This cannot stand!

I have now been accused by two people (one verbally, one written) of following the Olympics by posting this. I'd like to clear up some misconceptions, since linking to an article with a funny headline apparently is equal to reading about the Olympics to people.

I read the Drudge Report numerous times a day. Why? If you have to ask, you've never checked it out. It's a great site for news links, from big stories to silly and weird stories to opinion pieces.

Yesterday I went to Drudge and he put up a link to the Phelps story where he just copied the headline to his site. Here it is again:

Rise of the human dolphin

There was a picture of Phelps above it. The headline immediately made me think of the South Park episode, to which I linked a snippet. I didn't even read the article, because I DON'T CARE.

So, let's go back over this, since being a math major in college clear doesn't confer upon people reason and logic:

I saw a headline, then linked to the story to show that I was not making it up. I then wrote that the headline reminded me of a South Park episode.

How again does that mean that I am following the Olympics?

Best cartoon ever

It's so true. You math majors really need to see it. As John Derbyshire describes his undergraduate years:

It is a fact, though, that the cartoon does represent the way a lot of mathematicians think. Math undergraduates — my cohort, anyway — are terrible intellectual snobs. We were just about willing to forgive physicists for actually using our precious theorems, but heaven only knew what chemists and biologists got up to in those filthy labs of theirs, and the "soft sciences" — psychology, sociology, and the like — were beneath contempt. As for people who studied literature and history (what's the difference?), well, they were just figures of fun. "You mean to say they'll give you a degree just for reading novels? Woo-hoo-hoo-hoo! Hey, listen to this, guys …"

I really am a math snob.

How early is Easter this year?

I thought it was earlier than I could remember, and by far so. I was right.

Sex discrimination in the sciences

This (very long) article describes the movement afoot to do to college science departments what Title IX has done to athletic programs.

There is too much good stuff to quote, so I recommend reading the whole thing if you have the time and interest.

Update on the Chiefs and their draft position

Intrepid commenter "Tony" has found the likely answer to my post below:

NFL.com had more info. "All three teams finished the 2007 season with identical 4-12 records, but the Raiders were awarded the fourth overall selection based on their finish behind the Chiefs in the AFC West standings. Kansas City finished ahead of Oakland in the division standings based on a better record against common opponents."

So, it sounds like the league wanted to force KC to pick behind Oak. There are 3 possible outcomes. 1: Atl-Oak-KC; 2: Oak-Atl-KC; 3: Oak-KC-Atl.

Thanks to "Tony" for researching this and solving the mystery. I thought this was worth highlighting for those who won't repeatedly read my posts for the additional comments.

Did the Chiefs get hosed?

When it comes to ties in record, the NFL determines draft position by strength of schedule (SOS). The team with the weaker strength of schedule picks first. What happens when there are two teams with the same SOS? There is a coin flip.

We found out this morning what the league does when there are 3 teams with the same SOS, and unless there is more information than is provided in this ESPN article, the statistician in me says the Kansas City Chiefs got a raw deal. Here's what happened:

The Falcons had the first call and won the toss. Under that scenario, the Falcons got the third pick and the Raiders the fourth pick. Had the Falcons lost the toss and the Raiders won, the Raiders would have drafted third, and then the Falcons would have flipped against the Chiefs for the No. 4 and No. 5 picks.

The Falcons had the first call. If they got it right, they go #3. If they get it wrong, they go against the Chiefs for #4. That means the Falcons have a 50% chance of having #3 and 25% chance each of having #4 and #5.

The Raiders are in even better shape than the Falcons. They had chances of 50% for #3, 50% for #4, and 0% for #5.

Where does this leave the Chiefs? It's easy from the math above that they have a 0% chance for #3, 25% chance for #4, and 75% chance for #5.

Here are the expected draft positions for the three teams under this scenario:

Falcons = (.5 * 3) + (.25 * 4) + (.25 * 5) = 3.75
Raiders = (.5 * 3) + (.5 * 4) + (0 * 5) = 3.5
Chiefs = (0 * 3) + (.25 * 4) + (.75 * 5) = 4.75

I am assuming that there were some other behind-the-scenes tie-breakers not mentioned in the article to determine the coin flip position, because if not the Chiefs did indeed get hosed.*

*There is another possible explanation. Mainstream media reporters are notoriously horrible at understanding statistics (they are just journalism majors after all), so the author probably doesn't comprehend that his article gives the impression that the Chiefs had terrible odds. This may be worth an e-mail to the league for clarification.