Member for

7 years 8 months
Points
6.00

Recent Comments

Date Title Body
10/13/2016 - 2:48pm If there can only be one

it's Major League

12/05/2012 - 5:48pm According to a random

According to a random internet site, Fayetteville AK has a 93 COL (compared to 100 avg US) and Madison is 112.   

http://www.bestplaces.net/cost_of_living/city/wisconsin/madison

http://www.bestplaces.net/cost_of_living/city/arkansas/fayetteville

Also, taxes (both income and property) tend to be lower in southern states and localities.

12/05/2012 - 5:34pm Two points

1.  When considering salary, its not just what you make this year, or throughout the life of the contract, but also where you start in negotiations for your next contract, so it can have a compounding effect throughout the rest of his career (assuming that he is successful).

2.  Money is not solely about standard of living issues, particularly at the upper income levels.  its also about how much you make and how that affects your standing (both in your own mind and in the minds of others) relative to your perceived peers - in this case call it major conference head coaches.  That's a personal value that may or may not matter to him, but it often is a large psychological factor. 

12/05/2012 - 9:45am Yeah.  I think that the issue

Yeah.  I think that the issue is going to be that content owners (in this case ESPN, B1G, YES etc) will have to find a way to deliver content that pays for contracts currently in force, whether that is through a cable bundle or some other delivery method.  To the extent that another delivery method exists that can compete in quality, convenience, and breadth with cable (which internet currently does not), it will still need to be priced such that it pays for the content and owners futer obligations.  Which of course makes the move away from the cable bundle less attractive, particularly for those households that have people that watch stuff other than sports and so want to have access to at least a couple other channels offered in the cable bundle.

12/04/2012 - 2:39pm The contention, quote by

The contention, quoted by Brian, that we pay 50% of our cable subscription to subsidize sports appears to be wrong.  Courtesy of The Atlantic:

"Somehow, this stat, or something like it, made its way into headlines and ledes at the Los Angeles Times and Philadelphia Inquirer and Mother Jones and beyond. It's not true.

Your pay-TV bill is $80. Programming costs are $30. Sports programming costs (all of the sports networks combined) are $12, or more if you live in Southern California, as the graph above from the LA Times shows. Twelve dollars divided by $80 isn't 50% of your bill. It's 15%."

Whole article is a worthwhile read and interesting counterpoint to the oft-repeated but infrequently supported conclusion that the cable bundle is an unsupportable business model.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/if-you-dont-watch-sports-tv-is-a-huge-rip-off-so-how-do-we-fix-it/265814/

12/15/2010 - 10:16am Incremental Change

It would be interesting to see the difference between starters and and the 2 deeps.  It could be that a lot of experience (or age, I suppose, in this analysis) on a starting defense would lead to different results.