Twitter is fine for very short, quick messages. Anything even just slightly more substantial must be done elsewhere. My tweets are generally just random observations, updates, and pictures. I often tweet from my phone.
My personal website is where I put my most substantial content, content that I want to "endure". Having said that, I haven't added anything there recently and my personal website is in drastic need of a redesign, harsh editing, and more good content.
I use my blog to build my personal brand. If you want some "Greg Lange", that's where you need to go. My blog posts are essentially what you'd get if you had a conversation with me face to face (minus the hilarious homages I'm famous for).
I use Facebook mainly to keep up with friends and family. Also, anything I tweet gets posted to my wall over there. That's because a substantial number of people in my circle don't use Twitter but do use Facebook.
I like Google+ a lot. However, it is currently populated by "techies", social media "stars" (or "wannabes"), "hipsters", and "leftists". I don't really put much content up over there right now. I'd like to push my tweets over there easily but there doesn't seem to be a decent way to do that right now.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
For The Record: Human Blood
Human blood is 92% water but it tastes nothing like water or tea.
Source:
http://www.waterinfo.org/resources/water-facts
Source:
http://www.waterinfo.org/resources/water-facts
Arguing With People on the Internet is Stupid
Arguing with people on the Internet is stupid. There are too many wrong people and too many people who are wrong by choice (in effect). You should just say what you think is right and move on. Maybe that's what a blog is for.
The Flat Tax is Stupid
Proponents of the flat tax say that it will simplify the tax code. However, the complicated part of the tax code is not the part which determines the rate at which taxpayers are taxed. The complicated parts of the tax code are the parts that deal with:
A flat tax would simplify the least complicated part of the tax code.
- Deductions
- Treating different types of income differently
- Treating different taxpayers differently
A flat tax would simplify the least complicated part of the tax code.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Utter UTSA Football Insanity
Read this.
If UTSA ends up in C-USA any time in the next 5 years (and if C-USA is essentially at the same level it is now), that would be insane.
UTSA had no football a year ago. Leaping over the Southland Conference and the WAC to C-USA in such a short time is mind boggling.
Maybe the article is just wishful thinking.
If UTSA ends up in C-USA any time in the next 5 years (and if C-USA is essentially at the same level it is now), that would be insane.
UTSA had no football a year ago. Leaping over the Southland Conference and the WAC to C-USA in such a short time is mind boggling.
Maybe the article is just wishful thinking.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
How Much Better is Baylor Than UTSA?
Because of fortuitous scheduling, we can answer this question using a little bit of football mathematics.
Baylor beat SFA 48-0. SFA beat McMurry 82-6. McMurry beat UTSA 24-21.
So, Baylor is (48 - 0) + (82 - 6) + (24 - 21) = 127 points better than UTSA.
That's probably about right. :)
Baylor beat SFA 48-0. SFA beat McMurry 82-6. McMurry beat UTSA 24-21.
So, Baylor is (48 - 0) + (82 - 6) + (24 - 21) = 127 points better than UTSA.
That's probably about right. :)
More Big 12 (the Best Baylor Can Hope For)
The following is the very best Baylor and the other schools left in the Big 12 can hope for:
A&M, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State all leave. The remaining schools should get as much money from the departing schools as possible. This should be in the range of 50 to 150 million dollars. This money should be split among the five remaining schools. This money could be used to pay (hopefully), the financial obligations the remaining schools have.
The Big 12 should try to position itself as the 5th best conference behind the SEC, Big 10, Pac 16, and the ACC. It should add a conference TV network. It should be renamed. And it should attempt to get to 16 schools.
Top choices include:
Cincinnati
Louisville
Houston
Memphis
TCU
Other choices include:
Air Force
Colorado State
New Mexico
North Texas
Rice
SMU
Tulsa
UA-Little Rock
UL-Lafayette
UL-Monroe
UTEP
The Big 12 should go to the unequal revenue sharing model described in a previous post.
A Big 12 with 16 schools, including the 5 remaining schools and the 5 top choices above should be able to pull in a reasonable TV contract.
This outcome is really the best Baylor can hope for.
A&M, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State all leave. The remaining schools should get as much money from the departing schools as possible. This should be in the range of 50 to 150 million dollars. This money should be split among the five remaining schools. This money could be used to pay (hopefully), the financial obligations the remaining schools have.
The Big 12 should try to position itself as the 5th best conference behind the SEC, Big 10, Pac 16, and the ACC. It should add a conference TV network. It should be renamed. And it should attempt to get to 16 schools.
Top choices include:
Cincinnati
Louisville
Houston
Memphis
TCU
Other choices include:
Air Force
Colorado State
New Mexico
North Texas
Rice
SMU
Tulsa
UA-Little Rock
UL-Lafayette
UL-Monroe
UTEP
The Big 12 should go to the unequal revenue sharing model described in a previous post.
A Big 12 with 16 schools, including the 5 remaining schools and the 5 top choices above should be able to pull in a reasonable TV contract.
This outcome is really the best Baylor can hope for.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
My New Big 12 Plan
After learning some new information, I have developed a new Big 12 plan.
The new information I've learned is the following, small schools get almost no money from national TV contracts. For example, the WAC just signed a new TV deal that would result in each school getting around $300,000 a year. That's peanuts compared to what every school gets in the SEC or the Big 12.
So, disparity in TV/conference revenues is both reality and appropriate. A school like UT is more valuable to a conference than a school like Iowa State. This difference should be recognized with different conference revenue for different schools.
So, I propose that the Big 12 do the following things:
The revenue sharing model could be something like this:
So, for example, current 10's would be Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech might be 5's. Baylor, Kansas, and Kansas State might be 3's. Iowa State might be a 2. Using the above ratings, there would 51 shares. The three 10's would each get about 20% of conference revenue. The two 5's would each get about 10%. The three 3's would get about 6%. Iowa State would get 4%.
Using the above revenue model has many advantages. New schools can be added as necessary/possible. These schools would be paid an appropriate amount of the conference revenue. They would also receive a two year bump in revenue that would help encourage their move. Schools that were displaced from the conference because of an upgrade would be compensated by two years of increased revenue. The above model also forbids schools signing huge personal TV contracts. This is probably one of the causes of the Big 12's current difficulties.
The geographical footprint the Big 12 should take is Texas and all the states immediately around Texas (plus a state or two north of this). So, these states would be part of that footprint: Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. A school just outside the footprint could be considered if they make the conference significantly better.
Schools that fall into that footprint and their possible ratings include:
Arkansas, 7
Arkansas State, 1
Colorado, 7
Colorado State, 1
Houston, 3
Louisiana Tech, 1
LSU, 10
Missouri State, 1
New Orleans, 1
New Mexico, 1
New Mexico State, 1
North Texas, 2
Rice, 2
SMU, 3
TCU, 4
Texas State, 1
Tulane, 2
Tulsa, 2
UA-Little Rock, 1
UL-Lafayette, 1
UL-Monroe, 1
UTEP, 2
Wichita State, 1
The Big 12 should try to have at least one school in each state in its footprint and then add as many of the higher ranked schools as possible.
I believe the above proposal would result in a stable and prosperous Big 12, a Big 12 that has a mechanism for become better as other schools become available.
The new information I've learned is the following, small schools get almost no money from national TV contracts. For example, the WAC just signed a new TV deal that would result in each school getting around $300,000 a year. That's peanuts compared to what every school gets in the SEC or the Big 12.
So, disparity in TV/conference revenues is both reality and appropriate. A school like UT is more valuable to a conference than a school like Iowa State. This difference should be recognized with different conference revenue for different schools.
So, I propose that the Big 12 do the following things:
- Forbid schools from having their own TV networks
- Start a conference TV network with revenue from that being shared across the conference
- Go to an unequal revenue sharing model
- Pick a conference geographical footprint that makes sense and keeps travel times for fans and non-football sports reasonable
- Grab the best schools available within that footprint while deviating from that footprint only slightly if an exceptional school is available outside that footprint
- Add a mechanism for paying new members more for a few years to encourage schools to come to the Big 12
- Add a mechanism for voting out schools when an upgrade becomes available (with a nice parting gift for schools voted out)
- Expand to 16 teams, taking the best available schools in the conference footprint
- Have two 8 team divisions with a conference championship game
The revenue sharing model could be something like this:
- Schools are ranked by their relative value to the conference from 1 to 10
- Schools are paid according to that rating, a 10 would get 10 times as much as 1 and 5 times as much as a 2, etc.
- New schools are paid for two years at a rating that's 2 points higher than their actual rating
- Schools that are voted out, are paid for two years at a rating that's 2 points higher than their actual rating after they leave the conference
So, for example, current 10's would be Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech might be 5's. Baylor, Kansas, and Kansas State might be 3's. Iowa State might be a 2. Using the above ratings, there would 51 shares. The three 10's would each get about 20% of conference revenue. The two 5's would each get about 10%. The three 3's would get about 6%. Iowa State would get 4%.
Using the above revenue model has many advantages. New schools can be added as necessary/possible. These schools would be paid an appropriate amount of the conference revenue. They would also receive a two year bump in revenue that would help encourage their move. Schools that were displaced from the conference because of an upgrade would be compensated by two years of increased revenue. The above model also forbids schools signing huge personal TV contracts. This is probably one of the causes of the Big 12's current difficulties.
The geographical footprint the Big 12 should take is Texas and all the states immediately around Texas (plus a state or two north of this). So, these states would be part of that footprint: Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. A school just outside the footprint could be considered if they make the conference significantly better.
Schools that fall into that footprint and their possible ratings include:
Arkansas, 7
Arkansas State, 1
Colorado, 7
Colorado State, 1
Houston, 3
Louisiana Tech, 1
LSU, 10
Missouri State, 1
New Orleans, 1
New Mexico, 1
New Mexico State, 1
North Texas, 2
Rice, 2
SMU, 3
TCU, 4
Texas State, 1
Tulane, 2
Tulsa, 2
UA-Little Rock, 1
UL-Lafayette, 1
UL-Monroe, 1
UTEP, 2
Wichita State, 1
The Big 12 should try to have at least one school in each state in its footprint and then add as many of the higher ranked schools as possible.
I believe the above proposal would result in a stable and prosperous Big 12, a Big 12 that has a mechanism for become better as other schools become available.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
My Big 12 Plan
With Texas A&M leaving, the Big 12 needs to do something. I think the Big 12 needs to:
Without A&M, the Big 12 would have 9 teams. To get to 16, 7 teams would have to be added.
The top two targets for expansion should be two SEC schools, LSU and Arkansas. The addition of these two schools would greatly improve the conference and make complete geographic and media market sense. However, luring the two away from the SEC might prove to be impossible.
The next two targets for expansion should be two PAC 12 teams, Arizona and Arizona State. These teams only make geographic sense when the rest of the plan is known. These two schools would give the Big 12 the state of Arizona. However, again, it might prove difficult to get them to leave the PAC 12.
The Big 12 should add TCU and Houston. This would give the Big 12 teams in the DFW and Houston markets. It seems likely both teams would welcome a move to the Big 12. These two schools would make great travel and geographic sense. The only downside to these schools is that they don't add more states to the Big 12's state footprint.
BYU, Colorado State, and New Mexico should be added to increase the Big 12's state footprint. These schools help make the Arizona schools' travel requirements more reasonable and they add three states to the Big 12. New Mexico is not a great football school and New Mexico is not a big media market, but that's not the point. A conference full of tough teams is not ideal. Every conference needs its Baylor's and the Big 12 at the end of expansion needs to make geographic sense. It would seem likely that these three schools would be open to joining a sixteen team Big 12.
Iowa State should be dropped from the Big 12. It doesn't make geographic sense.
So, here is the "dream" Big 12
East Division:
West Division:
The above conference would seem to be able to attract a large TV contract for a conference TV channel plus football TV broadcast rights. This money should be distributed unevenly to the conference teams. Teams that are in bigger media markets should get more money than teams in small markets. Also, teams that are new to the conference should receive more money initially in order to attract these teams to the conference.
Teams would play a seven game conference schedule. That would allow each team to play five non-conference games (which seems ideal). Also, there would be a conference championship game. This would bring in yet more TV money.
It's unlikely that the above lineup of schools could be assembled. However, the conference should strive to form a sixteen team conference built with the above ideas in mind.
- Expand to two eight team divisions
- Expand into new, large media markets
- Expand into more states
- Create a Big 12 network and forbid schools from having individual networks (like Texas' new network and if Texas doesn't like this they can leave the conference)
- Expand in a way that makes geographic sense (travel between conference schools should be reasonable)
- Expand in a way that makes economic sense.
Without A&M, the Big 12 would have 9 teams. To get to 16, 7 teams would have to be added.
The top two targets for expansion should be two SEC schools, LSU and Arkansas. The addition of these two schools would greatly improve the conference and make complete geographic and media market sense. However, luring the two away from the SEC might prove to be impossible.
The next two targets for expansion should be two PAC 12 teams, Arizona and Arizona State. These teams only make geographic sense when the rest of the plan is known. These two schools would give the Big 12 the state of Arizona. However, again, it might prove difficult to get them to leave the PAC 12.
The Big 12 should add TCU and Houston. This would give the Big 12 teams in the DFW and Houston markets. It seems likely both teams would welcome a move to the Big 12. These two schools would make great travel and geographic sense. The only downside to these schools is that they don't add more states to the Big 12's state footprint.
BYU, Colorado State, and New Mexico should be added to increase the Big 12's state footprint. These schools help make the Arizona schools' travel requirements more reasonable and they add three states to the Big 12. New Mexico is not a great football school and New Mexico is not a big media market, but that's not the point. A conference full of tough teams is not ideal. Every conference needs its Baylor's and the Big 12 at the end of expansion needs to make geographic sense. It would seem likely that these three schools would be open to joining a sixteen team Big 12.
Iowa State should be dropped from the Big 12. It doesn't make geographic sense.
So, here is the "dream" Big 12
East Division:
- Arkansas
- Baylor
- Houston
- Kansas
- Kansas State
- LSU
- Missouri
- TCU
West Division:
- Arizona
- Arizona State
- BYU
- Colorado State
- New Mexico
- Oklahoma
- Oklahoma State
- Texas Tech
The above conference would seem to be able to attract a large TV contract for a conference TV channel plus football TV broadcast rights. This money should be distributed unevenly to the conference teams. Teams that are in bigger media markets should get more money than teams in small markets. Also, teams that are new to the conference should receive more money initially in order to attract these teams to the conference.
Teams would play a seven game conference schedule. That would allow each team to play five non-conference games (which seems ideal). Also, there would be a conference championship game. This would bring in yet more TV money.
It's unlikely that the above lineup of schools could be assembled. However, the conference should strive to form a sixteen team conference built with the above ideas in mind.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
UTSA Football Predictions
I'm looking forward to watching UTSA's new football program this year. My buddies and I even bought season tickets. Here are my game by game predictions:
So, I'm predicting a 5 and 5 finish for the Roadrunners in their first season.
In addition, UTSA is scheduled to play Baylor in 2017, 2018, and 2019. That will be three wins.
- Sat, Sept 3 vs Northeastern State (big win)
- Sat, Sept 10 vs McMurry (win)
- Sat, Sept 17 @ Southern Utah (loss)
- Sat, Sept 24 vs Bacone College (really big win)
- Sat, Oct 1 @ Sam Houston State (big loss)
- Sat, Oct 8 vs South Alabama (loss)
- Sat, Oct 15 @ UC Davis (loss)
- Sat, Oct 29 vs Georgia State (win)
- Sat, Nov 12 @ McNeese State (big loss)
- Sat, Nov 19 vs Minot State University (really, really big win)
So, I'm predicting a 5 and 5 finish for the Roadrunners in their first season.
In addition, UTSA is scheduled to play Baylor in 2017, 2018, and 2019. That will be three wins.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)