As many of you are aware, I oppose capital punishment primarily on religious and moral grounds and would like to see it inded in the United States and around the world. I am willing to make some exceptions, however, for political figures.

Whether Saddam Hussein should or should not have been put to death really isn't my call. But in the broader argument of putting to death deposed dictators or other political or religious leaders, I find myself open to the argument that their continued life poses a threat to lives elsewhere. A deposed dictator even in prison can cause more death by inciting rebellion against the new government in order to restore him to power. If he's not alive, his power cannot be restored, and most dictators are careful not to have someone that can fill easily into their shoes (lest that person get ideas).

Let's take Fidel Castro, for instance, and say that he had been replaced by a democratic, anti-Castro, regime. Leaving him alive would leave open the possibility of his return. It would hurt the stability of the new government and could result in a(n another) civil war. There are a lot of people that would be willing to go to war to restore Fidel Castro to power but would be less enthusiastic or daring to put Raul Castro in place (though Raul is a political leader as well and his execution could also be justified). As such, Castro's continued life poses a threat to other life.

My opposition to capital punishment relies on a system in which we can be assured that the convicted pose no more threat to society. In fact, a true life without possibility of parole would be a prerequisite before I would even support doing away with capital punishment for murder. Society must be able to defend itself and any preference for the preservation of guilty life must take a back seat to that.

Continued from the previous post...

The most immediate question is that if the Big XII South did choose to break off, what would they do? Six teams is not enough for a conference. First of all, it would probably be just five teams as cellar-dweller Baylor would not likely be part of the negotiations. In addition to dumping Baylor, they would probably consider bringing along a team or two from the North. Here are where the B12N schools would stand:

Missouri: Mizzou would probably be the best positioned of the B12N for inclusion in the new conference. They have both St. Louis and Kansas City markets on their belt and are generally one of the better of the Big 12 North teams. They are the only D-1A school in the state, so there wouldn't be other state schools to consider as there would be with Kansas. If the conference expands westward, though, they could be left out to dry without a natural home.

Colorado: Colorado is in a different time zone than the rest of the conference and is geographically the farthest out. They have the Denver market as well as some smaller ones, but it's an NFL state more than a college football one. They're in the upper echelon of B12N teams, but they're likely to be the odd-school out unless the conference expands westward. If it expands eastward, they'd still be in decent shape as one of the upper-tier teams in the Mountain West Conference

Nebraska: The breakoff conference would probably like to have Nebraska along because they do receive national attention, continually pack a large, full house for home games, and are (the last couple years notwithstanding) a cut above the rest in their division. The problem is that their inclusion would hurt the geographical integrity of the conference and they don't carry any major television markets. They would probably be the odd-man out. If left out, they would probably find a home in the Mountain West Conference.

Kansas: Kansas is a basketball powerhouse and that would be their chief selling point. Along with Missouri they would lock up the Kansas City market. They also have a rivalry with Missouri that could help them hitch their wagons to a school more likely to be included. They are, however, one of two Kansas schools and bringing them in without also bringing in K-State could present problems. If left out, they may or may not be able to find a home in the Mountain West Conference. If not, they could be in trouble.

Kansas State: K-State has had a good program in the past and may in the future, though I have my doubts that it will be any time soon. They are second-fiddle to Kansas despite their football superiority. I would expect them to be one of the losers of the breakaway. Like Missouri and Kansas, they would need to hope that the MWC expands or that a new conference is formed between B12 rejects and Mountain West schools.

Iowa State: They are likely to be the school most hurt by a breakaway. They would not be considered for invitation into the new conference and unlike their counterparts to the west they don't have any conferences that they could easily join. There is a pretty decent chance that they would end up as the far-flung school in the MAC

So if we were to include Missouri, we would have six schools in the conference: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Missouri.

The next most obvious place to look would be the old members of the Southwest Conference, which the Texas schools were once a part of. The pickings there are pretty slim. I would love to think that this would be my alma mater University of Houston's chance at a conference upgrade, but I don't see any scenario where that is likely. The Houston media market is already dominated by Texas and A&M and even Texas Tech gets more exposure despite being a smaller school 10 hours away. Though winning the Conference USA championship this year, they have still failed to distinguish themselves against smaller caliber competiton. The most likely beneficiary would in the old SWC would probably be TCU, which has continued to thrive in the tougher Mountain West Conference and has the benefit of being a private school if the conference decides that it needs one -- but even then they don't have any major markets to deliver that the new conference wouldn't already have and as a small private school it doesn't have a very large alumni base. Rice, SMU, and their Conference USA brethren would not likely be under serious consideration.

The other former Southwest Conference school of interest would be Arkansas. Arkansas left the SWC and ensured its demise in the early nineties. They're already a member of a top-tier conference, the SEC, so they may just want to stay put. However, there has often been the sense that they would have been more at home in the Big 12 and Arkansas fans seem divided. I think that given the opportunity, the chances are probably better than not that they would be interested.

Including Arkansas, as well as Missouri, would be part of an eastward expansion. The real coup de'tat of eastward expansion would be SEC powerhouse LSU. LSU is on the wrong side of Louisiana and has been a member of the SEC for a very long time. It would be rather difficult to tear them away from their conference.

The selling point for LSU (and Arkansas) would be based on a four things:

1) Money, money, money. The SEC is a very strong conference, but it doesn't dominate very many large markets and it shares most of those it has. It has Nashville, Memphis, Lexington, part of Louisville maybe, and Birmingham all to itself, but the bigger markets are shared. It has one of two BCS schools in Georgia and one of four in Florida. It has New Orleans, of course, but that would be leaving with LSU. It would also be a part of a conference splitting its loot eight or nine ways rather than twelve.

2) They would have increased access to the Texas recruiting pool, which right now is helping greatly to keep the Big XII North above water. LSU and Arkansas already recruit from Texas, but they would have a lot easier a time of it if they were regularly playing bigtime Texas schools. LSU is one of the few big schools willing to play in Houston, and I doubt it's to help their BCS standings. Their profile in Texas would be greatly helped by being conference-mate of its three highest-profile schools.

3) For all of its football excellence, the SEC is often underappreciated. Undefeated Auburn was left out of the national championship a few years ago in favor of Big XII champ Oklahoma. Florida was almost left out this year and probably would have been if Michigan hadn't already played and lost to #1 Ohio State. SEC teams have to fight one another hard week in and week out and even when they do come out on top, they don't get their just reward. The proposed breakaway conference may not be a whole lot better in that regard, but they'd be getting paid better for it and by-and-large the Big XII seems to have better luck with national profile even when it has weaker teams.

4) Rivalries! Arkansas and Texas have a longstanding rivalry dating back to the SWC and I think both schools would enjoy that being renewed. LSU doesn't have any rivalries in Texas, but it seems to me that A&M would be a natural rival for the Tigers (honestly, both schools should consider scheduling each other year in and year out regardless of conference). LSU would lose its rivalry with Ole Miss, but from what I understand that rivalry is not what it once was and has been replaced by LSU's rivalry with Arkansas. An LSU-Texas or LSU-A&M rivalry would likely be a lot higher profile than any rivalry with a Mississippi school.

If LSU and Arkansas were to join up, they would probably want a ninth team. The most logical candidates would be Kansas or TCU. One of the theories behind Baylor's inclusion in the Big XII was that if they didn't have a private school they'd be subject to all kinds of transparency-in-government laws. If this was really the reason that Baylor was included, then TCU would be in like Flynn. TCU would also provide schools an opportunity to play in the DFW area at least once every couple of years, which isn't bad for recruiting. However, if it was really a matter of Texas Gov. Ann Richards and Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, both Baylor alums, chiming in, then Kansas would help make up for what the conference would be losing in basketball. Missouri might also insist that Kansas be included.

I think that the chances are better than not that Arkasas would go for it. it's almost certain that they would if LSU was willing to go along. I discussed it with my father-in-law, an LSU grad, and he said that the LSU moneymen would be intrigued, but that the state legislature may put a stop to it.

If eastward expansion didn't pan out, the remaining option would be to look westward. That would mean keeping Colorado and perhaps losing Missouri. The five remaining Big 12 South teams plus Colorado and Nebraska could join up with Colorado State and New Mexico to make an nine-team conference or could include Utah, BYU, Nebraska, and UNLV or TCU to form a 12-conference league with a championship.

The problem is that the 9-team configuration would be a marginal improvement (if that) because it doesn't include the Utah schools and they would be losing the Missouri markets.

The top of the crop from the MWC would probably be superior to the Big 12 North as it is now, but I'm not sure it would be enough to compensate for the geographic disparity. The good news for the old B12 teams (except Colorado) is that they would be in a division that doesn't have to travel westward but once or twice a year. I just don't know that this would be enough of a change to make it worth the while of half the Big 12 schools to stab the other half in the back.

So here are the scenarios:

Eastward Expansion:
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Missouri
Arkansas
LSU
Kansas or TCU

Westward Expansion (12)
East
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Nebraska or TCU
West
Colorado
Colorado State
New Mexico
BYU
Utah
Nebraska or UNLV

Westward Expansion (9)
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Nebraska
Colorado
Colorado State
New Mexico

The Big XII football conference has seen better days. Oklahoma has had an impressive season, but it has as much to do with low expectations rather than a truly dominant team. Texas was looking good for a while, but they were really never of national championship caliber even when they had only lost to #1 Ohio State. But Texas and Oklahoma are the top teams in the conference, and besides that they are in the stronger South division. The bigger problem with the Big XII is the north division.

Nebraska lost unimpressively to Oklahoma in the conference's championship game and in the last four championship games the teams from the South have outscored the teams from the north by a whopping 163-16 margin. The champions of the lowly Sun Belt Conference could hardly do worse than the champions of the Big XII North. There is a natural ebb and flow to the strength of the teams of some schools and conferences and divisions. It's possible that a few years from now we will be lamenting the weakness of the Big XII South relative to that of its northern counterpart.

However, I don't believe that this is the case. I believe that the Big XII North has structural disadvantages that will likely keep it from dominance. Football teams aren't made of corn-fed midwestern or rural kids that are aching to get the chance to go to college in Lincoln, Nebraska, or Ames, Iowa. Rural schools are a tough sell, as are predominantly white, midwestern states. That creates a problem for Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State. Colorado and Missouri avoid that particular fate, but the former is in a state more focused on professional football and the latter is a basketball school.

None of these problems are insurmountable. NU football is about the only thing going on in Nebraska so they continue to draw 80,000 fans a game. Missouri and Colorado are in populous and demographically varied states. Kansas State has beaten the odds before and they could do it again. My thoughts here are under the assumption that the Big XII North schools do not rebound and that the disparity continues to be a problem.

There has been talk in some circles about doing away with the divisions and the conference championship game. The most vocal proponent is OU coach Bob Stoops, who nearly lost his chance at the national championship game because they slipped up and lost decisively against K-State in 2002. A lot of coaches in the Big XII South believe that the conference game hurts more than helps because it's a game that doesn't reward them when they win but punishes them when they lose. I don't particularly agree with this point-of-view (The Big XII North is weak and when you win it does help in the human polls), but doing away with divisions is the natural precursor to a much larger development: the dissolution of the Big XII.

Getting rid of the championship games would solve none of the problems of the Big XII North and would in fact exacerbate them. Right now each team only plays half the teams of the opposing conference, so the schedule of the South division would likely weaken and the north teams will start losing more games and at least three or four will be huddled around the bottom of the conference standings in any given year. Eventually, the Big XII South schools will start to ask why they are separating their money 12 ways when it's only half of those schools generating the national exposure and revenue.

Worse yet, five of the name schools are located in neighboring states (Texas and Oklahoma) and in an especially good position to consider other options. Worse yet, three of those schools (Texas, A&M, and Tech) have a very short history with the north division and along with Oklahoma schools carry the conference's largest and most passionate markets (though Missouri and Colorado do have large markets and Nebraska has a couple passionate ones, neither has both). The more I examine it, the less sure I am that even having a conference championship compensates for the North's deficiencies.

So the question is... what can they do about it? Where can they go?

To be continued...

It looks like it's finally going to happen. I haven't posted in two weeks (save for the two-part Big XII post, which has been swimming in the back of my mind since early November) and I haven't missed posting. Even Ten Second News has slowed to a crawl.

And yet it's still hard to actually close the door on this.

From a Washington Post editorial:

It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile's economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It's leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years.

Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.

By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.

The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.

Robert Cringely thinks that Windows Vista is assured success:

Those who are trying to figure out if Vista will be successful haven't yet grasped the concept that Vista will be forced on the market, and in time it will be the only operating system you can buy from Microsoft. Of course it will be successful. Will people upgrade their existing systems? Of course not. Microsoft operating systems are always designed for future PC's, not for the installed base. Part of the plan is to make Vista work poorly on current computers so we'll all have to buy new ones. This strategy has been around for years and there is no reason to believe we won't fall for it again. Sure, some percentage of people and firms will upgrade, but most of the upgrades will come with whole new computers.

Mike Crute, on the other hand, disagrees:

Complete lack of innovation. This is pretty subjective but when I look at what Vista is it smacks of Windows XP trying to catch up to Mac OS, and not doing a very good job of it at that. What does Vista really bring to the operating system market? What is new? Well they did revamp the user interface (or “user experience” for marketing people) however what value does this add? I have got to say that in my opinion XP is ugly, the blue new-style theme takes up too much screen real estate and the gray is… well… gray. The new UI look is kinda cool but realistically your going to need a pretty beefy computer to enable all the transparency effects anyhow, plus from what I have seen of Vista its still not nearly as sexy as OS X. What else? Well there is the typical Microsoft-style half-assed attempt to duplicate iLife. Windows “entertainment” applications have always seemed inferior to everyone else, thats why most serious Windows users use Winamp or iTunes instead of Media player. I will refrain from ripping on IE 7 and Outlook Express, everyone else on the internet beat me to it.

My view falls in between these two perspectives.

The problem with Cringely's essay is that it overlooks the fact that the desktop market has changed a whole lot since 1998. Computer sales haven't been growing at nearly the rate that they used to and that means that Vista adoption by that method will be much, much slower. I am still using computers that I bought in 2002 with relatively minor upgrades that most users would never need. Those that do need increased video or gaming capabilities are increasingly able to plug in their own RAM and hard drives or know somebody that can do it for them. The idea that you need to upgrade every couple years doesn't hold true anymore. You can force software upgrades with hardware or you can force hardware upgrades with software, but they won't keep forcing each other for eternity.

As many power users as I know as not have actually declined to even upgrade to Windows XP. For once in their life, Microsoft was a victim of its own success with Windows 2000, an operating system good enough that people don't feel the need to have to upgrade. Between 2000 and XP, a lot of people are going to be willing to hold on. Cringely is right, though, that as long as they're holding on to Windows and not jumping to Linux or Mac then Microsoft continues to win. Be that as it may, that does not make Vista a success. Especially considering the time, money, and hype that has been thrust at it.

The problem with Crute's post can be summed up in two words: Internet Explorer. Despite all of its holes, its lack of features, and its problem it dominates the browser market. 62% of visits to RAW360 are using Internet Explorer (28% Firefox). There are no alternatives to Windows that are remotely as superior to it than Firefox, Netscape, and Opera are to Internet Explorer. OSX is still dependent on priorietary hardware with higher upfront costs. Linux has greatly improved in the last several years (especially in the area of drivers), but even now I can't install Linux on a machine and expect it to work with a minimal of tweaking like I can Windows 2000 or XP and I'm beginning to doubt that it will ever reach the state where I will.

So I agree with Cringely that Microsoft's supremecy is assured, at least for now. There are three main potholes in their road, none of which are that large. First, if DRM gets to the point that using Windows becomes more trouble than its worth, people will find another way. However, this is as likely as not to occur within the Windows platform with cracks and bypasses created for Windows. Second, if they ever succeed in their goal of making Windows crackproof so that everyone has to shell out a few hundred dollars when they replace a motherboard, people will start to more seriously look at other options. I don't think that they will succeed, however, and if they do there is a decent chance that older versions of Windows will still remain dominant even without their support. Third, a lot of Windows dominance rests on the shoulders of MS Office, and if they lose that with the upcoming change in document structure to XML, that will create an opening for competition. But I have my doubts as to whether or not that opening will be enough.

Continued dominance of the OS market via Vista is not how I would define success. I think that Microsoft is more likely to continue to thrive by making the XBox into an all-purpose entertainment center for movies, music, and of course games. But that would be Microsoft's success and not Vista's.

Flying out to a relative's wedding last week, I happened to wind up reading American Way Magazine. That's right, an airline magazine - the boring stuff they pack into the little seat pouch in front of you in case you (like me) happen to forget to bring a book, and happen to forget that you can't turn on your gameboy/psp/ipod/laptop/whatever until the plane's well off the ground.

So I read up on an article regarding the NHL's television woes this year.

Well, yeah. Because the NHL's actually having a season this year, that's good, but after their cancelled 2004/2005 season, they switched TV networks. And ratings have, well, pretty much sucked, not that they were very good before either.

The article's got a priceless quote:

Bradley says the speed of the game entices a live audience but that on television, the game is actually less appealing than the other three sports. With pucks traveling at speeds of up to 100 mph and bouncing all over the rink, the game is difficult to follow within the confines of a living room.

“What can you do about that?” Bradley asks. “You’re talking about something that’s good for attendance and not so good for television. It’s not something that can be changed.”

The followup to this is that the NHL, unlike most major sports groups otherwise (even professional futbol/soccer), has a revenue plan that doesn't rely on TV revenues.

However, here's one that baffled me:

“One thing hockey deals with is that a lot of its fans have never played the game, so many of them aren’t as knowledgeable [about] the game as, say, a basketball fan,” he explains.

Now, there is an interesting challenge. In the deeper South, sure, hockey isn't played much. But growing up in the more northern regions, hockey was something to do for fun. In summer months or not much snow? Grab your rollerskates/rollerblades, play street hockey. I didn't know many people from my hometown who didn't have some level of understanding of the game, even if only on that basic level - and that's still about the same level that you have for people playing football, because not everyone can be on their high school team, and "fun leagues" for that don't exist in the way that basketball and baseball do. Yet football is popular, even when many fans are admittedly just watching for the next injury to happen.

And Hockey? Might not be as popular as football, but even during the NHL strike, it seemed like the sport was doing well, and going to Aeros games was still fun.

One of the conditions of moving to Austin was that Camille would be able to put an OU bumper sticker on her car. I was initially somewhat concerned by this. All it takes is one drunk UT statement with a key and her car could be vandalized. UT has a lot of drunk students. Someone at her work is a fellow OU alum and assured her that she need not worry about that. She got the bumper stickers, though has not yet put them on her car.

In the Houston area, the most frequent out-of-state university bumper sticker is LSU hands down. My father-in-law was not the least bit surprised because Louisiana doesn't have the job opportunities for college grads like Texas. Houston is the city closest to Louisiana's major population centers (except Shreveport), so it would stand to reason that it would get the most beneficiaries. Similarly, Dallas is the meeting area where Camille and her college friends often congregate.

Interestingly, here in Longhornland, I see considerably more OU bumper stickers than I do LSU ones. Austin is slightly closer to Oklahoma than Houston is, but the number of OU bumper stickers I see far outstrips the difference. Norman (and OKC and Tulsa) are closer to Austin than are Baton Rouge and New Orleans, though that too is not significant enough to account for the difference. In fact, I suspect that the number of OU grads is probably not much larger than LSU grads. Instead, I am thinking that there are just a lot of OU people who made the same deal with themselves that Camille did: I'll live in Austin, but you can't make me stop disliking UT.

Note: You can certainly disagree with any of my individual picks, but I could write an equally bitchy and moany case for any of the teams that I included in the tournament.

Pick your NCAA Division I-A Football Playoff Paradise:

Elseworld 1
Configuration: 11 Conference winners + 5 at-large bids
Teams: USC, Boise State, BYU, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Central Michigan, Florida, Troy, Wake Forest, Louisville, Michigan, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, LSU, and Cal

One can only imagine the anger felt by TCU, West Virginia, Rutgers, Arkansas, and Auburn at being left out of the only NCAA Division 1-A post-season games that matter.

In fact, the Big East only got one invite (Louisville) while the Big Ten got three (Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisconsin). The Big East got precisely as many invites as the Sun Belt Conference, who will be represented by the Troy Trojans, whose only out-of-conference victory was against I-AA Alabama State. WVU and Rutgers also turned in equal or better records against BYU (10-2) and Houston (10-3).

Auburn, meanwhile, points out that they not only have the same record as LSU (10-2), but beat them 7-3 during the regular season. Arkansas (10-3) points out that they beat Auburn decisively and that they have not lost a single game against a team not in the tournament. This is to be contrasted with Houston, who lost to the Louisiana-Lafayette, Miami, and Southern Miss, none of whom were invited to the tournament and only one of whom even turned in a winning record for the year.

Virginia Tech (10-2), the highest ranking team in the ACC, was also denied an invitation.

Defenders of the playoffs point out that BYU and California could have secured a bid into the tournament had they managed to avoid losing the games that they did. How this differs from the the plight of either Florida or Michigan, either of whom would have been in the national championship if they'd have avoided losing the game that they did, in the much-maligned BCS system that used to determine the national championship is unclear.


Elseworld 2
6 "Power" Conference winners and 11 at-large bids
Teams: USC, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Florida, Wake Forest, Louisville, LSU, Wisconsin, Boise State, Auburn, Notre Dame, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Rutgers

Conference winners California and BYU are apparently very upset that they didn't get an invite to the only NCAA Division 1-A post-season games that matter. California, the Pac 10 co-champion, believes that they were the odd man out because they scheduled SEC powerhouse Tennessee. Had they instead scheduled creampuff I-AA Tennessee State, they almost certainly would have ended the season 10-2 and could have captured the spot taken by 10-2 Virginia Tech, who squeaked through in what has generally been considered a "down" year for the ACC.

BYU, like fellow non-invitees Houston, Troy, and Central Michigan, won their conference. Unlike the others, however, they played a difficult out-of-conference schedule and believed that they were punished for doing so. Boise State went undefeated, they pointed out, but half of their conference games were against teams in the Mountain West, where BYU went undefeated, and another included I-AA Sacramento State. The bottom four teams in the WAC conference went a staggering 1-13 in out-of-conference games against I-A teams. Boise State aside, the main point that BYU continues to stress is that they won their conference, while over half of the invitees did not.

Defenders of the playoffs point out that BYU and California could have secured a bid into the tournament had they managed to avoid losing the games that they did. How this differs from the the plight of either Florida or Michigan, either of whom would have been in the national championship if they'd have avoided losing the game that they did, in the much-maligned BCS system that used to determine the national championship is unclear.


Elseworld 3
32 team playoffs
Teams: Just about everybody that matters, minus the Miami Hurricanes

Hey, you can start paying attention now. Now the games that actually matter are being played! This is in stark contrast to the most of the regular season (including but not limited to Florida-FSU, Arkansas-Florida, Arkansas-LSU, USC-UCLA, USC-ND, OSU-Michigan, and Louisville-Rutgers), which we will in the future refer to as "glorified scrimmages" because they only really matter for seeding purposes and have no bearing at all on which of the 32 teams gets to be champion.

Just in case, remember that a 9-4 regular season team that wins its last five games (ie the tournament) ought to be considered superior to a 12-0 team that has an off-day and loses in the second round of the tournament.

The Canadian Prime Minister has recognized Quebec as a "nation within a nation". In my mind Quebec should either become independent or be a province and that solutions like this don't really solve anything. Does anyone really think that this will convince Quebecois that they don't want to run themselves? Notably, however, nobody asked me.

Also, polls in both Scotland and English suggest that the people of both think that they should be independent and not part of a United Kingdom. I don't begrudge them their opinion, but wouldn't that leave Northern Ireland somewhat screwed? Is the peace they've found over there in the last few years stable enough to survive a transition like this?

Lastly, I read recently an article about how call centers in The Philippines are having difficulty finding English-language calltechs because of an ill-advised decision to shift away from English and more towards their historic language of Tagalog. I may be in for sensitivity training or a history lesson, but my tentative thoughts on the Philippines and Cuba is that we made a mistake leaving them with their sovereignty and that they would both be a lot better off if we had been more, rather than less, imperialistic. Maybe I'm reading too much Orrin Judd lately.

Part of me thinks that the Guadalupe-Hildalgo treaty was a mistake and we left too much of Mexico to the Mexicans, but if we'd taken over substantial parts south of the current border the Civil War quite possibly would have had a very different ending.