I would love to be able to ditch my laptop and desktop and only have a single, pocket sized device.  If I could carry my Sidekick or ITouch with me and when I set it on my desk, or even walk into a hotel room, it immediately makes a connection with my monitor or HDTV , my full size keyboard and either with a usb cable or wirelessly, lets me connect to a thumbdrive or some external hard drive.  If by carrying this little device, a full computing environment could be recreated and I didnt feel like I was giving up something dumping my laptop and desktop, I would be its 1st lifetime customer.   My digital and computing world would immediately be revolutionized.

With a 3G or 4G connection, I could dump my home internet connection. There would be no good reason to pay for wired broadband when wireless is doing the trick.  No more desktop or laptop other than maybe to act as a fallback or backup to my mobile device.  90 pct of my applications are now web based and/or available to run on my Sidekick or ITouch already, so applications wouldn’t be an issue to me.  My digital life would travel with me in my pocket wherever I went, which would be amazing.

Personally, I think this has a very good chance of becoming reality.  The question is when.

If this does happen, then it would also raise the interesting question of how our mobile computing environment would change our InHome  computing environment. Would people give up their wired broadband connectivity because it was a duplication ? Laptops are already pre empting desktop sales for home use. Would these mobile devices kill the sales of laptops ?  What about desktop application software, would it go away other than for vertical or business apps ? Would this pressure the move of applications from desktop to the cloud ?

Will mobile replace laptops in our lives and what changes as a result ?

ShareThis

Here is a hard cold fact of the internet age. Any content creator whose sole business is selling their content al a carte will have a hard time surviving.  In a world of unlimited digital choice, the cost of creating and marketing content that generates a profit  is expensive and difficult.  Which is exactly why the successful sites have been aggregators.

Its also exactly why newspapers are having a hard time making it. They sell papers 1 at a time. They sell home subscriptions one at a time. When they charge for monthly subscriptions online, they sell them one at a time.  That’s a tough business.

Its not that the newspaper content is not worth it.   The problem is that it requires prospective buyers to first value the content, then decide whether they want to go through the hassle of going to a newstand, calling the home delivery department of the paper, or putting in their credit card information to buy online.  This may be beyond a solvable problem when much of the same content is available online for free.

So what to do ?

This past week several outlets wrote that onine video sites are discussing a new approach that would require anyone who wanted to watch their favorite TV show online to first be a cable or satellite TV subscriber.  While the “internet should be free” folks will hate this for obvious reasons, it makes perfect sense.  Subscriber fees from cable and satellite to content creators pay the bills. Period end of story. It makes every bit of common sense to provide cable and satellite subscribers, the people who really pay the bills, with unlimited access, on any platform to the content they are already paying for.  Right ? Of course right.

Given that there are about 100mm cable and satellite subscribers, its not like this is going to affect a great number of people. In fact, it will probably only impact those who are trying to drop their subscriptions to use the net exclusively. While this is a small number, requiring viewers to be video subscribers will keep this number small and create a win win for content creators and cable and satellite video subscribers.

So what does this have to do with newspapers ? They should be knocking on the doors of cable and satellite providers offering their subscribers exclusive access to the online versions of their newspapers.  Thats right, the New York Times should be going to CableVision, Time Warner, Comcast, Charter, Directv, Verizon, ATT, Echostar et al, and offer to each that for 25c per month for those subscribers in the New York area, and for 5 c per month for those outside the immediate NYCity area, their subscribers will get exclusive access to the NY Times Online. Non subscribers will get what Wall Street Journal non subscribers get today, access to some content, but not the most timely or valuable content.

If the Times can convince these operators that their subscribers will find value in exclusive access to the content, particularly if they can become part of their basic or near basic service, then all of a sudden, the NY Times and any other newspaper finds themselves with a recurring source of revenue that can turn into real money, while at the same time offering differentiated value for the video distributors.

On a macro basis, I dont think its inconceivable that within a few years more than a material percentage of  subscribers would support an additional $2 per month for unlimited access on all platforms, to all newspapers across the country. If its 50pct at $2, thats $100mm per month in new revenue for the industry. Thats a billion dollars that matters. Plus advertising.

Of course, in addition to video distributors there will be ISPs that dont provide video services that want to offer the content as a value add to their subscribers as well. Thats more subscribers for the content.

Trying to sell content al a carte is a difficult, if not impossible business venture. Offering digital content, in this case newspapers (or magazines), to content aggregators that specialize in selling digital content to subscribers (digital and cable video providers) not only makes sense, it could be a matter of survival

ShareThis

Lets go back in time 10 years and look at 2 typical  investors, Jack and Jill. Both are in the same tax bracket, have worked hard and saved a lot of money, $250,000 . Its their life savings. Everyone says they should put their money in the market, where it will grow and fund their retirement. So they did.

One thought they got the break of a lifetime and through a friend was able to invest with the one and only Bernie Madoff. The other put half their money, $125k, in a mutual fund that matched the performance of the Dow Jones, and half in a mutual fund that matched the performance of the Nasdaq.

Neither touched the money other than to cover the fees and any taxes, which for the sake of this example we will say were the same for both.

Who has more money today ? The person who invested “wisely” or the person who invested with a crooked Ponzi Scheme ?

The mutual fund investor bought their Dow Jones Fund when the market was 9550 in Feb of 1999. That  $125k investment has shrunk to about $95k. They bought the Nasdaq Fund when the index  was at 2342.  Today that $125k  would be worth about $ 77k.  Their $250k nest egg of February 1999 is now worth $172,000 . Thats bad , but not as bad as Madoff’s sucker, right ?

Maybe not. Because the Madoff investor had less than $500k invested, there is a good chance that they could be protected by the SIPC, who is already sending out claim forms. So when its all said and done, the Madoff investor could not only get all their $250k back, but they are also elgible for a share of any funds recovered. While that number may be miniscule, it could mean that SIPC elgible and paid Madoff investors actually made money over the 10 year period, while those that put their money in the market got hit very hard.

The sad thing is, that the same comparison could be made for many blue chip stocks that are down 50, 60, even 90pct or more.

Which begs the question, who suffered more stress along the way ? The market investor who has had to endure 10 years of ups and downs and ups and way down in the market, or the Madoff Ponzi investor who lived happily and stress free for 9 plus years and must now face the uncertainty of their SIPC and other claims to get their money back ?

ShareThis

Humor is everywhere if you just look. I decided to have my friends at Flinch Studios, the folks who do our in arena Mavs videos put together a timely parody of the FreeCreditReport.com commercials. Enjoy !

ShareThis

The response has obviously been overwhelming. Its taken a lot of time, but I have gone through every post. More than 1,400 of them.

As is usually the case with any blog post, the vast majority of people don’t actually read the post before they write a response. So the vast majority were dismissed because they did not quality under the required terms.   Of those that did meet the requirements, I gave priority to those that were already operating.  My feeling is that if a business is profitable , or close to it,  they are more likely to know how to use the capital to their advantage than a startup would be. There is more certainty in how they would use the funding and the results that could be gained from the investment.  After all, the idea is to try to help businesses grow and add employees.

As of this morning, I had requested more information from 12 businesses.  Of those, we have setup visits to see their operations for 2 of them. We are in the process of further evaluating another 5, and after receiving information from the other 5, we have decided not to pursue an investment.

If all goes well, the 2 will be funded in less than 2 weeks, start to finish. The other 5 will hopefully end up in visits and funding as well.  Of the 7, the amounts requested range from about $20k to more than $100k.  As we finalize the deals , either to completion or to a determination that we walk away,  I will post more information.

I also continue to welcome posts with your business ideas.  This process has worked well. I have to admit that there were ideas that were new to me, but posters educated me on competitors and issues for those businesses. Others weren’t as interesting, but posters added more information that made the idea make more sense.  I want to keep this going as long as we can. If you keep on posting,  I will continue to review them.  For as many as I can, where I think I can ask a question or comment that adds value, I will do so.

As a reminder for those of you who actually do read the posts, here are the rules once again:

1. It can be an existing business or a start up.
2. It can not be a business that generates any revenue from advertising. Why ? Because I want this to be a business where you sell something and get paid for it. Thats the only way to get and stay profitable in such a short period of time.
3. It MUST BE CASH FLOW BREAK EVEN within 60 days
4. It must be profitable within 90 days.
5. Funding will be on a monthly basis. If you dont make your numbers, the funding stops
6. You must demonstrate as part of your plan that you sell your product or service for more than what it costs you to produce, fully encumbered
7. Everyone must work. The organization is completely flat. There are no employees reporting to managers. There is the founder/owners and everyone else
8.  You must post your business plan here, or you can post it on slideshare.com , scribd.com or google docs, all completely public for anyone to see and/or download
9. I make no promises that if your business is profitable, that I will invest more money. Once you get the initial funding you are on your own
10. I will make no promises that I will be available to offer help. If I want to , I will. If not, I wont.
11. If you do get money, it goes into a bank that I specify, and I have the ability to watch the funds flow and the opportunity to require that I cosign any outflows.
12. In your business plan , make sure to specify how much equity I will receive or how I will get a return on my money.
13. No mult-level marketing programs

And one new rule.

14. If you contact me separately, whether via email or the contact form on the blog, your request WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. It must be posted on this blog for all to see and comment on.

Good Luck !

ShareThis

Its easy to write about what the government or other people should do with our/their money. It’s harder to come up with a course of action that I can undertake on my own that possibly, somehow could make a difference. My first inclination is always to try to look “for the next big thing”. But the next big thing is just that, next. Its not now. Its Venture Capital. Its not self funding, renewal capital.

Rather than trying to be a Venture Capitalist, I was looking for an idea that hopefully could inspire people to create businesses that could quickly become self funding. Businesses that just needed a jump start to get the ball rolling and create jobs. Im a big believer that entrepreneurs will lead us out of this mess. I just needed a way to help.

So here it is. Some people will love it, some will hate it. It is what it is.  

You must post your business plan here on my blog where I expect other people can and will comment on it. I also expect that other people will steal the idea and use it elsewhere. That is the idea. Call this an open source funding environment.

If its a good idea and worth funding, we want it replicated elsewhere. The idea is not just to help you, but to figure out how to help the economy through hard work and ingenuity. If you come up with the idea and get funding, you have a head start. If you execute better than others, you could possibly make money at it. As you will see from the rules below, these are going to be businesses that are mostly driven by sweat equity.

I will invest money in businesses presented here on this blog. No minimum, no maximum, but a very specific set of rules. Here they are:

1. It can be an existing business or a start up.
2. It can not be a business that generates any revenue from advertising. Why ? Because I want this to be a business where you sell something and get paid for it. Thats the only way to get and stay profitable in such a short period of time.
3. It MUST BE CASH FLOW BREAK EVEN within 60 days 
4. It must be profitable within 90 days.
5. Funding will be on a monthly basis. If you dont make your numbers, the funding stops
6. You must demonstrate as part of your plan that you sell your product or service for more than what it costs you to produce, fully encumbered
7. Everyone must work. The organization is completely flat. There are no employees reporting to managers. There is the founder/owners and everyone else
8.  You must post your business plan here, or you can post it on slideshare.com , scribd.com or google docs, all completely public for anyone to see and/or download
9. I make no promises that if your business is profitable, that I will invest more money. Once you get the initial funding you are on your own
10. I will make no promises that I will be available to offer help. If I want to , I will. If not, I wont.
11. If you do get money, it goes into a bank that I specify, and I have the ability to watch the funds flow and the opportunity to require that I cosign any outflows.
12. In your business plan , make sure to specify how much equity I will receive or how I will get a return on my money.
13. No mult-level marketing programs (added 2/10/09 1pm)

Im sure I will come up with more rules as I see what comes along, if anything. 

As I find businesses I like, I will use the email address you provide before you post to get in contact with you. There will be a standard agreement, you can take it or leave it. Once I have done the standard agreement, I will post it here for all to see.  This will definitely be a work in progress. Maybe it leads to great things, maybe it leads to nothing. We will find out. Im not going to claim a minimum or maximum amount or total I will invest. Im not promising I will definitely invest anything. If nothing comes along that I think is viable, thats the way it goes.

Hopefully I will invest in quite a few businesses that will lead to something more

ShareThis

We have developed and enhanced a player and lineup evaluation system. We have been working on this for the last 8 years. Its far from perfect, and its greatest value is that over a period of years we have been able to identify trends to help us identify up and coming, starring and declining players. It also helps us understand what combinations of players work well together, and which dont.

To give you a basic understanding of the system, at its most basic its a plus minus system. Then we adjust it to take into account who the opponent is, is it home or away, are you playing against the other teams good lineup or bad lineup, what the score and game clock are (scoring the game winner is worth more than the 1st basket of the game. Scoring when up by 30 is worth nothing). If the team scores or gets a stop when the game is on the line, then your impact percentage goes up. We reward for getting the job done when it matters.

We track as you can see below by last games, and also track the variance. In other words, average is pretty much meaningless. You can score plus 20 one day, zero the next, but are you a 10 level
player ? We track the variance of the players performance. THe lower the variance, the more consistent the player on offense or defense.

One more point, these numbers don’t reflect necessarily the best players in the league, but what they do reflect is the players that are being best put in a position to succeed and are delivering.
When their teams have a need, they deliver. Thats why some names are not the biggest names. its also a reflection of their coaches. Some coaches don’t necessarily use their players in the
best lineups or matchups, which negatively impacts their ability to perform. Others are consistently good at it.

This is purely quantitative, nothing more or less.
But Im sure it will lead to lots of discussion

                                                                             *******
                                   POINTS= OFFENSE-DEFENSE IMPACT%  MINUTES  Z-SCORE  

   1 CLE LeBron James               24.16   17.18   -6.98   62.49%  1807.01   3.2034
        CLE   last    3/ 48         17.73   13.28   -4.45   33.24%   120.40
        CLE   last    5/ 48         19.78   14.07   -5.71   35.22%   195.22
        CLE   last    8/ 48         22.44   19.96   -2.48   62.95%   314.52
        CLE  window   6/  6 tm      18.11   15.06   -3.05   38.41%   232.74
        CLE  varies  48/ 48       ( 13.98)(  9.61)( 11.59)( 33.61%) 1807.01

   2 DAL Jason Kidd                 17.12   11.69   -5.44   64.94%  1761.98   2.7861
        DAL   last    3/ 50          5.16    7.90    2.74   54.54%   102.94
        DAL   last    5/ 50         23.37   15.72   -7.65   84.60%   173.52
        DAL   last    8/ 50         23.35   17.62   -5.73   72.93%   273.98
        DAL  window   7/  7 tm      21.01   16.33   -4.68   71.25%   240.58
        DAL  varies  50/ 50       ( 18.86)( 11.26)( 13.35)( 44.76%) 1761.98

   3 MIA Dwyane Wade                17.56   21.34    3.78   58.90%  1867.31   2.7435
        MIA   last    3/ 49         20.80   28.17    7.36   61.64%   123.53
        MIA   last    5/ 49          8.99   20.71   11.72   41.22%   195.08
        MIA   last    8/ 49         14.03   21.13    7.09   51.66%   294.94
        MIA  window   7/  7 tm      12.34   20.23    7.89   47.16%   258.72
        MIA  varies  49/ 49       ( 14.63)( 10.87)( 11.52)( 41.38%) 1867.31

   4 NOH Chris Paul                 21.12    7.93  -13.19   51.91%  1685.00   2.7183
        NOH   last    3/ 45         17.54    4.67  -12.86   16.65%    97.48
        NOH   last    5/ 45         20.71    5.81  -14.90   30.71%   177.90
        NOH   last    8/ 45         19.80    6.77  -13.02   39.15%   292.83
        NOH  window   5/  7 tm      20.71    5.81  -14.90   30.71%   177.90
        NOH  varies  45/ 45       ( 14.11)( 11.01)(  9.39)( 44.43%) 1685.00

   5 PHI Andre Iguodala             17.19    6.63  -10.56   56.90%  1896.28   2.6702
        PHI   last    3/ 49         11.57    0.78  -10.79   17.94%   121.20
        PHI   last    5/ 49         10.46   -1.02  -11.49   11.77%   201.57
        PHI   last    8/ 49         12.05    2.09   -9.97   33.83%   318.73
        PHI  window   7/  7 tm       9.75   -0.63  -10.38   21.10%   277.32
        PHI  varies  49/ 49       ( 12.19)(  9.86)(  8.69)( 53.51%) 1896.28

   6 BOS Ray Allen                  16.35    8.67   -7.68   43.50%  1897.46   2.2523
        BOS   last    3/ 52         14.36    7.84   -6.52   45.06%   124.18
        BOS   last    5/ 52         15.95    9.57   -6.37   54.50%   196.90
        BOS   last    8/ 52         20.13   13.09   -7.03   64.21%   300.94
        BOS  window   7/  7 tm      18.81   14.46   -4.35   61.31%   263.15
        BOS  varies  52/ 52       ( 16.46)( 12.76)( 10.89)( 48.47%) 1897.46

   7 ORL Rashard Lewis              12.91    6.86   -6.05   36.79%  1807.13   1.8585
        ORL   last    3/ 49          6.35    2.39   -3.96   16.82%   107.88
        ORL   last    5/ 49         14.77    6.01   -8.76   37.84%   188.08
        ORL   last    8/ 49         13.99    5.39   -8.60   29.24%   296.12
        ORL  window   6/  6 tm      19.24    9.51   -9.73   41.18%   221.53
        ORL  varies  49/ 49       ( 14.65)( 13.63)(  8.43)( 46.65%) 1807.13

   8 CHA Emeka Okafor               10.37   -0.14  -10.50   40.37%  1679.99   1.7337
        CHA   last    3/ 49         -7.12   -5.99    1.13  -12.95%    91.05
        CHA   last    5/ 49          7.75   -0.68   -8.44   38.49%   166.86
        CHA   last    8/ 49         13.98    1.66  -12.33   44.26%   253.02
        CHA  window   6/  6 tm       9.59   -0.65  -10.24   41.10%   198.14
        CHA  varies  49/ 49       ( 15.66)( 11.01)( 11.83)( 48.23%) 1679.99

   9 MIN Randy Foye                  9.09    9.93    0.84   43.24%  1768.34   1.6464
        MIN   last    3/ 49          6.34    5.95   -0.39   52.70%   128.74
        MIN   last    5/ 49          3.43   10.77    7.35   34.21%   201.94
        MIN   last    8/ 49          4.37    6.20    1.83   33.23%   325.41
        MIN  window   8/  8 tm       4.37    6.20    1.83   33.23%   325.41
        MIN  varies  49/ 49       ( 12.65)( 11.81)( 12.67)( 45.62%) 1768.34

  10 HOU Yao Ming                    9.64   -0.18   -9.83   34.83%  1579.31   1.5627
        HOU   last    3/ 48          7.81    7.42   -0.39   33.89%    99.06
        HOU   last    5/ 48          7.42    5.80   -1.62   25.29%   167.78
        HOU   last    8/ 48          8.26    5.11   -3.15   31.07%   245.35
        HOU  window   5/  7 tm       7.42    5.80   -1.62   25.29%   167.78
        HOU  varies  48/ 48       ( 13.21)( 11.94)( 10.35)( 48.19%) 1579.31

                                                                             *******
                                   POINTS= OFFENSE-DEFENSE IMPACT%  MINUTES  Z-SCORE  
  11 ATL Joe Johnson                 8.69    3.09   -5.59   37.43%  1917.51   1.5229
        ATL   last    3/ 48          3.67    4.44    0.77   26.02%   121.73
        ATL   last    5/ 48         -1.44    0.51    1.95    9.43%   205.94
        ATL   last    8/ 48          2.25    2.08   -0.17   15.91%   324.04
        ATL  window   6/  8 tm      -1.95   -0.15    1.81    6.23%   249.22
        ATL  varies  48/ 48       ( 13.21)(  9.57)( 12.38)( 38.42%) 1917.51

  12 BOS Kevin Garnett               9.43    3.16   -6.27   32.43%  1594.00   1.4937
        BOS   last    5/ 49         12.52    7.36   -5.16   49.46%   156.75
        BOS   last    8/ 49         17.92    4.95  -12.97   53.54%   250.13
        BOS  window   5/  7 tm      12.52    7.36   -5.16   49.46%   156.75
        BOS  varies  49/ 49       ( 18.27)( 13.57)( 12.38)( 50.83%) 1594.00

  13 DEN Nene                       10.79    2.87   -7.92   27.47%  1642.84   1.4643
        DEN   last    3/ 50          8.22    7.28   -0.94   49.03%    89.46
        DEN   last    5/ 50         11.18    9.19   -1.99   39.02%   156.01
        DEN   last    8/ 50         12.80    6.92   -5.88   32.15%   246.48
        DEN  window   8/  8 tm      12.80    6.92   -5.88   32.15%   246.48
        DEN  varies  50/ 50       ( 16.25)( 14.16)( 10.14)( 52.28%) 1642.84

  14 DET Rasheed Wallace             8.63    2.58   -6.05   33.16%  1481.02   1.4407
        DET   last    3/ 44         15.98    9.32   -6.65   65.70%   124.29
        DET   last    5/ 44         13.37    4.73   -8.64   66.60%   201.85
        DET   last    8/ 44          9.38    4.49   -4.89   47.81%   292.05
        DET  window   6/  6 tm      12.45    5.93   -6.52   56.45%   240.59
        DET  varies  44/ 44       ( 15.85)( 11.22)( 11.86)( 54.42%) 1481.02

  15 LAL Kobe Bryant                 9.19    8.50   -0.70   27.97%  1793.17   1.3706
        LAL   last    3/ 49         14.01   16.74    2.73   63.87%   119.44
        LAL   last    5/ 49         12.59   19.61    7.02   49.08%   189.05
        LAL   last    8/ 49         12.41   15.76    3.35   42.00%   294.68
        LAL  window   7/  7 tm      10.59   14.99    4.39   43.58%   266.58
        LAL  varies  49/ 49       ( 13.82)( 10.12)( 12.01)( 47.40%) 1793.17

  16 UTA Andrei Kirilenko           12.17    6.78   -5.39   21.92%  1139.46   1.3604
        UTA   last    3/ 38         11.53   13.86    2.33   19.61%    75.18
        UTA   last    5/ 38          9.32   14.02    4.70    9.43%   156.50
        UTA   last    8/ 38         14.04   16.55    2.51   15.45%   243.33
        UTA  window   0/  7 tm       0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00%     0.00
        UTA  varies  38/ 38       ( 18.17)( 11.89)( 13.66)( 56.91%) 1139.46

  17 PHO Grant Hill                  8.33    3.63   -4.70   30.18%  1382.00   1.3534
        PHO   last    3/ 48         19.33   14.43   -4.90   11.05%    89.98
        PHO   last    5/ 48          8.57   11.90    3.33    3.77%   166.17
        PHO   last    8/ 48          5.08    8.13    3.04    6.70%   236.57
        PHO  window   7/  7 tm       9.89   11.36    1.47   12.46%   210.07
        PHO  varies  48/ 48       ( 21.14)( 14.26)( 14.93)( 54.56%) 1382.00

  18 UTA Paul Millsap               11.20    3.62   -7.58   22.82%  1444.24   1.3473
        UTA   last    3/ 45         24.72    8.32  -16.40   41.92%    88.94
        UTA   last    5/ 45         18.68   10.25   -8.44   27.36%   158.35
        UTA   last    8/ 45          7.85    4.91   -2.95    1.34%   267.38
        UTA  window   7/  7 tm       9.85    5.53   -4.32    9.80%   226.25
        UTA  varies  45/ 45       ( 17.56)( 10.11)( 13.49)( 46.96%) 1444.24

  19 NJN Jarvis Hayes                8.04   -0.86   -8.90   29.31%  1164.38   1.3109
        NJN   last    3/ 46         23.51   -1.09  -24.59   28.15%    78.13
        NJN   last    5/ 46         16.82   -6.82  -23.64   48.06%   131.01
        NJN   last    8/ 46         13.98   -6.05  -20.03   23.98%   194.42
        NJN  window   7/  7 tm      11.23   -8.71  -19.94   14.09%   172.93
        NJN  varies  46/ 46       ( 19.24)( 14.35)( 14.12)( 59.98%) 1164.38

  20 POR LaMarcus Aldridge           7.69    3.77   -3.92   30.72%  1789.65   1.3095
        POR   last    3/ 49         -0.04   -1.68   -1.64   19.85%   123.20
        POR   last    5/ 49          7.81    2.71   -5.10   30.56%   192.67
        POR   last    8/ 49          4.06    1.89   -2.18   23.90%   305.24
        POR  window   6/  6 tm       7.45    2.81   -4.63   35.02%   226.91
        POR  varies  49/ 49       ( 15.23)( 13.36)(  8.97)( 50.43%) 1789.65

                                                                             *******
                                   POINTS= OFFENSE-DEFENSE IMPACT%  MINUTES  Z-SCORE  

  21 UTA Mehmet Okur                 6.72    3.48   -3.24   35.80%  1491.46   1.3032
        UTA   last    3/ 43         22.27    9.73  -12.54   69.04%   104.35
        UTA   last    5/ 43         14.79    9.82   -4.97   49.40%   173.36
        UTA   last    8/ 43          7.97    5.26   -2.71   32.81%   272.60
        UTA  window   7/  7 tm       8.89    5.80   -3.09   37.37%   250.76
        UTA  varies  43/ 43       ( 14.34)( 10.51)( 10.17)( 43.33%) 1491.46

  22 MIN Sebastian Telfair           5.65    1.78   -3.87   46.12%  1126.73   1.2886
        MIN   last    3/ 44          5.53   -0.43   -5.96   55.48%    92.25
        MIN   last    5/ 44          4.88    6.03    1.15   44.59%   160.05
        MIN   last    8/ 44          4.11    1.89   -2.22   49.30%   254.67
        MIN  window   8/  8 tm       4.11    1.89   -2.22   49.30%   254.67
        MIN  varies  44/ 44       ( 15.03)( 14.42)( 14.56)( 41.52%) 1126.73

  23 DAL Dirk Nowitzki               7.04    7.08    0.04   30.27%  1836.86   1.2430
        DAL   last    3/ 49          4.89    2.60   -2.29   36.74%   115.33
        DAL   last    5/ 49         16.08    7.51   -8.57   56.35%   189.51
        DAL   last    8/ 49         14.55   10.92   -3.63   44.59%   291.47
        DAL  window   7/  7 tm      12.94    9.48   -3.45   43.81%   254.69
        DAL  varies  49/ 49       ( 18.02)( 10.46)( 13.44)( 47.24%) 1836.86

  24 PHO Steve Nash                 11.71   14.90    3.19   18.33%  1497.80   1.2248
        PHO   last    3/ 44          7.52   21.05   13.53   -4.42%    93.21
        PHO   last    5/ 44          3.44   19.26   15.82  -12.94%   173.73
        PHO   last    8/ 44          4.17   15.48   11.31    1.84%   263.71
        PHO  window   7/  7 tm       8.98   18.86    9.89    8.29%   242.28
        PHO  varies  44/ 44       ( 17.71)( 12.53)( 12.46)( 57.52%) 1497.80

  25 TOR Chris Bosh                 10.15    7.38   -2.77   19.85%  1948.03   1.2039
        TOR   last    3/ 51         -0.33    4.72    5.04    6.45%    97.50
        TOR   last    5/ 51         -3.84    2.34    6.18    4.43%   172.91
        TOR   last    8/ 51          5.99    6.86    0.87   20.57%   286.96
        TOR  window   6/  8 tm       0.70    3.85    3.15   14.38%   210.41
        TOR  varies  51/ 51       ( 15.42)( 10.30)( 12.11)( 49.95%) 1948.03

  26 LAL Lamar Odom                  8.25    4.25   -4.01   22.85%  1254.11   1.1732
        LAL   last    3/ 46         11.66   10.50   -1.16   65.37%   106.50
        LAL   last    5/ 46          9.70   11.30    1.61   52.25%   159.61
        LAL   last    8/ 46          5.18    5.94    0.76   15.76%   242.97
        LAL  window   7/  7 tm       3.36    3.99    0.63   16.49%   220.27
        LAL  varies  46/ 46       ( 20.55)( 15.10)( 13.85)( 59.77%) 1254.11

  27 CHI Ben Gordon                  6.83    7.33    0.50   27.49%  1836.72   1.1702
        CHI   last    3/ 51          3.17   15.05   11.88   12.35%   104.44
        CHI   last    5/ 51          9.82   15.52    5.71   33.15%   175.44
        CHI   last    8/ 51          6.75   10.05    3.30   18.38%   281.08
        CHI  window   7/  7 tm       9.66   10.82    1.16   26.96%   249.30
        CHI  varies  51/ 51       ( 14.18)( 10.62)( 12.34)( 45.11%) 1836.72

  28 PHI Thaddeus Young              6.68    2.44   -4.24   28.05%  1662.23   1.1680
        PHI   last    3/ 49         14.82    5.86   -8.96   29.69%   105.76
        PHI   last    5/ 49          5.90   -1.58   -7.48    0.21%   189.84
        PHI   last    8/ 49          7.16    1.40   -5.76   21.08%   296.87
        PHI  window   7/  7 tm       7.49   -0.44   -7.93   18.03%   258.09
        PHI  varies  49/ 49       ( 14.84)( 11.93)(  9.73)( 56.64%) 1662.23

  29 SAS Matt Bonner                 9.88    4.38   -5.51   16.08%  1065.79   1.0762
        SAS   last    3/ 47         12.41    9.54   -2.88   24.40%    75.24
        SAS   last    5/ 47         14.13    9.21   -4.92   35.69%   133.79
        SAS   last    8/ 47          8.89    2.57   -6.32   23.54%   200.32
        SAS  window   6/  6 tm       7.80    4.19   -3.61   20.91%   155.16
        SAS  varies  47/ 47       ( 22.01)( 16.66)( 15.12)( 60.72%) 1065.79

  30 GSW Andris Biedrins             4.42    1.19   -3.23   35.21%  1548.46   1.0627
        GSW   last    3/ 50         20.95   22.70    1.75   86.50%    67.43
        GSW   last    5/ 50         15.08    9.25   -5.83   68.29%   115.38
        GSW   last    8/ 50          7.95    4.14   -3.80   52.27%   201.71
        GSW  window   7/  7 tm       9.09    4.08   -5.01   51.50%   166.84
        GSW  varies  50/ 50       ( 14.19)( 12.77)( 11.53)( 50.93%) 1548.46

ShareThis

Probably one of the most annoying things  I have to deal with in business is that people never question the status quo. It doesn’t matter what business it is. I doesn’t even matter if its something that applies to how I do things, that I have become set in my ways on.  It is rare when people just ask questions or apply some critical analysis to the things right in front of them.  

The NBA is the perfect example. So many things are the way they are, because thats the way they always have been.  I guess it was the old adage, “if it’s not broke, don’t not fix it”. But not being broken, doesn’t mean its optimal.  Yet, just the smallest bit of critical analysis can lead to changes. Fortunately, the NBA is evolving into an organization that will change.  There is a new management style that has evolved over the past few years, which  has lead to valid changes initiated by me and others which I think have benefited the league and our fans.

Here are a couple examples of  things that used to be “conventional wisdom” in the NBA rule book that to the NBA’s credit, when I brought it to their attention, were changed quickly and easily

1. Clear Path Foul

It used to be that when there was a clear path foul, (a defensive player grabs a player in front of him thereby preventing a probable layup) the offensive team was awarded 1 free throw and possession of the ball on the side. One day I decided to do some basic math. What was the percentage of a conversion on a layup. The play the defender was trying to prevent. What was the percent of conversion for a free throw from the average NBA player. And what was the conversion on the typical NBA possession.

I don’t have the exact numbers here, but the following are pretty close:  .70 for a free throw plus .45 x 2 points or .90 for a regular possesion, when added together gave a probably value to the posession of 1.6.  The probability of making  a break away  layup with no one between you and the basket was 90pct or higher, x 2 points, or a possession value of 1.80.  Which meant that under the rules, the advantage went to the defending team for grabbing the offensive player to stop a break away. 

Once I offered this math to the league, the rule was changed to 2 free throws and the ball. Which gave the advantage to the offense with a value of .7 x 2 FTs plus .45 x 2pts for the possession or a total of  2.3 pts for the possession.  The team that was fouled now received a significant benefit to reward their defensive effort.

Along the same lines of playing the advantage, for a long time the guideline for officials was to reward the offensive player if a defender created contact that didn’t fully impact the offensive players Speed, Balance, Rythm and Quickness (SBRQ). In other words, give the guy with the ball the benefit of the doubt and don’t take away their ability to score if the contact is marginal.

So a few years ago, Im watching the Pistons beat the Lakers in the Finals.  I’m seeing Larry Brown’s Pistons fully take advantage of the rules. It was impossible to stay in front of Kobe. He could get anywhere he wanted on the court. The Pistons knew it as well.  So every time he tried to get to the basket, they would body up and bump him. The officials did just as they were supposed to. Since Kobe had the advantage on the defender, they didn’t call a foul. However that little bump slowed Kobe down just enough that it gave Ben Wallace a split second more to on a pre rotation to the Paint, to be in a better position to defend the basket. Kobe still scored, but not quite as often as he may have otherwise. 

At that point it dawned on me that the concept of playing the advantage in a one on one matchup had nothing to do with which TEAM gained the advantage. After all, its the team that scores the most points that wins. Detroit had a brilliant strategy and was playing it to perfection.  After the finals, I sat down with the league and discussed with them the difference between player and team advantage.  The discussion lead to changing the rules so that perimeter contact was called far more often

The point of the story is two fold:

1. To make it clear that not everything I do in the NBA results in or from a fine:)

2.  That sometimes even the most fully engrained rules or processes should have critical analysis applied to them.  Just because something isn’t broken doesn’t mean a business can’t benefit by looking to do something different. Strong organizations encourage the change and great employees always are looking to find ways to take even the basics and make them better

ShareThis

Can I be the first to say that “Harry is the Man !”  Putting the obvious reasons aside, I also want to be the first to suggest that we ask, and beg Harry to accept a newly created Presidential Financial Oversight Advisor position.  Is there a better person to make sure that the oversight committees appointed to watch how the TARP and Stimulus is spent do their jobs ?  Is there a person any of us would trust more to tell the politicians in Wall Street “How to tell if the oversight committees can  ”sit down in Fenway Park and find first base ?” To make sure there are appropriate levels of transparency ? 

Keep your day jobs Harry. Do what you do.  But give us taxpayers a ray of hope that our money won’t all be wasted.

And when you get the oversight committees working, can we talk about balancing the budget ?

ShareThis

Consumer savings are way up.  Doesn’t more savings mean more money in banks to lend ? Isn’t that a good thing ?

Here is an idea for you. Create rewards for putting those savings in lending institutions, and reward the institutions for lending it out. 

Make the interest earned on savings accounts  and CDs   tax free for individuals and corporations if the funds are deposited with lending institutions  that lend out 100pct of those funds.  Its a simple concept. If we are going to increase our savings, lets make sure that money is recycled into the economy and frees up credit.

Here is how I see it.  As of June of ‘08, there were 7 TRILLION dollars in deposits held by lending institutions.  If that number can grow by any percent, and be recycled into the economy through incentives, it completely changes the dynamics of an economic incentive plan.  Plus, Im certain that banks would rather take in funds through deposits than by being required to pay 10pct for government bailout money.

More importantly, it works in a manner that we all understand. The only certainy about the proposed stimulus programs is their uncertainty and the queasy feelings we all will have as we watch the rules of unintended consequences create headlines on a weekly basis.

ShareThis