March Madness: Upsets

    A few weeks ago in class we had some mini debates about NCAA basketballs March Madness. We talked about many different topics that relate to the tournament; from a basketball and cultural aspect. I found many of the debates were very interesting and everyone in class did a good job coming up with great arguments. One debate topic that really interests me is whether or not the NCAA tourney is the best way to pick a champion. Some complained that it is new easy with the current tournament set-up for a good team to get upset and that it should possibly be changed to a series set-up where a team has to win two out of three or three out of five games to advance. The opposition for this debate had a good debate about why the system is good the way it is, but I would like to make my own since it is a subject that very much interests me. 

    Some people were upset this year when there were some major upsets in the first round of the NCAA tournament; most notably 15 seed Norfolk State defeating Missouri and 15 seed Lehigh beating Duke. I for one do not understand how someone could be upset with such entertaining events. What else could someone ask for in such a great tournament. We all got to see two huge underdogs win in the national spotlight. This was probably the first time both of the teams had played on National TV all year and they got to show what they were made of. 

http://media.silive.com/sportsstories/photo/10706192-large.jpg

     The tournament gives teams like these a great opportunity to show off all their hard work from the season. It also puts the Madness in March Madness. These are the stories everyone will remember. When looking back on this years tournament a few years from now nobody will remember the 15 seeds that Ohio St and Kansas defeated in the first round. However almost all college basketball fans will remember Lehigh and Norfolk State. Much like people remember Northern Iowas sweet 16 run in 2010 as a 9 seed. Or George Masons final four run as an 11 seed in 2006. These memorable moments are what give us great stories and images like this...

http://media.northjersey.com/images/NorfolkState.jpg

    Its these images that we all love to see. This is Kyle O Quinn shortly after Norfolk State beat Missouri. Who cant love a reaction like this? Anyway fans love these stories and this is what makes the NCAA tourney special, guys playing on a stage they have only dreamed about playing on and beating Goliath. Even if there are major upsets the best team always comes through and wins the tournament in the long run. If you still think this is not the right set-up to crown a champion because of the chance of upset well I think we can both agree its still way better than the BCS....

Backpacking and Registration Fun!

Inspired by a comparison I made to a comment on another blog I have decided to go into the gaming and all of the fun that The University of Michigan creates for us when it is time to backpack and register for our courses each semester!!

Well for starters, I am an extremely organized and by-the-schedule type of person which means this process drives me insane. Course guides for each semester come out during midterms so half of me only wants to look up my potential classes for the next semester, while the other half is holding me back from creating 8 different mock schedules. THEN the most fun part comes, you get your registration date, oh the competition has not even begun at this point. You ask around your group of friends who has what date trying to see where you fall, praying that you're at least 30 minutes before the person you ask in case you want the same classes or god forbid have the same major. The silent and unspoken sizing up and comparing between friends over how many credits you came into school with and how many AP classes someone else took. Then there's always that thought why do these students register before me when clearly I've taken harder classes, even if I took less credits. Oh the competition this all creates is just vicious and all of this right smack in the middle of midterms and mid semester projects.

Finally the kiss of death for anyone with anxiety like me ... those 20 minutes before you actually register. You slowly watch those hopeful green circles turn to yellow triangles and then deadly blue squares. You start to realize that your hopes of not starting class before 1pm are gone and that you will have that early morning Wednesday class and possibly even classes on Friday MORNING.
 5 minutes left until you register and you call your parents, older sibling, or older friend on the verge of tears that now because of this you won't graduate on time or you're going to have to take extra classes during "football season" aka Fall semester.  All of this during the time period when you're supposed to be focusing on this semester and studying for finals. What a game this is, looking forward to next semester, trying to "beat out" other people for classes, while still trying to have some sense of success on your finals in the semester you're currently in. By the time you finally register you then have to email at least 5 different professors the same generic email about how you're "so excited" for this class or how "you've only heard amazing things, and this class is a MUST TAKE." You and your hopefully future professor both know that nothing you really say in this email is true but you're hoping that you taking time out of your oh so busy day (aka you finally decided to get out of bed and take your laptop out of your backpack), will increase your chances of that ever wanted "override" email.

I'm sure that I'm not alone on this thought process, but anyone who thinks this emotional roller-coaster is fun I honestly respect you!

MLB Players and College

    There is a lot of criticism towards NCAA basketball and the rule that players only have to attend one year of college before taking off for the NBA. However the situation in baseball is way worse. Of all the players and managers in the MLB in 2011 only 26 had a college degree (Turbow, Wall Street Journal). Thats right less than one player per team  in the MLB has a college degree. This could be the case for many reasons. The main reason being the MLB minor league system. Major league teams draft players out of high school and send then to their mine league affiliates to develop as a player. It is the equivalent to a player developing in college in sports like basketball and football. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Curtis_Granderson_running_2011.jpg/300px-Curtis_Granderson_running_2011.jpg

   This makes certain players in the MLB anomalies, much like Jeremy Lin and Tim Tebow in their respective sports. One that particularly comes to mind is Curtis Granderson who plays for the New York Yankees. Now I hate the Yankees much like a lot of other baseball fans, but when Granderson used to play for the Tigers he was one of my favorite players. Curtis Granderson graduated from University of Illinois- Chicago with a double major in business administration and business marketing. When Curtis used to play fro the Tigers it did not take him long to become to the face of the franchise. He was a well spoken, young, athlete who was a great role model for young Tigers fans everywhere. He was also always promoting community service projects he was taking part in which gave kids another reason to look up to him. Another aspect that makes Granderson an anomaly is the fact that he is African American which there seems to be less and less of in the MLB, but that's a discussion for another time.

      It is becoming harder and harder to find role models like Curtis in the MLB. usually the star players have no college experience and have a tendency to make a poor decisions. There is a lot that would need to be done to fix this disappointing trend in baseball. It would have to start with more emphasis put on college baseball. As of now college baseball is not something many fans chose to watch. But, if it could be marketed as a more attractive option more young player may chose this route out of high school instead of going right into the minors. This may make a small change, however it is unlikely any change will happen. 

Link to article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511558996917441.html

Trobriand Cricket

The Trobriand Islands are a set of islands of the coast of New Guinea. I saw this documentary called Trobriand Cricket, about how christian missionaries brought the game of cricket to the Trobriand islands in order to discourage the Trobrianders from warfare. However, the Trobrianders interpreted the game and made it their own. They changed the rules and remade the game to fit into their own culture. They incorporated the game into ritualized feasts and gift exchanges and incorporated dances and chants between and during the game. They also incorporated magic, which allows the spectators to participate as well, and their version of the game is extra competitive because both teams involve lots of taunting of their opponets. Instead of accepting the christian missionaries version, they made the game more disorganized and violent, and instead of discouraging warfare the Trobrianders actually incorporated it into the game. I found the analysis of the way in which the Trobrianders made the game their own in order incorporate into their culture rather than accepting the set of rules that they were taught quite interesting. They recreated the magic circle that the game came with, and made the game more competitive and the fact that they incorporated warfare makes it a sort of game within a game.

Classes As Games

After getting a new "breakdown" and reassurance of this class I started to think about my grades in other classes. I know that this class is based off of game theory and the way we are graded is in the same way that a game is played, but isn't that the way most classes are here at the University of Michigan too? Maybe it's just me but around the end of every semester I start to play this "game" with myself and my grades on what I need to get on the final to satisfy not only myself but my parents too (let's be realistic more my parents). I even have downloaded an app to my iPhone called Grades 2 (I suggest you all download it too) where you plug in your syllabus for a class and as the course goes on this app tells you your course grade and what you need on future assignments to get your (or your parents) desired grade. In the past week I have probably spent more time on this app then my most recent downloads, Drawsomething, and my usual hourly Twitter check-ins. This app to me has become a game itself and a quite tedious one at that. Yes, I have been working hard in all my classes this semester, but there is no denying that there are times I should have been studying or doing work but I chose to do other things. Yet another game within my daily life, to do work or to be with my friends. This leads me to my final though is it really just this course that's all about games, or is every course here that has something to do with gaming, or playing games?

Moneyball First Reaction

When I first read Moneyball, I found the beginning chapters to be the most interesting part of the book.  The story as a whole was fascinating, but the ending chunk of the book was least appealing to me because I am not a die hard baseball fan, and the statistical analysis and description of drafting players was more difficult for me to get through. Michael Lewis begins the book by discussing the way in which  scouts put players through tests and how the players are putting on a performance for them, which immediately got me thinking about relating the book to our class. These players are competing against each other to win the prize of being selected by a scout, and the scouts test them as if they are pawns in a game rather than real people. The fact that they players put on a performance for the scouts shows that the players are aware that they are in a game within the game of baseball, and that they think about their performance in order to cater it to what they have determined a scout wants. Furthermore, the scouts are in a competition with each other to see who can find and acquire the best player. I think generally another way this book ties in with the class is that the Oakland A’s strategy for scouting went completely outside the typical, accepted format; they stepped outside the unwritten rules of scouting and turned to using pure statistics to determine who they wanted to get on their team. They broke out of the magic circle of scouting and chose players by using a computer rather than by what they see by looking at them. One of the reasons this aspect of the book is so interesting is that Billy Beane himself was scouted, and understands the scouting process better than most, but he was scouted and turned out to be, well, a failure. He proves that scouting techniques are not solid and that what a scout sees in a high school player does not necessarily determine future progress. He is an example of how statistics are very relevant to a player’s value, because if scouts had looked at his statistics when they were scouting him they would have realized that he was likely to not succeed. I think the actual drafting process is also a type of game theory strategy because each team must factor in other team’s decisions and choices, and try to determine what other teams will do before they do it so that they have a plan for the rest of the draft.  Despite the fact that some sections of the book went completely over my head, I was surprised how into it I was since baseball is probably my least favorite sport to watch.  I was also surprised about how many small aspects of the story had me thinking back to concepts we learned in class.

Are "1 and Done's" really "Student-Athletes?"

This season the number 1 overall team going into the NCAA Tournament was the University of Kentucky. Normally, you would not think anything of this, but if you take a closer look at their roster, some pretty alarming statistics jump out at you. Kentucky's starting five consist of 3 freshman, and 2 sophomores, and their 6th man is also a freshman.

Kentucky's Four Freshman "Studs"

From a historical standpoint, a team with so many underclassman would stand no chance of competing in the NCAA tournament. The recipe for success has always been experience, over youth, but this team is different. Most college basketball experts predict that all 3 freshman starterts will forgo the rest of college and enter the NBA Draft. In turn, this means that John Calipari (Kentucky's Head Coach) recruited these "kids" with no intention of them graduating college. Therefore, the term "Student-Athlete" gets thrown out the window when referring to this extremely young and talented Wildcat team. Instead these young men are really just amateur athletes playing for a University team.
Take a step back for a second, and put yourself in the shoes of one of these players. It is a Wednesday morning, and you are sitting in Intro to Psychology (only because you are forced to go to class due to eligibility rules). While the teacher is lecturing on Developmental Psychology, you are sitting in your chair daydreaming about how in about 3 months you are going to be signing a multi million dollar contract with an NBA team.
Now go back to your normal self. Do you really think that 18 and 19 year old students who have no intention of graduating are really going to put forth a lot of effort in doing well in their classes?

Playing Indian

Last semester, I took an amcult class that focused on Native American studies. One of the main ideas that we discussed throughout the course was the concept of playing Indian. This concept was briefly brought up again when we had Phil Deloria as a guest lecturer(he guest lectured for my amcult class as well). However, this course adds to the concept of playing Indian because it made me think of the act of playing Indian in a different light. In my class last semester, we learned that colonists in America initially "played Indian" in order to adopt a native identity to separate themselves from England. They also adopted it when rebelling against England, an example of which occurred when colonists dressed up as Indians during the Boston Tea Party. Playing Indian continued up until the present times, but it's purposes changed. Americans now played Indian as a way to promote American identity, believing that using Native Americans was a key to represent America as a whole. However, one issue that playing Indian brings up is that fact that it tends to be very stereotypical, and ignores Native American people as a whole and the difference between their tribes; it lumps all Native Americans together, disrespecting their cultural differences. The people playing Indian, on the other hand, tend to believe that they are respecting Indians by using them as a core piece of American identity, and that they are not appropriating stereotypes. One key example that we discussed was using Native Americans as mascots. When it came to this discussion, I completely understood why Native Americans were upset by such use and why they were fighting against it. I was surprised, however, to identify with fans and teams in this debate. Although I do see this use as disrespectful, I identify with fans because I am from Washingon D.C., and therefore a redskins fan, one of the most demeaning sports mascots there is. However, I understand that if the mascot was changed,   the fans support for the team would change; it would feel as if fans were supporting a different team than they had been loyal to for years. On the first day when we began discussing definitions of games and play, I began to understand just how playing Indian is a type of play(not just because of the name of the concept). To play Indian, one has to assume a role that they perform to others, they must attempt to embody the character that they are playing. Before this class I did not think of playing Indian as a type of play or game, but now I understand that it is.<---Halloween costumes are another way that people "play" Indian

Bringing it Back to a Childhood Game

Over spring break one of my friends told me that they had just started playing neopets, an online "clickey" game that I had played frequently in elementary and part of middle school. In the game, you create pets, you give your pets pets (petpets), you create homes for your pets, there is a virtual world with many different places you can go, and there is a large variety of games within the game that you can play to earn points. Hearing that my friend had just started playing the game got me thinking: Why did I play the game in the first place? Why is my friend, who is my age, just starting to play it now? I went back the website and logged into one of my old accounts to explore these questions. I had over 500,000 "neopoints," and a fancy home for my pet and petpet. I realized that I enjoyed playing in an alternate fantasy universe where I, at a young age, could be wealthy in the world and create a life for my pet; I could be like an adult. I enjoyed winning in another life through games of chance and through earning. After talking to my friend about the game, I also realized that he was playing for the money, for the wealthy lifestyle, after he asked me if he could take all of my neopoints and valuable items. Another interesting point I realized after logging into my own account is the fact that the game has not really noticably changed in any form: there aren't really any new places in the virtual world, the items are worth the same, the games are worth the same etc. This fact got me thinking as to why the game has stayed successful for so long, without updating at all. This question I could not come to an answer to after playing the game for about a week, because I got extremely bored due to the lack of changes, and as someone who is older and leads a more indepedent life now, the fantasy is no longer entertaining to me. I think my friend, on the other hand, may find the game interesting because it is new to him, but he will most likely get over it quickly and be on to the next game.
<--these are the neopets I had