Collie to the NFL

KSL reports that Austin Collie will announce his intention to enter the NFL draft in a press conference tomorrow. 

I remain undevestated. 

Shoot, I don't think this even bothers me that much. 

I mean, it'd be nice to have him next season, but the team will again beat bad teams and struggle with good teams regardless. 

Good luck, Austin. Hope your career is longer than Brandon Doman's and Luke Staley's. 

Mythbusters and social responsibility

I love the Mythbusters. 

But I've noticed an interesting trend. 

When it comes to myths that have illegal or socially irresponsible aspects to them, the Mythbusters consistently reach the same types of conclusions. 

For example, in their initial season, Adam and Jamie tested different methods for beating a Breathalyzer test. None of the several methods attempted even remotely fooled the Breathalyzer. 

In their second season, they tested ways to beat a radar detector. Again, none of the several methods tried worked at all. 

And in 2007, they tested methods to avoid detection by a speed camera. And again, every one of these methods failed. 

After seeing other examples similar to these, I started to wonder: do the Mythbusters feel they need to "bust" certain myths that would encourage illegal or immoral activity if they were confirmed? 

Last night I watched "NASA Moon Landing."  The same kinds of issues came to mind. It was clear that every one of the Mythbuster myth busters was fully convinced the moon landing was real and that the conspiracy theorists were nuts. While I tend to agree with them, you need to have a more impartial state of mind when trying to prove or disprove something like this. 

Besides, if the Mythbusters add fuel to the "we didn't actually land on the moon" fire, how ticked off is NASA? How mad are the millions who do believe in the moon landings? 

I just wonder if they're truly willing to follow the science where it leads them. 

Paul vs. Deron

After the Jazz beat the Hornets by 26 points last night, someone on the tee-vee flashed a graphic that showed Deron is now 9-2 head-to-head against Paul. 

I can't figure this out. Paul's stats are better than Deron's, especially this season with Deron's injury. I think the Hornets are a better team than the Jazz, as evidenced by their better record last season and this one. So why does it seem Deron has Paul's number? 

Let's look at the last five games between the two teams. The Jazz have won four of these. 

Jan. 7, 2009: Paul racks up 26 points, but dishes out an uncharacteristically low seven assists. Deron hands out eight, but scores only eight points. The difference was the supporting cast. Okur and Millsap both scored 20+ points, while the next highest scorer for the Hornets was West with 13 points. The Jazz shot 52% from the field, compared to 44% for New Orleans. The Hornets played the second game of a back-to-back after beating the Lakers. 

April 8, 2008: Jazz win 77-66 in Louisiana. Deron and Paul have similar lines: Deron shot 2-11 on his way to four points and 16 assists, while Paul also shot 2-11 on his way to four points and nine assists. Okur is the stud for Utah, scoring 22 points and pulling down 17 boards, while the Hornets get 14 and 7 from West. The Jazz shoot an abysmal 43% from the field, but the Hornets outgun them by shooting 36%. 

Feb. 29, 2008: The Jazz lose 110-98 in New Orleans. Deron went for 22 and 10, Paul racked up 24 and 16. Okur is again dominant, with 23 points and 13 rebounds, but David West matched him with 25 and 13 of his own. Boozer was quiet, and scored only 10 points on 5-of-6 shooting. This game really came down to 3-point shooting, as the Jazz connected on only three of their 16 attempts, while the Hornets hit on nine of their 20 shots from deep. Janero Pargo had three of these, and ended up scoring 15 points in 23 minutes. 

Feb. 2, 2008: 110-88 Utah win in Salt Lake City. Deron scored 29 points on 11-13 shooting and handed out 11 assists. Paul  shot only 3-11, scored six points and dished out six assists. The Hornets shoot a blistering 55% from the 3 (10-18), but the Jazz manage to hit 14-22 for a mind-boggling 63%. Boozer scored 19 and pulled down 17 boards while that Pargo guy scored 24 points in 27 minutes for New Orleans. Again, 3-point shooting seems to be the difference here. 

Nov. 23, 2007: Deron had a quiet 12 points and seven assists in the 99-71 win. Paul scored 15 and six turnovers to go with his six assists. The difference maker for Utah was Booz, who got 19 and 16, while West got 18 and 14 for New Orleans. Six players scored in double figures for Utah. Once again, 3-point shooting was a major factor, as Utah won the battle, going 8-for-14 compared to the Hornets' 1-for-17. The poor display from downtown helped New Orleans to a 33% field-goal percentage on the night, while Utah shot 47%. 

A few things I gleaned from looking at the stats:

1. Number of 20 point, 10 assist games from Deron: 2. From Paul: 1. Neither one really dominates here. 

2. 3-point shooting is huge. Jazz percentage from downtown in four wins:  47% (31-66). And that same number in their loss: 18% (3-16). 

3. Paul doesn't get a lot of help against Utah. Even when he does well, no more than one or two of his teammates really go off. That said, in these five games, Paul has averaged 15 points and nine assists. Hardly vintage CP3. He's averaging 21 and 12 over the last season-and-a-half.

4. However, Utah blew the Hornets out three of those wins. That means Paul was probably sitting through most, if not all, of the fourth quarter. Less playing time = lower numbers.

I'd like to see a playoff series between Utah and New Orleans. Could Paul adjust to whatever Utah is doing to stop him over seven games? 

I remain unconvinced that Paul is head-and-shoulders better than Deron, like some argue. For example, ESPN's Bill Simmons. However, I believe Simmons is trolling Jazz fans in his recent crusade against Deron. Sure, he thinks Paul is a better player than Deron, but not to the extent that Paul is in a different universe. He just likes getting angry letters from Jazz fans who don't get that. 

In case you were wondering. 

Palestinian conflict

If you follow world events at all, you know the never-ending Israel vs. the Arab world conflict has flared up once again. I don't pretend to have a magic fix for the problem, because both sides are guilty in their own ways. 

However, I can't help but have a couple opinions about the current situation:

1. Proportionate response. This term gets thrown around all the time when talking about Israel's current military action. Now, I understand the concept of proportionate response when it comes to, say, a mugging. Some dude in an alley threatens to punch you if you don't give him your wallet. A decidedly disproportionate response would be to pull out a gun and shoot him in the face. I get that. 

But here, Hamas has been launching rockets into Israeli neighborhoods for months, killing civilians indiscriminately. They've crossed the line of civilian murder. What is worse than that? How can any response be disproportionate? 

2. Hamas' stated goal is to eradicate Israel. How do you compromise with that? When you arrive at the bargaining table, what do you offer to Hamas? 50% eradication? Until this terrorist group changes its ideology, I don't see how you negotiate with it. 

If I found myself in Israel's place, I'd sure as heck do everything I could to remove Hamas from power. Those who criticize the invasion don't seem to offer any alternatives. 

It's a tough situation all around. 

Same ol', same ol'

BYU (12-1) put its 53-game home winning streak on the line tonight against undefeated Wake Forest. After looking overmatched early, the Cougars found their stroke and led most of the second half before falling 94-87.

Some quick thoughts:

1. BYU got their lead by hitting from distance. Jimmer Fredette, Tavenari and Jackson Emery were huge. At one point, the team was 10-23 from downtown, an impressive number against a top-10 team. But at the same time, I kept thinking, "live by the 3, die by the 3." And ultimately, that's what happened. BYU ended shooting 29.4% from the 3-point line for the game. Tav shot 4-13 from behind the arc, many of those misses coming when just one deep make would have changed everything. I love his quick release and general accuracy, but he is flat out stupid in his decision making. Until he learns the difference between a good shot and a bad one, I'll never be a fan of his. 

2. Cummard choked. For someone shooting 62% from the field on the season, going 6-20 is just abysmal. He was short on most of his shots late and looked tired. If he has a halfway decent outing, BYU wins this game.

3. BYU missed the front end of several one-and-one situations. Leaving free points on the line hurts. They shot 75% from the line for the game, but it seems all five of their misses came in the last five minutes. 

4. The refereeing was tight tight tight. They whistled both teams for everything under the sun. Slight bump on the way to the hoop? Foul. Player touched the shoe of the dunking opponent? Foul. Ruffled the arm hair of your opponent while stealing the ball? Foul. I felt like the tight calls affected both teams fairly equally, but as a BYU homer, certain instances really stand out. Wake also got the benefit on two obvious, terrible flops, one of which fouled out BYU's backup center after the Cougars had already lost their starting 5 to fouling out. But if BYU makes their free throws or hits just one more shot in the final two minutes, they probably win. Ugh.

In all, a typical BYU performance against a big-time opponent. Lead late, then collapse at the end. It's getting a bit eerie. 

Quick gear change: I was utterly dumbfounded at how Utah controlled the trenches last night. They had Wilson running for his life while Johnson had all day to throw. And that pretty much decided the game. I think Alabama panicked and went away from the running game too quickly... do you really want to rely on Wilson's arm? He's a terrible quarterback. Similar to the BYU game in that respect.

But all the congratulations in the world to Utah. Majorly impressive victory in a game where no one gave them half a chance to win. Thanks for representing the conference while the Cougars are terrible. :)

Sugar Bowl

Utah is in its second BCS bowl in five years. Or is it four? 

Anyway, good for them, way to represent the conference, blah blah blah. 

I hear all the time about how good BYU fans should root for Utah to beat Alabama because it helps non-BCS teams everywhere and every time a Boise State beats Oklahoma an angel gets its wings. 

Unfortunately, I can't bring myself to root for the team in red. Not that it necessarily matters, in my opinion. This incarnation of the undefeated Utah team is far inferior to the 2004 model. In '04, Alex Smith and Co. steamrolled everyone they played, while this time around, the Utes squeaked by a terrible Michigan team, a less-than-impressive New Mexico, and relied on some terrible execution from TCU's kicker to beat the Horned Frogs by three. 

Alabama, on the other hand, has lost to only Florida, and the rest of its schedule was much more difficult than Utah's. The Tide has two running backs averaging over 5 ypc against SEC defenses, and Utah's main defensive weakness is definitely against the run. Alabama has held seven opponents to 10 points or less, and the Utes haven't exactly been impressive on offense this season.

In short, it's going to get ugly. I see this game being over early in the fourth quarter at the latest, but the Tide will control the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball the entire game. And when you dominate the trenches, you win. 

Alabama 31, Utah 10

Of course, if my college football prediction skills are anything like my NBA prediction skills, the beer will flow freely in Salt Lake City tonight. 

It's the economy, stupid

Disclaimer: I have zero economic training, so this post is more about posting questions that me pontificating on the current economic situation in the U.S. For that, see posts from people smarter than I am. 

My thoughts are about the basic structure of the economy. 

1. If I understand correctly, here's your basic capitalism: a.) Consumers have money, b.) they spend this money on goods and services companies render, c.) companies use this money to expand and hire more workers, give raises, and generally put more money into the hands of consumers. Then we go back to point a. 

So when someone says "the economy is bad," what part of this cycle is "sick," or "broken," or whatever?

2. I understand that the stock market has taken hits, but for the average American who lives on a steady paycheck from his employer, what has changed? He still gets X number of dollars a month, and the cost of goods hasn't gone up. In fact, gas prices have fallen a lot over the past few months, which has to help the bottom line for most Americans. Sure, multimillionaires who have wads of money invested in Wall Street have lost money, but it's all on paper. The only way they really "lose" it is if they cash out their stocks now. 

Same goes for the average American's 401k. Unless they're cashing out now, they haven't lost anything. 

And as of November the unemployment rate was 6.7%. For context, here's a graph showing national unemployment rates since 1950:

So we're not even as high as we were in 1993. 

And in 1933, the last time we experienced a REAL depression, unemployment was at 24.9%. Now that's damaging. 

So why the fear? Why the "sky is falling" rhetoric? If consumer confidence is a major contributor to economic well-being, why are the media outlets freaking everyone out? 

That's about it. Personally, I'm not doing that well economically, butI think that has more to do with the fact that the journalism industry has been tanking for the last decade than it does the current "recession".