New Rankings

As requested by a reader, I have removed the "Marketability" ranking. I have also shifted a few stations around after further perusal and here are my new findings:

Ranking) (Previous Ranking) Team name: Avg Score (Intimidation #, Historical Significance #, Aesthetics #, Mascot Connection #)] (Any change in category ranking is signified in paranthesis)

32) (29) Saints: 23.75 (21) (I: 31, H: 23, A: 15, MC: 26)


31) (30) Giants: 23.75 (21.8) (I: 30, H: 24, A: 9, MC: 32)


30) (31) Ravens: 23.5 (24.2) (I: 18, H: 31, A: 32, MC: 13)


29) (32) Browns: 22.5 (24.6) (I: 20, H: 16, A: 26, MC: 29)


28) (28) Bears: 22.25 (21) (I: 26, H: 5, A: 27, MC: 31)


27) (23) Chiefs: 20.25 (19.2) (I: 25, H: 14, A: 17, MC: 25)


26) (18) Forty-Niners: 19.5 (17.8) (I: 28, H: 4, A: 18, MC: 28)

25) (26) Jets: 18.75 (19.8) (I: 29, H: 13, A: 25, MC: 8)

24) (20) Chargers: 18.25 (18.6) (I: 19, H: 22, A: 22, MC: 10)

23) (22) Jaguars: 18.25 (19.2) (I: 4, H: 30, A: 24, MC: 15)


22) (27) Redskins: 18 (20.6) (I: 22, H: 12, A: 31, MC: 7)


21) (19) Falcons: 18 (17.8) (I: 9, H: 18, A: 28, MC: 17)


20) (16) Texans: 17.75 (15.6) (I: 11, H: 32, A: 7, MC: 21)


19) (24) Dolphins: 17.75 (19.4) (I: 32, H: 15, A: 23, MC: 1)


18) (9) Bengals: 17.5 (14.4) (I: 16, H: 28, A: 2 (3), MC: 24)


17) (25) Bills: 17.25 (19.6) (I: 12, H: 10, A: 29, MC: 18)


16) (11) Packers: 17.25 (14.6) (I: 27, H: 1, A: 14, MC: 27)


15) (21) Seahawks: 17 (18.6) (I: 14, H: 21, A: 13, MC: 20)

14) (13) Panthers: 16.25 (14.8) (I: 1, H: 29, A: 21, MC: 14)

13) (8) Titans: 16 (13.8) (I: 6, H: 26, A: 10, MC: 22)


12) (14) Colts: 15.5 (15) (I: 23, H: 8, A: 8, MC: 23)


11) (17) Lions: 14.5 (17.2) (I: 15, H: 9, A: 30, MC: 4)

The New Top Ten:
10) (15) Buccaneers: 14 (15.4) (I: 5, H: 27, A: 12, MC: 12)


9) (5) Cowboys: 13.75 (11.8) (I: 21, H: 3 (4), A: 1, MC: 30)


8) (12) Rams: 12.75 (14.6) (I: 8, H: 19, A: 19, MC: 5)


7) (6) Broncos: 11.25 (12.6) (I: 3, H: 17, A: 6, MC: 19)


6) (2) Eagles: 11.25 (10.2) (I: 2, H: 11, A: 16, MC: 16)


5) (3) Vikings: 11.25 (10.6) (I: 13, H: 25, A: 5, MC: 2)


4) (7) Cardinals: 11 (12.8) (I: 10, H: 20, A: 4, MC: 10)


3) (4) Steelers: 10.75 (10.8) (I: 24, H: 2, A: 11, MC: 6)


2) (10) Raiders: 10.5 (14.4) (I: 7, H: 6, A: 20, MC: 9)

#1 NFL logo:
1) (1) Patriots: 7.5 (6.4) (I: 17, H: 7, A: 3 (2), MC: 3)

So even though I dropped the Patriots a notch in a category and removed the "Marketability" category they still fall to the top spot.

I encourage any of you to create your own rankings. Or even your own categories. If you have new categories that you think I should include, I'm happy to do so! Keep those suggestions coming!

NFL Logo Rankings

Faithful readers of JMO will no doubt remember my season of Power Rankings. I've decided to rank all 32 of the NFL teams' logos instead.

Rather than simply look at them and say "I like that one, I don't like that one." I decided to be systematic about this process. I devised five categories and ranked all 32 logos for each category. I then calculated the average to see where each logo fell out. Here are the categories:

Intimidation: Does the logo itself strike fear into it's opponent. This is simply the image, not the actual skill of the team. For example the Steelers are a great team and I would not want to face them, but their logo is not intimidating. On the contrary, the Buccaneers are not exceptionally good, but their skull and cross bones flying on a sword is pretty intimidating. Top intimidator: Panthers.

Historical Significance: This is where the historical weight of the team is rated. While the Cowboys' star isn't very intimidating, historically, Dallas has been a very good team and they would do well in this category. Something considered here was a change in logo. Had the Buccaneers been good under their previous logo, they would have suffered in this category as they have since radically changed their image. However, a team like the Patriots moves up because their winning ways have occurred under the new logo. Logo with the most history behind it: Packers.

General Aesthetics: Is the logo nice to look at? Is it well balanced? How artistic is the image itself? I took nothing else into account, I just asked: Is it pretty? Best looking logo: Cowboys.

Marketability: This rated the likelihood that people would buy something with this image on it. I was not attempting to calculate the total fan base of each team. Some of the characteristics I considered: "Is it fashionable?" "What would it look like reduced in size?" "Is it trendy?" "Are the colors 'In'?" Most marketable logo: Bengals.

Mascot Connection: To determine this, I imagined a non-football fan with the following quiz: One side of has all of the logos, the other all of the mascot names. Which ones would they know right away, which ones might they confuse for other teams, and which ones would be outright guesses. Best mascot connection: Dolphins.

In the case of a tie, I looked at the highest ranking each team had. For example: the Saints and the Bears both had 21. The highest placement for the Saints was a 10 in Marketability. The Bears ranked 5th in Historical Significance and therefore ranked higher overall.

Here are how the logos ranked: [ Ranking) Team name: Avg Score (Intimidation #, Historical Significance #, Aesthetics #, Marketability #, Mascot Connection #)]

32) Browns: 24.6 (I: 20, H: 16, A: 26, M: 32, MC: 29)


31) Ravens: 24.2 (I: 18, H: 31, A: 32, M: 27, MC: 13)


30) Giants: 21.8 (I: 30, H: 24, A: 9, M: 14, MC: 32)


29) Saints: 21 (I: 31, H: 23, A: 15, M: 10, MC: 26)


28) Bears: 21 (I: 26, H: 5, A: 27, M: 16, MC: 31)


27) Redskins: 20.6 (I: 22, H: 12, A: 31, M: 31, MC: 7)


26) Jets: 19.8 (I: 29, H: 13, A: 25, M: 24, MC: 8)

25) Bills: 19.6 (I: 12, H: 10, A: 29, M: 29, MC: 18)


24) Dolphins: 19.4 (I: 32, H: 15, A: 23, M: 26, MC: 1)


23) Chiefs: 19.2 (I: 25, H: 14, A: 17, M: 15, MC: 25)


22) Jaguars: 19.2 (I: 4, H: 30, A: 24, M: 23, MC: 15)


21) Seahawks: 18.6 (I: 14, H: 21, A: 13, M: 25, MC: 20)

20) Chargers: 18.6 (I: 19, H: 22, A: 22, M: 20, MC: 10)

19) Falcons: 17.8 (I: 9, H: 18, A: 28, M: 17, MC: 17)


18) Forty-Niners: 17.8 (I: 28, H: 3, A: 18, M: 12, MC: 28)

17) Lions: 17.2 (I: 15, H: 9, A: 30, M: 28, MC: 4)


16) Texans: 15.6 (I: 11, H: 32, A: 7, M: 7, MC: 21)


15) Buccaneers: 15.4 (I: 5, H: 27, A: 12, M: 21, MC: 12)


14) Colts: 15 (I: 23, H: 8, A: 8, M: 13, MC: 23)


13) Panthers: 14.8 (I: 1, H: 29, A: 21, M: 9, MC: 14)


12) Rams: 14.6 (I: 8, H: 19, A: 19, M: 22, MC: 5)


11) Packers: 14.6 (I: 27, H: 1, A: 14, M: 4, MC: 27)


Top Ten:
10) Raiders: 14.4 (I: 7, H: 6, A: 20, M: 30, MC: 9)


9) Bengals: 14.4 (I: 16, H: 28, A: 3, M: 1, MC: 24)


8) Titans: 13.8 (I: 6, H: 26, A: 10, M: 5, MC: 22)


7) Cardinals: 12.8 (I: 10, H: 20, A: 4, M: 20, MC: 10)


6) Broncos: 12.6 (I: 3, H: 17, A: 6, M: 18, MC: 19)


5) Cowboys: 11.8 (I: 21, H: 4, A: 1, M: 2, MC: 30)


4) Steelers: 10.8 (I: 24, H: 2, A: 1, M: 2, MC: 6)


3) Vikings: 10.6 (I: 13, H: 25, A: 5, M: 8, MC: 2)


2) Eagles: 10.2 (I: 2, H: 11, A: 16, M: 6, MC: 16)


#1 NFL logo:
1) Patriots: 6.4 (I: 17, H: 7, A: 2, M: 3, MC: 3)

Now, I know this looks like a major case of "homerism" but I worked very hard to be impartial. The Bengals' "B" ranked higher than the Patriots for Intimidation because of it's slicing stripes. I was surprised at how high the Arizona Cardinals made it overall. I'd be more than happy to list each category. I can do it with the logo images in future posts, or I can do it without images in the comments of this post. Please let me know which you'd prefer if you want me to list the five categories separately.

No doubt you have some emotional reaction to this list! Sound off! Let me know what I got right or what I got terribly wrong! This is my opinion. What's yours?

An Article of Note

I read an article the other day about the state of unemployment in our country. What struck me was the headline. In a moment, I'll share with you the title of the article.

I found the heading of the article so fascinating that I did some research about how the situation was handled in the past. I found that, historically, unemployment and the president were inexorably connected. As the article dealt with the fact that we have a high jobless rate right now, I focused my research on that specific situation. Here are some of the headlines I found from the past:

From G. W. Bush's era:
"Bush's Economy: Unemployment Soars"
"Bush Can't Revive Economy"
"How the Bush Tax cuts reduced employment."

From the Bush Senior era:
"Bush can't create jobs"

From Carter's era:
"Carter's jobless rate a big plus for Reagan"

Now, here we stand, close to a year since Obama's Economy saving stimulus package was unveiled and distributed. This package was to create 3.5 million jobs. Where are they? In February, when the stimulus passed into law the unemployment rate was 8.1%. It had increased from 6.8% when Obama was elected. Now it stands at 10.2%. Not only did the stimulus package not create jobs, it didn't even save the ones that were already in existence!

California, that received over $7.2 Billion currently has a 12.5% unemployment rate. Michigan stands at 15.1%. According to the US Department of Labor nine states saw a "significant change" in their unemployment rates since September, all of them increased.

So what are the current headlines saying?

"Obama's stimulus can't revive economy"
"Stimulus unsuccessful at creating jobs"
"White House needs a new plan to cut Unemployment"
"Obama can't create jobs"

One would think this is what we'd be reading.

Here is the headline that I saw:

"Higher Jobless Rates Could be the New Normal"

As though the jobless rate were completely unrelated to the efforts of the current administration. "It's not their fault, it's the new normal." It doesn't matter that historically we've blamed to the president in times like these. We can't point a finger at this president because it's just the new normal.

Why do I have such a hard time believing that there is no such thing as the Liberal Media?

Boo! Facebook!

I once had an average of 30 people a day visiting my blog.

I once had posts with 15+ comments.

I once had friends who would post interesting, intelligent, thought provoking things. Funny, poignant, and occasionally some mundane things. I had friends who would post.

Then came "Facebook"
My friends stopped posting on Blogspot. My comments dwindled. My hits suffered.

Why?

Because once we have a taste of convenience we can't go back. One can go on their own Facebook page and see the comments, status', and thoughts of all of their friends.

People began "posting" through their Twitters and Facebook status. So few people now take the time to formulate a cohesive argument, put it in logical order, type it out in a cognitive fashion, and post it for others to read. Instead of theological treatises, we get sound bytes. Instead of well founded political discussions we get "Yes we can" or "The postal service lost 3.8 Billion dollars this year. I have an idea: Let's put the federal government in charge of healthcare."

What did I do? I caved. I set up my Facebook to read my Blogspot and automatically post it in Facebook. So people read my posts but I once put a lot of effort into my Blogspot. I had an ever changing sidebar. I had bi-monthly opinion polls, links to my friends' blogs, A "This Day in History" segment, I'd update funny or timely quotes, I had a list of every movie I'd watched with a quick rating and a place for people to request that I do a more thorough review. (For those of you reading this on Facebook: To see what I'm referencing, visit my blog here.) Now all of that is missed. Why?

Facebook.

Please. Stop using Facebook. Come back to Blogger. Start posting again. Start commenting again. Let's not let "technology" dictate how we share our thoughts, let's let how we share our thoughts dictate what type of technology booms.

Indy Is Not Undefeated

Indianapolis was handed a victory this week. Handed over. Given by the refs. Terribly officiated. Ripped from the Patriots. And, as we've grown accustomed to, I have visual evidence.

This was called pass interference.

Please note: The cornerback is playing the ball. The wide receiver is stopping. This contact is initiated by the stopping wide receiver and therefore, if there is any penalty, it is offensive pass interference. It certainly is not defensive. This was a 40+ yard penalty. The Colts scored.

Then came the most controversial decision of the game. Fourth and two, up by six, on your own 28 yard line. The Patriots go for it. If they succeed, they are brilliant. If they fail, they should have punted. What's the verdict? The Patriots converted the first down but the refs made sure the Colts got the ball.

Here is my proof:


Please note: Kevin Fault, at this point has complete control of the ball. His down field foot is on the thirty yard line (what they needed to cross for the first down) and the ball is in his upfield hand. There is no way that the ball is behind the 30. Here is a close up look so you can see that he has the ball and it is further up the field than his left foot.


Faulk was tackled backward and the ball was placed at the 28 yard line, where he hit the ground. The referee needs to be reacquainted with the concept of forward progress. I know it's a new concept and the Colts can't win if you call the play the way it actually happened. But Patriots first down is the right call!

The call on the field was Colt's ball. They were incorrectly given the ball at the Patriots 28 yard line. They scored and won the game by 1 point.

NFL network does a segment called "Official Review" where they ask Mike Pereira (VP of NFL refs) to account for or explain some of the more difficult or questionable calls from the previous week. Here is the Week 10 episode. Now, usually, the really egregious game changers are not discussed so I was shocked when they opened with the 4th and 2 play. Occasionally, Mike says "we blew the call." Of course, he only says that when it didn't decide the game. He couldn't say that now, because blowing the call means giving the game to the Colts. Here is what he said about the call on the field: "It's almost near impossible to tell where the receiver had possession." Why don't you just say, "Nearly, almost, somewhat, close to being, kinda really hard to know." Way to make an excuse as to why the wrong call was made on the field. But he did say, "The one thing that I appreciate is that it was a quick decisive decision by [the referee]." Give me a break! Oh, that's right, I want a fast call. Forget about making the right call. I don't care if it's right or wrong ~ you better make that call fast! I want the same thing in other things, like pregnancy tests. I don't care how accurate it is but that test better be fast! It was the wrong call. The Colt's lost.

I have now removed the Colt's from the undefeated list on the sidebar. Had either of the above calls been made correctly the Patriots win this game. End of story!