Posted by Jacob Johnson on July 31, 2010 under Sports | 
Listening to Chad Millman this week on his first podcast (talking with Teddy “Covers”) gave me the information I needed to come up with a strength of schedule for the NFL. Teddy was discussing his (and probably other sharps) methodology in placing bets on projected wins. In short, the process of deciding how to wager on season win totals is a combination of three metrics. 1) Teams record last year, rated on if they improved with draft and off-season moves 2) Strength of schedule based on projected wins of opponents 3) Last years results and if they were skewed with key injuries or strength of schedule.
For example, (in regard to #1) with Kurt Warner retiring for the Arizona Cardinals in 2010, they are going to be a completely different team, and this should factor into the analysis (how many wins does Kurt provide over his replacement). On #3, Troy Polamalu, Ed Reed, and Brett Favre sustained injuries last year. The contributions these guys are going to make for their teams in 2010 should factor in to the analysis. Additionally, look at guys like Tom Brady, who played tentatively last year coming of knee surgery, but with a year of playing and more rehab, should come out stronger.
I have derived the strength of schedule based on the projected win totals of the opponents that each team plays. These may change as well as the season nears, but as of this morning (July 31) these are the lines. Below is a graph of the easiest strength of schedule (lowest combined opponent win totals).
Below is a graph with all teams and their respective strength of schedule. You can see the Houston Texans, Cincinnati Bengals and Philadelphia Eagles have the toughest schedules in the NFL, while the San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers and Seattle Seahawks have the easiest schedules for the 2010 season.
Also, below I have combined the strength of schedule with projected wins of each team.
None of this is to be considered advice in any way, but I like going against the Jets here. There is a lot of hype around them, but at 9.5 wins, with the off season contract renegotiations (Revis), I don’t think Tomlinson helps them, they squeaked out a 9-7 record last year, I don’t see 10 wins happening. They have a relatively easy schedule (tenth easiest), so that may help them, but I like the under on this one. Others that are look good are the Chargers (over 11), 49ers (over 8.5) and I like the under (5.5.) for Buffalo or Cleveland.
Disclaimer: It is not intended that any of the information contained on this website to be used for illegal purposes. The information on this website is to be used for informational and entertainment purposes only. Reasonable Inference accepts no responsibility or losses which may be incurred by any person or persons using the whole or part of the contents of this information.
Posted by Jacob Johnson on January 25, 2010 under Law, Politics |
Oregonians passed HB2377 which became effective in 2010. The leading sentence for describing the intent of the law is that it “aims to reduce distractions for drivers so Oregon roads are safer for everyone.” This law perhaps originated from the 2002 study released by Harvard Center for Risk Analysis that 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries are related to auto collisions while cell phones were in use.
So I understand cell phone usage while operating a moving vehicle is distracting, and therefore dangerous. What I don’t understand is why we are focusing on cell phones, and not:
(1) Eating – “Eating while driving seems marginally more dangerous than talking on a cellphone (1.6 to 1 odds vs. 1.3 to 1)”
(2) Changing the radio station – “National Highway Safety Traffic Administration reports that most drivers engage in activities that take their attention away from the road. These activities include:
- Talking with other passengers: 81%
- Playing with the radio or CD: 68%
- Eating or drinking: 49%
- Using a cell phone: 25%”
(3) Applying make up (sorry girls) – “According to the NHTSA and VTTI study, the principal actions that cause distracted driving and lead to vehicle crashes are:
– cell phone use.
- reaching for a moving object inside the vehicle.
- looking at an object or event outside of the vehicle.
- reading.
- applying makeup.”
(4) Multiple Teens – “Two teens in a car increases the likelihood of a crash by 86 percent, three teens by 182 percent, according to research conducted by Johns Hopkins University”
(5) Navigation Systems – While I could not find research conducted on this subject, watching the driver in front of me swerving in the lane while typing into the nav system tells me this activity is dangerous as well. Heaven forbid you are doing this on your mobile device and are pulled over for “texting.”
Passing this law was illogical…why not prohibit the radio station from being changed, make up from being applied, navigation systems (non voice activated) from being used, or big macs from being eaten as these are all known to increase the distractions that drivers face? (“Driver distractions are the leading cause of most vehicle crashes and near-crashes. According to a study released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI), 80% of crashes and 65% of near-crashes involve some form of driver distraction”) Because something tells us this is infringes on our liberties and is too restrictive to our freedoms. Because we are giving the government too much power that constricts our ability to make and have choices. Yet, it is socially acceptable (probably in large part from the university research) to isolate and focus on cell phones, when we know eating is more dangerous. I applaud Oregonian’s (and other states) efforts to save lives with safer streets, but the laser beam focus on cell phones does not make sense, and should not have passed (unless the others above were included as well).
With an upcoming special election (in Oregon) that is attempting to increase taxes for higher income professionals as well as increasing taxes on business (based on sales), I am concerned there is potential for voters to employ the same laser beam focus without considering the ramifications.
Read more of this article »
Posted by Jacob Johnson on August 9, 2009 under Environment, Politics |
Another $2 billion was allocated to the Car Allowance Rebate Program (CARS, Cash for Clunkers) program last week. I have read a couple perspectives regarding the issue such as the approach and accuracy of the fuel ratings, along with the recycling of the “clunkers” (given liquid glass is poured into the engine). A couple issues I have are the implications from an environmental perspective, and the consumer’s ability to borrow money to finance new vehicles.
The first issue regards the funding for this program. Questions arise regarding where the funding stems from as well as what is being sacrificed in order to allocate funds to this program. As Newsweek points out in this article, the Department of Energy will have less funding to spend on new technology for renewable energy initiatives. Personally, I would prefer to see funding spent on renewable energy as I believe that both the short and long term affects are more environmentally beneficial than the CARS program (especially when considering the waste of the “clunker” and what could be extremely marginal improvements in mpg).
The second issue regards personal finances. One of the reasons the housing bubble and the current economic crises occurred is the fact that government provided certain incentives to purchase housing. There was a strong push to get Americans in a house, starting with Clinton (given there are many other factors occurred that caused the current economic crises). Consumers in the residential housing market stretched themselves beyond their means. Unfortunately, the cash for clunker program is an incentive to consume more than what is affordable. The government has now created an incentive (and added another $2B to the program) for folks to trade in a presumably paid-off car that is not worth much, for a new(er) car that requires financing. Given the instability of employment in the current economic climate, it does not seem prudent to increase consumer debt by thousands of dollars. Of utmost concern is the perception that the government is the backstop should something unplanned occur, and I am not comfortable with this precedent (which has already been created with the bailout of the banks) existing any longer.
Posted by Jacob Johnson on August 1, 2009 under Law, Politics |
I thought I would ease myself back into blogging (not that I was blogging that consistently before) with some links that are pretty solid.
Insightful perspective on AIG by Michael Lewis
A take on Coumo’s release on executive compensation for the banks receiving TARP funding
And to wrap it up, and round it out with some law related issues, is an issue I have been following since District of Columbia v. Heller. This is in regard to the second amendment, or a citizens right to bear arms. Overview of present day courts determining how to interpret the decision and from the same source an opinion on Scalia’s opinion
Posted by Jacob Johnson on March 29, 2009 under Economics, Politics |
One area that appears to be overlooked in the area of Obama’s tax plan (to be implemented in 2011) is the area of individual behavior and amount donated as it relates to the amount of tax incentive. The government intends to change (lessen) the amount one is able to deduct from donating to charity from 35% to 28%.
An example of this is if I donated $100 to an entity that was a tax deductible entity as determined by the IRS, I would pay $35 less on my taxes. The proposed change would result in only receiving the benefit of a $28 reduction on my taxes, a $7 dollar “reallocation” from me, to the government. Which appears to be a smart move (on first look) by the government to raise income. However, this article suggests for every 10% increase in tax deductability, it “raises the amount that a person gives by about 10%.”
A visual representation of the change in tax structure is seen below. The real impact is felt by the charity, who deals with a 20% reduction in income, while the government sees a 6% increase in tax revenue, and the individual sees a 7% increase in discretionary spending. It was probably not the intent to re-allocate dollars from charities to the government , but without considering the relationship between tax deductions and amount donated, this is exactly what capital hill has proposed.
