Monday, March 25, 2013

NCAA Can Dare to Be Great!

In watching the NCAA basketball tournament games on Television, I'm confused and disconcerted about a couple of things. 

The leftist teaching in many of our schools bends over backwards to skew the truth in forcing 'fairness.'  They do this by helping only specific 'minorities' to a what is thought to be an equal level with the successful [but it's only temporary until they fall back to their own levels.  The best way to treat a minority is the same as the majority: no more, no less.] as the only ways for making good citizens.  Well, their confused and biased teaching doesn't help anyone in particular except those with their hands out.  And even then, only for a short time.  But apparently, this type of confusion is a bit different with NCAA sports.

I've watched unnecessary and uninteresting blowout games with the condescending announcers insulting the smaller teams.  The Connecticut women blew out their opponent by 68 points!  Baylor won by 42; Purdue by 34; Notre Dame by 33; and Penn State by 30.  In the men's brackets, Louisville won by 31, Ohio State by 25, VCU by 42, Florida by 32, and Syracuse by 47, Michigan by 25 over VCU which had won by 42.  These aren't basketball games, these are western duels with a six-gun against a pea shooter.  And the winners don't impress me as much as then could when they get assigned sweetheart games.

The NCAA must make the necessary changes to create more parity and more opportunity.  Expanding the brackets, especially with play-in games [and stop calling the first round the second round; we viewers all know you're full of it], won't solve the problem.  Getting down to Earth about who plays whom to determine the Best IS a solution.

So change the brackets to reflect more parity through the early rounds.  If you're destined to win it all, you shouldn't fear playing against anyone early.  And you must play your best in all games because one slip sends you packing.  Remember, this is a win-or-out tournament.

My suggestions will make for more evenly matched games among the teams playing through the first and second rounds.  That gives EVERY team a chance to win one or two games, pleasing their fans, and making Television viewing more interesting.  And the announcers can stop siding with the higher ranked team---something done on a regular basis.  In many cases they insult the efforts of the lower ranked teams and their programs.  Many of these lower ranks are drawing from a student population of 2000-5000, and not 30,000-50,000 like some of the big name colleges and universities---mostly government supported.  And those number differentials add up to a big recruiting and alumni difference---though there are more smaller colleges with alumni more spread out around the Country.

Washington's Obama hates the rich and successful, and he wants to tax, tax, tax them and reduce their footprints no matter what it does to the success and security of out Country.  But, he supports the NCAA and the unfair practices in the annual Basketball Tournament.  He even uses 'filling-out-the-brackets' as an excuse to not do his job.

The first suggestion is to stop stuffing the ballot box by playing a major team near it's hometown and making the smaller colleges travel farther than their following can reasonably go.  Support is good, but overwhelming support for major teams is an unfair practice.  And you Liberals, Socialists, and Communists out there should understand it.  One of the announcers even said that the NCAA was 'in parity.'  What World does he live in?  In the second round, Ohio State met Iowa State in Dayton Ohio.  The local support for Ohio State was unfair and so loud as to make the Iowa team deaf.  I'm all for home support, but the NCAA has stacked the odds for the bigger name schools.  In that game, there were plenty of Iowa State supporters, but Ohio State was still overwhelmingly favored by the home court advantage.

Number two is to teach announcers their jobs anew; and this time include English Grammar.  They aren't hired to be cheering sections for their favorite teams---or are they?.  They should announce fairly and give the information necessary to know and understand the game and both teams on the court.  I'm not interested in the kid spending most of his life in a mascot uniform or a plethora of mothers or ex-NCAA players or interrupting the game with continual updates---when you have the score bar at the top of the screen.  Stick to the game and the players---on both sides, and make the calling of it interesting.  And the announcers should stop interviewing coaches and players until they say something that isn't hackneyed, nonsensical, or shows their lack of a grasp of English.

Thirdly, change the brackets.  Currently, the NCAA has matches of: 1-16; 2-15; 3-14; 5-12; 6-11; 7-10; and 8-9, the latter generally being the only real competitive game in the group.  I suggest: 1-8; 2-7; 3-6; 4-5; 9-13; 11-16; 12-15; 10-14.  This bracketing provides more competitive games all through the brackets and rounds [there are only four Mr Announcer] and a fairer chance for the smaller schools.  As it is now, too many games are like a 6' 10" center playing one-on-one with me, at 5'5".  Let me play against shorter guys first.  If you're going to 'have to' the smaller, weaker teams in the Tournament, let them play each other first.  Give them a taste of victory in the first round before they're eliminated.  And make sure the Women's games and those from the NIT listen to same criticism and suggestions.

Instead of the second round, Louisville would meet Colorado State in the first.  Duke would meet Creighton.  Kansas would meet North Carolina.  Indiana would meet North Carolina State.  Gonzaga would meet Pittsburgh.  Miami would meet Illinois.  Ohio State would meet Notre Dame.

The smaller schools would have a better chance in the first round by playing closer teams.  The second and third round will winnow out the weaker teams.

Thus, Belmont would play Iona.  Ole Miss would play Southern.  California would play James Madison.  Akron would play Western Kentucky.  Minnesota would play Florida Gulf State.  Bucknell would play Pacific.  And Oregon would play North Carolina A & T.

And these major teams shouldn't worry about being upset.  If you can't beat every comer, then they can't make a believable Champion.  The advertisers should love these more competitive games, and the networks should love the ad revenue.  And the fans would champion the games as well.  After all, there are more small colleges that major ones.

In the Honesty-is-the-Best-Policy corner, I acknowledge that I am an Iona graduate.  But, even if the Gaels had beaten Ohio State [a minor miracle], I'd have the same thoughts about the fairness of the brackets and calling of the games.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Bond, Vladimir Bond

* Does anyone but me think Daniel Craig looks like Vladimir Putin?

He's not a good choice for 007 at all.

* I can't use Cialis.  I won't dance around at the beach, walk in the rain, sit in bathtubs on the beach, or watch my wife dance on one foot in the kitchen.  Besides, the name reminds me of my childhood and my friend Alice.......

* A while ago I wrote a piece about Progressive Insurance Company, and how it and it's CEO, Peter Lamb, are die-hard Liberal proponents.  Lamb is good friend of George Soros's and  his type of  Liberalism.



US Debt Clock:


This is an estimate of the National Debt as of 3/20/13.  The clock is constantly in motion and updating the figures.

Also includes: Fed spending; fed budget deficit; fed tax revenue; state revenue; state spending; state debt; Interest; monetary base; us population; official unemployed; actual unemployed; us workforce; fed employees; state employees; unfunded us liabilities; etc.

US Gross Domestic Product for the same date and time:


And Obama this very week said we have no debt crisis!  Very frightening display of anti-Americanism and stupidity!

* These insurance companies advertising policies for funeral expenses continue to put out the myth of Government benefits.  Social Security only pays a benefit of $255 to a widow with children under 18.  If you're a growing-older codger like me with grown children, there's nothing to receive. Even so, I still recommend an insurance policy to cover related death expenses.  Just understand going in that answering those three or four health questions truthfully can easily make you ineligible for the insurance except at very high rates.  And lying in the answer can invalidate the policy---and don't you think the insurance company won't do just that!

* [Late 1950s or early 1960s] Does anyone out there remember turning on WALL [local radio station] and hearing the story of 'Rindercella,' the pransome hince, the micked wepstother, two sisty step uglers, and the gary modfother?  And a few years later, we were treated by Archie Campbell [Hee Haw] to the 'Christ Before Nightmas' and the 'Pee Little Thrigs?'  I think Rindercella's fame and popularity lasted a month or so.  Yet, I still remember that day, what the kitchen looked like, and where I was standing.  I can't remember things like that today in my own apartment a few days ago!

* There's a product called 'No No' being advertised on television.  It's supposed to remove unwanted face and body hair and keep it away.  All the excess of words are there to convince you it'll work and solve all your problems---effortlessly and completely.   BUT!  And this is my big 'but.'  What about those with true 'hair problems' and not the vain and fashion conscious among us?  Will 'No No' help those poor souls suffering from hypertrichosis or hirsutism?  These poor souls go about their lives with dark hair all over their bodies to varying degrees.  Does 'No No' meet the expectations of 'diathermy' or 'thermolysis?'  Combined with weekly shaving, can 'No No' treat these conditions with some expectation of social acceptance for removing body hair?  That's an important application that the 'No No' advertising and website do not address.  I think the people affected with hypertrichosis or hirsutism deserve to know whether or not 'No No' is going to free them from their condition---even if it isn't permanent.

* Most of us don't realize that our public officials are required to take an oath of office.  Shown below are the major ones.  Makes you wonder why the President, Senators, Representatives, and administration employees aren't being automatically ousted for their un-Constitutional activities.

President's Oath:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Vice President's and U S Senator and Representative and other U S Officials Oath:
    I, +++++, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

U S Supreme Court Justice and other Federal Judges:

    "I, +++++ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as +++++ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

U S Military Officer:

    I, +++++ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

U S Military Enlisted:

    "I, +++++ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Can you remember the last time one of the above really supported the U S Constitution against all attacks---and wasn't punished by the President and his lackeys?

* I'm continuing with my research on a very interesting subject that will provide fodder for many different posts---though not consecutively.  I apologize for being so late with my blogs.  I get immersed in my research sometimes and sense nothing else.  And now with March Madness in my blood-----well.  I'll try to do better.  Thanks friends.