Once again the amazing comic books filling the racks demand my attention and my blog. Being a kind hearted sould, I hear their pleas and champion their cause.
Before Infinite Crisis makes your head explode, (and in case you didn't know- yes, it is that big a deal) I have to take care of some old business. Naturally it will have to do with the other major crossover taking on in the comic world. I have to say I am really impressed with the recent developments from House of M. The latest news from Marvel is huge. Apparently everything since Avengers: Disassembled has been derived from a plot Joe Quesada (Marvel's Editor-in-Chief) and Brian Michael Bendis (Marvel's Writer-of-Everything) stewed up to reduce the number of mutants in the Marvel Universe. Some are taking this news very badly as they had liked the seeds planted by early creative teams on the X-Men titles. The standing storyline had been that the mutants were the next step of evolution, and with evolution being inevitable and all, that means that the whole Marvel universe was supposed to be strapping down for the end of the species homo-sapien as we know it. That's kind of clever in a high-falootin', Isaac-Asimov-y, science-fiction sort of way, but ultimately it's 1) unsustainable and 2) a little off putting. Marvel's ultimate appeal since the 1960's has been that it is a more realistic comic book universe than DC. Do you really think they can maintain interest in a set of titles that eliminate most of their characters and create a world that looks nothing like our own? More importantly, do we really what to spend the next few years watching the hypothetical extinction of our own species in the comics.
On the creative level, I like how Bendis and the rest of Marvel are playing this out. They seem to have really thought out all the logical places this twist would take the Marvel Universe. I also like the implications of fewer mutants and more antagonism between humans and mutants. It gets back to the heart and soul of what the X-men are all about, the feeling of persecution and minority status we all go through at some point. Though I like the results, my criticism of the House of M event as a whole still holds. I didn't need a whole lot of diddling around in an alternative reality to get to this point. I certainly didn't need to be teased with a possible ressurection of Hawkeye and some of the other shenanigans, you get away with you don't have to live with the consequences of your story. Still, I wish Marvel luck with the future.
Next, we have Infinite Crisis. You know what? I am not going to say very much about this. It seems to me that we have enough people talking about it. I am a little surprised that DC has decided to officially declare this a sequel to Crisis on Infinite Earths. I do think it will be a huge event with some major consequences and a story well worth reading. However I want to hear someone put out an over-under on how many major DC character's will actually die in this one. Whatever it is, watch the under. Comic companies have got a lot more protective of their characters since 1986, DC especially. Back during Crisis on Infinite Earths DC was pretty much playing with house money. They were going to be scrapping their entire universe, and they were desperately trying to cut into Marvel's popularity at the time. Today they are competing toe-to-toe with Marvel and already riding a big wave of revitalization. They don't need a renovation just a good story and some well timed promotion. Plus, the creative minds behind IC aren't going to make their mark by rehashing the original. I fullly expect them to bust out a few more surprises than just "let's kill some characters whose titles aren't selling.
This does make me think about some of the great crossover events I have seen in my time. So I decided to punch out my All-Time Top Five list of intracompany crossovers. I decided to leave aside the intercompany crossovers mostly because the have always been at least one step below their intracompany peers, see the painfully contrived Amalgam lineup. Though some, like "Spider-Man vs. Superman" and "Batman vs. The Hulk" are genuine classics. and others like "The Punisher Meets Archie" and that Spawn issue with Cerberus are way underrated. While I'm vaguely on the topic, what's with Witchblade making her first appearance in some Shi/Cyblade crossover. I still can't believe you can legally do that to collectors. If the Comic Code Authority wasn't policing this stuff, then what good where they?
Anyways . . .
All-Time Top Five Comic Crossovers (within a company)
5. Spider-Clone Saga- I know, I know. It was awful. It was horrendous. It set the character back for years. But hear me out, this story was special in my development as a comic book fan for three reasons. 1) I was personally addicted to Spider-Man at the time, and it showed me that there comes a time when you have to abandon a character on account of the story no matter what your loyalty to the character is. That allowed me to understand how to jump from title to title to take full advantage of the shifting nature of today's comic market. 2) I think the whole comic community was fascinated with this whether you were reading it or not. It was the classic example of a slow-train wreck comic. 3) It was the signal to me and the comic community in general that the heady 90's and their bloated events were over. Frome there the slow rebuilding of the Marvel Universe could begin.
4.DC One Million- Since DC has had about one crossover event every year of at least minor importance these sort of things have been negligible since COIE. Somewhere in the crowd lies this true gem. I loved the concept of introducing a whole new element to the DC universe, the far flung future scape of the 853rd century. This story let Grant Morrison do exactly what he does best, create a huge outlandish idea and then play around with it. It didn't do much to further the universe's storylines, but it did create a bucketful of new ideas for later creators to toy around with. That's more than so many other crossovers.
3. Secret Wars- Secret Wars proved that crossover events could work as a story telling device and a commercial success. Not only did this spawn some crazy sequels and the all-powerful cosmic entity who wore a jheri curl for no good reason, but it also started the sequence of events that led to Venom, Carnage, and pretty much every Spider-Man plotline from 1988 until 2001. Plus, have you ever actually read this series? It's pretty intense and a little crazed in it's own right. If you were reading this title as it came out, you would seriously worry if everyone would make it out alive.
2. Infinity Gauntlet- Again bonus points are awarded for sequels here, no matter how gimmicky. Second, this did have some pretty big ramifications. Third, the cosmic scope of the story and philosophical underpinnings were actually pretty interesting. Fourth, the moment between Captain America and Thanos is an all-time classic in comic book history. Fifth, I have to give credit to Marvel for letting Jim Starlin do what he does best. Sixth, I like numerical lists.
1. Crisis on Infinite Earths- The standard. 'Nuff said.
On one last note, I am pleased to let you know that I have found two other titles I would recommend for your reading enjoyment. Thankfully for all you non-traditional comic readers (read: non-fat white young single white males) and for my reputation as a hip comic fan, neither of them are super-hero titles.
Fell- This is yet another title by one of my favorite writers, Warren Ellis. It's a detective comic in the tradition of gritty crime-dramas like TV's Homocide or The Wire. Each story is an easy to read stand-alone story, with some supplemental material thrown in. This book is a breeze to pick up and enjoy. The hero Det. Richard Fell is a likeable and intriguing protagonist. Ellis has creating a truly fascinating setting the "feral city" of Snowtown. It's great stuff for people interest in some adult level mystery stories.
Sea of Red- Two words to excite just about anyone. Vampire. Pirates. That's a great concept on it's own, but this book, by Rick Remender and Kieron Dwyer, does some interesting things with it. It seems like each issue brings a truly unexpected twist. With the wild attitude of these creators and the fact that none of these are established franchise characters, I am certain this story will be a major thrill ride.
That's all for now, but I'm sure to have more to say soon. Until then watch this space for more on education and basketball.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
An Ownership Society
I fear the repercussions of posting my personal information on this blog. Naturally I don't mean accidentally telling you all my cel phone number, or where I buried the bearer bonds. I just worry because I feel I work on some sensitive projects. While spewing my missives into the electronic abyss may help me think about these things, I still must guard against accidentally giving you details of a person or situation of which I have knowledge that those involved may wish to keep private. I have so far tried to be as veiled as possible in my writings while still allowing for those I am try to communicate with know of what I speak.
The question here is one of ownership. I have access to information about others, but I do not own the information. It's simply not mine to give away. Yet so many issues involving information technology revolves around these questions. Can anyone own information posted on the Web? If not, then how can someone feel safe in posting anything on the Internet that may be of value to them, but since its out here in the "free domain" or "market place of ideas", they can't control what happens to it? If someone can own information then how do you protect it? Or, perhaps to dray a sharper point, then why share it at all, given the well known risks of the Internet?
As I have said before information technology can model anything. We can use it to create whatever suits us, and then transform into something entirely different in the next second. Nothing is impossible out here amongst the ether. But then I am reminded of Roger Ebert's criticism, (here I am paraphrasing) "If nothing is impossible, then does anything matter?"
As an educator I think about these things and wonder if this impacts the utility of teaching with technology. I think of the profound transformative effect technology has on everything it touches, and I think how in the midst of this maelstrom we can only guess at what may or may not be of future value to students. So to some degree, educators simply have to find a way to get their students to find meaning in their educational experiences with technology.
Educators agree that students need to have something they can take away from a classroom for their education to have value. Normally that is mean figuratively, but all to often we don't consider the literal implications of such. The papers that hung on the refrigerator door, those trophies from field day, those art projects that all ended up looking like ash trays, those meant something to us as children. Yet a student who's education comes through the form of information and networks, what do they take home?
In our increasing focus on a technology centric education sometimes I have to ponder how you can add substance, real physical presence to what a student learns. On one hand they own their skills and experiences in the truest sense. No one can take away a student's memories and make them her own. The skills and knowledge can only be used by their rightful owner. Still I think we need more. I have recently seen the power of what happens when an educator gives a child something they can literally own as a product of their education in technology. I cannot go into details, but the effects are astounding.
Additionally, I will reveal that I come from a long line of educators. Once my mother gave me some advice. She said "When a student becomes the proprietor of their own knowledge and learning it changes everything about them. It changes how much they'll work for it, how much they want to retain it, and most of all how they improve their behavior because of it."
The question here is one of ownership. I have access to information about others, but I do not own the information. It's simply not mine to give away. Yet so many issues involving information technology revolves around these questions. Can anyone own information posted on the Web? If not, then how can someone feel safe in posting anything on the Internet that may be of value to them, but since its out here in the "free domain" or "market place of ideas", they can't control what happens to it? If someone can own information then how do you protect it? Or, perhaps to dray a sharper point, then why share it at all, given the well known risks of the Internet?
As I have said before information technology can model anything. We can use it to create whatever suits us, and then transform into something entirely different in the next second. Nothing is impossible out here amongst the ether. But then I am reminded of Roger Ebert's criticism, (here I am paraphrasing) "If nothing is impossible, then does anything matter?"
As an educator I think about these things and wonder if this impacts the utility of teaching with technology. I think of the profound transformative effect technology has on everything it touches, and I think how in the midst of this maelstrom we can only guess at what may or may not be of future value to students. So to some degree, educators simply have to find a way to get their students to find meaning in their educational experiences with technology.
Educators agree that students need to have something they can take away from a classroom for their education to have value. Normally that is mean figuratively, but all to often we don't consider the literal implications of such. The papers that hung on the refrigerator door, those trophies from field day, those art projects that all ended up looking like ash trays, those meant something to us as children. Yet a student who's education comes through the form of information and networks, what do they take home?
In our increasing focus on a technology centric education sometimes I have to ponder how you can add substance, real physical presence to what a student learns. On one hand they own their skills and experiences in the truest sense. No one can take away a student's memories and make them her own. The skills and knowledge can only be used by their rightful owner. Still I think we need more. I have recently seen the power of what happens when an educator gives a child something they can literally own as a product of their education in technology. I cannot go into details, but the effects are astounding.
Additionally, I will reveal that I come from a long line of educators. Once my mother gave me some advice. She said "When a student becomes the proprietor of their own knowledge and learning it changes everything about them. It changes how much they'll work for it, how much they want to retain it, and most of all how they improve their behavior because of it."
Monday, October 24, 2005
Getting into "The System"
If you’re anything like me (and who isn’t?) then when you read sports articles you want more than the standard recap. You read the sports page for intriguing stories or an analysis of the facts you can’t get anywhere else. I despise any sports writing that attempts to create an incredibly simplified view of the sport. I understand the idea of providing the public with information, but that’s the purpose of box scores in the corner. If a trained journalist sits down at his computer to share her thoughts with her readers, than I think we all expect more from her than two sentence blurbs on who’s hot and who’s not. (This is to say nothing of the fact that I’m sure every educated sports writer in the country would much rather share her thoughts at as great a length as possible. Well, at least Bill Simmons does.)
Now, I’m speaking of sports writing in general, but for anyone familiar with me or my writing, I am most certainly speaking of basketball. In this instance I am actually addressing the all too common practice of power ratings. In these columns some writer or combination of writers tries to create one very simplified list from top to bottom of where all the teams in the given league, i.e. NBA, rank. They write these pieces as if all the teams exist on some sort of imaginary ladder where each team is trying to climb their way over the others to the top. I know this strain of writing does not exist solely in the NBA columns of the world (heck, the college sports seem to support their whole pseudo-industry on just these concepts).These power rankings are fun, and often colorful, and occasionally they provide real insight into the NBA, but they just don’t describe the reality of the NBA. An NBA team’s goal from week to week isn’t to climb any ladder; it’s to win the next few games they have on their schedule. Sure, you can argue they want to climb the league standings, but those are real and tangible, and aren’t as simple as one top to bottom ranking. It’s a complicated set of relationships, involving conferences, rivalries, three way ties, and playoff seedings that aren’t settled until everyone has played all 82 games. You might want to argue that all teams want to be at the top of this imaginary ladder by the end of the season, but sports champions aren’t declared by winning over the opinion of a bunch of sports journalists (again, the noticeable exception being college football). If a team wants to reach the top of that metaphoric ladder, they know, it’s about winning in the playoffs, not overcoming one team, but just the sixteen games, against the four teams that really matter.
At this point I’m sure everyone has lost patience with my self-righteous ranting. Anyone who writes a piece like this can’t just criticize the standing idea, she has to create one of her own. Actually, she really should demonstrate how her idea can function, just to really prove her point. So I’m going to spend the remainder of this space describing my own idea for how to rate the teams in the NBA.
First, let me be clear I have no qualm with a tiered rating system, one that sorts the thirty NBA teams into several levels. All teams are not equal. Not in the off-season, not in the play-offs, at no point are all the teams close to equal. Any observer has to acknowledge the disparity between teams in terms of talent, financial backing, chances of success, and most importantly current competitive position. Where I draw the line is any system of power rankings that claims to divine the relative strength of the Atlanta Hawks over the New Orleans Hornets. There is no credible information which would justify ranking one 26th and one 29th in the league. Some teams do belong on a level all to themselves, but most exist in tightly knotted clusters of competition. Or, (and here’s where I begin to subtly introduce my metaphor) you could say that similar teams in habit the same basketball planet, where everyone is playing under the same conditions and measuring their success largely compared to each other.
Second, I think a strict enumeration of rankings does a disservice to the abilities of both the writer and the reader. When I see the latest power rankings I can tell that some of the decisions are based on judgments that are either too arbitrary of too temporary, all for the sake of creating a single file procession of teams. Have you ever noticed how Team X is ranked at number 7, because it’s a young club with strong financial banking, and media darling who’s living up to the hype? While at the same time Team Y is ranked at number 17 because even though it has a young club with strong financial banking and it’s best player is a media darling, he just hasn’t lived up to the hype. Both these teams are a three game loss or win streak respectively from taking the other’s position. Does that justify putting a third of the league between them on the ladder? Does it help you understand why one is so much better than the other right now? If two teams are essentially in the same situation, save for minor differences in their record doesn’t it help you more to see like teams grouped together. If you insist on separating wheat and chaff, then we can create tiers among these groups. Overall though, the team’s situation can be as important a factor in measuring them as their record. Or to put it in Wall Street terms, past performance is a poor indicator of future success.
Third, understanding what makes a good team a title contender and what makes another good team simply a play-off hopeful involves a lot more than just a straight up listing. Often it involves understanding something about the relationships between teams and the rest of the leagues. Last year the Miami Heat and the Phoenix Suns each had much improved seasons and became the top seeds in their respective conference. Yet the Heat were considered a legitimate title hopeful, while the Suns weren’t expected to survive the play-offs. It was because the Suns had to beat more good teams to win out of the Western Conference than the Heat had to in the East. These relationships make a lot of difference in understanding what separates elite teams from also-rans.
Simply put, I believe I have a ranking system that will incorporate more information than traditional power rankings and do so in a manner that expresses this information in simple to understand terms. The technique I employ may take some getting used to, and I’m not even certain yet the best way to present it. It will take us all a while to work the kinks out, and I’m sure to experiment here in the beginning. But without further ado, my idea: solar system rankings.
Rank the teams in tiered groups whose relationships and positions can be described by the nature of the solar system. With nine planets and the sun I have ten categories of teams in this unholy amalgamation of astronomy and basketball. The categories can be described in terms of a ladder, or in a more complicated method, in terms of the interactions described by the heavenly bodies themselves.
At this point I am certainly draining the patience of anyone still reading. So here are the categories tiered into ladder order. The order of the categories won’t change, but a team may change categories at any time for many reasons. So you can still understand this as a list from top to bottom (or here from Sun to Pluto) and just make your own judgments as to how teams rank within the categories.
I. The Sun- This should be pretty obvious. The Sun is the center around which all the other planets revolve. Its heat and gravity shape the very nature of the solar system. Quite simply it’s the biggest thing in the system. In the same way the team or teams in this tier are the center of the league. They have the power, and they are the one’s setting the trends and determining what kind of league its going to be. They are the presumptive champions until someone else fills this tier, because they, quite simply, are the biggest thing in the league.
II. Jupiter- Here’s where this rating system becomes difficult to follow. One of the things that makes my solar ratings different than normal power rankings is that I do not want the ordering of the tiers to be as simple as a top to bottom list. Accordingly the orders of the tiers do not come in the same order as the planets outward from the Sun. Ask any astronomer what the most important body in our star system is after the Sun, and none of them will say Mercury. Jupiter could almost be a star itself with just a little more mass and energy. So I think it’s only proper that we label the second best set of teams in the league after the largest planet. This way anytime you see a team in the Jupiter tier, understand it’s on the brink of jumping out to Sun status. I also like using Jupiter as the second tier, because its distance from the Sun lends itself to the concept of conference. Thus in the common case where the conferences each have their clear favorites, we can easily rank one as the Sun and one as Jupiter. This is the kind of relevant relationships and extra information I can describe in a solar system of ratings that you can’t get across in your usual power rankings.
III. Earth- You could argue that other planets are more important for some astrophysical, geological, or other reason. But we all know the Earth is an important planet, because that’s where the life is. So I use this tier for teams that seem to be the life of the NBA. These are the teams that are doing something exciting, making a major statement, or otherwise earning our respect. They may not be currently leading the pack or dominating the league, but there is something impressive about the way they play ball. Maybe it’s the numbers they put up. Maybe it’s a hot streak they’re riding. Someway, somehow these teams give us the sense that if they won the title, we shouldn’t be surprised in the least.
IV. Saturn- Just as Saturn is almost as impressive as Jupiter, and even has some features Jupiter doesn’t, these teams are almost as impressive as the top dawgs but not quite. You could almost say Saturn is a more interesting planet, but really you know that Jupiter is the bigger deal. This is the tier for the next-in-lines and the heir-apparents. If the teams in the Sun or Jupiter slots fall these are the teams waiting to rise up to replace them.
V. Venus- Just as the teams in the Saturn tier are the almost-Jupiters, the teams in the Venus tier are the almost-Earths. Venus has a lot of the same characteristics that Earth does. From a distance they might even seem to be about the same. Venus is way too hot to support the life of Earth though. Venus needs more stability and more time to become as habitable as Earth. These teams are good enough to go on a hot-streak or put on impressive displays like the Earth-tier teams. They just don’t have everything quite right yet. Maybe the team’s too young, or undisciplined, or just not as physically tough as they need to be to compete. They don’t have the influence of the teams in the Earth-tier, but every team in the league is watching out for the moment they come to life.
VI. Mars- Again these are teams that are approximate to the Earth-tier, but for different reasons. Where Venus was too hot, Mars is too cold. Where the teams in the Venus-tier could soon become an Earth-tier team, it appears that the Mars-tier teams are headed in the other direction. Mars may once have been like Earth, but that was in its past. Similarly, these teams may once have been the centers of life in the league, but now they are on the decline. They could be too injured, or too old, or just tired and other wise out of the running. These teams could climb back into one of the top tiers, maybe even make the playoffs, but odds are against it. From here on out we’re looking at the bottom half of the league.
VII. Mercury- Youth can be good. Energy can be good. Athleticism can be very good. But all of these things can be very dangerous too. Mercury is lucky in that it gets too bask in the sunlight so much. Except that it’s proximity to the sun is what makes it completely uninhabitable. The Mercury-tier teams are those teams that have potential, but their proximity to the powerhouses, means they aren’t likely to rise to the tops of the league. They have a lot of good qualities, but they have a lot to overcome before they can rise to the upper tiers.
VIII. Neptune- I don’t have much to say here. Neptune is one of the planets people tend to forget about. It’s somewhere in the back of the system and no one knows anything interesting about it. This is for all those teams that aren’t successful, but aren’t spectacularly bad. Neptune is not an especially interesting planet, and these are not especially compelling team.
IX. Uranus- Remember Uranus is the planet who rotates on an axis like a wheel instead of like a globe. That’s the key to this tier. These are those teams that are so bad they are interesting too watch. There’s just something fundamentally off about them. They could be successful, maybe even great, but something just isn’t working for these teams.
X. Pluto- These are the teams left out in the cold. They are so far out of the race for the title that they might as well be in a different league. These are the NBA franchises that seem to only barely meet the standards of the NBA, just as I’ve recently learned Pluto no longer counts as a planet.
Since I’ve rambled on for far too long already, I’ll just put out my Pre-Season Solar Rankings. Can we all agree that pre-season rankings tend to be mostly guesswork and supposition? So, you can’t really defend them, because they are all pretty subjective right? If we all agree on those terms, then I’ll just put forward my rankings without any explanation and we can live and let live.
I. Sun- San Antonio Spurs
II. Jupiter- Miami Heat
III. Earth- Phoenix Sun, Houston Rockets, Cleveland Cavaliers
IV. Saturn- Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Minnesota Timberwolves
V. Venus- Seattle Sonics, Denver Nuggets, Chicago Bulls
VI. Mars- Boston Celtics, Orlando Magic, Los Angeles Lakers, Sacramento Kings, New Jersey Nets
VII. Mercury- Memphis Grizzlies, Washington Wizards, Dallas Mavericks
VIII. Neptune- Portland Trailblazers, Philadelphia 76ers, Milwaukee Bucks
IX. Uranus- Toronto Raptors, Golden State Warriors, New York Knicks, Utah Jazz
X. Pluto- Carolina Bobcats, New Orleans Hornets, Atlanta Hawks, Los Angeles Clippers
Now, I’m speaking of sports writing in general, but for anyone familiar with me or my writing, I am most certainly speaking of basketball. In this instance I am actually addressing the all too common practice of power ratings. In these columns some writer or combination of writers tries to create one very simplified list from top to bottom of where all the teams in the given league, i.e. NBA, rank. They write these pieces as if all the teams exist on some sort of imaginary ladder where each team is trying to climb their way over the others to the top. I know this strain of writing does not exist solely in the NBA columns of the world (heck, the college sports seem to support their whole pseudo-industry on just these concepts).These power rankings are fun, and often colorful, and occasionally they provide real insight into the NBA, but they just don’t describe the reality of the NBA. An NBA team’s goal from week to week isn’t to climb any ladder; it’s to win the next few games they have on their schedule. Sure, you can argue they want to climb the league standings, but those are real and tangible, and aren’t as simple as one top to bottom ranking. It’s a complicated set of relationships, involving conferences, rivalries, three way ties, and playoff seedings that aren’t settled until everyone has played all 82 games. You might want to argue that all teams want to be at the top of this imaginary ladder by the end of the season, but sports champions aren’t declared by winning over the opinion of a bunch of sports journalists (again, the noticeable exception being college football). If a team wants to reach the top of that metaphoric ladder, they know, it’s about winning in the playoffs, not overcoming one team, but just the sixteen games, against the four teams that really matter.
At this point I’m sure everyone has lost patience with my self-righteous ranting. Anyone who writes a piece like this can’t just criticize the standing idea, she has to create one of her own. Actually, she really should demonstrate how her idea can function, just to really prove her point. So I’m going to spend the remainder of this space describing my own idea for how to rate the teams in the NBA.
First, let me be clear I have no qualm with a tiered rating system, one that sorts the thirty NBA teams into several levels. All teams are not equal. Not in the off-season, not in the play-offs, at no point are all the teams close to equal. Any observer has to acknowledge the disparity between teams in terms of talent, financial backing, chances of success, and most importantly current competitive position. Where I draw the line is any system of power rankings that claims to divine the relative strength of the Atlanta Hawks over the New Orleans Hornets. There is no credible information which would justify ranking one 26th and one 29th in the league. Some teams do belong on a level all to themselves, but most exist in tightly knotted clusters of competition. Or, (and here’s where I begin to subtly introduce my metaphor) you could say that similar teams in habit the same basketball planet, where everyone is playing under the same conditions and measuring their success largely compared to each other.
Second, I think a strict enumeration of rankings does a disservice to the abilities of both the writer and the reader. When I see the latest power rankings I can tell that some of the decisions are based on judgments that are either too arbitrary of too temporary, all for the sake of creating a single file procession of teams. Have you ever noticed how Team X is ranked at number 7, because it’s a young club with strong financial banking, and media darling who’s living up to the hype? While at the same time Team Y is ranked at number 17 because even though it has a young club with strong financial banking and it’s best player is a media darling, he just hasn’t lived up to the hype. Both these teams are a three game loss or win streak respectively from taking the other’s position. Does that justify putting a third of the league between them on the ladder? Does it help you understand why one is so much better than the other right now? If two teams are essentially in the same situation, save for minor differences in their record doesn’t it help you more to see like teams grouped together. If you insist on separating wheat and chaff, then we can create tiers among these groups. Overall though, the team’s situation can be as important a factor in measuring them as their record. Or to put it in Wall Street terms, past performance is a poor indicator of future success.
Third, understanding what makes a good team a title contender and what makes another good team simply a play-off hopeful involves a lot more than just a straight up listing. Often it involves understanding something about the relationships between teams and the rest of the leagues. Last year the Miami Heat and the Phoenix Suns each had much improved seasons and became the top seeds in their respective conference. Yet the Heat were considered a legitimate title hopeful, while the Suns weren’t expected to survive the play-offs. It was because the Suns had to beat more good teams to win out of the Western Conference than the Heat had to in the East. These relationships make a lot of difference in understanding what separates elite teams from also-rans.
Simply put, I believe I have a ranking system that will incorporate more information than traditional power rankings and do so in a manner that expresses this information in simple to understand terms. The technique I employ may take some getting used to, and I’m not even certain yet the best way to present it. It will take us all a while to work the kinks out, and I’m sure to experiment here in the beginning. But without further ado, my idea: solar system rankings.
Rank the teams in tiered groups whose relationships and positions can be described by the nature of the solar system. With nine planets and the sun I have ten categories of teams in this unholy amalgamation of astronomy and basketball. The categories can be described in terms of a ladder, or in a more complicated method, in terms of the interactions described by the heavenly bodies themselves.
At this point I am certainly draining the patience of anyone still reading. So here are the categories tiered into ladder order. The order of the categories won’t change, but a team may change categories at any time for many reasons. So you can still understand this as a list from top to bottom (or here from Sun to Pluto) and just make your own judgments as to how teams rank within the categories.
I. The Sun- This should be pretty obvious. The Sun is the center around which all the other planets revolve. Its heat and gravity shape the very nature of the solar system. Quite simply it’s the biggest thing in the system. In the same way the team or teams in this tier are the center of the league. They have the power, and they are the one’s setting the trends and determining what kind of league its going to be. They are the presumptive champions until someone else fills this tier, because they, quite simply, are the biggest thing in the league.
II. Jupiter- Here’s where this rating system becomes difficult to follow. One of the things that makes my solar ratings different than normal power rankings is that I do not want the ordering of the tiers to be as simple as a top to bottom list. Accordingly the orders of the tiers do not come in the same order as the planets outward from the Sun. Ask any astronomer what the most important body in our star system is after the Sun, and none of them will say Mercury. Jupiter could almost be a star itself with just a little more mass and energy. So I think it’s only proper that we label the second best set of teams in the league after the largest planet. This way anytime you see a team in the Jupiter tier, understand it’s on the brink of jumping out to Sun status. I also like using Jupiter as the second tier, because its distance from the Sun lends itself to the concept of conference. Thus in the common case where the conferences each have their clear favorites, we can easily rank one as the Sun and one as Jupiter. This is the kind of relevant relationships and extra information I can describe in a solar system of ratings that you can’t get across in your usual power rankings.
III. Earth- You could argue that other planets are more important for some astrophysical, geological, or other reason. But we all know the Earth is an important planet, because that’s where the life is. So I use this tier for teams that seem to be the life of the NBA. These are the teams that are doing something exciting, making a major statement, or otherwise earning our respect. They may not be currently leading the pack or dominating the league, but there is something impressive about the way they play ball. Maybe it’s the numbers they put up. Maybe it’s a hot streak they’re riding. Someway, somehow these teams give us the sense that if they won the title, we shouldn’t be surprised in the least.
IV. Saturn- Just as Saturn is almost as impressive as Jupiter, and even has some features Jupiter doesn’t, these teams are almost as impressive as the top dawgs but not quite. You could almost say Saturn is a more interesting planet, but really you know that Jupiter is the bigger deal. This is the tier for the next-in-lines and the heir-apparents. If the teams in the Sun or Jupiter slots fall these are the teams waiting to rise up to replace them.
V. Venus- Just as the teams in the Saturn tier are the almost-Jupiters, the teams in the Venus tier are the almost-Earths. Venus has a lot of the same characteristics that Earth does. From a distance they might even seem to be about the same. Venus is way too hot to support the life of Earth though. Venus needs more stability and more time to become as habitable as Earth. These teams are good enough to go on a hot-streak or put on impressive displays like the Earth-tier teams. They just don’t have everything quite right yet. Maybe the team’s too young, or undisciplined, or just not as physically tough as they need to be to compete. They don’t have the influence of the teams in the Earth-tier, but every team in the league is watching out for the moment they come to life.
VI. Mars- Again these are teams that are approximate to the Earth-tier, but for different reasons. Where Venus was too hot, Mars is too cold. Where the teams in the Venus-tier could soon become an Earth-tier team, it appears that the Mars-tier teams are headed in the other direction. Mars may once have been like Earth, but that was in its past. Similarly, these teams may once have been the centers of life in the league, but now they are on the decline. They could be too injured, or too old, or just tired and other wise out of the running. These teams could climb back into one of the top tiers, maybe even make the playoffs, but odds are against it. From here on out we’re looking at the bottom half of the league.
VII. Mercury- Youth can be good. Energy can be good. Athleticism can be very good. But all of these things can be very dangerous too. Mercury is lucky in that it gets too bask in the sunlight so much. Except that it’s proximity to the sun is what makes it completely uninhabitable. The Mercury-tier teams are those teams that have potential, but their proximity to the powerhouses, means they aren’t likely to rise to the tops of the league. They have a lot of good qualities, but they have a lot to overcome before they can rise to the upper tiers.
VIII. Neptune- I don’t have much to say here. Neptune is one of the planets people tend to forget about. It’s somewhere in the back of the system and no one knows anything interesting about it. This is for all those teams that aren’t successful, but aren’t spectacularly bad. Neptune is not an especially interesting planet, and these are not especially compelling team.
IX. Uranus- Remember Uranus is the planet who rotates on an axis like a wheel instead of like a globe. That’s the key to this tier. These are those teams that are so bad they are interesting too watch. There’s just something fundamentally off about them. They could be successful, maybe even great, but something just isn’t working for these teams.
X. Pluto- These are the teams left out in the cold. They are so far out of the race for the title that they might as well be in a different league. These are the NBA franchises that seem to only barely meet the standards of the NBA, just as I’ve recently learned Pluto no longer counts as a planet.
Since I’ve rambled on for far too long already, I’ll just put out my Pre-Season Solar Rankings. Can we all agree that pre-season rankings tend to be mostly guesswork and supposition? So, you can’t really defend them, because they are all pretty subjective right? If we all agree on those terms, then I’ll just put forward my rankings without any explanation and we can live and let live.
I. Sun- San Antonio Spurs
II. Jupiter- Miami Heat
III. Earth- Phoenix Sun, Houston Rockets, Cleveland Cavaliers
IV. Saturn- Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Minnesota Timberwolves
V. Venus- Seattle Sonics, Denver Nuggets, Chicago Bulls
VI. Mars- Boston Celtics, Orlando Magic, Los Angeles Lakers, Sacramento Kings, New Jersey Nets
VII. Mercury- Memphis Grizzlies, Washington Wizards, Dallas Mavericks
VIII. Neptune- Portland Trailblazers, Philadelphia 76ers, Milwaukee Bucks
IX. Uranus- Toronto Raptors, Golden State Warriors, New York Knicks, Utah Jazz
X. Pluto- Carolina Bobcats, New Orleans Hornets, Atlanta Hawks, Los Angeles Clippers
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Dewey, Teetchum & Howe
John Dewey did for education what Einstein did for science. If you do much research into the theories and frameworks of education you are bound to sooner or later run into John Dewey's work. He redefined the terms people used to think about education and likely set the tone for the next century of educational reform. recently I had to consider what his views might be on an ongoing project of mine. As I described earlier on this blog, I have been working on creating a website for a specialized program at an area highschool. I have been struggling to determine what educational value this website can add to their experience that they don't get out of the classroom. Thankfully I have the writings of John Dewey to consult. He describes the purpose of schooling as two fold. First, we want to provide the students with knowledge and training they can use in their life, obviously. Second, educators try to socialize students so they can be prepared to deal with the expectations and demands of society as a whole. I had the oppurtunity to view the students for whom this website is intended at their school. What I took away is that like most teenagers, they prefer not to be exposed to society as a whole, but rather to select a small group of their peers with whom they spend most of their time. Now I am not certain that there is anything we can do to end this practice in general. Within this website though, I believe I can do something to improve the socialization process. John Dewey says that school, shouldn't be more demanding on students than the outside world. I feel that these artificial social barriers created by students do add unneeded complications. Worse still the Internet is used all too often as a device to limit our exposure to the outside world to those things with which we already agree. So I am trying to think of ways that this website will break down the cliques and allow students to experience the full social experience their school experience should allow. Once again I will be sure to keep you updated on my progress and welcome any recommendations in the comment area.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
How can a website be educational?
Before you read this blog entry you should know that I will be discussing an ongoing project of mine in education. So if you aren't interested in issues involved in education, don't fear I will soon be posting some more stuff about comic books and basketball soon (Infinite Crisis and the NBA preseason are upon us, I don't know which geeks me out more). Also it should be mentioned that for various reasons I can't go into great detail about the who's and where's of this project. For those of you in the know I'm sure you can fill in the blanks. For those of you not in the know, this may be a little frustrating to read. I'm sorry about that, but maybe you should wonder why I haven't let you in the know.
I recently began working with a high school in my area to help design and create a website. This is a fairly common place task these days. Many professionals find thmselves increasingly involved in some sort of web design project at their own place of work. I really am involved in this project instaed of your basic web consultant, because I come from a perspective of education which the high school appreciates. However, this project is a little more complicated than I had anticipated. First, I am not designing a website for a particular school, but rather for a specialized program within the school. Second, there a remultiple teachers at the high school involved in this project who, in theory, are directing my team in what to do. Except, they can't seem to agree amongst themselves about some of the major goals this website is meant to meet, or how it should go about using them. This was on the points that they did have a specific vision for, and not those for which they were expecting our team to sort of generate some kind of purpose Athena-like from our brows. Third, the website is meant to be for a huge audience, including parents and students who are interested in the program, those currently involved in the program, the alumni of the program, and the teachers themselves. All in all, I was a little unsure how we should go about this.
In spite of all of this I determined that I should indeed sally forth and explore this program with my own eyes. I have to say that the program (which combines classes in the social sciences and humanities under the auspices of a few teachers, and a lot of interesting ideas in how to teach the material) is actually quite impressive, and I would think something that could lend itself well to the flexibilty of the Internet. I was really intersted in learning what the students woul like out of this website. I thought that a generation of students raised under the influence of the Internet would surely be interested in the oppurtunity to include a website into their education. I was astonished by the actuall reaction of the students. I was honestly told by more than one student that creating such a website would be impossible.
They felt that the program was so special and so self-contained that it couldn't be transferred onto a website. They couldn't imagine what a website could provide them that they didn't have already. I understood that this program is set aside within the schools, to the extent that they percieved the whole program existing in a kind of pocket universe, that doesn't touch upon the rest of their world. I watched these students use other web resources with ease. I know they use the web as a major source of entertainment. I came to think that they might view the Internet, the same way I view comic books. I love reading comic books, and I can see many more uses for them than the average person would, but if you ever told me a comic book would be incorporated into a class I was taking I would still balk at the idea. So I realized the challenge for myself would be determining what I could bring to a web site that would give it special educational value for these students.
My first thought is that I should use the adabtibility of Internet to emphasize the lelements that the program provides, but that websites normally lack. In my past experience I have found that what the Net adds in convenience it tends to lose in context. Meanwhile the program is steeped in context, as the teachers try to link their lessons around common themes and materialsl. Sso the question become how to I create a context rich website? I will keep you posted on any ideas I may have, but I will also welcome suggestions, in the comment section.
I recently began working with a high school in my area to help design and create a website. This is a fairly common place task these days. Many professionals find thmselves increasingly involved in some sort of web design project at their own place of work. I really am involved in this project instaed of your basic web consultant, because I come from a perspective of education which the high school appreciates. However, this project is a little more complicated than I had anticipated. First, I am not designing a website for a particular school, but rather for a specialized program within the school. Second, there a remultiple teachers at the high school involved in this project who, in theory, are directing my team in what to do. Except, they can't seem to agree amongst themselves about some of the major goals this website is meant to meet, or how it should go about using them. This was on the points that they did have a specific vision for, and not those for which they were expecting our team to sort of generate some kind of purpose Athena-like from our brows. Third, the website is meant to be for a huge audience, including parents and students who are interested in the program, those currently involved in the program, the alumni of the program, and the teachers themselves. All in all, I was a little unsure how we should go about this.
In spite of all of this I determined that I should indeed sally forth and explore this program with my own eyes. I have to say that the program (which combines classes in the social sciences and humanities under the auspices of a few teachers, and a lot of interesting ideas in how to teach the material) is actually quite impressive, and I would think something that could lend itself well to the flexibilty of the Internet. I was really intersted in learning what the students woul like out of this website. I thought that a generation of students raised under the influence of the Internet would surely be interested in the oppurtunity to include a website into their education. I was astonished by the actuall reaction of the students. I was honestly told by more than one student that creating such a website would be impossible.
They felt that the program was so special and so self-contained that it couldn't be transferred onto a website. They couldn't imagine what a website could provide them that they didn't have already. I understood that this program is set aside within the schools, to the extent that they percieved the whole program existing in a kind of pocket universe, that doesn't touch upon the rest of their world. I watched these students use other web resources with ease. I know they use the web as a major source of entertainment. I came to think that they might view the Internet, the same way I view comic books. I love reading comic books, and I can see many more uses for them than the average person would, but if you ever told me a comic book would be incorporated into a class I was taking I would still balk at the idea. So I realized the challenge for myself would be determining what I could bring to a web site that would give it special educational value for these students.
My first thought is that I should use the adabtibility of Internet to emphasize the lelements that the program provides, but that websites normally lack. In my past experience I have found that what the Net adds in convenience it tends to lose in context. Meanwhile the program is steeped in context, as the teachers try to link their lessons around common themes and materialsl. Sso the question become how to I create a context rich website? I will keep you posted on any ideas I may have, but I will also welcome suggestions, in the comment section.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)