BPI (Basketball Power Index)- who are the winners and losers?

Teams that have hurt themselves: Kansas State, Gonzaga, Maryland
Teams that have helped themselves: Providence, SMU, Arkansas
With just less than two weeks to Selection Sunday, every men’s college basketball team is trying to either earn its way into the tournament or prove that it deserves a top seed. Games over the past week provided teams with the opportunities to do just that. Some teams took advantage of those opportunities, and some did not. The Basketball Power Index (BPI), which measures how good a team is looking forward, and strength of record (SOR), which measures how impressive a team’s win-loss record is, can be used to not only provide those pieces of information but also to simulate the rest of the season, tournament seeding and the tournament itself. The results of this week’s games, along with the window into the past and future provided by the metrics, allow us to see some of the biggest winners and losers of the week.
Winner: Southern Methodist University (BPI – 19, SOR – 18)
After upsetting the University of Houston on the road last week, SMU took its 20th BPI ranking into its only game of the week: a road game against 84th-ranked University of Connecticut. BPI gave SMU a 72 percent chance to win that game on the road and projected it would win by five to six points. SMU won, boosted its SOR to 18th and increased its odds of winning the American Conference tournament to 37 percent.
Winner: Providence (BPI – 53, SOR – 44)
Providence followed an impressive week in which it beat higher-ranked teams Butler and Xavier with two more good wins against Creighton on the road and Marquette at home. These wins have boosted Providence’s tournament prospects significantly. Its current SOR of 44 suggests that it has 62 percent chance to make the tournament -- up from just 50 percent before its win over Marquette.
Winner: Arkansas (BPI – 46, SOR – 31)
Much like Providence, Arkansas has had a good two-week stretch. It was ranked 55th in BPI two weeks ago, and since then it has beaten South Carolina, Ole Miss, Texas A&M and Auburn. With that stretch of wins, it has moved up to 46th in BPI and, as two of those wins were on the road, now has the 31st most impressive schedule in the country. The win on Saturday at Auburn in fact boosted its odds to make the tournament to 95 percent from 85 percent. Arkansas had only a 6 percent chance of winning its past four games, and those wins have been key to solidifying a spot in the tournament.

Loser: Kansas State (BPI – 42, SOR – 51)
A rough week for Kansas State began with a loss at home to Oklahoma State in which BPI favored Kansas State to win by three. The team followed that with a loss on the road to 77th-ranked Oklahoma in which it was favored to win by 2. Kansas State was 33rd in BPI going into the week and has now slid to 42; worse, its odds to make the tournament have fallen to 14 percent from 39 percent before the Oklahoma game.
Loser: Gonzaga (BPI – 3, SOR – 3)
Gonzaga spoiled its perfect season by dropping a home game to 73rd-ranked BYU at home -- when the Zags were favored to win by nearly 26 points. While the loss certainly does not affect their odds of making the tournament, and while a perfect season is a great story, dropping one game -- even an eminently winnable one to BYU -- is understandable. But it will cost them in their chance to grab a top seed in the tournament. Going into the game against BYU, BPI had Gonzaga in the top spot with a 91 percent chance at landing a No. 1 seed. The loss dropped it to third in BPI and third in SOR, and Gonzaga now has only a 46 percent chance to grab a top seed.
Loser: Maryland (BPI – 49, SOR – 29)
Maryland’s record has exceeded the expectations of its BPI ranking all season, but that seems to be slipping recently. Maryland was 40th in BPI going into a week in which it had two home games. BPI gave it a 70 percent chance to beat Minnesota and an 84 percent chance to beat Iowa. Maryland lost both games, however, by a combined 28 points, pushing it down to 49th overall in BPI and behind such teams as Minnesota and Miami in SOR. Maryland was 40th in BPI and 17th in SOR going into the week and now sits at 49th and 29th, meaning that it might have cost itself significantly in seeding for the tournament. For example, if the tournament were seeded by SOR alone, Maryland would have gone from a 4- or 5-seed a week ago to a 7- or 8-seed this week.

Source: http://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/129946/who-were-this-weeks-bpi-winners-and-losers

The SpaceX Moon mission extends Elon Musk's ambitions

Elon Musk, it seems, loves nothing more than to spin plates. When most of us might be looking to lighten the load, he's piling on the ambition.

The serial entrepreneur's latest gambit is to fly people around the Moon. Two wealthy individuals have apparently lodged significant deposits with his SpaceX company to make this journey.
We have no idea who they are, just that these space tourists include "nobody from Hollywood".
That Mr Musk should announce his intention to carry out an Apollo 8-like Moon loop should not really be a surprise; such a venture is on the natural path to deep-space exploration and colonisation - his stated end goals.
What does take the breath away is the timeline.
He's talking about doing this journey in late 2018, in hardware that has not yet even flown. That's Elon for you. 

For sure, his Falcon rockets have been working for some time now and the Dragon capsule has become something of an old hand at shuttling back and forth to the International Space Station (ISS). But the circumlunar project is another step on from robotic cargo runs to low-Earth orbit.
The Falcon Heavy, the much bigger rocket that will be needed, should make its debut this summer.
The crew version of Dragon, with its all-important life-support equipment, is targeted to make its maiden voyage at the end of 2017.
This will be an unmanned test outing; the first flight to the ISS with people aboard is slated for the spring of 2018.
That does not leave much time to configure and adapt systems for the longer, more arduous Moon mission.

The Dragon will need some sort of propulsion and service module (with extra propellants, oxygen, water, etc) to help sustain the required trajectory and the tourists for what will be at minimum a 6-to-7-day journey.
"Back in the Apollo days the outbound journey would usually take between two and three days and the same for the return journey, maybe about a one-week round trip once they leave the Earth," commented Jason Davis from the space advocacy group the Planetary Society.
"It is a little bit different than say putting an astronaut in low-Earth orbit on the International Space Station because your quick return to Earth is no longer an option.
"Once you fire that rocket and head towards the Moon, you can't turn around and go home so you are really kind of on your own for about a week with no-one to come and save you if there is a problem."
Mr Musk says his tourists understand the risks, and that they will receive "extensive training before going on the mission."
The entrepreneur hasn't yet confirmed it, but it's hard to imagine the ticketed passengers would fly without also being accompanied by an astronaut of experience. If there is a problem, having someone aboard with intimate knowledge of the Dragon's workings could make all the difference.

Of course, history tells us that everything in space "moves to the right". Timelines are rarely fixed. And SpaceX is not immune in this respect.
The Falcon Heavy is behind on its original schedule; like Musk, we all thought he’d be flying people to the ISS regularly by now; and his recently promised robotic Mars landing has just been pushed back two years. And don't forget the long list of satellite operators who've seen their launches delayed in the aftermath of two Falcon mishaps.
So, don't be surprised if this Moon loop also extends into the future. The really interesting sub-plot, however, is what this all means for the US space agency (Nasa).
It can be no coincidence that its leadership has announced that it will be looking to put people on the maiden flight of the agency’s huge new rocket, the Space Launch System, and its associated crew capsule, Orion.
These systems are currently due to fly in an unmanned test configuration late next year. A Nasa inquiry could now see a way to slip the mission to 2019 and make it a manned outing instead.
This would make for an intriguing comparison. You would have two missions launching almost at the same time, to do essentially the same mission profile around the Moon, except one (SLS/Orion) would have cost billions to get to the launch pad while the other (Falcon Heavy/Dragon) would have cost in the hundreds of millions. Certainly there would be an order of magnitude difference in price.

It is said that President Trump is looking very hard at how to expand commercial space activity during his administration. The Moon missions would give him considerable food for thought.
Publicly, both Musk and Nasa are on the same page. The agency, which has invested considerable sums in SpaceX, released a statement late on Monday saying that it commended "its industry partners for reaching higher".
Musk tweeted: “SpaceX could not do this without Nasa. Can't express enough appreciation”.
But the comparisons are inescapable. And this is a wave we are witnessing.
Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, has been quietly acquiring space credentials through his impressive Blue Origin company. He is building a rocket to rival the Falcon Heavy that he calls New Glenn. He’s even got one on the drawing board that’s bigger still called New Armstrong.
The ambition is the same as SpaceX. So is the cost model. That is, to create something that is considerably cheaper than the public sector can deliver with its burdensome oversight and its (politically driven) distributed manufacturing methods.
After all, it is in part the cost of access to space that has slowed the pace of exploration since the Apollo era.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39115201