Technology and Officiating: Myths and Realities

Recently, there have been a lot of controversial calls in sports. There was Galarraga's non-perfect game, USA's Edu's goal taken back, Britain's equalizer that wasn't, and Argentina's offsides dagger against Mexico. Fans and analysts are screaming for replay while league officials are mostly against it while claiming to "consider" replay to appease fans, and we still don't really know what any actual referees think about it.

Technology should be embraced, not blindly rejected, and sports should evolve with technology. It's true that sports may become different, but it's also important to remember that fans have also become different. Now armed with instant replay at home and the ability to see the validity of calls, fans have become significantly more critical of officiating than they've ever been. Officials should always be the most informed, never the least-informed, viewers of any sporting event. The following are some myths and realities of the integration of technology and officiating, and in this post are some of the possible applications of the ideas shared below.

Myth: Using more technology in sports will decrease the "human element" of the game

Sports often pride themselves in the "human element" of the game. In baseball, this usually refers to the strike zone and how different umpires have slightly different strike zones. In basketball and soccer, this usually refers to the standard of what a foul is and how tightly a game is with respect to fouls called. Though the fear of the elimination of the human element of games is legitimate, the reality is that it is still possible to incorporate more technology in refereeing games without compromising the human element of sports. After all, it is humans that look at replays and humans that even decide if replays are needed on the first place! Also, using replay won't eliminate the need for human officials- in most cases there will be an increase to the number of officials for sports matches, even if not all the officials are actually on the field of play.

Will the strike zone ever be replaced by computer software? Maybe. Will fouls ever be called by robots? I doubt it. Even though how tightly a game is called with respect to both fouls and a strike zone are supposedly objective, the reality that everyone recognizes is that they are the subjectiveness of these aspects of the game that give sports their "human element." Nobody is calling for replays of strikes or fouls, but why not make the more objective parts of games like buzzer-beaters, goals, and home runs completely objective by video replay? The only human element taken away from subjecting objective calls to video replay is the human element of mistakes, which should not be desired in the first place. The human element that everyone cries for isn't about the black and white calls that most instant replay is used for but the grey areas that video replay probably wouldn't clear up anyway. 



[After instant replay, Jay Cutler was dismissed for public intoxication]


Myth: Technology will destroy the flow of the game.

The destruction of the flow of any game is the biggest fear of sports' self-declared "purists." While technology and replay done wrong can definitely destroy the flow of a game, as we can often see in the NFL where flow is not as important, technology used correctly can really add to the game. I truly believe that with careful planning, there is a way to make integration of most technology and replays nearly unnoticeable. The following is an example of a working system:

NBA 2, 3-point shot reviews - Most of us now take the review of 2 and 3 point shots for granted and don't give it a second thought when a three-pointer is changed to two points fifteen seconds after the shot. There is no change in the flow of the game and no one really pays attention to it. The NBA took great lengths to make these replays as seamless as possible, as you can read here. It's also interesting to note that Phil Jackson was skeptical of the change, but probably has no current objections to the new system.

Most reviews take only a few seconds to make and if an extra official is added in front of a television to watch a replay and communicate to the on-field officials via earpeice, on-field officials won't need to waste time walking to and from replay booths. It might take a while for officials to get used to the system, but I'm confident that this is a viable long-term solution for many issues such as soccer offsides and baseball foul/fair balls.

Reality: Accountability without technology is unnecessarily painful

Proponents of more instant replay say that referees would be in favor of it because their first priority is to get calls right while its opponents claim that instant replay takes away from the authority and importance of referees. We don't really know what referees think about instant replay, but I can say with certainty that it's unfair for a league to discipline its officials without providing the maximum tools to succeed. Yesterday, FIFA dismissed four referees that either missed big calls or made wrong calls. FIFA itself recognized that officials make mistakes and that it was all part of the game, so to dismiss them is both inconsistent and unfair. FIFA should take some responsibility for the wrong calls because their refusal to use the basic instant replay that soccer leagues around the world have already adopted. Similarly, it will be difficult for leagues to keep their officials accountable for incorrect calls they make if they don't put them in a place to succeed.


[After replay, I'm pretty sure that's a home run]

Reality: There is no perfect system

The system now is imperfect, and future systems that include more technology and instant replay will also be imperfect. A great example of this is occurred in the NBA finals a month ago when, in the last two minutes of the game, Rondo fouled Lamar Odom, causing him to lose the ball out of bounds. Replays clearly showed both the ball going off on Odom and Rondo's foul, which had previously been missed by the officials. However, because officials can't use replay to call fouls (which I agree with), the officials had no choice but to award the ball to the Celtics, which was the right decision given the rules of the game but not the ideal, correct outcome.

But even if there's no perfect system, it doesn't mean that we can't continue to improve the current system.

Reality: It is foolish to reject the advancement of technology

In an era where we can carry around the internet in our pockets and it's possible to view replays in 360 degrees for every possible angle, why can't referees watch a simple replay of a play? While I can sympathize with the sentiment of tradition and keeping the integrity of sports, I think that dismissing all attempts at reducing human error in officiating is foolish and irresponsible. Sports have gotten better over the years as leagues look to appeal to fans more. Can you imagine the NFL without free substitution or playoffs or basketball without the shot clock or free throws? Similarly, the addition of more technology to correct calls needs to happen to appease fans who have access to more footage than they ever have. Fans can no longer just take referees at their word and are horrified when incorrect calls are made. It's not just about getting the call right; it's about communicating to fans that leagues are committed to good officiating.

Does anyone really believe that sports will look the same 50 years from now? Sports have been evolving and the games now don't look the same as they were even just ten years ago. The culture of sports have been constantly evolving. It wasn't very long ago that all basketball players wore short-shorts and baseball players wore only knee-breaches. The NFL has been going through a quest to improve player safety while the MLB is working hard to end the steroid era. Sports will never remain the same, so to dismiss the use of more technology because of a fear of changing the game is foolish. Proper use of technology will only improve the playing of games and increase the enjoyment of games for fans.

As technology advances, all of society evolves with it. We can try and fight it (we all know people who do), but in the end, there's no way to avoid its effect in society, especially in sports.

1 Samuel 3: Midnight Encounter with God

Background of these 1 Samuel posts: I'm reading through 1 Samuel with Cory and Kelli, my small group leader and helper, over the summer to prepare ourselves for small group Bible studies this next semester. We read two chapters a week, and this week, we read 1 Samuel 3 and 4.

Yesterday, life took a difficult turn. I went to bed disappointed, a bit sad, and very anxious. I normally fall asleep immediately, but not surprisingly, it took me a little longer than usual to fall asleep. The strange thing is that I woke up in the middle of the night, which never ever happens, thinking and worrying about life. I tried to pray about it, but it was difficult letting go and giving everything over to God. Like Samuel, God spoke to me, lying in bed in the middle of the night. God told me: "You can either trust me or not trust me. You decide." As Christians, we often create little grey areas for ourselves to justify and rationalize our doubts and selfishness, but when God puts it in those terms, I have no choice but to respond by putting my trust in Him.

God has taught me a lot about trusting him these past years. Recognizing God's sovereignty and love has been a constant encouragement that as long as I remain in Him by obeying his commands, God's will is done in my life, and I can be confident that his will in my life will always be the best for me. Trusting in God has given me unparalleled peace, even in the worst circumstances. It also seems like whenever I get closer to God, my circumstances become terrible. Though I'm confused by this, I press on in the knowledge and hope that God is always working for my good and has plans only to prosper me.

Like Samuel, God has been speaking to me recently in many different ways. Reading the Word has been extremely fruitful, as God is giving me passages that really relate to my life and is opening my eyes to the things he wants me to see. Here are some verses that God has given me today:

Proverbs 13:12 (NKJV)

Hope deferred makes the heart sick,
But when the desire comes, it is a tree of life

Jonah 4:9-10 (NIV)

But God said to Jonah, "Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?"
"I do," he said. "I am angry enough to die."
But the LORD said, "You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 

Job 1:20 (NIV)

The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
may the name of the LORD be praised."  

1 Samuel 2: For those stumbling

1 Samuel 2:4

"The bows of the warrior are broken,
but those who stumbled are armed with strength."

This verse jumped out at me when I read Hannah's prayer. For all you out there who stumble, this is the verse for you. How strange the Scripture says that those who stumble are empowered, when in my experience stumbling in life causes shame, guilt, and an overall sense of powerlessness, not strength! When the devil succeeds in his temptations, get back up and continue to fight on. This verse has greatly encouraged me, reminding me that God is my strength, no matter how righteous I am.

When I read this verse, I immediately thought of Court McGee, who just won the Ultimate Fighter last Saturday. In his post-fight interview, he broke down while saying "I want to dedicate this fight to anybody who's struggling today. I love you all!" A little background on Court: a few years back, he was addicted to drugs and eventually overdosed, and he was clinically dead at one point. He fought through it, went to rehab, straightened his life, and has now just landed a UFC contract. You can watch the fight here. (The post-fight interview is at around 8:50).

Court's outburst of emotion reminded me of another man who was beaten, knocked down, taken down, and hit in the face in every literal and figurative way imaginable, but fought hard and he came out on top. He has dedicated his life for all those struggling, that when we fall, he lifts us up back on our feet with heads held high, knowing that it is because we are loved that Jesus died for us.

If you are struggling today, Jesus loves you. If you've been stumbling, know that however strange it may seem, God arms all who have stumbled with strength. Keep your head up, your arms high - God has already won the battle.

1 Samuel 1: "Because I asked the Lord for him"

Hannah joyfully accepts the gift of a son that God has given to her with gratitude and a new understanding of God's grace. In the NIV Bible, it says that "Samuel" sounded like the Hebrew for "heard of God" so even though the sentence may at first glance sound prideful, but the focus of Hannah was on the grace of God, not on her own asking. 

There are many things in my life that I want that I have never brought to the Lord for whatever reason, but Hannah's joy in knowing that God responded to her prayers really makes me want to eventually be able to say "..because I asked the Lord for it." Not only is this a reflection of reliance on God, it's a response to the command to pray, jumping on God's bandwagon to advance His kingdom. I want to be a part of God's plan' I want to make a difference, so I need to pray more.

Two observations on prayer and asking God for things:

We don't receive because we don't ask.

Don't get me wrong. If you ask, there's no guarantee that you will receive what you're asking for. However the Word is quite clear that "if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" (Matthew 21:22).    Our hearts need to be aligned with God's heart, but many times even for the noble and righteous things we are hesitant to pray. How often do we pray for the salvation of friends or the healing of broken relationships? God can also use prayer to mold our hearts and often to convict us to be the answer to our prayers. 

God promises us that he answers prayers. Why do we doubt him so much? Has God really let you down before? We doubt God's faithfulness and love when we fail to bring things to him in prayer, forgetting just how much he loves us and desires our joy and pleasure. 

^{Luke 11:9-13}

"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

We aren't grateful when we do receive because we didn't ask

Despite our failure to pray, God still pours out blessings for us, whether or not we asked for it, but because we didn't ask, we take those blessings for granted. This seems a little bit counterintuitive, because it would seem like we should be even more grateful because we should be able to see God's grace clearer, as we never asked for what we received. The sad reality is that we become like spoiled children, feeling entitled to the world and failing to recognize that all the wonderful things in life are blessings from God.

When we ask God, we are recognizing his sovereignty and resigning our will to His, that when we do receive, there is no reaction fitting but to praise Him. Because we often don't ask, we don't bother to wonder where our blessings are, forgetting that "every good and perfect gift is from above" (James 1:17).

To sum it all up: don't be afraid to ask God for anything, and remember to praise God for everything.  

Why NCAA Football Playoffs is a Bad Idea

Why an Eight (or more) Team Playoff System Won't Work

A lot of casual college football fans want the college football postseason to look more like March Madness. I love March Madness, but football and basketball are completely different, and here are some reasons why that kind of playoff won't work:

1) Decreases importance of regular season.

College football prides itself in that every game is already like a playoff game. Every week counts, so you can't take any week off. A large playoff system easily destroys this notion. It's really not that hard to be ranked in the top 16 of the AP poll, and being in the top 8 isn't anything to brag about either. When you start having 3-loss teams (of a 12 game season!) creep into the conversation for being in top 8 teams of the country, which happens a lot, you know the regular season has lost some of its importance. The selectivity of the BCS system maintains the sacredness of the regular season, making the national championship more of a rarely-attainable dream rather than a party where all the cool kids are at.  

While this in itself may not seem like a big deal, the importance of the regular season is one of the main driving forces behind huge rivalries. You can ruin a team's season by a win against them, which may not be possible under a large playoff system. Michigan did it to Penn State, Ohio State did it to Michigan. Hand a loss to any team and that team is almost certainly out of the national championship conversation. The importance of the regular season and the intensity of rivalries and big games go hand in hand, and a playoff system could destroy that. 

2) Decreases importance of conference  titles

Currently, being the conference winner of a BCS conference is a ticket to a BCS bowl. Under a playoff system with eight or more teams, there is a large chance for the runner-up in a conference to also make the playoffs, making the conference title meaningless. Sure, you get bragging rights for a year, but the title will no longer be as coveted as is today. Conference championship games are all of a sudden kind of silly, as you might end up playing each other again in the playoffs. The loser of the conference title game could even make it farther than the winner of the conference! 

Conference identity and conference titles in college football are much more important than in college basketball, where it often is an afterthought because of March Madness, and a playoff system would destroy this conference identity. 

3) A significantly longer season is not good for players.

An eight team playoff would increase the season for football programs that make it by two games. While this doesn't seem like a big deal, when the season is extended by that much, injuries are inevitable, and serious injuries in college are significantly more crippling to a career than in football. In my opinion, the NCAA should an is protecting players as best possible, because an injury in college could decrease or eliminate the chance of employment as a professional athlete for student athletes, who aren't paid.

4) Competition with NFL playoffs

While it may seem that a playoff system will bring in more viewers, a playoff system will push the college season into the heart of the NFL playoffs, and college football doesn't stand a chance against the NFL playoffs, especially when NFL playoff games are on both Sunday and Saturday. Don't mess with the NFL. They will eat you alive. 

[Short paragraph, but competing against the NFL will cripple NCAA ratings]

5) Bowl Games become undesirable

This is probably the last thing on anyone's mind, but the bowl system will be destroyed under a playoff system. It cannot be underestimated how much bowl wins are important to college football, especially small programs that don't always have great recruiting classes. One of the great things about the bowl system is that half the teams end their seasons with wins, which creates excitement for the program and incentive in its recruiting. A playoff system will make bowl games like the NIT. Sure, you're happy if you win, but no one wants to be in it. The ratings for bowl games will plummet, as no one wants to watch them either, which decreases the much-needed payout of bowl games for smaller schools. The bowl system is good for college football, and a playoff system will benefit only the teams in the playoffs but will hurt other up-and-coming football programs. 

A Four-Team Playoff System Will Only Create More Controversy

As many have said, if there is a playoff system in place, it should be only a four-team playoff system. I'm not completely opposed to the idea, but it's a complete myth that a four-team playoff system will decrease the selection drama and all worthy teams will have a chance at becoming the national champion. A four-team playoff system has the same shortcoming as the current BCS system: How will you decide what four teams get to play in the four-team playoff?

The answer to this question will be even more difficult to determine than the two teams for the BCS championship game for one main reason: that there are rarely four undefeated teams and there are usually a much larger amount of one-loss teams that would feel deserving of the final spots in the playoff. There are rarely more than three teams in the conversation for the national championship game, but with a four-team playoff, much more than one team will feel robbed if left out.

2009
Undefeated teams: 5 (Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU, Boise State)
1-Loss Teams: 1 (Florida)
2008

Undefeated teams: 2 (Utah, Boise)

1-Loss Teams: 8 (Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama, USC, Texas Tech, Penn State, Ball State)

2007

Undefeated teams: 1 (Hawaii)

1-Loss Teams: 2 (Ohio State, Kansas)

2-Loss Teams: 10 (LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Georgia, Missouri, USC, West Virginia, Airzone State, BYU, Boise State)

2006

Undefeated Teams: 2 (Ohio State, Boise State)

1-Loss Teams: 4 (Florida, Michigan, Louisville, Wisconsin)

2005

Undefeated Teams: 2 (USC, Texas)

1-Loss Teams: 4 (Penn State, Oregon, West Virginia, TCU)

2004 

Undefeated Teams: 5 (USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, Boise State)

1-Loss Teams: 3 (Cal, Texas, Louisville)

2003

Undefeated Teams: 1 (Oklahoma)

1-Loss Teams: 5 (USC, LSU, Boise State, TCU)

2002

Undefeated Teams: 2 (Miami, Ohio State)

1-Loss Teams: 3 (Iowa, Georgia, Boise State)

Average from 2002-2009

Undefeated Teams: 2.25 (18 teams in 8 seasons)

1-Loss Teams: 3.75 (30 teams in 8 seasons)

2-Loss teams ranked in top 5 of AP Poll: 1.25 (10 teams in 8 seasons)

Michigan 2003, Georgia 2003, Ohio State 2005, Notre Dame 2005, LSU 2006, LSU 2007, Virginia Tech 2007, Oklahoma 2007, Georgia 2007

From these numbers we see that if we assume that undefeated teams will be in the playoffs, there will be (on average) two 1-loss teams left out and some worthy 2-loss teams. Simple exercise: given the teams named each year above, choose two teams for the national championship. It won't be very difficult for most years, as the top two teams are often significantly ahead of the rest. Now go choose 4 teams to be considered for the playoffs. It's really not that easy, as you probably consider many more teams for that last spot in comparison with a national championship game. 

It's also important to note that many of the 1-Loss Teams (and even undefeated teams) are ranked significantly lower than other two-loss teams, as two-loss teams in power conferences with more difficult schedules are widely considered better teams than one-loss teams (especially apparent in 2007 when LSU became the first two-loss team to win the BCS championship). This was especially true further in the past, when the BCS voters didn't respect non-BCS wins as much. I didn't post these teams because of space issues, but you can find the AP Poll final rankings of each season. Though there was a surprising 5 teams were undefeated in 2004 and 2009, even a four-team playoff system would leave one undefeated team out. 

Is the four-team playoff much worse than the current system? No. But people have to realize that there a four team playoff system will leave more teams feeling out. It might be more fun to watch for a while, but don't be surprised when it's your turn to be left out and when people start crying for the clarity of the previous system. The current system has its issues, but a four team playoff will just create more drama. 

I wouldn't be against a four-team playoff, as long as its proponents don't start crying and complaining once they're left out. 

Why I Love the Lakers

I admit it. I'm somewhat of a bandwagon fan. I've never supported the Lakers in their down years (I wasn't alive back then). However, I consider myself a pretty educated sports fan, and I feel that my love of the Lakers is fairly legitimate.

5) The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I hate the Celtics. I can't stand Kevin Garnett. Sure, Garnett is only a recent Celtic, but I'm also a new NBA fan. Paul Pierce is too cocky. Rondo's arms are abnormally long, it's unfair. Kendrick Perkins is always angry. Baby Davis is a baby. I hate the Celtics.


This is what I call "Baby fat"

4) Likable Players

How can you dislike Lamar Odom and his obsession with candy? How can you root against Shannon Brown and his high-flying dunks? Sure, Derek Fisher can be a flopper at times, but don't you find it hilarious how much Luke Walton sucks or how Mbenga is made fun of by his entire team? No matter how much you disliked him as a Rocket, you have to admit that Ron Artest has cleaned up his game and isn't as crazy as he was before. But come on. LAMAR ODOM AND HIS CANDY! You can't hate the Lakers!



3) Fantasy Relations

As always, Fantasy sports always forms bonds between me and random players, and the Lakers have enough fantasy contributors that I've had at least one Laker on my fantasy basketball team every year. Lamar Odom, Trevor Ariza, and Ron Artest, thanks for contributing to my teams! I will continue to root for you no matter what team you're on!

2) Team Dynamics

The Lakers are very much like the Patriots of the NBA. Drama and selfishness aren't tolerated, and the team is always first. Of course this hasn't always been true, but the growth of Kobe Bryant as a leader has meshed the Lakers into a united steamroller in the Western Division. The Lakers have the perfect balance of experienced veterans and energetic youth, and everyone understands the role they have on the team. Like Belichick,  Phil Jackson is, as Skip Bayless calls him, a Zen Master that could care less about addressing the media and adhering to the league's rules about criticizing refs. The Lakers represent the perfect team.


(Also he kind of looks like KFC's own Colonel Sanders)

1) Kobe Bryant

The mental beast, the greatest player today. It's difficult to dislike Kobe Bryant. Sure a lot of people hate him, but it's really hard to hate the player he is. He shows up in big games and hits big shots. He's a cold-blooded killer and a fearless leader on the court and respectful and classy off of it. Kobe Bryant is a complete player. As Eric responded when asked if he was a Lakers fan, "I'm more of a Kobe fan."

Go Lakers!

The Origin of the MCCC Mando/Canto Divide

Why is there a Mando/Canto divide in MCCC? Are we really racist? Is there a significant socioeconomic or educational barrier? Is it just because Mandarin people are cooler?

Even though one of the three is probably a contributing factor (pssst the third one!), thinking over the history of our church and the different experiences the Mando and Canto kids have in MCCC, I believe I have uncovered the secret behind this violent cultural divide.

Listen my children and you shall see
The divide between the Mandos and Cantonese.
At the old church building while we prayed,
A foundation of hatred was being laid
Between the Mandos and Cantos in this church, Chinese.

For all of you that remember how things went at the old church, the English congregation met in the morning and the Chinese congregation met in the afternoon (if I remember correctly, it was 11 AM and 1:30 PM, respectively). The children of the Cantonese met at the same time as the English congregation, so the Cantonese and Mandarin kids really didn't know each other at all. We would meet in random times for big events like VBS and the Christmas service, but in general the Cantonese kids would meet with the Mandarin kids very little.

The Cantonese congregation had an especially strong identity and a closer bond to one another because of its small size, and this intimacy was also reflected in the kids. The Cantonese kids were extremely close to each other, as their parents were close friends and the Cantonese congregation had their own fellowships, their own services, and their own retreats.

The integration between the Cantonese and Mandarin kids started in youth group at around 6th and 7th grade. However, the closeness of the Cantonese kids was still very apparent, which caused everyone else to specifically refer to them as part of the Cantonese group. It was very clear who was Mandarin and who was Cantonese, not because of appearances or speech or anything else, but it was just the people they hung out with. As we grew older and became closer and closer with each other, this division shrank, making it somewhat more of a joke than a source of tension.

The Mando/Canto divide is dissolving, as now the Canto and Mando kids grow up together, as they go through Sunday School together, seeing each other every week.

The war is over.

An Automatic Car Cooling System

To the mechanical engineers of the world, here is my idea:

The Problem

In the summer, cars left out under the sun become like ovens, making it extremely uncomfortable when first getting into them. Getting into cars immediately cause sweat and discomfort, and it take a while before all the hot air is circulated out and the air conditioning kicks in. The current solutions to this problem are both inconvenient and ineffective, as they require screens of some sort to be put up by the windshield. While helpful, they often are just not worth the hassle of setting up.

My Proposed Solution

 My solution is to insert a solar panel on the car and to use solar energy to run small fans to continually circulate hot air out of the car and the cooler outside air into the car.

My key observations:

1) The car is hot when it is under the sun.
2) The main issue is the heat of the air, not the heat of the car itself (i.e. seats, steering wheel, etc).

Air circulation should effectively keep the air in the car relatively cool and not the heat sink that it is currently. In addition, it should keep the actual components of the car like the seats and steering wheel cool, as their heat will be transferred to the cooler air around it, which is continually being cycled. These fans should be able to run quietly for long periods of time without much energy consumption, which is something that air conditioning cannot accomplish. 

This is a relatively simple concept but the actually implementation might be difficult. Some things to consider are cost, correct placement of fans to create maximum air flow, and energy efficiency. I know that new Honda Civic Hybrids already have solar-powered air conditioning, so this add-on should be the natural next step.

In my opinion, this issue of hot cars in the summer is being overlooked by the automotive industries, as it doesn't really matter how much your car costs: if you leave it out in the sun, it's going to be nasty inside.

If any of you make any money off of this idea, I expect some sort of a reward...a new car would be nice.

Funny Picture:

Lakers, Celtics Game 2 Preview

This will be short.

What the Lakers need to do to win:
1) Stay aggressive and not settle for jumpshots.
2) The bench needs to play well as they did last game.
3) Rebound on the offensive and defensive end.

What the Celtics need to do to win:
1) Get more fast break opportunities
2) Defend the paint and grab boards.
3) Hit open 3's

After seeing what the Lakers have done, I fully believe they have the ability to easily win this series. However, the Celtics have more pride than most teams in the league, and they will come back angry. Kevin Garnett, who feels disrespected by Gasol, will play angry and aggressive. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are a good number of hard fouls and technicals handed out.

Prediction:
Lakers 98, Celtics 90
Kobe Bryant: 30 points, 10 FT
Rajan Rondo: 20 points, 10 assists
Paul Pierce: 15 points

Lakers, Celtics Game 1 Preview

Series Preview

A lot has been said about how the Celtics are too big, mean, and physical for the Lakers to win. Pau is too soft, Fisher too slow, Bynum too injured, Odom too inconsistent, and Artest too loopy in the head. The Celtics are going to defend the post too well and run their fast-break offense too effectively for the Lakers to compete. This series is going to end the same way the 2008 series has.

This is exactly what Kobe needs to hear. Lakers fans point to Ron Artest being the defining difference between the 2010 and the 2008 teams, but I am convinced that this series is really Kobe's to win. Sure, Ron Artest brings a defensive presence and a toughness that the Lakers didn't have in 2008, but we only need to look to the leader of the team to find the team's real motivater. Kobe doesn't just want this championship. He needs it.

Even though Rondo has been touted as the best point guard in the NBA and the best quarterback in Boston (by Mark Jackson), Derek Fisher has defended Deron Williams and Steve Nash in the previous two series. Rondo's speed and athleticism won't be a surprise to Fisher. That said, Rondo's rebounding will be key, and if he grabs a lot of offensive rebounds like he did against the Magic, the Lakers could be in trouble.

think the Lakers bigs will have trouble with the combined defense of Davis, Garnett, Perkins, and Wallace. Kobe will need to soften up the defense and force double teams for his teammates to get open looks and easy buckets. Odom will need to play big, filling in for Bynum will explosive play.

I find it difficult to pick against Kobe in big-game situations, so here's my pick:
Lakers in 7. I think they'll win their first two home games and steal one at Boston. The Celtics have shown that they can win on the road, so they'll come back and even the series at 3-3, but I don't see the Lakers losing two straight home games. Lakers in 7. 

Game 1

The Celtics are very dangerous. But so is Kobe. Tonight, I think Pau will be overwhelmed by the physical play of the Celtics, making him less effective than he normally is. Kobe will shoulder much of the weight of the game, and if he shoots well, I don't see any way the Celtics steal Game 1. Ron Artest is going to be key playing at home. He needs to hit his open 3's, and if he keeps Paul Pierce from getting hot, the Celtics don't have many other players that can score consistently on the road against the Lakers.

The Lakers bench is going to prove their worth at home. Odom will play well at home, stepping up for Bynum, who probably won't play a very big role for the Lakers. Kobe will occasionally defer to his teammates, allowing them to gain confidence for the series, but he won't let the game slip out of his hands. It won't be a blowout, and the Lakers might have a good scare or two, but Lakers are going to win their first home game.

Lakers 90, Celtics 85
Kobe 25 points with 5 assists
Odom 15 points with 7 rebounds

On Dating

I've received a bunch of formspring questions asking about my thoughts and opinions and preferences of dating. Because my answer to a lot of these questions intersect, I'll attempt to answer them here.

The End
To me, the goal of dating is to marriage. This doesn't mean that a dating relationship is expected to end in marriage, but I think that the ultimate end of dating is marriage. A dating relationship is not considered successful outside of marriage, meaning that merely gaining experience or temporary comfort is inadequate. Dating without marriage in mind is useless and doesn't add much to life. Sure, the experience is helpful, but in the end, I think the hurt involved far outweighs the experience gained.

The Means
Dating is made possible only by Godly love. Even though we aren't fully capable of perfect love, Christ has given us the ability to be selfless and to put others above ourselves. People these days are afraid of the word "love" and afraid to use it. I think that the only way to have a successful relationship is through love. Sure, this love may be imperfect and need a lot of work, but without love, without being willing to sacrifice yourself for someone else, no relationship will be fruitful.

Because love means putting your own desires aside for the well-being of another, I firmly believe that anyone is "datable". This doesn't mean that I can or will date people that are very different from me or have qualities that I dislike, but it does mean that if God wants me to date or marry someone, He will give me the strength and selflessness I need to love so radically that any everything that seemed like a barrier before will be overcome. In the end, it is God who does both the choosing and the loving; I do neither.

The implications of everything I just said is that while there are things that I may not like in a person, I am to love the way Jesus has loved me: to forgive and to love. This isn't an idealistic thought that all obstacles are overcome as long as you love, but the idea is that God won't give me trials that I can't overcome or trials that He won't help me overcome.

My Preferences
I'm not going to post my preferences for a few reasons. First of all, it could be offensive and hurtful to others. Second, these are only personal preferences that I've noticed in myself, not strict rules or expectations I have of girls. Posting a list of preferences will only tempt me to treat them as expectations and strict guidelines, keeping my from trusting God's decisions and relying on my own desires.

On Dating Non-Christians
2 Corinthians 6:14-15: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? ...What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?" There are a lot of interpretations of this verse and opinions on dating non-Christians, so I'll just give mine. I think the general rule for all Christians is (and should be) to not date non-Christians. In my opinion, dating non-Christians should be done with caution and Christians should not marry non-Christians.

That said, I do believe that God can use relationships with non-Christians for His glory. Because God should be the center of any relationship, God should also be the center of all relationships, even if others are not Christian. If we love our friends and especially our significant others, we should, more than anything else in the world, desire their salvation. Jesus will love any girl infinitely more than I can love her, so the most loving and selfless thing for me to do is to just lead her to Jesus. Still, these relationships should be the exception and I think we need to hear God's call clearly in these situations.

Personally, I've only had one potential relationship with a non-Christian. Though I shared the Gospel with her, I found that I was changing more than she was and the way I was living my life wasn't very glorifying to God. I find that when I am close to God, my close friendships with non-Christians often suffer because I can't fully share my life with them. I don't want to impose on my friends and I don't want to be overbearing, so I don't share about my spiritual life very often. Though as Christians we want to say that we are open to dating all people and that our spiritual lives won't be affected either way, the reality is that dating a non-Christian is a risk that we should only take with an explicit call and blessing from God.

Random comic: