Project Self: Getting Iron in the Diet

I've been doing some soul-searching last night and tonight. I have been asking myself the question, "What do I want my life to look like?" And I continually arrive at the same answer. Which is, "I have no idea."

I find myself caught in a strange situation to which I am unaccustomed. I think that I am generally a team-oriented guy. But I have no team for which to fight. I am at a stage of my life where everyone in my life is either an individual-focused person, or is on a team with which I don't really care to play for. I have this uneasy feeling that I am slowly going insane when I look around me and see people refusing to acknowledge their shortcomings, and look for new ways to do things. It drives me nuts when I see people have such terrible processes that their outcomes are almost guaranteed to be negative. I hate it when people are too weak, scared, lazy, etc. to make changes in their life, even after they realize that where they are is awful. And when they bitch and complain? I do all that I can not to get angry or outright mean.

And I hate it that I see all of this in myself.

There is very little here to push me in the ways that I have been used to. I have always thrived when I have someone who understands the metagame of life. Someone who can see things from a bird's eye view and can push me in the right directions. Some people hate being told how to do things. And I do to. But only for things that I have mastered. When it is for things that I have not mastered, I love it. My goal is for continual improvement in all that I do. And I am keenly interested in how those processes work. This carries true for areas of career, friendships, romance, hobbies, athletics, whatever.

At this point, I look around my social network. I have a few wonderful mentors for my career. my advisor and a couple other professors have truly helped me improve myself in my approach to learning. At this point, I look around, and somehow, someway, through only happenstance, have I managed to separate myself a bit from the rest of the pack in my program. Over the last 18 months, I've gone from a kid who showed up with a couple random ideas, to someone who is starting to look like they have a program of research for the foreseeable future. Now, most PhD's graduate without a published journal article, and only have a paper or two under review that comes from their dissertation. I've got my publication (though it's only a B-level journal, not the A-level hit that I want to get a couple of). And beyond that, I just realized that I currently have 5 research projects (all somewhat related, but each with different ultimate goals) in play, with at least 1 more that will be developed from my summer paper, and with 2 more that I am already planning to build off of a current project. And another of the projects has the potential for spawning at least 3 different projects. It's strange to think like this, but I'll have a chance at have 8 journal submissions, in the near future. Of these, 3 or 4 will be attempts at the top journals. And all of this before my dissertation kicks off. The funny thing is, I really don't think that I'm working all that hard. I enjoy what I do, but I don't get myself buried in it. I've left myself time to work out regularly. I've left myself time to relax. And I've left myself time to see friends and make new friends. I credit this to the people who have taken an interest and pushed me to this point. There's still so much more to do. But despite being at a competitive place (turns out we're ranked #21 in the latest marketing rankings in U.S. News) going up against other smart people, I don't have any fear.

Where I am afraid is with everything else. When it comes to making myself a better person, I don't have much coaching. It's funny. In academia, I have so far to go to succeed, yet I am entirely unfazed by the task. For becoming a better person, I can see some things here and there I want to change. I think that I'm a decent guy who's generally on top of his game. I think that most would characterize me as a 'good' person, and most folks like hanging out with me. But I'm always interested in how I can better myself. There are little things that I want to improve. I want to know what's important and know what's not. I want to be able to know how to control my desires so that what I desire is ultimately good and fruitful. And I want to know how to make those things happen. And it's utterly frustrating that I can make it happen like I want to. It's strange, but I think that I have the same conclusion that I had 3 years ago. I don't have a mentor when it comes to life. The one person that does push me is DE. But even that is very domain-specific, generally related to social networking. We do well in the things that we try, but that's somewhat limited. And really, where it's been helpful isn't so much in helping me learn new ways, but rather helping me understand that I can bring techniques from other areas of life into this area. I think that whatever improvements I have been able to manage have been entirely self-driven.

How long can this last, before regression begins? I have no idea. Of course, part of the change over the last few months is finally understanding the point that Morpheus was trying to make when he asks Neo, "You think that's air you're breathing now?" We each of a self-concept that's been formed through years of experience and environment. There are many parts of our self-concept that are useful. But there are many parts that are dysfunctional. If you can strip yourself of your self-concept, you have a chance to rebuild yourself, psychologically. You can maintain the good, but discard the bad. Generally, people like to say that conventional thinking is "inside the box" while unconventional thinking is "outside the box." I am fully convinced that there is no box. I have no limits in what I can do. And as long as I am honest with myself, I can take that path in an entirely positive way. I can see things and see where I am deficient and see how I can improve. And this is freeing.

But I wonder how long it will be before I slowly start to lie to myself. At which point, things break down.

I've always dug Proverbs. 27:17 is one that's good... As iron sharpens iron... so one man sharpens another. I need to find some iron.

-Chairman

The Things I'll Try

My motto of late is, "I'll try anything twice."

I may have to change that motto.

I tried to watch women's college basketball today. Figured that you had 2 games tonight that involved two dynasties and two teams that have been 1-2 in the rankings all year. Let's just say that I lasted about 10 minutes during the first stretch. UNC was beating up on Tennessee, and it was sort of ugly to watch. So I wandered off to do some work. Of course, since I'll try anything twice, I tuned into the 2nd half of Duke-UConn. I couldn't do it. There were a couple nice shots that were made. Nothing spectacular. But a nice little fadeaway in the lane off of a good post move by Duke player. And then they also had their little guard make a nice move off the dribble and hit a fadeaway in the lane. And that was the highlight. Let's put it like this. It was a 2 point game with under 2 minutes left. Even though I've been frustrated at men's hoops, if this was a UConn-Duke men's game at the same juncture, you'd have to pry me away with a crowbar. I left of my own volition, just wondering if the women's game will ever become good enough to really watch on it's own absolute merits (not just that it's a well played game for women).

I don't see the answer being "yes" anytime soon. And the answer is absolutely NOT because they don't dunk the ball. The answer is because their forwards and centers are absolutely horrible to watch. These chicks, in general, have very little athletic ability, and often, the play in the post is just ugly. They're tall, they're big, and that's about it. I'm actually reasonably impressed with the guard play that I've been seeing. There are some solid players that I've seen who have good handle, make solid passes, and can shoot and create. If you could enforce a rule that all women's players had to be under 6'0" tall, you may actually get a game that's fun to watch. I don't want to see these huge women plodding along with no real skill. You see it in the men's hoops, for sure, but you don't typically see it at the higher levels. And when you see some of the really huge men's players out there, they often have surprising athletic ability. This has not been the case with the big women players that I've been watching. And for all the talk of the women's game being more fundamentally sound, with better ball movement and better shooting? Well, I have to say that I wasn't particularly impressed. Maybe I just caught a couple ugly stretches, but there's as much of an issue with fundamentals in the women's game as there is in the men's game. And this was with elite programs. I don't even want to think about average mid-major or low-D1 women's hoops. Or... heh... JUCO women's hoops. Wow. On the list of things that will make me vomit, I just added two.

For women's hoops to make the leap, there needs to be an overall change in the game, where Candice Parker isn't a freak of nature, but is one of many players that can make the game more interesting to watch. And it will have to happen without the loss of fundamentally sound basketball. I think that the day will come where women's basketball will become watchable. It just doesn't happen to be today.

-Chairman

Quickie...

I think that I have a new favorite sports team.

Duke Lacrosse.

Who'd have guessed that one?

-Chairman

A New Era

So I'm watching some basketball this week, and I'm doing all I can to not get angry. First of all, the Illini that I watched all year are better than any of the teams that are in the Final Four. I watched massively talented teams (UConn, Duke, 'Nova, Memphis) play lousy basketball and lose to inferior teams. I see Hall of Fame coaches (Jim Calhoun) unable to get his team, which has a phenomenal combination of experience and talent, to play good, smart basketball, and finally run out of luck. There's terrible point guard play all the time. You see all sorts of just dumb plays from good players. You see teams try to give the game away. And I see bad refs dictating games through their calls and non-calls that just seem plain bad. And yet, I love March Madness.

But, that's starting to waver just a little bit.

I'm with The Sports Guy. College basketball is becoming unwatchable. Memphis-UCLA? Forget it. Even the LSU-Texas game was ugly. I watched the entire 2nd half and OT of the George Mason, UConn game. For a little stretch there, I was really, really impressed at the level of basketball that was being played. There was a beautiful run by Rudy Gay when he got like 9 UConn points in a row. George Mason's big men were posting up bigger guys and scoring with beautiful, classic post moves. I thought that I had stumbled onto a legitimately good game. And then, came the last couple minutes. Uggh. UConn chucking up bad shots, having to get bailed out with athletic offensive rebounds. George Mason missing free throws and not understanding how many timeouts they have. Somehow, George Mason left a UConn player alone until he had turned the corner for a layup, which just barely rolled in to force OT. As the OT continued, there was a little stretch where George Mason played some good offense, and took a nice 4 point lead into the endgame. And you saw them try to choke it again. They somehow parlayed a 5-point lead (which could've been 6 or more with some free throws) into a 2 point game, where (after 2 more missed free throws), UConn actually has the ball with 6 seconds left. Figure that Williams will drive into the middle for another short jumper (which he's been dominating with all day, all season, really), or for Anderson for another clutch J (after he did it twice against Washington). Instead, Rudy Gay goes coast to arc, and takes a STEP BACK, FADEAWAY, 3-POINTER!!! When they were down 2. Geez. Welcome to the Final Four, George Mason.

And this wasn't even the worst last-second decision of the weekend. Enter Mr. Raivio of Gonzaga. Watch the tape of this one. About 11 seconds left. Down by 1. You have the player of the year, who's scored 24 points already, just standing there, wanting the ball to set up a last shot for the win. Instead, you ignore Adam Morrison, and fly down the court, with the player of the year still in the backcourt, in shock. You proceed to lose your dribble in a double-team, and lose the ball altogether, giving it back to UCLA for free throws. Of course, Morrison did miss the previous two chances to ice the game with a bucket. So who knows. Naturally, UCLA doesn't ice the game with 2 free throws, but rather leave it a 2-point game after only making 1 of 2. And with 2.9 seconds, all Gonzaga could get a desperation heave to their center (who's not exactly Christian Laettner), who throws up a terrible looking shot from 17 feet, that never had a chance.

All I know is that it's becoming darn-near impossible for me to watch a game that doesn't either involve a team that I'm interested in (at this point, it's just the Illini) or involve a little guy upsetting a big guy. In the past, I could just watch good basketball. And really, I think that I still can. It's just that even on this big stage, good basketball is hard to find. Even the George Mason-UConn game today... you change that jersey on George Mason to something like Maryland, and I probably lose all interest.

I think that this is carrying over from other areas of my life. I'm just much more interested in the process of how things happen, rather than the outcomes. And these processes that I've been watching are enough to make someone angry.

-Chairman

The Best "Worst Spring Break Ever"

Okay. It's spring break. And it's snowing. And I'm not skiing and hot-tubbing in Aspen. And I have work to get done. And I'm completely unmotivated. Tack on the fact that the Illini choked away a win in the Dance, and you could say that it's the "Worst Spring Break Ever." But then, you'd be missing the big picture.

I'm coming off of one of the best 48-hour road trips of all time, where unlike the Illini, I am arriving back in Champaign victorious and triumphant. And unlike most NBA teams, we were able to dominate in back-to-back road games. Some highlights of the trip include:

-Finally experiencing the 20 oz. ribeye at The Beef House
-Being accused of scripting material in Indy
-Solving the "Prisoner's Dilemma" in Indy
-High speed number closing on the freeway
-Being called out by Miss Mona Lisa at the Holiday Inn in L'Ville
-Shaking our Laffy Taffy and otherwise owning McDonald's in L'Ville
-Dancing around landmines in Fuglyville
-Drawing straws for the wingman role
-Learning what "Five Ways to Sunday" really means
-Discovering the L'Ville strain of the Kentucky Horse Virus
-Finding out what they don't show you in the Study Abroad brochures
-Putting on a fashion show and number closing at the Polo outlet store
-Taking over the rest of the outlet mall just for kicks
-Scheduling a club outing at McKinley for mandatory testing
-Beta testing club reading and training exercises

For the rest of spring break, we do have quite a bit planned. Naturally, there's research to be done. But the latest research project could be key in my future research. Let's just say that it involves the latest in online social networking, some creativity, a little scientific method, and some extensive field testing. In the meantime, I think that we've actually got some time to mourn the Illini loss, get some research done, get some work in at practice, and start planning our next away game.

-Chairman

Whoops?

Well, so much for that idea. Let's just hope that we don't slide any further than a 3 seed. And really, it's not that we played terribly. We just got a little sloppy with the ball, and Michigan St. was a little better with the ball than they had been against us. Plus we gave away 5 points down the stretch on the line. I'm a little surprised that Pruitt doesn't get a little more leash to get aggressive down low. And I'm just as surprised that Warren Carter was in our crunch-time lineup. I'm even more surprised that he played alright. But, the loss happened. Michigan St. is a very talented team who got points from their bench and pulled it out. Honestly, it wouldn't shock me to see them get a 5-7 seed and cause havoc in the bracket.

We get an extra couple off days, before we get geared up for our run. Keys for our tourney run:

1) Finding ways to get Dee into good scoring position. Michigan St. defended him very well, making him work like crazy for average looks and forcing him into a lot of tough looks with the clock running down. Maybe running our 3-guard lineup with Pruitt, in lieu of Randle. Randle really hurts our half-court set when he's away from the ball. I don't know how I'd handle him, other than to go hi-low with Randle in the low, or leaving him in the post and having him go block-to-block... you just can't leave him out on the wing because they just sag and clog the lanes, plus they can extend to the opposite side much more aggressively.

2) Forcing the issue inside. We got Paul Davis his 3rd foul, and then sort of stopped going after him. If I'm running the show w/ the other team's glue guy (and only inside threat on offense) on the ropes, I stop the motion until further notice, run NBA sets to get iso-posts, and force interior doubles. Run the 3-guards, w/ Pruitt and Auggie. Leave Jamar and Rich opposite, above the arc. Bring whoever Davis is on into the low post on the near side. The other big goes to the opposite corner. Dee dribbles to the near wing, and then trigger the offense. Force Davis to either defend aggressively or to give up a lay-up. Force doubles from guys guarding Jamar and Rich for open 3's or interior doubles with Auggie cutting. Run screen and roll and force the issue with Davis if he doubles. Plus, we get Dee better looks if Davis sags. I wish we had a little more flexibility in our playbook before we get under a minute on the clock.

3) Get open J's. The huge difference between this year and last year's Illini are the number of good, open jumpers we get for our shooters. Rich has been making shots over the last couple weeks that Luther and Deron never had to take. Our combined ball movement and penetration threat was so good that other teams had to over-commit to the ball, which left our reversals wide-open. This year? Not so much. Teams can stick with us because Rich isn't the threat that Deron was. He and Jamar are at their best when they get open shots, not when they have the ball in their hands. One suggestion - instead of having our screen attack the wings, perhaps having more interior screens so that our shooters can attack the free-throw line off of a pass. I think that we need to mix-up where we look to get our shots. Getting a shooter to run baseline, and curl hard off of a screen to the free-throw line leaves you with either an open 14' shot, or a quick dump down for a dunk. Watch how the Larry Brown Pistons would run Rip Hamilton inside of the arc for quick 15 footers. Maybe we can bring that into our fold.

4) Make free-throws. A lot of it is the personality of our team. Our hustle guys don't make free-throws. Hustle guys tend to get fouled the most. Randle absolutely must make his free throws if we want to pull out ugly games like the one yesterday. Ditto for Auggie.

I think that our D is still solid. We made Michigan St. work for buckets. They didn't get much in transition. They made some tough jumpers on us. And after the first 8 miutes, we even made Davis work for his buckets (he got some easy 16 footers on us early, and hit them all). We won't face a team that talented until the Sweet 16, or maybe the Elite 8. Hopefully, we'll have time to get on a run in time for that. Otherwise, it'll be a lousy spring break.

-Chairman

Project Self: Lessons from the Colosseum

So I'm thinking about how sports permeates our society. I have a conversation with CJ about how so many networking situations are lubricated not only with alcohol, but also with sports. While I certainly believe that a cold glass of Sam Adams gives people a common bond, I think that conversation about sports does even more. In evolutionary terms, we look for belonging in groups that will keep us in an advantageous position against other groups. While this may seem to be a very good argument against, say, being a Cubs fan, the act of belonging is where I'm headed with this. We'll delve into the implications of an actual affiliation choice later.

I think that if you take a quick stab at the reasons for following sports, you find yourself back to something very primal. You place yourself in the safety net of the group so that you have something to belong to. We aren't very easily able to demonstrate our physical alpha-ness very easily in modern society. To some extent, our affiliation with a group allows us to have a proxy for that. Our affiliation becomes some sort of indirect proof of our worth. That's one of the reasons for group affiliation, once you get past the obvious things (division of labor, strength in numbers, etc.).

And we've seen this throughout the history of man. We tend to thrive in groups. Some of this is simply because well-organized groups can be brutally efficient (if you're interested in this sort of stuff, take a peek at Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond). Those who go alone are, at worst, killed and eaten, and at best, simply forgotten (for those of you who are curious of the implications of legacy, you can do some reading on Mortality Salience Theory - a relatively new psychological theory on why we do things in certain ways when we're primed with death). So, we like to be a part of something. Well, duh.

So, in modern times, in an American culture where can we really find this affiliation? Well, the first thought seems to be religion. Historically, that's one very easy way to affiliate yourself with a group. But in this society, there has been a backlash against people who define themselves by their religion. We see it when we roll our eyes at Jehova's Witnesses who come knocking at the door or the Hare Krishnas at the airport in their robes. We see it when we get angry against Muslim fanatics in the news. We see it when we ridicule the Mormons for their "happy cult." We see it when we take a step back from Christians who share faith a little too personally, a little too easily, and altogether awkwardly. We see religion as sort of quaint. But generally left to the simple minded. And we tend to respect more the folks who keep their religious beliefs private, but rather show their religious beliefs through their actions. This isn't exactly the model that we use to draw a fanatic fan base.

The next institution with which we can align ourselves is family. But again, this country has generally been more about egalitarian values than royal ones. We don't do royalty here. And in fact, we tend to mock strong families (see the Brady Bunch movie from a few years back). Sure, we have had the Rockerfellers, the Carnegies, the Kennedy's, and the Roosevelts. But those have been the exception. Most of our images of family clans looks more like the Hatfields and McCoys. One take on why this is: you can go a little further into the egalitarian values and say that we are an individualistic society. It would then follow that our collective needs would likely be met somewhere where there is less at stake than with family. I'm not saying that family is bad. I'm just saying that our response to it is more like what we think when we hear, "O'Doyle Rules!" It's more of a mocking thing where we sort of laugh at/pity those poor suckers from the backwater who have nothing else to define themselves.

Of course, we still have our work. Traditionally, our trade has often defined who we are. Back in the master/apprentice way of doing things, it was a big deal. We devoted our lives to our craft. In fact, how often do we see our last names influenced by our vocations? Smith, anyone? But today? We are in a continual state of flux when it comes to our work. What's the average number of times that a student changes their major? How often do people find new jobs? How many people in this generation are defined by what they do? I would say that this becomes less and less true as you go down the prestige of your work. I could see doctors or professors being content with saying that their work is one of the top 5 things that defines them. I don't see that happening as much with a cook at McDonald's.

You go down the list, and you see fewer and fewer real outlets for our group needs. I would suggest that's why we see such a high level of instant bonding in things as seemingly trivial as the Greek system, intramural sports, or barcrawls with people in your program. We want to belong to something, and we have relatively few outlets to really satisfy that. And these things are rather restrictive to a small group. Where you see sports fill this role is when you have a uniting force for larger populations.

How many Cubs fans are there? If I had to guess, probably somewhere around 5 million. Are they all hard core? Do they all know baseball? Do they know a slider from a splitter? Nah. But you've got a ton of casual fans out there. Why do we have so many Cubs fans? Is it because they're a great team? Well, not so much. Is it for their storied history? Even less. Is it because it's what people around them talk about, and they want to feel like a part of the rest of society? I think so. This group is open membership. Anyone with ten bucks to buy a Cubs hat can be a fan. All of the working knowledge you need to stay up to date is public domain. Everyone can do it. Who actually knows anything about anything? Not many of them. Heck, I think that I know more about the Cubs than 95% of Cubs fans. And I hate the Cubs. So why is it so appealing? Because everyone else is doing it. There's not statement of right or wrong on an absolute level. It's simply relative, situational ethics at work.

We've all heard stories of how brutal the Roman Colosseum was. And we've seen Gladiator, with the blood thirsty crowds. But my question is, were the people there actually brutal, violent individuals? Probably not. My guess is that they were there because it was the place to be. It's what everyone else was doing, so it must be right. It was the ultimate form of social proof. And more and more, I am seeing that social proof has become more vital to our daily successes and failures than any more systematic, absolute forms of proof.

So what does all this mean? Beats me. But when we become a part of something larger, we feel at home. We want it to be easy entry. We want it to be comfortable. We want it to feel like it's what is right because everyone else is doing it. Sports lets this happen. Where this is interesting is that this is a very "thin slice" way of meeting people. Obviously, this is a great entry point into more serious discussions. But with many people, this is the single, best way to get to know someone at first. Are there problems if this it the only depth to which people can go? Certainly. Lots of sports geeks out there.

I've heard it from multiple places where guys are nervous about meeting other guys in networking situations, and they hope that the guys that they meet know sports, otherwise they would have no idea what to talk about. In my life, that was a common bond between myself and most of my natural friendships. We played street ball against each other (any type of ball - pigskin, hardball, basketball) and then we watched the pros play over at someone's house. We'd play sports video games with each other, we'd trade sports cards, and we made sure that we had some form of affiliation made evident with our clothing. But for me the friendships where we actually played sports were different.

These relationships always carry a finer edge that my non-sports relationships. Which is what I find particularly interesting. Why is it that by having played sports with and against someone, our relationships are deepened. I think that it's the tradeoff between working together and then working against each other in a relatively high short-term stakes, yet ultimately low long-term stakes setting. We learn strengths and weaknesses awfully quickly. We figure out how to work together (otherwise you lose). You figure out how to keep your opponents from working together. A handful of 11-year olds can develop a pretty complex strategy pretty quickly if they want to stop losing. Sports is the arena where ego is triumphed (in the long term) over the good of the group. Eventually, you stop worrying about the name of the person, and focus on the abilities and likelihood of success that that person brings. It's egalitarianism in it's rawest form. And that's where sports carries through.

As for those of us who grew up without sports? Beats me.

-Chairman

Project: Self

I think that over the upcoming weeks, I am going to use this space as a little self-realization, internal psycho-analysis, if you will. What I want to do is to peel off some time so that I can actually jot down what it is that I believe in, strive for, and feel a connection with. I want to write down what it is I believe about things like social justice, faith, relationships, the environment, science and technology, business, fanaticism, and whatever else seems to be interesting. I think that I know what it is I believe in. But I'm not sure. Maybe I just need to put down different parts of a long-winded mission statement.

And of course, we'll also chime in on our Illini here and there. And possibly with whatever interesting happens to come at you through these fingers.

Feel free to chime in, if you're so compelled.

-Chairman.

Accuracy and Precision

Well, the regular season is over for our Illini. We'll either be Big Ten co-champs, or in 2nd place, a game behind Ohio St. I have to say. I am a little shocked that a team other than Illinois has a chance at 12 wins. But the Bucks managed to win at Michigan and Michigan St. (where the hell was the state of Michigan when we needed them to actually win?). So, we need Purdue to go into Columbus and upset Ohio St. on senior night. Probably not happening, but you never know.

I think that my original evaluation of the Illini was pretty right on. 25-5 was my original prediction (on Nov. 30) , and I was wavering between 26-4 and 25-5 back on Dec. 22, and again on Jan. 26. I think that I had a pretty good feel for our squad. Except for the Penn St. debacle. I still don't know how we lost this game. But I do know that at the first TV timeout in the 2nd half, I did lean over to the Jig and said, "you know, we're only up by 12..." and I've regretted making that statement ever since... And it's sort of disappointing to think that we may lose out on our third consecutive (and 5th in the last 6 years) Big Ten Title because we didn't execute at home against a bad team's 1-3-1.

But even though we may miss out on one of our goals, we are probably considered prohibitive favorites to win the Big Ten tourney for the 3rd time in 4 years. We'll have a tougher road than Ohio St., and will even fall to a 3 seed if Iowa beats Wisconsin. But even if we have a road that looks like Michigan St. - Iowa - Ohio St., I like our chances on a neurtal court against any of them. Plus, if we get a shot at Ohio St. somewhere other than Columbus, I think that we'll have a bit of a chip on our shoulders from the last two losses we've took from them.

Overall, it looks like we're playing for a 2 seed, but even with an early loss, I don't see us falling past a 3. But even though we're probably out of the running for a 1 seed, getting into the right side of the bracket will be nice for our Final Four chances. If we can play ourselves into the 5 or 6 slot, rather than the 7, 8, 9, or 10 slots in the S-Curve, then we can potentially avoid Duke/UConn until the Final Four, and will set up a much better looking Elite 8 matchup. Right now, it looks something like:

1-UConn
2-Duke
3-Villanova
4-Ohio St.
5-Memphis
6-Gonzaga
7-Illinois
8-Texas
9-George Washington
10-North Carolina
11-Pittsburgh
12-UCLA (maybe Washington or Tennessee?)

Let's just say that I'd much rather face the 11 or 12 team, than the 9 or 10 team, in the Sweet 16. And if it gets to the Elite 8, I'd much rather face 'Nova or Memphis than UConn or Duke. I think that Ohio St. has locked up a 2 seed, and is in contention for a 1 seed. And I think that we have a chance to actually leap them if we can win the tourney (aside from the head-to-head loss, we have a better looking profile than they do). Which means, we could possibly move up into that 4/5/6 range, which is a big jump, even though it doesn't look like it.

Anyway, we'll have a lot more figured out after the rest of the Big Ten sorts itself out. Go Purdue? Maybe they can Boiler Up, or something, and knock Ohio St. off.

-Chairman

Speaking Unofficially

Welcome to the mother of all Illini created holidays. Yep. It's time for Unofficial St. Patrick's Day here at the U. There's nothing so great as a holiday created by bar owners to encourage binge drinking and the celebration of the Irish heritage (which, coincidentally, is also binge drinking). This year, the bars don't open until 11am, which is a far cry from the 8am from years past. The best part? We had bar owners being quoted in our newspapers saying something to the effect of, "we're disappointed in the late start time, since that means that students will likely be drinking at their apartments, unsupervised, in the morning." What a philanthropist. Even better? Same dude was complaining that other bars were ripping off his idea. God bless this guy.

What's even better is that the original point of Unofficial was so that bars could have another day of making tons of money, since St. Patrick's day was over spring break. Over the last couple years, spring break has been pushed back, so that St. Patrick's actually falls on the school calendar. So, there's Unofficial, as well as the real St. Patrick's day. Got to love that.

So, it's a little after 12 right now. And I'm still up, punching out a section of a paper to send off to my advisor, so I figure that it would be a great time to pause for a moment, and punch up a blog posting over an ice cold can of Pabst Blue Ribbon. After all, it was established in Milwaukee in 1844. Which was a big year for me, as that was when I first arrived here at the U. And it's all been downhill ever since.

I don't believe that I'll be partaking in the daytime Unofficial activities. I've got a couple seminars to go to, starting at 11:30 and ending at 3. So, I think that I'll head home, hit the gym, and get a nap before having dinner and heading out to campus and seeing the carnage. Which is a lot like the rest of my days.

But enough about me. What do you think about me?

-Chairman