BCS Bowl Matchups and the BCS Eligibility Provisions in the College Football Bowl Selection Procedure

Even in sports, also in college football, it all comes down to the legal paragraphs.

TEN BCS TEAMS ARE SELECTED for the BCS Bowls by the eligibility provisions of the BCS Selection Procedures.

The Eligibility Provisions of the BCS Selection Procedures read as follows (LawPundit has added emphasis where required and has also added the material in brackets in orange script to help in the explanation of the provisions):

Automatic Qualification, At-Large Eligibility and Selection Procedures, 2007-2010 Games

Automatic Qualification

1. The top two teams in the final BCS Standings shall play in the National Championship Game. [If, for example, Florida beats Alabama or vice versa in the SEC championship game and Oklahoma (or Texas) beats Missouri in the Big 12 championship game, there is little doubt that the winners will be ranked as the top two teams in the final BCS Standings. If Missouri were to upset Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship game, then Texas would probably be ranked No. 2. If Missouri were to upset Texas in the Big 12 championship game, then Oklahoma would probably be ranked No. 2 in the final rankings.]

2. The champions of the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and Southeastern conferences will have automatic berths in one of the participating bowls after the 2008 through 2013 regular seasons. [ACC = winner of the Boston College vs. Virginia Tech championship game, Big East = Cincinnati, Big Ten = Penn State, Big 12 = winner of the Oklahoma (or Texas) vs. Missouri championship game, Pac-10 = USC if it beats UCLA, SEC = winner of the Florida vs. Alabama championship game]

3. The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:

A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings [this applies this season to both undefeated Utah and undefeated Boise State], or,
B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls. [currently, undefeated Ball State qualifies under this provision, since it is ranked 15th, one slot ahead of Cincinnati, ranked 16th, which is automatically qualified for a BCS berth as Big East champion, and six slots ahead of Boston College and even more ahead of unranked Virginia Tech, one of which will be ACC champion – in other words, Utah, Boise State and Ball State this season thus far all qualify for a BCS berth, except for the limitation set forth in the next provision….]

No more than one such team from Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, and the Western Athletic Conference shall earn an automatic berth in any year. (Note: a second team may be eligible for at-large eligibility as noted below.) If two or more teams from those conferences satisfy the provisions for an automatic berth, then the team with the highest finish in the final BCS Standings will receive the automatic berth, and the remaining team or teams will be considered for at-large selection if it meets the criteria. [Utah is highest ranked so that it will receive the one automatic BCS berth this year for all those conferences, while Boise State and Ball State thus DO NOT qualify this year for an automatic BCS berth under this provision and must see if they can qualify for an at-large selection, as discussed below.]

4. Notre Dame will have an automatic berth if it is in the top eight of the final BCS Standings. [Notre Dame is 6-6 and unranked but is eligible for a normal non-BCS bowl]

5. If any of the 10 slots remain open after application of provisions 1 through 4, and an at-large team from a conference with an annual automatic berth for its champion is ranked No. 3 in the final BCS Standings, that team will become an automatic qualifier, provided that no at-large team from the same conference qualifies for the national championship game. [This year this could apply to any of the four teams Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas]

6. If any of the 10 slots remain open after application of provisions 1 through 5, and if no team qualifies under paragraph No. 5 and an at-large team from a conference with an annual automatic berth for its champion is ranked No. 4 in the final BCS Standings, that team will become an automatic qualifier provided that no at-large team from the same conference qualifies for the national championship game. [This year this could apply to any of the four teams Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas]

At-Large Eligibility

If there are fewer than 10 automatic qualifiers, then the bowls will select at-large participants to fill the remaining berths. [That is the case this season.] An at-large team is any Football Bowl Subdivision team that is bowl-eligible and meets the following requirements:

A. Has won at least nine regular-season games, and
B. Is among the top 14 teams in the final BCS Standings. [For undefeated teams, these critera are clearly satisfied by Boise State but are not yet satisfied by Ball State at 15th position unless – as is likely – it vaults forward at least one spot into 14th place in the final standings due to the losses by Georgia, ranked 11th, to Georgia Tech, by Oklahoma State, ranked 13th, to Oklahoma, and by Missouri, ranked 14th, to Kansas, which should drop one or more of those teams to a position below Ball State in the BCS Standings. Accordingly, both Boise State and Ball State will most surely be eligible for a BCS at-large berth once the final BCS Standings are issued. Also eligible for BCS under this provision is Ohio State, ranked 10th, one spot BEHIND Boise State, and also TCU, ranked 14th. Georgia, Oklahoma State and Missouri – ranked 11, 12 and 13 all lost, so that there will be some shifting here. In any case, when the last BCS spot is to be filled, the highest ranked team among the at-large candidates will be Boise State, but they probably have to reckon that the BCS bowls, looking at the money side of the issue and the much greater fan base, will select Ohio State instead of the Broncos. We are not sure what such considerations have to do with actually selecting a national champion. After all, no one has beaten Boise State yet this year, but they will surely be subject to the power of the Big 10 on this issue. ]

No more than two teams from a conference may be selected, regardless of whether they are automatic qualifiers or at-large selections, unless two non-champions from the same conference are ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the final BCS Standings. [Again, what does this have to do with selecting a legitimate champion? This makes it nearly impossible for Texas Tech to get a BCS berth, since Oklahoma and Texas precede them in the BCS as the two teams from the Big 12 Conference. The Red Raiders may be 7th ranked, but for BCS purposes they could be 70th. ]

If fewer than 10 teams are eligible for selection, then the Bowls can select as an at-large team any Football Bowl Subdivision team that is bowl-eligible, has won at least nine regular-season games and is among the top 18 teams in the final BCS Standings subject to the two-team limit noted above and also subject to the following: (1) if any conference has two or more teams in the top 14, then two of those teams must be selected and (2) from the teams ranked 15-18, a bowl can select only a team from a conference that has fewer than two teams in the top 14.

If expansion of the pool to 18 teams does not result in 10 teams eligible for selection, then the pool shall be expanded by blocks of 4 teams until 10 eligible teams are available subject to the two-team limit noted above and also subject to the following: (1) if any conference has two or more teams in the top 14, then two of those teams must be selected and (2) from the teams ranked 15 or lower, a bowl can select only a team from a conference that has fewer than two teams in the top 14.

Relative to the two preceding paragraphs, all teams ranked in the top 14, other than those from conferences which have already had two teams selected, must be included in the bowl selections.

Note: in order to participate in a BCS Bowl game, a team (i) must be eligible for post-season play under the rules of the NCAA and, if it not an independent, under the rules of its conference and (ii) must not have imposed sanctions upon itself prohibiting participation in a post-season game for infractions of the rules of the NCAA or the rules of its conference.

Team-Selection Procedures

The bowls will select their participants from two pools: (1) automatic qualifiers, all of which must be selected, and, (2) at-large teams, if fewer than 10 teams qualify automatically. [Note that a particular at-large team does not “have” to be selected.] The following sequence will be used when establishing pairings:

1. The top two teams in the final BCS Standings will be placed in the National Championship Game (“NCG”).

2. Unless they qualify to play in the NCG, the champions of selected conferences are contractually committed to host selected games:

Atlantic Coast Conference-Orange Bowl
Big Ten Conference-Rose Bowl
Big 12 Conference-Fiesta Bowl
Pac-10 Conference-Rose Bowl
Southeastern Conference-Sugar Bowl

3. If a bowl loses a host team to the NCG, then such bowl shall select a replacement team from among the automatic-qualifying teams and the at-large teams before any other selections are made. If two bowls lose host teams to the NCG, each bowl will get a replacement pick before any other selections are made. In such case, the bowl losing the No. 1 team gets the first replacement pick, and the bowl losing the No. 2 team gets the second replacement pick. If the Rose Bowl loses both the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions to the NCG, it will receive two replacement picks.

A bowl choosing a replacement team may not select any of the following:

A. A team in the NCG;
B. The host team for another BCS Bowl;
C. When two bowls lose host teams, then the bowl losing the number one team may not select a replacement team from the same conference as the number two team, unless the bowl losing the number two team consents.

4. After steps No. 1, 2 and 3 have been completed, any bowl with an unfilled slot shall select a team from the automatic qualifiers and/or at-large teams in the following order:

A. The bowl played on the date nearest to the National Championship Game (for 2009, Fiesta Bowl) will pick first;
B. The bowl played on the date second-nearest to the National Championship Game (for 2009, Sugar Bowl) will pick second;
C. The bowl hosting the game that is played in the time slot immediately after the Rose Bowl game (for 2009, Orange Bowl) will pick third.

The rotation noted in paragraphs A, B and C is as follows:
January 2007 games: Sugar, Orange, Fiesta
January 2008 games: Orange, Fiesta, Sugar
January 2009 games: Fiesta, Sugar, Orange
January 2010 games: Orange, Fiesta, Sugar

All teams earning automatic berths must be selected.

5. After completion of the selection process as described in Paragraph Nos. 1-4, the conferences and Notre Dame may, but are not required to, adjust the pairings taking into consideration the following:

A. whether the same team will be playing in the same bowl game for two consecutive years;
B. whether two teams that played against one another in the regular season will be paired against one another in a bowl game;
C. whether the same two teams will play against each other in a bowl game for two consecutive years; and
D. whether alternative pairings may have greater or lesser appeal to college football fans as measured by expected ticket sales for the bowls and by expected television interest, and the consequent financial impact on Fox and the bowls.

The pairings may not be altered by removing the Big 10 Champion or Pac-10 champion from the Rose Bowl.

What do these provisions mean for the current BCS situation?

Florida – currently 4th in the BCS Standings, is automatically qualified as a BCS team if it wins the SEC championship game (and it is also automatically qualified if it loses and is subsequently ranked 3rd or 4th)

Alabama – currently 1st in the BCS Standings, is automatically qualified as a BCS team if it wins the SEC championship game (and it is also automatically qualified if it loses and is subsequently ranked 3rd or 4th)

Oklahoma – currently 3rd in the BCS Standings, is automatically qualified it it beats Missouri in the Big 12 championship game (but if it loses, it will be excluded from a BCS berth because it is then sure to be ranked lower than Texas in the BCS Standings, and no conference can have more than two BCS teams, with Missouri then taking the other slot as conference champion)

Missouri – automatically qualified as a BCS team if it beats Oklahoma, otherwise non-BCS bowl

Texas – If Oklahoma passes Texas in the final BCS Standings, regardless of the outcome of the Florida-Alabama SEC championship game, Texas is almost sure to be ranked not less than 4th and will thus be an automatic BCS qualifier due to provision 5 or 6 on “automatic qualification”. This will also apply to Florida or Alabama who both presumably will not be ranked below 4th, regardless of which one loses the final SEC game.

The winner of the game between Boston College – currently ranked 21st in the BCS Standings, and Virginia Tech – currently unranked, will be automatically qualified for a BCS berth as the champion of the ACC conference.

Cincinnati – currently ranked 16th in the BCS Standings is the Big East champion and automatically qualified for a BCS berth.

Penn State – currently ranked 8th in the BCS Standings is the Big 10 champion and automatically qualified for a BCS berth. Penn State can not be removed from the Rose Bowl unless it were ranked under the top 2 in the BCS Standings, in which case it would play in the national championship game.

USC– currently ranked 5th in the BCS Standings, if it beats UCLA in its last conference game, will be the Pac-10 champion and automatically qualified for a BCS berth. USC can then not be removed from the Rose Bowl unless it were ranked under the top 2 in the BCS Standings, in which case it would play in the national championship game.

Utah – currently ranked 6th in the BCS Standings is automatically qualified for a BCS berth as discussed above.

Texas Tech – currently 7th-ranked is excluded from a BCS berth because no conference can have more than 2 BCS teams.

That’s the situation from our perspective in reading the applicable provisions of the BCS selection procedure and applying them to the current bowl picture.

President-Elect Obama and the Battle for His BlackBerry : Keeping in Touch with People Outside of the Inner Circle at the White House

Obama is negotiating to have his BlackBerry returned, according to Molly McDonough at the ABA Journal Law News Now of Novebmer 26, 2008, citing to an ABC News interview with the Obamas by Barbara Walters.

It seems that his BlackBerry had to be given up for security reasons, but that Obama finds he needs to be connected to the world outside of the “10 or 12 people who surround my office in the White House“.

As Obama says,”One of the worst things I think that could happen to a president is losing touch with what people are going through day to day … I want to make sure that I keep my finger on the pulse of the struggles that people are going through every day.

Ya gotta like this guy. See video excerpts of the interview at ABC News.

Law Code of Hammurabi : Legal Principles Organized According to Calendration? : Evidence of Modernistic Trend Toward Separation of Church and State

N.S. Gill at About.com some time ago featured the Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest legal codes.

See Hammurabi’s Code of Laws in the translation by L.W. King.

As written at the Library of Congress in the Country Study of Iraq:

The Amorites established cities on the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers and made Babylon, a town to the north, their capital. During the time of their sixth ruler, who was King Hammurabi (1792-1750 B.C.)
[LawPundit: that date is false – in our opinion – by at least 400 years, as Hammurabi is – in our opinion – Abraham spelled backwards, and actually lived 400 or more years previous as Sargon I, the first Semitic monarch – we quote the Catholic Encyclopedia: ” it arises, for instance, that Hammurabi’s date is given as 1772-17 in Hasting’s “Dictionary of the Bible“, while the majority of scholars would place him about 2100 B.C., or a little earlier; nor are indications wanting to show that, whether the “Unknown Dynasty” be fictitious or not, the latter date is approximately right.“],
Babylonian rule encompassed a huge area covering most of the Tigris-Euphrates river valley from Sumer and the Persian Gulf in the south to Assyria in the north. To rule over such a large area, Hammurabi devised an elaborate administrative structure. His greatest achievement, however, was the issuance of a law code designed “to cause justice to prevail in the country, to destroy the wicked and the evil, that the strong may not oppress the weak.” The Code of Hammurabi, not the earliest to appear in the Near East but certainly the most complete, dealt with land tenure, rent, the position of women, marriage, divorce, inheritance, contracts, control of public order, administration of justice, wages, and labor conditions.

In Hammurabi’s legal code, the civilizing trend begun at Sumer had evolved to a new level of complexity. The sophisticated legal principles contained in the code reflect a highly advanced civilization in which social interaction extended far beyond the confines of kinship. The large number of laws pertaining to commerce reflect a diversified economic base and an extensive trading network. In politics, Hammurabi’s code is evidence of a more pronounced separation between religious and secular authority than had existed in ancient Sumer.” [links added by LawPundit]

As written at the Wikipedia:

The laws are numbered from 1 to 282 (numbers 13 and 66-99 are missing) and are inscribed in Old Babylonian cuneiform script on the eight-foot tall stela.[4][5] It was discovered in December 1901 in Susa, Elam, which is now Khuzestan, Iran, where it had been taken as plunder by the Elamite king Shutruk-Nahhunte in the 12th century BC.[6] It is currently on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris.[1]

It is possible – very speculatively – in our view, that the above numbers are not missing by chance, but rather that the laws were given a calendric order (our discovery) and that the numbers are missing by design:
12 (laws 1-12, 13 missing) = The 12 months of the year
52 (laws 14-65, 66-69 missing) = The 52 weeks of the year (7 days in a week x 52 = 364)
182 viz. 183 (laws 100-282) = Half the year 2 x 182 = 364 or 2 x 183 = 366

In other words, the laws were perhaps organized according to the same basic calendric system as used in ancient Egypt where psalms were read each day by the priests and marked by the ushebtis (see at that link Funerary Figurines including Shabti, Shawabti and Ushabti for the connection to astronomy). As we have written at LexiLine:

The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran indicate that the Biblical tales go far back in time, having Akkadian comparables. This dates the psalms back to 2000 BC at least.

Interesting is that the Dead Sea Scrolls show clearly that each day of the year had a specific psalm
which had to be read on that day by the priest(s).

This “year” of psalms corresponded to the Egyptian and Sumerian year of 360 viz. 365 days but not to the lunar year of the Canaanites. These Psalms come from the solar calendar of Indo-Europeans.

It is also quite clear [so our opinion] that the Psalms relate to the heavens (of astronomy) and there are references to the stars in them.

As seen in the Tomb of Tutankhamun, there were 365 Ushebtis [holy ones] (wooden figures with one psalm on each Ushebti, for each day of the year).
There were also 36 extra Ushebtis (for the 36 night stations of the Moon) and in the case of Tutankhamun there were even 12 more Ushebtis (who represented the 12 houses of heaven).

When the Egyptologists correctly read the hieroglyphs on the Ushebtis it will be clear that the Biblical Psalms derive from them.

See also Star Realms of the Patriarchs, Ur and Ebla at the Ancient World Blog.

Advertising Revenue and the Recession : The Changing Media Landscape

Erik Sass at MediaDailyNews reviews the development of total advertising revenue from the year 1950 to 2008 in light of the “reality” of the “predicted recession”.

Newspaper ad revenue has been declining linearly since 1950 and is now being overtaken by broadcast TV ad revenue, which is also falling. Radio and magazines have been holding fairly steady, with some ups and downs, whereas the advertising whiz kids on the block are now outdoor advertising, cable TV and the Internet.

In re Bilski : Patentable Subject Matter : Federal Circuit Overturns Pure Business Method Patents : Requires Machine Process / Physical Transformation

A LANDMARK DECISION IN US PATENT LAW : IN RE BILSKI (2008 WL 4757110 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2008) (en banc)). As written by Lewis R. Clayton of Paul | Weiss in his article ‘Bilski’: Obtaining Business Method Patents Gets Harder in the New York Law Journal:

By a 9-3 vote, the en banc court affirmed the rejection of a business method patent application by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Its opinion shifts the balance in this debate, making it significantly more difficult to obtain and defend business method patents.

LawPundit has been ranting and raving about pure business method patents for years and anonymous posters commenting at other blawgs have levelled names at us for our views – but, judging by this case – we were right along.

With the October 31, 2008 Federal Circuit Court landmark patent decision in In re Bilski (.pdf) (we posted about that case previously here and here), it is now quite safe to say that pure business method “patentphilia” (a word we herewith coin today – Google search gave no results) is a thing of yesteryear.

The Federal Circuit, in an opinion written by Chief Judge Michel, in In re Bilski, 2008 WL 4757110 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2008) (en banc) concluded:

that Applicants’ claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter, and in doing so, clarif[ied] the standards applicable in determining whether a claimed method constitutes a statutory “process” under [35 U.S.C.] § 101.

The court wrote:

In essence, the claim is for a method of hedging risk in the field of commodities trading.

The examiner ultimately rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, stating: “[r]egarding . . . claims 1-11, the invention is not implemented on a specific apparatus and merely manipulates [an] abstract idea and solves a purely mathematical problem without any limitation to a practical application, therefore, the invention is not directed to the technological arts.”

Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 is a threshold inquiry, and any claim of an application failing the requirements of § 101 must be rejected even if it meets all of the other legal requirements of patentability. In re Comiskey, 499 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) [Footnote 1] (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978)); In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952, 960 (CCPA 1979), vacated as moot sub nom. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 444 U.S. 1028 (1980). Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 is an issue of law that we review de novo. Comiskey, 499 F.3d at 1373; AT&T Corp. v. Excel Commc’ns, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Although claim construction, which we also review de novo, is an important first step in a § 101 analysis, see State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting that whether a claim is invalid under § 101 “is a matter of both claim construction and statutory construction”), there is no claim construction dispute in this appeal. We review issues of statutory interpretation such as this one de novo as well. Id.

Footnote 1 reads: “Although our decision in Comiskey may be misread by some as requiring in every case that the examiner conduct a § 101 analysis before assessing any other issue of patentability, we did not so hold. As with any other patentability requirement, an examiner may reject a claim solely on the basis of § 101. Or, if the examiner deems it appropriate, she may reject the claim on any other ground(s) without addressing § 101. But given that § 101 is a threshold requirement, claims that are clearly drawn to unpatentable subject matter should be identified and rejected on that basis. Thus, an examiner should generally first satisfy herself that the application’s claims are drawn to patent-eligible subject matter.”

Ken Adamo, John V. Biernacki and Douglas H. Pearson of Jones Day analyze the case In re Bilski in a 19 November 2008 article, which has many useful insights, among which is the following text and graphic (linked from mondaq.com):

Consideration of a spectrum (as shown in the figure below) informs where an innovation may reside with respect to its subject matter. At one end of the spectrum (Category 1) are the traditional technology-laden innovations. Examples in this category would be new automotive engine designs or a new chemical-manufacturing process. The middle of the spectrum contains the hybrid patent category, the exemplar being e-commerce-type patents. At the other end of the spectrum (Category 3) are “pure” business method innovations, which is where the business method of Bilski (for managing consumption risk of a commodity sold by a commodity provider) would reside.

John Palfrey cites to the .html of this case at boycottnovel.com (last viewed 13:38 November 21, 2008, CET), but that html rendition of the case is flawed because it copies the original .pdf court opinion to .html without editing the text so copied. As a result, the second part of a run-on footnote like footnote number 1, originally at the bottom of pages 1 and 2 of the original .pdf opinion, now appears in the flawed .html in the middle of the text opinion without it being apparent for the text that it is the continuation of footnote number one. We do not want to throw stones, since text conversions are problematical (we ourselves hate Adobe and .pdf) and no one is without flaw in this regard if he works without editors, as many websites and blogs do, but we do want to alert website authors, blog writers and online legal readers to this problem. Established legal publishers like WestLaw do not earn their money for nothing. They have the resources and the editors one needs to get things into print accurately.

Europeana the EU Multimillion-Euro Digital Library Crashes on Launch and Hopes to be Back by Mid-December in a More Robust Version

Not everything is as easy as it looks. On November 20, 2008 the European Union Digital Libraries Initiative launched Europeana, a multimillion-euro digital library intended as a friendly and cooperative European competitor to things like Google Book Search.

As written by Leigh Phillips at EUobserver, here is the idea:

Websurfers can access some 2 million books, maps, recordings, photographs, archival documents, paintings and films from national libraries and cultural institutions of the EU’s 27 member states.

“Europeana is much more than a library, it is a veritable dynamo to inspire 21st century Europeans to emulate the creativity of innovative forbears like the drivers of the Renaissance,” said commission president Jose Manuel Barroso at the launch.

But the launch hit a serious snag, again as Leigh Phillips writes at EUobserver:

Going live on Thursday (20 November), the site was instantly overwhelmed by the 10 million visitors per hour it was receiving and crashed mid-morning, requiring a quick doubling of the number of servers supporting the library. It crashed again in the early evening.

When one now goes to the Europeana website, one is greeted with the following message – our scan of the current page there:


Rome was not built in a day.

The New York Times Stephen Castle reports in
Europeana Goes Online and Is Then Overwhelmed

EQLS : Second European Quality of Life Survey – First Findings viz. Deuxième enquête européenne sur la qualité de vie – Premiers résultats

Via EUobserver.com we have learned of the 2nd EQLS (European Quality of Life Survey) by Eurofound (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions).

The EQLS Survey will be published in full only in the year 2009, but as of November 18, 2008 we do now already have the first results of that survey in an English-language .pdf and a French-language .pdf, respectively titled Second European Quality of Life Survey – First Findings viz. Deuxième enquête européenne sur la qualité de vie – Premiers résultats.

The results confirm the sentiment of the Bob Hope cinema film of the year 1965 whose title I’ll take Sweden might just as well represent the primarily Nordic winners of this Eurofound survey, as the Nordic nations dominate in “happiness”, as shown by the following graphics from the EQLS First Results:

EQLS Second European Quality Of Life Survey – First Results – Figures 1 and 2

The Life Satisfaction and Happiness Index for the European Union Member States and Candidate Countries gives the following rankings, from most happy and satisfied to least happy and least satisfied:

1. Denmark
2. Sweden
3. Finland
4. Norway
5. Netherlands
6. Luxembourg
7. Ireland
8. Malta
9. Belgium
10. United Kingdom
11. France
12. Spain
13. Germany
14. Cyprus
15. Poland
16. Austria
17. Slovakia
18. Estonia
19. Czech Republic
20. Greece
21. Italy
22. Romania
23. Croatia
24. Lithuania
25. Portugal
26. Turkey
27. Latvia
28. Hungary
29. FYR Macedonia
30. Bulgaria

The First Findings of the Survey cover:

Life Satisfaction
– General parameters
– Optimism
– Subjective well-being

Income and Deprivation
– Household essentials and deprivation
– Dealing with lack of income


Work-life balance

Health and health care
– Mental health
– Health care services

Housing, environment and quality of society
– Quality of housing
– Local environment

Quality of society
– Trust in other people and Institutions
– Tension between societal groups


For further information we refer to the contact data found at the end of the First Findings publication:

Teresa Renehan, Information Liaison Officer:
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland
Telephone: (+353 1) 204 31 00
Email: postmaster@eurofound.europa.eu
Website: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu

Photo Blog of the World

We have started a new photo blog at Photo Blog of the World.

What Do Europeans Really Care About? Google Searches as Measured in the Individual Member Countries by the EU Observer Monthly Top 10

EU Observer has a new feature by which they produce a monthly EU Observer list via Google Zeitgeist of the Top 10 percentage spikes in Google searches in the EU, which, as the EU Observer writes, “allows small countries such as Finland and Austria to figure in the results, if an event prompted a sudden surge in interest.

The top ten so weighted searches in October, 2008 in the EU were:


  1. HALLOWEEN: American style “trick or treating” swept Europe on 31 October.
  2. VAALIKONE: Finns searched election website in municipal elections on 26 October.
  3. ICESAVE: UK subsidiary of Iceland’s Landisbanki declared bankruptcy.
  4. SUPRENALOTTO: Italy’s lottery site swept when Sicilian suburb won €100 million.
  5. KENZA FARAH: The French R&B singer was hurt in a car accident on 13 October.
  6. FALLOUT 3: This nuclear simulation game was launched on 16 October.
  7. PES 2009: The Pro Evolution Soccer 2009 video game was released.
  8. X FACTOR: The UK’s hit reality show drew record audiences in October.
  9. AC DC: The Australian band released its new album Black Ice on 20 October.
  10. MAM TALENT: The Polish version of the television show “I Have Talent!”.

Take a look. There IS a big world out there, beyond our own neighborhoods. Stay informed.

Transformative Use as Fair Use : Harry Potter Lexicon by RDR Books Enjoined from Publication because of Excessive Amount and Substantiality of Use

In Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. RDR Books, 2008 WL 4126736 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2008), the court after a bench trial enjoined publication of the RDR’s The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to Harry Potter Fiction and Related Material, finding in general that reference guides to fictional works can be transformative in nature and entitled to raise the fair use exception to copyright protection, but not in the instant case, where the amount and substantiality of the original Harry Potter material used in the RDR Lexicon was simply more than required for reference purposes, as the court wrote: “verbatim copying and close paraphrasing of language from the Harry Potter works“.

See the website of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP for an analysis of the case by Lewis R. Clayton of the New York office, cochairman of the firm’s intellectual property litigation group, as assisted by associate Darren W. Johnson.

LawPundit posted about this case previously at:

The Harry Potter Legal Saga : To Whom Do the Characters Truly Belong? (May 4, 2008)

Harry Potter and the Cyclopians : A New Chapter by J.K. Rowling? The Case of the Century in Copyright and Trademark Law? (March 13, 2008)

German Limited : A New Entrepeneurial Company "Unternehmergesellschaft (haftungsbeschränkt)" or "UG (haftungsbeschränkt)" as of 1 November

Andreas Lindner at Faegre & Benson alerts us to

Significant Changes for German Law on Limited Liability Companies


A new law bringing significant changes for limited liability companies incorporated in Germany takes effect on November 1, 2008.

In recent years many Germans have set up limited liability companies in the UK because of the outdated nature of German laws pertaining to the incorporation of small companies, laws which have served as severe barriers to entry to prospective start-up companies. Indeed, in the year 2006, one of every four German limited liability companies was set up as a UK limited.

The lawmakers in Germany have finally acted and have tried to change this state of affairs, effective November 1, 2008.

As Jessica Schmidt writes at the German Law Journal (also available as a .pdf):

One of the probably most groundbreaking – and at the same time also most contentious – issues of the German reform of private limited companies by the Gesetz zur Modernisierung des GmbH-Rechts und zur Bekämpfung von Missbräuchen (MoMiG – Law for the Modernization of the Private Limited Companies Act and to Combat its Abuse)… is the introduction of the Unternehmergesellschaft (UG – Entrepreneurial Company). This new sub-type of the Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH – Private Limited Company) is specifically designed for entrepreneurs and has already unofficially been dubbed the “Mini-GmbH” and “GmbH light”. It can be seen as the centerpiece of the legislator’s overall aim to facilitate and accelerate the formation of companies and the underlying motive of increasing the international competitiveness of the German GmbH.

For better understanding of the what the German UG is, Jessica Scmidt looks at
the Central Features of the New Unternehmergesellschaft (UG)
and compares
the UG (Entrepeneurial Company) with the UK Limited under the Companies Act (CA) of 2006
as regards the following parameters:

I. Company Name
II. Minimum Capital and Capital Contributions
III. Constitution
IV. Speed of Incorporation
V. Number and Qualification of Shareholders
VI. Internal Structure
VII. Shareholder Decision-making
1. General
2. In Particular: New § 5a (4) GmbHG
VIII. Maintenance of Capital
1. Distributions
2. Eigenkapitalersatzrecht

See the article at the German Law Journal or the .pdf.

See also:
Faegre & Benson (Mondaq)
DLA Piper (Legal Week)
Gregor Bachmann at the German Law Journal
Michael Beurskens and Ulrich Noack at the German Law Journal

See also:
the discussion at Trust7.com
avocado rechtsanwälte
Corporate Law and Governance

Enough BCS ? Obama For College Football Playoffs at the NCAA Division I-A FBS Level

President-Elect Barack Obama has this to say about the current BCS computer ranking system as opposed to the greatly discussed FBS Division I-A college football playoffs

To show the deep problems which are present in the currently flawed BCS system, the following could happen this year in a worst case scenario for the BCS.

Texas Tech (10-0), now ranked 2nd could easily lose either to Oklahoma (9-1) on November 22 or to presumed North Division champion Missouri (8-2) in the Big 12 conference championship game on December 6 in Kansas City. Indeed, we expect the Sooners to be favored in that game since they are playing at home and since the teams appear otherwise evenly matched.

Alabama (10-0), on the other hand, which is already qualified for the SEC championship game in the Georgia Dome in Atlanta on December 6, still has Mississippi State and Auburn to play in the regular season, and could easily lose in the SEC championship game to Florida (8-1). Indeed, we are fairly certain that the speedy Gators will be favored in that game: Florida’s only loss was an otherwise avoidable defeat in an error-filled game against Mississippi in which they were clearly the superior team, but fumbled the win away. By contrast, in its 4-point win over the Rebels, Alabama was outgained in total yardage and had to hold on to win.

Losses by either of those two currently undefeated teams will send the BCS into a massive quandry from which there is no honorable exit.

To complicate matters, if one, two or three of currently undefeated Utah, Ball State and Boise State continue winning then you have a BCS dilemma of epic proportions.

Indeed, we think it very likely that Texas Tech will lose to Oklahoma and equally likely that Alabama will be unable to contain the high-powered speed and offense of Florida.

Boise State (9-0) would seem to have the easiest remaining schedule on a path to an undefeated season (Idaho, Nevada and Fresno State). Utah (10-0) still has to play San Diego State and has a tough final regular season game upcoming against BYU (9-1), while Ball State still has Miami of Ohio to play and has two tough games remaining against the two other top teams in the MAC conference, Central Michigan (7-2) and Western Michigan (8-2), not to mention the MAC Conference championship game.

Nevertheless, if those teams come through undefeated and Alabama and Texas Tech lose one game each, then it will be the worst BCS situation ever with three undefeated teams (Boise State from the Western Athletic Conference (WAC), Utah from the Mountain West Conference (MWC) and Ball State from the Mid-American Conference) claiming a right to play in BCS games in addition to national championship claims from one-loss conference championship teams from the Big 12 (Texas, Texas Tech, or Oklahoma – presuming Missouri does not upset the apple cart), Big 10 (Penn State or Ohio State), the Pac 10 (USC), and the SEC (Alabama or Florida).

Imagine in fact if Missouri were to win the Big 12 conference championship game. With its 2-loss record it would not be eligible for the BCS national championship game so that no team from what is clearly the strongest conference in college football this year – the Big 12 – would be represented in the BCS national championship game at all, while the remaining BCS matchups would be a farce.

The Key Secrets of Good Coaching & Leadership : Winning can be Taught & Learned : Personnel : Recruiting : Mentoring : Preparedness

Coaching and good leadership go hand in hand, whether in sports, law or business. Winning can be taught AND learned. You just have to know what you are doing.

The LawPundit discovered by chance some years ago that he had a natural talent for coaching as he co-coached an amateur European youth football (soccer) team in Germany. The result was an undefeated team and recognition in the German soccer magazine Kicker.

In our first regular season game, we faced the league champion of the previous year, who had won 6-1 against our team’s players the year before. 6-1 is a virtual blowout in soccer.

This time, we emerged victorious 11-1. Although our talent base was thin, we fielded the better TEAM game after game, and maintained that same average goal difference throughout the season, scoring 56 goals and giving up only 5 goals in our conference. In other words, we gave up fewer goals the entire season than the same players had given up in their first game the previous year.

Although we had the same players, we had a vastly different TEAM.

What were our coaching secrets?

Please note that the following coaching “secrets” are not secrets to people who are already good head coaches, whether in sports, law or business. Indeed, the reason that we have such an extraordinarily high opinion of the head coaching abilities of someone like Larry Kehres of the Football Division III Mount Union Purple Raiders, is because we have seen Kehres, college football’s winningest coach, publicly express exactly the same principles that we have applied independently as a coach ourselves.

But one need not listen to us – listen to Kehres. As one veteran rival coach remarked about Kehres: “How does he win all the time?… I wish I knew, because then I might beat him one day.” That reminded me of a comment made by one of the local coaches to a friend of mine about my own coaching: “How does he always win?

Here are some “secrets” about winning as a coach that we have in common with Larry Kehres.

Secret Number 1 : Recruit the Right Players and Hold Them to Higher Standards
(This can also apply to the recruitment of the right personnel in any organization)

Stephanie Storm quotes Kehres:

You have to recruit good people, then assist them in their development.

Milan Simonich quotes Kehres at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette concerning his recruiting of players:

” “I only ask them three questions, but they’re important…. Are you a good man? Do you have a passion for football? Do you plan on getting the grades you’re capable of?” “

Stephanie Storm in the Akron Beacon Journal of November 28, 2003, writes:

Football might be the focus of the coach’s life, but he teaches his players that their values ought to extend beyond the field.

During football season, players’ grades actually improve.

Coach says it’s important that we hold ourselves to higher standards, especially when so much attention is focused on us during the season,” wide receiver Randell Knapp said.” [emphasis added by SportPundit]

Kehres expects his players to give their best, every day. As quoted by Nancy Armour at The-Review.com:

“I’m proud of the fact that our men do learn that you have to do, day in and day out, what you’re supposed to do,” Kehres said. “I don’t expect (victories). However, do I expect a certain level of performance throughout the offseason in terms of what we do and then, in the season, in how we practice so that we would have a chance to go down that path? Yes, I expect that.”

Secret Number 2: Prepare Your Team to Play with Passion and and as much Perfection as they are Capable of

Larry Kehres says
that “The job of a coach is to prepare his team.

This involves training in all of its aspects, including mental and physical preparedness.

As Milan Simonich writes at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

He [Kehres] took a solid program and turned it into a spectacular one by emphasizing precision, mental preparation and weight training.”

Players on and off the field must know what responsibilities they have and what action they are to take in any particular game situation. A player who is undisciplined off the field is not likely to exercise discipline on the field. It is the whole player that counts. This also applies to coaches.

The onus hereby is on the COACHES, not on the players. Kehres is quoted by Al Eisele at the Huffington Post:

“I always try to get the assistant coaches who work with me to understand that if there’s no learning by the kids, there’s no teaching…. I’ve tried hard to get the coaches to accept that as the only measure of performance, and there are just no excuses accepted. If there’s no learning, there’s no teaching…..”

That standard of teaching and learning demands extremely knowledgeable and effective education of players. If your team, whether in sports or in law or in business is not winning, then you have to reexamine your coaching and your leadership.

Stephanie Storm in the Akron Beacon Journal of November 28, 2003, writes:

Kinnard and many other team leaders point to the precision with which the program is run, the attention to every detail all the way down to scheduling the number of minutes for each practice drill, as a main reason for their overwhelming success.

The result of that philosophy is awesome.

Milan Simonich writes at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

He works for perfection,” said Matt Caponi, a senior defensive back and a Baldwin High School graduate. “That’s how his offense has been for the last three years — perfect.” …

On the field, Kehres lays down a singular challenge to everybody who pulls on a helmet. “I expect them to play better than they ever thought they could,” he says.

Coaches, when is the last time one of your players called your offense – perfect?

Jack Ewing, president of Mount Union College, is quoted by Milan Simionich at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette as saying about Larry Kehres and the football team program:

This is a culture of excellence that I have never seen before.

Every coach creates a “culture” of some kind by his coaching. What is yours?

Secret Number 3 : A Coach Must be Absolutely Objective at All Times

Effective coaching demands absolute objectivity about the skills, strengths and weaknesses of players and coaches, on both sides of the ball. Wishful thinking is at the heart of bad decision-making.

If you have a weaker team than the opponent – accept it. A weaker team can beat a stronger team if the coaches correctly recognize that they are weaker and take proper measures to try to offset that weakness. Here we can point to Stanford’s incredible record upset of USC [in 2007] 24-23, even though Stanford was the underdog by more than 40 points. Prior to that game, as Ted Venegas, USCFootball.com Columnist for Rivals.com wrote at Yahoo sports:

The Cardinal have completely revamped their approach defensively. Before this season, they ran a passive 3-4 defense which was of the read and react variety. This year, they do nothing but attack…. Defensive coordinator Scott Shafer came to the conclusion that Stanford did not have the talent to remain passive, so they have to force the action.

The Stanford upset of USC was enabled by good coaching under the leadership of football director and head coach Jim Harbaugh and the Stanford coaching staff, who objectively recognized their weaknesses and compensated for them.

The principle also applies to basketball. Tubby Smith, former basketball coach at Kentucky in his first year at Minnesota finished a very respectable 18-12 and stated early in the season about coaching:

If you’re not skilled enough offensively, defensively you can make up for it with hustle and sheer determination and effort,” Smith said. “We feel like we have to overachieve.

Secret Number 4 : A Coach Must Work Optimally to Develop the Players He Has

Stephanie Storm in the Akron Beacon Journal of November 28, 2003, in “Team Concept Rules” writes about Larry Kehres’ assessment of players as follows:

When he [Kehres] thinks back to the start of the run that began Mount Union’s dominance, Kehres remembers a meeting held among the team’s staff in the early ’80s when he was an assistant.

‘We just decided to quit pouting about what we didn’t have and concentrate on improving the players we had,’ Kehres said.

‘We went with the idea that if some of the players we recruited weren’t as good as some others when they arrived, it was our job to help them catch up,’ Kehres said. ‘It was sort of, “Come on, let’s quit whining and feeling sorry for ourselves and make the most of what we’ve got.

What happens when you do not develop players properly (required in college ball) but expect them to perform automatically (as is more likely in the NFL) can be seen at Notre Dame, where Charlie Weis, a former NFL offensive coordinator, went 3-9 [in 2007] as the head coach of the Irish. As Posted at FanBlogs.com (and cited at BlogIron) by Kevin Donahue:

Charlie Weis is an outstanding offensive mind – without question – but he is failing as a head coach.

There is nothing in his resume to suggest that Weis is capable of developing talent. He certainly didn’t have to develop players in the NFL, just show them the plays, tweak here & there, and collect the trophies. But now – with his team needing it the most – Weis is not developing talent at Notre Dame.

Good recruits are coming into the Notre Dame system and – but for their own inner passion to excel – languishing under Weis. There is no such thing as marked improvement, it is simply a transaction with Weis. It almost as if the recruits are NFL free agents, signing with the team and then expected to use their talents to improve the team. There’s nothing to suggest that Weis is actually taking a player from one level and ELEVATING his game to the next level. And this is Weis’s Achilles’ heel – he isn’t developing players.“

Nebraska had the same problem with Bill Callahan, who had proven himself as an offensive coordinator, but not as a head coach, having inherited a Super Bowl team for one successful season and then going 4-12 the next year. It is one thing to develop offensive plays for professional football players at the top – both Callahan (Oakland) and Weis (New England) were offensive coordinators for Super Bowl teams – but it is an entirely different matter to head coach a college team, that may not have the talent at all to execute effectively many of the plays that a brilliant offensive mind can come up with. Plus, equal attention has to be paid to the defense. The job is simply a different one and a coach must adapt coaching to the personnel that he has.

Secret Number 5 : A Coach Must Adapt the Style of Play to the Players Available

Stephanie Storm in the Akron Beacon Journal of November 28, 2003, quotes Kehres about the style of play that a football team should have, dependent on the players available:

Some years you don’t have the kind of players you need to say, run the option,” he said. ‘As a coach, you can’t just do what you want to do. You have to match it to the ebb and flow of the kind of players you have.

Especially coaches who rely on a “fixed system” and then try to force that fixed system upon their players, whether those players are suited to that system or not, are not likely to be successful. [The University of Michigan football team in 2008 under new head coach Rich Rodriguez serves as a good example of what happens when coaches impose a fixed system on players not suited for it. Rodriguez will do well in coming years when he gets “his system” installed and gets new players suited for it, but that is not great coaching.] Larry Kehres adapts continuously – to the times and to his players.

Let us tune in to Division III football and the blog, the D3 Football Daily Dose, where commenter Mainjack writes as follows about Mount Union’s head coach Larry Kehres (“LK” in the posting quoted below), :

I’ve been a bit surprised that no one has mentioned how LK has adapted his teams over the past 15 years to stay ahead of the curve. In the early 90’s when the west coast offense was first starting to creep into the language, LK embra[c]ed it, and blew people away with his 5 wideouts and wide open passing. Back in those days as soon as MUC got anywhere near mid-field, they were going for the bomb. As the 90’s came to a close, and defenses were figuring out the west coast schemes, LK went to a very good running back, a blocking fullback and a tight end. Chuck Moore and Dan Pugh helped remake the Mount union offense, and allowed the passing game to be as successful as it needed to be. Now you have Kmic absolutely carrying the load behind a massive offensive line, with deep threat possibility in Garcon, and two or three other receivers doing damage on short routes……when necessary.

Football is cyclical, but LK has always stayed one step ahead of where the game is going, which is why they have not had many down years (if you can call one loss a down year).

Secret Number 6 : A Coach Must Concentrate on the Basics

One of the things that shocked this writer about the Callahan-coached Huskers was that they seemed to have forgotten how to block and tackle with passion, i.e. the most basic skills required of a top football team. Coaches who spend all their time designing plays and looking at films of opposing teams are not going to be successful if the basics are thereby neglected. The game must still be played – on the field – not just on the drawing board.

One coach who understood this was UCLA’s fabled basketball coach, John Wooden, who made his highly touted players run basic basketball drills like shooting layups continuously, as he explained, so that layups would be made automatically during game situations and not be missed. The same applies to tackles in football. Indeed, the attention to fundamentals by John Wooden was legendary. As written by Kyle Colvett for Inside Tennessee at Scout.com:

The most basic of football skills and behaviors need to be emphasized. John Wooden, he of the ten NCAA basketball titles at UCLA, the Wizard of Westwood, used to begin the practice season with an entire session on how to put on socks and shoes. Players were troubled by blisters and foot problems and he discovered that the players didn’t smooth out all the wrinkles around their heels and around their little toes, places where the blisters were prone to occur. He sometimes noted that they didn’t lace their shoes properly or that they wore shoes that were a size too large. Such details mattered.

Secret Number 7 : Yelling and Screaming is NOT Good Coaching, but Ritual and Routine ARE : Sports Psychology, Mental Fitness and Mental Discipline

See in this regard, for example, Secret Ingredient at FootballPracticePlans.com, which is about sports psychology. We mention it here because sports psychology is immensely important, and as pointed out there, quite correctly:

Studies show that yelling and screaming does NOT work with 94% of youth football players… and it can make it even harder for them to improve…

Varsity high school football coaches that use routines and rituals with their teams are three times as likely to have a winning record….”

That is absolutely correct. We have seen time and again on playing fields where coaches, parents, relatives and fans are screaming and yelling at their players, all to no avail.

SCREAMING AND YELLING is a sign of poor coaching, poor parenting, poor relations to other people, and poor spectating. It is a sign that you are unable to cope rationally with the situation that faces you. It is evidence of a lack of mental fitness and an absence of mental discipline. This does not mean that one can not be intense and enthusiastic, but it does mean that coaches yelling and screaming at players is simply a waste of time. John Wooden is quoted as saying:

Intensity makes you stronger. Emotionalism makes you weaker.

The job of any coach is the same as that of any parent or educator, it is the job of rational instruction. Such instruction often best involves ritual and routine, to improve focus and reduce error.

One of the secrets of Tiger Woods, the best golfer of all time, for example, is ritual and routine. As written by Bill Cole, founder and CEO of Procoach Systems, Silicon Valley, California, in What Makes Tiger Tick?:

[Tiger] maintains personal rituals before playing and practicing, and before each shot he takes.

Cole points out clearly that physical AND mental fitness must be elements of proper instruction for successful coaching. With respect to the mental fitness of Tiger Woods, Cole observes these strengths, which a coach should try to implement in his coaching and inculcate in his players:

1) Very high personal standards (Larry Kehres agrees) and accountability
This applies to conduct off and on the field

2) Unrelenting mental discipline
On our soccer team, for example, we demanded and enforced strict mental discipline. Players were not allowed to yell at other players or to argue with referees – these were grounds for us, the coaches, to immediately remove a player from the field. Players were expected to concentrate on THEIR playing of the game and on nothing else.

3) Confidence-building by focused practice – achieving permanence of skills through practice
For example, we often see people at golf driving ranges, senselessly hitting one ball after the other as fast as they can, gaining nothing from the exercise. Practice must be focused on gaining permanence in a given skill. Practice must focus on “perfecting” something, which means that time must be taken to concencrate on what is being done. John Wooden is quoted for this:

Do not mistake activity for achievement.

4) Focus on the process – not focus simply on winning or losing
Studies show that the difference between equally-talented champions and non-champions is the absence of fear in champions – they are not haunted by the fear of losing, but concentrate on the process of winning, doing what it takes to win, regardless of the specter of losing.

Some selected sites touching upon good coaching are:

Wooden’s Pyramid of Success
Success is peace of mind, which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to do your best to become the best that you are capable of becoming.” – John Wooden
The Mental Game Coach (TM)
Training and Coaching Tips for Youth Basketball Practice by Bryan McCormick
No-How Coaching by Coach John Gagliardi, some of whose No-Hows are:

  • No fear of being different
  • No throwing away money
  • No top-heavy staff
  • No reverence for titles.
  • No busy work
  • No substituting Mission Statements for doing the job
  • No withholding honor earned
  • No substituting reams of paper for action
  • No being a jerk
  • No focusing on mistakes.
  • No substituting putzing for achieving
  • No celebrating the heros only
  • No overloading by overanalysis
  • No fear of taking a risk
  • No giving power to setbacks
  • No settling for less than the best
  • No focus on winning everything

GiveMeFootball.com for soccer coaching
Football Training – soccer coaching links
Football Coaching Strategies – by the AFCA – detailed at Human Kinetics

  • Running game—Tom Osborne, John McKay, and Darrell Royal
  • Passing game—Bill Walsh, Steve Spurrier, and LaVell Edwards
  • Defense—Dick Tomey, Barry Alvarez, Dave Wannstedt, and Jerry Sandusky
  • Kicking game—Spike Dykes and John Cooper
  • Philosophy, motivation, and management—Eddie Robinson and Joe Paterno

Offensive Football Strategies – by the AFCA
Defensive Football Strategies – by the AFCA
The AFCA (American Football Coaches Association) has more books
– check your online bookshop
Football Tools – Training Systems, Playbooks, DVDs etc.
Grant Teaff with the Master Coaches
Youth Coaching Information at Y-Coach
Better Coaching – Australian Sports Commission
Guide to Coaching Youth Football
UK Football Coaching Network (soccer)
Better Rugby Coaching by Dan Cottrell
Coach Carl – Cycling
New Sports Technology and Coaching Solutions- e.g. XOS Technologies
GuidetoCoachingBasketball.com including links to basketball coaching sites
Progressive Leadership FAQ on [Corporate] Coaching, Knowledge Management and Organizational Development
ACTO – Association of Coach Training Organizations (Corporate) see their directory
10 Steps to Better [Corporate] Coaching – TSO Consulting
Five Principles of Coaching

Adapted from Sportpundit.

Barack Obama and the German American Connection : States having a Plurality of German Ancestry and Higher Median Family Income gave Obama the Vote

President-Elect Barack Obama‘s election as US President is based strongly on winning most of the States having a plurality of German American inhabitants, who, as the following maps show, helped to put Obama into the White House come Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

We posted the following map at Blawg Review #180, a map taken from the US Census 2000 which shows all the counties in America. Those in light blue color have a plurality of inhabitants claiming German ancestry.

That map (with a couple of Midwestern exceptions) matches two other maps which we previously published on LawPundit showing the year 2008 Presidential Election results (here updated at CNN, November 7) with McCain winning States having LOWER median family income and Obama winning States having HIGHER median family income (note also that those States having a plurality of African-American inhabitants – colored dark purple above – almost all went to McCain and not to Obama.):

(Green=Higher Income, Blue=Lower Income)

CNN MAP of 2008 Presidential Election Results 7 Nov. 2008
(blue=Obama, red= McCain, grey=battleground States not yet 100% decided, but see)

Regarding this and other maps of American ancestries, see also:

Maps of American ancestries
Ancestry : 2000.

Barack Obama’s Victory Speech Analyzed by the Gender Genie

We analyzed Barack Obama’s Victory Speech via the Gender Genie and came up with the following result:

Words: 2082
Female Score: 3038
Male Score: 3307

That is a good balance for a President.