I’m going to have different power rankings based on the region but i will be concentration more on the more traditional regions in the world of footbal, Europe and South America.  The rest of the world will have a joint ranking and also a national team power ranking.  The criteria for this first ranking will be the club’s performance in the last 2 years in international cups.  Afterward, the power ranking will be computed on a monthly basis.

Europe

1. Barcelona F.C. -  The Spanish team has been the most consistent of any European team in the last 2 years.  They won every single tournament last season winning La Liga, the Spanish Cup, and the Champions League, becoming the first time this was achieved by a Spanish team.
2. Manchester United – The team from Old Trafford is the most powerful team in the Premiership.  They won the Champions League in 2008.  Even though they transferred their best player to Real Madrid, they continue to be a force to be reckon.
3. Inter Milan – The Italian giants have won the Calcio 3 times in a row.  They seem to be unbeatable at in the Italian championship.  They need to get to at least the Champions League final this season to be considered a threat to the top 2 spots.

South America

1. LDU – The Ecuadorian team has been dominating in the domestic league winning 3 of the last 5 championships.  On the continental level, Liga de Quito has won the Libertadores Cup in 2008, the Recopa this past summer and now is playing in the Sudamericana Cup final and are likely to win that tournament after a 5-1 trashing of the Brazilian side Fluminense.
2. Velez Sarsfield – The Argentinean team is probably the most consistent team in their domestic cup and on the continental cups have reached the knock out stages but was eliminated by the Liga de Quito.
3. Estudiantes de la Plata – Another consistent argentine team.  The team guided by Juan Sebastian Veron is the reigning Libertadores champion and will play the Club World Cup in Dubai on December.  They are also candidates for the Apertura championship but with their mind set on Dubai they are starting to lose ground on the Argentine championship.

This week in baseball books, featuring the best-sellers according to Amazon.com on Friday, November 6.

Title	Rank
General
The Machine: A Hot Team, a Legendary Season, and a Heart-stopping World Series: The Story of the 1975 Cincinnati Reds, by Joe Posnanski (490)	1
Baseball Americana: Treasures from the Library of Congress (625)	2
The Yankee Years, by Joe Torre and Tom Verducci (674)	3
Sixty Feet, Six Inches: A Hall of Fame Pitcher & a Hall of Fame Hitter Talk about How the Game is Played, by Bob Gibson, Reggie Jackson, and Lonnie Wheeler(989)	4
Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, by Michael Lewis (1,063)	5
Essays and Writing
Sixty Feet Six Inches	1
Moneyball	2
Now I Can Die in Peace: How The Sports Guy Found Salvation Thanks to the World Champion (Twice!) Red Sox, by Bill Simmons (2,758)	3
The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2010 (4,023)	4
Sports Illustrated: The Baseball Book (5,437)	5
History
The Machine	1
Sixty Feet, Six Inches	2
Game Six: Cincinnati, Boston, and the 1975 World Series: The Triumph of America’s Pastime, by Mark Frost (2,475)	3
Munson: The Life and Death of a Yankee Captain, by Marty Appel (2,538)	4
Now I Can Die in Peace	5
Statistics
The Bill James Handbook 2010 (1,585)	1
The Hardball Times Annual 2010	2
Baseball America 2010 Prospect Handbook: The Comprehensive Guide to Rising Stars from the Definitive Source on Prospects (6,012)	3
Baseball Prospectus 2010 (11,367)	4
Watching Baseball Smarter: A Professional Fan’s Guide for Beginners, Semi-experts, and Deeply Serious Geeks, by Zack Hample (10,847)	5

Analysis: The new Baseball Americana and the old Sports Illustrated Baseball Book both make fine gifts. And 2010 titles will only increase in sales as the new season draws nearer.

1. Cincinnati
2. Georgia Tech
3. Texas
4. Florida
5. Ohio State
6. Alabama
7. Iowa
8. Oregon
9. TCU
10. Pittsburgh
11. Penn State
12. USC
13. California
14. Boise State
15. Oregon State
16. Clemson
17. Boston College
18. LSU
19. Stanford
20. UNC
21. Wisconsin
22. Virginia Tech
23. Nebraska
24. Miami
25. Northwestern

This is the ninth Uncle Popov Top 25, based on college football games through week thirteen.

Others Receiving Votes: Miami, FL (9); Nevada (7); Nebraska (6); Troy (4); Stanford (1)

Dropped Out: Stanford, Wisconsin

Conference Breakdown:

• ACC: four
• SEC: four
• Big Ten: three
• Mountain West: three
• Big East: two
• Big 12: two
• MAC: two
• Pac-10: two
• Conference USA: one
• Independent: one
• WAC: one

Voting for Week 9

1. Indianapolis Colts
2. New Orleans Saints
3. Minnesota Vikings
4. Cincinnatti Bengals
5. San Diego Chargers
6. Arizona Cardinals
7. New England Patriots
8. Dallas Cowboys
9. Philadelphia Eagles
10. Jacksonville Jaguars
11. New York Giants
12. Green Bay Packers
13. Denver Broncos
14. Atlanta Falcons
15. Baltimore Ravens
16. Miami Dolphins
17. Houston Texans
18. Tennessee Titans
19. Carolina Panthers
20. Chicago Bears
21. New York Jets
22. San Fransisco 49ers
23. Kansas City Chiefs
24. Washington Redskins
25. Oakland Raiders
26. Seattle Seahawks
27. Buffalo Bills
28. Detroit Lions
29. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
30. St Louis Rams
31. Cleveland Browns

Columna de Marco Iván Escotto Arroyo.

Profesor de Filosofía y Empresa y Director Adjunto del Centro de Estudios para la Gobernabilidad Institucional (CEGI) del IPADE Business School . Sus áreas de especialización son: Combate a la corrupción, Responsabilidad Social, Ética empresarial.

Para tener un comparativo objetivo con respecto a los años anteriores hay que fijarse en la calificación y no tanto en el lugar del ranking. A continuación pongo los lugares y las calificaciones anteriores: 2001: 51-3.7; 2002: 57-3.6; 2003: 64-3.6; 2004: 64-3.6; 2005: 65-3.5; 2006 70-3.3; 2007: 72-3.5; 2008: 72-3.6; y 2009 89-3.3 (Fuente: Transparencia Internacional).

De la observación de las mediciones se desprende que nuestra mayor calificación ha sido 3.7 en el 2001 y la más baja 3.3 en 2006 y 2009 respectivamente. No hemos pasado nunca del 4. Canadá, el país mejor rankeado de América tiene 8.7 y Chile el mejor rankeado de Latinoamérica 6.7.

México ha estado estancado en mediciones, en la última década, tanto en Transparencia como en Competitividad.  Las causas a mi parecer son:

No hay una estrategia nacional (integral) que abarque los tres niveles de gobierno: federación, estados y municipios, en el tema de combate a la corrupción. Ha habido muy buenos esfuerzos y avances a nivel federal y en algunos estados y municipios, pero han sido esfuerzos aislados. Si hay estrategia, ésta no se ha comunicado bien y entonces sería un grave problema de comunicación e implementación.

No se han creado los espacios de colaboración entre sectores. Tanto el sector público, como el privado y el social son los responsables del diseño e implementación de la estrategia. El sector público no es el único responsable ni encargado de mejorar los niveles de bienestar en una sociedad, sólo se tendrán resultados cuando se involucren en el esfuerzo los tres sectores.

Pensando en la solución algunas ideas serían:

• Usualmente una estrategia responde a dos preguntas: qué voy a hacer y cómo lo voy a hacer. Después de definir la estrategia hace falta implementarla. No basta con que nos pongamos de acuerdo en lo que vamos a realizar sino en verificar que eso se haga realmente.
• En este sentido el diseño de la estrategia no sólo depende de los gobernantes. El esfuerzo aislado que hay en diversos lugares del país se ha dado porque hay voluntad del gobernante en turno de darle un impulso al tema o porque ha habido una sociedad organizada demandante de que se tomen medidas. Cuando es la sociedad misma quien impulsa estos esfuerzos se da un avance más sostenido de la estrategia, pues no depende de los gobernantes ni del tiempo que están en el poder (en el caso de los municipios muy poco, tres años).
• Hay tres medidas en la estrategia y en la implementación que deben ser tomadas en cuenta: rendición de cuentas (que implica transparencia), controles y cambio de hábitos (ética).

§  El más relevante de los tres es el último, el trabajo en la ética del ciudadano y sus hábitos en la toma de decisiones. Y sólo se pueden cambiar estos hábitos desde dos lugares: la familia y la escuela. La estrategia debe involucrar necesariamente a la SEP, para integrar en sus programas de estudio no sólo el tema de la corrupción como tal, sino el cambio de hábitos en la toma de decisiones. En este sentido, la mayor influencia que se tiene sobre los niños y jóvenes no es la teoría, sino el ejemplo.

§  La rendición de cuentas es el único camino que tenemos los ciudadanos para que nuestros gobernantes sean responsables de sus actos. El primer paso en la rendición de cuentas es la transparencia. Debemos tener y pedir los mismos estándares de transparencia en todos los estados y municipios. Es aquí donde los Institutos de Transparencia como el IFAI (a nivel federal) y sus similares a nivel estatal cobran relevancia. Una prioridad entonces es la autonomía de estos institutos del ejecutivo (ya sea federal o estatal).

§  Los controles finalmente, son necesarios para saber que lo que estamos haciendo lo estamos haciendo bien. En este sentido, un tablero de control público, ayudaría al gobernante a cuidar sus variables más relevantes y al ciudadano a conocer el avance de las mismas.

Click here.

Waiting for suggestions for the most beautiful:)

Heavyweight Top Ten for November, 2009:

1.. Fedor Emelianenko

2.. Brock Lesnar

3.. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira

4.. Frank Mir

5.. Josh Barnett

6.. Brett Rogers

7.. Cain Velasquez

8.. Junior dos Santos

9.. Alistair Overeem

10. Andrei Arlovski

The following list is the ranking of the world’s richest billionaires as of February 13, 2009, and does not reflect changes since then.

No.	Name	Net worth (USD)	Age	Citizenship	Residence	Sources of wealth
&0000000000000001.0000001▲	Gates III, William HenryWilliam Henry Gates III	$40.0 billion ▼	53	United States	United States	Microsoft
&0000000000000002.0000002▼	Buffett, WarrenWarren Buffett	$37.0 billion ▼	78	United States	United States	Berkshire Hathaway
&0000000000000003.0000003▼	Helú, Carlos SlimCarlos Slim Helú	$35.0 billion ▼	69	Mexico	Mexico	Telmex, América Móvil
&0000000000000004.0000004▲	Ellison, LawrenceLawrence Ellison	$22.5 billion ▼	64	United States	United States	Oracle Corporation
&0000000000000005.0000005▲	Kamprad, IngvarIngvar Kamprad and family	$22.0 billion ▼	83	Sweden	Switzerland	IKEA
&0000000000000006.0000006▲	Albrecht, KarlKarl Albrecht	$21.5 billion ▼	89	Germany	Germany	Aldi Süd
&0000000000000007.0000007▼	Ambani, MukeshMukesh Ambani	$19.5 billion ▼	51	India	India	Reliance Industries
&0000000000000008.0000008▼	Mittal, LakshmiLakshmi Mittal	$19.3 billion ▼	58	India	United Kingdom	Arcelor Mittal
&0000000000000009.0000009▲	Albrecht, TheoTheo Albrecht	$18.8 billion ▼	87	Germany	Germany	Aldi Nord, Trader Joe’s
&0000000000000010.00000010▲	Ortega, AmancioAmancio Ortega	$18.3 billion ▼	73	Spain	Spain	Inditex Group
&0000000000000011.00000011▲	Walton, JimJim Walton	$17.8 billion ▼	61	United States	United States	Wal-Mart
&0000000000000012.00000012▲	Walton, AliceAlice Walton	$17.6 billion ▼	59	United States	United States	Wal-Mart
&0000000000000012.00000012▲	Walton, ChristyChristy Walton	$17.6 billion ▼	54	United States	United States	Wal-Mart
&0000000000000012.00000012▲	Walton, S. RobsonS. Robson Walton	$17.6 billion ▼	65	United States	United States	Wal-Mart
&0000000000000015.00000015▼	Arnault, BernardBernard Arnault	$16.5 billion ▼	60	France	France	LVMH Moët Hennessy • Louis Vuitton
&0000000000000016.00000016▼	Ka-shing, LiLi Ka-shing	$16.2 billion ▼	80	China	Canada	Cheung Kong Holdings, Hutchison Whampoa
&0000000000000017.00000017▲	Bloomberg, MichaelMichael Bloomberg	$16.0 billion ▲	67	United States	United States	Bloomberg L.P.
&0000000000000018.00000018▲	Persson, StefanStefan Persson	$14.5 billion ▼	61	Sweden	Sweden	Hennes & Mauritz
&0000000000000019.00000019▲	Koch, CharlesCharles Koch	$14.0 billion ▼	73	United States	United States	Koch Industries
&0000000000000019.00000019▲	Koch, David H.David H. Koch	$14.0 billion ▼	68	United States	United States	Koch Industries
&0000000000000021.00000021▼	Bettencourt, LilianeLiliane Bettencourt	$13.4 billion ▼	86	France	France	L’Oréal
&0000000000000022.00000022▼	Alsaud, Prince Alwaleed Bin TalalPrince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud	$13.3 billion ▼	54	Saudi Arabia	Saudi Arabia	Kingdom Holding Company, Citigroup
&0000000000000023.00000023▲	Otto, MichaelMichael Otto and family	$13.2 billion ▼	65	Germany	Germany	Otto GmbH
&0000000000000024.00000024▲	Thomson, DavidDavid Thomson and family	$13.0 billion ▼	51	Canada	Canada	The Thomson Corporation
&0000000000000025.00000025▲	Dell, MichaelMichael Dell	$12.3 billion ▼	44	United States	United States	Dell
&0000000000000026.00000026▲	Bren, DonaldDonald Bren	$12.0 billion ▼	76	United States	United States	Irvine Company
&0000000000000026.00000026▲	Brin, SergeySergey Brin	$12.0 billion ▼	35	United States	United States	Google
&0000000000000026.00000026▲	Page, LarryLarry Page	$12.0 billion ▼	36	United States	United States	Google
&0000000000000029.00000029▲	Ballmer, StevenSteven Ballmer	$11.0 billion ▼	53	United States	United States	Microsoft
&0000000000000029.00000029▲	Westminster, The Duke ofThe Duke of Westminster and family	$11.0 billion ▼	57	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Grosvenor Group
&0000000000000029.00000029▲	Soros, GeorgeGeorge Soros	$11.0 billion ▲	78	United States	United States	Soros Fund Management
&0000000000000032.00000032▲	Allen, PaulPaul Allen	$10.5 billion ▼	56	United States	United States	Microsoft
&0000000000000032.00000032▼	Kwok, RaymondRaymond Kwok, Thomas Kwok, and Walter Kwok	$10.5 billion ▼	57, 58, and 59	Hong Kong	Hong Kong	Sun Hung Kai
&0000000000000034.00000034▼	Ambani, AnilAnil Ambani	$10.1 billion ▼	49	India	India	Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group
&0000000000000035.00000035▲	Johnson, AbigailAbigail Johnson	$10.0 billion ▼	47	United States	United States	Fidelity Investments
&0000000000000035.00000035▲	Klatten, SusanneSusanne Klatten	$10.0 billion ▼	46	Germany	Germany	BMW
&0000000000000035.00000035▲	Perelman, RonaldRonald Perelman	$10.0 billion ▲	66	United States	United States	Revlon
&0000000000000035.00000035▲	Rausing, HansHans Rausing	$10.0 billion ▬	83	Sweden	United Kingdom	Tetra Laval
&0000000000000039.00000039▲	Rausing, BirgitBirgit Rausing and family	$9.9 billion ▼	85	Sweden	Switzerland	Tetra Laval
&0000000000000040.00000040▲	Ferrero, MicheleMichele Ferrero and family	$9.5 billion ▼	82	Italy	Monaco	Ferrero
&0000000000000040.00000040▼	Prokhorov, MikhailMikhail Prokhorov	$9.5 billion ▼	43	Russia	Russia	Interros
&0000000000000040.00000040▲	Taylor, Jack C.Jack C. Taylor and family	$9.5 billion ▼	86	United States	United States	Enterprise Rent-A-Car
&0000000000000043.00000043▲	Al Amoudi, MohammedMohammed Al Amoudi	$9.0 billion ▬	63	Ethiopia/ Saudi Arabia	Saudi Arabia/ Ethiopia	Corral Petroleum Holdings
&0000000000000043.00000043▼	Chambers, Anne CoxAnne Cox Chambers	$9.0 billion ▼	89	United States	United States	Cox Enterprises
&0000000000000043.00000043▲	Icahn, CarlCarl Icahn	$9.0 billion ▼	73	United States	United States	American Car and Foundry Company
&0000000000000043.00000043▲	Kaiser, GeorgeGeorge Kaiser	$9.0 billion ▼	66	United States	United States	BOK Financial Corporation
&0000000000000043.00000043▼	Kee, Lee ShauLee Shau Kee	$9.0 billion ▼	81	Hong Kong	Hong Kong	Henderson Land Development
&0000000000000043.00000043▲	Mars, Jr., Forrest EdwardForrest Edward Mars, Jr.	$9.0 billion ▼	77	United States	United States	Mars, Incorporated
&0000000000000043.00000043▲	Mars, JacquelineJacqueline Mars	$9.0 billion ▼	69	United States	United States	Mars, Incorporated
&0000000000000043.00000043▲	Mars, JohnJohn Mars	$9.0 billion ▼	72	United States	United States	Mars, Incorporated
&0000000000000051.00000051▼	Abramovich, RomanRoman Abramovich	$8.5 billion ▼	42	Russia	Russia	Millhouse Capital
&0000000000000052.00000052▲	Bertarelli, ErnestoErnesto Bertarelli	$8.2 billion ▼	43	Switzerland	Switzerland	Serono
&0000000000000052.00000052▲	Knight, PhilipPhilip Knight	$8.2 billion ▼	71	United States	United States	Nike
&0000000000000054.00000054▼	Al-Kharafi, NasserNasser Al-Kharafi and family	$8.1 billion ▼	65	Kuwait	Kuwait	M. A. Kharafi & Sons
&0000000000000055.00000055▲	Simons, JamesJames Simons	$8.0 billion ▲	70	United States	United States	Renaissance Technologies
&0000000000000055.00000055▲	Wertheimer, AlainAlain Wertheimer and Gerard Wertheimer	$8.0 billion ▼	60 and 59	France	United States Switzerland	Chanel
&0000000000000057.00000057▲	Al Ghurair, Abdul AzizAbdul Aziz Al Ghurair & family	$7.8 billion ▲	55	United Arab Emirates	United Arab Emirates	Mashreq Bank
&0000000000000057.00000057▲	Alakbarov, VahidVahid Alakbarov	$7.8 billion ▼	58	Russia	Russia	LUKoil
&0000000000000059.00000059▲	Mittal, SunilSunil Mittal and family	$7.7 billion ▼	51	India	India	Bharti Airtel
&0000000000000060.00000060▼	Pinault, FrançoisFrançois Pinault and family	$7.6 billion ▼	72	France	France	PPR
&0000000000000061.00000061▲	Batista, EikeEike Batista	$7.5 billion ▲	51	Brazil	Brazil	EBX Group
&0000000000000062.00000062▲	Al Jaber, Mohamed Bin IssaMohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber	$7.0 billion ▲	50	Saudi Arabia	Saudi Arabia
&0000000000000062.00000062▲	Al-Sanea, MaanMaan Al-Sanea	$7.0 billion ▼	54	Saudi Arabia	Saudi Arabia	Saad Group
&0000000000000062.00000062▲	Johnson, III, EdwardEdward Johnson, III	$7.0 billion ▼	78	United States	United States	Fidelity Investments
&0000000000000062.00000062▲	Krishnan, AnandaAnanda Krishnan	$7.0 billion ▼	70	Malaysia	Malaysia	Maxis, Astro
&0000000000000062.00000062▲	Kuok, RobertRobert Kuok	$7.0 billion ▼	85	Malaysia	Hong Kong	Perlis Plantations Bhd,Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts
&0000000000000062.00000062▲	Safra, JosephJoseph Safra	$7.0 billion ▼	70	Brazil	Brazil	Safra Group
&0000000000000068.00000068▲	Bezos, JeffreyJeffrey Bezos	$6.8 billion ▼	45	United States	United States	Amazon.com
&0000000000000069.00000069▲	von Finck, Jr., AugustAugust von Finck, Jr.	$6.7 billion ▼	79	Germany	Switzerland	Allianz
&0000000000000070.00000070▲	Berlusconi, SilvioSilvio Berlusconi and family	$6.5 billion ▼	72	Italy	Italy	Fininvest
&0000000000000071.00000071▲	Del Vecchio, LeonardoLeonardo Del Vecchio	$6.3 billion ▼	73	Italy	Italy	Luxottica
&0000000000000071.00000071▲	Engelhorn, CurtCurt Engelhorn	$6.3 billion ▼	82	Germany	Switzerland	Roche
&0000000000000071.00000071▼	Fridman, MikhailMikhail Fridman	$6.3 billion ▼	44	Russia	Russia	Alfa Group
&0000000000000074.00000074▲	Al Rajhi, SulaimanSulaiman Al Rajhi	$6.2 billion ▼	89	Saudi Arabia	Saudi Arabia	Al-Rajhi Bank
&0000000000000075.00000075▲	Goodnight, JamesJames Goodnight	$6.1 billion ▼	66	United States	United States	SAS Institute
&0000000000000076.00000076▲	Fontbona, IrisIris Fontbona (widow of Andronico Luksic) and family	$6.0 billion ▼		Chile	Chile	Antofagasta PLC, Quiñenco
&0000000000000076.00000076▲	Kellner, PetrPetr Kellner	$6.0 billion ▼	44	Czech Republic	Czech Republic	PPF Group
&0000000000000076.00000076▲	Kluge, JohnJohn Kluge	$6.0 billion ▼	94	United States	United States	Metromedia
&0000000000000076.00000076▲	Paulson, JohnJohn Paulson	$6.0 billion ▲	53	United States	United States
&0000000000000076.00000076▲	Yanai, TadashiTadashi Yanai & family	$6.0 billion ▲	60	Japan	Japan	Fast Retailing
&0000000000000081.00000081▲	Duncan, DanDan Duncan	$5.9 billion ▼	76	United States	United States	Enterprise Products
&0000000000000081.00000081▲	Matte, EliodoroEliodoro Matte & family	$5.9 billion ▼	63	Chile	Chile	Compañía Manufacturera de Papeles y Cartones
&0000000000000083.00000083▲	Bailleres, AlbertoAlberto Bailleres & family	$5.7 billion ▼	76	Mexico	Mexico	Grupo Bal
&0000000000000083.00000083▼	Premji, AzimAzim Premji	$5.7 billion ▼	63	India	India	Wipro Technologies
&0000000000000083.00000083▲	Wyss, HansjorgHansjorg Wyss	$5.7 billion ▼	74	Switzerland	United States	Synthes
&0000000000000086.00000086▼	Ruia, ShashiShashi Ruia and Ravi Ruia	$5.6 billion ▼	65	India	India	Essar
&0000000000000087.00000087▲	Cohen, Steven A.Steven A. Cohen	$5.5 billion ▼	53	United States	United States	SAC Capital Partners
&0000000000000087.00000087▲	Ng Teng Fong, Ng Teng Fong	$5.5 billion ▼	80	Singapore	Singapore	Sino Group
&0000000000000087.00000087▲	Soon-Shiong, PatrickPatrick Soon-Shiong	$5.5 billion ▲	57	United States	United States	American Pharmaceutical Partners
&0000000000000090.00000090▼	Dassault, SergeSerge Dassault and family	$5.4 billion ▼	83	France	France	Dassault Group
&0000000000000090.00000090▲	Haub, ErivanErivan Haub & family	$5.4 billion ▼	76	Germany	Germany	Tengelmann Group
&0000000000000092.00000092▲	Lemann, Jorge PauloJorge Paulo Lemann	$5.3 billion ▼	69	Brazil	Brazil	Investment Bank & Anheuser-Busch InBev
&0000000000000093.00000093▲	Broad, EliEli Broad	$5.2 billion ▼	75	United States	United States	KB Home
&0000000000000093.00000093▲	Busujima, KunioKunio Busujima & family	$5.2 billion ▼	83	Japan	Japan	Sankyo
&0000000000000093.00000093▲	Kipp, Karl-HeinzKarl-Heinz Kipp	$5.2 billion ▼	85	Germany	Switzerland	Massa
&0000000000000093.00000093▼	Lisin, VladimirVladimir Lisin	$5.2 billion ▼	52	Russia	Russia	Novolipetsk Steel
&0000000000000093.00000093▲	Wurth, ReinholdReinhold Wurth	$5.2 billion ▼	73	Germany	Germany	Wurth Group
&0000000000000098.00000098▲	Anschutz, PhilipPhilip Anschutz	$5.0 billion ▼	69	United States	United States	The Anschutz Corporation
&0000000000000098.00000098▼	Kerkorian, KirkKirk Kerkorian	$5.0 billion ▼	91	United States	United States	Tracinda Corporation
&0000000000000098.00000098▲	Oppenheimer, NickyNicky Oppenheimer & family	$5.0 billion ▼	63	South Africa	South Africa	De Beers & Anglo American
&0000000000000098.00000098▲	Reuben, David and SimonDavid and Simon Reuben	$5.0 billion ▼	NA	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	real estate
&0000000000000098.00000098▼	Singh, Kushal PalKushal Pal Singh	$5.0 billion ▼	77	India	India	DLF Group
&0000000000000098.00000098▲	Weston, GalenGalen Weston & family	$5.0 billion ▼	68	Canada	Canada	George Weston Limited, Associated British Foods
&0000000000000099.00000099▲	Mansha, Mian MohammadMian Mohammad Mansha	$4.5 billion ▲	62	Pakistan	Pakistan	Nishat Group, Muslim Commercial Bank
&0000000000000100.000000100▲	Jobs, SteveSteve Jobs	$3.4 billion ▼	54	United States	United States	Apple Inc.

Source: Wikipedia.com

This list of the richest people ever or the most wealthy historical figures is essentially a list of the richest people in recorded history, or the richest people ever born (ancient, medieval, and modern).

The list is based on calculations by Forbes. It is updated annually to reflect changes to GDP. However, their wealth or net worth is hard to estimate and the ancient historical figures are scarce in numbers or rare on the list. Also, the list presupposes the notion of private property, excluding monarchies where the ruler may theoretically own an entire empire.

#	Picture	Stats
1.		Name: John D. Rockefeller Age at highest earnings: 74 Age at death: 97 (died May 23, 1937) Net worth: ▬ US$318.68 billion Original net worth: US$1 billion (September 29 1916)[2] US$900.0 Million (1913–eve of WWI)[3] Origin: United States Main source of wealth: Standard Oil Other achievements: Richest man in history. First billionaire (globally—United States dollars)[4] and the Rockefeller Foundation (created: 1913).[5]
2.		Name: Andrew Carnegie Age at highest earnings: 68 Age at death: 81 (died August 10, 1918) Net worth: ▬ US$318.675 billion Original net worth: US$ 937 Million (1901) Origin: Scotland Main source of wealth: U.S. Steel Important achievements: Founded Carnegie Mellon University and the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh; contributions led to establishment of many public libraries.
3.		Name: Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov) Age at highest earnings: 50 Age at death: 50 (died July 17, 1918) Net worth: ▬ US$290.7 billion Original net worth: US$ 881 million (1916) Origin: Russian Empire Main source of wealth: Monarchy—the Emperor and Autocrat of the Russian Empire (from the House of Romanov). Other achievements: Wealthiest monarch and wealthiest head of state. Wealthiest Saint (formerly a martyr)
4.		Name: William Henry Vanderbilt Age at highest earnings: 64 Age at death: 64 (died December 8, 1885) Net worth: ▬ US$240.0 billion Original net worth: US$194 Million (1885) Origin: United States Main source of wealth: Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad and other railway companies.
5.		Name: Osman Ali Khan, Asaf Jah VII Age at highest earnings: 50 Age at death: 80 (died February 24, 1967) Net worth: ▬ US$225.1 billion Original net worth: US$1.4 billion (1937) Origin: Hyderabad, India Main source of wealth: Monarchy—Nizam of Hyderabad Other achievements: Wealthiest non-American and non-European, wealthiest Asian, wealthiest Indian
6.		Name: Andrew W. Mellon Age at highest earnings: 80 Age at death: 82 (died August 27, 1937) Net worth: ▬ US$195.7 billion Original net worth: US$1.0 billion (1935) Origin: United States Main source of wealth: Gulf Oil and various other oil companies.
7.		Name: Henry Ford Age at highest earnings: 57 Age at death: 83 (died April 7, 1947) Net worth: ▬ US$194.9 billion Original net worth: US$1.0 billion (1920) Origin: United States Main source of wealth: Ford Motor Company
8.		Name: Marcus Licinius Crassus Age at highest earnings: 62 Age at death: 62 (died 53 B.C.) Net worth: ▬ US$181.3 billion (100 B.C.) Original net worth: 170 million sesterces[6] Origin: Roman Republic Main source of wealth: Roman Fire Brigade (wealth inherited, as well as earned by speculating in tenants, mining corporations, and slave trade). Other achievements: Wealthiest person prior to modern times, wealthiest ancient Roman
9.		Name: Alain Le Roux Age at highest earnings: 49 Age at death: 49 (died 1089) Net worth: ▬ US$178.7 billion Original net worth: £11,000 (1089) Origin: England Main source of wealth: Monarchy and investments.

Other wealthy historical figures

• Bill Gates, the richest living person, has an estimated net worth of USD 40 billion. He reached USD 101 billion in 1999.
• Warren Buffett, the second richest living person, has an estimated net worth of USD 37 billion. According to the stock index of Berkshire Hathaway, his fortune peaked on December 11, 2007 at USD 66.09 billion.^[7]
• Carlos Slim Helú, the third richest living person, has an estimated net worth of USD 35 billion.^[8]
• Croesus‘ name in Greek and Persian cultures became a synonym for a wealthy man; in English, expressions such as “rich as Croesus” or “richer than Croesus” are used to indicate great wealth. Croesus himself is often credited with the invention of the first formalized currency systems and coinage.
• Mansa Musa was ruler of the Empire of Mali during its height in the 14th century. During a typical Muslim Hajj, it is customary to give alms, or charity, to the poor. During his Hajj to Mecca, Musa gave so much gold that the price of gold went down significantly across the entire Africa-Eurasia World. It is estimated that he gave away 30,000 pounds of gold, just during his stay in Mecca, not counting the silks and other luxuries that he gave as well. It is assumable that he had many times that back in Mali. Musa’s lasting impact was alerting the world of West Africa’s vast gold resources.
• The Medici family of Florence, Lorenzo de’ Medici was worth ƒ 57,930 in 1481.

Source: Wikipedia.org

I wanted to put out a set of rankings before the first full weekend so we can see how much this changes over the course of a few days.  What I found out was that even since Wednesday’s batch of rankings, a lot has changed.  Not so much in how the teams are playing, but in their schedule rating.

The schedule factor used for my rankings is the rank of the RPI of a team’s schedule.  This time of year, this measure is extremely volatile for a number of reasons.  First, and most obvious, is that winning percentages are the main ingredient for this measure and those undergo massive changes with so few games played.  Think about going from 2-0 to 2-1: it results in a .333 point drop in percentage, something that will not be possible a week from now.  Duke, for example, has yet to play a team with a loss in their three games while Georgia has faced two teams with losses.  Thus, Duke has a Top 10 schedule and Georgia is ranked 270.  Luckily, this will even out over the next few weeks.

Another reason is the fact that whether the game is played at home or on the road changes the weight of the game in the equation.  With most bigger teams camping out at home, their SOS is going to be much lower than the smaller teams traveling around.  Thus, the teams like Virginia and Georgetown, who have gone on the road already, have higher rated schedules.

And the final reason why this is a very volatile time of year is because that some of these teams (Michigan) have only played one game.  They are ranked so high because they played really really well for one game…but I can’t account for the fact that they only played once except in the schedule constant.  That’s why it is important to realize that these rankings are based solely on how a team is playing right now…there is none of my opinion in them and I can only use the data the teams have put out there.  So, here are the new rankings as of 5:00 pm today:

1. Notre Dame
2. Duke
3. LSU
4. Oklahoma
5. Kansas
6. Baylor
7. Washington
8. Oregon
9. Virginia
10. Providence
11. Arizona State
12. Oklahoma State
13. Michigan State
14. Michigan
15. Arizona
16. Texas
17. Clemson
18. Miami
19. Tennessee
20. Florida State
21. Florida
22. Boston College
23. Connecticut
24. Minnesota
25. Georgetown

Bottom 10 (10 = worst)

1. Seton Hall
2. Georgia
3. USC
4. Stanford
5. Indiana
6. Auburn
7. Mississippi State
8. Oregon State
9. UCLA
10. Iowa

There’s not a whole lot to say about this song: Highway 51 will never be the highway Dylan is best remembered for. As I mentioned last week, Bob Dylan only wrote two of the tracks on his debut album—“Song to Woody” and “Talkin’ New York.” On some of the folk standards that he includes, Dylan took a songwriting credit for the musical arrangement he came up with, but on this song, only Curtis Jones is credited. The song itself is rather simple—Dylan recorded it in one take while recording the album.

It’s debatable, really, what the significance of an album comprising mostly standards is for an artist most renowned as a songwriter. In some ways, it is most appreciated as an artifact, as sign of what the 20-year-old Bob Dylan was like and what kind of folk music he was drawn to. “Highway 51” is a great example of Dylan trying to embody a tradition. His voice doesn’t sound natural—it sounds a little like someone trying to do an impression of a folk singer.

But the appeal of this kind of folk music is the sense of tradition, of taking and personalizing something external. What’s telling about Dylan on this track is that his way of “personalizing” standards is to completely embody the voice of the song. In the early songs, this sounds like imitation, the flattery of a kid for his idols. Later on, though, this would allow Dylan to write and sing songs that were wholly his own.

These are the current OFFICIAL NERFL Standings.

These standings are subject to change.

REMEMBER: Division tie-breakers are settled before non-division tie-breakers. A team behind a team within their division cannot leap frog a division rival because of a three-way tie-breaker. The divisional tie-breaker is always settled first. (ie: Dave beat Andy L., Andy L. beat Eli, and Eli beat Dave. Division tie-break gets settled first, then other teams are settled.)

Here is the Current Playoff Picture:

These are the official standings until week 12 games are complete!

Im not doing comments after the ranking anymore. Raptors rated ahead of Miami but Miami beat them head to head so I couldn’t let them place above Miami. Call me biased.

1 Atlanta Hawks
2 Phoenix Suns
3 Dallas Mavericks
4 Los Angeles Lakers
5 Denver Nuggets
6 Orlando Magic
7 Portland Trail Blazers
8 Houston Rockets
9 Boston Celtics
10 Oklahoma City Thunder
11 Cleveland Cavaliers
12 Utah Jazz
13 San Antonio Spurs
14 Milwaukee Bucks
15 Miami Heat
16 Toronto Raptors
17 Chicago Bulls
18 Detroit Pistons
19 Sacramento Kings
20 New Orleans Hornets
21 Golden State Warriors
22 Los Angeles Clippers
23 Washington Wizards
24 Indiana Pacers
25 Charlotte Bobcats
26 Memphis Grizzlies
27 Philadelphia 76ers
28 New York Knicks
29 Minnesota Timberwolves
30 New Jersey Nets

Click here for the TNT’s 3A Top 10 for boys and girls.

Boys
1. Franklin
2. Enumclaw
3. Rainier Beach
4. Lakes
5. Mount Si
6. Bellevue
7. Glacier Peak
8. Meadowdale
9. Seattle Prep
10. Union

Pretty good list from what I’ve seen.

November 23, 2009 by Ares-mma.com staff

With Thanksgiving upon us, there is a short lull in mixed martial arts action that gives the opportunity to visit the top 10 pound-for-pound list. Here’s how it breaks down from 10-6. . . .

10. Thiago “Pitbull” Alves

Before Thiago Alves got his title shot against Georges St-Pierre at UFC 100, he was coming off 7 consecutive victories – his last three over contenders Karo Parisyan, Matt Hughes, and Josh Koscheck. Alves is one of the biggest and strongest welterweights in the division. He is known primarily as a striker, and his ground game was considered a weakness before he demonstrated outstanding takedown defense against both Hughes and Koscheck, both former Division I All-American wrestlers. At UFC 100, Alves was able to compete with St-Pierre for all 5 rounds before losing a unanimous decision. Alves has a loss to Jon Fitch, who did not make the cut, but that loss came over 3 years ago, and Alves has improved his game at a faster pace than Fitch since then. Thiago Alves is the #10 mixed martial artist in the world pound-for-pound.

9. Nick Diaz

Nick Diaz might be the most technically sound fighter in mixed martial arts.  Diaz has won his last five fights impressively – stopping all 5 opponents.  Diaz is a Gracie jiu-jitsu black belt, under Cesar Gracie, and Nick Diaz has outstanding boxing skills; he has been training under former world boxing champion Luisito Espinosa.  Diaz has been competing outside of the UFC since November of 2006.  There seems to be a personal conflict between Diaz and those in power in the UFC, but in time, maybe MMA fans will get to see a matchup between UFC Welterweight Champion Georges St-Pierre and Nick Diaz. Nick Diaz is the #9 mixed martial artist in the world pound-for-pound.

8. Lyoto “The Dragon” Machida (UFC Light Heavyweight Champion)

Lyoto Machida is the reigning UFC light heavyweight champion and would be higher on the list, but in the fight business you are only as good as your last fight. Machida was given the decision against Shogun in his last fight, but Shogun controlled that fight. Before his fight with Shogun though, Lyoto Machida was undefeated (15-0) with quality wins over Thiago Silva and Rashad Evans in his previous two fights. Machida’s karate style seemed to be a puzzle that could not be solved. Every fighter who came against Machida was walking directly into a buzz saw. With a convincing win over Shogun in their rematch in May of 2010, Machida could leap directly back into the top 5. Lyoto Machida is the #8 mixed martial artist in the world pound-for-pound.

7. Brian Bowles (WEC Bantamweight Champion)

Brian Bowles is the reigning WEC Bantamweight Champion. Bowles is undefeated (8-0), and his last win came against Miguel Torres at WEC 42. Bowles stopped Torres, and took his title, with a first round knockout. Although Bowles is only 8 fights into his professional mixed martial arts career, the first round knockout of Miguel Torres propels him onto this list. He is the undefeated WEC Bantamweight Champion, and until someone proves otherwise, Bowles is the #7 mixed martial artist in the world pound-for-pound.

6. Brock Lesnar (UFC Heavyweight Champion)

Mixed martial arts had never before seen anyone like Brock Lesnar. He is an athletic 6′3” and 280 lbs (has to sweat down to make the UFC’s 265 lb heavyweight limit). Lesnar was the 2000 NCAA Division I National Champion in wrestling, and those skills have begun to translate to mixed martial arts in a way that has have become scary to the rest of the UFC’s heavyweight division. Lesnar’s dominating performance at UFC 100 over Frank Mir has quickly become a thing of legend. Frank Mir is a big, strong heavyweight, who is skillful on the ground, and Lesnar was able to take him down and force him into a completely helpless position before landing devastating punches over and over again. Lesnar currently has a serious illness that has rendered him unable to defend his UFC heavyweight title. Until an official announcement that Lesnar will no longer be able to compete, he will remain on this list. Brock Lesnar is the #6 mixed martial artist in the world pound-for-pound.

Check Ares-mma.com tomorrow for 5-1 of the top 10 pound for pound list.

The rankings are out again, and there is a new #1. Who is it? How far did the former #1 fall? When will New Jersey get it together? The rankings begin right now.

1. Orlando Magic (11-3) (previous ranking: 9) Five straight wins have vaulted the Magic to the best record in the NBA and the top spot in the rankings. Despite losing Jameer Nelson for four to six weeks, this team is still deep and they are really coming together.

2. Atlanta Hawks (11-3) (previous ranking: 2) If the Hawks had not of lost to New Orleans last night, the talk of them being #1 would be a no-brainer, but this team is still one of the tops in the East. They are really showing themselves as a contender. This is another team that is deep, and if they can stay healthy, they could go a long way in May.

3. Phoenix Suns (11-3) (previous ranking: 1) The Suns loss to the Hornets prevented them from holding the top spot for the week. With Orlando and Atlanta on fire as of late, they had to be bumped down two spots. Not many impressive wins for them to stay among the tops in the rankings

4. Los Angeles Lakers (10-3) (previous ranking: 4) The Lakers stay put after a 3-0 week, and it is good for them that Pau Gasol is back, he will be able to take the load off Kobe Bryant and Andrew Bynum. The team is complete again, but Phoenix is still holding their ground against them for first in the Pacific Division.

5. Dallas Mavericks (10-3) (previous ranking: 5) The Mavericks may have beat the Lakers, and have won five straight, they were all hard fought victories. The Lakers right now look better than Dallas and with Gasol back from injury, they look more like a better team. If Dallas can beat the Lake Show for a second time with Gasol in lineup, it will be good enough to overtake them. Good 3-0 week for them.

6. Boston Celtics (10-4) (previous ranking: 3) The Magic and Mavericks rise has knocked Boston down a couple of spots. The C’s were a victim of Orlando’s win streak, which was their only loss of the week. Thank Kevin Garnett for avoiding an embarrassing loss to the Knicks at the Garden.

7. Cleveland Cavaliers (10-4) (previous ranking: 5) The Cavs took a pounding from the Wizards this past Wednesday, but responded with wins over Indiana and Philadelphia. At least Shaq has been at home for the games he’s been injured from, and not just the Washington game. Those that know the backstory can have a good laugh.

8. Milwaukee Bucks (8-3) (previous ranking: 10) The Bucks could not beat the Mavericks, but they did take advantage of the weak part of their schedule, beating, New Jersey, Charlotte, and Memphis to cap a 3-1 week and stay tied for first with Clevleland in the Central Division.

9. Denver Nuggets (9-4) (previous ranking: 8] The Nuggets crush the Lakers at home 10 days ago, and in the next week, they lose to the Clippers at Staples Center. This team started out strong, but have been hot and cold since. They have to find a way to stay consistent.

10. Portland Trail Blazers (10-5) (previous ranking: 6) The Blazers went 4-0 last week, but only 2-2 this week. They lost to the Hawks, which wasn’t a surprise, but they also lost to Golden State. Just like the Nuggets, they have to find a way to stay consistent as well. They are good, but we forget that this team is young still.

11. Miami Heat (8-5) (previous ranking: 7) The Heat continue to free fall down the rankings. A huge loss at home to the Thunder, and another bad loss to the Raptors. Udonis Haslem did save the team’s free fall from being worse with a game-winning jumper to sink the New Orleans’ Hornets

12. Houston Rockets (8-6) (previous ranking: 12) The Rockets won the games they were supposed to win (Timberwolves and Kings), but loss the games that they were expected to lose (Suns and Hawks). The 2-2 week has them staying put at #12.

13. Utah Jazz (7-6) (previous ranking: 20) Playing the Cavaliers, and coming close to beating them has had a great effect on the Jazz. They have won three in a row since the Cavs loss, and have a long homestand ahead of them in which they have six straight at home (they started it by beating Detroit on Sat. night).

14. Oklahoma City Thunder (7-7) (previous ranking: 16) Another big win against a good team on the road as OKC beat the Heat on South Beach. That along with a win at Washington were good wins. Tough losses against Orlando and the Lakers result in a split week, but as with the Thunder’s season, those wins keep going a long way.

15. Chicago Bulls (6-6) (previous ranking: 14) A 1-2 week puts the Bulls at .500, They beat the surprising Kings, in which that was no surprise. They have loss to the Lakers and Nuggets in this West Coast road trip and then have two tough games in the Blazers and Jazz on the road. Some injuries have set them back, but this team should be better and are better than what their record shows.

16. San Antonio Spurs (5-6) (previous ranking: 17) The Spurs are still struggling to maintain the high expectations. They all haven’t been healthy together, as the Big Three of Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili have been injured at various times of the year. Richard Jefferson has really been non-existent. It’s still early, but when will they finally start to peak?

17. Indiana Pacers (5-6) (previous ranking: 13) Three straight losses has the Pacers dropping four spots. A loss to the Cavaliers is one thing, but to lose to the Knicks and Bobcats is a MAJOR setback, especially blowing a huge lead to New York and losing the game.

18. Toronto Raptors (6-8) (previous ranking: 19) The only team to go 1-3 and move up, it must be because the teams below are doing awful, but the Raps did just run into teams that are better than them, losing two in the mountains (Denver & Utah) and Orlando, but an impressive win over the Heat was their saving grace this week.

19. Sacramento Kings (5-7) (previous ranking: 15) The Kings have lost three straight, against the teams they should really lose to (Chicago at home, Dallas and Houston on the road), but the schedule is encouraging for them to get back to .500 by Wednesday with games at Memphis and against the New York Knicks. Still playing hard and playing with fight, something that has not been seen in Sacto in a long time.

20. New Orleans Hornets (6-9) (previous ranking: 25) Had it not been for Udonis Haslem’s jumper to sink them at Miami, the Hornets could have risen further in the rankings. The team looked like it was in major trouble, but they had impressive wins over Phoenix and Atlanta. Maybe hope is not lost in the Big Easy.

21. Philadelphia 76ers (5-8) (previous ranking: 21) The Sixers escaped with victory over the Charlotte Bobcats in a game that they weren’t supposed to win, but they followed that up with a very bad loss to the Memphis Grizzlies and the fell to the Cavs on the road. This team is not that impressive, but luckily for them, a lot of teams are not that impressive either.

22. Los Angeles Clippers (5-9) (previous ranking: 22) The Clippers lost a couple of bad ones in New Orleans and in Memphis, but they did come on national television this past Friday and won a good game over the Denver Nuggets, so their ranking stays put for another week.

23. Detroit Pistons (5-9) (previous ranking: 18) During the five year anniversary of the “Malice at the Palace”, many bloggers and media people were so focused on how the Pacers have been rebuilding. Sure the Pistons have been in the playoffs consistently, but has anyone noticed that Indiana is ahead of Detroit right now. Five straight losses has the Pistons in the Central Division cellar, and John Kuester needs to know that Joe Dumars has very little patience.

24. Golden State Warriors (4-8) (previous ranking: 24) The Warriors winning percentage in 2009 before Stephen Jackson trade: .333. The winning percentage in 2009 after Stephen Jackson trade: .333. Not much of a difference since Jax’s departure, but it is good to see Stephen Curry get more playing time for the Warriors.

25. Charlotte Bobcats (4-9) (previous ranking: 23) The Bobcats winning percentage in 2009 before acquiring Stephen Jackson: .333. The winning percentage in 2009 after acquiring Stephen Jackson: .250. The one thing that is said though is that they have shown a lot more offense in the last few games, and they ended their seven game losing streak with a win over the Pacers Sunday night.

26. Memphis Grizzlies (4-9) (previous ranking: 27) The Grizz are 2-1 since Allen Iverson was officially released from the team. This team is playing with more confidence, and more loose since the departure of A.I., and by beating and staying with teams that are better than them, it can go a long way (just ask the Sacramento Kings and Oklahoma City Thunder)

27. Washington Wizards (3-9) (previous ranking: 26) The Wizards have their Big Three healthy and together again, but they are still playing the same? What is with this team? It looked as if they turned a corner when they beat their rivals, the Cleveland Cavaliers, but they have lost big to the Thunder and to the Spurs. This team is just hard to figure out. Is Gilbert Arenas on to what he says about this team and “hidden agendas”?

28. New York Knicks (3-10) (previous ranking: 28) The poor Knicks go 2-1 over the week, and can’t move up anywhere. Mike D’Antoni’s bunch could have moved up quite a bit if they could have beaten the Celtics last night, but a 1-7 record at MSG is not going to help matters in this team’s quest to improve.

29. Minnesota Timberwolves (1-12) (previous ranking: 29) The Timberwolves have quietly lost 12 in a row, if it wasn’t for their only win against New Jersey, this team would be 0-13. The question is with them has to be: What does Ricky Rubio think of this? The worst thing about losing 12 in a row is that majority of these losses have been extremely bad.

30. New Jersey Nets (0-13) (previous ranking: 30) The only chance for the Nets to win was lost on Saturday at the hands of the New York Knicks. Lawrence Frank is still around has to be due to the fact that management knows that this team is ravaged with injuries. But at the same time though, there seems to be no wins in sight as they hit the West Coast for a road trip. How much longer will the rope hang for Frank?

I had to tweak the formula after I saw what it spat out after this weekend (DePaul is not the second best team in the country right now).  I realized that by doing the actual ranking of a team’s schedule, the differences in schedule were being weighted too heavily.  For instance, the schedule difference between number 270 and number 250 is actually zero, but it was getting counted in the formula as a difference of 20.  That meant that teams with a very good schedule so far were being rewarded way too much and teams with an average schedule were getting penalized.

The solution?  Just use the actual schedule rating.  Now teams that haven’t played anyone good are all even (since that’s the norm this time of year) and any teams that have played against some quality opponents or gone on the road are rewarded accordingly.

I’m also including the AP/USA Today Ranking next to each team so we can compare how voters think they’re going to do against how they’re actually playing.

Here are the rankings for this week as of 5:00 PM:

• Team (AP Rank/USA Today Rank)

1. Duke (7/7)
2. Minnesota (22/16)
3. Kansas (1/1)
4. Arizona State (NR/NR)
5. Baylor (NR/NR)
6. Marquette (NR/NR)
7. Tennessee (9/11)
8. Syracuse (10/9)
9. Kansas State (NR/NR)
10. Notre Dame (23/NR)
11. Washington (14/14)
12. LSU (NR/NR)
13. Oklahoma State (NR/NR)
14. Louisville (16/16)
15. Illinois (20/21)
16. Clemson (19/19)
17. Oregon (NR/NR)
18. Texas A&M (NR/NR)
19. Connecticut (13/13)
20. Washington State (NR/NR)
21. Ohio State (17/18)
22. Virginia (NR/NR)
23. Michigan State (2/2)
24. Arizona (NR/NR)
25. Texas (3/3)

Bottom Ten (10 = Worst)

1. Rutgers (NR/NR)
2. South Florida (NR/NR)
3. Texas Tech (NR/NR)
4. Nebraska (NR/NR)
5. South Carolina (NR/NR)
6. Indiana (NR/NR)
7. USC (NR/NR)
8. Iowa (NR/NR)
9. UCLA (NR/NR)
10. Oregon State (NR/NR)

This song is a joke. Not in a bad way. The whole song hinges on one joke, and a pretty basic one at that, which is repeated again and again throughout each verse. The crux of the song, if you couldn’t figure out Dylan’s usual subtlety, is a pun on the word “stoned.” Get it? “Everybody must get stoned”? It’s a drug reference!

Dylan’s sense of humor often gets overlooked, but this is probably his most famous joke. It’s also his most hokey. But if you listen to the song enough, you stop hearing the pun.

I’d be lying if I said that I’m favoring this song because it’s the lead track on Blonde on Blonde; if this song were on Bringing it all Back Home, or even Highway 61 Revisited, I’d probably dismiss it as almost as one note as “Nashville Skyline Rag.” But placed where it is, it ends up setting the tone for Dylan’s best album. As a result, I’ve listened to it more than enough times to get beyond the joke.

What’s really important about the song is the sense of camaraderie it inspires. The background noise and laughter on this song give off the sense of Dylan and Co. having fun with it. That you can hear all of this going on, plus the fact that Dylan is backed by a brass band, give off the distinct impression of a group. Even the straightforward lyrics and simple melody support this impression; there is no subtlety or complexity to make this song at all impenetrable. The repeated refrain—“I would not feel so all alone—everybody must get stoned!”—makes a certain “Us vs. Them” feel to the song ring out, except that the “Us” is not a select group, it’s “everybody.”

This sets the tone for all of Blonde on Blonde, which is both a decidedly fun album, as well as one that isn’t very concerned with what kind of message it sends to an audience. It is an inclusive album, and “Rainy Day Women #12 & 35” opens it on an upbeat and unmysterious note. There is an anti-establishment tone to the lyrics, of course, but it’s so poorly concealed, as if to say that the “subculture” Dylan identifies with isn’t “sub” anymore; everybody knows what he’s talking about.

A few months ago, I took issue with Paul Shirley’s critiques of The Beatles. Part of his argument was that it’s hard, or even impossible, to identify with non-contemporary music. There is certainly some truth to it; I wasn’t around to tell you what the mood was like in 1966. But I don’t think it’s pointless to speculate. I imagine that hearing this song in 1966 would have been incredibly refreshing. It would have been cool to hear something so blunt and upfront about something that had been inconspicuous, and yet so common—not just drug use, but the sense of resentment expressed in the song. It would have sounded simple and hokey, but in a very reassuring way. It would have sounded great…especially when followed by the rest of Blonde on Blonde.

I can’t believe people are already asking me to list my “Top 10 Albums of the Decade”.  I can’t even begin to put that type of list together.  It’s hard enough at the end of the year to do, let alone 10 years worth in one sitting.  Besides, what I’ve done in the past here (in December sometime) is put albums I thought were good only into vague and trivial categories.  I don’t RANK them.  I understand people who [supposedly] love music wanna be critics, but it just seems wrong to do as a music lover.  This isn’t weight lifting or NFL football we’re talking about, this is music.  Art.  Ya know?  This isn’t a competition.  Fuck, I’ll pick a big list of my favorites from 2009 (hell, even the decade), but that’s all it is: a list of favorites in no particular order.  That’s the other aspect to this.  If I can’t pick 10 from a year only, how am I supposed to pick 10 from 10 years worth of music?  I counted 50 albums — on the nose — from my 2008 albums list.  That’s how much music I  give chances to, genuinely enjoy, and feel are worth mentioning at the end of the year.  I don’t do 10, that’s too hard for me.  Plus… I don’t even remember 2002.  Let alone what albums came out in 2002.  Lists are fucking overrated anyway.  But there’s something especially shitty about ranking albums as if they were college football teams headed to the BCS.

Shame on anyone who calls themselves a “music lover” but will push music into the pits of competition with a snap of the fingers.  Shame on you.

-Sonny