When science became a profession instead of an avocation, there were some unintended consequences. Scientists began to lose touch with the public. When a scientist goes to work doing science for a living, he or she sometimes takes public support for granted, thinking the work is justified for its own sake. Recent articles, however, warn scientists and scientific institutions to re-think their presumed authority. They need to start acting more accountable to the public who expects a return on investment. Part of the need for scientists to re-evaluate their status comes from mistakes and surprises. Society looks to scientists to understand the world, but often, they are caught off guard or backtracking on previously well-established theories. In today’s news, for instance, the BBC said that astronomers are “mystified” by high-energy gamma rays seen coming from the Crab Nebula. Space.com says this burst “defies explanation.” Many of the findings from the Cassini Mission to Saturn, like the Enceladus geysers and the lack of an ethane ocean on Titan, contradicted predictions and still have no explanation. PhysOrg reported that the discovery of hot Jupiters (gas giants orbiting near other stars) orbiting backwards “so obviously violates our most basic picture of planet and star formation.” Another embarrassment comes when the public comes to believe, or scientists admit, that their projects were not worth doing in the first place. For instance, the political push for biofuels is well known, but PhysOrg reported on a study that shows that conventional fossil fuels are sometimes greener than biofuels, when their entire carbon footprint is measured. Remember the promises of artificial intelligence (AI)? PhysOrg reminded readers that back in the 1950s and 60s, “hopes were high that tools emerging from the new science of computation would soon unravel the mysteries of human thought.” Since then, AI research has had to dramatically reduce its aspirations; “As the computational complexity of even the most common human cognitive tasks became clear, however, researchers trimmed their sails,” the article admitted, quoting one researcher who couldn’t imagine building a robot able to reach into its pocket for its keys. Embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce one actual treatment despite soaring promises, and the Human Genome Project, while generating a great deal of knowledge, similarly failed to simplify our understanding of human diseases. Last week, Science News reported that “Evolutionary literary criticism” (see 01/27/2006) has flopped, remaining unpopular in the university. To be sure, any investigation of the unknown is going to have problems and setbacks. But when the public pays for it, or when parents pay big bucks to have their children sit under science professors, they have reason to expect some return on investment. This was emphasized in a Nature editorial this week,1 “Value judgements.” Members of the public are stake-holders in science, the editors admitted; their values cannot be ignored. Scientists cannot just assume that the old canard of “knowledge for its own sake” will sell. A recent symposium published by the journal Minerva raised awareness of this:Policy-makers, funders and scientists should take note. For example, a paper by Ryan Meyer, also a policy scientist at Arizona State University, focuses on the failure of the US government’s Global Change Research Program to deliver broad public value (Minerva 49, 47�70; 2011). Basing his studies on public statements and private interviews with researchers and political decision-makers, Meyer says that US climate programmes have in the past two decades benefited from public investment of more than US$30 billion, but have largely failed to produce information and participation in the forms that policy-makers and the public wanted. The notion that society considers any advance in knowledge to be inherently good – even if the science fails to meet the objectives and priorities it was meant to address – cannot be sustained, says Meyer.The editorial reflected on post-normal science: “Science becomes ‘post-normal’ when facts are uncertain, stakes high, values in dispute and decisions urgent; in such cases, societal needs must be taken into account to avoid costly mistakes.” The controversies about climate science come to mind. The editors pointed to climate science as an example; “But, according to the workshop participants, most climate researchers continue to act as if purely scientific values are, and will always be, adequate to set the agenda.” The editors of Nature agree with the scientific consensus on climate science, but realize that scientists have lost the public trust on the matter. This pointed up another unintended consequence of the professionalism of science: scientists became a special-interest group, seeking their own priorities instead of those of society:More importantly, these studies highlight a significant deficit in current typical appraisals of science and technology outcomes. They should serve as cautionary tales about the danger of scientists’ interests, deliberately or otherwise, becoming too dominant in determining outcomes. And they introduce ways to assess failures in social returns on investment that, one can only hope, will help to improve science’s public value.How did science become professionalized in the first place? The Scientist presented an essay by historian of science by Laura J. Snyder. “In the 19th century, four friends changed the way scientists viewed themselves,” the subtitle of her essay begins. She believes, “It’s time for another shake-up.” Those four friends, featured in her new book The Philosophical Breakfast Club (Broadway Books, 2011), were William Whewell (who coined the term scientist), Charles Babbage, John Herschel, and Richard Jones. “Each of the four men was brilliant, self-assured, and possessed of the optimism of the age,” Snyder said. It was these four, who met for “Philosophical Breakfasts” to discuss the status of science, who were most influential in transforming science “from the province of the amateur—the clergyman collecting fossils or beetles in his spare hours, or the wealthy gentleman conducting electrical experiments at his country estate—to the career of the professional: trained at the university, published in specialized journals, and admitted to associations open only to fellow professionals.” Darwin, for instance, rode the wave that elevated the scientist to the revered professional. But then Snyder pointed out that the achievement of these four philosophers led to a serious problem plaguing science in our day:One of the unintended consequences of the revolution wrought by the Philosophical Breakfast Club has been that the professional scientist is now less interested in, and perhaps less capable of, connecting with the broader public, sharing the new discoveries and theories that most excite the scientific community. Although there are some notable exceptions, today’s researcher has been less adept than the Victorian-era natural philosopher at engaging the public—and this estranged the general public from science. In part this is because the scientific establishment discourages its members from writing popular books and articles, considering these projects unserious, even frivolous, diversions from the real work of research. But this attitude has to change in order to mend the ever-deepening rift between science and the rest of modern culture. Today’s scientist should strive to be more like the 19th-century natural philosopher—ironically, more like those very men who created the modern scientist.1. Editorial, “Value judgements,” Nature 473 (12 May 2011), pp. 123�124, doi:10.1038/473123b.The points are well taken, but Snyder and the editors of Nature ignore a couple of realities: one, that many members of the public are just as informed, intelligent, and worthy of being heard as professional scientists, and two, that not all sciences are epistemically equal. Much in biochemistry is testable and repeatable, for instance, but theories of the origin of the universe or the evolution of life are not. A third oversight is that information flows one way: from scientist to public. There needs to be a two-way dialogue. The label scientist is an honored badge that attracts many who do not deserve to wear it. We would include evolutionists as among the worst who take on the label but provide no return on investment to society – in fact, who do much to misuse and harm society while bragging about their status as scientists. A PhD confers no more authority on a scientist than a real estate license does on a realtor; it depends on what the indivdiual person does with the skills and learning they acquired. The legacy of the Philosophical Breakfast Club is interesting history; clearly, however, much has happened since then. It would be unrealistic, if not ridiculous, to expect science today to go back to being a part-time hobby of clergymen and wealthy gentlemen, not just because many scientists these days are female. The complexity of science has grown enormously since the days of Babbage, Herschel and Whewell (Scientist of the Month for Nov 2010). It takes money and large teams to do spacecraft, giant telescopes and genomics. We’re stuck with big science and professionalism. There’s something to be said though, for more private involvement in science. Consider the benefactor-funded origin of the Palomar Observatory, and today’s private-enterprise space projects. Look, too, at the good work being done by citizen scientists (PhysOrg). If the root meaning of science is knowledge, any human has the freedom and obligation to increase it. Better a field amateur with years of observations than an armchair professor pontificating from his PhD microphone. Even if the professionalization of science has had unintended consequences, those consequences are not insurmountable. Increased scrutiny, accountability, and humility by scientists are worthy steps. We mean no insult to the many honorable scientists using their position for good, doing honest work each day, and providing society with a good return on investment. Professional scientists need to realize, though, they they must earn their wings each day. Not everything they do is scientific, and not everything a non-scientist does is unscientific. A scientist speaking outside his or her area of knowledge can have opinions no better than those of anyone else. One of the best correctives would be to have the media get out of the lap of scientific institutions and turn their critical-thinking scopes on science with the aid of philosophers, ethicists and taxpayer-watchdog groups. It’s time to doubt the presumptive authority of science and call scientists to reveal their assumptions, justify their methods, face their critics honestly, and serve society rather than preach to it.(Visited 15 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
One living fossil and one dead fossil strain the credibility of evolutionary dates and mechanisms.Cuttlefish melanin: PhysOrg reported on intact melanin from the ink sac of a Jurassic-era cuttlefish (see also 8/20/02, 5/21/12) . The spectrum of the melanin matches that from a living specimen. The article did not question why an organic substance would be expected to survive for 160 million years. It just assumed that it did, and launched into a speculation: “Because melanin survives so long, an analysis of the melanin from old cancerous tissue samples could give researchers a useful tool for predicting the spread of melanoma skin cancer in humans.”Israeli frog: The Hula painted frog (no, it does not use a Hula-Hoop), feared extinct 60 years ago, has been rediscovered in Israel, reported the BBC News and National Geographic. Thought to be a casualty of the draining of wetlands in the Hula Valley in northern Israel, this strange-looking brown amphibian with white spots on its belly caused a stir of excitement when a frog, a kind of “idol of Israel” was found alive two years ago. Thirteen more have since been seen, leading to estimates of a couple of hundred remaining alive.That’s good news, but not the only point of interest: it’s also a “living fossil.” According to the evolutionary timeline, members of the Latonia group of frogs didn’t learn to keep evolving. National Geographic commented, “the Hula painted frog is considered a rare example of a so-called living fossil, an organism that has retained the same form over millions of years and that has few or no living relatives.” The BBC article said, “These frogs were once widespread throughout Europe for millions of years, but all apart from the Hula painted frog died out about 15,000 years ago.” That would appear to make this frog a member of “Lazarus taxa,” groups thought extinct long ago only to be found alive and well today.National Geographic erred by claiming that “Only about a dozen other ‘living fossils’ are known, the most famous of which may be the coelacanth, an ancient fish that can trace its ancestry back to the days of the dinosaurs.” As explained on CMI, Dr. Carl Werner has documented hundreds of them. Not only that, Dr. Werner has documented 432 mammal fossils (100 of them complete skeletons) in Cretaceous strata—almost as many species as dinosaurs. He has also found representatives of modern plants, crustaceans and insects in dinosaur rocks, as his video explains. Yet in 60 museums he visited, not a single one displayed a complete Cretaceous mammal fossil, or any modern animal or plant displayed with the dinosaurs.We agree with what Dr. Werner said in the CMI article:For example, if a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science. (Visited 36 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte Still, it’s only one loss just four games into the season and De Jesus wants his team to put the defeat behind and bounce back immediately.“I told them that they have to bounce back and it’s important that we won’t let any team beat us again,” said De Jesus. “Our first goal is to bounce back, we shouldn’t think about the championship at this point and instead we should find a way to recover from this.”Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Ramil de Jesus. Photo by Tristan Tamayo/INQUIRER.netMANILA, Philippines—De La Salle’s unbeaten run came to an end when it suffered an upset loss to University of the Philippines in five sets, 21-25, 25-20, 25-21, 20-25, 15-12, Saturday at Smart Araneta Coliseum.Lady Spikers head coach Ramil De Jesus said the setback wasn’t much attributed to their opponents’ superior skills but to the Lady Maroons’ better team chemistry.ADVERTISEMENT Chief Justice Peralta on upcoming UAAP game: UP has no match against UST PLAY LIST 01:00Chief Justice Peralta on upcoming UAAP game: UP has no match against UST02:25PH women’s volleyball team motivated to deliver in front of hometown crowd04:26Deaf personalities everyone should know02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss P2.5 B shabu seized in Makati sting, Chinese national nabbed Hong Kong tunnel reopens, campus siege nears end Trump campaign, GOP groups attack Google’s new ad policy P2.5 B shabu seized in Makati sting, Chinese national nabbed Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting LATEST STORIES UST star Milena Alessandrini feared to have suffered partially torn ACL 1 dead, 3 injured in Quezon road crash “It came to a point that our opponents showed their cohesiveness on the floor because there are times when we’ll receive easy balls but it would end up being a point for UP because we lacked communication on the floor,” said De Jesus in Filipino.The loss meant the Lady Spikers now have to share the top spot with the Lady Maroons with identical 3-1 records.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSUrgent reply from Philippine football chiefSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption chargesDe Jesus added that his team also failed take advantage of opportunities.“We were in good situations but we couldn’t capitalize, and we have to fix that,” said De Jesus. “This was also the first time this season that my players encountered an opponent that wanted to badly beat us. That was one of factors, UP wanted the win more than us.” Lacson backs proposal to elect president and vice president in tandem MOST READ Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. View comments
About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Chelsea ace Hazard: I’ve changed the approach to my careerby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveChelsea ace Eden Hazard admits he’s taken better care of his body in recent years.Hazard has been with Chelsea since 2012.”Football is my job, but I enjoyed it 20 years ago, I enjoyed it 10 years ago and I enjoy it now. In that respect I haven’t changed a lot.”I prepare for games exactly the same as I did when I was younger. But now the difference is that I am getting older and I need to take more care of my body. I work a bit in the gym with the physio. Five years ago I just enjoyed training and then I went home.”Now I take my time. Recovery sessions are important for me now. That’s the big change, but after that I’m the same guy, with the same happiness on the pitch.”
TagsTransfersAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Chelsea ACCEPT fourth bid from Bayern Munich for Callum Hudson-Odoiby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveChelsea have accepted a fourth bid from Bayern Munich for Callum Hudson-Odoi, it has been revealed.Sky Deutschland says Bayern’s offer of €40m has seen Chelsea agree terms over the 18 year-old’s sale. The decision being made just hours before Hudson-Odoi shone in defeat last night at Tottenham for the first-leg of their Carabao Cup semifinal.The sticking point now is whether the teen leaves for Bayern immediately or whether he plays out the season in England before joining the Germans in June.For their part, Chelsea would prefer Hudson-Odoi stay given his recent contribution to manager Maurizio Sarri’s team.
Quick — which NBA player is most integral to his team’s offense? Which player shoulders the biggest offensive burden? And to what degree are those questions even equivalent?Statistically, such concerns fall under the umbrella of “usage rate,” a term that colloquially describes an entire class of metrics tasked with quantifying the size of a player’s offensive role. Usage is one of the most accessible concepts in basketball analytics — rock-simple in its purview and relatable to anyone who’s ever played with a shameless ball hog or been a terrified freshman playing hot potato. In statsier circles, usage is a staple of player analysis, in part because it remains relatively constant amid a player’s shifting contexts and roles. At a glance, usage says more about how a player plays than most other basic basketball metrics.One small problem: Nobody seems to agree about what exactly usage rate is, or should be, or how it is calculated. Many analytics-minded observers don’t even know there are different, competing versions of the statistic in popular use, much less that each variant has its own philosophy about what it means to “use” a possession. For a term so common to the modern hoops lexicon, that’s more than a little strange. So let’s have ourselves a little history lesson and learn much more than you ever wanted to know about usage rate, in all its permutations.Usage through the yearsLike many concepts in basketball analytics, usage rate can be traced back to Dean Oliver and John Hollinger, still probably the field’s two most influential figures. The notion that too much (or too little) offense could flow through an individual player is as old as the game itself, but it’s hard to find anyone formally putting a number on the phenomenon before the early-to-mid-2000s, when Hollinger published his inaugural “Pro Basketball Prospectus” and Oliver wrote the seminal “Basketball On Paper.” In fact, the thought of listing a player’s rate of possession-usage at all — let alone as something other than a purely negative indicator — was alien to many of the early hoops number-crunchers.To understand why, it’s useful to look back at the primordial era of basketball metrics. NBA statheads cribbed many of their early concepts from baseball’s sabermetric movement — which effectively had a 25-year head start — including a tunnel-visioned focus on maximizing efficiency. Such a fixation makes sense in baseball, where a player’s susceptibility to making outs is unambiguously negative — you get 27 of them each game, to be guarded vigilantly — and you can draw a straight line between a player’s individual efficiency and his effect on the team. Hence the reasoning, as applied to basketball: If possessions, like outs, are the sport’s fundamental unit of opportunity, why would we celebrate a player’s propensity for using them up?Basketball is more complicated than baseball, however. Possessions alternate between teams, so at least one player must always have a hand in “using” each of them. More importantly, teammates do not take turns with their opportunities like hitters going through a batting order: Any individual player is free to use as many (or as few) of the team’s possessions as he wants. This provides a lot of complex ways for an individual to help the team beyond his own personal efficiency statistics.One of Oliver and Hollinger’s key insights was that the frequency with which a player generates offense — as proxied by usage rate — is a consideration that should always accompany (and temper) his efficiency metrics. “Some guys … are great shooters and passers, and rarely turn the ball over,” Hollinger wrote, introducing usage in the 2002 edition of his “Prospectus,” predicting the wars he’d fight over Carl Landry half a decade later. “If that’s the case, why don’t people regard them as superstars? The reason is that they cannot create their own shot as often as some other players can.” Usage rate was born out of the effort to quantify said ability to create.Hollinger’s original conception of usage, which can still be found at ESPN.com today, was a relatively simple pace-adjusted rate of shots, assists and turnovers per 40 minutes. Oliver’s, while rooted in the same basic tenets, went to a far more complex place, accounting for the additional possession-extending nature of offensive rebounds and even parceling out fractional credit to the scorer and passer on an assisted basket. But at their most elemental, both attempt to individually account for all the actions that can spell an end to any team possession: made baskets, misses that aren’t rebounded by the offense, free throws and turnovers.Neither Oliver’s nor Hollinger’s interpretation of usage, however, is the preferred version of 2015’s stathead. (At least, not according to this unscientific Twitter poll I conducted Tuesday.) Among the respondents who actually recognized differences between various flavors of usage, nearly twice as many said they use the Basketball-Reference.com (BBR) version as Hollinger’s. (Oliver’s version isn’t widely available online, except for college players.)As the stats are used today, there isn’t much separating the three. Mention that a player’s usage rate or usage percentage is in the high-20s to low-30s and you call to mind a ball-dominant focal point of an offense; drop down an octave, into the low-to-mid-20s, and you instead have a player who creates a good deal of offense but doesn’t dribble the leather off the ball. Whichever version you prefer, usage is in common enough usage that it serves as shorthand for offensive hierarchy.In most every practical application, breaking one or the other down to its atomic particles and recompiling them into the competing version will be pointless; you already get the idea. Still, it remains worthwhile to understand the differences, such as they are, and how those differences inform what it is you’re looking it. Why? Because BBR’s usage metric doesn’t include assists.Confusion reignsFull disclosure: I used to work for Sports-Reference, the company that runs BBR, so I’m close to the situation. And now, a scene from my former life running the company blog at a time when BBR founder Justin Kubatko and I staged nerd fights about this (and other statistical barnacles):ME: “Why do we use Hollinger’s definition of usage instead of Dean Oliver’s?”JUSTIN: “That’s not Hollinger’s. That’s mine.”ME: “It’s not what he uses at ESPN? I thought it was the same definition.”JUSTIN: “No. His multiplies assists by a third.”ME: “I see. But I guess the question still stands.”JUSTIN: “Mine is basically percentage of team plays used. What the heck is his actually measuring?”ME: “It’s trying to measure possessions, and failing. But Oliver’s formula gives us real possessions.”JUSTIN: “They’re not real, either! They’re estimates — better than Hollinger’s, but estimates.”ME: “I’m confused. This is Hollinger’s fault.”For most players, this distinction is largely irrelevant; among qualified players1Minimum 400 minutes. this season, the correlation between BBR usage and Oliver’s more full-bodied formula is 0.98. But for certain types of players, it can matter: It’s the difference, for instance, between claiming that DeMarcus Cousins carries the league’s biggest offensive burden (as he does under BBR’s formula) and giving the distinction to Russell Westbrook (No. 1, according to Oliver and Hollinger). One measures pure scoring affinity; the others factor in ballhandling responsibility while still strictly accounting for the player(s) who served as the conduit for every possession’s end.Neither approach is perfect. Playmaking is obviously a massive part of “creating” offense, and cutting it out entirely isn’t ideal. But just stapling assists onto a scoring metric misses huge chunks of what you’re trying to capture. Plus, heavy ballhandlers tend to have higher turnover rates than would be predicted from how often they end possessions, which suggests that even a completist accounting method such as Oliver’s is missing some fundamental aspect of how passers create shots for others.So with the advent of player-tracking data from SportVU, Seth Partnow of NylonCalculus.com set out to detect the invisible. He developed a statistic called True Usage, which incorporates “assist chances” (so-called “hockey assists,” plus passes that would have been scored as assists if the shot had been made) into the usage mix. The resulting leaderboard is decidedly skewed toward point guards and other primary ballhandlers, like LeBron James. If we’re truly interested in measuring a player’s offensive burden, that probably makes for a more accurate usage framework.The problem, of course, is that the old-hat usage figures are now entrenched in not only the analytic lexicon, but also the updating leaderboards on big industry portals like Basketball-Reference and ESPN. It’s hard to change hearts and minds without first winning over the APIs.From one stat to manyThen again, maybe the entire concept of a one-number “usage rate” has outlived its usefulness, particularly in an age of hyper-detailed SportVU possession stats. We can now see how long a player holds the ball, how often he passes, how many points those passes create — every conceivable piece of the puzzle is out there, if you know where to look. And just about every basketball analytics expert I consulted told me that they preferred a modular approach to usage, with different formulas to measure different aspects of a player’s offensive responsibility.“I don’t use just one usage stat,” Oliver told me. “I do have a shot usage, a field goal usage, and a possession usage stat. Depending on the question being asked, I will look at the one that makes the most sense.”Jacob Rosen, who writes about analytics for Nylon Calculus and the Cleveland sports blog Waiting For Next Year, concurs that today’s all-in-one usage metrics are inadequate. “Like any type of basketball stat, it’s the balance of wanting to push everything into one metric,” Rosen said. “In some ideal world, you’d have a stat that measures the dimensions of possession time, passes, potential assists, turnovers, shots, free throws, etc. But they’re on somewhat different planes of existence.”As a possible alternative to a one-size-fits-all usage formula, Rosen wondered if usage rate’s next step would be to incorporate player typologies, such as the Position-Adjusted Classification (PAC) system developed by current Cleveland Cavaliers Director of Analytics Jon Nichols. “In my mind, having those different dimensions would be more accurate,” Rosen said. “You could perhaps do a PAC definition just with usage-based things alone (i.e., passing, possession, turnovers, shots).”Given the state of today’s tools of observation, Partnow’s True Usage may have struck the best balance between the all-encompassing and the customizable, if not the most widely used and understood.“To me the ideal is True Usage,” Nylon Calculus writer2And FiveThirtyEight contributor. Ian Levy said. “It is as accurate a measure as there is of the quantity of a player’s offensive responsibilities. But the real benefit is that you can parse out the different components to see what comes from playmaking, scoring, turnovers. That’s the ideal — [a] good holistic measure [that’s] also parsable into components for descriptive uses.”If so, maybe we should all just turn our attention toward rebranding campaigns for the other myriad versions of usage rate — “Possession Rate”? “Scoring Attempt Frequency”? — or pester the bosses at ESPN or Basketball-Reference for one more column in the Advanced Stats tab. That is, until basketball’s next data revolution comes and brings with it an even more accurate way to measure offensive workload … which we can promptly christen “usage rate” and start all over again.
In the team’s final meet leading up to the Big Ten Outdoor Championships, some members of the Ohio State men’s track team participated in the Campbell/Wright Invitational Friday and Saturday at the University of Akron. Among the athletes competing for OSU, sophomore Demoye Bogle was the lone winner, finishing first in the 400-meter hurdles in a time of 52.06 seconds. Twin brothers Jeff and Brian Hannaford, OSU athletes who are redshirting their freshman season but competed unattached, took the top two places in the 3,000-meter run with times of 8:37.15 and 8:37.31, respectively. Freshman Devin Smith, who is also a wide receiver on the football team, competed in his first meet of the outdoor season. He finished sixth in the 100-meter dash with a time of 10.86 seconds and fourth in the high jump with a height of 2 meters. Two OSU throwers had runner-up finishes. Redshirt senior Tyler Branch finished second in the shot put with a throw of 17.73 meters, while redshirt senior Matt DeChant finished second in the discus with a throw of 52.27 meters. “This meet was exactly what some of our guys needed to get them ready for next weekend,” interim coach Ed Beathea said in a press release. “I like where we are at and I feel like we are ready for a tough test at the Big Ten Championships at Madison.” The OSU men’s and women’s track teams are competing in the Big Ten Championships in Madison, Wis. on May 11-13.
0 Comments Share “I got the impression being in the locker room last week that all of the pub was about Jacksonville’s defense,” Jurecki said. “Hopefully, the Cardinals use the same kind of energy and juice coming out against the Rams because they have a much better quarterback than Blake Bortles.”Against Jacksonville, Arizona’s success went beyond the defensive performance. Cardinals quarterback Blaine Gabbert made up for two turnovers with pinpoint, clutch tosses to set up a 57-yard Phil Dawson field goal that won the game, and several young players given snaps helped the veterans along the way.They’ll need everything clicking when facing a Rams team that beat Arizona 33-0 in London.“Bruce Arians started his postgame press conference by saying, ‘Don’t bury us yet,’” Marotta said of the Cardinals’ win over the Jaguars. “This would be a real opportunity to make another statement with another signature win against a good football team and lend some more credence to that, ‘Hey, we’re not dead yet, we’re still in this race.’”Every week, Vinny & Skinny will break down the Arizona Cardinals’ previous game and look ahead at their upcoming matchup. There were things to like about the Arizona Cardinals against the Jacksonville Jaguars, who by the way, aren’t too shabby of a team.Among the best developments for Arizona in a 27-24 win was its defense looking aggressive and shutting down Jacksonville’s running game.This week, the opponents visiting University of Phoenix Stadium are the NFC West-leading Los Angeles Rams led by quarterback Jared Goff and running back Todd Gurley. In the Week 13 edition of the Vinny & Skinny show presented by Arizona Central Credit Union, Vince Marotta and Mike Jurecki discussed how the Cardinals can build on their best performance of the year after an up-and-down couple of weeks since quarterback Carson Palmer was injured in London. The 5: Takeaways from the Coyotes’ introduction of Alex Meruelo Top Stories Former Cardinals kicker Phil Dawson retires Derrick Hall satisfied with D-backs’ buying and selling You can also “like” Arizona Sports on Facebook and see Vinny & Skinny broadcast live. Grace expects Greinke trade to have emotional impact
[dropcap]M[/dropcap]y new week of punting starts at West Ham tonight when the Hammers play host to Newcastle. 10th play 18th in the table and West Ham have the chance to leapfrog as high as fifth if they can secure all three points.That said, the Hammers have been better on the road so far this season but face a Newcastle side who have scored just a single goal in their last nine away league matches (against Man U !).West Ham have now lost their last three Premier League games at Upton Park, conceding eight goals in the process.These two teams got the ‘0-0 double’ up between them in 2013 and there will be plenty expecting not much more tonight on the goal front.West Ham’s manager Slaven Bilic said: “It is very important. We need to win at home, or at least to get something from the game because we need to build on our great away results. We have to start picking up points at home, and I’m very confident because our reactions in the second halves of both games were good, and if we can do it from the start and cut out the silly mistakes, we will be alright.”Of their trio of new signings Victor Moses is in tonight’s starting 11 whilst Michail Antonio and Nikica Jelavic are on the bench.Newcastle head coach Steve McClaren: “We feel we’re establishing a platform. We’ve seen evidence of that but we’ve been down to 10 men in two of the four games. We need the breaks. We need to play better football, create more chances and score more goals and the results will come.”West Ham v Newcastle UnitedPremier League20:00 Sky Sports 1 / Sky Sports 1 HDHEAD TO HEAD(Maximum 10 matches)May 2015 PREMIER Newcastle 2-0 West HamNov 2014 PREMIER West Ham 1-0 NewcastleJan 2014 PREMIER West Ham 1-3 NewcastleAug 2013 PREMIER Newcastle 0-0 West HamMay 2013 PREMIER West Ham 0-0 NewcastleNov 2012 PREMIER Newcastle 0-1 West HamJan 2011 PREMIER Newcastle 5-0 West HamOct 2010 PREMIER West Ham 1-2 NewcastleJan 2009 PREMIER Newcastle 2-2 West HamSep 2008 PREMIER West Ham 3-1 NewcastleThe atmosphere of a game under floodlights should ensure West Ham are fully charged up for this and I’m taking them at 11/10 with Star Sports to at last start showing some form at home.RECOMMENDED BETS (scale of 1-50 points)BACK WEST HAM for 10 points at 11/10 with Star SportsRETURN SINCE START OF WORLD CUP: PROFIT 194.36 POINTSWhat’s your view? CALL STAR SPORTS 08000 521 321