Prominent business executive, Wilford ‘Billy’ Heaven, has been re-elected as president of the Jamaica Cricket Association (JCA).The CHASE Fund chief executive officer will head the association for a second two-year term, after turning back the challenge of incumbent secretary, Fritz Harris, 52 to 47, during the association’s annual general meeting at the Jamaica Conference Centre yesterday.”It feels good to be returned as president, as over the past two years, the JCA has made several strides,” said Heaven.”It is a good victory for cricket, I believe, as the association is moving in the right direction generally, and the hope is that over the next term things will get even better.”Harris, who prior to the election had served as secretary for the past two years, expressed disappointment at the result, but, in the meantime, congratulated Heaven.HARRIS DISAPPOINTED”I am naturally disappointed with the result, but it’s a membership association with the right to elect the president, and I have to respect that,” Harris said. “I must also commend the president on retaining his position.”Heaven, who prior to his ascension to the post two years ago, had promised to serve for two terms, will also have at least six of his seven executive committee nominees to work with.This is after the they won their respective contests.These include: Dr Donovan Bennett (first vice-president), Mark Neita (second vice-president), Diann Campbell (honorary secretary, Clinton Clarke (assistant secretary) and Hopeton Morrison (treasurer).At press time, the seventh executive position, that of assistant treasurer, was undecided.Kerry Scott, representing Team Heaven, and Errol Moodie, representing Team Harris, were the assistant treasurer nominees.Heaven, during his campaign, noted that several measures had been instituted during his tenure.These, he said, included: the enhancement of commitment to transparency and good governance by the filing of the first annual income tax returns in 16 years, the appointment of a chief executive officer, the implementation of lights at Sabina Park, and improvement practice facilities as well as provision of a new gymnasium and wellness centre. He also pointed to the restoration of local women’s cricket competition to the cricket calendar.Harris, in the meanwhile, a director of the JCA for over 15 years, had campaigned on a promise of change for a betterment of the game.
Imprecise language confuses the evolution issue, making it seem like goal-directed activity of intelligent minds mimics Darwinism.Cultural EvolutionThe authors of a paper in PNAS might be forgiven for speaking of ‘cultural evolution’ in their paper on classical literature, because they don’t really mention mutations or natural selection. However, the word evolution is so tainted by Darwinism these days, is their meaning clear?We trace the evolution of features not tied to individual words across diverse corpora and provide statistical evidence to support interpretive hypotheses of literary critical interest. The significance of this approach is the integration of quantitative and humanistic methods to address aspects of cultural evolution.The summary on Phys.org, however, adds to the confusion with its imprecise meanings:“There is a growing appreciation that culture evolves and that language can be studied as a cultural artifact, but there has been less research focused specifically on the cultural evolution of literature,” said the study’s lead author Joseph Dexter, a Ph.D. candidate in systems biology at Harvard University.The link in that quote produces a page mixed with goal-directed or mindful change and biological change due to neo-Darwinism. So is cultural evolution something that just happens randomly like biological change, or not? Readers are left thinking the two concepts can be intermixed.Meteorological EvolutionA worse case of equivocation has emerged from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Science Daily‘s headline says, “Meteorologist applies biological evolution to forecasting,” tying in the science of weather forecasting directly to Darwin:What if a computer model could improve itself over time without requiring additional data? One researcher has made weather forecasting more accurate by repurposing an idea from Charles Darwin.It might seem to some commuters without umbrellas that forecasters roll dice, but the story is about Paul Roebber, “an innovator in weather prediction.” Presumably he is trying by intelligent design to improve the art and science of a fiendishly difficult field with many variables. While he may vary his inputs, he very sincerely chooses the outputs, having a goal to increase the reliability of his craft.To boost the accuracy, forecasters don’t rely on just one model. They use “ensemble” modeling — which takes an average of many different weather models. But ensemble modeling isn’t as accurate as it could be unless new data are collected and added. That can be expensive.So Roebber applied a mathematical equivalent of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to the problem. He devised a method in which one computer program sorts 10,000 other ones, improving itself over time using strategies, such as heredity, mutation and natural selection.The wording is entirely misleading. Heredity is not a strategy if Darwin’s theory is true; it’s an outcome of a long series of mistakes. Mutation is clearly not a strategy, any more than a random meteor strike. Least of all is natural selection a ‘strategy.’ If Roebber were really using natural selection, he would walk away from the computer and let stuff happen on its own. Clearly he watches the outcome and guides it toward his goal ‘to boost the accuracy’ of forecasting.In other words, Roebber is doing artificial selection, a form of intelligent design. The only thing his work has in common with Darwin is this: they both used the same fallacy of equivocation, confusing artificial selection with natural selection.Nature favors diversity because it foils the possibility of one threat destroying an entire population at once. Darwin observed this in a population of Galapagos Islands finches in 1835. The birds divided into smaller groups, each residing in different locations around the islands. Over time, they adapted to their specific habitat, making each group distinct from the others.Applying this to weather prediction models, Roebber began by subdividing the existing variables into conditional scenarios: The value of a variable would be set one way under one condition, but be set differently under another condition.The computer program he created picks out the variables that best accomplishes the goal and then recombines them. In terms of weather prediction, that means, the “offspring” models improve in accuracy because they block more of the unhelpful attributes.So did the finches create computer programs, too? Did they hold a committee and say, ‘We need to subdivide into smaller groups to avoid threats’? Obviously not. Darwin could not have cared less if they all died in one threat, or died separately in separate threats. The birds did not choose to adapt. If they had all perished, Darwin would have explained that, too.Roebber looks at the outcome of the Galapagos finch population distribution, and presupposes that it occurred by a Darwinian mechanism, ignoring the possibility that organisms are designed to adapt. To the extent he thinks the finches divided on purpose, he also commits the fallacy of personification. By contrast, Roebber himself had a goal in his research. Purposely working toward a goal by applying an intelligent strategy is not Darwinian.As a reward for his equivocation, the government gave Roebber $500,000 in funding. If his work helps commuters know when to bring an umbrella, they will be happy and not care about the Darwinese. They don’t need the narrative gloss that Darwin helped him with his intelligent design.Evolution is a god to the science research and media culture, capable of innovation, progress, and adaptation. Evolutionists think they are pleasing Darwin by being Darwin-like the way Christians try to please God by being Christ-like. The Darwinians imbue all the attributes of God onto natural selection. They fall down and worship its omniscience and omnipotence. They might as well be singing Darwin’s praises in hymns. (Visited 135 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The primary purpose of the shot list is to help break down the scene into specific steps which will serve as a blueprint — and safety net — to your day of production. There are hundreds of shot list templates you can download for Microsoft Word and Excel. I find the shot list included in the video below (via Delta Film Academy) to be incredibly detailed and helpful.It goes so far as including the length of the shot on the script page, and the predicted setup time for that shot. It’s ideal for efficiently planning shots. For further reading on the language of the script, I highly recommend the above-mentioned book Script Supervising and Film Continuity by Pat P. Miller. Although the primary purpose of the book is to study the craft of script supervising, it also breaks down a lot of other aspects such as the shooting schedule, how to break down a script, and so on.Do you have any specific shot list templates you always use? Let us know in the comments. There are a few different ways to create a shot list, but what matters most is that you take the time to do it. Here’s one tested method to try next time you break a script down into a shot list.Top image via Delta Film AcademyFilmmaking procedures will often change from production to production, studio to studio, and from region to region. There isn’t just one way to do something or one word to describe that particular function. Regarding shot lists, I’m sure you could find several different ways to create one.In the book Script Supervising and Film Continuity, author Pat P. Miller, explains expertly explains the formal process. Yet even Miller says “You may design any format that serves your purpose, so long as the following information is properly recorded…”Essentially, as long as your production crew is familiar with your format, you’re good to start shooting. First, you need to break down the shots on your script page. In the example piece above, I’m going to breakdown and visualize the information into different shots. As seen below, you do this with a line which is closed off at the top and the bottom top to signify the end of that shot.When you do this in your script, it’s best to use a pencil — if you use a pen and change your mind halfway down the page, your script will get messy. In the marked page above, I have four different lines, each representing a different shot. You may notice that some lines overlap one another, such as shot 2) and shot 2a). This conveys a few things:Shot 2) is longer than shot 2a).Because the length of 2a) is just a single line, all that’s to be filmed is the information ahead of the marking — turning the radio on.In the edit, we would like shot 2a) to play out and then return back to shot 2).There is a common misconception that the first shot in a scene is called by the scene number and then the letter a. For example, 2a). This is incorrect.The first shot of a brand new scene is just the scene number on its own — 2). Every proceeding change (lens change, camera position, frame rate change) after the initial shot is when you add a letter.As a side tip: You can also put a wiggly line next to the character who is speaking but isn’t on camera. This is really more something a script supervisor would do for the editor, but if it’s going to help you distinguish who the camera is on when it comes to typing up your shot list, then use it to your advantage. You need to do this with your entire script. After all that is complete, start to implement this information into a more comprehensive and cleaner shot list.It’s really up to you how involved you want your shot list to be. It’s going to depend on the size of your production and budget level. Below is a basic shot list that I’ve put together from all the information outlined above.
About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Man Utd boss Mourinho insists luck was with Liverpoolby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveManchester United boss Jose Mourinho insists luck was with Liverpool for Sunday’s 3-1 defeat.Sadio Mane had put the hosts ahead on 24 minutes, but a mistake from Liverpool goalkeeper Alisson Becker allowed Jesse Lingard to equalise soon after. However, further strikes followed for Jurgen Klopp’s men after the break, with substitute Xherdan Shaqiri netting two deflected efforts to seal the hosts’ 3-1 victory.Mourinho said, “They had a strong team and showed they are the strongest team. It’s hard to concede two goals in the moments we conceded and even harder the way the goals happened [with the deflections]. I think our difficult period in the game was the first 20 minutes when we couldn’t cope with their fantastic intensity and speed and pressing. After that we were quite calm in the game and the game was controlled. “We can say of course they attacked much more than us, they had corners, they had more play in our half than we had in their half, but it was exactly the moment when the game was going into the dynamic when they were really frustrated. “You had centre-backs coming with the ball and shooting from 30 yards into the stands – that was a period when the game was more under control and we felt that we could win, even a little bit undeservedly, but it was the moment when sometimes teams that are dominating a game can lose matches. But that was when we conceded two goals. David [De Gea] was saying in the dressing room afterwards that they [Shaqiri’s shots] would have been two easy balls for him, but because of the deflections he had no chance.”Mourinho insisted luck was with the hosts, “If you want to speak about fortune, then speak about their second and third goals. Our goal was a good move by the side, I think [Romelu] Lukaku got in the space behind the full-back with a good cross and then Jesse [Lingard] arrived in a dangerous position and the goalkeeper made, what I used to call, half of a mistake. To speak about luck and goals we have to speak about the second and third goals.”
A peak behind the curtain.The City of Calgary is releasing the details of its proposal to the Calgary Flames on a new arena Friday morning, just days after the team said negotiations weren’t getting anywhere, adding it was no longer pursuing a new building.After the announcement, Mayor Naheed Nenshi confirmed the basic deal was one-third of the funding from the city, one-third from the team, and one-third from a ticket surcharge.But he also added there was a lot more to it than that, which presumably is the part which will be released Friday.Sportsnet 960 THE FAN morning show host Dean ‘Boomer’ Molberg said the reaction from listeners to everything that’s happened this week has been split right down the middle.“I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I don’t think anyone is really threatened that the Flames would ever leave. This is a very profitable market, it’s a hockey market, it’s Canada and teams have left before but they’re not leaving now so I don’t know that fans really feel that threatened,” he said.The city is prohibited from releasing details of the Flames’ offer because of a confidentiality agreement.Boomer doesn’t expect the team to respond to whatever the mayor releases, but he wouldn’t be surprised if they did.“I think that they’ve thrown it down, they said they’re done and until something changes they’ll probably take that tack that they’re done negotiating,” he said.Still, he’s interested to see which side fans will take once we get a closer look at the numbers, even if they are just from one side.
MONTREAL – The chair of DavidsTea’s current board says it’s carefully reviewing a slate of director nominees submitted by a 46 per cent shareholder that has indicated an interest in taking the chain of tea shops private.DavidsTea chairman Maurice Tousson — who isn’t one of the shareholder’s nominees — says in a statement that the current directors are committed to ensuring all shareholders are fairly represented on the board.Rainy Day Investments Ltd. is controlled by co-founder Herschel Segal, who indicated in February that RDI is exploring the possibility of taking the company private. Segal resigned from the board effective March 5.Rainy Day announced Monday that it’s nominating Segal as one of eight proposed directors. The other nominees include Lorenzo Salvaggio, another former director of DavidsTea, and Emilia Di Raddo who remains on the current board.The company’s statement on Thursday said the board hasn’t received a formal proposal from Rainy Day Investments and Tousson said the board is working to ensure the management team of DavidsTea stays focused on improving operations.DavidsTea has only been publicly traded since June 2015, when it listed on the Nasdaq stock market as part of an expansion plan. It currently has 236 tea shops across Canada and the United States.Companies in this story: (Nasdaq:DTEA)
“Billions of dollars of shareholder value would have been saved if Kinder Morgan had done a better job of anticipating, assessing and mitigating the sustainability risks to its business,” Lindsley said.In 2016, Ottawa approved plans to triple the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline between Edmonton and Burnaby, B.C. But the $7.4-billion project has faced significant opposition and legal challenges from environmentalists, First Nations and B.C.’s NDP government.Kinder Morgan suspended all non-essential spending on the expansion earlier this year, saying ongoing opposition in B.C. and the threat of legal delays was making investors wary of proceeding with the project. The company set May 31 as the deadline for the federal and provincial governments to reach an agreement that would allow the expansion to go ahead.Wilson said the fact shareholders voted for the sustainability report proposal shows they want the company to be more socially and environmentally responsible, but that won’t stop opposition to the Trans Mountain expansion because it threatens Indigenous culture, spirituality, identity and way of life. “That means fundamentally more to us than anything that they could offer us,” she said. “This means that there will be further delay and risk and uncertainty for the overall project. And we wanted to carry that message to the shareholders today.”As the general meeting took place, protests against the expansion project continued in Burnaby, with opponents blocking access to the company’s marine terminal on land and in the water.About 200 people have been arrested since the middle of March while protesting outside Kinder Morgan’s facilities in Burnaby, the RCMP have said.(THE CANADIAN PRESS) HOUSTON, TX – Kinder Morgan’s shareholders have asked the company for more disclosure on its sustainability after a presentation Wednesday by a First Nations chief from British Columbia.Neskonlith Chief Judy Wilson said she told the company’s annual general meeting in Houston that environmental, social and governance issues can pose significant risks to business and without proper disclosure, shareholders won’t know if they are vulnerable.Wilson said she also explained the legal risks if Kinder Morgan proceeds with its Trans Mountain pipeline expansion on Indigenous land without consent from First Nations. “We do not believe the risks of the project have been accurately evaluated nor fully disclosed and we wanted to point that out to the shareholders,” she told a news conference after the meeting.Wilson put forward a resolution proposing that shareholders ask Kinder Morgan to issue an annual sustainability report describing the company’s analysis of short- and long-term risks, along with plans for mitigating them.Another resolution from a U.S. asset management company proposed that Kinder Morgan create a report looking at how commitments various countries have made under the Paris climate change agreement will affect the pipeline builder’s portfolio in the long term.A Kinder Morgan spokesman said both resolutions passed, but neither is binding. Executive chairman Rich Kinder said in a statement the board will “carefully consider the proposals and the information contained in the supporting statements in determining what actions to take with respect to them.”Because the resolutions are non-binding, shareholders should follow up to show the company that they’re watching and expect their wishes to be expressed, said Lisa Lindsley with advocacy group SumOfUs.Kinder Morgan could have foreseen issues with its Trans Mountain pipeline expansion if the company had previously committed to putting out sustainability reports, she added.
New Delhi: The ED Thursday filed its first direct charge sheet against controversial Islamic preacher Zakir Naik on charges of money laundering, officials said. The agency filed the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before a special court in Mumbai and said it has identified proceeds of crime worth Rs 193.06 crore. This is the second charge sheet in the case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in this case, but the first against Naik underlining his role in the matter. Naik was booked by the ED in 2016 based on a National Investigation Agency (NIA) FIR.
He worked on a more consistent step-back, which he now uses when he drives the lane or is in isolation, rising high in the air with a ramrod-straight form that gives him a clean look at the rim. Providence coach Ed Cooley is also using Dunn off the ball, letting teammate Kyron Cartwright run point while Dunn comes off several screens. That allows Dunn to either feed Ben Bentil, a hulking sophomore forward — or catch-and-shoot a pass from a teammate. Dunn spent the offseason working with former Providence guard God Shammgod, who has become a quasi mentor-trainer to Dunn. They had several goals in mind: First, Dunn needed to upgrade his jump shot, which was wildly inconsistent from just about everywhere on the court. Second, he needed to tighten his handle to limit turnovers. And third, he had to develop several countermoves, should savvy defenders who had studied game film fail to bite on Dunn’s initial move.Dunn’s jump shot as a sophomore was streaky — a reel full of bad, caroming rocks that either just hit the backboard or fell wildly off the back iron. Since his long arms make it nearly impossible for a defender to block his shot, it was a priority that he improve this component of his game to maximize his advantages. He also gets great separation thanks to a quick first step and a backpack full of crosses, between-the-legs moves and feints. Providence’s Kris Dunn won’t win player of the year honors (that’ll almost certainly go to Oklahoma’s Buddy Hield), nor will he be the top choice in the upcoming NBA draft (LSU’s Ben Simmons should be No. 1), but he’s worth watching for the way his unique set of skills turns into thrilling plays — for better and worse. The 6-foot-4 junior is the most exciting player in the game, precisely because he isn’t as cookie cutter as other top prospects.Dunn did two things particularly well last season, as I covered in-depth last year in an article for Deadspin1At the time, I wish he had used the momentum of his standout sophomore season to declare for the NBA draft, where he would have likely been a first-round pick.: He had a preternatural sense of where his fellow Friars were at all times on the court, and he used his length and athleticism to finish plays that, at first glance, appeared ill-advised. There were countless possessions where Dunn would dribble off a screen 25 feet from the basket and whip a one-handed underhand pass to a cutter for the dunk; or, with enough time to run a set play in overtime, he would instead push the ball frenetically up the court to hit a teammate for an and-one before the defense set.College point guards don’t typically make those decisions. More often they make the careful pass — the assist the coach has hard-coded into the play call — or the pass they’ve practiced for years and feel comfortable throwing. Dunn, though, has such innate skill and creativity that he attempts passes that should have a high rate of failure, but often succeed because the defense isn’t expecting them. That style allowed Dunn to lead the nation in assist percentage (at a staggering 50.0 percent last season, and 44.2 during this campaign2To put this in context, just 23 other high-major point guards had assist rates above 30 percent, and just two — Denzel Valentine of Michigan State and Oklahoma State’s Jawun Evans — topped 40 percent.). Thrilling as all that was, it often led to some alarmingly bad turnovers — about 20 percent of his possessions — even when you take into account his high usage rate.But this season, the consensus is that Dunn is the nation’s top point guard. To become it, Dunn had to make a few tweaks to his game. According to Synergy Sports Technology, Dunn’s spot-up numbers are still below average, but he now scores one point per catch-and-shoot possession — that’s pretty good, and a vast improvement over the .76 points he scored a year ago. And his jumper should only get better given the fundamental improvements he made in the offseason. Dunn is connecting on 37 percent of his threes while taking them at a far higher rate than last season — 25.9 percent of his field goal attempts, up from 19.7 last season. He now shoots with the perfect follow through — his arms extend and his hands rest like they’re in a cookie jar. The shots that were ugly bricks are beginning to show just a little more touch, like the game winner he hit against Creighton, which hit the flat section of the bucket that connects to the backboard, died on the rim, and finally rolled softly in.Some have criticized Dunn, and his NBA potential, because of his turnovers. Though the guard assists on 45 percent of Providence’s shots, which is second in Division I, he also gives the ball away on 85 of his 425 possessions (through Providence’s loss to Marquette this week). Since Dunn’s dimes typically account for about 2.4 points in the halfcourt and transition, the Friars have missed out on more than 200 points this season when Dunn loses control.On other teams, those miscues might find a guard strapped to the bench. But for Dunn the giveaways don’t matter. A 25-foot pass through Xavier’s 1-3-1 zone defense during a game in late February is the kind of play Cooley wants, regardless of the risk. Midway through the first half, Dunn saw a brief opening between Larry Austin and Kaiser Gates, and threaded a pass (from Providence’s half-court logo) to Bentil, who certainly wasn’t calling for the ball but was able to convert an and-one. Similarly, Cooley needs his junior guard to consistently draw the defense’s attention so his Friar ‘mates can benefit from that extra second of breathing room. This happened in a Villanova victory when Dunn slipped a backdoor pass to Junior Lomomba: He wasn’t doubled, but Dunn reacted to all five Villanova players tracking his moves as he came off a Bentil pick. Again, Lomomba wasn’t exactly expecting the ball, but he made the lay-up. Sure, Dunn will take some shots — like a one-on-three fast break that has become a bit of a staple of his game this season — that might cause some to cringe. But Cooley is willing to incur the cost of a few bad shots if it means his squad can operate with offensive impunity.Dunn’s impact on the game, negative and positive, is what makes him so fascinating to watch. Buddy Hield, Ben Simmons, and Maryland’s Melo Trimble are equally as talented, impressive, and fun to watch, but none inspire quite the same combination of mouth-agape incredulity and absolute production as Dunn. So when he puts the ball behind his back, then crosses over Michigan State’s Tum Tum Nairn, only to follow with a spin move to the rack and then misses the layup, don’t think of it as a wasted possession. Instead, imagine it as a thrilling experiment in risk and reward, the type of audacious and improvisational brilliance that the college game doesn’t produce anymore.
7Dayton4135363446442838 Our ratings also account for injuries and travel distance — playing in a familiar gym an hour from campus is a big advantage compared to traveling across the country. And once the tournament begins, the ratings will be updated to reflect the results of previous tournament games. If a No. 2 seed needs overtime to defeat a No. 15 seed, for instance, it can be an inauspicious sign for their prospects down the road.Let’s take a quick tour of the four regions — starting with Villanova and the East. 15Jax. State6362646264686166 3Florida State2219182119171035 1Villanova12212114 13Vermont4551514549505353 RANK AMONG 68 TOURNAMENT TEAMS 8Arkansas3237374037273141 9Seton Hall2845444747333430 SEEDTEAMELOPOMSAGBPILRMCMOORNCAAPRE 11Xavier463932333631417 How the teams compare: Midwest region 16South Dakota St.5865636565626445 7Michigan1221222021222733 12UNC-Wilmington4249495144524947 SEEDTEAMELOPOMSAGBPILRMCMOORNCAAPRE RANK AMONG 68 TOURNAMENT TEAMS 16New Orleans6564676868676768 2Arizona51921242021611 11USC4850465052464534 1UNC63334436 2Louisville10665113812 15North Dakota6263616066596261 4West Virginia13547371517 12Nevada3446454242474752 6Cincinnati2122201518182225 6Creighton2527272727292418 5Virginia207741010177 3Oregon8161313162495 13E. Tenn. St.5252525250535257 5Iowa State1517152315112021 4Florida1691089141429 How the teams compare: West region 11Rhode Island3036403141284420 9Michigan St.4440353839383510 16Texas Southern6766666362646360 8Miami2732282840363023 RANK AMONG 68 TOURNAMENT TEAMS 14FGCU5955555356555656 14Iona6157575855545848 13Bucknell5353535451515154 As a Michigan native, I’m a firm believer that Midwest is best, but that doesn’t extend to this year’s tournament, where the region is a bit lackluster. Kansas — with a 28-4 record from a very good Big 12 conference — might seem like a no-brainer No. 1 seed. But other than Elo, the computer ratings are a bit down on the Jayhawks, noting that they won many games by narrow margins that could reflect luck as much as clutch performance. Still, they’re the favorite here. Louisville is a perfectly adequate No. 2 seed, but they have to survive a difficult Round of 32 game — both No. 7 Michigan and No. 10 Oklahoma State are underseeded. And the regional finals will be played in Kansas City, advantaging KU.A lot of people are also pointing toward Kansas’s Round of 32 matchup — against either No. 8 Miami or No. 9 Michigan State — as a difficult spot. But as much as it pains me to say this as an East Lansingite, I’m not sure this is Michigan State’s year. They’ve won only five road or neutral-site games all year, and while a lot of credit should be given to the Spartans for how many tough teams they scheduled, they also didn’t come away with a lot of wins. Then again, Tom Izzo has made a fool of everyone else’s best-laid plans and projections in the past.No. 3 seed Oregon is another case of a team that might seem to be underseeded but probably isn’t. They lost senior forward Chris Boucher to an ACL tear in the Pac-12 tournament, substantially weakening their front-court depth. 3Baylor1913161717201228 11Kansas State5129313228344636 ELO = FiveThirtyEight’s Elo rating; POM = Ken Pomeroy; SAG = Jeff Sagarin “predictor” rating; BPI = ESPN’s basketball power index; MOOR = Sonny Moore power ratings; NCAA = Selection committee’s 68-team “S-Curve”; PRE = Composite of preseason rankings 1Gonzaga711212412 FiveThirtyEight’s March Madness predictions are up and ready for your perusal. But while we’re really excited about the tournament, we have to say this is not a year in which we’re going to be able to help you all that much, at least in the Elite Eight and beyond.That’s because there’s as much parity in the tournament as there’s ever been — not necessarily from the very top of the field to the very bottom, but certainly among a group of No. 1 and No. 2 seeds that aren’t all that easy to distinguish from one another. Meanwhile, the blue bloods have to navigate a minefield of underseeded teams such as Wichita State and SMU, with some having more perilous paths than others.The one team that potentially stood out from the pack — defending national champion and No. 1 overall seed Villanova — has been undermined by a difficult draw. While the Wildcats are still the nominal favorite to win the tournament, they have only a 15 percent chance of doing so, which is tied for the lowest probability for a frontrunner in our seven years of making tournament predictions.1Fourth-seeded Louisville also had a 15 percent chance in 2014.Our methodology for making these projections is exactly the same as it was last year. They’re based on a blend of six computer rankings: FiveThirtyEight’s Elo ratings, Ken Pomeroy’s ratings, Jeff Sagarin’s “predictor” ratings, ESPN’s BPI, Joel Sokol’s LRMC ratings and Sonny Moore’s computer power ratings. We also use two human-generated rating systems: the selection committee’s 68-team “S-Curve” and a composite of preseason ratings from coaches and media polls. The preseason ratings have some predictive power when used carefully, serving as a hedge against teams that may have overachieved or underachieved relative to their talent level and are due to revert to the mean.VIDEO: A No. 16 seed will win, but don’t bet on it ELO = FiveThirtyEight’s Elo rating; POM = Ken Pomeroy; SAG = Jeff Sagarin “predictor” rating; BPI = ESPN’s basketball power index; MOOR = Sonny Moore power ratings; NCAA = Selection committee’s 68-team “S-Curve”; PRE = Composite of preseason rankings 10Okla. State2924232626253744 5Notre Dame1725242223191931 11Wake Forest4330333029324349 4Butler2326262524231327 14Kent St.5759585858575759 In contrast to recent seasons, when the committee was often forced to ship in teams from the eastern half of the country to claim the top two seeds in the West, this year’s bracket features two geographically appropriate representatives in No. 1 Gonzaga and No. 2 Arizona. That’s important to keep in mind, because travel can be a big factor in the West region, with teams potentially flying a long way to play games in an unfamiliar time zone.Otherwise, the West is a bit … weird. For one thing, Gonzaga — with a 32-1 record largely assembled outside a top conference — isn’t an easy team to get a handle on. A few of the computer ratings have the ‘Zags as the No. 1 overall team, while the committee’s rankings — and Elo — are more skeptical of them because they beat up on middling opposition. No. 2 Arizona, meanwhile, isn’t well liked by the computers, with its strength of schedule not as good as you’d expect from a 30-4 Pac-12 champion. Michigan State, whom the Wildcats beat to start their season, was Arizona’s best nonconference win.West Virginia, the No. 4 seed, is another highly divisive team. They lost eight games but those losses came by an average of just 4.6 points, so the computer formulas think they’re badly underseeded. It’s a tough break for the Mountaineers to not only have drawn Gonzaga in the Round of 16 but also to have to fly across the country to play the game.The West also features a number of potential spoilers from strong academic schools — Northwestern, Princeton, Vanderbilt — that will probably create a lot of buzz if they win. (All those Northwestern journalism grads won’t hurt.) None of those teams are especially underseeded, however. A better dark-horse pick is No. 7 St. Mary’s, which could give Arizona fits in the Round of 32.Check out our March Madness predictions. ELO = FiveThirtyEight’s Elo rating; POM = Ken Pomeroy; SAG = Jeff Sagarin “predictor” rating; BPI = ESPN’s basketball power index; MOOR = Sonny Moore power ratings; NCAA = Selection committee’s 68-team “S-Curve”; PRE = Composite of preseason rankings 2Duke412868671 9Vanderbilt3934383631393326 How the teams compare: South region 5Minnesota3333343635351855 SEEDTEAMELOPOMSAGBPILRMCMOORNCAAPRE 9Virginia Tech3741424543373642 13Winthrop5456565557565458 11Providence4047474848424237 15N. Kentucky6060596360605963 16UC-Davis6468656767666562 10Wichita St.11811155123824 16NC Central6661626161656667 UNC and Kentucky are the top two seeds in the South — and are a tossup to advance from the region according to our forecast (each one has a 30 percent chance). Working in the Tar Heels’ favor: they played one of the toughest schedules in memory, rank slightly ahead of Kentucky in most of the computer rankings (although not in Elo) and are on the opposite side of the bracket from Wichita State, which was ridiculously underseeded. (The Shockers ranked in the top 10 overall according to two computer rankings, LRMC and Pomeroy, and yet they are just a No. 10 seed in their region according to the committee.) Helping Kentucky: the Wildcats are a bit healthier than UNC, come in hotter (having won 11 games in a row and the SEC tournament), might have a bit more top-level talent (as reflected in their preseason ranking) and the location of the regional final, in Memphis, could be slightly favorable to them.If it’s not UNC or Kentucky, the obvious alternative to emerge from the South is No. 3 UCLA, but the various computer rankings are not as bullish on the Pac-12 as the conventional wisdom seems to be. The South also features perhaps the best bet for a 5-vs-12 upset: No. 12 Middle Tennessee, which knocked off Michigan State last year, has a roughly 50-50 shot of beating No. 5 Minnesota, according to our forecast. 3UCLA1418141413161115 15Troy5558605759586065 How the teams compare: East region ELO = FiveThirtyEight’s Elo rating; POM = Ken Pomeroy; SAG = Jeff Sagarin “predictor” rating; BPI = ESPN’s basketball power index; MOOR = Sonny Moore power ratings; NCAA = Selection committee’s 68-team “S-Curve”; PRE = Composite of preseason rankings 4Purdue1815121112131614 12Mid. Tenn.3843484032484851 6Maryland4942414245412319 RANK AMONG 68 TOURNAMENT TEAMS 7St. Mary’s2414251225262516 14NM State5654545554635550 SEEDTEAMELOPOMSAGBPILRMCMOORNCAAPRE 7South Carolina5031303834452639 6SMU911191914152122 Villanova, the selection committee’s top seed, also ranks well according to the six computer systems, all of which place it first or second overall. But it got absolutely no help from the committee, who stuffed the East region with tough teams. Duke — which began as the preseason No. 1, slumped in the middle of the season, and then recovered to win the ACC tournament this weekend — engenders some disagreement among the various ratings systems but is no pushover as No. 2 seed, to say the least. That sets up a possible grudge match between Villanova and Duke, the past two tournament champions, in the East regional final at Madison Square Garden.But Villanova has their work cut out to get there. Wisconsin, the No. 8 seed and ‘Nova’s potential opponent in the Round of 32, should have been seeded several slots higher according to the computers and has a history of tough postseason play. No. 4 Florida and No. 5 Virginia also get a lot more respect from the computers than they did from the committee, with blemished win-loss records masking difficult schedules and strong defenses.On Duke’s side of the bracket, No. 6 SMU could be a tough out and is about even-money in its potential Round of 32 matchup against No. 3 Baylor. But if you’re looking for a first-round upset, there aren’t any slam-dunk candidates. No. 7 South Carolina is probably no better a team than No. 10 Marquette, but they have the advantage of playing a de facto home game in Greenville, S.C. 12Princeton3548504853495043 2Kentucky345106553 8Wisconsin26231718229299 8Northwestern4738394233433240 1Kansas210997822 10VCU3644433538404032 10Marquette3128292830303946