First Round Hoops

Since two teams with no business in the tournament are currently in progress, I decided to check in with some further hoops thoughts. 

Iowa State, an 11 seed which was outscored 200-145 its last three games, leads coach-less LSU 24-19 at the half. Pat Forde's March 12 Sports Illustrated piece on former coach Will "the Bagman" Wade and the mess that is LSU deserves a read, so give it a look. It took the NCAA three years to actually have anything to say about the ubiquitous LSU paying of recruits and family members. LSU, in the meantime, paid Wade millions of dollars to keep the slimeball gravy train going until the hammer fell. 

Houston

I mentioned in previous entries that the 28-5 Houston Cougars, with three losses by a total of five points, were hosed in the seedings. The committee assigned them a five seed while two of the more respected power ratings, the BPI and Pomeroy, had Houston as the second and fifth best team respectively. 

Not only did Houston get a bad seeding, they were also placed in a bracket featuring a "Tarkanian gauntlet," so named for how the NCAA routinely tried to mine UNLV's path in the tournament. Houston's bracket features the second, third, fifth, and 15th best teams, according to the BPI. Houston was therefore screwed multiple ways.

Oddsmakers versus Committee

And finally, two games in the first round featured a disagreement between the committee and Las Vegas sports books. Las Vegas made two lower seeds, Michigan and Memphis, favored. The oddsmakers were correct in both cases, and the committee was wrong. That's usually the way these disparities play out.

Bob Dietz

March 18, 2022

More Seed Smoking

As I mentioned in the previous entry, the 28-5 Houston Cougars are a five seed, courtesy of the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee. The BPI, contrastingly, has Houston rated as the second-best team in the country. The 2022 Pomeroy College Basketball Rating (KenPom) has them as the fifth best team. That's fifth best team overall, not a fifth seed.

The committee's raison d'etre is writing checks to brand names and "power" conferences. That's what they do. I want to point out some of the obvious problems with the current Committee-as-Boss-Hogg format. 

Simulations

The first obvious element I want to make clear is that the committee has access to the same simulation programs that USA Today and other news outlets employ and discuss in their pre-tournament feature articles. Games-as-seeded are run through the program 100,000 times or more, and the programs spit out probabilities for who is how likely to win, given the seedings. 

The committee has the ability to work backwards. They can decide what array of probabilities they prefer. Then they can experiment with various seedings and brackets so as to arrive at the array most likely to give them what they want. Houston as a five seed for example, seriously decreases Houston's chances as compared to a two seed.

Make no mistake. The committee has the ability to employ the same programs that simulate the tournament. That information can help them manipulate seedings to achieve what they want.

Starting from Scratch

The Pomeroy Ratings start from scratch each season. That's the only way true sport should be managed. No suppositions, no assumptions based on five stars, four stars, and one star. Teams earn their ratings. No alleged "eyeball tests," which usually turn out to be more auditory (how often have I heard this team's name on ESPN?) than visual.

In a sport like college basketball, with five players on the court and massive year-to-year turnover of personnel, Q-score television notoriety has no business influencing seeding or who squeezes into the tournament.

Conclusion

When a five seed like Houston is a shorter futures price than all of the four seeds but UCLA, well, Houston, we have a problem. Las Vegas sports books exist because they know who can do what to whom. A decadent committee not putting up its own money is strictly amateur hour compared to the sports books.

There are several ways this will get cleaned up. The committee can give up its kangaroo court nonsense and hand the reins over to pure power ratings like Pomeroy or to the sports books. Another way would be for a team or conference to sue the committee back into the Stone Age.

Bob Dietz

March 17, 2022

Sports: Smoking the Seeds -- 2022

Until about eight years ago, I annually wrote a "Smoking the Seeds" piece discussing the routine rigging and unfair manipulation of brackets by the NCAA tournament committee. The committee's transgressions, however, became so blatant as the seasons passed that there wasn't much that I could add to what had already been said.

I had written about Missouri State, with an RPI in the low 30's, being frozen out back when RPI was the committee mantra. I wrote about undefeated Wichita State being placed in a "Tarkanian bracket" -- so named for how the NCAA tried to screw his UNLV squads with bracket brutality. I've bitched and complained for decades. One year it's too many marginal Big East teams being shoe-horned into the tournament. The next year, and also this one, it's too many Big 10 teams getting jammed into the brackets. 

It's always the same themes as to who gets squeezed out or screwed via seeding. It's the San Diego States, the Wichita States, and Murray States of the world. And the teams getting their butts kissed are always brand names having marginal years. Whether the jargon is RPI, BPI, or Quadrant-mania, the story repeats itself. The faces on the committee may change slightly year to year, but the illegal monopoly remains the same.

2022

One of my friends commented that televised shots of the tournament committee at work looked like dinner with the Republican National Committee. All old white guys deciding the fate of hundreds of black athletes and coaches. 

This year, for some reason, the Big 10 became fashionable, and all manner of borderline-straddling teams from the conference were anointed. Indiana, Rutgers, and Michigan, all of whom I presumed needed at least one additional win for consideration, made it. Using the old RPI ratings, which were committee gospel for more than a decade, Michigan was 49, Ohio State 54, Indiana 70, and Rutgers 91. Wow.

Using the more moderne (and yes, the spelling is sarcasm) BPI, Michigan was 27, Indiana 31, and Rutgers 76. The BPI would also have Wisconsin as a seven seed. The Badgers are a three. Houston, they of the 28-5 record, lost three games by a total of five points to Wisconsin, Alabama, and SMU. They were also spanked twice by Memphis. Houston got a five seed. According to BPI, they are the second best team in the country.

None of this, however, is any news to those who coached San Diego State or Wichita State these last decades. It's a brand name monopoly, and it's actually gotten worse these last few years. The NCAA doesn't like writing checks unless those checks are going to teams with good Q (and I don't mean Quadrant) scores.

My Faves

When I saw Iowa State as an 11 seed, I gagged. Iowa F***ing State? The Cyclones lost their last three games 53-36, 75-68, and 72-41. All those white guys on the committee must be patting each other on the back. The state of Iowa is 91.3% white. Just sayin'. If white is right, the Cyclones should have been given a top seed. Why only an 11? 

On the flip side, SMU had some clunkers, but nothing like that three-game closing stretch by Iowa State. I think that SMU got the short end.

Conclusion

About 10 years ago, there was a push to exclude teams with sub-.500 conference records from the tournament. That would have solved some of the unfairness. It would also have minimized the possibility that the committee could really screw up the tournament by badly misjudging any single conference. Had that rule been in effect this year, TCU (8-10 conference), Iowa F***ing State (7-11), and Indiana (9-11) would be in the NIT. But no, the committee executed their routine monopolistic cash grab for the brand name conferences. 

It's only going to get worse and worse until somebody takes the gathering of white dudes to court. 

Bob Dietz

March 16, 2022 

Propaganda Files: Rubio and Nuland (Part Two)

Rubio:  "Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?"

Nuland: "Uh, Ukraine has, uh, bio (pause) logical research facilities which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain control of, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of these research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach."

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, having been presented with that answer from Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, could have asked any of a bevy of obvious follow-up questions:

1) Are there toxic pathogens at these facilities that can be weaponized?

2) How many facilities are there?

3) How long have these facilities been operating?

4) Did the U.S. help fund these facilities? If so, how are they funded?

5) Were any Americans working at these facilities?

6) Do we have similar labs in other European countries? If not, why in Ukraine?

Instead of asking any of these obvious questions screaming to be asked, Rubio interrupted Nuland with:

"I'm sure you're aware that Russian propaganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of   information about how they've uncovered a plot by Ukrainians to release biological weapons in the country and, with NATO's coordination. If there's a biological or chemical incident or attack inside of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100 percent it would be the Russians that would be behind it?"

That was Rubio's interruption. His questioning had veered off the intended road, so he interrupted with a rhetorical leading question. He took it the whole nine yards by asking for a "100 percent" certainty. Just ridiculous.

Responses

Well, today Mitt Romney called Tulsi Gabbard "treasonous" because Gabbard pointed out that there are 26 U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine, some of which have dangerous pathogens. I guess it doesn't take much to commit treason these days.

Pushback on the biolabs reporting has been interesting. For example, mainstream media has decided that labeling the labs "secret" demonstrates the falsity of the story. The labs aren't technically secret, although one could argue that if 99% of Americans didn't know about them, the labs were effectively if not definitionally "secret."

The 2005 agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine (for the U.S. to provide assistance to safely handle former Soviet labs in Ukraine) was plastered in most biolab stories. I do have a question, though. Since it's been 17 years, how long does it take to render such labs safe and not requiring American help? I guess that's a rhetorical question on my part.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, who said,

"There may be damage done or theft and they may in fact misuse some of the material that's there that is not intended for weapon purposes but nevertheless could be used in dangerous ways."

In other words, white hats versus black hats determines the label to place on pathogens. Maybe Haines worked for a tobacco company in her youth. Or the NRA. 

Ukraine's President Zelensky said,

"And no chemical or any other weapons of mass destruction were developed on my land."

I would feel better had Zelensky simply said that no weapons of mass destruction were in Ukraine. Instead, he opted for none having been "developed" in Ukraine.

So the 99.99% of Americans who didn't know U.S.-backed biolabs were in Ukraine woke up one day to discover that there are biolabs everywhere, and we wouldn't have learned this except for the Russkies and the Chinese. Yeah, that's where we are these days.

Russian Fairy Tales

The Russians are pushing their own propaganda, of course, but a lot of their stuff is so out there that it belongs in a "bleach speech." For example, they claim biolabs were genetically targeting Russians as opposed to Ukrainians. I'd love to know how the U.S. was supposed to pull that off. Putin's seen the last Bond film, No Time to Die, way too many times. 

And then there are allegedly drones dropping infected birds (which is an interesting idea, I must admit, unless they're dropping turkeys) and all kinds of crazy Man from U.N.C.L.E. plotlines out there in Russian propaganda land. The Russian tales are semi-nonsensical, but the Americans fumbling around trying to explain biolabs in an obvious potential war zone is just idiotic. 

Conclusion

The Rubio/Nuland exchange was on C-SPAN, so there was no hiding it. However, the exchange in full, or even the parts I've quoted in the last two entries, did not make it onto CNN or MSNBC. Instead, it got a mention here and a line there. 

I suspect Americans are backed into a corner. One or more of those labs may already have been compromised. If I had to guess, my inclination is to think that could have already happened, so the blame game is rolling. The Rubio/Nuland exchange may have been preemptive foreshadowing for a disaster that's already in progress. 

Bob Dietz

March 15, 2022

 

Propaganda Files: Rubio and Nuland (Part One)

I really had no intention of commenting, even obliquely, on the Russia/Ukraine war. The only things I know about geopolitics come from watching clips of Ian Bremmer, and the only reason I follow Bremmer is because he co-wrote a book with a guy I once coached in basketball. In other words, I know nothing.

But then came the March 8 live stream of Marco Rubio questioning Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I was really hoping there was nothing to the Russia and China blather about U.S.-backed biolabs in Ukraine. Russia lies about everything, and China, God bless them, rarely tells the truth, so I was hunkered down amidst the 24/7 carnage reports from Ukraine, hoping that the U.S. hadn't really contributed to the Putin bullseye on Ukrainians' backs. 

Rubio: "Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?"

Nuland: "Uh, Ukraine has, uh, bio (pause) logical research facilities which in fact are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain control of, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach."

Upon hearing that, I just shook my head. I seriously doubt that the U.S. is worried that the Russians will steal a couple of patents, so I guess that the old propaganda lens needs to come out of my pocket once again. Here we go.

The Honorable Victoria Nuland, as her placard said, is neocon royalty semi-famous for accidentally exposing that the U.S. was managing Ukrainian politics to a larger-than-expected extent back in 2014. I'm just rehashing Wikipedia here; I was familiar with Nuland only because she resigned from the State Department with the arrival of Trump, and then she commented quite a bit about it.

While Nuland was giving her response to Rubio, she started twirling her pen in her hands in an amazingly nervous manner. I can't believe that a career diplomat displayed that much nervousness on television. I thought maybe we'd have some writing-implement violence a la La Femme Nikita or the Joker in The Dark Knight. But no, Rubio was too far away for anyone but Daredevil's Bullseye.

Rubio/Nuland Line by Line

Well, what am I to surmise from Nuland's response? Let's go through the obvious.

1) First, if the answer to Rubio's query was a clear "no," she could simply have said "no." No, some say, means no. She didn't say no.

2)  She studiously avoided a definitionally symmetric response. By that I mean that she fielded a question about chemical and biological weapons and then provided an answer about "bio (pause) logical research facilities." So what does transforming one phrase into another phrase tell you?

3) It tells you that she's sensitive to legal responsibility here. She's worried about perjury or some such, so she responds with an answer that isn't a lie but isn't transparent. 

4) Because she used the word "facilities" -- plural -- it's clear to me that there is more than one such biolab. If there were one, she would have stated a singular.

The fact that Ukraine has multiple bioweapons labs slapped me in the face. I knew nothing about it. I wonder what percent of Americans knew about it. I've seen figures strewn about the internet saying there are 26 such labs. I have no idea if that's true.

Why Did Nuland Tell the Truth?

Well, if it's legal exposure she's worried about, that must mean there's some kind of reasonable evidentiary trail for these "research facilities" having produced and stored lethal toxins. Whether these toxins are in a weaponized state is largely irrelevant, as things like anthrax can be weaponized at a moment's notice. The anthrax killer from Maryland had no problem weaponizing "research facility" materials. 

My speculation is that there must be some serious evidence for these biolabs and what they were storing. Otherwise, Nuland would simply have lied. 

Since Nuland said the interesting part out loud, responses have been wide-ranging and interesting. Part Two will feature a survey of the reactions to this Rubio/Nuland interaction. We'll learn more based on who says what, and even Ukrainian President Zelensky had something to say.

Bob Dietz

March 12, 2022

 

Pink Elephants Fly, Ivermectin Works, and the CDC Tells the Truth

I learned a long time ago that if you search for confirmation in academic journals, eventually you'll find a study that will make your case for you. I've always said that if you look long and hard enough, you can "prove" that pink elephants not only exist, but that they fly. And every drug known to man works for some people some of the time. And occasionally the CDC will tell you what you need to know as opposed to what they need you to know. But I digress.

What is Expertise?

Expertise is being able to put any and all studies, even those whose results are dangling from each end of a bell curve, into some kind of overall context. Unfortunately for the human race, there aren't any humans really qualified to do that. So (1) we guess, and (2) we extrapolate, and (3) ideally we subordinate our need for answers to the realization that there are no immediate answers, and there may not be any for years to come. However, that #3 rarely happens in reality. Instead, money and pressure and the need to proceed (that's a Top Gun homage) propel us into drawing conclusions to fuel practical plans. These forced-choice practical plans often turn out to be horribly flawed. Proceeding isn't the same as understanding is the lesson rarely learned.

Partial Information

Gamblers ply their trade by processing partial information and making decisions of significant personal import based on that partial information. I think we do it more often than anybody and better than anybody. Any wager made is a significant decision based on partial information. Any wager NOT made is a significant decision based on partial information. Wading through partial information that matters is what we do. 

In gambling, recognizing the significance of something isn't easy. For example, for every two-year stretch of games played by a college football team, there's generally at least one game that statistically makes no sense. A game where the team doesn't at all resemble the squad that plays the other 23 or 24 games of the two-year schedule. When faced with a result like that, a gambler must decide whether what he's just seen is an indication of a team's true profile or some 1 in 20 anomaly that, if you take too seriously, will handicap your handicapping going forward. Ignoring the result of what you've just seen, in essence ignoring the immediate reality, can be a road to ruin. Not defining an anomaly as such immediately after the anomaly, however, can put you on that same road.

As blackjack players say, all counts are partial counts. And as sports bettors say, you can't always know what you want. But sometimes you know what you need. Or maybe that was The Rolling Stones.

Latest Ivermectin Study

So now we have an Ivermectin study from Brazil that seems to offer unequivocal evidence that Ivermectin works as a prophylactic drug versus Covid. The study is "Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19:  A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching." Lucy Kerr is the lead author.

This study has solid numbers, both in terms of numbers of subjects and significance, but it also features the usual problems with these clinician-reporting studies. The study is observational; Ivermectin use prior to the study is unknown. The study has asymmetric population numbers for comparison. Researchers relied on study participants to self-report reality, always a dicey business. And there was no iron-willed monitoring to ensure that everyone in the study who received their Ivermectin actually took their Ivermectin. All true enough. 

A brief aside here. It seems to me that the folks who would disqualify this study due to self-reporting weaknesses are the same folks who think it's a great idea to rely on VAERS self-reporting for U.S. vaccine-caused illnesses and deaths. When you ask these people to call heads or tails, they invariably call "Yes!"

Here's the Deal

People who've followed the 200 entries of this blog know that I've been studiously neutral on Ivermectin. The only thing I've said is that the August 24, 2021 CNN report on Ivermectin was the worst example of journalism and science reporting I have ever seen on a news network. It failed basic rules of reporting, of logic, of argument, and of science. It was so hideous, literally every third line in the piece had a problem. But other than pointing out what a Journalism 101 fail that was, I've had nothing to say about Ivermectin at all. 

Since my gig in the "Propaganda Files" is evaluating reporting, not evaluating medical studies, I still have little to say. What I'm going to do is give mainstream media a week to digest the Kerr study, and then I'll report on their reporting. What I want to see is if CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, USA Today, and others treat this study with the same coverage and gravitas as the JAMAS "Ivermectin Debunking" study mentioned in "A Tale of Two Studies."

Kerr's paper is much stronger than the Lim debunking paper, so the test will be whether it gets comparable or more impactful coverage. If anyone wants to bet on which paper gets more national press, email me at IntegritySports@aol.com. Call it partial information, but I have a hunch.

Bob Dietz

March 7, 2022

Myocarditis and VAERS Follow-Up

Rather than blather about the VAERS questionnaires, I'm going to recommend that readers view the February 12, 2022 YouTube podcast by Dr. John Campbell for a line-by-line guide to some of the issues with relying on self-reporting via VAERS. In this edition of his podcast, Campbell reviews the myocarditis study mentioned in my "Tale of Two Studies" entry.

Campbell is a retired nurse educator with a doctorate in online nursing education. He's very cautious in his YouTube statements so as to not run afoul of whatever is deemed in the public interest any given week. He takes flak from both the establishment and those who are declarative and shrill in their establishment criticism.

One of my takeaways from this particular podcast is that the VAERS criteria for defining someone as having myocarditis is extraordinarily high. In fact, more than 90% so designated were hospitalized, which I interpret as meaning that many, many people went unlabeled when they likely should have been. Another takeaway was the VAERS questionnaires being really unsuitable for civilians, who are assumed to be filling them out. 

This podcast is worth a listen. I highly recommend it. 

Bob Dietz

March 3, 2022