For a minute there, I started to think this year would go by without a Name of the Year bracket. The Committee kept making promises, and the bracket didn't show. The actual March Madness bracket was nearly decided before the Name of the Year bracket (link to this year's bracket) came out. But it has, and it *inhales deeply* is worth the wait.
I am, as far as I know, the only person to attempt analysis of the bracket in the world. This is my third year. Last year saw the meteoric rise of Boats Botes, who won the people's votes. Kobe Buffalomeat won the Committee's vote. I had both in the Final Four.
Last year's bracket was very top-heavy. This year's bracket has a number of duds like any year, but my feeling is that it has stronger depth than last year. There are a few favorites, but none that I feel instantly will have deep runs. In short: A better bracket means it's harder to pick winners. But that's what I'm here for. As a reminder, names that tend to do better in the bracket are names that a) have funny first and last names, b) have good name synergy, like Miracle Crimes this year and c) have some added bonus, like Dr./Rev. or Jr./III/IV or diacriticals.
Bulltron Regional
(For those new to the site, the regionals are named after winners in the early 1990s. This regional is named after Assumption Bulltron, 1992 Name of the Year winner and Name of the Decade. The others are named after Crescent Dragonwagon, '93 winner; Doby Chrotchtangle, '91 winner; and... I'll get to the other one soon.)
This is one of the two strongest regionals. Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper should continue the hot streak of 1 and 2 seeds. Mosthigh Thankgod has an easy matchup, too. 10-seed Jamez Brickhouse is only funny because of one letter, so I think Dr. Dimple Royalty crushes him. The 8-9 matchup is weak, so I'll pick Zeus de la Paz as the winner. My first upset pick is Miracle Crimes over 4-seed Early Charlemagne. Miracle Crimes was severely underseeded. Tuna Altuna is a beautiful example of why I love this tournament, and she (he?) should advance. Finally, Habbakkuk Baldonado has two names that clash beautifully, which should lead it to victory over one-name Armageddon Draughn. Salami Blessing and Jimbob Ghostkeeper should coast into the Sweet 16, and Miracle Crimes continues the Cinderella story. The lovely symmetry of Tuna Altuna should be enough against Mosthigh Thanked. Unfortunately, this region is really about two names: Jimbob Ghostkeeper in the bottom half and Salami Blessing in the upper half. I think they move on, with Salami Blessing as the region's winner.
Fruithandler Memorial Regional
The Committee has not yet explained their reasons for renaming this regional. It used to be the Sithole Regional, named after '85 winner Godfrey Sithole. But the regional has been renamed after Jerome Fruithandler, '04 winner. I await their reasoning.
This regional has great depth, top-to-bottom. 16-seed Dr. Pitt Derryberry would be a mid seed any other year. This year, he faces the wondrous Makenlove Petit-Fard in the first round, who should win. Other easy picks in the first round include Corky Boozé and 12-seed Dr. Megha Panda. Rev. Dongo Pewee checks all of my boxes, too. I've got Sir'Zion Dance and Sparkle Hayter moving on, but those are guesses — neither those names nor their competitors really stand out. The toughest calls come between Dr. Birchann Paffenbarger-Covadonga del Busto Naval and Blossom Albuquerque-Obra Kernodle IV. Honestly, I think the Committee should have swapped the seeds in the latter match, because 14-seed Obra Kernodle IV is winning that one. I'm going with my gut on Covadonga del Busto Naval in the other, but it's a tough call. Rev. Dongo Pewee and Makenlove Petit-Fard will waltz into the Sweet 16 without trouble, and I've got Obra Kernodle IV moving on, too. Dr. Megha Panda-Corky Boozé is a tough matchup. One name has a Ph.D., the other has a diacritical. I've got Dr. Megha Panda winning, but losing in the next round to Makenlove Petit-Fard. Obra Kernodle IV-Rev. Dongo Pewee is a matchup you could imagine in the finals of a week year. Usually I can get a sense of zeitgeist by reading the comments section, so I'm letting Rev. Dongo Pewee not only win this round, but move on to the Final Four. (Though Makenlove Petit-Fard is my personal favorite.)
Dragonwagon Regional
This is the weak regional this year. Someone will have to win it, but they're not winning the tournament. 1-seed La Royce Lobster-Gaines should have no problem reaching the Sweet 16, beating Darthvader Williamson, but there are better names out there in the regional. I like 10-seed Adele Gorrilla in the first round, as well as the underrated Chardonnay Beaver and Lola Honeybone. Ceejhay French-Love is probably OK against Yo'Heinz Tyler, but I wouldn't be surprised about an upset. I smell an upset by Forbes Thor Kiddoo against Crystal Patriarche. The comments section leads me to believe Mike Diaper has a chance, but Quindarious Gooch is 10 times more fun to say. It has two good names to Mike Diaper's one. I like Quindarious Gooch against Forbes Thor Kiddoo. Ceejhay French-Love... I guess makes it, but neither they nor Adele Gorrilla will last long. Finally, I think the Lola Honeybone-Chardonnay Beaver winner ends up winning the regional against Quindarious Gooch. But which one is a hard call. My instant reaction was Chardonnay Beaver, but after more deliberation, I think Lola Honeybone takes it to the Final Four.
Chrotchtangle Regional
This regional is stacked with the best names. Even its worse names, like Bucky Worboys and Bramble Klipple, are still pretty good. So let's get on with it. Dr. Narwhals Mating is a deserving 1-seed. Mahogany Loggins has great flow to it and will win the 8-9 matchup. I've got an easy win for 11-seed Hallelujah Lulie and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd. Rev. Hobbit Forrest should have no trouble in the first round, and I also like Beau Titsworth against Palestine Ace. As much as I like Lukas Chalupa, I love the clash of styles of Gandalf Hernandez. Finally, if I'm going to pick an upset, it'll be Tuesday DerMargosian over 2-seed Shaka Licorish. Either way, Licorish goes down in early rounds. Dr. Narwhals Mating should cut down the delectably named Mahogany Loggins with no problem, and Dr. Taekwondo Byrd has too much for a game Hallelujah Lulie. I've got Gandalf Hernandez moving on to the Sweet 16. Finally, the Rev. Hobbit Forrest-Beau Titsworth is why I do this analysis. At the end of the day, Beau Titsworth really only has one funny name, body humor as it is. Rev. Hobbit Forrest moves on. I think Dr. Taekwondo Byrd has the easier matchup to reach the Elite Eight, while Dr. Narwhals Mating-Rev. Hobbit Forrest is a game for the ages. In the end, Dr. Narwhals Mating wins to set up the Ph.D. regional finals: Dr. Taekwondo Byrd-Dr. Narwhals Mating. Which is funnier? I think Dr. Taekwondo Byrd is kind of cool, whereas you'd be a little embarrassed to be named Dr. Narwhals Mating, so he moves on.
Final Four
Dr. Narwhals Mating will beat whoever comes out of the Dragonwagon, in this case Lola Honeybone. Salami Blessing-Rev. Dongo Pewee should be worth the price of admission (free). Both have a subtext genitalia joke. Both have good name synergy. As much as I love the ordination of Dongo Pewee, I think Salami Blessing's name synergy is a little better, making it more popular. In the finals, Dr. Narwhals Mating is your winner. He has a Ph.D., after all.
Summary Judgments
Fascinating read about a rare disease and what it's like to live with it. Haunting and in-depth, this is worth a read. • • • I am a big Royals fan. Let it be hereby noted that I have no idea what their plan is this year. They don't have the talent to make the playoffs; heck, they don't even have enough talent to be decent this year. They also have a terribly depleted farm system and aren't playing young guys at the major-league level. It's going to be a long season, I think. • • • This has been the first week where I truly feel back in the swing of running. I'm running 2 miles without walking pretty consistently. If I keep improving at this rate, I should be running a 5K by the end of April. • • • In case you missed it, we have a new dog. His name is Wheeler. Anyway, I got home with the kids before Alyson got home yesterday, and the kids and I took Wheeler outside to do his business. The kids run out into the middle of the yard, and I warn them there are a few poops in the yard. Roland stops, does this comical arms-out stance: "Where are the poops?" I then had to walk them back to the entry, because they believed the yard was booby-trapped with poops. There are only like, 3 poops out there (We usually pick them up), and he's walking across a minefield in his mind.
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Lessons from Pennsylvania's 18th special election
NOTE: Apparently I forgot to post this... It will inevitably be buried by my next post, but if you're curious, this is up now.
If you're a Democrat, the win sure sounds exciting: Unknown Democrat beats well-funded Republican in a (gerrymandered-to-be) heavily red district. The intimation is that if this district can turn blue, so can a lot of/most of/many less red districts across the country. I'm not so sure it'll be that easy, but there are a few lessons we can take away.
Candidates matter, to a point. Let's tie in the Alabama Senate special election here. Republicans, even in safe seats, are vulnerable with scandals. Roy Moore had his scandal, and it cost him. The only reason the Pennsylvania 18th was up for election at all is because the pro-life GOP incumbent was caught telling his mistress to have an abortion. The GOP put up their candidate and the Democrats put up theirs, but the GOP had been tainted. The Democrats put up a candidate who opposes abortion personally but doesn't think it's the government's place to get involved (a nuanced view shared by Tim Kaine and Joe Biden) and is for gun regulation but not gun control (also nuanced). The GOP candidate Saccone said in the final days that Democrats hate Donald Trump (probably true), America (absolutely false) and God (maybe some, but not nearly true). In short: Saccone was a bad candidate dragged down by his predecessor, and the Democrats had a perfectly OK candidate.
Unions can matter, to a point. Saccone also made a point of announcing anti-union positions. This was dumb in a district that is heavily unionized. Roughly 20 percent of the workers in the district are unionized. The unions endorsed the Democrat Lamb and put energy behind him. That said, not every suburban/rural district has a heavy union presence. Those union-heavy conditions in Pennsylvania's 18th are unlikely to be found in Iowa or Arkansas or Kentucky.
Republicans are in trouble. There have been eight special elections for Congress since 2016. Seven have been in "red states" (a term I dislike, but that's another story). There has been a swing in the margin of those elections (partisan lean compared to actual results) to the Democrats in every one of those eight races. In six of the eight, the swing has been double digits. The average swing has been about 17 percentage points. Even if you take out the horrible candidates of the Alabama and Pennsylvania races, the average has been 13 points. This Pennsylvania race even had higher turnout than the last midterm in 2014. The short version: Democrats are energized and flipping the House may be a greater possibility.
Retraction
I'd like to make a retraction of sorts. When I said that Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury book seemed to have truth to it, I think that's correct in the parts that have been supported by outside interviews. I also think the Bannon-related stuff is correct, as I have heard no denials. However, I'm more and more disappointed by how exposed Wolff has been in his desire to be sensationalist. He pumped up talks of a Trump affair in the media, then played coy and tried to let the media "connect the dots." At different times he seemed to indicate Trump's affair was with Hope Hicks (I could believe it) and then Nikki Haley (I could never believe this). Either way, when called out, he embarrassed himself. At one point, he claimed earpiece issues, and the host then replayed what Wolff had heard, and it showed no problems at all. In short: I am sorry for giving Wolff any endorsement at all when the proper reporting has been done by more reputable sources. But the more I think about it, this is how journalism works. Reporting — good or bad — will be able to stand up over time. Reporting by the Washington Post and New York Times stands up well over time. Michael Wolff's reporting has been embarrassing to all.
Summary Judgments
I thought this was an interesting story explaining the old law that's been a thorn in Trump's side. It further explains that Obama's administration fell victim to the law, too, but it was almost entirely late in the administration after Congressional avenues and other methods had been blocked. Fascinating contrast. • • • • • • We watched Mulan last weekend. I stand by my assessment that it doesn't meet the Nash-del test. The romance angle is entirely tacked on and ruins the "this isn't about romance" stuff that had been the theme of the rest of the movie. Better movie than I remembered, but still doesn't quite meet my test. • • • Good story on pro wrestling, and the legacy of father to son. • • • Grrr... This is why other countries are stepping up in leadership. When there is a leadership vacuum, other countries will step in. I don't think that's a move in the right direction for the U.S.
If you're a Democrat, the win sure sounds exciting: Unknown Democrat beats well-funded Republican in a (gerrymandered-to-be) heavily red district. The intimation is that if this district can turn blue, so can a lot of/most of/many less red districts across the country. I'm not so sure it'll be that easy, but there are a few lessons we can take away.
Candidates matter, to a point. Let's tie in the Alabama Senate special election here. Republicans, even in safe seats, are vulnerable with scandals. Roy Moore had his scandal, and it cost him. The only reason the Pennsylvania 18th was up for election at all is because the pro-life GOP incumbent was caught telling his mistress to have an abortion. The GOP put up their candidate and the Democrats put up theirs, but the GOP had been tainted. The Democrats put up a candidate who opposes abortion personally but doesn't think it's the government's place to get involved (a nuanced view shared by Tim Kaine and Joe Biden) and is for gun regulation but not gun control (also nuanced). The GOP candidate Saccone said in the final days that Democrats hate Donald Trump (probably true), America (absolutely false) and God (maybe some, but not nearly true). In short: Saccone was a bad candidate dragged down by his predecessor, and the Democrats had a perfectly OK candidate.
Unions can matter, to a point. Saccone also made a point of announcing anti-union positions. This was dumb in a district that is heavily unionized. Roughly 20 percent of the workers in the district are unionized. The unions endorsed the Democrat Lamb and put energy behind him. That said, not every suburban/rural district has a heavy union presence. Those union-heavy conditions in Pennsylvania's 18th are unlikely to be found in Iowa or Arkansas or Kentucky.
Republicans are in trouble. There have been eight special elections for Congress since 2016. Seven have been in "red states" (a term I dislike, but that's another story). There has been a swing in the margin of those elections (partisan lean compared to actual results) to the Democrats in every one of those eight races. In six of the eight, the swing has been double digits. The average swing has been about 17 percentage points. Even if you take out the horrible candidates of the Alabama and Pennsylvania races, the average has been 13 points. This Pennsylvania race even had higher turnout than the last midterm in 2014. The short version: Democrats are energized and flipping the House may be a greater possibility.
Retraction
I'd like to make a retraction of sorts. When I said that Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury book seemed to have truth to it, I think that's correct in the parts that have been supported by outside interviews. I also think the Bannon-related stuff is correct, as I have heard no denials. However, I'm more and more disappointed by how exposed Wolff has been in his desire to be sensationalist. He pumped up talks of a Trump affair in the media, then played coy and tried to let the media "connect the dots." At different times he seemed to indicate Trump's affair was with Hope Hicks (I could believe it) and then Nikki Haley (I could never believe this). Either way, when called out, he embarrassed himself. At one point, he claimed earpiece issues, and the host then replayed what Wolff had heard, and it showed no problems at all. In short: I am sorry for giving Wolff any endorsement at all when the proper reporting has been done by more reputable sources. But the more I think about it, this is how journalism works. Reporting — good or bad — will be able to stand up over time. Reporting by the Washington Post and New York Times stands up well over time. Michael Wolff's reporting has been embarrassing to all.
Summary Judgments
I thought this was an interesting story explaining the old law that's been a thorn in Trump's side. It further explains that Obama's administration fell victim to the law, too, but it was almost entirely late in the administration after Congressional avenues and other methods had been blocked. Fascinating contrast. • • • • • • We watched Mulan last weekend. I stand by my assessment that it doesn't meet the Nash-del test. The romance angle is entirely tacked on and ruins the "this isn't about romance" stuff that had been the theme of the rest of the movie. Better movie than I remembered, but still doesn't quite meet my test. • • • Good story on pro wrestling, and the legacy of father to son. • • • Grrr... This is why other countries are stepping up in leadership. When there is a leadership vacuum, other countries will step in. I don't think that's a move in the right direction for the U.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)