So if people start cord cutting -- the catch all term for individuals who decide they'd rather not pay for a cable or satellite subscription -- ESPN has by far the most to lose of any channel in the country. ESPN has become the most powerful sports company in the world because just about every single cable and satellite subscriber in the country pays in excess of $6 a month for ESPN. That's despite the fact that only 20% of cable and satellite subscribers would be willing to pay for standalone ESPN according to a 2013 Needham and Company report. As a result, four years ago ESPN netted somewhere in the neighborhood of $7.2 billion a year in subscriber fees when the network boasted 100 million cable and satellite subscribers. But something alarming has taken place in the past four years, the Wall Street Journal reported last week that ESPN has lost over 7 million subscribers. Even more alarmingly, the pace of cord cutting is accelerating, the past year alone has seen ESPN lose over 3 million subscribers. That means in the past four years ESPN's subscriber numbers have declined by 10%, driving down revenue projections.
Stand alone ESPN seeking to produce the same revenue would cost at least $30 a month, or twice what HBO costs and three times what Netflix costs a month. Some sports fans would still consider ESPN to be a bargain at that price, but keep in mind you'd also have to pay for ESPN2 and ESPNU and the SEC Network and FS1 and NBC Sports Network and whatever additional regional cable channels carry your favorite local team's games. The net result would be most sports fans would pay over $100 a month just for sports channels. If you're a dad, like I am, you'd have to pay additionally for kid's channels. Your wife probably watches different channels than you do too, add on those costs too. Pretty soon you're paying more for less. That's why a la carte isn't a great deal for sports fans. In fact, it's a worse deal.
We assessed almost 100 male regular gym users aged 18-30 in an online survey; half of whom used AAS and half of whom did not. As a relatively young group in our study, the participants reported using AAS regularly for an average of about four years (up to eight years) with doses. Each participant completed three memory-related questionnaires. The first measured retrospective memory – the recall of past memories or previous facts, for example the name of your favourite soap star. A second measured prospective memory – the process of carry out a planned activity at future point in time, for example remembering to post a birthday card or to take an important medication on time. Finally, a third questionnaire measured executive function – processes that help an individual pay attention, coordinate information and plan and execute tasks.
Significant failures in any or all of these domains could compromise everyday functioning. Our findings revealed that AAS users reported 28% more forgetting in terms of retrospective memory, 39% more forgetting in terms of prospective memory and reported 32% more problems in their executive function. The findings suggest that use of AAS has a significant detrimental impact on an individual’s everyday memory and ability to remember.
Safe Leads and Lead Changes in Competitive Team Sports
A. Clauset,1, 2, 3 M. Kogan,1 and S. Redner3, 4
1Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
2BioFrontiers Institute, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
3Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA
4Center for Polymer Studies and Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
We investigate the time evolution of lead changes within individual games of competitive team sports. Exploiting ideas from the theory of random walks, the number of lead changes within a single game follows a Gaussian distribution. We show that the probability that the last lead change and the time of the largest lead size are governed by the same arcsine law, a bimodal distribution that diverges at the start and at the end of the game. We also determine the probability that a given lead is “safe” as a function of its size L and game time t. Our predictions generally agree with comprehensive data on more than 1.25 million scoring events in roughly 40,000 games across four professional or semi-professional team sports, and are more accurate than popular heuristics currently used in sports analytics.