Texas gets most of the money in the Big 12's revenue sharing agreement now -- Television.
The Big Ten Network has been a large success for the conference (after a bumpy start getting it broadcast) and has shown an effective way for a conference to monopolize and control the television coverage, and therefore incoming revenue, of the conferences sports, while also giving the conference a way to show it's other athletics which wouldn't usually get televised (soccer, swimming, track, etc). Notre Dame would hypothetically open the conference up to a national audience, though I don't think Notre Dame has the same national pull it had in, say, 1948. Which brings us to Texas. Texas is the second most populous state in the nation (California, the first, is under a pretty tight Pac-10 grip), and thus the target of many of these conferences. Plus it is in the middle of the country, so it's not like the Big East is asking for USC, it's the conference moving either east-ward or west-ward.
The large market is also the reason some of the Big East schools are targets of the Big Ten -- getting Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn would open the conference to either the state or city of New York. Pitt and West Virginia are both geographically closer to the Big Ten and have ties with Penn State.
Anyways -- what does this mean for the bcs?
Well, let's assume the Big Ten expands to 16 schools (what they are is kind of irrelevant, and will just be a large puzzle making excercise for me), the Pac-10 also wants to expand to 16-ish schools so it can compete. The SEC and ACC pick up the scraps of the Big 12 and Big East and also create 16 team conferences (again, I don't really care if the numbers are off by a little). BOOM. 4 Conference champions. 4 team playoff for the national champion -- just like that. Yes, this would likely exclude the non-bcs conferences, in the grand scheme of things the big conferences don't care about the little ones -- Joepa I feel usually speaks out against the conferences out of his own frustration of being continuously left out while Penn State was independent until the 90s (that's over 20 years of putting up with that shit, I don't care if he's 80 something, you have to remember that). Maybe it will force the non-bcs conferences to consolidate into their own bigger conferences -- this would be much easier if the current powers don't jump to higher grounds -- and they can enter into the playoff process. BOOM. 8 team playoff for the national champion. The problem of working around the current Conference format to slide in some sort of national championship is no more.
Expanding the conferences not only makes the "selection" process that much simpler, but it also destroys the historic bowl ties, that nostalgia loosely holds in place. Where does the Cotton Bowl go if the State of Texas is split up? Will People want to see a Rutgers/Colorado Rose Bowl? Sure, they'll probably still exist, but they'll probably have a better chance of surviving as consolation games, and nothing else (though to be fair, when there's like 40 bowl games, they're pretty much all consolation games).
The bcs is complaining about how long and painful a playoff system would be, yet the NCAA is considering adding even more teams to their annual basketball tournament. It's already at 65, which would be about half of Division 1-fbs football.
People must hate that tournament if they have to add even more schools to get people to watch it.
-- Knuttel
6.01.2010
Primaries, after the fact
So I was going to put up something about the results of the primaries in several states, including my own Pennsylvania, but fuggin side projects of re-doing parts of the house have stopped that.
so here's the important stuff
Arlen Specter lost -- Joe Sestak won
Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul won in Kentucky
An almost complete outsider won the Democratic spot for governor in PA
Pat Toomey won
A lot of incumbents lost everywhere
The interesting thing about the Governor in PA spot is there was no incumbent -- Ed Rendell has served the maximum amount of terms. But everything turned against whoever seemed to get support from incumbents or the establishment. Not to mention, the field was so wide open, votes were spread out. The mayor from Allegheny county ended up winning, possibly because there were too many Philadelphia candidates running.
In any case, more specific articles will follow on these results.
-- Knuttel
so here's the important stuff
Arlen Specter lost -- Joe Sestak won
Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul won in Kentucky
An almost complete outsider won the Democratic spot for governor in PA
Pat Toomey won
A lot of incumbents lost everywhere
The interesting thing about the Governor in PA spot is there was no incumbent -- Ed Rendell has served the maximum amount of terms. But everything turned against whoever seemed to get support from incumbents or the establishment. Not to mention, the field was so wide open, votes were spread out. The mayor from Allegheny county ended up winning, possibly because there were too many Philadelphia candidates running.
In any case, more specific articles will follow on these results.
-- Knuttel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)