Cutting the cord on cable TV: Personal experience

Nielsen Ratings released their latest report on TV consumption in America, and found that 5 million people in the United States no longer subscribe to cable TV or broadcast TV, up from 2 million in 2007.  While this is an incredibly smaller percentage, I (and my family) are one of those.  In fact, I have several friends who have made this switch as well.

wsj.com

Does this say something about the Lawrence, Kansas market?  Quite possibly, because the only cable provider in town, Knology (previously Sunflower, and recently purchased by WOW) is a horrible service, expensive, and unreliable at best.  AT&T Uverse is possible in some locations of town, but not in mine.

The question here is how is my experiment proceeding, and how did I get to this?  From my recollection, we are going on close to five years without cable TV subscritpion.  Do not mistake this: we still get our entertainment, just not through the subscription cable TV offerings.  Six years ago I bought my first flat screen, hi-def TV: a 32 inch LCD.  We had basic, low-res cable at the time, however with this new device I went all in: HDMI cables with the full range of hi-def, digital cable TV and surround sound playing from a stereo receiver.  And it was good.

And yet, one year later, with a cable/internet bill that approached $150 per month, we decided to unload the cable TV, and $86 from our monthly bill.  I know some people who routinely pay over $200 per month for their combined service, so we were definitely in the middle when it came to packaged services.  And yet... we found that we rarely watched the television.  From my point of view, a family who works, kids in school, you calculate the number of visible hours for TV.  Five days a week, from 6:00pm to 10:00pm is 20 hours per week.  Weekends you would get 14 hours a day, so 28 hours a weekend.  That's 48 hours of total viewing ability per week.

When we looked at our viewing record, we really found that we only watched a handful of regular shows, and for the most part, simply turned on the TV for background noise, not really watching.  Of course there were the lazy moments when we would turn it on just to see if we could find something.  But we found a solution to that as well.  In our case, this was money wasted.  We did not watch 48 hours per week.  In reality, we probably watched about 10 to 15, with another 10 to 15 of just random surfing or background noise.

Here is the justification of why we switched off cable:  Since we already have an internet connection, there is no additional money spent.  Instead of the $86 per month, we can spend $8 for Netflix, $8 for Hulu Plus, and find the remaining things online for free.  That's a savings of $70 just in that.  When we really looked at it, there were only a handful of shows that we routinely watched, several of which we can find online.  The kicker is that we can watch them on our own schedule (it does not have to be Tuesdays at 8:00pm), and we can watch re-runs at our leisure.  That's not possible with cable TV (unless you spend extra for the DVR or OnDemand).  Plus there are several free online services out there as well: ESPN3 comes to mind for many events.  During the summer I subscribe to MLB.TV for baseball, and have considered FoxSoccer so I can watch the European football leagues.  Both combined still are less per month than the old cable bill.

This also leaves us the ability to rent a movie if we cannot find it on one of the two online services we currently have.  Plus, we can run these on the computer in the living room, on the PS3, on the iPad, or any of our laptops, sitting in any room or outside, or in a hotel, in a lobby... anywhere there is a network.  You cannot take your cable TV to Panera or Starbucks and catch up on an old episode of Faulty Towers... but I can on my laptop whenever I want.

So from our perspective, cutting the cable and finding alternatives saves us money, allows freedom, and also gives us the peace of mind that we do not need background noise (though we do turn on Netflix sometimes, and run Disney, or Discovery Channel shows like we used to with cable).

However, this is not for everyone.  My intent was not to indicate that I am a better person for doing this.  There are plenty of things that I miss, and I am certainly not one for sitting at the TV for hours and watching shows.  My attention span is not that great.  But if you need to save some money, and would untie yourself from the TV, this could be the way to go.  And when the day comes where cable companies allow complete a la carte programming, our family will probably supplement our internet with a few channels.  I still have issues with paying for 200 channels, when all I want is about 15.  I understand their arguments, but it does not work for me.  You want Disney? Fine.  But you will also get Disney Jr., MTV Hits, MTV Jams, Bloomberg, DIY, H2, G4, Military History, LifeTime Real Women, Biography, CMT Pure Country, Boomerang, Chiller, Cooking, Crime&Investigation, Discovery Fit&Health, GSN, Sleuth, Style, WE, VH1 Soul and VH1 Classics.  Yes, that's only $10 (at my local cable provider, but I am sure there are similar packages out there in your town) for 23 channels.  But this is such a random selection of channels... there are two channels in that group we would watch.  That is one-eleventh of the channels... I should only have to pay $0.90 for those two channels.

Now I have gotten off onto a tangent for another posting.  Anyway... the cable cutting has worked for us through supplementing things that we want to watch, saved us money, and given us flexibility that we could not find in cable TV.  I would be interested to know if you have cut the cord, how this has worked out for you, if you could not do it, or if you have questions on how you might do it.

US Soccer fan? Nope. I enjoy watching football

AFP - Manchester United - Chelsea. 10 March 2013

And depending on where you live, this is your first thought:

 (American): Of course, football is so much better than soccer.

(European): Of course, football is so much better than soccer.

I am talking about The Beautiful Game, not American Football, so all of the people who enjoy watching the American version of football will probably not enjoy reading this posting.

On to the subject:   ESPN ran a story the other day on their website, an opinion / conversation piece about Americans who support US Soccer (the US men's national team) but do not support or watch MLS (Major League Soccer).  The discussion is whether you can do this... support a national team, but not support the national league.  The sub title of this article was, "Can you call yourself a US soccer fan if your don't support MLS?"  I read the title incorrectly the first time and immediately thought, 'Yes, I am a US soccer fan, and I think the MLS is rubbish!'  However, the author is saying US as in the national team.  So with that.. no, I am not a US national team supporter (I am the worst American in the nation), and I do not support the MLS (even with one of the better teams in my area (KC), and growing up in Chicago).

How am I an American who does not support the national team, or the MLS?  Because I love football, and Americans play soccer.  You don't think there is a difference?  In my mind there are some very important facts to which anyone could debate, but consider the quality and setup of the MLS in comparison to the European leagues, and the quality and setup of the national team in comparison to the European teams.

From a league point of view, there are several European leagues which all play the same schedule, with the same off season.  They have the same transfer windows, which allow for the free movement of players between leagues.  The clubs play in huge competitions like Europa and Champions league, or for cups like the FA, which are huge interconnections between the best quality leagues and clubs.  England has several tiers of leagues, which adds a whole new element that would be deemed unconstitutional in America, with several lawsuits filed: teams can be relegated!  The worst teams in each league are sent down to a lower level, and the best teams below are brought up.  Residents of cities live and die with their relegation  which promotes a fan base that does not waver.  MLS does not have the huge cross-league tournaments like Europe does.  MLS does not have multiple tiers of leagues like Europe does.  Every club in Europe has a youth program, a U-21 team that plays against the same U-21 clubs that their senior team has.  There is no system like this in America.  Instead, MLS relies on college programs, random youth programs, and the cast-off aging stars from Europe and South America to fill their seats and make their money.  Look at the MLS list of European players: many were at one point fixtures on their national teams, but not since they came to the MLS.  Thus, the quality of play in the MLS is poor: no youth programs for Americans, no star power (you think Ronaldo or Messi would ever consider coming to the MLS in their prime?), no chance that bad teams are sent down, no big tournaments to decide 'Greatest Club on Earth.' It's soccer... but it is not beautiful.

And it carries over to the national team.  Once again I follow the European teams, and many of the same arguments hold true.  The majority of the US national team play in the MLS, which in turn makes the US national team simply the MLS all-star team, which plays at the MLS level.  Even when you add the stars who have gone to Europe and succeeded, when they are placed into a system of MLS players, and into MLS formations of play, they simply must revert to that style and tempo.  However, just like the major club tournaments of Europe, every four years there is a huge tournament which every nation there competes in.  Euro 2012 was as large a tournament as the World Cup.  The US plays for the CONCACAF Gold Cup. Not quite the same levels of quality in the two tournaments... and the US still does not play well in that.

Now that I have stated that MLS cannot compare to the European leagues, and the US national team cannot compare to the European national teams... how do you answer the question posted: can you be a US soccer fan and not support the MLS?  Americans will say 'yes,' because Americans are patriotic and love all things that are American.  When the World Cup starts (and the US somehow qualifies), people will turn on the games and root their loudest for the American team.  And the moment the Cup is over, they will turn away from soccer completely.  The MLS might pick up a few supporters due to the popularity of the Cup, but that's about it.  The hardcore football supporters and followers meet up on weekends, and watch the European games in full kit.

Some call us 'Euro Snobs.'  Some call us 'un-American.'  But in the same way I do not watch reality TV, because most of it is crap, I don't watch the MLS.  I am a football fan.  I appreciate the beautiful game played by those who make it beautiful.

I don't watch soccer.  I am a football fan.

Thoughts on the UEFA Champions League match: Man U and Real Madrid

[This originally appeared on my blog: Slim Thomas - http://slimthomas.blogspot.com/ ]

I make the standard disclosure: I am a Manchester United fan.  Very much similar to why the Chicago Cubs, or Atlanta Braves are so popular across America in baseball, Man U is and has been a regularly broadcast team on American sporting television networks.  In this, it has grown a large following of North American people, aside from the hardcore football fans who already had favourite teams.

With that I will say that I follow most of the European leagues, and will always sit down for a match on TV regardless of who is playing.  Hell, I will watch third-tier leagues, I love football that much.  For the most part I follow my favourite players, not teams specifically.  To give you insight on my non-bias, my favourite player is David Silva (Man City) and one of my favourite coaches is Roberto Mancini (Man City), so I am not strictly a United follower.

With that sorted, it has taken me a few days to reflect on the match that has been debated and argued over the past few days.  What was a match up of a finals proportion, ended with bitter disappointment for the home squad.  What I am referring to is the foul and subsequent dealing of a red card to Nani with roughly thirty minutes to play.  I will not go into all the details of how this one act changed the game, and thus the outcome of the series, rather on some of the incidentals.

Credit: PA Photos

First off, I did not agree with the official (yes, you all may say, 'Well, suprise, suprise! You are a Man U fan!').  Was it a foul?  Certainly.  The boots were high.  Was it intentional?  No.  The replay from every angle shows that Nani was playing the ball, his head turned towards the ball, his eyes on the ball.  At no point on the run up to that moment is Nani aware that Arbeloa is streaking toward that point on the pitch.  It almost (almost) appears that Arbeloa runs into Nani's boot, not that Nani sticks it to Arbeloa's chest.  I do not intend to say that Arbeloa was looking for a foul... this is simply a case where a high boot is run into, and the only issue is that the boot was high.  No intent from either player.  The Madrid players do not immediately start yelling at the ref for a foul, as players tend to do on plays such as this.  Quite simply, everyone was in shock at the ref pulling a red card from his pocket.

I sat at my computer at work while the game unfolded, reading the play-by-play online.  When those words came across the screen that Nani had been sent off, I stared in disbelief, mouth agape, wondering what horrible thing Nani, a usually mild-mannered player, had done.  It was not until hours later that I found a replay of the incident, and became angered.  Not that this one instance had changed the outcome of the game, but that a single person had ruined what could have gone down in history as a classic football match.

Here is where my analysis begins.  Mourinho (an extremely classy man, who handled this event brilliantly) pounced.  Up to that point, Man U verily controlled this game, and when they went a man down, Mourinho pulled the right cards, made the correct substitutions, and the players moved into the correct positions.  What I am happy about, is that they did not run up the score.  They did exactly enough to win.  I will say, that at even strength, Real would have scored at least once.  However, I think at even strength, Manchester would have scored once more as well, had both teams played the way the did before the send off.

Manchester played as well as they could with a man down.  And this is where I get upset.  Alexi Lalas, the international US player from long ago (1990's) sent out a message that good teams train and are prepared for red cards, and indicated that Manchester should have grouped together and known what to do.  I have respect for Alexi in that he was a decent player, in the way that American players can be considered 'good.'  However he has turned into a media mouth-piece, whereas he believes his experience playing (and managing?) allows him to make good opinions.  I am not going to debate his quality on the pitch, but the quality of his comment.  There is not a single club team in the world, less several national teams, that would have played well a man down against Real Madrid.  Manchester United played better with ten men than the US Men's National team from any year, would have played against Real Madrid.  While it is unexpected that you will lose a player during a game, I am certain that these professional footballers still knew how to play the game.  But as the saying goes, 'If you are a man down, then someone will be open...'  How often do teams scrimmage a man down?  Who do you remove from the pitch?  A forward?  A midfielder?  Which midfielder?  Do you run the scrimmage eleven times, removing a different person each time?  We all know (as Mr. Lalas should) that you prepare differently, in different formations, depending on the team you are playing.

I am certain that each of the ten remaining players knew where they needed to play, and how they needed to play.  They are professionals, having been playing their entire lives.  Hell, Mr. Giggs was playing in his 1,000 senior game.  I am sure that he has played in a fair number of those 1,000 with a man down, and knew how to respond.  To suggest as Mr. Lalas has that they should have regrouped and played better, is a ridiculous comment.

To which I will end mine.  The episode was an unfortunate event, and I think it was unfortunate that UEFA had to comment that the call was correct.  I understand that referees need to make judgments and decisions, sometimes in the heat of situations, in very little time, surrounded by many angry individuals.  But this was not the case in any sense of the word.  And considering the magnitude of the game and teams, caution should have been used.  In short: the ref made an incorrect call.

I think it would be safe to say that it will be unlikely that he will ref a game with either of these two teams in the future.  While UEFA said he will continue to ref, I just can't see him in a match with Man U or Real.

The Past Year

For those of you who follow this blog, I am certain you are probably not following anymore.  It has been nearly fourteen months since I last posted on any of my blogs, and many people have probably lost all interest in my thoughts and opinions on topics and general life as I experience it.  And with that, I apologize.

The past year has been a struggle on many levels, which I plan to explore in a series of blog posts.  All aspects of my life countered each other: my career affected my family life, my family life changed my personal life, my personal life changed through physical ailments.  And through it all, I lost vision.  I had nothing to look forward to.  I am not going to bore you with details of what I went through, thought I may use some things as examples. I will also not pretend that my experience was horrifying, or in any way worse than anyone else.  But there are situations and lessons, experiences I can share, which someone out there may have encountered, and dealt with themselves.

On this blog, I will focus on random things.  There really is not a focus on this blog.  It has had several iterations of what the topic was, and I always created new blogs for those specific topics.  This one ended up being a conglomeration of the random thoughts that went through my head, and did not fit in the other blogs.  I will continue this randomness as I think of things.

  - Tom.

Retention of good staff on the cheap

I wanted to post this article now, because I keep running into other items to get complete. This is a good look at retaining overqualified professionals as the economy recovers. I will make some comments soon when I get the opportunity.

Recruiters Warn of Employees Heading for Greener Pastures

When managers don't notice the little things

Earlier today I had a situation which has created some, shall we say, distrust with a person in an upper-level management position. Distrust may be too strong of a word, but they at least rubbed me the wrong way. We'll look at this as a teaching/learning moment in management skills: noticing when people do the little things.

For the past six or seven months, I have been a member of the IT Planning committee, a weekly gathering of managers in IT to discuss all projects that are submitted to IT. It's a comprehensive group of people, with members and decision-makers representing each of the IT departments, as well as IT Leadership. The room in which we meet has a large table with a dozen leather chairs, and about a dozen other stacked mesh bottom chairs. I always arrive at 8:00am for this 8:30 meeting (my personal office is across campus, so I just go to the meeting at the start of my day and go through email). Since I'm always the first to arrive, I unstack the chairs and place them around the room, because we fill up every seat, every week. For the past month, I have led this meeting as the facilitator, and as such, make sure that all of the chairs are unstacked and positioned.

Except this week, I had not gotten to it yet. Whether it was my bruised ribs, or dislocated shoulder from the weekend, it was 8:15 and I had not gotten the chairs out. There is no rule on this committee as to who is supposed to unstack the chairs... people usually grab them as they come in. This one manager walked in, and began unstacking the chairs, making a comment on how this other manager (who was sitting in the room working at their computer) and myself had not done this, and that they were going to do this so no one would have to cause a commotion and interrupt the meeting when they arrived and tried to find a seat. There was inference that we should help this person, or should have already done this, and that they were doing something extraordinary by unstacking the chairs. Somewhat disturbed, I commented that for the past three months, I had come in early and unstacked all the chairs before the meeting, but had not gotten to it yet this week. Their response was, 'Well, if you say so, but last week the chairs were all stacked up,' as they continued to unstack the chairs with attitude.

I can assure you that last week, and the week prior (and all the weeks back several months) the chairs were unstacked and available for people to use. This nonchalant comment got a rise out of me, but then I realized: the reason they are saying this is because they never noticed that the chairs were unstacked, until they were left stacked. In essence, people do not notice a thing until it is not done. By unstacking the chairs every week, no one noticed, but the week that they are left stacked, suddenly they have always been stacked.

As a manager, people need to pay attention to the little things. Why did I unstack the chairs every week? Mostly because I arrived to the room early and once the meeting began I did not want there to be interruptions behind me with people getting chairs. Maybe I did it so that one day it would be recognized, and I could take comfort in someone noticing that I had done one little thing to make our meeting start more efficiently. But now, a manager in a high position had just called me out, not believing, caring, or even thanking me, but rather in attitude and voice, saying that something I did... never happened.

And that is what managers need to be careful about. We need to take notice when our staff do things, no matter the size. We need to provide recognition to these small things, so that the staff will continue to do the small things. What we don't need is to not believe or blow off their small things, and put them into a position where they don't think they are valued. Even something as small as unstacking chairs...

An inside hiring job

I recently read an article that stated 75 to 80% of all hiring done in late 2009 and early 2010 was done internally. In short... for all of those positions that are opened, three-fourths were filled by an internal candidate. While this does not sound good for the unemployed, it is also not ideal for the currently employed. There are reasons that people are hired within, so let's take a look at some pros and cons.

Why do companies hire within? Quite simply, to retain their employees. If someone is performing exceptionally and a position is opened at the next level, a promotion is in the works. Normally a company will be required by HR to post the open position, regardless of whether an internal candidate is slated for the job. On the downside (for society and those looking for work), this creates a false sense of hope. A person who is completely and overly qualified for the position, submits their resume, believing that this could be the position to get them back on track. They were born for this position. Little do they realize that the company already has their person, in-house, with no need for additional training or needing to get up-to-speed; no having to set up email accounts, or get them access into restricted areas, do paperwork or payroll submission, no background checks, possibly not even having to move their office, purchase new computers or equipment... all of the things that would have to happen should this position go to someone outside of the company wall.

Companies will do this to consolidate and save money as well. What happens to the position of the person who was just moved/promoted? Is that position now open for hiring? Not exactly. Companies will take that position and never refill it, instead spreading the work of that employee among the remaining staff in that area. This does not always happen, but it is a good cost saving measure for the company. That is one less salary plus benefits, one less computer to buy, office to fill with a person (more space for other projects), but the company still gets the same work or productivity.

However, you cannot get discouraged. Certainly, I have been on the bad end of this, getting a rejection email stating that the position was filled internally. But at least once, I was the outside applicant, who got the job over the person who was slated to fill the position. Between two finalists, an insider and myself (the outsider), it came down to the interview, presentation and the ideas that I brought from seeing the situation from the outside. And that is sometimes what is important: a fresh view on the situation. If you can convince the company that one of your greatest assets is your vision without knowing the history, the company will take a greater look at your potential.

NOTE: Some of the above statements behind why companies hire internally vs. externally are speculation on my part. I do not know all the reasons, however these do make sense to me.

Wired Online - 7 reasons to avoid Windows 7

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/7-reasons-to-avoid-windows-7/

Yesterday, Wired Online published a piece of '10 Reasons to Upgrade to Windows 7,' which was a decent overview of the upgrades from XP or Vista. By no means was it a glorious profession of 'this is the greatest OS ever!' but it did make a good argument that people should seriously consider the upgrade. And why not? Vista, for as much as people hate it, was a significant upgrade to XP, and if used properly, was all-around better: faster, more secure, a bit flashier.

I have one problem with today's reasons to avoid Windows 7. All of the points made were very logical, from price to some of the installations. However, this stuck out:

"Snow Leopard Is Almost Here
Apple’s next-generation Snow Leopard is arriving September — a month before Windows 7. Apple is promising its OS will deliver on many of the improvements Microsoft highlights in Windows 7 — 64-bit addressing, improved efficiency with task management on multiple processors, and others. It’s undetermined which OS is better, but from my own perspective as a long-time Mac user, I will say I already prefer the current Mac OS X Leopard to Windows 7. If you’re looking (or willing) to switch to a radically different OS, then OS X Snow Leopard is an option to consider before committing to Windows 7."

Seriously? Wired, you should be ashamed. Brian X. Chen, "From my own experience as a long-time Mac user?" Why did you get a long-time, Mac user to write an article about the bad things in Windows? I understand that the person to best see the downside to Windows is a Mac person, but if this is the case, you need to find people who are BIOS (BI-OS, it's a pun, get it?) or tri-OS (throw Linux in there, AND DON'T TELL ME THAT MAC OS IS THE SAME AS LINUX!), and have them write an article. I use Mac and PC (though I am PC dominant, and use Linux second), but I could tell you what's wrong with Windows 7... and tell you what's good about it. I could tell you what's good about OS 10.5, and what's bad about it.

It might be time to start taking this blogging and freelance thing seriously...

What will the White Sox do?

How many questions can a team in the running still have? Carlos Quentin was activated from the DL yesterday, and Brian Anderson was optioned to Triple-A. But that was just the beginning for a team that currently sits one game out of the first in the AL Central. Optioning Anderson was a no-doubt: Scott Podsednik has been the boost the team needed in the outfield, and with Dye in right, there was only need for one additional outfielder, Wise (who is out of options). Anderson didn't perform poorly, given that three other youngsters on the team were playing at the same level, but he also has not taken advantage of the opportunities given to him. More on him later.

Bartolo Colon made his Triple-A rehab assignment and pitched horribly. Being lit up in the MLB is one thing, being lit up in AAA is another. I cannot envision his returning to the major leagues with the Sox. He was a cheap experiment, but one that has not panned out. Richard is pitching just as well (or poorly), and I would just as soon let him gain experience as a starter (if that is where he will ultimately end up), than bring back Colon. There was also the report that Freddy Garcia was working out in the minors, which certainly was news, in hopes of a late season call-up. There's the better option: let Colon go, start Richard, and if he falters, bring in Garcia. Worst case is they all pitch the same.

The Roy Halladay sweepstakes are interesting, and I'll mention that later.

In the in-field... too many young players, playing all the same positions. How many thirdbasemen do we now have? Fields (MLB bench), Beckham (MLB starter) and Viciedo (Minor League phenom). At second there is Getz and Nix, who are seemingly fighting for playing time. Someone has to go. Fields has great potential, and I think they were too quick to pull him (but things happen behind the scenes... maybe he was causing problems). Fields is a good replacement for Konerko on a day off, and his bat is dangerous, but we're still a couple years from Konerko going DH full-time. Beckham appears to be the long-term starter at 3rd, and Getz is the future at 2nd. Nix can play anywhere, so he isn't moving. Ramirez at SS... well, my opinion is use him as trade bait. He could be the start of a package for Halladay, though I'm fairly certain Ramirez is untouchable at this point. But think... Ramirez and Danks for Halladay. Beckham moves back to his comfortable SS position, and Fields and Viciendo fight out for 3rd. Or send Anderson in the package for Halladay. It can be done.

But what about next year? Dye is free agent, are they keeping Anderson around to move in when he leaves? Quentin to right field, Pods to left, and Wise and Anderson in CF? Or do they bring up their 1st round draft pick to play center? And what about Thome who will be a FA after the season? They won't resign him at the current contract, but with his production this year, they do not have a better option, other than using Fields, which would be a waste of a good talent.

It would be ridiculous to not sign AJ to a long contract at this point, even with two good prospects in the wings. AJ brings more to this team than most people want to admit.

This has gotten long, so I'll cut short now. Only time will tell what happens with my 312 Sox.

USA Soccer in Confederation Cup 2009

Sometimes you would rather be lucky than good. USA Soccer was thoroughly displaced by two juggernauts of football this past week in their draw at the Confed Cup, by losing to Italy and Brazil. The only possible way for them to advance to the next round was to beat a poor Egyptian team by three goals, and hope that Brazil would beat Italy by three goals. Miraculously, beyond description and among the most odd and weird things, it happened exactly that way, with 3-0 games in each, and America advancing.

And earlier this week, I predicted Egypt would win, 2-1. Now that I've eaten my words (not really, it was a good bet that USA would lose), I have to post (and laugh at) this quote from an American player and veteran:

"All of the critics in America who said we were no good after losing to Italy and Brazil, let's see what they say now," Michael Bradley said.

Here's what I say: "you're no good."

Come on. It's great that you have a little spirit, but simply because you (#14) beat a bad Egyptian (#40) team, and Italy (#4) played a horrible game against Brazil (#5), you advanced in a tournament to play the #1 team in the world, Spain. Do you really think you deserve to advance instead of Italy to whom you lost? Doesn't make sense, but tie-breakers rarely do. But this is exactly why you are fighting to earn a spot in the next World Cup 2010. It's not a guarantee that you will qualify. Michael Bradley, there won't be a Brazil to help you make it to the next round. And like so many Cups past, we'll see that once again, USA is no good at football.

Tom runs on Dunkin Donuts

To conclude a rather all-around frustrating week, I decided to go for comfort food for breakfast, and grab Dunkin Donuts at the only DD in Kansas (or west of the Mississippi River I think). Now anyone who knows me, knows that my weakness is pastries, specifically a good donut. Being raised in Chicago, DD's was a staple of every day life, continuing on into High School, where we would sit before track practice and devour a dozen. So Tom really does run on Dunkin.

But this morning was the best thing I had seen in a while, and might have just made up for the crappy week I've had. Imagine this: a very attractive mid-to-late 20's woman, blonde curly hair... not gorgeous, but very attractive. I'll refrain from going into great detail. Anyway, she's walking through the parking lot, and I'm walking about 15 feet behind her. Oh yeah, the funny part: she's wearing a very nice black dress, sleeveless, tight, and short, with black heels. It looks like she had gone out to the bars last night, and I immediately thought, "Has to be the walk of shame." The nightclub outfit, she's attractive, going to DD's for a hearty breakfast after either a great night, or disappointing night. However when I catch up to her at the door, I notice that her hair is wet, like she just got out of the shower. Then I hear her order FOUR DOZEN DONUTS, a two coffees! And I'm thinking, "Wow, this isn't the walk of shame... she either really likes this guy, and going to return to him and shower him with donuts, or she had a really, REALLY bad night and was going home." Either way... she gets an A+ in my book.

Of course, I'm not that simple. She's probably going to work and picked up donuts for the office on the way in. You can't judge a book by its cover.But it was a good way to start the day.

The problem with sports and parity

I'll start by saying that there is nothing wrong with parity. Yes, I know what the title says. Here's the beef: Take any major sport in America that relies on parity (NBA, MLB, NFL), and at the end of the season when a small-market team makes the finals, the league complains that the TV ratings are down. The management of these leagues believe that the big are getting too big and winning all the time, so they'll (rightly) institute parity, however the drawback to this is low TV ratings.

What is parity? For those of you who do not follow the sports, parity is a way of leveling the playing field. In most sports it is a salary cap, which if effective, means that no team can spend more than the other. It means that every team will play the same number of prime-time, 'game of the week' games on national television. In essence, every team is equal, which allows all teams to have a fighting chance to win.

So what's the problem? Nothing if you are a true fan of the sport. For me, I'll watch a baseball game between the Seattle and Minnesota (two smaller market teams) because it is a chance to see a handful of really great players, and the game is full of fundamentals. And if Tampa Bay meets Colorado in the World Series, I would probably catch a game or two, though I don't have any vested interest in either team, but simply because it could be a good game.

But how many true baseball fans are out there? Aside from me, my friends Boone and Phil and Peter Gammons, there are few fans of the game. If the Red Sox do not make the Series, how many people from Boston do you think would catch even an inning of one game? Same goes for the other major sports.

Now here's the rub: the sporting commissioners fought long and hard to level the playing field, the players' unions fight long and hard to get every dollar out of the teams. Parity is in place to make every team competitive (if they chose to be), but the leagues complain when their ratings tank. All of this is due to sports fans being loyal to their teams. There are no 'sports fans' out there anymore. There are Raiders fans, Yankees fans, Astros fans, Chiefs fans, Spurs fans... if their team isn't in it, then they don't care, and they aren't going to watch. Parity has made the games more interesting, and the season is more interesting, but when it comes to the playoffs, ratings shouldn't matter. A solution would be to only show the playoff games in the local market, but offer the games online (for free)to a multi-national market. You want to grow your sports again? Offer something free, and watch the people flock. You'll make new fans around the world, which increases your marketability, and gives you more money in the long run.

Possible Sox trade for Peavy...

as the Sox are being BLOWN out by the Twins, 20-1 in the 9th inning. What better way to say, 'Jake, come play for us!' than to be completely obliterated, at home, by an division rival? A couple errors which lead to at least 8 runs, that's exactly what a pitcher wants to see.

But in regards to the possible trade, I'm not sure what to make of it. He really wants to stay in the NL, which makes me think that he will have a very tough time pitching in the hitting-heavy AL. He's not going to be comfortable, so it makes me wonder how he will deal with that first big loss. It's also not clear which players will be traded, other than 4. Rumor has Richard and Poreda, which are two fairly large losses, being both very young and left-handed. Who are the other two? I won't have an official opinion until I know who that is.

This could be a decent trade though. The AL Central is weak, and the Sox do need another pitcher (or two actually, because Colon just threw up this afternoon for the second straight game). Peavy would be #2 on the staff, with Buehrle #1, Floyd #3 and Danks #4. Not too bad of a staff, if we could find a legit #5. More to come.

Giving up cable TV

So it's been about six months since we gave up cable TV, and so far, no one has gone crazy yet. The experiment is so far working! Seriously though, we do spend more time watching DVD's of old episodes, mainly Simpsons and Futurama. The only thing that I've been missing is Discovery, History and the random sports that ESPN2 aired. Otherwise, we watch everything on Hulu, or NBC. I listen to Bears and Blackhawks games online, and I purchased MLB.TV to watch Sox games (and other games as well). The only downside to any of this, is that we had to increase our bandwidth levels through the Lawrence monopoly. Has it been worth it? Yes... Olivia has watched a whole lot less TV, which I think is good for a four-year-old. We spend more time online (I'm an information whore, I read news sites all day), but we also spend more time together as a family.

It's not for everyone though. I couldn't imagine having several kids, and not having TV. And I do miss quite a bit: throwing on Discovery on a Saturday, or waking up early on Sunday's to watch the Samurai movies, and especially the James Bond marathons on TNT. Specifically, we did this for fiscal reasons, saving the $80 per month on digital hi-def TV, but now... I don't know when we will go back. The more and more I read, the more things are going toward online services anyway. Maybe we'll just wait it out.

Bracket Update: afternoon Day 2

Here's how I was doing during Day 1: According to the ESPN backets, there were over 4.6 million bracket entries.

Day 1 Low: 1.5 million
Day 1 high: 530,000

Day two has been much kinder.

Day 2 (before WVU loses): 418,129
Day 2 (After WVU loses): 510,105

NCAA Brackets 2009

I've filled out four brackets this year, because this is one of the most balanced tournaments I've ever seen. You look at the match-ups, and aside from the 1-16 and 2-15 match-ups, there aren't any real surprises that I would consider a huge upset. I definitely do not see a 'Cinderella' type team this year, because even if a 10 seed makes the Elite Eight, it wouldn't be shocking. With that said, I completed four brackets, each just slightly different than the rest. I will say this: my eventual champ will come out to be Louisville or Connecticut. Whoever wins that semifinal will win the tournament. For the most part, here's how I've picked 'em:

Teams from the Big Ten: I'm looking down on the Big Ten this year, because it has been a weak conference. However, I did pick Michigan to upset Clemson (Correct), but not get past the second round (still to be played). I did pick Michigan State to cruise into the Elite Eight in one bracket, and lose in the Sweet Sixteen in another. Other than that, I was hoping Illinois would not be the 12-5 upset (it happened last night) which ruined my brackets.

Teams from the Big 12: Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are going deep, but the others will falter early.

ACC: Duke and UNC going far, the others are hit and miss

Big East: Power house. Pitt, Xavier, Villanova all going very deep.

Most of the mountain and west coast teams... they will struggle. This will be dominated by east coast and southern teams.

Anyway, I'll update on my brackets as the tournament goes on.

Becoming a writer

What does it take to become a writer? Do I have to give up everything to obtain the level of professional writer? This thought comes to mind every now and again, whenever I wish I was writing for a career instead of whatever I'm currently doing (which currently, and for the last six years, has been an IT manager and an institution of higher education). And again today, while taking care of my daughter on a day when my fiance was working, we watched 'Moulin Rouge.' The thought of becoming the penniless writer, sacrificing everything to begin working on a novel, came to mind.

I don't think I could give up my current lifestyle in order to succeed as a writer. It's a sacrifice that I couldn't make at this point in my life. And yet, there are so many stories trapped in my mind that I want to put onto paper, that it's tearing at my heart and mind. Whenever I get an idea for a story I jot it down on the closest piece of paper, and set it on my desk for future reference. The problem is that my current life and lifestyle don't allow me to write any good prose. My career in the IT world completely drains all creativity from my soul, and life with a three-year-old daughter saps all energy that I would have to do anything creatively. When was the last time I picked up a guitar to play? It's been about nine months (part of that was due to a broken arm too). But with a child, there really is little time for personal agendas.

And so I look back to when I was a writer, or at least the closest thing to being a writer. My last year in college, when I was taking several writing classes, and was part of a writing community. I would spend several hours a night alone in a small bedroom, of a two bedroom apartment, computer in front of me, and a white bunny at my feet, with the words flowing easily from my mind to my fingers. Usually a glass of wine at my side. I wrote an entire chapter of 'The Canterbury Tales,' in perfect Rhyme Royale, in one night 500 lines, in just a couple hours. I wrote one of my best stories while sitting in a hallway in a notebook, with few revisions needed before it was accepted into a rather prestigious class. And now... even if I find a few spare moments to write (such as now, kid is asleep on the couch, Col is out), I write and in my mind, it feels like I'm writing at an elementary level. I don't consider this good. It's basically a waste of my time.

And so I sit and lament, and wonder what could have been, or what could be, if I would just sacrifice what I currently have. Could I be a good writer? Who reads stories or novels anymore? It seems that people write to make money, or make their stories into films. I wouldn't care. If I could keep my current lifestyle and career, but also be a best selling author who didn't make a dime of money, I would sign up today. I wouldn't write for money, I just want to be known as a writer. I want to go to readings, where scholars talk and debate on what I was thinking when I wrote it. I want to lecture at universities, and have undergrads grill my thought process.

But no one cares about the author anymore. It's a lost art. And so I sit in my living room, fireplace aglow, blackened TV across the room, kid asleep to the right, pint of stout to the left.

Burning the bridge - An employee's look back on a prevous job

(TP) Lawrence, Kansas. - How many times have you heard this? Employee starts out at company, pours hundreds of hours into new ideas, implementation and large projects, only to have the company turn its' back on the employee, and ultimately forget about them. Ah, how cruel the business world is. And yet, that is the normal response when employees (read: ex-employees) usually respond to these types of scenarios: it was a business decision.

However, in this case it wasn't. It was a slight, whether intentional or not. I was hired in the late 1990's as a 'web designer,' and put to menial tasks of daily updating for a few hours per morning. Thus began four years of being several titles, and ever expanding work responsibilities. Here's the short list of accomplishments: website viewing went from 1000 to nearly 10,000 per day, two national awards won for design, three complete site overhauls, new inventive ideas promoted and used, online revenue started (previously there was no income from web-based advertisements), the processes were streamlined, time and money saved.

In the last year I was employed, a scant six months before I ultimately left, a special publication was produced. Inside, nearly every department was thanked for their hard work and long hours. I seem to remember coming in every Saturday that year to upload the latest information, creating large slideshows of pictures long after photographers and artists left. Special web editions were created every week, and yet there wasn't one mention of my department (I was the only employee, so I took it very personally).

About this same time, I was approached by the head of the entire operation, to consider moving toward an all automated, no design needed, template and hosting, that a third-party company would handle. Easy, simple, no work needed. I was completely against it, for obvious personal and professional reasons. Yet these warnings went unheeded, and we migrated to the new system. I also learned that this company had a boss who was best friends from the old days with my boss. It was a forgone conclusion, that before my opinion was solicited, this was going to happen. I continued with my work, never grumbling, as professional as I always was.

I left a few months later after taking a job in another state. I left the website in decent hands, a person who I didn't pick, didn't mold, but had no objections to taking over, for in reality, a monkey with mental problems could have done the work. No longer was there a need for design or implementation, just simple cut and paste commands. This person left the position a few months later, however when he was on the way out, they offered him a position, a full-time position. Even when he said he was leaving the town for a city 2 hours away, they told him he could work remotely make extra cash on the side to update when needed. Never was such an offer made to me.

The final nail came earlier this summer. A reunion of sorts, celebrating the hundred years of operation, invitations went out to everyone who had worked at the organization. Obscure people from decades ago were invited. Some people there knew where to find me, as they had 'under the table' asked for my assistance a handful of times. I learned of this reunion roughly three days prior, when invitations had gone out several weeks earlier.

There had only been one web designer before me, and there has only been one since. No one had spent more years there than me. I was the designer, Lead Web Designer, Web Editor, Online Content Manager, during the height of the internet boom. I took that site from the depths of 'who cares about this place' to 'this is how we get information in the 21st century.' I pulled this site into the newest and best, latest possible design implementation. And what do I have to show for it? A coffee mug (won through a contest), a lousy t-shirt (stolen for me, when I was told to pay $9 for one) and a picture book without reference to the hard work and long hours I worked to produce the product.

The company is still moving along. There hasn't been any new web features since I left nearly half a dozen years ago. The newest aspects of the web have long passed this site, and the powers that be in the organization are finally coming to grips with the fact that they made a bad decision in moving toward this third-party hosting and design. Long ago I stopped feeling good about saying, 'I told you so,' because they are in an industry that needs, must, stay at the front of the web revolution, because their days are numbered otherwise. Their bread and butter will be gone in the next decade, probably less. Whereas I am now in a position where my future thinking and research is a bonus, they are crippled, a dinosaur in the modern world.

And so, while I still list my achievements on my resume, consider a choice few acquaintances and friends and still value many of the memories obtained through my work therein, I will no longer visit the website, nor care to hear about the demise since I left and pitifully shake my head at management gone bad and old. That's exactly what it is: management gone bad and management gone old.

Thoughts on the NY Yankees

I don't live in New York City, so you can count me as one of the 295 Million people who don't like the Yankees. How did I come up with that number? At the time of this post, the US Census listed 305 million people in the US, and I figure there are about 10 million living in NY, some who are Mets fans and don't like the Yankees, but those Mets fans are canceled out by those who are outside NY, and for some reason have jumped on the Yankee's bandwagon as their favorite team. Anyway, I don't like the Yankees, and I'm in the majority (did I jump the bandwagon? No, people just don't like the Yankees).

My love for baseball as a whole trumps my view of the Yankees. There is a problem here: the salary cap in baseball doesn't work. Is this the fault of the Yankees? No. They have the money and rightfully they should spend it to put the best team possible on the field. They can do it year after year, because they make money. MLB is to blame for this. Their solution? Tax the teams that go over the cap. Oh you can go over the cap, but you're going to have to pay for it, and then spread that tax around to the other teams. So what? If the Yankees spend the money, and win the World Series every year because they outspend the other teams, $20 million dollars that is shared between the other 31 teams is not going to do any good. That won't even pay for the signing bonus on a draft pick. The rule is the problem, not the Yankees spending.

Now, I do have a problem with the Yankees spending (listen up MLB... FIX THE RULE!) It creates a completely unbalanced league (what's the word... parity). The excuse is that the Yankees are putting the best team out there for their fans, at the same time, making anti-fans out of every other cities fans. And the argument goes: why don't the other teams spend that much? Two reasons: 1. Keep the cost of attending a game low (which doesn't affect Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs... a few others), 2. keeps teams from over spending on free agents, and making bad deals. Kansas City could go out and offer $100 million to one player... and then when no one shows up to the games, they lose money, can't sign other players, become AAA teams. It's a snowball effect. And it can't be done in one year. An owner can't come out, spend millions in one year, and expect the play-offs. It has to be sustained for several years, five at least, for the correct elements of a team to come together. That's why you see the smaller spending teams occasionally win: they invest in their farm systems, spend little money on youth, come through and win. But when that youth becomes too good, they have to part with them because they can't afford it, and that player gets bought up by.... the Yankees, or some other team that spends a lot. The original team has to go back to breeding their farm... it takes time.

So what does this mean? The rich get richer. We continue to hate teams like the Yankees and Red Sox (and Angles to an extent) because they horde the best players. We smile when they don't make the playoffs, and we laugh when they implode. When teams try to out-spend those teams, we shake our heads and feel pity (think the Giants and Barry Zito. They tried to outspend, and wound up with a bust, but at least they tried). But they shouldn't have had to do that, if a cap was in place, and the big teams couldn't make the bidding go that high.

And me? Well, I'm a White Sox fan. I don't hate the Cubs, but I don't cheer for them (unless they made the playoffs, not playing against the Sox. Then I might cheer for them). The White Sox develop a good farm system, they don't overpay for their free agents, and they build a good chemistry team.

And they got rid of Nick Swisher. Traded him to the Yankees. Who are now trying to trade him elsewhere. In their championship year, the Sox were using three other cast-offs from the Yankees (they didn't seem to perform in the bright lights of the big city). And yet... with those ex-Yankees, the Sox won the Series. Instant Karma is gonna get you...

MLA PHL 5015

For the past couple months, I've been blogging for one of my graduate classes, Philosophy 5015, 'Ethics and the Internet.' Since the class is over, I've moved those blogs, so I can move back to writing about other things. There were a lot of the PHL blogs. If they are needed again, please contact me, and I'll get them back and posted again.