Nothing seems quite as frustratingly pointless as the newly rebranded 'Europa League'. First you have the fact that it takes seventeen games to win it, half a season. Then it's the fact that all the Champions' League teams go into it for free halfway through.
But besides that, it just seems so bizarrely misformatted. To summarise, it works like this:
76 teams play off over two legs so that 38 teams qualify for the group stage, in addition to ten losers from the Champions' League qualifying (do you know why losers from another tournament take precedence over teams that already qualified for this tournament? No, neither do I). These then play in twelve groups of four, with the top two going through in each. This does not make a round number for a tournament draw - this is because the eight third-place teams from the Champions' League drop in at this stage, to make up to thirty-two teams. From then on it is a straight knock-out to the final.
This is absurd, frankly. So many flaws and pandering to the Champions' League clubs. This is my version, put together in five minutes, and most of that doing the maths to put the numbers together correctly. I'd wager it works out to be a better tournament.
Expand the draw by ten teams. This way you start with 86 teams. Add to this the ten losers from the final Champions' League qualifiers, to avoid favouring them, to make 96. These 96 then play off in two legged ties to leave 48 teams for the main draw. Split these 48 teams into sixteen groups of three teams, each playing each other home and away, with the top team in each group going through to the round-of-sixteen (which is called the eigth-finals in some parts of the world).
From there, you have sixteen teams competing to reach the final in standard fashion. Third place in the Champions' League groups gets you a seat at home for the rest of the season, and not a shot at the Europa League as compensation. This format gives 13 games to reach the final - the exact same as the Champions' League, enabling a mirror tournament - and it removes the imbalance between Champions' League teams and genuine qualifiers.
Even within this I don't like the odd group stage, but considering the number of teams involved, it works better than a bigger group, and fits neatly enough to the current numbers.
Perhaps I should propose this to UEFA, see what the view is.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Regret
I always have a policy of 'no regrets'. What happens, happens, you take it as part of your learning experience and move on. However, I am seriously regretting fixing Dad's computer and upgrading some of the applications to ones that work well - I now need to help every day to explain what to do when a popup explaining what to do comes up.
In other news, I'm getting frustrated with work, but as I just had a bit of a letting-off-steam rant on IRC, I'll pass that over for now.
In other news, I'm getting frustrated with work, but as I just had a bit of a letting-off-steam rant on IRC, I'll pass that over for now.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Oh, That Was The Other Thing ...
The other thing I was being lax on was blogging. Now I remember. I've not posted much of late - partially because I haven't had much to say, partially because what I do have to say is somewhat either downing and not exactly motivating to positive blog posting, as I try to do!
To give a brief synopsis, I'm a bit discouraged about my weight, I seem to be gaining more rapidly than I thought, or perhaps I'm just going insane. Or, the more likely option, is that I expect a week's worth of slight exercise to have a lasting effect. If only!
This week I have played football, which makes a dramatic change to usual; somehow I got back on the invite list due to noone else turning up. It was tiring and I was significantly worse than I used to be. Decent exercise, but probably not enough. Desperately need to motivate myself, but to do that I need to get to bed on time so I'm not too tired in the morning. So that's the first step.
To give a brief synopsis, I'm a bit discouraged about my weight, I seem to be gaining more rapidly than I thought, or perhaps I'm just going insane. Or, the more likely option, is that I expect a week's worth of slight exercise to have a lasting effect. If only!
This week I have played football, which makes a dramatic change to usual; somehow I got back on the invite list due to noone else turning up. It was tiring and I was significantly worse than I used to be. Decent exercise, but probably not enough. Desperately need to motivate myself, but to do that I need to get to bed on time so I'm not too tired in the morning. So that's the first step.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Failure on Multiple Fronts
So, this week, how have I been doing?
Well, I've managed to fail to do running in the morning. I keep intending to and keep failing, mainly because I'm so tired. Why's that? That would be because I'm failing to get to bed on time like I should be doing.
That's actually about it on the failure side, to be honest, I think it's more irritating that I've not had the motivating push I've wanted here. There is still one weekday left this week to put that right, which means a decent time to bed tonight.
Well, I've managed to fail to do running in the morning. I keep intending to and keep failing, mainly because I'm so tired. Why's that? That would be because I'm failing to get to bed on time like I should be doing.
That's actually about it on the failure side, to be honest, I think it's more irritating that I've not had the motivating push I've wanted here. There is still one weekday left this week to put that right, which means a decent time to bed tonight.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
A Little Research
For a bit of a change I'm going to revisit a topic I covered earlier in the week. Usually I don't stop by the same topic that often, but this angers me so much I need to write on it. The topic is, predictably, American healthcare.
The thing that I don't understand is that when I've been to America, I've not met anyone who I've talked with who felt that the current system was a good one. I've not seen any evidence that there is a groundswell of support for the status quo. This is all down to rhetoric and scary words such as 'socialised'. There's no discussion on whether the healthcare system should be improved. So why is the debat enot about that?
Touching again on the statistics I posted up on Wednesday, the US spends more money, per head, on the healthcare system than anywhere else in the world. Yet it ranks only 37th for the quality of healthcare, and what's more astounding is if you showed Americans the list of countries above them. Oman. United Arab Emirates. Cyprus. Colombia. Costa Rica. Dominica. Morroco. Greece. Iceland. Singapore. Andorra. And yes, even the much-maligned 'socialised' United Kingdom. Topping the list are those ultimate favourites of the right, France.
This study was carried out in 2000, so is bound to be changed a little since then. However, it doesn't do anything but emphasise that the American system is not performing as it should. But why? Ironically, one of the suggested reasons is because of too much bureaucracy. As this is a charge levied at the NHS at the moment as part of this debate, it's not but a little ironic that the American levels of bureaucracy in healthcare are 50% above average. For more background, have a look at the WHO report, which goes into this in more detail.
Now, let's change tack and talk about people who oppose this. Besides those with a vested interest, those convinced by the rhetoric, and discounting the bigger government argument for a minute here, there is a number who are very much on the side of the 'why me? I'm healthy' line. I've done a little research today and found out the following; dates for statistics vary but the point is fairly illustrative.
414,295 residential fires occured in 2007 in the United States of America. Latest figures (2006) indicate approximately 125 million houses in the US; translating to a 0.3% chance of a residential fire - which is naturally going to be biased as well. There are no direct statistics for the residential damage cost of fires, but a proportional $35,300 will suffice to demonstrate the point.
Now, back to healthcare. Of a population of 303 million (2008), 25.1 million have a heart condition (2007); making this about 8%. The statistics consider that 11%, based on only adults, but I am happy with 8%. Statistics on the cost of out-of-pocket expenses and medical premiums for a year alone run to $21,900 (2007 - taken from the American Heart Association). Note that won't account for the run-on cost on future years, as you would expect would be a cost liability. Estimations including loss of earnings on one site I saw topped $1 million.
So this is the point of this exercise in figures. My bet is that those people who are convinced they are healthy, they won't be the ones affected by any healthcare scare - they will have fire insurance. At a chance of 0.3%, you will take out insurance on the basis of a risk of a $35,000 cost. So all these people, those that aren't the ones who'll get ill, wouldn't think anything giving them better access to healthcare (8-10% risk, costs running into the hundreds of thousands - and that's heart disease alone) should probably think again.
Of course, you can reduce the chance of suffering from those diseases by keeping yourself in good fitness. But you can reduce the chance of a residential fire. And you'll still have fire insurance. Just in case.
Food for thought.
I'm fairly confident I'll be revisiting this topic.
The thing that I don't understand is that when I've been to America, I've not met anyone who I've talked with who felt that the current system was a good one. I've not seen any evidence that there is a groundswell of support for the status quo. This is all down to rhetoric and scary words such as 'socialised'. There's no discussion on whether the healthcare system should be improved. So why is the debat enot about that?
Touching again on the statistics I posted up on Wednesday, the US spends more money, per head, on the healthcare system than anywhere else in the world. Yet it ranks only 37th for the quality of healthcare, and what's more astounding is if you showed Americans the list of countries above them. Oman. United Arab Emirates. Cyprus. Colombia. Costa Rica. Dominica. Morroco. Greece. Iceland. Singapore. Andorra. And yes, even the much-maligned 'socialised' United Kingdom. Topping the list are those ultimate favourites of the right, France.
This study was carried out in 2000, so is bound to be changed a little since then. However, it doesn't do anything but emphasise that the American system is not performing as it should. But why? Ironically, one of the suggested reasons is because of too much bureaucracy. As this is a charge levied at the NHS at the moment as part of this debate, it's not but a little ironic that the American levels of bureaucracy in healthcare are 50% above average. For more background, have a look at the WHO report, which goes into this in more detail.
Now, let's change tack and talk about people who oppose this. Besides those with a vested interest, those convinced by the rhetoric, and discounting the bigger government argument for a minute here, there is a number who are very much on the side of the 'why me? I'm healthy' line. I've done a little research today and found out the following; dates for statistics vary but the point is fairly illustrative.
414,295 residential fires occured in 2007 in the United States of America. Latest figures (2006) indicate approximately 125 million houses in the US; translating to a 0.3% chance of a residential fire - which is naturally going to be biased as well. There are no direct statistics for the residential damage cost of fires, but a proportional $35,300 will suffice to demonstrate the point.
Now, back to healthcare. Of a population of 303 million (2008), 25.1 million have a heart condition (2007); making this about 8%. The statistics consider that 11%, based on only adults, but I am happy with 8%. Statistics on the cost of out-of-pocket expenses and medical premiums for a year alone run to $21,900 (2007 - taken from the American Heart Association). Note that won't account for the run-on cost on future years, as you would expect would be a cost liability. Estimations including loss of earnings on one site I saw topped $1 million.
So this is the point of this exercise in figures. My bet is that those people who are convinced they are healthy, they won't be the ones affected by any healthcare scare - they will have fire insurance. At a chance of 0.3%, you will take out insurance on the basis of a risk of a $35,000 cost. So all these people, those that aren't the ones who'll get ill, wouldn't think anything giving them better access to healthcare (8-10% risk, costs running into the hundreds of thousands - and that's heart disease alone) should probably think again.
Of course, you can reduce the chance of suffering from those diseases by keeping yourself in good fitness. But you can reduce the chance of a residential fire. And you'll still have fire insurance. Just in case.
Food for thought.
I'm fairly confident I'll be revisiting this topic.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Triple Century
Believe it or not, this is my 300th blog post.
As an interesting contrast, it's taken me a little under a year (335 days) to go from blog #201 to blog #300. It took me far longer to go from blog #1 to blog #100 (496 days), although not as long as from blog #101 to blog #200 (a lengthy 528 days). All these pointless statistics are just to entertain myself, really. Perhaps I simply have more to talk about now, or make more to talk about. Or don't care about having anything to talk about or not and post regardless!
As commented on Monday, I was trying to do a bit more exercise (read: some exercise). This has so far resulted in me going for a run in the morning on Monday through Wednesday, with gradually improving results. A brief play with a finger as a measuring device and googlemaps estimate my circular route to be around 2.5km which isn't terrible - especially considering by Wednesday I was managing to slowly jog round the first 1.8km without a break, a drastic improvement on my run-then-walk-and-wheeze approach from Monday! A more realistic pace admittedly helped with this.
No running this morning because my back was slept on odd so twinging. Hopefully more again next week, we'll see how it goes!
As an interesting contrast, it's taken me a little under a year (335 days) to go from blog #201 to blog #300. It took me far longer to go from blog #1 to blog #100 (496 days), although not as long as from blog #101 to blog #200 (a lengthy 528 days). All these pointless statistics are just to entertain myself, really. Perhaps I simply have more to talk about now, or make more to talk about. Or don't care about having anything to talk about or not and post regardless!
As commented on Monday, I was trying to do a bit more exercise (read: some exercise). This has so far resulted in me going for a run in the morning on Monday through Wednesday, with gradually improving results. A brief play with a finger as a measuring device and googlemaps estimate my circular route to be around 2.5km which isn't terrible - especially considering by Wednesday I was managing to slowly jog round the first 1.8km without a break, a drastic improvement on my run-then-walk-and-wheeze approach from Monday! A more realistic pace admittedly helped with this.
No running this morning because my back was slept on odd so twinging. Hopefully more again next week, we'll see how it goes!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Lies and Damn Lies
This morning I was reading an article on how right wing pressure groups in the US, opposed to healthcare reform, are using statistics on the NHS as proof of the 'great evil' that is socialised medicine. Some of these statistics are true, some are grounded in truth, and others are just plain manufactured. But statistics can be used to make any point when used like this.
To me, the only statistic that matters is this: in the UK, 100% of people have access to healthcare - regardless of wealth, employment status, employer, length of employment or previous medical conditions. Oh, and not to bring rankings into this, but American healthcare is ranked only 37th in the world. Those are the statistics this debate should be about.
To me, the only statistic that matters is this: in the UK, 100% of people have access to healthcare - regardless of wealth, employment status, employer, length of employment or previous medical conditions. Oh, and not to bring rankings into this, but American healthcare is ranked only 37th in the world. Those are the statistics this debate should be about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
