Typically when someone on TV talks about a team being young or old, they just take the average age of everyone the
roster. Which of course is a worthless number. If your youngs never play, your team is older than your average. If
the old guys never play, its younger than its average.

To find out where all the teams stood, i went through and took the age of each player on dec 31st and multiplied
by the number of minutes they have played and calculated the weighted average age for each team.

These charts are going to look confusing unless you are into numbers, but the numbers are interesting. The teams
are ordered from youngest weighted average age to oldest. All teams show the most used lineup in minutes, except for
the MAVs. I just picked a lineup but excluded numbers. Hey, this is competitive info …..

ATL “team 23.49 weighted age

ATL 1.00 131.08 minutes 57
appearances

Harrington Johnson
Lue Pachulia J.
Smith 24.20 years

CHI “team 24.48 weighted age

CHI -7.02 109.54 minutes 38 appearances

Chandler Duhon
Hinrich Nocioni
Sweetney 24.17 years

POR “team 24.96 weighted age

POR -13.40 172.98 minutes 58 appearances

Miles Monia
Przybilla Randolph Telfair
23.64 years

(I used this lineup since it played so much more than the next most used)

CHA “team 25.33 weighted age

CHA 3.93 157.97 minutes 60 appearances

Brezec Knight
Okafor Rush
Wallace 25.65 years

LAL “team 25.72 weighted age

LAL 10.63 216.09 minutes 74 appearances

Bryant Cook
Mihm Odom
Parker 25.93 years

MIL “team 25.91 weighted age

MIL -4.09 213.05 minutes 76 appearances

Bogut Ford
Magloire Redd
Simmons 24.68 years

BOS “team 25.98 weighted age

BOS 1.63 279.20 minutes 112 appearances

Blount Davis
LaFrentz Pierce
West 27.32 years

NOH “team 26.20 weighted age

NOH 0.25 263.95 minutes 80 appearances

Brown Mason
Paul Smith
West 26.15 years

UTA “team 26.25 weighted age

UTA 0.84 81.75 minutes 29 appearances

Giricek Kirilenko
McLeod Okur
Ostertag 27.79 years

TOR “team 26.30 weighted age

TOR -16.07 91.45 minutes 26 appearances

Araujo Bosh
Calderon James
Peterson 26.06 years

TOR 16.22 90.61 minutes 46 appearances

Bosh Calderon
James Peterson
Villanueva 25.25 years

(I showed both since the minutes were almost exactly the same)

NYK “team 26.42 weighted age

NYK -19.93 35.75 minutes 17 appearances

Ariza Davis
Frye Marbury
Richardson 26.97 years

(*Knicks most used by minutes lineup had Matt Barnes, so I excluded it)

GSW “team 26.60 weighted age

GSW 0.01 389.30 minutes 111 appearances

Davis Dunleavy
Foyle Murphy
Richardson 26.69 years

ORL “team 26.68 weighted age

ORL -8.81 100.41 minutes 33 appearances

Battie Francis
Hill Howard
Stevenson 27.36 years

(i used the lineup with Grant Hill since he is back)

SEA “team 26.73 weighted age

SEA 6.79 175.39 minutes 67 appearances

Allen Collison
Evans Lewis
Ridnour 26.51 years

WAS “team 26.99 weighted age

WAS 3.03 162.62 minutes 49 appearances

Arenas Hayes
Haywood Jamison
Jeffries 25.62 years

PHI “team 27.24 weighted age

PHI 5.57 286.85 minutes 109 appearances

Dalembert Iguodala Iverson
Korver Webber 26.95 years

DAL “team 27.54 weighted age

DAL 15.17 xxxx minutes xx appearances

Daniels Diop
Harris Howard
Nowitzki 24.99 years

LAC “team 27.74 weighted age

LAC 3.10 248.86 minutes 96 appearances

Brand Cassell
Kaman Mobley
Ross 28.32 years

CLE “team 27.78 weighted age

CLE 2.11 341.82 minutes 116 appearances

Gooden Hughes
Ilgauskas James
Snow 27.09 years

IND “team 27.79 weighted age

IND 9.77 169.28 minutes 70 appearances

Artest Croshere
Jackson O’Neal
Tinsley 27.92 years

MIN “team 28.02 weighted age

MIN 9.01 408.75 minutes 111 appearances

Garnett Hassell
Jaric Olowokandi Szczerbiak 28.65
years

DEN “team 28.04 weighted age

DEN 4.65 94.58 minutes 39 appearances

Anthony Camby
Lenard Martin
Miller 28.76 years

SAC “team 28.15 weighted age

SAC 9.98 508.58 minutes 177 appearances

Abdur-Rahim Bibby
Miller Stojakovic
Wells 28.85 years

MEM “team 28.61 weighted age

MEM 4.15 309.19 minutes 89 appearances

Battier Gasol E.
Jones Stoudamire Wright
29.90 years

DET “team 28.62 weighted age

DET 18.63 616.12 minutes 202 appearances

Billups Hamilton
Prince B. Wallace R. Wallace 29.12
years

PHO “team 28.79 weighted age

PHO 12.61 254.01 minutes 85 appearances

Bell Diaw
Marion Nash
Thomas 29.16 years

NJN “team 29.20 weighted age

NJN 12.43 315.84 minutes 98 appearances

Carter Collins
Jefferson Kidd
Krstic 27.35 years

MIA “team 29.39 weighted age

MIA 21.16 172.28 minutes 61 appearances

Haslem Mourning
Posey Wade
Williams 28.90 years

HOU “team 29.85 weighted age

HOU -2.97 97.47 minutes 21 appearances

Bowen Howard
McGrady Wesley
Yao 30.01 years

SAS “team 30.50 weighted age

SAS 0.37 192.76 minutes 69 appearances

Bowen Duncan
Finley Nesterovic
Parker 30.05 years

SAS 21.98 191.76 minutes 53 appearances

Bowen Duncan
Ginobili Nesterovic Parker
29.17 years

(I included both since the minutes were almost dead even)

And while Im at it, here is some more fun info

1 Atlanta 160 lineups used

2 Boston 205 lineups used

3 Charlotte 304 lineups used

4 Chicago 218 lineups used

5 Cleveland 120 lineups used

6 Dallas 187 lineups used

7 Denver 214 lineups used

8 Detroit 86 lineups used

9 Golden State 176 lineups used

10 Houston 179 lineups used

11 Indiana 182 lineups used

12 LA Clippers 208 lineups used

13 LA Lakers 193 lineups used

14 Memphis 189 lineups used

15 Miami 162 lineups used

16 Milwaukee 164 lineups used

17 Minnesota 164 lineups used

18 New Jersey 176 lineups used

19 New Orleans 132 lineups used

20 New York 281 lineups used

21 Orlando 203 lineups used

22 Philadelphia 170 lineups used

23 Phoenix 133 lineups used

24 Portland 253 lineups used

25 Sacramento 122 lineups used

26 San Antonio 203 lineups used

27 Seattle 181 lineups used

28 Toronto 119 lineups used

29 Utah 230 lineups used

30 Washington 153 lineups used

ShareThis

Om Malik in his blog asked the question “ Will a people’s collective be able to beat Google at the search game? “

The simple answer is – of course not. The better question is – “will objective search remain the people’s choice in search engines ?”. In other words, is there such a thing as a best answer for most questions and is that what a significant number of search users want ?

Or will we see the same trend that we have seen in TV news. That we want our objective answers painted red or blue. That objectivity is very subjective.

Does American Idol voting give us the best singer ? The best entertainer ? The favorite of the best phone dialers ?

Better yet, is the political candidate that gets the most votes the best choice, or just the winner ?

I personally think that for personal search, where the results are geared towards relevancy (as opposed to freshness, ala icerocket.com) will end up in two flavors, branded and algorithm based.

Branded is just what it implies. I trust a given source of data for my search. I trust this source for this type of search, that source for another. I want mynews from foxnews.com or i want my news from CNN.com. If i do a search on intelligent design, i will have an expectation that my results will be ranked differently from each.

Algorithm is what we have now. Plug into google or icerocket or yahoo, and you get what is hopefully influenced only by the blackhat SEOs and economics, rather than some agenda to some school of thought.

Dont be shocked if at some point some cable news channel is reporting on some religous group condemning a search engine because of a perceived slighting in how results are returned.

A search for Christmas on Google, Yahoo, Icerocket, Ask, all return vastly different answers. One offers a top 5 site, which links to what should be a very valid link and besides being a domain parking site, has beer and wine sales listed near the top. No big deal to me. But a huge marketing issue at some point to somebody.

Social networks, where userscollective judgement is imposed, will become targets of the internet marauders who congregate on like-minded websites and discussion forums and patrol for dissenting thought and attack when they find it. We havent seen much of it yet, because the social bookmarking sites are mostly driven by technology. You get some Apple, MicroSoft, Open Source bigotry, but its considered acceptable right now

But outside those sites, the internet marauders come out in force.

If i blog about something that could be considered friendly to Democrats, the right wingers come out in force and spam the hell out of my email and blog comments. The same thing happens from the other side as well. In about the same numbers. Of course the more one side attacks, the more the other side marshalls their side to counter attack. Its crazy.

Not only crazy, it will be impossible to eradicate the influence of these maraunders.

So rather than fighting them, search sites will join them.

I have zero doubt that in the future there will be sliders or some equivalent that represent “the flavor” of search that users will look for. Looking for information about the war in iraq… push the slide rule to the right till you reach Bill OReilly flavored search, or slide it to the left for the Al Franken flavor. THe results are then influenced by the brand you prefer to associate with.

The news is no longer just the news. A holiday is no longer just a holiday. A song is no longer just a song. A search result will no longer just be a search result. We will blow it up into a symbol of something must larger. It wont beof course, but it will happen anyway.

The Web 3.0 – You stay on your side of the web and I will stay on mine.

ShareThis

You never think this stuff really happens, but it does. There are crazies out there, and in a population ofthousands of public companies, at least one is going to be run by someone who is a little bit “off”.

I dont know Patrick Byrne personally. I have followed his comments as CEO of Overstock.com because I am short 20k shares of the stock (Which i shorted because Patrick Byrne is CEO), and because he is extremely entertaining. Humor, even if unintentional is hard to find in the business world, so from that perspective, his efforts are much appreciated.

I have written in the past about his amazing conference call that will go down in business history as the most bizarre ever. When Broadcast.com first broadcast live an Insight Enterprises quarterly earnings call, and then archived it for future listening back in 1996, I never could have imagined that any call would reach such entertainment heights.

I have written in the past about one of Mr Byrnes pet topics, Naked Shorting and how its become its own little XFiles conspiracy communitywith people matching Byrne with their paranoia. The only question about those guys is which will come first, a Law & Order episode mocking them or one of them actually stabbing themself in the foot to try to prove that someone is truly after them.

In any event, I guess it should come as no suprise when Mr Byrne made some comments about me in an interview this morning on Bloomberg Television . This in turn led to a request for comment from Bloomberg.

It was all humorous to me, so i thought i would share. Hope you get a chuckle out of it.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 1:07 pm, JEANNINE DEFOE, BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:
wrote:
>
> Mark,
> Hello, my name is Jeannine DeFoe and I am a reporter with
> Bloomberg News.
> Patrick Byrne of Overstock.com was on Bloomberg television earlier
> today and made some critical comments about you and short-sellers in general.
> Here is a quote:
> “I can tell you that Cuban’s friends, what they’re going to do is
> comeafter me in January, they’re trying to get the SEC to launch an
> investigation, I think they’re going to try to get the DOJ to investigate me. Some of
> the people I’m up against are mobsters. I fully expect you’re going to hear
> about the police stopping me with a pound of heroin, or a dead body, or
> something in my trunk.”
> We want to give you a chance to respond

my response

Patrick byrne is a paranoid fool. I am short 20k shares. I would love to
short many many more shares because a rule of thumb I have is that
companies run by people I feel are paranoid fools, tend to go out of
business. That makes them a good short

Unfortunately, I can’t borrow any more shares to short. I do business
through UBS. Nobody in their organization has a way to short more
shares. (Puts are too expensive. Even shorting the stock has a huge
rebate expense attached)

I have no idea who he is referring to as my friends, but I am happy to
swear to the fact , and you can take this as a sworn statement that I
have never discussed ‘going after’ him. Nor do I have any sense of what
he is talking about.

in a perfect world, if I want a company to fail, I wouldn’t go to the
SEC, or to the DOJ. (Neither of which I have ever done, nor do I plan
to) I would just try to get them to hire Patrick Byrne.

ShareThis

I dont think anyone questions the perspective that teams playing on the 2nd game of back to backs are at a
disadvantage. Beyond fatique, the impact of travel, trying to adjust to time zone changes and more add up to make it
difficult for players and teams. Heck, I get tired from them, I cant imagine how tough it is on the guys.

Opinion aside, I decided to do some homework. With the help of Elias Sports and our stats gurus from Indiana
University, we were able to quantify the impact of both back to back games and 4 games in 5 nights.

Rather than providing the statistical mumbo jumbo, which wouldnt make sense without all the background and other
data, suffice it to say, that our analysis provides us with a comparison between any given team and what we feel to be
an average team. The best teams would be expected to win by 5 to 8 points at home against this average team. Less on
the road. THe worst teams would lose to the average team by 7 to 10 points at home.

For this season, through december 15th, the 2nd game of a back to back makes a team 3.5 points worst. In other
words, the best teams are still good, but on the 2nd game of back to back, particularly on the road, they become much
closer to average. Making them beatable.

Its far worse for the 4th game in 5 nights. ON those nights, a team is 8 points worse. Again, more on the road. So
basically, a team should lose to just about any but the worst teams if they are on the road.

Meaning, that the schedule gods can have a HUGE impact on the standings. That the day the Circus or a concert
is scheduled at your arena could block out a night, that would in turn force the schedule to create multiple 4 game in
5 nights situation and possibly cost a playoff seeding !

I dont have the number of either for this season as a whole yet. Im sure someone out there can get it done if so
inclined.

What i did get back from our friends at Elias are the W L records per team for the 2nd game of a back to back over
the last 5 years and through the 15th of dec for thisyear.

ATL 2001-02 Won-Lost: 8-14

ATL 2002-03 Won-Lost: 9-14

ATL 2003-04 Won-Lost: 7-14

ATL 2004-05 Won-Lost: 4-19

ATL 2005-06 Won-Lost: 0- 5

BOS 2001-02 Won-Lost: 7-13

BOS 2002-03 Won-Lost: 9-10

BOS 2003-04 Won-Lost: 8- 9

BOS 2004-05 Won-Lost: 12- 8

BOS 2005-06 Won-Lost: 1- 5

CHA 2004-05 Won-Lost: 6-17

CHA 2005-06 Won-Lost: 4- 4

CHI 2001-02 Won-Lost: 5-18

CHI 2002-03 Won-Lost: 5-18

CHI 2003-04 Won-Lost: 5-17

CHI 2004-05 Won-Lost: 13- 9

CHI 2005-06 Won-Lost: 4- 2

CLE 2001-02 Won-Lost: 6-17

CLE 2002-03 Won-Lost: 5-19

CLE 2003-04 Won-Lost: 8-12

CLE 2004-05 Won-Lost: 6-14

CLE 2005-06 Won-Lost: 1- 3

DAL 2001-02 Won-Lost: 13- 6

DAL 2002-03 Won-Lost: 11- 5

DAL 2003-04 Won-Lost: 12- 7

DAL 2004-05 Won-Lost: 12- 6

DAL 2005-06 Won-Lost: 3- 3

DEN 2001-02 Won-Lost: 4-16

DEN 2002-03 Won-Lost: 6-18

DEN 2003-04 Won-Lost: 11-12

DEN 2004-05 Won-Lost: 9-11

DEN 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 4

DET 2001-02 Won-Lost: 13-10

DET 2002-03 Won-Lost: 11-13

DET 2003-04 Won-Lost: 15- 8

DET 2004-05 Won-Lost: 12- 9

DET 2005-06 Won-Lost: 5- 2

GS 2001-02 Won-Lost: 5-18

GS 2002-03 Won-Lost: 10-10

GS 2003-04 Won-Lost: 9-13

GS 2004-05 Won-Lost: 9-11

GS 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 3

HOU 2001-02 Won-Lost: 4-15

HOU 2002-03 Won-Lost: 13- 8

HOU 2003-04 Won-Lost: 12- 7

HOU 2004-05 Won-Lost: 9- 7

HOU 2005-06 Won-Lost: 1- 4

IND 2001-02 Won-Lost: 10-13

IND 2002-03 Won-Lost: 12-11

IND 2003-04 Won-Lost: 15- 7

IND 2004-05 Won-Lost: 10-13

IND 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 3

LAC 2001-02 Won-Lost: 5-16

LAC 2002-03 Won-Lost: 6-13

LAC 2003-04 Won-Lost: 8-15

LAC 2004-05 Won-Lost: 10-12

LAC 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 3

LAL 2001-02 Won-Lost: 8-11

LAL 2002-03 Won-Lost: 11- 8

LAL 2003-04 Won-Lost: 10- 9

LAL 2004-05 Won-Lost: 5-14

LAL 2005-06 Won-Lost: 1- 4

MEM 2001-02 Won-Lost: 3-13

MEM 2002-03 Won-Lost: 6-14

MEM 2003-04 Won-Lost: 11-10

MEM 2004-05 Won-Lost: 12-11

MEM 2005-06 Won-Lost: 4- 3

MIA 2001-02 Won-Lost: 13- 9

MIA 2002-03 Won-Lost: 4-16

MIA 2003-04 Won-Lost: 10-13

MIA 2004-05 Won-Lost: 10- 6

MIA 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 4

MIL 2001-02 Won-Lost: 11- 9

MIL 2002-03 Won-Lost: 9-14

MIL 2003-04 Won-Lost: 10-10

MIL 2004-05 Won-Lost: 8-12

MIL 2005-06 Won-Lost: 4- 2

MIN 2001-02 Won-Lost: 10- 9

MIN 2002-03 Won-Lost: 12- 8

MIN 2003-04 Won-Lost: 13- 7

MIN 2004-05 Won-Lost: 9-12

MIN 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 2

NJ 2001-02 Won-Lost: 12- 8

NJ 2002-03 Won-Lost: 10-10

NJ 2003-04 Won-Lost: 7-13

NJ 2004-05 Won-Lost: 9-11

NJ 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 3

CHA 2001-02 Won-Lost: 8-11

NO 2002-03 Won-Lost: 11-11

NO 2003-04 Won-Lost: 11-11

NO 2004-05 Won-Lost: 5-18

NOK 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 4

NY 2001-02 Won-Lost: 7-10

NY 2002-03 Won-Lost: 2-17

NY 2003-04 Won-Lost: 10-10

NY 2004-05 Won-Lost: 5-16

NY 2005-06 Won-Lost: 1- 2

ORL 2001-02 Won-Lost: 6-15

ORL 2002-03 Won-Lost: 7-12

ORL 2003-04 Won-Lost: 5-15

ORL 2004-05 Won-Lost: 10-11

ORL 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 4

PHI 2001-02 Won-Lost: 9-12

PHI 2002-03 Won-Lost: 12- 8

PHI 2003-04 Won-Lost: 6-13

PHI 2004-05 Won-Lost: 10- 9

PHI 2005-06 Won-Lost: 3- 4

PHO 2001-02 Won-Lost: 6-13

PHO 2002-03 Won-Lost: 6-14

PHO 2003-04 Won-Lost: 6-15

PHO 2004-05 Won-Lost: 17- 5

PHO 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 4

POR 2001-02 Won-Lost: 10-13

POR 2002-03 Won-Lost: 11-12

POR 2003-04 Won-Lost: 9- 8

POR 2004-05 Won-Lost: 7-13

POR 2005-06 Won-Lost: 1- 3

SAC 2001-02 Won-Lost: 13- 9

SAC 2002-03 Won-Lost: 11- 8

SAC 2003-04 Won-Lost: 7-12

SAC 2004-05 Won-Lost: 7-10

SAC 2005-06 Won-Lost: 1- 5

SA 2001-02 Won-Lost: 17- 4

SA 2002-03 Won-Lost: 13- 5

SA 2003-04 Won-Lost: 13- 6

SA 2004-05 Won-Lost: 10- 9

SA 2005-06 Won-Lost: 0- 3

SEA 2001-02 Won-Lost: 9-13

SEA 2002-03 Won-Lost: 9-11

SEA 2003-04 Won-Lost: 11-12

SEA 2004-05 Won-Lost: 11- 8

SEA 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 2

TOR 2001-02 Won-Lost: 10- 9

TOR 2002-03 Won-Lost: 1-17

TOR 2003-04 Won-Lost: 4-12

TOR 2004-05 Won-Lost: 5-12

TOR 2005-06 Won-Lost: 1- 5

UTA 2001-02 Won-Lost: 10-11

UTA 2002-03 Won-Lost: 9-10

UTA 2003-04 Won-Lost: 8-12

UTA 2004-05 Won-Lost: 6-15

UTA 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 5

WAS 2001-02 Won-Lost: 7-13

WAS 2002-03 Won-Lost: 12- 9

WAS 2003-04 Won-Lost: 7-14

WAS 2004-05 Won-Lost: 11-12

WAS 2005-06 Won-Lost: 2- 3

ShareThis

the more time i spent on my last blog entry, the more it became apparent i wanted to ask this question and see the comments to this blog, and inevitable commentary around the blogosphere and in traditional digital and analog media..

even a year ago, this would have seemed like a preposterous question.

Given the admitted rush job by Randall Stross for the Sunday NY Times Business column that I discussed in my last blog entry, along with my previous experiences with that paper, i dont think it is preposterous any longer.

Who has higher editorial and reporting standards. Your typical fulltime blogger, or the NY Times ?

Who puts more effort into researching their articles ?

Who conveys more depth ?

The NY Times is obviously feeling some financial pain and cutting back. Costs impact the amount of space they can provide for any article, or for all content as a whole. Bloggers do not have that limitation. I can write as many pages as i like.

The NY Times is limited by deadlines. They have to get to print and get the product out the door. Bloggers do not.

Costs and deadlines limit the amount of resources that can be applied to any given article for both bloggers and the NY Times. Who is more constrained as a result ?

The NY Times certainly has more feet on the street than any given blog, so should they do a better job of breaking news than a specific blog ? Or are there more blogger feet on the streeten total throughout the blogger universe for any given topic ?

Can a reader get a better understanding of the topics of the day, week, month in a given area by trusting the NY Times to present the news, or is it better ot do a search of news sources and the blogosphere for keywords, topics and tags on Icerocket.com and become your own aggregator on an ajax homepage like netvibes.com, goowy.com, my.yahoo , google.com or any other personal aggregation environment ?

Do my experiences reflect a bigger problem that newspapers like the NY Times are having, resulting in some of the financial hardships they are experiencing ? Or is it specific to the NY Times and at least their Sunday Business Section standards have fallen ? Or were my two experiences simply coincedence, and every other article in any given weekend is meticulous in research and execution ?

Given the comments that will be offered arent limited to those who write blogs, anyone from the newspaper industry can add their thoughts, im looking forward to reading the comments.

ShareThis

Since it makes for an entertaining comparison, I will post the email exchange here for the NY Times email
interviews that I do.

This is a previous interview experience with the
Times.

This is the column Randall Stross wrote
for this Sunday. Proving the editorial standards of the NYTimes havent improved.

This is the email exchange:

> >From: Randy Stross/NYT/New York Times
[mailto:ddomain@nytimes.com]

> >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:44 PM

I am preparing a Digital Domain column for this Sunday’s paper that features Mark Cuban and 2929 Entertainment. I am
writing to see if Mr.Cuban would be free to chat by phone for twenty minutes tomorrow(Thursday) to permit
me to obtain his most recent thoughts on his all-digital strategy. I see the great prospects for HDTV, but only dim
ones for the theatrical exhibition businesseven with 4K digital projection. I didlisten to Mr. Cuban’s talk at
Digimart in September but am open to hearing updates, elaborations, and adjustments.

I’m afraid time is very short: the story will close tomorrow.

Thank you for considering the request.

Cheers,

Randy Stross,Digital Domain columnist,New York Times
SundayBusiness

*************

At 06:04 AM 12/15/2005, you wrote:

Randy

Im happy to answer any questions by email.. im in meetings this amand then on a plane, so cheating you some
answers during my meeting may be the best option

m

**************

The following is my responses following his questions. There was no further correspondence beyond a thank you after
this

*******************

>

> 1. I would think that running an art-house chain is not unlike runningan opinion magazine like The
Atlantic or The New Republic: it’s less a conventional business than a good cause. Can you say: is the
Landmark Theaters unit profitable?

we dont disclose financials, but we are pleased with our operations.

If so, was this the case before you purchased Landmarkand if profitability has only been attained recently,
what measures account for this feat? If the unit is not profitable, how will digital projection help? I
understand that theoretically many more programs can be offered in a given week, but variety also means
higher marketing costs. Do you have data that shows a dramatic increase in attendance when multiple programs are
packed into a schedule? Are there other economic arguments to be made in favor of the transition?

Its a very simple equation. People come to see good movies. There arent any magic formulas. Digital creates some new
opportunities to increase customer satisfaction. The quality of a digital print never declines. if a movie is popular,
we dont have to wait to create another print. We can spend money on content or marketing rather than making and
distributing prints. But none matter if our audience doesnt care about the film

2. Has Sony worked out the kinks on its 4K projectors to your satisfaction? Do you still plan to go with
4K exclusively, or will you try out 2Ks, too?

Sony has been very responsive and we like what we see so far. There is more to 4k projection than just the
projectors. The servers, the codecs, and other issues. There havent been any showstoppers so far.

We are going to move forward in a way that we think serves our customer base the best.

-What’s the current timetable for conversion? What will the costs runper theater?

We are in progress, and we dont disclose numbers

3. This holiday season, the sales of HDTV sets are likely to be incredible, and HDNet and HDNet Movies should
do very well. But the better they do, I expect the harder it will be to get your happy subscribers to leave
the comfort of home and head to a Landmarkespecially with day-and-date universal release. Do you have any
additional thoughts about offers or promotions targeted at theater patrons beyond those you discussed at
Digitmart in September?

HDTVs havent cured cabin fever, the desire to get away from the kids, or the desire of kids to go on dates without
their parents. Just because you better the home aspect of the entertainment experience doesnt mean you detract from the
value of another.

the only missing link right now is the theater business, landmark included, extolling the virtues of enjoying a
movie in a theater with fellow movie fans.

4. A blast from the past: In 2000, you said that you planned to have high-speed Internet jacks installed
in every seat in the Mavericks’ arena. Did that come to pass? If not, what happened, and are there plans to
add this in the near future?

we have wireless installed at the arena. What changed is that i learned that the fans create a communal experience
when they come to a game. We want people screaming and yelling, not staring at a PDA or laptop. So we havent turned it
on for fans.

Thanks very much.

Randy Stross

So there you have the email exchange. And just for the fun of it, sinceRandy was so worried
about Landmarks business, I thought I would include an email from inside of Landmark Theaters this past
Friday.

From XXX

To :All@LM

BrokebackMountain
is opening this week in 16 more Landmark markets after the hugely successful and much publicized opening at the
Embarcadero in San Francisco. (140,000 box office44 consecutive sell outs). In the 16 new
markets we haveXX prints on the screen. This print count is unprecedented in LT history. I am
ecstatically reporting the following opening numbers so far today. Thank you for all the hard work it will take
this weekend to seat and satisfy our theatre guests.

Check
these numbers out, all pre 5pm (**Note, I have removed the theater names- m)

16,700 @ 4:00

16,300 @ 5:00

13,800 @ 3:00

15,200 @ 5:00

14,000 @ 5:00

12,739 @ 3:00

12,511 @ 3:00

12,283 @ 4:00

10,743 @ 5:00

7161 @ 5:00

6800 @ 5:00

5582 @ 5:00

7587 @ 5:00

4000 @ 3:00

3200 @ 3:00

3105 @ 3:00

5132 @3:00

2052 @ 3:00

Lets just say , that for matinees, those are
damn good numbers. The 44 consecutive sellouts is not too shabby. Congrats to the producers of Brokeback
Mountainand to Landmark employees.

And all of this is on the heels of Good Night
and Good Luck. A movie that not only did Landmark have great success with, but that2929 executive
producedas well. And there have been other indie and art films that have done very, very well this year.
Just look at the award nominees and discussions taking place. Plus, it looks like 2006 could be very strong as well
!

But then again, we have great partners and great
employees at Landmark that make things happen and keep our customers happy. We arent perfect, but we have people in
every theater who bust theirasses trying to make sureeveryLandmarkcustomer has a good or
great experience.

And as far as the value of digital projection, i
gave him some simple starting points. He didnt want to delve any further.He used that old NY Times standard…find a
quote(s) that supports my conclusion and go with it. The value of digital projection in a vertical company such as ours
is wide reaching. Producing a film in High Definition and never having to
take it to film, not only saves us time and money that can be plowed into the product or marketing, but it also creates
a unique visual look that we think filmgoers will appreciate, enjoy and find reason to go to a theater for.
.

It also allows us to create new programs for
film makers like Trulyindie.com . But he obviously was in a hurry and not
interested in finding out more information.

And on the topic of HDTV in the home relative to
digital projection in theaters:

. I obviously think High Definition is going to
change the way we view and experience TV at home. HDNet and HDNet Movies are built on
that premise. I expect a coming golden age of TV as
viewers expect high definition quality from programmers and only HD channels, not the internet will be able to deliver
in the manner consumers will want to experience it.

That said, I have also spoken and written about
the importance of picture quality to HDTV consumers. The thing about HDNet and viewers of any High Def content, they
want the best picture quality possible. The more they watch HDTV, the more demanding they are of quality. The greater
the investment in a home theater system, the more demanding they are of better picture quality. The picture quality
capabilites of new HDTVs will continue to improve as prices go down, UNFORTUNATELY, the picture quality of content
delivered to those TV sets will probably never match the capabilities of those HDTV sets.

Put aside that new sets are being sold that are
capable of displaying 1080p. Put aside that the cameras that will enable the capture of HD content in 1080p are a ways
off. The reality of today, and for the forseeable future, is that there is a HUGE disparity ofpicture
quality between what will be delivered to all those HDTV sets from cable, satellite , DVD, HD DVD or Blu Ray and what
those sets are capable of. (Sony, Panny, where are our HDCam and D5 lossless codecs ???)

What does this have to do with digital cinema
? HDTV content delivered to anHDTVset via your local cable or satellite proider, IF its
compressed and there is a very good chance that it is or will be, will be ofan equal or lower picture
quality than than what will be delivered via coming optical media options.

The picture quality of content delivered on
optical media,which for the next 18 to 24 months at least, will be limited to the 50 to 100gb range in capacity.
This will allow for picture quality, that while better than cable or satellite, wont be able to hold a candle to
the picture quality of what can be shown viaa digital projector in a theater..

That means thatpicture or sound
quality in the home, will pale in comparison to the picture quality in a theater for a long, long , long
time..

The opportunity to deliver a movie shot on film
and converted at full resolution to digital cinema quality, or like any of our movies at HDNet Films, starting with
Bubble this coming January, to be displayed in the exact format it was captured, without compression, will create a
unique visual experience for the film goer.( Just ask anyone who was at the Venice Film Festival and saw Bubble
digitally projected.)

In english, that means that picture quality of a
movie, shot in full resolution digital, shown in full resolution, on a digital projector will look fucking
amazing. It will look as amazing 10 years from now as the first time it was shown.

Of course if its a lousy film, it wont matter.
Of coursethere are people who will say they are happy with good old tv as is. That they are happy with DVDs as
are. Just as has been said about everycurrent to previous technology comparision ever made. Of course you can and
are making do with what you are currently doing.Technology will still march on and impact
business.

The fact that the sound and picture quality in a
digital theater will far exceed anything you can experience in your home wont be the deciding factor for many film
goers. But there will be cinephiles who do want to experience “Full Resolution Cinema”. Maybe it wont matter for
American Pie 7 or Cheaper by the Dozen 6, or The Family Stone or any movie shown in the 16 screen multiplex. But thats
not Landmark Theater’s audience.

Landmark Theater patrons want to see what a
brilliant director like Steven Soderbergh can do with a High Definition palette and what it looks like from
adigital projector. They wouldnt care if it was for Oceans 16. They care if its
Bubble.

Landmark Theater patrons will appreciate the
fact that the resolution and sound are far superior to anything they could experience on their brand new HDTV and home
theater system.

Landmark Theater patrons want to know
thatjust because they are seeing a movie in its 3rd week, they arent going to be subject to dirt, wear and
tear and pops in the filmthey are watching. We cant prevent that today. We will be able to with
digital.

Landmark Theaterpatrons will love the fact
that we can digitally feature new and exciting film makers knowing that their budgets went to the movie, rather
thanconverting to film and striking prints, as will independent filmmakers.

Maybe digitalwont matter for some of the
big theater chains. It will matter for Landmark Theaters.

You would think that in the business section of
the NY Times, a columnist wouldrecognize the difference inthe Landmark customer and those of large theater
chains and in the goals of the associations that represent themvs those of Landmark.

You would think that he would take more time
than an admittedly rushed email exchange before he would write the article that he did.

Personallly, I would have thought the NY
Times Publisher and Editors would have demanded more before they would print the article. Its not likeIm
not accessible, and its not like they havent screwed up before.

ShareThis

Ive never been one to be overly creative. I have a decent feel for what my strengths and weaknesses are. Putting aside my far too numerous to mention weaknesses, one area I have always had a strength in was recognizing and calibrating business opportunityand risk.

I can drill down to the core issue of just about any business that Im familiar with relatively quickly and decide whether or not its worth it to act. Even so, I was just as shocked as the New York Times Magazine to find myself the originator of, or involved with 3 of their 91 ideas for 2005.

Or as they put it

“For instance, we do not yet have an entirely satisfying explanation for how Mark Cuban, the outspoken Internet mogul and N.B.A. owner, came to be connected with three of the year’s most notable ideas (“Collapsing the Distribution Window,” “Scientific Free-Throw Distraction” and “Splogs”). That was just one surprising discovery we made in the course of assembling the issue”

The Collapsed Windows concept was mine. Of course, like any idea, thinking of it was the easy part. It took forward thinkers like Jason and Joanna Kliot at HDNet Films , Enron – The Smartest Guys in the Room director extrodinaire Alex Gibneyand my “no way i can do any of this shit without him” partner Todd Wagner to run with the idea. Then Todd put the icing on thecake bybringing in the brilliant Steven Soderbergh.

Steven is one of the few unique talents in the world who byhimselfcan help change how an industry does business. Of course, no less valuable and probably even more so areeach and every employee ofLandmark Theaters, Magnolia Pictures and Home Entertainment, HDNet Films and HDNet.

The best of this idea is yet to come. We are working on data that identifies towns with 1 or fewer theaters, not within 90 miles of multiplex. Why ? Because there are towns that just dont get first run movies. There is no good reason, not even from the big theater chains, why small towns shouldnt get King Kong the same day as big cities. Even if its for $34.95 on a DVD. It will happen as the first shot across the bow from the big studios. If the theater chains were smart, they would support this on a limited distribution basis and ask for a percentage of the sales. If they are smart.

And btw, did anyone notice Universal selling a “behind the scenes/Making of DVD” the day and date of King Kongs release ? Thats one BRILLIANT way to skin the cat.

As far as the Free Throw Distraction. The article wasnt 100pct correct. Daniel provided the idea. I ran with it. It worked the first couple games. But dont tell anyone, but we didnt abandon it….The problem however is in getting everyone behind the basket to work in unison. Too many years of waiving bricks haphazardly I guess. But we are working on it. And for the record, for those who email me about how hard it would make it on the Free Throw shooter if the arena were dead silent. If we cant get them to waive a sign in unison, how are we going to get 20k fans to shut up ?

Finally, the splog idea has been well discussed and documented in my blogs posts and by others. The fun, sad, stupid part of it was. My wife was there as i was writing it, and I specifically said to her: “Im going to come up with a stupid word that i think may stick. How crazy would it be if it caught on and became widely used.”

We both cracked up when Newsweek picked up on splogs and headlined a full page article with it.

Its a crazy world. You just never know !

ShareThis

I was reading Steve Rubels wonderful MicroPersuasion blog today. In it he lamented thatother blogswere stealing his content. Steve, those arent blogs. They are splogs. They just happen to be pretty.

Some interesting points worth discussing.

In the “we arent mainstream media” counter culture world that so often we bloggers try to cultivate, are wehypocritical if we call out someone for stealing our work ? One of Steve’s comments points out that if you live by a Creative Commons license, you have to take the good and the bad. The license says “

You are free:

• to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

• to make derivative works

• to make commercial use of the work”

Which leads to the question….. Is “You” in the license, the same as “It”. In other words, does the license convey to an individual the right to use an automated program to repackage and redistirbute with attribution?

Steve of course has the option of adding the Non Commercial option to the license he offers, which in turn should prevent Splogs from stealing his content.

However, there is an even simpler mechanism. The think about splogs, even the pretty ones, is that if the blog search engines like Icerocket.com do their jobs, then the splogs arent there. Which means they arent found.If a splog is hosted on a server, but no one sees it, does it exist ?

Fortunately, the two sites that Steve cites were not in the icerocket.com index.

At icerocket.com , we define a splog as any hosted website that only uses redirected or copied content and doesnt add any unique value. Aggregation is not value add. Why ? Because a search on any blog engine should uncover the unique content on their original source. If a blog isnt updated by human hands, we dont want it in our index.

If you find, as Steve did, that a site is stealing your content, feel free to email me, blake or go to blakes blog and let us know. We will check it out and remove it if it doesnt meet our standards.

And while you are at it, feel free to check out some very cool features that we have added to icerocket that blake details in his latest entry

ShareThis

82games.com is a great site for NBA fans. They are usually good, sometimes Roland mines things that are great. Thanks to Kevin Pelton for showing that a little research goes a long way towards breaking down misconceptions.

http://www.82games.com/pelton10.htm

ShareThis

Some of the stuff i write is good. Some of it aint. Some I write because i want to make a point. Some I write because I want to get feedback and learn more.

Some have turned into favorites. Given ive been writing this going on 2 years now, i decided to bring back a couple faves and provide links to them.

First on my list are the posts Ive written about Success & Motivation. I get so many questions about how I got”lucky” so many times,things I have done that have worked or not.Experiences I have had. This series of entries, written more than a year ago, I think,bring back some great memories for me and I think are worth sharing again.

Success & Motivation Part 1 Coming to dallas without a job.

Success & Motivation Part 2 My first job in Dallas, lessons learned and teaching myself how to use a PC

Success & Motivation Part 3 Fired – and ready to start MicroSolutions

Success & Motivation Part 4 Some early lessons learned

Success & Motivation – You only have to be right once

The Sport of Business – Competition in the businessworld puts any sport to shame

Goals – An Interview I did with Young Money

Its funny how many times I have gone back and read or looked at the above posts. I hope they give you the same pick me up that they give me

ShareThis