BEN: Welcome, Ladies and Gentleman to the 2007 SCIENCE SPRING SHOWDOWN - the thinking person's ccomplement to the NCAA tournament! Sponsored by the fine folks at ScienceBlogs Basic Concepts. That's right people, it's the dance, and we're here at the World's Fair bringing this to you live. We're about ready to give you that first exclusive look at the 2007 brackets. Over to you Dave.
DAVE: Sure thing Ben. The conference tournaments are now officially complete. Yes, the selection committee has made all the tough choices about who will get in and who will not. The teams have now been placed into their spots. So right now is about when you can all start grumbling about which teams were robbed, and which teams are simply undeserving.
BEN: Big time, Dave, it's huge! Let the griping begin! We've opened the lines and we wanna hear from you. What do YOU think about these match ups? Is this just about right? Or does it make about as much sense as a taco in a Chinese restaurant?
DAVE: And don't forget, we wanna hear the most important thing. That is, the thing that counts the most in everyone's mind: who's gonna take this baby all the way to the end?
BEN: Who is gonna win? There's a strong field of contenders in the mix this year. Just take a look at the line ups. I think the Southeast Regional is looking particularly strong. And a lot of surprises here - who would have thought that Team Sublimation could have even made it. And what about Logic playing itself? Mind-boggling, perhaps. We're not sure. We don't get it.
DAVE: And the Southeast is playing it's first two rounds at Oak Ridge National Labs, right?
BEN: Indeed. Should be a nice setting. Plus, with the Eastern regionals way over at CERN, in Switzerland, that's just plain unusual. But that's another element to the controversy here with some of these match-ups, like logic on logic.
DAVE: Yep, what a total shock to me, Ben, and I know Vitale is noodling over that one -- no-one saw it coming. And these pairings are really only the tip of the controversy iceberg. So here we are -- this SHOWDOWN is primed and ready for great drama. Even Team Jesus is getting in on the action (won their conference tournament, so it was an automatic bid). Those guys just seem to be nothing but drama these days, and was it me, or was Jesus freakin' everywhere this year? They will certainly be a force to be reckoned with.
BEN: And so folks, before we sign off, note that everything will begin on Wednesday, when we break down the four regions into their own posts and you, the blogosphere and beyond, will discuss the games and comment on who you think will be the winners and the losers. First round winners will of course advance to the second round. And then second round winners will meet up in the Sweet Sixteen. We can't guarantee that the pace of this vaunted tournament will precisely match that of the NCAA, but damn, if we not juggling more spherical objects than just a lowly basketball (and that's the truth!). Anything else, Dave?
Entropy will win. Entropy always wins, if it has enough time.
If logic defeats logic, then A <-> ~A, and everything is permitted. Hence, it's an open contest, and may even result in everyone winning...
Sorry: "A â Â¬A"
Try again: A ↔ ¬A
Experiment and Theory should have been seeded in opposing brackets - that way they have a shot at both of them making it to the title game for the ultimate showdown.
My money is on team Totipotent. I hear they are pretty well rounded and can do a little bit of everything.
I know it's a longshot, but I see Büchner funnel making it to the final four and maybe taking the whole thing.
I'm going with invertebrates. The roaches will outlast anyone or anything capable of using the internet, applying Linnean taxonomy, or performing surgery.
Of course, it might all boil down to reductionism.
I'm not sure how I ended up here, but never mind...
Before the competition I'm going for Inferential Statistics. Simply on grounds that that's the only way of knowing what will happen.
After the competition, I think Descriptive Statistics should have won, as it's the only way of knowing what happened.
I'm curious - how come Bayes and Fisher never got this far?
I'm really surprised to see Janet picking Buchner funnel to go so far. I just don't see them posting up well in the paint against some of the other heavies in their region.
I gotta say too that Bob seems on the mark with the statistics love. Good call. Scouting reports were strong on both. Whoever gets out of that first-round brawler should do well.
I should say too, as one with insight into the selection committee choices, that given all the distractions of administrative issues in Bayes's and Fisher's programs, they simply didn't fare well in the last month, especially in conference. A shame, I know. But so it goes.
Not to quibble here...but I can't believe anyone would even pay attention to the Dark Matter v Ordinary Matter game. That's such a lopsided match-up, it hardly seems worth playing.
Bracketology isn't my forte, but I think IAU may be the best bet here. I've been following them all season and I think they're fierce enough to take on anything. I mean, come on... they turned a planet into a dwarf and kicked it out of the solar system.
Jokermage is right about entropy always winning over time but this is the "Spring" showdown not the end of the universe showdown. My money is on F=ma. It controls more of the game that we see than any of the more subtle competitors in the field. They will overwhelm the major parts of the game and that is where it will be won. I am sure the string theorists have their money on Wave though.
I'm not sure about the rest of you, but i think the odds are in logic's favor.
Entropy Wins. There's nothing that can stand against it.
My money is on Darwin, because that's my puppy's name!!
hi this is the end of eternity that i know you that i know me