A little while back I had a flashback post to old promos for fall seasons of ABC and Fox. Here’s one for just about every network:

I’ve never been big on the prospect of “unbundling” as I’ve long believed (and still believe) that the savings (including for non-sports fans) are often over-stated or non-existent. And… even if it does save money? Even that might not be such a great thing, depending on your perspective. Along those lines, even though I believe that cord-cutting will save money, the amount there too is overstated and could come at tremendous costs

Megan McArdle wrote a couple of pieces:

The first is on Viacom’s $785 million write-down, more than half of which was due to the falling value of reruns like “CSI,” “Community” and “30 Rock.” With advertising soft and people shifting away from cable, filling screens with a continuous loop of episodic dramas is no longer as lucrative as it once was.

This has a lot of implications: The value of those sorts of shows may fall, and if you are, like me, more of a fan of original programming that has longer story arcs, you may hope that this means more of the stuff you like and fewer police procedurals. (I still like me a good “Law and Order” marathon.) As well it may. But those cheap reruns also keep networks going during the day, when it doesn’t pay to run original content — and losing the revenue from cable syndication may mean producers demand more money to sell the rights to Netflix. In the long run, that could mean your Netflix subscription costs more.

As I say in conversations about piracy, one way or another, content-producers need to get paid. Television and film are not like music, where a relatively small fraction of the money made goes into production costs. And while high actor salaries play a role (and those could theoretically be cut with minimal loss of production value), there is reason to fear that if it does save of money, it will come at the cost of The End of the Golden Age of Television:

It has been the worst year in recent memory for cable networks, with MSNBC, the History channel, Bravo, BET, USA Network and Comedy Central all seeing double-digit declines in audience this year. In March, cable ratings were down about 10 percent from the previous year. With new streaming services stealing away viewers, cable TV has been hit with a Darwinian shake-out where only the most popular networks, such as HBO and ESPN, are able to find paying customers.

Web streaming is upending the neat arrangement long enjoyed between TV channels and cable providers such as Verizon and Comcast. Verizon pays ESPN and other channels a certain amount to carry their programming, a cost that gets factored into customers’ monthly bills. But with consumers complaining about paying for too many channels and switching to online streaming alternatives such as Netflix, cable firms are feeling the pressure to cut costs — and even drop channels, especially those with plummeting ratings.

The swift decline in cable has been particularly harmful for Viacom, which typically presses cable distributors to run all of its channels — including MTV, VH1, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon — or none of them. The company announced this week that it will cancel some shows and lay off staff as part of a broad restructuring plan.

A retraction of television shows, if it occurs, could be the worst of multiple worlds.

It used to be, back in the day, that there were only three major networks. Then four, followed by various attempts of varying degrees of success, but it was mostly the big three and Fox. Before cable (and even for a while after cable came around), everybody was watching those shows and so there was a cultural quality to it. The end of MASH being the quintessential example, along with Who Killed Laura Palmer and Who Shot JR, and more recently the end of Cheers and Seinfeld. Since then, the fragmentation of television audiences and the DVR have cost us some of that. But even if the number of shows goes down, we’re not going to get it back. Partly because we will still have DVR and binge-watching with us. But also because what we watch is likely to become much more constrained. You might have CBS’s service at the moment, while Bob from Accounting is watching stuff on Netflix. There would be no central clearinghouse like cable and satellite. And at the same time, it wouldn’t completely be unbundled anyway. It’s just that instead of CBS selling x-number of channels of varying value to Comcast, they’ll be selling the same number of channels directly to consumers (If you want Comedy Central, you also buy Country Music Television).

Or maybe they will find a way! There seems to be a psychological need to develop original content. A potentially glorious irrationality. I’m not even convinced that they have to really make money doing it. In the content business, nobody wants to be stagnant, and original content seems like a likely extension of that. Or alternately, we will see a proliferation of good but not quite so expensive productions. Or some combination of the two. That’s what I’m hoping on, anyway.

A creepy black and white video of the Teletubbies has gone viral:

Stone Temple Pilot already touched on telecreepies in the music video for Sour Girl:

My wife hates that music video because she says it makes the lead singer look like he masturbates to pictures of himself. I don’t disagree with that particular assessment, but I kinda like it anyway, even if the teletubby knockoffs kinda creep me out.

I finally got to listen to this audiobook, in its intended order. It turned out it was an issue with the file naming rather than it being on random. Which meant that I needed to go back and change a lot of file names.

The funny thing is that no matter what order you “read” the story, the sniper really does come out of nowhere. Though since I was aware that there would be a sniper, I found myself waiting in anticipation for it and was a little less surprised. The timing surprised me because, like I said, out of nowhere.

The random scene that describes the book most closely is, of all things, “He’s having dinner with someone and the food is being described.”

Though the title (“The Last Juror”) suggests its a legal thriller of some sort, it’s really not. It’s mostly just a show about the weird goings-on of a small Mississippi town through the eyes of an outsider who runs the local paper.

It wasn’t a bad book, but I might have enjoyed it more listening to it out-of-order.

Would you like to see the ABC fall promo reel from 1982? Here you go:

Remember how big of a deal it used to be when the networks would announce their new shows?

Here’s 1967:

Here is Fox’s from 1987, notable because it was the first season Fox tried to compete with the big three. Notable series introduced include 21 Jump Street and Married With Children:

As you may or may not have heard: Windell Middlebrooks, who played the the iconic MHL delivery guy in a series of commercials, died at 36 of unspecified causes. There aren’t many pitchmen that I can say are great, but Middlebrooks was one of them. Here is a sample commercial:

Here’s an elongated political-themed commercial.

[And here’s a link to him is on Late, Late Night with Craig Ferguson. My parents don’t watch Ferguson, or Letterman who comes before him, but they’d DVR just about every appearance he made. And then save it for me next time I come home. We love the guy that much. In fact, last time they were here, we were talking about some commercials in BCS season and saying “Not as good as Miller High Life guy.”

My father is partial to the AT&T Rollover Minutes Mom. Here’s the best of the commercials (though with an obnoxious word balloon):

I’ve always been partial to Progressive Insurance’s Flo. Which I am told makes me insane.

Nobody will ever hold a candle to Miller High Life Delivery Guy, though.

I’m watching my high school basketball team on a webcast. They made it to State (the equivalent of the Final Four), for the first time since just before I was a student there.

It’s odd to explain to people outside the south “I went to a basketball high school” because everyone expects you to say that Football Is King. But it was basketball where they made the tournament on a regular basis, and the principal would calmly announce that anybody who was going to be “sick” on the Friday the tournament starts, needs to be well until 10:30, when master roll (the roll where state-wide statistics are kept) is taken, then be sick no questions asked. Don’t even visit the nurse. Just sign out.

We had trouble holding on to football coaches for this reason. They would come thinking “This is a really good school with a lot of money. This is great!” And then leave after one year when they realized they were in the shadow of our basketball coach and that just isn’t considered right.

I mention we haven’t been to state in almost 20 years. We haven’t been all that good in the meantime. The star coach retired, and his assistant who took over wasn’t as good. Things improved on the football side, though, as they found a coach who stuck around for a while and built a program. Said coach was my science teacher and an assistant football coach when I was there. I remember him fondly. He knew the deal when he took the job, which was why he stuck around for as long as he did.

The current basketball coach is the son of a former head coach at Southern Tech. The last good head coach Southern Tech had, in fact. He was fired after getting knocked out of March Madness. We haven’t made it to the tourney since. We’ve only had one winning record since. He attends basketball games at both my high school and university, which is pretty cool.

I’m only vaguely rooting for my school, though. I didn’t particularly enjoy my time there. Never fit in (I’m sure you’re surprised). Further, they rerouted my neighborhood so that if I lived there my kids would attend a school farther away. They’d been trying to reroute my middle school forever. Too many not-rich kids. So my high school is no longer my neighborhood’s high school. Further, they tore town the building that I did attend, to rebuild, so even the building where those lukewarm memories occurred no longer exists.

The stands are reasonably full.

We’re ahead at half-time.

Over at Ordinary Times I wrote a marathon piece on party affiliation in television and movies, citing Trumwill’s Law:

Trumwill’s (still evolving) First Law of Television Republicans is that Republicans exist in popular entertainment largely to enhance the liberal worldview. They do this by being out-and-out villains, inept foils, turncoats, or “Good” Republicans who spend an inordinate amount of time as a tool against “Bad” Republicans. The law is sometimes broken – particularly in the area of comedy, and also sometimes where actual politics are irrelevant – but it’s true a remarkable percentage of the time. It is particularly true when dealing with inherently political stories (stories with politicians or that deal largely with political issues).

I’m not intending to bring up the perennial argument about whether “television and movies” are liberal or not. By focusing primarily on inherently political stories, I am hoping to avoid that because I think there is less disagreement on that. Most of the disagreement is why, whether it’s because of some insidious Hollywood agenda or because capitalism and/or good stories demand it or something in between. I tend to think it is mostly (but not entirely) something in between. Namely, that when an overwhelming portion of the decision-makers lean in a particular direction, it inherently finds its way into the product whether it’s intended or not. I don’t think it’s a whole lot easier for mostly white, male, liberal talent (writers, producers, decision-makers) to separate the “liberal” from their work than it is the “white” or “male.”

Near the close, I make the following observation:

Even setting aside some of the Hollywood barriers I believe would stand in the way of [a strongly conservative] project, it would require talent to write it and produce it, and conservatives have done a pretty lousy job of cultivating that talent. The primary culprits in this lopsidedness are conservatives themselves, for either not recognizing its importance or failing to act on it. Until or unless that changes, I don’t see much in the way of “progress” for my friends on the right and all the conservative railing in the world won’t change that. And I’d argue that outside attempts to pressure Hollywood by carping and complaining won’t do much more than nudge to superficial compromise that ultimately compromises the product.

Recently, David Marcus wrote The Five Principals For The Rising Counterculture, which I thought was misguided for multiple reasons. One of which was this:

But the conservative counter-culture should not try to mirror this network of wealth and ideology in bringing more conservative art to life. There is a place for donated resources, in developing content creators and establishing infrastructure. But the works themselves should compete without the overbearing influence of these funds—not only because free markets are conservative, but because they produce the best products. As the Progressive arts entrench their narrative and play to smaller and smaller groups of sycophants, conservative artists should be focused on work that pays for itself. This doesn’t mean work that makes the most money is the best, it means the work that attracts the most participation is. Participation can always be monetized. In popular work we will find our strongest messages.

I’d argue that they need a minor league before they can try to play in the big leagues, and minor leagues are cost-losing endeavors. The Idaho Falls Chukars and Casper Ghosts don’t turn a profit, but are subsidized for the development of players for the Kansas City Royals and Colorado Rockies. Even if a lot of the subsidized art will never make it to wider audiences, it can and should be used to cultivate talent. And, if done wisely, it can bypass the need for an immediate buck, which for the right tends to be exactly the sort of “preaching to the choir” that Marcus is worried about. In other words, the Kochs need to help bankroll a George Mason University film school, with the idea of making market-friendly film. The point won’t be the immediate making of films that will change the world, but fostering filmmakers who are interested in making such movies in the future.

But make that’s what he means when it talks about donations and such having their place. I just see that as something that isn’t being done on any serious level. But Marcus and I might find agreement in a certain wariness that a GMU Film Institute might fall victim to some of the same problems that conservative think tanks have had, where the fear of stepping out of line and losing funding is too great and the actual brainwork atrophies. But the market-based alternative of Fox News and news radio, has also not succeeded along lines that have helped conservatism*.

* – Both have their place. The right wouldn’t be what it is today without finding and gathering on the abandoned AM frequencies, and Fox News was innovating and helpful. Eventually, though, it became clear that what helped their bottom line and what helped the movement were two different things. And capitalism is such that when interest diverge, they will understandably go where the money takes them.

10. Chicken Boo – Stops having any entertainment value after you’ve seen it twice.

9. Hip Hippos – The one with Noah’s arc was good. Other than that…

8. Minerva Mink – Obnoxious lead. Has its moments.

7. Katie Kaboom – Clever concept, but repetitive. Maybe I’ll enjoy it more when Lain is a teenager.

6. Goodfeathers – Definitely has its moments, but episodes seem to bifurcate between good and kinda boring, with the latter outnumbering the former. Never terrible, though.

5. Rita and Runt – Reasonably steady and consistently good, though (almost) never really good.

4. Slappy Squirrel – The Woodstock segment, above, is utterly brilliant for fans of classic rock and Abbott & Costello. Segments tend towards the good or bad, with not much in between.

3. Pinky & The Brain – There is a reason this one took off.

2. Molly & Buttons – I am not sure I would have appreciated this one as much before Lain was born. But she was and I do. It’s also one of Lain’s favorites.

1. Warner Brothers (and their Sister Dot) – Yeah. Obviously.

Tennessee’s high school athletics authority has suspended two teams for an unusual reason: They played in competition to lose.

The TSSAA removed Riverdale and Smyrna from the high school girls basketball postseason on Monday following a report from a high school referee in charge of their District 7-AAA consolation game held Saturday where he said that both schools “played to lose the game.”

Both Rutherford County schools were placed on restrictive probation by the high school association for the rest of the school year and probation for the 2015-16 school year.

Both schools were fined a total of $1,500 apiece.

Over There, Sam Wilkinson objects:

Both coaches had instructed their players to do what they did because both coaches realized that winning that night’s game put themselves in a worse position in further tournament play. Because of an odd quirk in the Tennessee seeding mechanism, either team winning the game would have been punished by being put in a bracket that included Blackman High School, a regional powerhouse, a team ranked first in Tennessee basketball and fourth nationally. Blackman had beaten Smyrna by 23 points in January, and, a few days later, beat Riverdale by 8.

Both coaches rightfully recognized that being on Blackman’s side of the bracket would almost certainly involve getting beaten, and presumably thought that being on its opposite side might mean having a better chance to advance further in the tournament. There was no way to know this for certain of course but there is rarely a way to know anything for certain, so both coaches preceded make the strategic decision to encourage their players to understand that losing might be more beneficial than losing.

When I played football in middle school, we were playing a team, ahead 8-0. At the middle school level, place-kicking is non-existent. Even punting will only move you about 20 yards or so. That we were on their side of the field was a really, really big deal. We were on our own five yardline or so. Turning the ball over meant that they would get the ball right in scoring range. In order to avoid that, we gave the ball to our fastest running back and he was told to evade the defense for as long as he could in the endzone. It was essentially a self-inflicted safety. But it meant that we would be able to kick the ball off from the 20 instead of from the 5, and kicking from a tee meant that the kick would go further than a punt, with less possibility or error. It was a genius move, and we won 6-2.

The coach gave us a lecture after the game, though, about how you should always try your best, but “best” can mean different things under different circumstances. I knew exactly what he had done, and I thought it was awesome that he won us the game.

Despite that bit of strategery, though, I come down against the coaches in the TSSAA case. It’s one thing to sacrifice a play (or three) for strategic advantage in a game, but another thing entirely to throw a game for playoff positioning. I just can’t get on board with that, and would be embarrassed and angry if I went to watch my daughter (or future son) intentionally lose in order to avoid a tougher game next.

There is some flexibility here. Such a game, where you’re not worried about losing, is a great time to give kids that don’t get as much game time an opportunity to play more. I can also forgive missing free throw shots because you’re trying some fun things (underhanded, etc). These are things that can add fun to a game. Intentionally getting ten second penalties isn’t fun. It isn’t enriching. At best, it’s exploiting a loophole. At worst, it undermines the points of playing the game to begin with at that level: having fun, and learning teamwork and competition. Sam and others might argue that two teams trying to lose together are engaging in a competition, but it’s not a meaningful one.

It makes me think, just a bit, of how sometimes a part of me will actively wish that Southern Tech (or some other team I am rooting for) will lose out so that our coach might be fired and replaced with someone better. I have to actively tell myself that’s a bad mentality to have (there are debates on the message board). But I’m just a guy and if I hope we lose that makes me a bad fan. If players were to actually try to lose a game with the hopes of replacing a bad coach, I’d want the new coach to replace as many players as possible, such would be my embarrassment.

Play to win. If you’ve already effectively won, or don’t care about winning, play to have fun.