text:
Stocks slide as impasse over budget deficit looms
Stocks fell sharply Wednesday despite a signal from the Federal Reserve that it could launch a program to speed job growth.
| New York
Investors drew little hope Wednesday for a quick compromise in U.S. budget talks after President Barack Obama insisted that higher taxes on wealthy Americans would have to be part of any deal.
Stocks fell sharply, and even a signal from the Federal Reserve that it could launch a program in December to speed job growth failed to encourage investors. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 1.5 percent.
Obama made clear he would seek higher tax revenue from the wealthiest Americans, which faces opposition among some Republicans in Congress. Obama said that a modest increase on the wealthy "is not going to break their backs."
"The Street was looking for him to say some magic buzzwords about avoiding the 'fiscal cliff,' about cooperation," said Sal Arnuk of Themis trading, a New Jersey brokerage. Instead, Arnuk said, the remarks were "unyielding."
The "cliff" is a package of tax increases and government spending cuts that will take effect Jan. 1 unless Obama and Congress reach a deal first. They would total about $671 billion for calendar year 2013 and could send the U.S. back into recession.
Stocks have fallen steadily since voters returned Obama and a divided Congress to power Nov. 6. The Dow has fallen 675 points, or 5.1 percent, including three daily drops of more than 100 points.
The Standard & Poor's 500 index has dropped 5 percent in that time, returning to where it stood in late July.
"Investors' hopes that the election would end uncertainty remain unfulfilled," said Lawrence Creatura, a portfolio manager at Federated Investors in Rochester, New York. "It's very tough to determine what happens next."
Obama said Wednesday that he would not to cave to Republicans who have pressed for tax cuts first passed by President George W. Bush to be extended for all income earners.
Obama has long opposed extending the cuts for families making more than $250,000 a year, but he gave in to Republican demands in 2010, when the cuts were up for renewal. They were extended two years.
The president also met with business leaders Wednesday to discuss the economy.
Obama is to meet Friday with Republican House Speaker John Boehner and the top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. They are expected to designate aides to begin the search for a compromise on the budget.
Boehner and McConnell have said they won't agree to raise tax rates for the wealthy. They have said they are willing to support raising overall tax revenue as part of a deal that also makes changes to the government's largest benefit programs.
There are ways to increase tax revenue from the wealthy without raising rates, including limiting tax deductions, but the path to compromise is unclear. Obama sidestepped a question about insisting on higher rates for the wealthy.
"I just want to emphasize I am open to new ideas if the Republican counterparts or some Democrats have a great idea for us to raise revenue, maintain progressivity, make sure the middle class isn't getting hit, reduces our deficit," he said.
On Wednesday, the Dow dropped 185.23 points, or 1.5 percent, to 12,570.95. The S&P fell 19.04 points, or 1.4 percent, to 1,355.49, and the Nasdaq composite declined 37.08 points, or 1.29 percent, to 2,846.81.
Indexes are still up on the year, though they have pared gains since reaching four-year highs. The S&P has fallen 7.5 percent since its Sept. 14 peak, and the Dow has fallen 7.6 percent, more than 1,000 points, since its Oct. 5 peak.
Among individual stocks, Abercrombie & Fitch, which sells teen clothes, bucked the trend of a declining market and was by far the best-performing stock in the S&P 500.
Abercrombie jumped $10.54 to $41.92 after reporting that its international business was thriving and that its net income soared 40 percent in the most recent quarter, more than financial analysts were expecting.
The Commerce Department said that Americans cut back on spending in October, suggesting that many are still cautious about the economy.
Sales dropped 0.3 percent last month after three months of gains. That was worse than analysts had been expecting, according to FactSet, a provider of financial data.
The government also said auto sales fell 1.5 percent, the most in more than a year. Sales may have been hurt by Superstorm Sandy.
The Federal Reserve released minutes of its October meeting and suggested that it may replace a soon-to-end program of buying U.S. government bonds to lower long-term interest rates and spur job growth.
Under an existing program, known as Operation Twist, the Fed has been selling $45 billion a month in short-term Treasurys and using the proceeds to buy an equal amount of longer-term securities.
The Fed minutes showed support among "a number of" Fed policymakers to replace Twist with another program of long-term bond purchases when it ends in December.
The purchases are intended to lower long-term borrowing rates to encourage spending and strengthen the economy. The hope is that more hiring would follow. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note was unchanged at 1.59 percent.
Among other stocks making big moves:
— Cisco Systems, the world's largest maker of computer networking equipment, gained 81 cents, or 4.8 percent, to $17.66. Cisco said late Tuesday that its earnings rose 18 percent in the latest quarter and that U.S. companies are starting to spend again.
— Mosaic, a company that mines for potash, a key ingredient in fertilizers, slipped $1.65, or 3.3 percent, to $49.10 after saying that international demand for its product had weakened and that it was lowering its sales forecasts.
— Advanced Micro Devices, a chipmaker, slumped 16 cents, or 7.7 percent, to $1.93 after the company denied a report that said it was considering a sale. The stock has lost about 77 percent since March because of dwindling sales.
— Facebook jumped $2.50, or 12.6 percent, to $22.36. Wednesday was the expiration of a so-called lockup period that prevents insiders from selling stock immediately after a company goes public. About 850 million shares are being freed for sale.


text:
Monday, November 20, 2006
BCS Mess: My Playoff Solution
I have yet to hear of a playoffs concept that actually works in a way to avoid controversy. A 4-team playoff is a complete joke and shows absolutely no insight by anyone who advocates it as a way to avoid controversy. If you think finding a 1-vs-2 is hard, try figuring out if the 2/3/4 teams are better than the 5/6/7/8 teams.
Similarly, an 8-team playoff is too few in a lot of ways: Either some conferences are excluded or some worthy "at large" teams are excluded. And picking the field is brutal: The difference between teams ranked 2-15 can negligible. You can usually make an argument that a team ranked in the high teens might be as good as the one ranked No. 8. Regardless: Significant controversy continues to exist. And isn't the goal of a playoff to eliminate controversy? If we're still going to have controversy, we might as well keep the existing system.
16-team playoffs begin to get there, but if you thought it was hard to distinguish the teams at the margin of a 4- or 8-team playoff, try arguing that No. 15 or No. 16 is decisively better than Nos. 17-25. Plus, I defy you to find an AD who will allot four weeks to play a playoff AFTER a full regular-season. Again: College football is going to have MORE scenarios like this season, not less. If eliminating controversy is the goal, then let's REALLY let the teams play it out on the field.
I still like my old idea, where the only people who get screwed are the ADs more concerned with money than with the game. It's very simple: Create a half-season-long playoff that lets everyone in and therefore produces the most meaningful, least controversial champion. It's unrealistic, but only because the powers-that-be lack the imagination to see its genius:
(1) Increase the number of D1-A programs from 119 to 128.
(2) Play 5 regular season games: Your annual "tradition" games, your homecoming, your cupcakes, whatever. This also allows teams to find their stride.
(3) National Bye Week. Rank all 128 teams, using the same committee system that fans have come to accept for college basketball. Except this committee is NCAA officials, media and a few computer gurus. Place into four 32-team regional brackets.
(4) Play Week 6. Number of playoff teams remaining afterward: 64. Losers are eliminated and have 24 hours to cut deals to play each other in Week 7.
(5) Each week, the bracket advances along. Winning teams move on to the next game on their bracket. Losing teams are eliminated and may cut deals to play any other eliminated team the following week, creating an innovative, musical-chairs-style free market of scheduling that will also keep fans engaged.
After Week 7, 32 teams are left. After Week 8, 16 teams are left. After Week 9, 8 teams are left. After Week 10, 4 teams are left. After Week 11, 2 teams are left. (Again, eliminated teams simply pick from the increasingly deep pool of eliminated teams to fill out their schedule.)
(6) Teams that are over .500 are eligible to be selected to play in the 25 different bowl games played in December and early January; bowls may invite any teams they want, again creating a vastly more efficient market than the current system where a team is slotted to a bowl by its conference finish.
(7) The final 2 teams play in the championship game.
The biggest problem is that schools can't finalize their teams' travel or ticket sales plans a year in advance, as they do now. If that's the biggest problem -- but in exchange fans get the best championship tournament in sports and an undisputed champion -- I think fans will take it.
Everyone in, controversy out.
67 comments:
- Anonymous said...
Never gonna happen.
- ToddTheJackass said...
You realize that'd get rid of all conferences, right? That, in my opinion, is a bad thing.
The truth is, from year to year, there is no one good solution. Last year, it would've been unfair if Texas and USC didn't face off in the final game. Similar case was when Ohio St. and Miami met a few years before. In those years, a playoff system really wasn't needed, because it was obvious who the best two teams were.
In other years, there are 3 or 4 obvious contenders, or in years like this one, 1 stand alone and several possible #2 teams (Michigan, Florida, Arkansas, USC, Notre Dame, West Virginia, et al), where an 8-team playoff might make more sense.
Unless you can change it on a year-to-year basis (which you can't), then there really isn't one great system that's a true, end all, be all. Not to be too much of a BCS apologist, but in my mind, it's not really any more unfair than any other solution in any given year.
Anyway, I still think it's really stupid that BC is ranked below V-Tech, after we throttled them earlier in the year.
-Todd (Boston)
- nyc-steelers fan said...
yeah, scheduling is the biggest problem. Right. Given the choice between what we've got now, and what that would portend, I'd say, 'Status quo fucking rules, man!'
Hey, man, college football regular season is still the best regular season in sports; it maintains passion. In your scenario, fans of half the schools in the country would be passionless after week 6 (and three quarters after week 7, and so on, and there is no more chance at upsets). Vandy can sell out a home-game against pretty much any SEC team, but ain't gonna happen when they 'negotiate' a game with New Mexico State.
Think these things through, Dan. Your idea is a money-loser, on average.
in your world, i think cockamamie and innovative are replaceable words.
- Dave said...
That has to be the most unrealistic, unfeasible suggestion I have ever heard.
- Anonymous said...
I'd rather go back to the old system than see anything remotely close to that one tried.
Reminds me of "New Coke".
- MoonHopper said...
Fewer teams included means more teams crying about being excluded. More teams included means more chance that one gets "hot" at the right time and beats a "better" team (look at basketball).
Until there is a fair, efficient tournament in place (again, look at basketball, we know who the Champ is), there will always be debate, which as far as I'm concerened, is good for us. We get to do this.
- Anonymous said...
To me, a 16-team playoff (like Div 1-AA) makes the most sense. Sure, you have problems figuring out #14-16, but this way you are guaranteed to have the best teams in the field. You can do the best 16, or maybe give automatic bids to the conference champs and then a few at-large bids. (Maybe the bowl games could become the new conference championship games - Orange Bowl for the Big XII, Sugar Bowl for the SEC, Rose & Fiesta for the Big Ten and Pac-10, alternating years, etc.)
All I know is that I hate the BCS with a white-hot passion, and it makes my favorite college team the one who will create the most chaos for the computers.
I do like Dan's super playoff, though, although the schedule issues, more than anything else, make that virtually impossible.
- Jason said...
Your solution is way too complicated and blows-up a sacred regular season (ie, conference play).
I think an 8 or 12 team playoff (1 and 2 have a bye in the case of 12 teams) is enough. Deciding who is the eight seed (between 9, 10, 11 etc) or between the 12 or 13 seed (in the 12-seed format) would cause controversy. But still there would be and 8 (or 12) team field in which to earn your spot, as opposed to the 2 team-field we now have for the championship game. Bottom line, there will always be some controversy, the hope is to limit it. Of course, with the human polls there are still some issues (Rutgers at 14 with one loss?).
- Anonymous said...
this season is in no way shape or form as big of a problem for the BCS as 04-05 was when you had 3 teams finish the season unbeaten.
remember, no BCS would have been worse the last few years, not better.
Last year, PSU v. USC in the Rose, While Texas went to the Fiesta. Split championship?
2002, Miami goes to the Orange while OSU goes to the Rose...
at least with the BCS we have a chance at 1 v. 2 on the field.
- TBender said...
How does I-AA, II, and III figure out who is 1-16?
If those folks can do it, it can't be that hard.
- john (east lansing, mi) said...
Hrmm... not April Fool's Day... Huh. I don't get it.
So I guess I'm just gonna pretend you didn't offer this as a serious suggestion. I recommend you follow the same course of action, even though it now exists in blog entry form.
Man... the grass in Columbus was lousy, but the grass you found in Gainesville must have been spectacular.
- TJ said...
Dan, I have no idea why you always feel the need to completely reinvent the wheel with your sports "fixes."
A 4-team playoff is the way to go. Why? Because it gets two more teams into the mix. Which is an improvement. It's stupid to say a 4-team playoff is no good because it doesn't do enough. We're finally at a place where the powers that be might actually entertain the idea of a playoff, but they won't go for anything as big as an 8-team tourney, let alone something like your idea.
About the difficulty separating #4 from #5--what about it? Under the current system #5 was even further out. Besides, how many times has anyone felt, at the end of the season, that more than 2 teams were gypped out of a shot at the title? Not many--maybe '01, but even then a Miami, Nebraska, Oregon, Colorado playoff would have been exactly the right thing.
- TJ said...
Man... the grass in Columbus was lousy, but the grass you found in Gainesville must have been spectacular.
Ha! Great line.
- Mr. Travel Reviewer said...
My proposal...
NCAA establishes Eight football divisions / regions...
Each Division establishes rotatational schedule to determine champion...
Divisional Champions advance to the NCAA Playoffs (Second place is the 1st loser)...
Three weeks of games culminating in pre SuperBowl Bye Week...
If you really want to make this sexy, factor in a promotion / demontion process similar to the English Premier League (Soccer for all the non-Euro folk)...
- Anonymous said...
A 128 team playoff? That is the single dumbest idea I have ever heard in my life.
- Anonymous said...
Your plan is ludicrous and totally inconceivable. Every year there are a handful of teams at the most that deserve a shot at the championship. I'd rather screw teams 6-10 than that #3 that everyone knows is championship calliber.
Someone, somewhere is going to be upset. How many BBall teams are upset that they're not the 66th team? Go back and look at each year, there are always 4 championship teams. A 4 team playoff would be perfect!
- Generik said...
I don't understand why an AD wouldn't go for a few extra games a year? You would think that the extra revenue from those potential playoff games would be enormous and any AD would nut over the idea. The other ridiculous factor is college BB season extends through 2 semesters with multiple games a week and tons more travel. I just don't understand why college football couldn't possibly add a few more weeks to get a definitive championship matchup in the end.
- Anonymous said...
the more people bitch about the playing field on saturday the more I want a rematch just so Michigan can lose at a neutral site on a "NFL quality retractable grass field"
- Richard said...
This solution is so easy:
11 game regular season + championship week + 3 bye weeks = 15 week regular season
16 teams in:
11 conference champions
5 at-large teams (can be picked by the same guys that do March Madness brackets for all I care)
Playoffs last 4 weeks making a 19 week season.
If you think thats too long, remember that NCAA basketball lasts 20 weeks.
- Benvious said...
How about this as a "realistic" solution...
Go back to the 4 bowl BCS, allow for the tie-ins like Big 10/Pac 10 in the Rose Bowl. Keep the requirements so that if a team from a non-BCS conference is top 12 in the BCS they automatically get a bid. That means if they're undefeated, they'll get a shot too.
After the traditional bowl games, you have 4 BCS winners.
Sounds like a pretty solid 4 team playoff to me. Call it the plus 3 system. Determine seeding of the four BCS game winners by coin flip.
Have the two semi-final games in cities with either a warm climate or a dome stadium. Have these cities change every year.
Then put the National Championship game on the weekend before the Super Bowl, and have it in New Orleans.
Seems to me everyone wins. The regular season still matters because it's a race to get into the BCS games. You almost HAVE to win your conference to be one of the 8. The AD's are happy because unless they're one of the last four, the students are back in class. If they ARE one of the last four, they get HUGE money. The bowls are happy because they're still legitmate AND get to keep the rivalries alive like the Rose Bowl's Big Ten/Pac Ten game.
Why not?
- Anonymous said...
how do the kids in basketball do it? they play more games, practice for a longer season, and in the end play for possibly up to a month?
16 team playoff can be done if you cut the regular season down to 10 games, and run the playoffs through december, when kids aren't in school and are playing bowl games anyway. only takes 4 weeks. Use the bowls for the semi's and championship game, everything else should be done at the home seed's field (regardless of how bad the grass is) and if the 4th bowl complains about being left out, make a 3rd place game and play it a day before the NC.
as for the 17th team gets the shaft, tough shit. they shouldn't have been 17, and when a 16 seed runs through the field and wins then we can worry about adjusting it to make a play-in game for the last spot.
as the BCS stands right now, VT is 17 and can't complain about being left out in favor of GT since GT beat them head to head.
- Anonymous said...
I love it, problem is the bowls (they are the B in the BCS after all) won't let it happen because they are like insecure high school girls. They need to be at the end of the season to feel important. If you don't finish with them, they won't back it. You could do it using the same bowl locations for the last 3 games of your scenario, but then one bowl is left out every year and the argument can be made that they cheapen the games of last week by playing a game in the stadium the next. I can't think the people in Pasadena are going to be happy when they host the Rose Bowl and the next week they host the Citibank Presents The National Championship at The Rose Bowl of Pasadena California sponsored by Nokia...buy chips and salsa.
- FutureLegendVinceYoung said...
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- nyc-steelers fan said...
Trust me, Maher, there would come a day when the 17th BCS team had the same record as the 16 (or 15, or wahtever), but had beaten that team head-to-head. And it would NOT be fair.
Like your idea, benvious. Sensible, and, possibly, sellable; the bowls that matter would likely buy in, since it would increase interest in their bowls, even if they got a shitty matchup that included georgia tech. the games would be after finals, or whateve (if they could get past the idea that they wouldn't get to hold the NC every 4 yrs, and realized that on average, they would be better off). The teams playing would cash in, serious mullah, if they got one or two extra games. And they had damn well better play their ass off to win their conference championship. And if you built in for non-BCS schools and Notre Dame, this year you would have the 6 conf champs, Boise, and ND, Lets see maybe, OSU/USC Rose-Bowl, Texas-Boise Fiesta, Ark/GTech Sugar, WVU/domer orange. I'd be satisfied with the champ coming from that group.
- Benvious said...
Not gonna disagree about the bitchy schoolgirl thing, but I think the bowls wouldn't be too upset given the tradition involved. Winning the Rose Bowl, for example, would still be pretty damn important to a Big Ten/Pac Ten school.
As for the same site - I'd say get it OUT of those sites. Play them in NFL stadiums in cities that don't normally host a bowl game (like Minneapolis, or Seattle, or Indianapolis).
Of course, these cities probably do host a bowl game I've never heard of...
- Anonymous said...
but again, my point being who cares about the 16th ranked team. Do you care about who is going to play Duke, UNC or FLA in round 1 of the basketball tourney? no. You are going to push all the 1 seeds to the second round and call it a day. Yes I know, any given sund...saturday...blah blah blah. GT and VT could put their best players together, be coached by Spurrier, and still lose to UM or OSU this year.
- mbpollack said...
How do you decide who gets to play at home?
- Anonymous said...
how about coin flip and let the winners play at home :)
- Anonymous said...
I've been saying for years that I'd love to see FSU come into OSU during December and play.
- FutureLegendVinceYoung said...
Dan for someone who went to Northwestern and has an MBA from Harvard that is easily The.Dumbest.Idea.Ever.
- Richard said...
Who cares about the #16 team???
Are you shitting me? This isn't basketball where the 16 team is actually #64. You can equate this to the #4 seed in basketball. They can easily pull the upset.
(Disclaimer: I happen to be a GT alum)
- setherton22 said...
That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard, and unbelievable coming from a man with a Harvard MBA.
Here are five (and God knows there are more) reasons why this doesn't work (all either from a financial, marketing or statistical standpoint).
5) 5 games isn't enough of a sample to rank teams appropriately.
4) OSU-Mich, et al, first weekend in October? OK, so alienate all your rich alumni who are steeped in tradition and see how much the donate next year.
3) 64 games in one weekend? Games are 3+ hrs long. Basketball games are shorter and they can barely cram half that many games in. Who wants to see OSU play FAU?? It would be 70-0! How do you sell this to TV? College football is all about tradition!
2) It would be impossible to schedule games with a week's notice. Logistically, financially, etc, etc. These "exhibition" games wouldn't even be televised outside local markets regardless of matchup.
1) Dan spent all this time typing something that is pure fantasy and may be able to exist in a utopian economic and capitalistic society, but that's not the world we live in! That's a waste of time, and time is money.
Now here's the logical scenario:
1) Reduce regualr season back to 11 games.
2) 8-team playoff. 6 BCS conference winners are automatically in but only if they finish in the Top 12 of the standings (just use the same BCS rankings) and WIN their conference. A non-BCS conference can steal an at-large bid by finishing in the top 12.
3) From here, the BCS standings are thrown out and a commitee chooses the other two or three teams using similar criteria as the Basketball committee. They also seed the teams 1-8.
4) Playoffs occur third Saturday in December, New Year's Day (Super Semifinals on New Year's Day!) and then a date in mid January.
5) Teams that don't make it can't bitch because a) they didn't win their conference and b) they probably have 2, maybe even 3 losses.
This year's bracket might look something like this:
1) OSU vs. 8) Boise St.
4) Florida vs. 5) Louisville
3) USC vs. 6) West Virginia
2) Mich vs. 7) ND or Arkansas
Potential snubs: 1 loss Wisc (3rd in conf though) and 2 loss ND or ARK (oh well, you lost twice)
Play the games at bowl sites and then play the rest of the bowls as usual.
MSU M.A. Advertising 1
Harvard MBA 0
- setherton22 said...
I am assuming Texas or Oklahoma finish outside the top 12, but if they make it in, then make the Big 12 champ the 7 seed.
- john (east lansing, mi) said...
I nominate benvious for King of CFB, what do we have to do to make this happen?
- Benvious said...
Just thought of another argument for my idea...
This means, at a MINIMUM, the National Champion would have beaten 3 BCS level teams, in consecutive games, all at neutral sites.
Of course, I looked more at it, and realized Michigan would likely get shafted this year. BUT, my response to that would be: Win your conference. If you don't you're at the mercy of what other teams do. Hope that USC beats ND, or hope that Boise St loses. When you don't win your conference, you no longer control your own destiny, which makes winning the conference even MORE important.
- Anonymous said...
I am not a Michigan fan, but I can't stand the argument that, "they had their shot."
Realize this...they lost by three points on the road. Take it to a neutral field and this match up appears brutally even. Let's not downplay homefield advantage.
As for a playoff, I also hate the argument that it would not be more fair. Granted some teams who should be included in a field of 8 would be left out, but the cream would rise to the top and the best four or five teams would be in the playoffs. For anyone left out, too bad. The best teams are in.
College seasons for some teams are more than 13 games for some teams, so lets shorten the season to 9 games and have a four game playoff for the remaining teams. Many of the games could be bowl games.
Why is this so hard to envision?
- Ken said...
Want a playoff without any conference affiliation or regular season changes? Two options:
Twelve Team Playoff I: Take the 11 D-IA conference champions and the highest rated non-conference champion (using the current BCS formula) and rank them 1-12 based on the current BCS formula (with the at-large team automatically being the 12th seed). Give the top four teams a first round bye and seeds 5-8 home games against seeds 9-12. That plays into eight remaining teams, and you play it down from there, with the highest remaining seed hosting the lowest remaining seed in each round, and so on.
Twelve Team Playoff II: Use the Independents as the 12th conference instead of having an at-large bid, and proceed with the 12 teams as described above.
Eleven Team Playoff (requires the elimination of Independents): Force the four Independents (yes, I argued against this earlier in the day for Notre Dame - I'm not saying I agree with it) to join one of the 11 existing conferences, then simply take your 11 conference champions as your playoff teams. Rank them 1-11 based on the current BCS formula, give the 1-5 seeds a bye, and have the 6-8 seeds host the 9-11 seeds. That plays into eight remaining teams, and you play it down from there, with the highest remaining seed hosting the lowest remaining seed in each round, and so on. If the Independents refuse to join a conference (which is their perogative), then they are not eligible for playoff contention.
Yes, using the current BCS formula leaves the 12th team in the first scenario (not to mention the seedings in all three scenarios) open to speculation, but at least all 11 conference champions will be playoff teams.
- Ken said...
It's the end of the work day, and I completely forgot I said I'd annoy all of you with this all week:
- Anonymous said...
this is football, not basketball. if you are a 16 seed you will have at least 2 losses. that being the case, odds are you will lose at some point during the 4 rounds, confirming why you were a 16 seed. If the 16 seed were to pull it off, then we can just chalk it up to a cinderella story, a team that caught lightning in a bottle and they and only they could have pulled it off, not the the team left out at 17.
see how that all works out for me?
- Jason said...
Shanoff, that solution is ridiculous.
It makes the BCS look great by comparison, and I *loathe* the BCS system.
You don't take into account TV conflicts, the fact that a George Mason-like run will have to keep playing away games and never make any money, the complete loss of conference play, and the fact that five games are not an indicator of a team's overall ability because there's no real basis for comparison.
The answer is a sensible playoff of 8 teams: the 6 BCS conference champions (with a solution for the Big 10's conundrum; the SEC, ACC, and Big XII are fine with the divisional system and the Big East and Pac 10 all play each other), 1 Mid-Major champion and an at-large which are calculated using the BCS.
As for the playoff games, the first round are home games for the four best, again using the BCS. The semi-finals, a consolation game, and a championship game are held at the current BCS sites on a rotational basis.
And who the hell cares about taking into exam time, for those that ask? They're fucking athletes. Considering how much school work time gets lost by basketball players during March Madness, your hypocrisy is amazing.
Shanoff, you're ridiculousness is always good for a laugh. I wonder what retarded thing you'll say next.
- Jason said...
And for teams that miss the playoffs: the old bowls can keep going too.
- Anonymous said...
You do realize that there are FOUR independent teams, not just Notre Dame, don't you?
Army, Navy and Temple are the other three. You might want to ask them if they want to join a conference.
- Brian in Oxford said...
Geez, I've seen worse ideas, though.
Why should the BCS conferences automatically get slots? ALL the D-1 conference champs get slots, or else we're officially stating they're not D-1.
What I'd like to see is 10 D-1 conferences. Each champ gets in. Then, instead of being forced into 6 more at-large....be flexible with it. Either there are teams that can clearly make points to qualify, or they don't. Some years you get 12 teams, some years you get 14, up to a max of 16. If Notre Dame doesn't want to be in a conference, then it can still qualify as an at-large if its resume is good. The point being, if it's not obvious which non-champs belong, then they didn't belong in the first place, and don't hold a spot for it just to make it work out to an even 16. If there are only 15 teams, then seed #1 gets a bye. If there are 14 teams, the top 2 get a bye.
(I'm reminded of the state basketball tourneys here in CT. It's like, any team with 8 wins qualifies, and they figure out how many top teams get byes based on however many games it takes to reduce the field to a power of 2.)
This year, Michigan would be in....the SEC championship loser....Notre Dame....and then throw them with all the conference champs.
This allows a 2nd team from a league, if it's "obvious" (subjectiveness, yeah, I know)...but like when the top team gets upset in its conference championship game by the number #18 team in the country....it would still allow them in. But at the same time, it would have to be a legit top-3 team in the country getting upset....not Rutgers "throwing" the Big East championship to get an "extra" bid for West Viriginia....if you weren't *obviously* (again, subjective) a top team, then losing gets you actually eliminated.
- Jason said...
freky, I realize that Notre Dame isn't the only independent. I just threw them out there because they're the perennial contender in discussion. If Army, Navy, or Temple had a great season, they should be considered as well.
That said, I think all four should just join some damn conferences. I know Temple's going to be in the MAC for football.
- Jason said...
Brian: In D-IAA, not all of the conferences are guaranteed a spot in the tournament. And let's face facts here: the mid-majors aren't as good as the big 6. That said, the best team from those five conferences (and possibly two teams, as it was two years back with Boise State and Utah) do deserve a shot. I think that after 2-3 years of an 8 team system, if the gap starts to close just by giving the mid-majors a champ, then we up it to include all 11 conferences and 5 at larges.
- Anonymous said...
I like Ken's idea (above) for two reasons:
1) It still uses the BCS formula, so we won't get stuck with bad division winners.
2) It gives the top rated teams bye-weeks, which they should have (there should be some incentive for teams to have a perfect regular season, or else games like last week's OSU-UM mean less).
- Anonymous said...
Interesting idea. But I fear that heart attacks and freak-outs will rise precipitously for coaches if they are forced to develop and practice a gameplan in six days (since they won't know whom they're playing until Sat. night). By the same token, methinks the smartest players would be in much higher demand.
- Drunken Loo said...
There is a reason that football isn't set up like basketball... injuries are a lot more common in football. The longer these kids play, the more likely they'll get injuried. We can't be having 11-12 game regular seasons and 4 game playoffs. Its way too much, plus what happened to the idea of "student athletes"?
Everybody just wants a system to help their team out... well guess what? This system is perfect since it screws everybody equally.
Also, we're not having a problem trying to find the #1 team in the country. We're having a problem trying to find a team to dethrone them.
Michigan had their shot and blew it. You can sing all you want about being away, but great teams perform in all situations... this isn't a who's-the-best-on-a-neutral-field... this is a who's-the-best-team-whenever-and-wherever and that's decided by the score. I'm sure you guys remember what it was, right?
Whoever finishes #2 earned their shot. If its SC, Florida, or even Michigan, they've earned it...
- Steve said...
"Student athletes" Oh man that's a good one drunken loo. Funniest joke of the day.
- Anonymous said...
teams are playing 13 games a season right now. Cut the regular season to 10, and at MOST we will have 2 teams playing 14 games per season with a 16 team playoff.
didn't KSU play 15 games a few years ago? OSU won 14 in 2002. Not asking them to storm the beaches of Normandy here.
Army, Navy and Temple...they don't count in this discussion. Sorry. Join a conference, and learn how to play football (in the case of Temple). Air Force is in one, you aren't better than them.
Screw it, they should all just join the Big East. ND has the basketball ties, and the rest of them are right there geographically.
- Unknown said...
YOu should be a politician. You can't reach a simple decision and want the most ridiculous unworkable solution. The 9th place team in the BCS has no right to claim to be the best team. Top 8 is fine. YOu select them the same way you choose #1 and #2 right now. Simple. You are #9 and you are out. They do it in the NCAA Hoops Tourney and it can be done in football as well. Top 8 in, everyone else out.
- Kevin said...
Wow...over 50 commenters, and nobody likes your idea, Shanoff. Think that tells you something?
But what's with people saying you need all 11 conferences represented in a playoff? It should be the top 8/16/whatever teams, no matter what conference they play in.
- Anonymous said...
Need to cut divison 1A to 8 conferences x 12 teams. Add the WA/MAC/ or conference USA. ND joins the big 10 and PAC 10 snipes 2 teams from somewhere. Everyone plays 12 games, nine conference and 3 other BCS teams, no DIV 1AA. Everyone has a conference championship game, nd the 8 winners are seeded at random for an 8 team playoff.
I'm sure plenty of traditionalist will bitch at me, but i think it is a fair system.
The thing with the big east this year (if one team had been undefeated) is that they are a BCS league, so they should be in the title consideration. And ND should be in a BCS conference, and not just in because of history and a side contract. my 2 cents.
- redman said...
4 team playoff wouldn't work, huh? What a load of crap. Give me one example of a year where a team ranked outside of the top four had a legitimate gripe about not being in the championship game. The most recent example of a team getting hosed is Auburn, and they were ranked 3rd. If there isn't a year that you can think of, then I would say that a 4 team playoff is indeed a legitimate playoff system. If you aren't in the top four by the end of the year, tough crap.
- Andy said...
Dan, I love the blog, but this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.
- Joe (Livonia, MI) said...
This is the single worst idea I have ever seen.
Who said that all controversy had to be eliminated? That's never going to happen. You still have controversy with the 65 team NCAA men's b-ball tournament. That's ok. Someone's always going to bitch. Just make sure that whoever's bitching doesn't have much right to.
- TJ said...
Give me one example of a year where a team ranked outside of the top four had a legitimate gripe about not being in the championship game.
Exactly. And you'd think Dan would jump all over a 4-team playoff. Every now and again he likes to tell us the regular season is a de facto playoff--but then he backs off of that when the regular season fails to produce a clear 1 and 2.
Well, if you expand the title contenders to 1, 2, 3, and 4 then the regular season will almost always work as a playoff to whittle things down to a final four.
If you look back to the past few years, this would have worked (almost) every time.
2001: Miami v. Colorado, Nebraska v. Oregon
2002: Miami v. Georgia, Ohio State v. Iowa
2003: USC v. Michigan, LSU v. Oklahoma (Bonus points because this actually happened, setting up USC v. LSU--which would have been an amazing championship game)
2004: USC v. Utah, Auburn v. Oklahoma
2005: USC v. ?, Texas v. Penn St. (Last year is the only recent problem year. But it's not even that big a deal. I think we can all agree Texas and USC would have won their semifinal games, but winning the semifinal games would have made them even more deserving champs. As far as who was #4--do you take a conference runner up like Ohio State? Or a 2-loss conference champ like Georgia? Still, this is a hell of a lot better than trying to pick from among 3 teams for the #2 spot.)
- nyc-steelers fan said...
I'm beginning to think the 4-team playoff may be the best solution. It is the most workable from the current system. You can think that if you were designing the system from scratch how to make it perfect, but you are not. Incremental change is the only way to make it work. Start with something simple, and change it slightly, and maybe eventually you'll get your 8 or 16 game playoff.
Obviously Dan's idea is ridiculous, both in the fact that it doesn't make much sense, but also since there is not a chance in hell of the people making money off the current system changing things up so drastically. But, by changing it to a 4-team playoff, rotating the semifinal games rather than the title game among the 4 BCS sites, and then having a national championship game which was bid on in a way similar to the superbowl (I liked someone's idea of using N'Awlins every year, but then you'd have the orange, fiesta, and rose bowl people squawkin about how unfair it was, and they wouldn't let it pass). Seriously, if we're having a theoretical discussion, we can entertain anything (even Dan's ideas); but if you are trying to make things happen, you have to have a sellable idea to pitch to the people who can actually make things happen, which is the old boys clubs that run the major conferences and the big bowls - you gotta make sure they still make their money (that's the only reason they ever considered even allowing a BCS vote to set up a national championship game). Otherwise, well, it just won't happen.
- Geoff-Detroit said...
Let's just forget about playoffs and the BCS and go back to the old system. At least there was less confusion that way.
- Gary said...
Here is what needs to happen but never will...
There are currently 54 bowls (or something like that)
I think we can all agree that is too many. Let's increase it to 56 (Hear me out)
We make seven 8 team brackets. The top 8 are in the National Championship Bracket. Nine through 16 are in A. 17-24 are in B and so on until we rank the top 64 teams.
In the National Championship Bracket the first round games would be obvious 1 v. 8, 2 v. 7, 3 v. 6, 4 v. 5. They would each be played at a current bowl site. You can use the current 5 BCS bowls plus the two created ones. You could easily rotate the seven bowls as the National Championship.
I realize the lesser brackets would generate significantly less buzz, but I think that a mini tournament would generate more buzz for the Motor City Bowl than it currently has.
This scenerio would also eliminate a lot of those really crappy 6-6 BCS conference teams from making a bowl game. There would be half as many teams making bowls thus really putting a lot of weight on the regular season.
I know this idea will not happen, but I think if the most important thing is to keep the bowl sponsors happy, this would work.
Also, you'd have to cut the season down by only one game since only 16 teams would end up playing 14 games so it's feasible, just not gonna happen.
I bet this is confusing since I didn't really think out my formatting before starting typing, so sorry for that!
- Jason said...
Bowl games need to be included in any new system, so I like your idea NYC-Steelers. I personally think the bowl games should remain for teams that don't make the Championship Tournament. And hell, if it's an eight team tournament, then the top 7 bowls (Sugar, Fiesta, Rose, Orange, Cotton, "Chick-fil-A"/Peach, Cap One or Meineke or Alamo, can all be used, even though that eliminates home field advantage.
- Big Daddy Drew said...
If you think finding a 1-vs-2 is hard, try figuring out if the 2/3/4 teams are better than the 5/6/7/8 teams.
You just made the argument in favor of a 4-team playoff. It keeps some of the controversy of the current system, but in the end no one would likely dispute the final champion.
Plus, it doesn't mess with the current regular season.
Now, let's all have on orange whip.
- CUSteese said...
Here is another idea that we have talked about that I thought made sense and liked.
You have a 26 team playoff. This gives you the BCS top 25 + 1. Don't know who the +1 team is and I don't really care. This year is could be Maryland, Texas A& M, TCU, whoever... This can be done by a coaches poll, a committee, or hell even popular voting.
The tournament would go like so:
-You give all BCS Conferece champoins (6 teams) a bye in the first week as a reward for what they have done throuhgout the year.
- This leaves 20 to play in the first round. Leaves 10 teams.
- Add back in the conference champs andyou are now at 16 teams. It can be set up to reseed each round with the highest versus lowest or in a straight bracket style.
- Play down to 8 - 4 - 2 - 1.
You can use the bowls as the tournament sites, with payouts to the winners and losers like it is currently now. (This would make ADs happy, as the longer their team plays the more money they make) There are 25 total games in this system and that should still leave a few other bowls for people that miss it to fill in during the tournament.
Some 1st round games right now could be:
Okla v. Va Tech, ND v. Penn St., Auburn v California, etc...
Just thought that I would share.
I think that Dan's is too far out there. Plus as long as everyone is making money and everyone is talking about College Football like this nothing is going to change...
- Lance A Boyle said...
Send ONE team from each conference. Leave it up to the individual conference to decide who their representative will be. Then throw the one representative from each conference into a playoff. 27 Conferences = 27 teams. Yes, even let the little boys in there. Then add 5 at-large teams.
That's 31 games to be played. Use the existing Bowl set-ups as the game sites. Rotate the National Championship game among the traditional "Big" bowls. As Michael Scott from The Office would say, "It's a Win-Win.... Win." The Tournament contains ALL the league champions plus 5 other deserving teams. You have the potential for huge upsets, which is what makes the NCAA basketball tournament so exciting. Everybody makes money... probably more than before because now the remote bowl games actually mean something and fans might show up for the Tire Bowl, etc.
- T-Mill said...
Getting to the party late, as I am in Hawaii for hte Purdue-Hawaii game, but htat is pure fuckin' genius!!!
- Anonymous said...
Here is my solution
- Jason said...
Why not take the conference champions plus one (probably ND because it's good for ratings most years) and randomly send them into 4 groups. The groups play a round robin, with the top team in each advancing into a semifinal. The winners play for all the marbles (or a big check to share with their conference).

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Perhaps Rick Santorum is demonstrating persistence beyond the call of plausibility, but he says that compelling political logic and high duty converge. Although he has not made a decision about 2016, he candidly says he is doing "everything consistent with running" — traveling to speak to sympathetic groups and donors. His hand is on his sword's hilt.
When Santorum entered the fray for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, he drew that sword and threw away the scabbard. The stakes could not, he thought, be higher, so he was in it for the long haul, which ended with the April 3 Wisconsin primary. Now the former senator from Pennsylvania, who wound up being the last man standing between Mitt Romney and the nomination, probably needs a new scabbard to toss aside.
With disarmingly cheerful ferocity, he relishes combat in what he calls "a two-front civil war" within the GOP. The party is, he says, in danger of becoming "a one-legged stool." The "Eastern establishment types" want to saw off the cultural conservatism leg, concentrating on economic issues. The rising libertarian faction, exemplified by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, wants to saw off the strong foreign policy leg. Furthermore, Santorum says, "Americans are not ready for a dramatic withdrawal of government from their lives" of the sort many tea party types advocate.
This self-described "blue-collar Republican" insists, "We are not the anti-government party." Government has a role in the creation of jobs for the many "who are not going to college."
Santorum became a senator at age 36, a member of the Republican Senate leadership at 42 and an ex-senator at 48, when in 2006 he lost by 17 points in his bid for a third term. In 2011, however, this devout Catholic thought the other candidates for the nomination were perfunctory in their embrace of the social issues — principally, opposition to abortion — so he headed to all 99 Iowa counties.
Each rival had a brief moment as "not Romney"; Santorum's moment came, serendipitously, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. In the first vote tabulation he lost by just eight votes. Sixteen days later, a revised tally showed that he had defeated Romney by 34 votes, 29,839 to 29,805. He believes he might have won the nomination if the first headlines had said "Santorum wins." He won 10 more states, but his campaign essentially ended when he lost by seven points in Wisconsin, where he had hoped to prove he could win where evangelical Christians were relatively thin on the ground.
Looking to 2016, Santorum rightly says Republicans "have got to work on the hopeful and optimistic side" of politics. But he wants to compel a troubling conversation the nation would rather not have.
"At any given moment," wrote George Orwell in 1948, "there is a sort of all-prevailing orthodoxy, a general tacit agreement not to discuss some large and uncomfortable fact." Today that fact is family disintegration: 41 percent of American children are born to unmarried women, including nearly half of first births, 53 percent of Hispanic children and 72 percent of African American children. In 2015, these facts will be discussed in connection with the 50th anniversary of the Moynihan Report.
In March 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a 37-year-old toiling in the Labor Department's office of policy planning and research, published "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action." It said that in inner cities "the center of the tangle of pathology" was the fact that 23.6 percent of African American children were born out of wedlock, compared to just 3.07 percent of white children.
Moynihan knew he was handling dynamite — he had only 100 copies printed, all marked "For Official Use Only" — but was stunned by the way discussion was shut down by accusations of "racism" and "blaming the victim."
Santorum says that if Republicans will not speak for the many millions of voters concerned about social issues, "We'll be more competitive in states we lose and will lose states we should win," and "we will become the Whig Party and be done."
Before the 2012 Iowa caucuses, he participated in 381 town hall meetings. One can, however, be a novelty only once, and although Santorum is a young-looking 55, in 2016 he will have younger rivals. Furthermore, he may not strike many Republicans as the answer to the party's problems with female voters and blue states. Nevertheless, there are gallantry and dignity in his steadfast determination to tack against the prevailing wind.
Read more from George F. Will's archive or follow him on Facebook.
Read more about this issue:
Dana Milbank: Rick Santorum's curious closing argument
Michael Gerson: Rick Santorum and the return of compassionate conservatism
E.J. Dionne: On family economics, Rick Santorum gets it only partially right


text:
Search Term
Advanced Search
0 Items (Empty)
Store Home
> Cleaning Products, Non-toxic
No harmful chemicals in these cleaning products!
Air Fresheners
Of all the cleaning supplies we sprinkle, splash, and spray in our
homes,synthetic laundry detergent may be one of the more insidious. Our laundry detergents are guaranteed to leave your clothes smelling fresh and fragrant without toxic, synthetic chemicals that do nothing but harm the environment. It
Smokey Road Aylett, Virginia 23009 United States
© 2023 Nature's Country Store. All rights reserved worldwide.


text:
Vibrations on your site can be hazardous for your employees and can also create potential problems for neighboring businesses.
Call the expert SGS environmental team today for vibration monitoring and analysis services to improve your site operations.
Plant and equipment vibrations can be hazardous for employees and damaging to your facilities and business collateral. If you are operating on a construction site, vibrations can be extremely dangerous for you as well as nearby businesses and sites. Through our vibrations monitoring services, we can identify the source of any concerns and help you with innovative suggestions to improve the situation.
We conduct continuous monitoring of vibration emissions from construction sites, industrial, rail and transport activities. Through our vibration measurements we can ensure that you are meeting your industry safety guidelines and regulations. We can offer you expert advice on steps to take to improve your operations.
Vibration measurements are reported in color-coded, three-dimensional models that allow you to see the sources of problems. Our detailed documentation provides innovative suggestions on ways to reduce vibrations in a plan designed specifically to your needs. Call our expert vibration monitoring services team today for more details.


text:
California Chrome's Triple Crown quest collapses
NEW YORK (AP) — Tonalist sprinted across the finish line first Saturday at the Belmont Stakes, spoiling California Chrome's bid to win the first Triple Crown in 36 years.
California Chrome finished far back in a tie for fourth. The result means the longest drought without a Triple Crown champion in history will be extended.
California Chrome and jockey Victor Espinoza lost the 1 1/2-mile race on a hot day at Belmont Park, where tens of thousands of fans were packed in hoping to see history. It was not to be, leaving Affirmed as the most recent Triple Crown winner in 1978.
"I thought he was gaining ground, but he didn't have it in him, apparently," co-owner Steve Coburn said immediately after the race. He complained that some of the horses sat out some races, and were entered just to knock out California Chrome. "It's all or nothing. This is not fair to these horses and to the people that believe in them. This is the coward's way out."
California Chrome broke quickly but was pressed immediately by Commissioner and General a Rod. Espinoza eased California Chrome back into third along the rail.
Approaching the final turn, California Chrome was maneuvered to the outside. He angled four-wide turning for home, just to the outside of Tonalist, who was close to the pace the entire race. Espinoza started whipping left handed in the lane but California Chrome had no response.
Tonalist kicked strongly in the final strides, edging Commissioner by a head to finish in 2:28:52. Medal Count got third with California Chrome finishing in a tie for fourth with Wicked Strong.
Samraat was sixth, followed by General a Rod, Matterhorn, Commanding Curve, Matuszak and Ride On Curlin.
Tonalist paid $20.40, $9.60 and $7. Commissioner returned $23.20 and $13.20 while Medal Count paid $13.20.
California Chrome became the 12th horse since Affirmed to lose his Triple try in the Belmont, the longest race in the series.
The defeat snapped the chestnut colt's six-race winning streak. His rise from a humble pedigree and his working-stiff owners resonated with sports fans who rarely take an interest in horse racing.
Conditions seemed aligned for the Triple Crown drought to end. California Chrome seemed to thrive during his three-week stay at Belmont Park. His chestnut coat gleamed and he gained weight after the Preakness on May 17. His owners, trainer and jockey oozed confidence. And so did the bettors, who made him the overwhelming favorite in the Belmont.
But this fairy tale didn't have a happy ending.
Espinoza lost his second chance at a Triple Crown. He was aboard War Emblem in 2002, when that colt stumbled at the start of the Belmont and lost all chance.
Art Sherman, the 77-year-old trainer of California Chrome, had said beforehand that his colt didn't need to win another race because he was already such a pleasure to be around.
Coburn, who with Perry Martin formed Dumb Ass Partners to race their one-horse stable, had vowed that California Chrome "would go down in history."
It just wasn't the kind they wanted to make.


text:
Study population selection. Log rank P = .20.
Kaplan-Meier analysis of survival in 1249 propensity-matched patients who had an outpatient echocardiographic result with normal systolic function (ejection fraction ≥ 55%) from January 1, 1996, to December 31, 2005, stratified according to diastolic function stage. DD indicates diastolic dysfunction.
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Halley CM, Houghtaling PL, Khalil MK, Thomas JD, Jaber WA. Mortality Rate in Patients With Diastolic Dysfunction and Normal Systolic Function. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(12):1082–1087. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.244
© 2023
Diastolic dysfunction (DD) is known to be associated with increased mortality rate in the presence of impaired systolic function. However, few prognostic data exist regarding the effect of DD in patients with normal systolic function.
We reviewed clinical records and echocardiographic findings of consecutive patients who underwent an outpatient echocardiogram that revealed normal systolic function (ejection fraction, ≥55%) from January 1, 1996, through December 31, 2005. Diastolic function was graded using echocardiographic Doppler variables designated as normal, mild (grade I, ie, impaired relaxation pattern), moderate (grade II, ie, pseudonormal pattern), or severe (grade III, ie, restrictive filling pattern) dysfunction. Propensity analysis was performed to compare outcomes among the groups.
A total of 36 261 patients were identified (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [15.4] years; 54.4% female) with a mean (SD) follow-up time of 6.2 (2.3) years. In 65.2% of the cohort, DD was present, with mild DD being the most prevalent type of dysfunction. A total of 5789 deaths occurred during the follow-up period. The unadjusted survival rate was worse according to the presence and degree of DD (P <.001). However, after propensity matching, only moderate and severe DD were associated with an increased mortality risk (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.08; and hazard ratio, 1.84; 1.29-2.62, respectively; P <.001 for each).
In this single-center study of patients with normal ejection fraction who presented for outpatient echocardiography, the presence of moderate or severe DD was an independent predictor of mortality. Mild DD, although prevalent, did not affect survival rate.
The noninvasive assessment of diastolic function is an integral component of any examination of the heart via echocardiography.1,2 When diastolic dysfunction (DD) is present, it is typically graded as mild, moderate, or severe; this grading system has been used to assess the prognostic relevance of its presence.1 Severe DD has been associated with an increased risk of mortality in many conditions, including post–acute myocardial infarction,3,4 amyloidosis,5 hypertension,6 chronic renal failure,7 and systolic impairment,8-11 and even in the presence of normal systolic function in some populations.12-14 However, because many of the medical conditions associated with DD, such as hypertension, coronary artery disease, increasing age, obesity, and diabetes mellitus,14-16 are predictors of mortality, the question arises as to whether DD is truly an independent prognostic indicator of outcome in the setting of preserved systolic function. Furthermore, although mild DD is more prevalent clinically, fewer data are available regarding its prognostic significance.12,14,17 We therefore sought to address the clinical relevance of the presence of DD and the degree of DD in patients with normal ejection fraction undergoing outpatient echocardiography, one of the most commonly used cardiac noninvasive imaging tests in the United States.18
The study cohort consisted of consecutive patients who underwent an outpatient echocardiographic test with normal systolic function results, as defined by an ejection fraction of 55% or greater, at the Cleveland Clinic or its satellite outpatient facilities from January 1, 1996, through December 31, 2005. Patients were excluded if a valid US Social Security Number was not available, if diastolic function could not be assessed, or if severe mitral valve disease was present or prior mitral valve surgery had occurred. Inability to assess diastolic function was common in certain clinical scenarios such as in patients with tachycardia, patients with severe lung disease with limited acoustic windows for echocardiographic testing, and patients in whom echocardiographic testing was performed on an urgent basis. If a patient had undergone more than 1 study, only results from the first was included in the analysis.
During the study period, 36 261 patients were included from a total of 65 696 echocardiographic tests performed (Figure 1). The survival rate of patients who were excluded for reasons other than an unavailable US Social Security Number was not different from that of patients who were included (log-rank P = .20).
Diastolic function was assessed in a standard manner at our institution in accordance with relevant guidelines by using a combination of echocardiographic variables, including transmitral inflow pattern, pulmonary venous flow pattern, and, beginning in the late 1990s and almost uniformly after 2001, mitral annular velocities as assessed by tissue Doppler imaging.19 In patients with atrial fibrillation, diastolic stage was assessed when possible using a combination of variables, including transmitral inflow pattern (ie, deceleration time of mitral E wave velocity)20 and tissue Doppler imaging (ie, peak early mitral inflow velocity/diastolic early tissue velocity [E/e′]).21
With the use of these variables, function was deemed normal or abnormal in the study population. Then DD was graded in a standard manner as being mild (grade I, ie, impaired relaxation pattern), moderate (grade II, ie, pseudonormal pattern), or severe (grade III, ie, restrictive filling pattern) dysfunction, as previously described.2 Mild DD is typified by abnormal myocardial relaxation with normal left atrial pressures. In moderate and severe DD, increases in mean left atrial pressures occur in addition to impairment of left ventricular relaxation and compliance. Systolic function was assessed by a semiquantitative evaluation of ejection fraction by an experienced reader (among them, W.A.J. and J.D.T.), in accordance with published guidelines.22 The interobserver agreement for reproducibility of DD classification extrapolated from our ongoing quality assurance effort was, on average, 83.0% and intraobserver agreement was 94.0%.
Clinical data were obtained from review of electronic medical records recorded from a period starting 6 months before the echocardiographic testing date and ending 6 months afterward. The clinical diagnosis of conditions, including coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, congestive heart failure (CHF), dyslipidemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic renal failure, was established by reviewing records documented by a providing physician in an electronic medical record system (EpicCare; Epic Systems Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin) that was then linked to relevant International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes (eTable). All diagnoses (primary and nonprimary) and encounters (inpatient and outpatient) were considered, and only 1 code was required to fulfill the criteria for a given diagnosis. Individual all-cause mortality was obtained using the Social Security Death Index with a previously reported high degree of specificity.23 The censoring date was December 14, 2009. The study was conducted with the approval of the Cleveland Clinic institutional board review with waiver of consent.
Continuous data are expressed as mean (SD), with median and 15th and 85th percentile values (comparable to 1 SD). Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze group differences for the continuous data. Categorical data are displayed as frequencies and percentages, and comparisons are made using χ2 tests (and Fisher exact tests if appropriate).
Several factors differentiated the patients in the 4 groups. To evaluate survival with more comparable patients among the diastolic stages, we used propensity matching.24-26 Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors related to severe DD compared with each of the other groups. For continuous variables, investigations of transformations of scale were used (log, inverse, and exponential) to properly calibrate the effects with outcome. Because of imbalance in group sizes, a model was developed for each stage vs the 127 patients with severe DD. The logistic models yielded a propensity score for inclusion in the severe DD group. Using the propensity scores, many-to-1 matching was used to find the maximum number of matches of the 127 severe DD cases for each comparison group using greedy matching of closest matches within a maximum distance of 0.1.
After matching, data from patients were sorted based on propensity scores and divided into quintiles. Characteristics were evaluated to ensure balanced factors in the groups within similar propensity score ranges. Propensity matching was performed using the variables listed in Table 1. The propensity models incorporated each of the variables regardless of their significance.
Overall and stratified nonparametric survival estimates were obtained via the method created by Kaplan and Meier.27 A parametric method was used to resolve the number of phases of instantaneous risk for death (ie, hazard function) and to estimate the shaping variables.25
The degree of DD as a single covariate was forced into the final parametric model for all patients and for the matched cohort of patients. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS statistical software, version 9 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina).
A total of 36 261 patients were identified (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [15.4] years; 54.4% female), with a mean (SD) follow-up time of 6.2 (2.3) years. Clinical characteristics, including indication for performing echocardiographic testing, are presented in Table 1 and reflect typical characteristics of patients referred for outpatient echocardiographic testing at our institution. Cardiovascular risk factors, such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, were seen in 35.3%, 14.9%, and 11.6% of patients, respectively. However, established cardiovascular disease, such as CHF, coronary artery disease, and peripheral vascular disease, was uncommon, affecting 3.5%, 0.6%, and 1.1%, respectively. The 5 most common indications included evaluation of symptoms (21.3%), assessment of ventricular function (19.7%), assessment of valvular function (11.6%), suspected or known coronary artery disease (9.8%), and arrhythmia or electrocardiographic abnormalities (17.9%) (Table 1).
In 65.2% of the cohort, DD was present, with mild DD being the most prevalent type of dysfunction (60.0% mild DD, 4.8% moderate DD, and 0.4% severe DD). Patients with DD were more likely to be male, older than 65 years, and obese (body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] > 30). They also were more likely to have cardiovascular risk factors and established cardiovascular disease (all P <.001) (Table 1). Although noncardiac chronic medical conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic renal failure were uncommon (3.1% and 1.5%, respectively), patients with these conditions also were more likely to have DD (P <.001 for each).
During the follow-up period, 5789 deaths occurred: 842 in the normal diastolic function group (representing 7.0% of the patients with normal diastolic function), 4469 (21.0%) in the mild DD group, 429 (24.0%) in the moderate DD group, and 49 (39.0%) in the severe DD group. The unadjusted survival rate was worse in patients with DD, and this risk was greater with worsening degrees of DD (P <.001).
After propensity matching was performed, data from a resulting group of 1249 patients were used in subsequent analysis. Clinical characteristics of the matched patient population according to diastolic function stage are listed in Table 2.
Among the propensity-matched group, 379 deaths occurred during a mean (SD) follow-up of 6.2 (2.9) years. After matching, moderate and severe DD were associated with worse survival rate compared with normal diastolic function (log-rank P <.001) (Figure 2), with 8-year survival estimates with normal diastolic function, mild DD, moderate DD, and severe DD of 78.0%, 72.0%, 68.0%, and 58.0%, respectively. The adjusted survival model is presented in Table 3. After matching, moderate and severe DD were associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.08; and hazard ratio, 1.84; 1.29-2.62, respectively; P <.001). However, mild DD was not an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.47; P = .45) (Table 3).
A high prevalence (65.0%) of DD was observed in our cohort with normal ejection fraction who presented for outpatient echocardiographic testing. Although DD was associated with the presence of cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular disease, the overall prevalence of established disease and particularly CHF was low. Unadjusted survival was worse according to the presence and degree of DD, but after propensity matching, only moderate and severe DD were independent predictors of mortality. For the first time, to our knowledge, moderate and severe DD have been shown to be independent predictors of mortality rate, although mild DD has not shown this characteristic after adjusting for common cardiovascular risk factors and existing comorbidities in a large cohort of outpatients with normal ejection fraction. This finding has important clinical implications, especially given the high prevalence of mild DD in the population studied.
Because the link between DD and mortality rate in impaired systolic function is well established,8-11 we sought to study the prevalence and outcome of DD specifically in a cohort with a normal ejection fraction. We chose to include patients with CHF because the precise underlying pathophysiologic cause of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is still debated, and abnormalities in these patients include abnormal left ventricular systolic properties; ventricular-arterial coupling; left ventricular diastolic function, torsion, or twist; ventricular-ventricular interaction; pericardial constraint with impaired chronotropic vasodilator reserves; and pulmonary hypertension.28 Furthermore, in a recent study29 of patients with normal systolic function and moderate or severe DD, the rate of progression to clinical heart failure for 2 years was low, although a moderate rate of progression in the development of symptoms and cardiac hospitalizations occurred.
In fact, in our cohort, the prevalence of CHF and therefore of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction was low, as was the prevalence of other cardiac diseases. Therefore, because the overall prevalence of DD was high, most patients who presented for outpatient echocardiographic testing in our institution had, by definition,14,17,29,30 preclinical DD. Because the use of echocardiography as a clinical tool in the outpatient setting continues to increase, with an estimated 9 million echocardiographic tests performed in 2004 in the US Medicare system,18 our study provides the physician with a prognostic context when DD is reported, especially because most procedures are requested by noncardiologists.18
Prior studies have demonstrated increased mortality from DD in patients with normal systolic function but have varied in characterizing the degree of risk according to the stage of DD. A large community cohort demonstrated increased mortality associated with mild or moderate and severe DD independent of age, ejection fraction, and sex but without adjustment for other comorbidities.14 However, in a cohort of 3008 middle-aged or elderly American Indian men (ie, the second Strong Heart Study), although mild DD was associated with an increase in all-cause and cardiac mortality, this increase was not independent of other comorbidities.13 A recent cohort study12 of 735 patients with an ejection fraction greater than 45% found that severe DD was an independent predictor of mortality in addition to age, hyperlipidemia, and the presence of a comorbid illness. All these studies had a DD prevalence of less than 30%, in contrast to the current study. In addition, women were underrepresented in some studies.12,13 Our study overcame some of the limitations of preceding studies by including a large sex-balanced population with representation and targeted analysis of all stages of DD and a true normal ejection fraction (≥55%). In this setting, we identified moderate and severe DD as independent predictors of worse survival rate. Contrary to the largest study to date,14 mild DD was not associated with increased mortality rate.
The potential mechanisms by which moderate and severe DD independently confer mortality risk require further study to identify whether a targeted therapeutic approach directed at DD can be found. However, our results suggest that an increased awareness of the clinical significance of advanced DD may lead to earlier identification of those patients who are at risk, especially at a preclinical stage.
Limited data exist regarding the natural history of DD and specifically regarding whether progression among stages exists over time. One study has demonstrated that in patients with DD and ejection fractions greater than 45%, the condition of approximately half of patients remained stable, 21% displayed improvement, and 27% deteriorated clinically during a follow-up of 3.6 years.12 A mortality benefit was observed in those whose DD improved compared with those whose DD remained the same or had deteriorated clinically. Further investigation is warranted to understand the natural history of DD and the factors that affect progression.
Our study had several limitations. It is a retrospective study from a single institution. Also, the assessment of diastolic function using Doppler echocardiographic testing is performed in a standard manner in our institution, but the use of tissue Doppler to assess mitral annular velocities only began in the late 1990s. Individual patient histories were unmasked to the reader when interpreting the echocardiographic results. Systolic function was assessed using the ejection fraction, which is an imperfect but universally understood variable used in a manner consistent with those of prior studies of diastolic dysfunction. The outcome studied was all-cause mortality, which is clinically relevant, objective, and nonbiased compared with cardiac-specific causes of death,23 but we do not report clinical events before death.
We recorded clinical data from a period starting 6 months before the echocardiographic testing date and ending 6 months afterward, thus representing only a brief period. Therefore, relevant clinical diagnoses before or after the interval and subsequent changes in medical regimen were not captured. Furthermore, clinical data were obtained by review of electronic medical records and linking to relevant ICD-9 codes, which can have limited sensitivity.31 The propensity matching did not include certain unmeasured variables or unobserved variables, such as history of cancer and severity of native valve disease; therefore, potential confounding by these variables cannot be excluded.
In a single-center cohort of patients with normal ejection fraction referred for outpatient echocardiographic testing for a variety of indications, DD, especially mild DD, was highly prevalent. After adjustment for a number of cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, moderate and severe DD were independent predictors of mortality during follow-up but mild DD was not. Further studies are required to identify the precise mechanistic linkage between advanced DD and mortality rate.
Correspondence: Wael A. Jaber, MD, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195 (email@example.com).
Accepted for Publication: March 7, 2011.
Author Contributions: Drs Halley, Khalil, and Jaber had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Halley and Jaber. Acquisition of data: Halley, Khalil, and Jaber. Analysis and interpretation of data: Halley, Houghtaling, Thomas, and Jaber. Drafting of the manuscript: Halley and Jaber. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Halley, Houghtaling, Khalil, Thomas, and Jaber. Statistical analysis: Halley and Houghtaling. Administrative, technical, and material support: Khalil, Thomas, and Jaber. Study supervision: Thomas and Jaber.
Financial Disclosure: Dr Thomas has served as a consultant to and received honoraria from GE Healthcare, Philips Healthcare, and Siemens AG (none within the past year).


text:
Artichokes: Eat your heart out
There aren't many veggies we'd serve to our guests that come from a can. Vegetables don't survive the canning process very well. I can think of only one: the undiscovered artichoke heart.
These are marvelous morsels of the best part of the artichoke with none of the bother of fresh, or the expense. Neat trick.
I know, you're thinking artichokes, yikes. Fresh ones come in heads of finger-cutting leaves, often at $2 or more each, the weirdest of vegetables. Cook them just right or you get brown mush.
What we're really after is the choke, or heart, covered with disgusting hairs hidden in the center of the bulb. It's sweet and just right in everything from salads to pasta to stews to pizza.
The canned variety eliminates the cost and mess, offering a wonderful artichoke flavor as near as your pantry shelf. The price is amazing: six to eight hearts for as low as $2.
I'm not talking about the marinated ones in costly little jars of canola oil with a dash of oregano at twice the price. You can marinate your own from cans that taste fine at dollars less. Excellent antipasta.
My favorite brand is Gia Russa (http://giarussa.com). They're already quartered, for instant use.
So you pop the quick-open top (this is too easy). Now what? First thing I think of is hot pasta in a sauce of olive oil, garlic and oregano, but this is just the beginning. Cook a double recipe, and save half for a cold pasta salad, adding pepperoni or tuna, cheese, broccoli, scallions and olives for an Italian picnic treat.
Canned chokes are already cooked, so in hot dishes, add them at the last 10-15 minutes of simmering. They only need warming. I adore them in stews of all sorts, or roasted alongside pork or beef.
How far can you take this? Quartered hearts are three-minute appetizers. Dry them on a paper towels and place on little squares of thin rye bread. Top with Gruyére or brie cheese, add a dash of basil and broil. Or bread and deep fry them.
I adore them on the grill. Oil a sheet of aluminum foil, fork-piercing it to let the smoke through. Grill them alongside your steak or fish for about 10 minutes. If you're smoking chicken or a pork loin, smoke the chokes, too.
We enjoy shrimp or scallops (or both) sautéed in olive oil and white wine. A drained can of chokes flipped around with the shellfish makes the dish.
The only drawback is the canning process. It requires a high sodium content, 18 percent of your recommended daily allowance per serving. You can cut this by rinsing the chokes in cold water and not using their liquid in recipes. Otherwise, canned chokes are a rich fiber source with zero fat and cholesterol and only 35 calories per serving, hardly a diet buster.
In case you haven't guessed, I love these things.
4 tablespoons butter
2 teaspoons Dijon mustard
4 tablespoons flour
1 cup white wine
1 cup milk
1 can artichoke hearts
16 ounces cream cheese
1⁄2 pound Swiss cheese, grated
1 pound salmon, bite-size chunks
1 pound crab meat
White pepper to taste
Melt butter and add flour. Stir constantly for 1 minute over low heat. Add milk gradually and stir until mixture thickens. Add cream cheese, a little at a time, stirring with a whisk. Add remaining ingredients. Cook 10 minutes over low heat, stirring constantly. Serve over rice or toast points. Serves 6 to 8.
1 pound boiled pasta (small shells, gemelli, rotini, etc.)
1⁄4 cup olive oil
3 cloves minced garlic (more if you like garlic)
1 teaspoon oregano
1 teaspoon basil
1⁄2 teaspoon red pepper flakes (optional)
1⁄2 cup (or more) freshly grated Parmesan or Romano cheese
1 medium onion, diced
1⁄2 cup fresh Italian parsley, minced
1 14-ounce can artichoke hearts, drained
Gently sauté the garlic, onion and herbs in the oil (don't brown), adding the pepper and quartered chokes at the last moment. Toss with hot cooked pasta and add cheese, or serve it on the side. Garnish with parsley. Tossing with a cup of steamed vegetables, such as carrots and broccoli, will dress up this dish. It's also good with a can of flaked tuna. (Chill this recipe for a great pasta salad.) Serves 8.
3⁄4 cup extra virgin olive oil
1⁄2 teaspoon oregano
1⁄2 teaspoon basil
2 tablespoons red wine or balsamic vinegar
1 clove garlic minced
dash of freshly ground pepper
1 can quartered artichoke hearts, drained
Shake the ingredients in a clean jar and add the chokes. Cover and refrigerate for at least 24 hours. Keeps up to a week refrigerated. Use in salads and as a pizza topper, or as a chilled antipasta. For a hot appetizer, place in a flat cooking dish, add a cup of shredded cheese and broil until the cheese begins to brown.


text:
If you or your child has been referred for a diagnostic audiologic evaluation, it means that hearing loss needs to be ruled out or further examined. The diagnostic audiologic evaluation may be indicated for individuals who did not pass an initial hearing screening.
The evaluation is done to determine if a hearing loss is present, and if so, to detail the type and severity of the hearing loss. It also may provide insight in to the cause of the hearing loss as well as provide guidance for the audiologist in making appropriate treatment recommendations.
The specific tests done during the evaluation will depend on the patient's age, and what is known already about their hearing status. These various tests will the degree of hearing loss, the type of hearing loss, and the conditions of the ear canal and middle ear. The audiologist will also determine if the hearing loss is conductive (middle or outer ear problem) or sensorineural (inner ear problem or central processing difficulty of the brain).
A diagnostic audiologic evaluations includes pure-tone testing, bone-conduction testing, and speech testing.
Pure-tone air conduction testing determines the quietest tones that a person can hear at different frequencies, both low and high. Bone conduction testing is similar to pure-tone air conduction testing. A different type of headphone is used during bone conduction testing, and the results help the specialist determine if the hearing loss is originating from the outer/middle ear or from the inner ear.
A speech reception threshold (SRT) test is often used with older children and adults to confirm the results of a pure-tone test. This test determines the lowest level at which the patient can recognize words or speech stimuli.
The audiologist may also perform otoscopy (examining the ear canal) and tympanometry (test of the middle ear) to determine the health of the ear canal and the middle ear.
Specialized tests exist for infants and young children, as well as children and adults with developmental and cognitive impairments. These more-specialized tests allow the audiologist to test the auditory system when the patient is not able to actively participate in the tests or evaluation.
- Auditory brainstem response (ABR) and auditory steady-state response (ASSR) testing
- Otoacoustic emissions (OAE) screening
- Visual reinforcement and conditioned play audiometry for children
For children, it is important to have a diagnostic audiologic evaluation whenever a hearing loss is suspected. It is the first step in identifying hearing loss and dealing with it to improve quality of life.
Along with the evaluation, you should generally expect to have time to review the results with the audiologist. He or she can interpret the tests for you, answer your questions, provide you with information and referrals as needed, as well as begin planning for treatment, if indicated.
Audiologists are specialists in hearing and hearing rehabilitation. Never hesitate to ask your audiologist for clarification or further information on anything you do not understand.
Dr. Jon Ashby is a University professor & who frequently presents clinical instruction and research at numerous professional conferences and conventions.


text:
"An open letter to the U.N from climate skeptics" (2012-11-29). Take that, U.N.! You've been sent a letter from Anthony Watts and other scientists! It's in a newspaper! No talking about weather and climate in the same sentence!
The Financial Post is a reliably partisan Canadian right-wing newspaper and a tightly connected part of the climate denial circle-jerk. They've published an opinion piece/"letter" from 125 (or is it 129?) scientists informing the U.N. that they know all about climate and Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon doesn't.
We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions. – OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125 scientists.
"no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years"! "variations in solar output"! "Climate changes naturally all the time"! Now that is one rigorous evidence-based smack-down. Well, more like a rehash of various vague, debunked, denialist talking points.
Who are these
125 129 scientists? Well Anthony's one (except not). So is Lord Monckton (except not). Plenty of engineers, geologists and physicists too, as well as the usual think tank flunkies. Do I have to go any further?
Didn't think so. This is just axe-grinders engaged in empty political posturing because the UN Climate Change Conference is underway in Doha this week. Distract, delay, assert, confuse.
Thanks for Phil Clarke's comment drawing my attention to this amusing bunk.
I notice that the Financial Post has adjusted their article title to correct their inability to count to 129. It's now amended to "125+".
Astronomer Phil Plait has also covered the dumbnitude in Doubling Down on Climate Change Denial:
The letter itself is based on a single claim. So let's be clear: If that claim is wrong, so is the rest of the letter.
Guess what? That claim is wrong. So blatantly wrong, in fact, it's hard to imagine anyone could write it with a straight face. It says:
"The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years."
This is simply, completely, and utterly false. The Met Office is the national weather service for the United Kingdom. In October 2012, they updated their database of global surface temperature measurements, a compendium of temperatures taken over time by weather stations around the planet. David Rose, a climate change denier who can charitably be said to have trouble with facts, cherry-picked this dataset and published a horrendously misleading graph in that bastion of scientific thought, the Daily Mail, saying the measurements show there's been no global warming for the past 16 years.
But he did this by choosing a starting point on his graph that gave the result he wanted, a graph that looks like there's been no warming since 1997. But if you show the data properly, you see there has been warming:


text:
Today's News: Our Take - Kristen Bell, Dax Shepard Welcome Baby Girl
TV Guide
Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard welcomed a baby girl, the couple announced on Twitter Thursday.
"Lincoln Bell Shepard is here," Shepard tweeted. "She has mom's beauty and dad's obsession with breasts. Hooray!!!" Bell added: "My new roommate poops her pants and doesn't pay rent... Basically @daxshepard1 pre-sobriety :) welcome baby Lincoln xo."
Photos: The craziest celebrity baby names
This is the first child for the 32-year-old House of Lies star and her Parenthood fiancé, 38, who announced they were expecting in November. The couple got engaged in 2009.
View original Kristen Bell, Dax Shepard Welcome Baby Girl at TVGuide.com
Related Articles on TVGuide.com
Other Links From TVGuide.com


text:
A house that "sparkles" on the surface will sell faster than its shabby neighbor, even though both are structurally well-maintained. From experience, REALTOR® also know that a "well-polished" house appeals to more buyers and will sell faster and for a higher price.
Additionally, buyers feel more comfortable purchasing a well-cared for home because if what they can see is maintained, what they can't see has probably also been maintained.
In preparing your home for the market, spend as little money as possible. Buyers will be impressed by a brand new roof, but they aren't likely to give you enough extra money to pay for it. There is a big difference between making minor and inexpensive "polishes" and "touch-ups" to your house, such as putting new knobs on cabinets and a fresh coat of neutral paint in the living room, and doing extensive and costly renovations, like installing a new kitchen. Your REALTOR®, who is familiar with buyers' expectations in your neighborhood, can advise you specifically on what improvements need to be made.Don't hesitate to ask for advice
Preparing the exterior (curb appeal) of your home for sale is probably the most important step you can take. If you can't get them through the front door, you can't get them to buy. If they don't like what they see when they drive up, you lost a potential buyer. So take some time, and get unbiased opinions of what needs to be spruced up, changed, or removed.
Once you have the "curb appeal" taken care of, it's time to head inside and prepare the inside as well. Again, get some unbiased opinions of what should be changed, what should be cleared out and put in storage, and what should be emphasized. You have a potential buyers interest if you got them inside to look around... don't lose them now.
If you are ready to start your buying or selling process
give me a call. I'm happy to answer all your questions.