Our Lands
Thursday, November 20, 2008--Andis Kaulins [11/20/2008 08:59:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
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:
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
Family
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
Methodology"
For further information we refer to the contact data found at the end of the First Findings publication:
Teresa Renehan, Information Liaison Officer:
ter@eurofound.europa.eu
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions
Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland
Telephone: (+353 1) 204 31 00
Email: postmaster@eurofound.europa.eu
Website: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu
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
Family
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
Methodology"
For further information we refer to the contact data found at the end of the First Findings publication:
Teresa Renehan, Information Liaison Officer:
ter@eurofound.europa.eu
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions
Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland
Telephone: (+353 1) 204 31 00
Email: postmaster@eurofound.europa.eu
Website: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu
PermalinkAndis Kaulins [11/20/2008 11:44:00 AM] - Home - About - Our Book
THE YPPSYS DIVISION I-A FBS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS for the 2008 SEASON : After the 12th WEEK of Play
THE YPPSYS DIVISION I-A FBS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS for the 2008 SEASON
(after the 12th week of play)
THE YPPSYS DIVISION I-A FBS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS
(This is after the 12th week of play. NAYPPA (net average yards per play advantage) is calculated according to CFBSTATS.COM. Schedule Difficulty is the ranking according to Massey Ratings. One-tenth of the schedule ranking is substracted from the NAYPPA of Division I-A FBS schools. For Division I-AA FCS the multiple is .15. For Division II and Division II schools the multiple is .20. Note that if a team allows 5 or more yards per play on defense an additional .1 is substracted from the rating; if 6 yards per play or more are allowed,then .2 is subtracted. MOV means margin of victory ranking according to the Massey Ratings, but we do not use it here in the calculations.
THE YPPSYS DIVISION I-A FBS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS for the 2008 SEASON : After the 12th WEEK of Play
THE YPPSYS DIVISION I-A FBS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS for the 2008 SEASON
(after the 12th week of play)
THE YPPSYS DIVISION I-A FBS COLLEGE FOOTBALL RATINGS
(This is after the 12th week of play. NAYPPA (net average yards per play advantage) is calculated according to CFBSTATS.COM. Schedule Difficulty is the ranking according to Massey Ratings. One-tenth of the schedule ranking is substracted from the NAYPPA of Division I-A FBS schools. For Division I-AA FCS the multiple is .15. For Division II and Division II schools the multiple is .20. Note that if a team allows 5 or more yards per play on defense an additional .1 is substracted from the rating; if 6 yards per play or more are allowed,then .2 is subtracted. MOV means margin of victory ranking according to the Massey Ratings, but we do not use it here in the calculations.
TEAM | NAYPPA | SCH | W-L | MOV | YPPSYS | YPPSYS |
| USC | 3.2 | 30 | 9-1 | 5 | 2.7 | 1 |
| Florida | 2.5 | 4 | 9-1 | 4 | 2.3 | 2 |
| Boise State | 2.3 | 108 | 10-0 | 9 | 1.2 | 7 |
| Penn State | 2.3 | 71 | 10-1 | 6 | 1.4 | 5 |
| Texas Tech | 2.3 | 25 | 10-0 | 1 | 1.9 | 3 |
| Missouri | 2.1 | 37 | 9-2 | 11 | 1.2 | 6 |
| Oklahoma | 2.1 | 26 | 9-1 | 5 | 1.6 | 4 |
| Ball State | 1.9 | 121 | 10-0 | 13 | 0.5 | 13 |
| Oklahoma St. | 1.9 | 31 | 9-2 | 7 | 1.1 | 9 |
| Tulsa | 1.8 | 114 | 8-2 | 49 | 0.1 | 20 |
| Georgia | 1.7 | 6 | 9-2 | 4 | 1.1 | 8 |
| Houston | 1.6 | 106 | 6-4 | 60 | -0.4 | 34 |
| Alabama | 1.5 | 51 | 11-0 | 8 | 1.0 | 10 |
| TCU | 1.5 | 65 | 9-2 | 15 | 0.4 | 15 |
| Georgia Tech | 1.4 | 39 | 7-3 | 37 | 0.4 | 14 |
| Oregon | 1.4 | 64 | 8-3 | 22 | 0.2 | 18 |
| BYU | 1.3 | 84 | 10-1 | 19 | 0.2 | 19 |
| Florida St. | 1.3 | 45 | 7-3 | 32 | 0.2 | 17 |
| Iowa | 1.3 | 53 | 7-4 | 24 | 0.0 | 23 |
| Nevada | 1.2 | 74 | 6-4 | 58 | -0.4 | 33 |
| Texas | 1.2 | 1 | 10-1 | 2 | 0.9 | 11 |
| Troy | 1.2 | 113 | 6-4 | 73 | -0.7 | 41 |
| Utah | 1.2 | 67 | 11-0 | 12 | 0.5 | 12 |
| Illinois | 1.1 | 57 | 5-6 | 56 | -0.8 | 43 |
| Oregon St. | 1.1 | 23 | 7-3 | 16 | 0.3 | 16 |
| W. Virginia | 1.1 | 55 | 6-3 | 38 | -0.1 | 28 |
| California | 1.0 | 18 | 6-4 | 30 | 0.0 | 21 |
| Mississippi | 1.0 | 21 | 6-4 | 28 | -0.1 | 25 |
| South Florida | 1.0 | 72 | 6-4 | 65 | -0.5 | 35 |
| Arizona | 0.9 | 83 | 6-4 | 45 | -0.7 | 40 |
| Cincinnati | 0.9 | 69 | 8-2 | 20 | -0.2 | 31 |
| Clemson | 0.9 | 17 | 5-5 | 54 | -0.3 | 32 |
| Ohio State | 0.9 | 48 | 9-2 | 10 | 0.0 | 22 |
| Arkansas St. | 0.8 | 117 | 4-5 | 110 | -1.5 | 59 |
| Nebraska | 0.8 | 9 | 7-4 | 18 | -0.2 | 29 |
| LSU | 0.7 | 22 | 7-3 | 25 | -0.1 | 26 |
| West. Michigan | 0.7 | 112 | 9-2 | 31 | -0.9 | 46 |
| Baylor | 0.6 | 15 | 4-7 | 62 | -1.1 | 49 |
| Connecticut | 0.6 | 58 | 7-3 | 33 | -0.6 | 36 |
| Florida Atlantic | 0.6 | 105 | 5-5 | 101 | -1.6 | 62 |
| Miami of Florida | 0.6 | 16 | 7-3 | 23 | -0.2 | 30 |
| North Carolina | 0.6 | 7 | 7-3 | 21 | -0.1 | 24 |
| Louis.-Lafayette | 0.6 | 118 | 5-5 | 100 | -1.8 | 67 |
| Wisconsin | 0.6 | 34 | 6-5 | 40 | -0.9 | 44 |
| Notre Dame | 0.5 | 50 | 6-5 | 50 | -0.1 | 27 |
| Kansas | 0.4 | 19 | 6-5 | 39 | -0.9 | 45 |
| Maryland | 0.4 | 36 | 7-3 | 41 | -0.7 | 38 |
| Pittsburgh | 0.4 | 59 | 7-2 | 27 | -0.7 | 39 |
| Akron | 0.3 | 89 | 5-5 | 81 | -1.7 | 65 |
| Arizona State | 0.3 | 54 | 4-6 | 78 | -1.4 | 54 |
| Boston College | 0.3 | 49 | 7-3 | 26 | -0.8 | 42 |
| Fresno State | 0.3 | 86 | 6-4 | 77 | -1.5 | 58 |
| Louisville | 0.3 | 79 | 5-5 | 94 | -1.6 | 61 |
| Northern Illinois | 0.3 | 109 | 5-5 | 83 | -1.9 | 70 |
| Tennessee | 0.3 | 28 | 3-7 | 104 | -1.4 | 53 |
| Air Force | 0.3 | 73 | 8-3 | 48 | -1.0 | 48 |
| South Carolina | 0.2 | 12 | 7-4 | 29 | -0.7 | 37 |
| Bowling Green | 0.1 | 101 | 5-5 | 80 | -2.0 | 72 |
| Michigan State | 0.1 | 56 | 9-2 | 17 | -1.0 | 47 |
| Ohio | 0.1 | 98 | 2-8 | 133 | -2.6 | 91 |
| East Carolina | 0.0 | 77 | 6-4 | 68 | -1.7 | 64 |
| Kent State | 0.0 | 119 | 3-7 | 121 | -2.7 | 98 |
| Northwestern | 0.0 | 70 | 8-3 | 35 | -1.3 | 51 |
| Rutgers | 0.0 | 41 | 5-5 | 47 | -1.5 | 57 |
| Southern Miss | 0.0 | 91 | 5-6 | 85 | -2.2 | 79 |
| New Mexico | -0.1 | 52 | 4-8 | 107 | -2.2 | 76 |
| Rice | -0.1 | 94 | 7-3 | 55 | -1.8 | 66 |
| Stanford | -0.1 | 46 | 5-6 | 63 | -1.9 | 69 |
| Navy | -0.1 | 68 | 6-4 | 53 | -1.7 | 63 |
| Auburn | -0.2 | 66 | 5-6 | 79 | -2.1 | 73 |
| New Mexico St. | -0.2 | 96 | 3-7 | 136 | -2.7 | 96 |
| Toledo | -0.2 | 76 | 2-8 | 128 | -2.7 | 94 |
| Wyoming | -0.2 | 78 | 4-7 | 119 | -2.4 | 86 |
| Arkansas | -0.3 | 11 | 4-6 | 69 | -1.6 | 60 |
| Louisiana Tech | -0.3 | 88 | 6-4 | 82 | -2.1 | 74 |
| Marshall | -0.3 | 99 | 4-6 | 111 | -2.6 | 92 |
| San Jose State | -0.3 | 87 | 6-5 | 95 | -2.2 | 78 |
| Florida Int'l | -0.4 | 103 | 4-5 | 103 | -2.5 | 88 |
| Hawaii | -0.4 | 35 | 5-5 | 74 | -1.9 | 68 |
| Indiana | -0.4 | 62 | 3-8 | 118 | -2.7 | 93 |
| Kansas State | -0.4 | 33 | 4-7 | 84 | -2.3 | 82 |
| Memphis | -0.4 | 111 | 5-5 | 105 | -2.7 | 97 |
| Purdue | -0.4 | 24 | 3-8 | 91 | -2.3 | 81 |
| Virginia Tech | -0.4 | 13 | 6-4 | 36 | -1.4 | 52 |
| Virginia | -0.4 | 2 | 5-5 | 51 | -1.5 | 55 |
| Wake Forest | -0.4 | 5 | 6-4 | 42 | -1.3 | 50 |
| Buffalo | -0.5 | 81 | 6-4 | 57 | -2.3 | 83 |
| Cent. Michigan | -0.5 | 97 | 8-2 | 44 | -2.1 | 75 |
| Kentucky | -0.5 | 44 | 6-5 | 61 | -2.0 | 71 |
| Minnesota | -0.5 | 75 | 7-4 | 52 | -2.2 | 77 |
| Mississippi St. | -0.5 | 47 | 3-7 | 109 | -2.4 | 85 |
| Temple | -0.5 | 80 | 3-7 | 99 | -2.8 | 101 |
| Vanderbilt | -0.5 | 14 | 6-4 | 43 | -1.5 | 56 |
| Michigan | -0.6 | 32 | 3-8 | 92 | -2.6 | 90 |
| UTEP | -0.6 | 92 | 5-5 | 88 | -2.7 | 95 |
| Army | -0.6 | 95 | 3-7 | 122 | -3.1 | 105 |
| Colorado State | -0.7 | 38 | 5-6 | 86 | -2.5 | 87 |
| Mid. Tennessee | -0.7 | 104 | 4-6 | 114 | -3.0 | 104 |
| West. Kentucky | -0.7 | 110 | 2-9 | 185 | -3.7 | 110 |
| Tulane | -0.8 | 90 | 2-8 | 163 | -3.5 | 108 |
| UCLA | -0.9 | 63 | 4-6 | 93 | -2.8 | 100 |
| Utah State | -0.9 | 29 | 2-9 | 134 | -3.2 | 106 |
| Duke | -1.0 | 3 | 4-6 | 71 | -2.3 | 80 |
| East. Michigan | -1.0 | 100 | 2-8 | 146 | -2.9 | 103 |
| UNLV | -1.0 | 40 | 5-6 | 87 | -2.8 | 99 |
| N. C. State | -1.0 | 10 | 4-6 | 75 | -2.4 | 84 |
| SMU | -1.0 | 82 | 1-10 | 172 | -4.0 | 113 |
| Texas A&M | -1.0 | 27 | 4-7 | 89 | -2.9 | 102 |
| Colorado | -1.1 | 20 | 5-6 | 76 | -2.6 | 89 |
| UCF | -1.2 | 85 | 3-7 | 117 | -3.5 | 107 |
| Miami of Ohio | -1.2 | 93 | 2-8 | 141 | -3.8 | 111 |
| Louis.-Monroe | -1.3 | 120 | 3-8 | 148 | -4.3 | 116 |
| UAB | -1.4 | 116 | 3-7 | 137 | -4.3 | 115 |
| Iowa State | -1.4 | 61 | 2-9 | 126 | -4.0 | 112 |
| Syracuse | -1.4 | 43 | 2-8 | 135 | -3.6 | 109 |
| San Diego State | -1.5 | 60 | 1-10 | 171 | -4.3 | 114 |
| Idaho | -1.7 | 102 | 2-9 | 178 | -4.7 | 117 |
| North Texas | -2.2 | 107 | 1-9 | 198 | -5.4 | 119 |
| Washington | -2.5 | 8 | 0-10 | 169 | -4.8 | 118 |
| Washington St. | -3.0 | 42 | 1-10 | 174 | -5.6 | 120 |
| | | | | | | |
| Other Divisions | | x 1.5/10 | | | | |
| James Madison | 115 | 9-1 | 34 | -0.4 | | |
| Appalachian St. | 127 | 9-2 | 70 | -0.5 | | |
| Weber State | 139 | 9-2 | 64 | -0.7 | | |
| Villanova | 0.5 | 124 | 8-2 | 72 | -1.8 | |
| Richmond | 1.6 | 126 | 8-3 | 67 | -0.9 | |
| Wofford | 1.9 | 132 | 8-2 | 96 | -0.6 | |
| Montana | 0.9 | 148 | 10-1 | 59 | -1.6 | |
| | | x 2/10 | | | | |
| Abil. Christian | 4.0 (!) | 190 | 10-0 | 46 | 0.2 | ! |
| Grand Valley St. | 2.8 | 259 | 10-0 | 116 | -2.4 | |
| North Alabama | 2.5 | 285 | 10-1 | 138 | -3.4 | |
| Valdosta State | 1.7 | 278 | 9-2 | 184 | -4.3 | |
| NW Missouri St. | 2.2 | 198 | 10-1 | 108 | -2.0 | |
| Mount Union (Division III) | 5.2 (!) | 387 | 10-0 | 106 | -2.5 | ! |
Andis Kaulins [11/20/2008 02:47:00 AM] - Home - About - Our Book
Photo Blog of the World
Photo Blog of the World
Andis Kaulins [11/20/2008 12:52:00 AM] - Home - About - Our Book
Brackets NCAA Football Championship Playoffs 2008 : Division II - D2 and Division III - D3
Playoff brackets for NCAA Football Playoffs in 2008 for Division II (D2) and Division III (D3) are found at the following links:
Division II - D2
Division III - D3
Brackets NCAA Football Championship Playoffs 2008 : Division II - D2 and Division III - D3
Playoff brackets for NCAA Football Playoffs in 2008 for Division II (D2) and Division III (D3) are found at the following links:
Division II - D2
Division III - D3
Tuesday, November 18, 2008--Andis Kaulins [11/18/2008 01:20:00 PM] - Home - About - Our Book
YPPSYS College Football Game Predictions and Results - 2008 Season - Week 13 - Week and Weekend of Saturday, November 22, 2008
There is no way that Alabama should be ranked Number 1 this year. The pollsters are favoring a weak SEC whose Tennessee lost to Wyoming and whose LSU trailed Troy State 31-3 in the 3rd quarter. According to the Massey Ratings, the Crimson Tide has played only the 51st hardest schedule in Division I-A FBS football and according to Sagarin the 72nd hardest schedule. In spite of that, their net yards per play average is substantially below figures achieved by teams that have played a much tougher schedule. A team like Texas for example, who Massey ranks as having played the toughest schedule in the country this year thus far, has played four top 10 teams and beaten three. Alabama has yet to play a top ten team this year. That they have improved over last year's 7-6 record (no game was lost by more than one TD) is clear, but that they are really not the best team in the country is not in doubt in this quarter, and there are easily 5 or 6 teams in the nation that would be favored against them in direct competition, especially because the Alabama offense is nothing to shout about. Indeed, there is little doubt that Florida will be favored against them in the SEC championship game. If Alabama ever falls behind in the score against a good offensive ball club like Florida, it will probably be over except for the shouting. The trouble is, if Florida beats the Crimson Tide in the SEC championship game, as they seem likely to do, Florida too will then be ranked Number 1 because of the SEC poll and ranking bias. In fact, the SEC ranks only 3rd this year in actual conference performance. Indeed, by pure points, the Big 12 has 4 teams in the top 10 and 5 total in the top 20 whereas the SEC has but 1 team in the top 10 and 2 total in the top 20 this year. How then can Alabama be rated Number One? Frankly, we do not understand it.
Last week we went 38-12 in calling the winner of the game and 27-21-2 against the point spread. Our record for the season is 557-175 in calling the winner and 256-240-7 against the spread. We are beating almost all systems listed at the College Football Prediction Tracker. Here are our predictions for the current week which has great matchups and several games in which we go directly against the point spread and even the pick of winner, using our YPPSYS (tm) system.
YPPSYS (tm) College Football Game Predictions and Results - 2008 Season - Week 13 - Week and Weekend of Saturday, November 22, 2008. Odds are taken from the 10:41 A.M. version of the College Football Prediction Tracker from Tuesday, November 18, 2008 (aside: Latvian Independenc
YPPSYS College Football Game Predictions and Results - 2008 Season - Week 13 - Week and Weekend of Saturday, November 22, 2008
There is no way that Alabama should be ranked Number 1 this year. The pollsters are favoring a weak SEC whose Tennessee lost to Wyoming and whose LSU trailed Troy State 31-3 in the 3rd quarter. According to the Massey Ratings, the Crimson Tide has played only the 51st hardest schedule in Division I-A FBS football and according to Sagarin the 72nd hardest schedule. In spite of that, their net yards per play average is substantially below figures achieved by teams that have played a much tougher schedule. A team like Texas for example, who Massey ranks as having played the toughest schedule in the country this year thus far, has played four top 10 teams and beaten three. Alabama has yet to play a top ten team this year. That they have improved over last year's 7-6 record (no game was lost by more than one TD) is clear, but that they are really not the best team in the country is not in doubt in this quarter, and there are easily 5 or 6 teams in the nation that would be favored against them in direct competition, especially because the Alabama offense is nothing to shout about. Indeed, there is little doubt that Florida will be favored against them in the SEC championship game. If Alabama ever falls behind in the score against a good offensive ball club like Florida, it will probably be over except for the shouting. The trouble is, if Florida beats the Crimson Tide in the SEC championship game, as they seem likely to do, Florida too will then be ranked Number 1 because of the SEC poll and ranking bias. In fact, the SEC ranks only 3rd this year in actual conference performance. Indeed, by pure points, the Big 12 has 4 teams in the top 10 and 5 total in the top 20 whereas the SEC has but 1 team in the top 10 and 2 total in the top 20 this year. How then can Alabama be rated Number One? Frankly, we do not understand it.
Last week we went 38-12 in calling the winner of the game and 27-21-2 against the point spread. Our record for the season is 557-175 in calling the winner and 256-240-7 against the spread. We are beating almost all systems listed at the College Football Prediction Tracker. Here are our predictions for the current week which has great matchups and several games in which we go directly against the point spread and even the pick of winner, using our YPPSYS (tm) system.
YPPSYS (tm) College Football Game Predictions and Results - 2008 Season - Week 13 - Week and Weekend of Saturday, November 22, 2008. Odds are taken from the 10:41 A.M. version of the College Football Prediction Tracker from Tuesday, November 18, 2008 (aside: Latvian Independenc