My old blog

Bum bum be-dum bum bum be-dum bum

2008-08-09T09:04:00.002-05:00

Tic-Tac-Toe Tips

2008-06-01T17:25:00.002-05:00

Since I am the greatest tic-tac-toe player in the world (actually tied with thousands for that title), I thought I'd write up a basic strategy for the game, whose secrets I cracked in high school study hall.

The Board & Basics

There are nine spaces or boxes in tic-tac-toe that can be played. They can be grouped into three categories:

The center square (5)
Corner squares (1,3,7,9)
Edge squares (2,4,6,8)

The goal as most know, is to get three of your symbol in a row. The only way this can be done, without counting on a silly oversight by your opponent, is to move in such a way that there becomes 2 ways for you to win - thus creating a situation where your opponent cannot block both of them.

Going First

If you have the first move, you should be playing to win. Although it is impossible for anyone to win if the opponent has optimum strategy (every game between two perfect players is a draw), many do not. You may think that with the first move you have nine spaces to choose from. You would be wrong. In reality, you only have three choices: center, corner, or edge. All the squares in a category are actually the same for the first move. Simply rotating the game board can prove this.

Corner Strategy

My preferred first move against an inexperienced opponent is to choose one of the corner squares. As mentioned above, it doesn't matter which one.

Non-Center Square Opponent Move

If your opponent does not then select the center square with their first square, you will win, your opponent can no longer stop you if you employ proper strategy. (The strategies listed are not necessary the only successful ones for the scenario, but are sufficiently unstoppable). When I say "guarantee your win" this means that you have set up a scenario where on your next turn you will have at least 2 ways to win, and your opponent can't stop both of them. Being forced to move somewhere means that you (or the opponent) must select a certain space to prevent a win.

For example if your first move was square 1:

and you opponent selects square 2, then play square 7. When your opponent is forced to play square 4, then play square 3, 5, or 9 to guarantee your win.

… selects square 3, then play square 7. When your opponent is forced to play square 4, then play square 9 to guarantee your win.

… selects square 4, then play square 3. When your opponent is forced to play square 2, then play square 5 or 9 to guarantee your win.

… selects square 6, the play square 3. When your opponent is forced to play square 2, then play square 5 or 7 to guarantee your win.

… selects square 7, then play square 3. When your opponent is forced to play square 2, then play square 9 to guarantee your win.

… selects square 8, then play square 7. When your opponent is forced to play square 4, then play square 3 or 5 to guarantee your win.

… selects square 9, then play square 3. When your opponent is forced to play square 2, then play square 7 to guarantee your win.

The scenarios for your corner moves starting in 3, 7, or 9 are, as you would expect, remarkably similar and are left as an exercise to the reader.

Center Square Opponent Move

If your opponent makes his first move in the center square (remember this after you have moved in a corner square), you will have a much tougher time winning. In fact your only chance for a guaranteed win, barring a catastrophic blunder from your opponent, is to make your next move in the opposite corner and hope your opponent then selects another corner for his second move.

That is, if your select square 1, your opponent selects square 5, then you should select square 9. If you opponent then selects either 3 or 7 you can select the remaining corner square and guarantee your win.

Center Square Strategy

As an alterative to the corner first strategy, you may want to consider selecting the center square with your first move. This offers fewer chances to win then the corner first strategy, but is a nice mix-up to someone who is becoming wise to the corner first strategy.

Edge Square Opponent Move

If in response to your center square selection, your opponent selects an edge square, you can be certain of victory. Assuming you use correct strategy of course. Once again, the strategies listed are not necessary the only successful ones for the scenario, but are sufficiently unstoppable.

For example if your first move was square 5:

and you opponent selects square 2, then play square 3. When your opponent is forced to play square 7, then play square 6 or 9 to guarantee your win.

… selects square 4, then play square 1. When your opponent is forced to play square 9, then play square 3 or 7 to guarantee your win.

… selects square 6, then play square 9. When your opponent is forced to play square 1, then play square 7 or 8 to guarantee your win.

… selects square 8, then play square 7. When your opponent is forced to play square 3, hen play 1 or 4 to guarantee your win.

Corner Square Opponent Move

If in response to your center square selection, your opponent selects a corner square, you will have a much harder time wining. In fact your only chance for a guaranteed win, barring a catastrophic blunder from your opponent, is to make your next move in the opposite corner of your opponents move, and then hope your opponent selects an edge square with their second selection.
For example, if you select square 5 with the first move, and your opponent selects square 1, and in response you select square 9, then if

you opponent selects square 2, then you are forced to play square 3, and this gives you a guaranteed win.

… plays square 4, then you are forced to play square 7, and this gives you a guaranteed win.

… plays square 6, then you play square 8, giving yourself a guaranteed win.

… plays square 8, then you play square 6, giving yourself a guaranteed win.

The scenarios for the opponent's first move in a corner other than square 1 are, as you would expect, remarkably similar and are left as an exercise to the reader.

Edge Square Strategy

Your other option when making the first selection is to select an edge square. As this is the weakest first move, it is not recommended for beginning players.

Going Second

Of course, you do not always get to go first. When you are playing second, your goal should be to force a cat game (that is, a draw) because you cannot win unless your opponent makes a very grievous mistake.

The golden rule of going second is this: If your opponent doesn't take the center square, you must take it. And if your opponent does take the center square, you must take a corner square. This solves approximately 90% of the problems of going second. All you have to do from there is to avoid the secondary pitfalls. Most of these can be determined from the going first section, just put yourself and the place of the opponent.

Good night and good luck.

Not that luck is a factor in tic-tac-toe.

I thought I saw a rat in my apartment

2008-03-06T00:29:00.000-06:00

On closer examination in proved to be a giant cockroach!

And yes, I killed it. Never had to resort to using a shoe to kill a cockroach before.

BIg Thumbs Down to Mavs Trade

2008-02-13T19:21:00.003-06:00

The deal looks like:

Jason Kidd and Malik Allen

for

Devin Harris and DeSagana Diop and Jerry Stackhouse and Devean George and Maurice Ager and the Mavs' 2008 1st round pick and the Mavs' 2010 1st round pick and $3 million.

Stackhouse may be cut be New Jersey for money reasons and may come back to Dallas. Allen is probably a meaningless throw in so the Mavs can meet roster requirements.

I think this is a horrible trade for the Mavs. Consider that stat averages:

Jason Kidd - 37 minutes, 11.3 points, 10.4 assists, 3.6 turnovers, 36.6% shooting.

Devin Harris - 30 minutes, 14.4 points 5.3 assists, 2.4 turnovers, 48.3% shooting.

Kidd is the superstar he once was. Even so Kidd is still a first rate ball distributor, especially in the full court. Kidd is also an excellent rebounder for a point guard, although this will probably drop in Dallas as Howard, Nowitzki, and Dampier will clear the defensive boards nicely. He's also got experience.

However, Kidd has lost a step defensively, it appears from such examples as Gary Payton that defense is the first thing to go for old point guards. Harris is one of the top defensive point guards in the league, many consider him the best. With the possible meeting up with Steve Nash, Tony Parker, and Chris Paul in the playoffs this could be crucial.

Compared to Kidd, Harris is so much of a better shooter it isn't even funny. He's also the only Maverick to show to the ability to drive to the basket with anything approaching regularity (which is the Mavs biggest problem - settling for jump shots).

The advantage of Kidd over Harris this season isn't as great as supposed. Throw in Diop and it's a trade I probably wouldn't make even if it was just for this season. Diop has struggled somewhat this season, but he's crucial to the Mavs dual center set-up of Dampier and Diop. With the Lakers adding Gasol, and the Suns adding Shaq, and Duncan and Yao still in the West, the Mavs badly need both of the centers.

This is supposed to be a future for now trade, where the Mavs give up some future assets for being better now. I'm not at all convinced that this trade makes the Mavs better this season. Factor in the future, Kidd's age against Kidd's and Diop's and the draft picks given up it's just a horrible trade. It is certain to make them worse in the future and doesn't make them better now.

American Gladiators

2008-01-29T21:07:00.000-06:00

It doesn't capture the magic of the original, but it's not bad. My favorite gladiators so far are Justice, who appears to be the most competent of the male gladiators and isn't overly gimmicky, and Crush, for a more obvious reason.

The most annoying thing is the increase in the number of commercials and jabbering that combine to decrease the number of events that the contestants get to do. This is followed closely by some problems with the Eliminator.

A look at the events:

Assault: The changes to this event are bad ones. Having to load the weapons and the silly digging in the sand for an arrow make things take to long for the contestants.

Earthquake: This event is ok, but I don't like how the ropes come into play so much. All and all, I'd rather have Breakthrough and Conquer back.

Gauntlet: Nice to see this one back.

Hang Tough: It has less rings than the original version, I'm undecided as to the question if it is an improvement or not.

Hit & Run: Lame. Is it the lamest event ever? It does have competition with Swingshot and Sky Track.

Joust: Perhaps my favorite, but the gladiators need to step it up.

Powerball: One of my favorites. The change to make the opening on the scoring containers bigger is a good one, but perhaps overdone just a little.

Pyramid: Another event (with Gauntlet) that wasn't on every season of the original series that it's good to see back.

The Wall: The Wall is the Wall, never one of my favorites.

Which brings us to the Eliminator. The Eliminator was always the deciding event, but in the new version it is decisive to the point that the first four events have basically not mattered. Even worse, it one aspect of the eliminator that has decide 75% of the contests - the treadmill. In addition, there's no longer a time penalty for falling of the hand bike. It would have been better for half the men and almost all the women to fall off on purpose at the start. This is a something that needs to be changed. Hopefully these factors will not be as decisive in the 2nd round of competition.

An Announcement

2008-01-20T17:13:00.000-06:00

I am now officially caffeinated and carbonated beverage free.

Now I can be a Mormon ;-)

2008-01-17T01:23:00.000-06:00

Someone quoted what I was going to, so instead I'll have to quote something thoroughly depressing.

Pj Harvey - Who Will Love Me Now

In the forest, is a monster
It has done terrible things
So in the wood, it's hiding
And this is the song it sings

Who will love me now?
Who will ever love me?
Who will say to me
"You are my desire, I set you free?"

(Who will love me now?)

Who will forgive and make me live again?
Who will bring me back to the world again?

In the forest, is a monster
And it looks so very much like me
Will someone hear me singing?
Please save me, please rescue me

Who will love me now?
Who will ever love me?
Who will say to me
"You are my desire, I set you free?"

Who will love me now?
Who will ever love me?
Who will say to me
"You are my desire, I set you free?"

(Who will love me now?)
(Who will ever love me?)

Who will love me now?
Who will ever love me?
Who will love me now?
Who will ever love me?
Who will love me now?
Who will ever love me?

Conference Data Update

2008-01-08T23:32:00.000-06:00

Here's an update taking into account the bowl games.

Check here for an explanation of the data.

The Pac-10 still appears to be the top conference, with the best record and the best margin of victory. A case could be made for the SEC with it's tougher schedule. The one match up between the two saw California beat Tennessee. I still saying the Pac-10 has been the best conference in games between BCS conferences.

After the top two, it looks safe to say the Big 12's impressive bowl run has brought it up to third place. The Big East gets fourth - because of the Big 10's (fifth place) still favorable schedule. The ACC looks to be locked in the cellar.

A Time to Brag, Part 2

2007-12-31T17:01:00.000-06:00

Sure, I could mention how I won my fantasy football league...

Or, how I was in the top 6% picking games against the line. (Only 53.1% correct though, which is only barely over break even because of the vig - which goes to show that most people should never bet real money on sports).

But what I really what to mention is how I successfully completed 17 weeks of the Eliminator challenge (also called a suicide pool or survivor). I was one of only 447 of about 150,000 that managed that on ESPN's game.

Since this is a bragging thread comments that are deemed insufficiently praiseworthy of my prowess will be deleted.

Note: my picture storage is having problems so this thread is less awesome than I had hoped for.

Hmmm....

2007-12-20T05:08:00.001-06:00

A different new record

2007-12-12T18:09:00.000-06:00

Someone posted a link to my previous post (the conference analysis) on an ESPN forum, which resulted in me receiving 36 unique visitors in a single day.

Also, I've finally updated my ZFT Article links (on the sidebar) to link to my review of Decision Making & the Will of God.

College Football - An Analysis of the BCS Conferences

2007-12-04T23:21:00.000-06:00

A standard issue for debate amongst college football fans is the relative strength of conferences. It can generate alot of heat, but the argument is seldom accompanied by much in the way of actual facts.

For some fans, it's not enough for others to admit that their conferences has been perhaps the strongest over the last decade. No, their conference has to be the best every single year. And not only the best, it has to be acknowledged as clearly the best. This is particularly true for fans of one conference in particular. You know who you are.

So, here are some actual facts for the debate this season. My apologies for the small size.

This table displays:

1. The name of a conference. The 6 major conferences are included.

2. Their record against teams from the other 5 major conferences.

3. Their total points for and total points against in said games, as well as the average margin of victory (or defeat in those games).

4. The relative schedule difficulty for the conference in said games. Note: a negative score means their opponents have had better conference records than they themselves had, and a positive score means the opposite. For instance, if the average ACC team playing a team from major conference had a ACC record of 4-4, then their average opponent had a 4.55-3.45 record and their conference.

5. The conference's record in games as a favorite. Favorite is defined as their team having a conference record one game or more better than their opponent's conference record in their conference. For example, Ohio St. at (7-1) in the Big 10, vs. Washington at (2-7) in the PAC-10 counts as a favorite game for the Big 10.

6. The conference's record in games that are even match-ups. Even match-ups are defined as games in which the teams have identical conference records, or in which the teams have conference records that are within a half game of each other. For example, Virginia at (6-2) in the ACC vs. Connecticut at (5-2) in the Big East counts as an even game for both conferences.

7. The conference's record in games as an underdog. Underdog is defined as their team having a conference record one game or more worse than their opponent's conference record in their conference. For example, Ohio St. at (7-1) in the Big 10, vs. Washington at (2-7) in the PAC-10 counts as a underdog game for the PAC
10.

Notes:

1. Conference championship games are not counted in determining a team's conference record. This is because a conference championship game artificially strengthens a conference vs. a conference that does not have one (by giving a top team an additional conference loss, which is more significant than a top team getting an additional win, it would lower the expectation of the loser in out-of-conference play more than it would raise the winner's).

2. Although it may look like the the PAC-10 is ducking other conferences more than other conferences are doing, it has to be remembered that the PAC-10 plays an extra conference game than other conferences (two more than the Big East), in effect giving them another 10 games against BCS level opponents that other conferences don't play. Also, the Big East plays one less conference game than the other conferences (two less than the PAC 10), in effect giving them 8 less games against BCS level competition than other conferences.

3. This is obviously an attempt to compare conferences based on how they fared in games against each other. It is not perfect for two reasons. The first is obvious, teams do not always play at the same level, they have better games and worse games. This is an unavoidable problem for any way of analysis (polls or anything else) and can't be fixed by any method.

The second is that the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, and SEC have unbalanced schedules. That is, a team in those conferences does not play every other team in that conference. This somewhat balances itself out. It could be fixed by treating separate schedules as separate conferences, i.e. the group of teams Kansas played (also including Kansas) could be labeled Big 12a, and the group of teams Oklahoma played (also including Oklahoma) could be labeled Big 12b, and so on. However, this would be horribly complicated and it would be difficult to speak of a conference as a single entity.

Another possible solution would be to treat the two divisions of conferences as separate conferences, with the games between schools in different divisions not counting or counting as out of conference games. Either way, you would have to speak of the conference as 2 entities and not 1 (which is necessary for the purpose of this analysis). In addition, this approach would not work for the Big 10, which does not have divisions but does have an unbalanced schedule.

4. Notre Dame (and hence games against Notre Dame) are not included in this study, even though they are an independent BCS level team (albeit a poor one this season). This is because it would be unfair to do so when some conferences have played games against Notre Dame and others haven't.

It could also be misleading including Notre Dame and not other schools from mid-majors that are nevertheless of major conference quality, such as Hawaii and BYU (meaning that they could compete with major conference schools better than Baylor or Mississippi, not that they would have their same record if they played in a major conference). This study looks solely at games between schools from the 6 major (BCS) conferences.

The conferences ranked by the various means:

Winning Percentage:

1. PAC 10: .625
2. Big 10: .556
3. SEC: .500
4. ACC: .474
5. Big East: .467
6. Big 12: .455

Scoring Margin:

1. Big 10: 6.00
2. PAC 10: 5.25
3. SEC: 3.79
4. Big East: 1.07
5. Big 12: -3.00
6. ACC: -6.95

Schedule Difficulty:

1. PAC 10: -0.63
2. ACC: -0.55
3. SEC: -0.29
4. Big 12: -0.18
5. Big East: 0.1
6. Big 10: 2.22

Winning Percentage as Favorite:

1. Big East: 1.00
2. SEC: .800
3. Big 12: .750
4. PAC 10: .667
5. ACC: .600
6. Big 10: .571

Winning Percentage as Even:

1. Big 10: 1.00*
1. PAC 10: 1.00*
3. ACC: .667
4. SEC: .500
5. Big East: .286
6. Big 12: .000*

Winning Percentage as Underdog:

1. PAC 10: .500
2. Big 12: .333
3. ACC: .250
3. Big East: .250
5. SEC: .200
6. Big 10: .000*

* - donates that the conference only played one game in that category

An attempt to form a semi-objective synthesis:

Adding the ranks of winning percentage, scoring margin, and schedule difficulty gives:

1. PAC 10: 4
2. Big 10: 9
2. SEC: 9
4. ACC: 12
5. Big East: 14
6. Big 12: 15

A second attempt to form a semi-objective synthesis:

The formula is the same as above, however winning percentage is replaced by the average ranks of the winning percentage in the 3 categories (favorite, even, and underdog).

1. PAC 10: 5.17
2. SEC: 9.67
3. Big 10: 11.5
4. ACC: 11.83
5. Big East: 12.17
6. Big 12: 12.67

Criticism of the attempts to form a semi-objective synthesis:

First, it makes the classic analyst error of giving categories equal weight. However, there is no reason to conclude that the categories should be weighted equally. Secondly, the ranks are evenly spaced, but the actual data is not. For example, the difference between the schedule difficulties of first and second place is smaller than the difference between second and third place, but the difference between their ranks is not. Thirdly, the categories are not mutually exclusive, but the extent to which they are related is not possible to determine (although one might be able to make an approximation if you had access to all the data in a supercomputer).

The second attempt has an additional criticism. In two categories there are conferences that only played one game. But who is to say that the PAC-10's 1-0 record in even games is more impressive than the ACC's 4-2 record. An alternative may be to take games over or above .500, but this creates other problems.

My subjective rankings:

1. PAC-10: They had the best overall record, and it was against the toughest average match-ups of any conference. They also had the 2nd best average scoring margin. They are the obvious top pick for the best conference in games between major conference teams.

2. SEC: In some ways they seem merely a perfectly average conference. A 7-7 record, a perfect mirror - 4-1 as a favorite, 2-2 as evens, and 1-4 as underdogs. However, they did this with a positive scoring margin and a unfavorable average match-up, thus earning my second spot.

After these two, deciding between the conferences gets really difficult. There is simply no way to account for the Big 10's amazingly favorable match-ups, their strength of schedule number is the most unique number in the whole study. This makes evaluated the conference virtually impossible.

The average Big 10 team playing a non-conference game had a conference record of 4.89-3.11, whereas their opponents average conference record was 2.67-5.33. What this means is that the Big 10's top teams played more games against other major conferences than their bottom teams did, and they almost invariably played against the bottom half of other conferences. Of their 9 games against other major conference teams, their were favored (by respective conference records) in 7 of them, and only a underdog in one. Despite having an overall record of 5-4, and having the highest margin of victory, they had the worse record of any conference as a favorite at 4-3, and only played one game in the other two categories, which makes forming a conclusion about those categories difficult.

Compare this to the ACC which went 9-10 overall and had the worst scoring margin, but faced the second toughest match-ups and had arguably the best performance in even match-ups. Therefore, I'm wussing out and making a tie for third.

3. ACC
3. Big 10
5. Big East - Despite their 2-5 record in even games, their impressive 4-0 record as favorites, and their positive score margin gives them the nod to avoid the cellar.
6. Big 12 - My pick for last, the combination of the worst record and second worse scoring margin puts them in the basement.

The Bottom Line

In conclusion, the thing that stands out the most is how even the conferences are. There's decent arguments for having the 3rd-6th conferences in any order, and even the PAC-10 was only one game from falling back to the pack (horrible pun intended). The claims of homer fans of a certain conference (once again, you know who you are) that their conference is far and away the best are unfounded.

College Football Rankings 12-2

2007-12-02T00:19:00.000-06:00

This is probably the craziest season ever. And we need a playoff.

Anyways, I've rethought things a bit.

1. Ohio St. (11-1) - Had finished their season.

2. LSU (11-2) - Beat Tennessee for the SEC Championship. They had a bunch of close games, but those did include their 2 loses. The early season win over Virginia Tech puts them over the top for the 2 spot.

3. USC (10-2) - Beat UCLA. I think they're better than LSU, but they lost to Stanford, and you just can't do that.

4. Oklahoma (11-2) - Beat Missouri for the Big 12 Championship. So they can play at neutral sites, even if they never proved they can play on the road.

5. Virginia Tech (11-2) - Beat Boston College for the ACC Championship.

6. Georgia (10-2) - Had finished their season.

7. Missouri (11-2) - Lost to Oklahoma. They don't have the defense or the power running game in the red zone needed to hang with the top teams.

8. Arizona St. (10-2) - Beat Arizona. An overlooked team.

9. Kansas (11-1) - Had finished their season. They drop significantly though. Since Missouri was the only really good team they played, their ranking is tied heavily to Missouri's performance.

10. West Virginia (10-2) - Loss to Pittsburgh. Sorry, but QB injuries are part of the game. Just ask Oregon or California or Oklahoma or USC... Maybe this spot should go to Florida.

A New Record

2007-11-30T21:31:00.000-06:00

I used 131 of my anytime minutes this last monthly period. Note, that doesn't even include mights and weekends.

(I should probably mention that the above is a record high, not a record low).

College Football Rankings 11-25

2007-11-24T23:10:00.000-06:00

My #1 goes down for the third straight week. I guarantee it won't happen next week though.

And I must say I whole-heartily approve of the increase use of the triple option that seems to be creeping up.

1. Ohio St. (11-1) - Their (regular) season is finished.

2. Missouri (11-1) - Beat Kansas, but the defense is a concern. A chance to revenge their only loss next week and perhaps gain my #1 spot.

3. Kansas (11-1) - Looked overwhelmed in the first half, but outplayed Missouri in the 2nd. Could have been right there if it wasn't for the missed field goals. Their best wins are at Colorado and at Texas A+M.

4. West Virginia (10-1) - Trounced an overmatched UConn team. They've lost to a worse team than Kansas (South Florida) and their best wins (at Mississippi St and at Cincinnati) do not seem any more impressive than Kansas'.

5. USC (9-2) - Impressive win at Arizona St. They've got it back together and might be the favorite if there was a playoff. UCLA next.

6. LSU (10-2) - Lost in triple OT to Arkansas. They had a phantom holding call that cost them a TD in regulation (and thus perhaps the game), but frankly they deserved to lose one like that after their victories over Auburn and Florida. Tennessee in the SEC Championship next.

7. Oklahoma (10-2) - Soundly defeated in state rival OSU. Next up Missouri in the Big 12 Championship.

8. Virginia Tech (10-2) - Good win at Virginia. And now they have a chance to revenge their ridiculous loss to Boston College.

9. Georgia (10-2) - Beat Georgia Tech. Right now, perhaps they're the best team in the SEC.

10. Arizona St. (9-2) - Loss to USC. They narrowly edge Florida for the last spot, they may not have beaten as many good teams as Florida (debatable), but they've lost to one less.

College Football Rankings 11-18

2007-11-18T19:12:00.000-06:00

1. LSU (10-1) - Won (rather unimpressively) at Mississippi. But someone has to be number 1.

2. Ohio St. (11-1) - Dominated Michigan defensively.

3. Missouri (10-1) - Won at Kansas St. Showdown with at Kansas next.

4. Arizona St (9-1) - Idle. Gets USC on Thanksgiving.

5. Kansas (11-0) - Looked great against Iowa St, but can they beat a good team?

6. West Virginia (9-1) - Won at Cincinnati, another team with a weak schedule.

7. Oregon (8-2) - QB injury victim #1. Lost to Arizona. Could have won though if they hadn't given up a defensive and a special teams touchdown.

8. Oklahoma (9-2) - QB injury victim #2. Lost at Texas Tech. Their offense didn't look good even before, but I would have expected more success running even with the back-up QB. Still haven't showed they can win on the road - but no road games left.

9. Virginia Tech (9-2) - Pounded Miami. A road game at ranked rival Virginia next.

10. USC (8-2) - Idle. Yes, they're ranked instead of Georgia. I'm calling the SEC overrated.

College Football Rankings 11-11

2007-11-11T04:45:00.000-06:00

1. Oregon (8-1) - Idle Oregon team moves to number 1. In my mind the obvious #1.

2. LSU (9-1) - Beat Louisiana Tech. Despite numerous close calls, they have played an impressive schedule and the drubbing of Virginia Tech is one of the best non-conference wins of the year.

2. Oklahoma (9-1) - Beat Baylor. A tie for #2 might seem a coup out, but I can't really separate them. My gut says LSU would win if they played, but my rankings ae mostly based on past results, not future prediction. Oklahoma hasn't played as tough a schedule, but they've largely taken care of business better than LSU has. LSU's defense performance is an issue, but Oklahoma has shown very little on the road.

4. Ohio St (10-1) - Loss to Illinois. It's a better loss than Oklahoma's and probably LSU's. But their wins against Penn St and Wisconsin don't match Oklahoma's over Missouri and Texas, or LSU's list.

5. Missouri (9-1) - Beat Texas A+M. Loss at OU and which they played fairly well is one of the best losses of the season, but Illinois is the only good team they've beaten.

6. Arizona St (8-1) - Beat a UCLA team that often plays up to their competition. Idle, than a showdown with USC.

7. West Virginia (8-1) - Lackluster win against Louisville.

8. USC (8-2) - Beat California. Would be ranked #2 if we could pretend that Stanford game didn't happen.

9. Kansas (10-0) - Beat Oklahoma St. I'm getting a strong Boston College vibe here, but they can stay here for now.

10. Georgia (8-2) - Wore black jerseys. Beat Auburn. Had a blackout. Did I mention they wore black jerseys? The announcers only did 6761570 times (that's an estimate - but I probably only watched half of it with the channel flipping).

10. Virginia Tech (8-2) - Beat Florida St. A tie for the 10th spot is a tricky way to actually rank 11 teams. I've been slow to recognize them, but overall body of work is pretty good, got stomped by LSU, other loss was against Boston College, a game they should have won. Can't anyone cover onside kicks anymore? And how ridiculous was it that an on-side kick recovery made Boston College's QB the leading Heisman candidate for a week?

Down Goes Ennis!

2007-11-09T22:43:00.000-06:00

Waxahachie Hail to thee,
We will ever loyal be
As we loud thy praises tell
Noble school we love so well
Green and white our banners fly
Raise them proudly to the sky,
Glorious memories never die
Hail to thee, Hail to thee
Waxahachie High

Breaking News: Sandwich Price Update!

2007-11-05T15:43:00.000-06:00

As previously reported the costs of different types of sandwiches were:

Peanut Butter & Jelly - 11.4¢
Grilled Cheese - 16.9¢
Turkey - 64.3¢

However, a cheaper source of cheese has been found: 15 slices for $1.

This reduces the cost of cheese per sandwich to 6.7¢. Which brings the cost of Grilled Cheese to 12¢ a sandwich. Since this is within the margin of error for the wild guesstimate for the cost of cooking spray, the Grilled Cheese has now pulled into a virtual dead heat with Peanut Butter & Jelly.

College Football Rankings 11-4

2007-11-04T13:33:00.000-06:00

1. Ohio St (10-0) - Not much problem with facing Wisconsin.

2. Oregon (8-1) - Took care of previously unbeaten Arizona St.

3. Oklahoma (8-1) - Dominating performance over poor Texas A+M team.

4. LSU (8-1) - Beat Alabama on the road. Supposedly great defense appears to be missing.

5. Missouri (8-1) - Torched Colorado on the road.

6. West Virginia (7-1) - Idle.

7. Arizona St (8-1) - The offense was good at Oregon at least.

8. USC (7-2) - Back on track, games against California and Arizona St to come.

9. Kansas (9-0) - They are undefeated, and have played well against weak competition.

10. Georgia (7-2) - No one really deserves the 10 spot, so Georgia gets it despite an unimpressive win over Troy.

Anchors Aweigh!

2007-11-03T17:40:00.000-05:00

Stand Navy down the field,
Sails set to the sky,
We'll never change our course,
So Army you steer shy-y-y-y
Roll up the score Navy,
Anchors Aweigh,
Stand Navy down the field,
And SINK the Army, SINK the Army grey!

College Football Rankings 10-28

2007-10-28T12:37:00.000-05:00

Finally, a semi-sane week.

1. Ohio St (9-0) - Looked good at Penn St.

2. Oregon (8-1) - My only concern with Oregon is the get all their toughest Pac-10 opponents at home. They do have the stomping of Michigan on the road however.

3. Arizona St (8-0) - Showdown at Oregon next week.

4. Oklahoma (7-1) - Was idle. Wins over Texas and Missouri can no longer be passed off as worth less than LSU's SEC wins.

5. LSU (7-1) - Was idle. Their strength of schedule took a pounding this week, with Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Florida, and Kentucky (embarrassingly so) all losing. Rather than he SEC having multiple elite teams, they probably have none (then again, there might not be a truly elite team in college football this season).

6. West Virginia (7-1) - On a roll, is a title game threat if they can get some help.

7. Boston College (7-0) - They did win, in this season I've had to be more lenient than normal with close wins. But I draw the line at having to recover an outside kick.

8. Missouri (7-1) - Uninspiring win against Iowa St.

Tie 9-15. Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee. Seriously, give me something to work with guys.

College Football Rankings 10/21

2007-10-21T15:41:00.000-05:00

Let's have a playoff!

1. Ohio St. (8-0) - Late mistakes make the score against Michigan St look much closer than it was. Finally get to the top half of the Big 10 in their next 4 games.

2. Oregon (6-1) - Defense exposed against Washington?

3. LSU (7-1) - Likes playing close games apparently, but they have been against very good competition.

4. Arizona St. (7-0) - Games against California and Oregon loom.

5. Oklahoma (7-1) - Poor showing at one-win Iowa St. Have been very unimpressive in road games, fortunately their schedule is favorable.

6. West Virginia (6-1) - Have been solid since loss at South Florida - in which it has to be remembered that their star QB was injured in the 2nd Quarter.

7. Missouri (6-1) - Impressive defensive performance against Texas Tech.

8. Boston College (7-0) - Can prove they're for real with good showing at Virginia Tech.

9. Florida (5-2) - How much punishment can Tebow take, and why won't Meyer use a running back to run the ball?

10. South Florida (6-1) - Close loss at Rutgers not end of the world.

College Football Rankings 10-14

2007-10-14T14:23:00.000-05:00

This has easily been the hardest season in recent memory to rank the top 10.

1. Ohio St. (7-0) - It's true their schedule has been pretty weak up to this point, but they've won all of their games easily, right now that's enough to be #1.

2. Oregon (5-1) - Took care of business against Washington St.

3. LSU (6-1) - As far as losses go, a OT loss at Kentucky isn't a bad one. They need more from the QB.

4. South Florida (6-0) - Back on track after iffy game against Florida Atlantic.

5. Oklahoma (6-1) - I'm still not convinced they're really that good, Missouri outplayed them in Norman except for the turnovers.

6. Arizona St. (7-0) - Idle, and then games against Cal and Oregon loom.

7. Boston College (7-0) - Well, they are undefeated and that counts for something (Unless you're Kansas or especially Hawaii).

8. California (5-1) - Not the same team without their starting QB.

9. Missouri (5-1) - Good showing at OU, all things considered.

10. Kentucky (6-1) - Impressive 2nd half against LSU.

College Football Rankings 10-7

2007-10-07T16:52:00.000-05:00

I thought USC might be over-hyped, too bad I'd didn't rank them that way.

And I cheated and ranked 11 teams.

1. LSU (6-0) - Close call against Florida, but the bottom line is they won and no one else really deserves to be ranked #1. And sometimes to get to a title (or title game) you need some breaks, such as USC's illegal push by Bush, Colorado's fifth down, and Nebraska ridiculous kicked ball reception. LSU's win only required going 5 for 5 on 4th downs.

2. California (5-0) - Was idle. Them at least I did have ahead of USC last week.

3. Ohio St (6-0) - Nice rebuilding year.

4. Florida (4-2) - So what they have two losses, they're as talented as anyone in the country. Will they keep playing hard now that they're out of the title picture?

5. Oregon (4-1) - Idle.

6. Oklahoma (5-1) - Moves up by default as they didn't look that good against Texas.

7. Missouri (5-0) - Blowout win over Nebraska. Their early win over Illinois looks nice now. How will they fare at OU?

8. South Florida (5-0) - Nearly a classic let-down game loss against Florida Atlantic.

9. South Carolina (5-1) - Defense handled the nation's best passer pretty nicely.

10t. Arizona St (6-0) - Close call at Washington St not a good sign.

10t. West Virginia (5-1) - Nice bounce back after loss to South Florida.