"Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he."
-- Proverbs 29:18, King James Bible (KJV)

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

Paypal Co-Founder and Facebook Angel Investor Peter Thiel (Stanford Law School JD 1992) Continues to Pick Winners -- Like Donald Trump

Angel investor Peter Thiel,
a Stanford Law School graduate (J.D. 1992),
and co-founder of PayPal,

picked Donald Trump to win the election and he was right again,
just as many of his angel investments have helped launch startup companies such as Facebook, where he was the first outside investor.

You have to have a nose for the future to be successful on the big stage.

See Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big at The New York Times and Peter Thiel perfectly summed up Donald Trump in a few sentences at CNBC.

After Week 10 College Football Ratings & Rankings FBS 2016-2017 by SportPundit

Week 10 College Football Ratings & Rankings FBS 2016-2017 by SportPundit

These are our college football rankings after Week 10 of the 2016 season.

Our system is based on net average yards per play stats, which we calibrate primarily by adjusting for schedule difficulty. Other adjustments can also be made (*=adjustment). We take the cumulative yards per play stat data from cfbstats.com or college and university football athletic pages online, as linked below for each team.

Caveat emptor (Buyer beware): We make this material available in good fun out of interest for the sport of college football. Please do not rely on our material to place bets or wagers of any kind. No one knows the exact outcome of a game or a season before it is played and that is what makes it so interesting. We disclaim any and all liability for the consequences of anyone relying in any way upon our postings, analysis, links or reasoning -- for which we make no warranty of accuracy. May the best team win.

Week 10 College Football Rankings FBS 2016-2017 by SportPundit
Week 10 RANK 2016-2017 by Sport PunditTEAM
(# = head coaching change
NAYPPA= net average yards per play advantage offense over defense, stats from cfbstats.com (our calculation)yards per play offense via cfbstats.com the links below are to the school sites yards per play defense via cfbstats.comSchedule difficulty based on Massey Ratings, Sagarin,
our own ratings of average rank of opponents played (*=adjusted)
Won-loss record (W-L) for the 2016-2017 season2016-2017 Team Rating by Sport Pundit after Week 10
4Ohio State2.16.404.3035*8-1+0.9
8LSU # 2.06.514.5625*5-3+0.6
9Texas A&M1.26.495.3425*7-2+0.1
12Penn State1.26.285.0830*7-2-0.1
13W. Virginia1.36.615.2750*7-1-0.4
14Florida State0.2 6.376.140*6-3-0.4
15USC #1.36.615.3040*6-3-0.5
19N. Carolina1.36.765.4355*7-2-0.8
20Baylor # 2.06.594.6285*6-2 -0.9
21Wash. St.0.36.315.9730*6-2-1.0
23Virg. Tech #0.95.714.8155*7-2-1.1
24Boise State1.87.025.1990*8-1-1.1
25Okla. St.0.56.465.9340*7-2-1.1
26 Nebraska0.15.665.5535*7-2-1.2
28Tennessee -0.35.625.3410*6-3-1.2
29Miami (Fl.) #1.56.374.8965*5-4-1.3
30W. Michigan1.36.965.6990*9-0-1.4
31Georgia# 0.25.315.1530*5-4-1.5
32 Arkansas-0.85.846.6310*6-3-1.5
36TCU1.36.535.2470*5-4 -1.6
40N.C. State0.65.715.1645*4-5-1.8
43S. Diego St1.96.254.31115*8-1-1.8
45Kansas St.-0.75.466.1515*5-4-2.0
46Air Force0.85.985.2175*6-3-2.0
47Texas Tech-0.16.656.7530*4-5-2.0
48Miss. St.0.45.975.6050*4-5-2.1
49Arizona St.-1.35.366.680*5-4-2.1
53Ga. Tech 0.56.596.0960*5-4-2.1
54S. Carolina #-0.34.975.3035*5-4-2.1
56S. Florida1.57.115.61105*7-2-2.1
57Toledo #*7-2-2.1
58Michigan St.0.25.775.6335*2-7-2.3
59Notre Dame0.76.055.3660*3-6-2.3
61 Memphis #*6-3-2.3
62Syracuse #-0.85.646.3915*4-5-2.3
64Appal. St. 1.05.814.8495*7-2-2.3
65 Vanderbilt -1.14.775.8210*4-5-2.4
66Mid. Tenn.1.56.785.31110*6-3-2.4
67LA Tech2.37.875.58135*7-3-2.4
68W. Kentucky 2.37.535.24135*7-3-2.4
70Wake Forest-0.54.825.2745*6-3-2.5
71Minnesota #0.75.504.7995*7-2-2.5
72UCF #*5-4-2.5
74Maryland #*5-4-2.7
76Oregon S.-0.45.425.7830*2-7-2.7
77Missouri #*2-7-2.8
78E. Carolina #-0.45.876.3145*3-6-2.9
79Iowa State #-0.6 5.395.9425*1-8-2.9
80O. Dominion0.76.145.46100*6-3-2.9
81Illinois #0.15.665.5265*3-6-3.0
82Colorado St.-0.15.755.8375*5-4-3.1
83Virginia #-**2-7-3.1
84Utah State 0.15.495.3665*3-6-3.1
85Boston C.-0.74.645.2950*4-5-3.2
86Army West P0.75.745.06110*5-3-3.2
90N. Illinois0.16.025.8875*3-6-3.3
91Arkansas St.-0.25.365.5380*4-4-3.4
93C. Michigan0.55.975.4795*5-5-3.4
94E. Michigan 0.25.905.7095*6-4-3.4
96Miami (Oh.)0.25.415.2585*4-6-3.5
98UTSA # 0.15.675.6695*5-4-3.5
99Tulane #-0.44.915.3465*3-6-3.6
100Idaho -0.85.346.1865*5-4-3.6
101Ga. South. #-*4-5-3.7
102Kent State-0.34.725.0570*3-7-3.8
104Rutgers #-1.94.406.2715*2-7-3.8
105New Mexico0.96.755.86135*6-3-3.8
107S. Alabama -0.25.395.6390*4-5-3.9
108Georgia St. 0.04.884.8885*2-7-3.9
109South. Miss#*5-4-3.9
110Ball State # -0.55.706.2375*4-6-3.9
111Hawaii #-0.45.856.2780*4-6-4.0
112N. Texas # -0.64.975.6180*4-5-4.0
113N. Mex. St.-1.25.426.5855*2-6-4.0
115San Jose St.-1.35.366.6450*3-7-4.2
117UMass -*2-8-4.3
118LA Lafayette -0.44.875.22100*3-5-4.4
119Fresno St.-1.14.775.8955*1-9-4.5
121Fl. Int'l FIU-1.05.336.3570*3-7-4.5
122Charlotte -*4-5-4.5
123LA Monroe #-1.25.306.5475*3-6-4.6
124Fl. Atlantic -1.25.366.5175*2-7-4.8
126Bowling G. #-1.74.926.5850*1-8-4.8
127Texas St. #-1.94.536.4060**2-6-4.9
***Cstl. Carolina*7-2-4.9
***UAB -(Blazers back in 2017)






The Donald Trump 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Victory in Retrospect

in view of Donald Trump's victory in the just held November 8, 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, we repost here today our September 11, 2015 posting about Trump's campaign, which we made long before any but a few commentators considered Trump to be a serious contender for the office of President of the United States. As so-called "early adopters", we saw Trump's potential immediately. Here is what we wrote more than a year ago.

As a political centrist, or more correctly, political objectivist, who tries to think in terms of the most sensible stance on the issues rather than on partisanship, we post infrequently on purely political issues.

We did call Obama's first Presidential election win already early in the primaries because it looked like his time had come. People wanted change. It happened.

When the progressive Paul Krugman shows how right Trump is on economics (see the link below) and how badly self-deluded the rest of the outdated recalcitrant Republican Party candidates are at the moment on major economic issues, then it becomes quite clear that something unusual is in the works.

  • what we regard to be the Democratic Party favorite Hillary Clinton's general unsuitability for the Presidency,
  • and the aging old socialist 74-year old Bernie Sanders running for an office that needs a more dynamic and practical President in the present world situation --Sanders would be 75 if elected, the oldest President EVER, and he may be a nice man, but he is not in the right place at the right time
  • it looks to us like Donald Trump has a good chance to win it all and be the nation's next President. He was, like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, also born in 1946, which looks like a good year -- hey, also our birth year -- but Trump is 69 now, so that age could slowly become a factor, either that or he has to delegate a lot of work to top-notch younger people.
Winning is all a question of being in the right place at the right time.

After winning, being President means "to lead".
It does not mean to be a "trivia fact expert" on political questions or issues.
The President "hires" people to do the work who are experts in their fields.
The President's job is to know what they need to do, and then have THEM do it.

Most of the Presidential candidates need to reassess their priorities,
and to learn something about LEADERSHIP. A few remedial courses?
We see most of them as worker drones, or as extremists for vested interests,
but not as national leaders. Which of them is out there for "us"?

Did someone say "Trump!"

Well, that is what democracy is all about. People CAN choose.
But election day is still a long way off at November 8, 2016.
More than a year to go! It will remain interesting.

See Krugman at the NY Times on Trump Is Right on Economics