So, yeah, I’ve been pretty busy with the whole Save UAH Hockey thing. Tonight, Coach Cole and I went to pitch the SGA on taking a trip to Notre Dame. They listened well, and I think it’ll come off.

Afterwards, Coach and I talked for a good half-hour about everything else going on. Most of that conversation will have to stay completely off-the-record, but I’m feeling like we have a good shot as an independent. I’m hopeful.

As we left, I thanked Coach for his time and he thanked me for mine. “I wish I had 2,000 guys like you,” he said.

“I don’t know about that, Coach. That might get out of hand.”

“Well, you’d probably start something.”

“They couldn’t throw us all out at once, Coach.”

He laughed, and we walked to our cars.

Will bade us to contact the AD’s, so I started at the top of the list:

Mr. Karr:

Thanks for your support of our bid to the CCHA. We really do appreciate it here in Huntsville.

I’m the owner and one of the two main voices behind SaveUAHHockey.com, which as you’d guess is all about saving our beloved varsity men’s hockey program. We’re running campaigns to contact all the CCHA athletic directors, but we’ve made sure to note that you’re on our side so people aren’t upset with you in particular.

Please continue to advocate for us. I understand the concerns that some of the smaller CCHA schools undoubtedly have, and that an 11-team CCHA may well be better for those schools. But, as I’m sure you’ll agree, keeping UAH at the D-I level is also quite important to college hockey.

Thanks for your time and continued support.

Best Regards,
Geof Morris
UAH BSE MAE 2002

Before you argue, “Oh, they’re just gonna ignore this stuff,” CCHA Commissioner Tom Anastos called my fellow alum Chris Brown back yesterday. I was stunned.

If things get quiet around here, it’s because I’m working to save UAH Hockey.

My Whiskerino tweeps on Twitter were arguing yesterday about whether it’s worse to gamble on sports [the Pete Rose offense] or to take performance-enhancing drugs [the Barry Bonds offense]. I meant to blog this last night, but I felt like dogmeat and am just now getting to it on my lunch break.

My argument for this is simple: gambling is an order of magnitude a worse sin. Sport is based around a single premise: everyone is trying to win. Gambling leaves open the possibility that someone is not trying to win. PEDs usage is simply trying to perform above what the body can do on its own—effectively, trying harder.

Let’s address the legal issue quickly: betting on sports is illegal in most locales, and taking most PEDs is a violation of Federal drug statutes. Sure, you can bet legally in Nevada, and you can get a prescription, but routinely those are both skirting the issue of what’s really going on. Both can be seen as legal or illegal acts, so I drive back to the moral underpinning.

Gambling doesn’t have to be throwing a game; it can be wanting to win any particular game more than anything else. Is that wrong? Yes, in some cases it certainly is. Baseball is an easy example: if you have money on the game as the manager, you’re going to run through the bullpen and the bench trying to win that one game, where normally you might see a 10-2 deficit in the third and just announce, “Hey, if anyone wants to pitch in the seventh, here’s your chance.” Baseball management is about maximizing the number of wins during the regular season, which does not necessarily maximize the chance of winning any single game. [Postseason management is all about winning single games, of course. You do stuff in the postseason that you'd never do in July.]

Also, gambling puts the element that someone might not be trying their hardest to win the game, because they have an incentive to lose it. That is far more injurious to the ideals of sport, to me, than someone roiding up to muscle the ball over the fence or taking greenies to stay alert during game eight of a twelve-games-in-twelve-days stretch.

YMMV, but this is the crux of my argument. Please sound off in the comments if you are so compelled. I must now go back to writing a proposal for work …

Is anyone interested in reading my thoughts on books previously read? I finished Supercapitalism tonight, thanks to endless nagging by leaving a browser tab open to Readernaut [where I am, predictably, gfmorris] and the arrival of BP2k9 on my doorstep today. All in all, I found Reich’s argument to be cogent if, at times, overly labored; I’m not a book reviewer per se, but I reckon that I am a thinker and a person who talks about such things after being informed, so maybe it’s worth reading? I don’t know. Let me know in the comments.

Matt Sweazey and Scott Kalinchuk

Originally uploaded by Geof F. Morris

I’m proud of these shots … especially this one. I think it’s because Matty and Chuck are such good guys. I pretty much talk to Matty after every game these days … always with the handshake-into-the-man-hug.

When we played Colorado College to start our season, Scott Owens, CC’s radio voice and a former member of the Michigan State organization, called our coach, Danton Cole, to talk about the Alabama-Huntsville team. Cole is an MSU alum, and so the conversation was free and easy.

And then Owens asked about recruiting. And then … then I got to remixing.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

That was a fun ninety minutes last night … and now I have to mix it down to 30 and 60-second loops before tonight’s game.

Practice | Day #4

Originally uploaded by Geof F. Morris

So the greatest amusement of my day was UAH head coach Danton Cole coming up to me and Will while we were watching UAH’s first practice and saying, “Hey, do you guys think you can help me get information out over Facebook?”

This amused the two of us greatly, as Will started the UAH Hockey Facebook group, and I, well, do this kind of stuff all the time.

I mean, really … twist my fuckin’ arm, Coach.

[For the record, I'm buying season tickets this year, including a four-pack in good seats on the penalty-box side of the ice. Obviously, I am only one man and can only sit in one seat at a time, so if you would like to use my tickets for free, you just give me a call or drop me an email, eh? First come, first served.]

As a kid, I loved the Olympics. I think this has to do with the fact that I’m old enough to remember 1984 [and the navy blue XXIII Olympiad duffel bag Dad got me while on TDY to California; bet he doesn't remember getting that until I bring it up], and probably has something to do with the fact that we were nearly in Seoul for 1988. I guess it also has to do with the fact that I grew up in a time when the Olympics really were a big deal and sports on TV was pretty limited because overall television channel choice was limited.

Fast forward to now, 2008. After having a friend who worked for SLC and Athens and enjoying hearing his stories about them, I’ve … waned. I didn’t pay much attention to Torino, but then I never found myself caring that much about the Winter Olympics. And now, Beijing. I can’t get behind the 2008 Olympics at all. China’s human rights record, pollution record, and political differences make it impossible for me to stomach. No, I don’t think the US should boycott the Games—the folks who compete spend their lives getting ready for it, and they should have that stage. I’m caught up in the stories of Michael Phelps and Dara Torres as much as the next person, but man … the thought of supporting the Chinese government by watching the Games just turns my stomach.

So I’m not watching.

I don’t think China’s purely evil, nor do I think they’re not totally useful—they’re a powerful economy, and they promise to be the only true competitor to NASA going forward. [And honestly, it's the lack of competition that's stifled NASA for the last two decades.] But none of that means I’m going to sit there and watch the Chinese pat themselves on the back for being awesome—it disgusts me most of the time when we Americans do it, and I certainly won’t enjoy seeing the Chinese do the same.

I wish them a safe, competitive, successful Games. I also wish that the world’s media will focus on all the wrongs and ills going on in China as well.

I think my favorite bit is about 10 minutes into the interview, when Rachel Nichols asked about how the experts underestimated the Celtics coming into the series, and … the pause is punctuated by under-the-breath chuckling. I love it.

17.

It’s Final Four time, and as we see every year, the pundits are talking about which kids will go pro—many after one year. As such, the NBA’s one-and-done rule—you have to be a year removed from your high school graduation to be draft eligible, which pushes kids into college—is being rehashed again.

Here’s what gets me: why does no one ever talk about the main reason that you push kids into one year of college, which is that the TV coverage at the college level is far and above what is at the high school level? With the one-and-done rule in place, the NBA draft is now something where a casual fan can tune in and know two-thirds of the players. Before the rule, the NBA draft was beginning to come to be dominated by foreign players and high school kids, all drafted on potential. Sure, lots of those guys panned out, and lots flamed out—like any draft. But the big thing is, today we know who the players are.

Consider the upcoming draft. We know who Derrick Rose is. We know Michael Beasley. We’ve even endlessly debated whether Kevin Love is a legit NBA starter or a 7th man who works into your frontcourt rotation. None of this would have happened without the one-and-done rule.

It’s the best marketing thing the NBA has done in years. These kids get a smaller stage to shine on, another year of maturity, and a better quality of basketball than the level they just dominated. The kids get to wait a year, but … so? Name another profession other than “professional athlete” where the kid has six-figure skills, much less seven- or eight-figure skills, at 18. Go ahead. I’m waiting.

It’s the marketing, stupid.

MONTGOMERY, ALA. (IJSM): Alabama Governor Bob Riley convened an emergency session of the Alabama Legislature this morning to pass a resolution stating that bulldogs were no longer allowed as pets in the state of Alabama, for fear that the state’s football players might be harmed.

“After the mauling last week by Mississippi’s bulldogs down on the plains, and then last night’s mauling by Georgia’s dogs in Tuscaloosa, we just had to take a stand,” said Riley in a press conference held on the Capitol steps Sunday afternoon. “We’re here to say that, in Alabama, bulldogs are considered harmful.”

State Senate leader Lowell Barron (D-Fyffe) followed Riley to the microphone. “We support the governor in this cause,” remarked Barron. “Shoot, Senator Bishop called me crying last night, and I decided we could bury the hatchet in the bulldogs of this state rather than each other.” A teary-eyed Charles Bishop (R-Jasper) silently nodded his agreement from his position to Barron’s left rear on the dais, marking the first time the two had been within ten feet of each other without Alabama State Troopers between them since Bishop famously punched Barron out on the floor of the State Senate back in June. “We gotta do this for the people of Alabama! If mutual hatred of bulldogs can bring me and Bishop together, we can bring the whole state together,” Barron stated before being sobbing and falling into the arms of Parker Griffifth (D, Huntsville).

Auburn head coach Tommy “Ears” Tuberville received word of the bulldog ban with joy. “Just Thursday, Brandon Cox was walking down by Toomer’s Corner when this little old lady and her bulldog scared him so bad, he threw another interception.” Tuberville refused comment on whether this would affect Cox’s playing status.

News of the ban was not well-received on the hill at Alabama A&M University, whose mascot is also the Bulldogs. President Robert R. Jennings, under fire for perceived wrong-doings in his first year as president, seized upon the opportunity to distract the AAMU Trustees and students from investigating him. “This outrage will not stand! Once again, the folks in Montgomery have forgotten us up here in Normal,” Jennings said when reached via telephone. UAH President Dr. David Williams would not comment on the record, but did indicated off the record that he expressed concern over the broad brush applied by Montgomery. [Ed.: Williams also wanted to discuss the matter of UAHuntsville on the record, but our reporter hung up the phone on him.]

University of Tennessee football coach Phil Fulmer expressed concern of the state’s mistreatment of dogs. “What next?” he asked. “If we beat the Tide on October 20th, are blue tick hounds the next thing to go?”

Michael Vick’s attorneys had no comment on the matter.

[Thanks to Bulldawgs.com and Mississippi State for images of their respective mascots. Oh, and for beating both Alabama and Auburn and making my week. I love it when the Tide and the Aubies both lose. Warms my heart.]

Dear ESPN:

I know that it’s totally cliché to write open letters to you on Weblogs. I mean, I was probably doing it back when I ran TOTK. You know, before I had to shave. [Or before I grew the beard and quit shaving.] Anyway: my beloved Cincinnati Reds have won six straight and eight of ten. They’ve somehow dug out of last place and now are sniffing the division “chase”, which in the NL Central is best defined as “the team least averse to finishing over .500″. Sure, the Reds are 60-70 and maybe only have a 1% chance of winning the division title at this point, but … do you think that you could have found a minute or two to air highlights of their sweep of the Marlins in the one-hour Sunday night Baseball Tonight?

No? Okay. Screw you.

Love,
GFM

Why are we tempted to believe in conspiracy theories? New Scientist has a theory:

So what kind of thought processes contribute to belief in conspiracy theories? A study I carried out in 2002 explored a way of thinking sometimes called “major event – major cause” reasoning. Essentially, people often assume that an event with substantial, significant or wide-ranging consequences is likely to have been caused by something substantial, significant or wide-ranging.

I gave volunteers variations of a newspaper story describing an assassination attempt on a fictitious president. Those who were given the version where the president died were significantly more likely to attribute the event to a conspiracy than those who read the one where the president survived, even though all other aspects of the story were equivalent.

To appreciate why this form of reasoning is seductive, consider the alternative: major events having minor or mundane causes — for example, the assassination of a president by a single, possibly mentally unstable, gunman, or the death of a princess because of a drunk driver. This presents us with a rather chaotic and unpredictable relationship between cause and effect. Instability makes most of us uncomfortable; we prefer to imagine we live in a predictable, safe world, so in a strange way, some conspiracy theories offer us accounts of events that allow us to retain a sense of safety and predictability.

[Emphasis mine.]

Typically, I scoff at conspiracy theories. [For example, I usually want to go all Buzz Aldrin on moon landing fakers. Crap, I shouldn't have said that, because now I'm going to draw wacko comments.] But in preparing this post, I had to consider something: I’m one of the people that has bought into the argument made about baseball’s performance-enhancing drugs problem that there had to be an active ignorance on the part of the caretakers of the game to allow all that stuff to happen. I’m now second-guessing this stance.

[HT: Schneier on Security]

USCHO reports that NCAA Ice Hockey will move to a two-ref system in 2008-09, which is something that I actually support. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen no-calls that an assistant ref saw but wasn’t empowered to call by the rulebook. Having two sets of eyes really helps cut down on the no-calls, so I’m all for this. [Besides, it's two refs I can ride like broken down mules during the game.] To contain costs, the NCAA decided to simply swap a ref for an AR, and … that’s fine. NCAA ice hockey isn’t a big money-maker, so keeping the number of on-ice officials at three is fine. We’ll get a second AR in another decade or so, I figure.

In a bad case of burying the lead, though, USCHO glossed over what I thought was the bigger part of the new story: the desire to eliminate ties! Call me old-fashioned, but I think that ties are one of the things that makes hockey, well, hockey. I hate what the NHL has done with ties—both the overtime loss and shootouts suck!—and I hate to see college hockey go the same direction. Since USCHO buried the lead, I’ll quote the full section:

The issue of tie games was discussed at length at the meeting. The committee considered numerous ideas, including efforts to reduce ties and ways to completely eliminate ties from the game. After these discussions, it is the committee’s current intent to eliminate ties starting with the 2008-09 season.

The group developed the three most feasible options to eliminate ties:

1) Five minutes of 4-on-4 overtime, then decide the game by using a shootout. This option had the most support among committee members.
2) Five minutes of 4-on-4 overtime, then 3-on-3 for five minutes of overtime, then a shootout.
3) Each team would receive a 5-on-4 power play opportunity for two minutes. If Team A scores and then holds Team B from scoring, Team A wins. If Team B scores a shorthanded goal during Team A’s opportunity, the game is over and Team B wins. If a penalty is called on the shorthanded team during the overtime opportunity, the power play opportunity is extended for the additional time. The procedure is used until one team scores. This model is more in line philosophically with the tiebreaking procedures used successfully in NCAA football.

The group also developed the three most feasible options to reduce ties:

1) Five minute overtimes playing 4-on-4.
2) 10 minute overtimes playing 4-on-4.
3) Five minute overtimes playing 4-on-4 and then 3-on-3.

The committee discussed the effect on the Ratings Percentage Index in Division I and the selection criteria for Division III institutions, and will continue discussions with the appropriate championship committees throughout this process. These selection criteria are the purview of the selection committees, not the rules committees.

“At this point, the committee did not take any formal action on tie games, but is presenting several options for consideration throughout the year,” said [Col. Jim] Knowlton, [chair of the committee and an administrator at the United States Military Academy]. “We plan to have some resolution on this issue at our meeting next summer.”

It makes zero sense to me that you want to change the rules of the game when it’s tied after 60 minutes. I don’t get the antipathy towards ties. You get a point. If you tie both games of a weekend, you split … you get two points. No problem there.