HBO Real Sports/Marist Poll About Concussions In Football

[ChicosBailBonds]

and here comes the high school problems...

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9902116/report-details-concussion-risks-high-school-athletes

How many misdiagnosis, like the one I mentioned last month with the kid on my son's team, labeled as a concussion, kept out of multiple games, all practices, etc.  Guess what, NEVER had a concussion.   NEVER.  Totally wrong diagnosis, but people bending over backward to be Chicken Littles in the training, educational world that couldn't wait to go there.  Frustrating for the young guy and his parents.  He was perfectly fine. Had to get two outside doctors not affiliated with the school district to get cleared.  It was beyond ridiculous what they had to go through.


So say the data is right, and no misdiagnosis ever happen ( ), why aren't we getting all bent on women's soccer?  Softball?  Volleyball? Wrestling?  LaCrosse?  Etc.  Why are the ladies having more concussions then the dudes?   Why is the emphasis only on football?  Shouldn't EVERY concussion matter?  Men's basketball should have to start wearing helmets soon?

[Silkk the Shaka]

If anything, these numbers show the risk of concussion is really limited ... and that football isn't significantly more likely to cause a concussion than sports like lacrosse, wrestling, soccer or field hockey, and none of them are likely to cause a concussion ever.

The numbers show that for every practice or game, a high school football, players runs a .1 percent chance of suffering a concussion. Or, one concussion for every 1.1 concussions for every 1,000 games/practices. Them's pretty slim odds.

While the focus by many is on concussions, it's the repeated sub-concussive level shots to the head that are just as bad. Linemen who have never suffered a concussion but make head to head contact nearly every play from scrimmage are at just as great a risk of CTE.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You miss the point.  NetFlix produces its own shows (i.e., House of Cards, Arrested Development) and distributes it over the internet.  We don't need DTV or Comcast anymore to watch high quality dramas.  You can do that over the internet now. 

I read the NFL is close to signing a deal with Google to stream games live (presumably using YouTube as Google owns it).  If that happens, you do not need DTV or Comcast to watch live sports anymore.

Oh, believe me I'm quite aware of it.  There is a reason why Netflix refuses to release the ratings for those shows, because no one watches them.  We have 4 former Netflix employees in our group.  Yup, you can get them, but no one is watching.


And you read an article that NFL is close to signing a deal with Google...you did, huh.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

I tend to disagree. There are moments in a baseball game that are intense with action and high speed. Nothing more exciting than an in the park home run or a player stealing home from 3rd base or witnessing a perfectly pitched game. Yeah the game can be dull at times but so is football. Out of the 60 minutes they play you actually see about 20 minutes of action; most of the game they're in the huddle. Now basketball is all action except when they're shooting free throws and even they can be nail biters.

I'm a huge baseball fan, worked for the Angels for awhile.  I'm just going off the demos of what fans are saying.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Netflix's third-quarter earnings quadrupled from last year as its tally of U.S. streaming-video customers hit 31 million.

Yup, they earned $32 million on $1.11billion in revenue.  OUCH. When you only made $7.7M on over $1 billion last quarter (think about how small that is), then quadrupling it isn't saying much.  Margins about the size of a gnat's testicles.  That would be like a guy going 1-4 in free throws to start the season and the next day he goes 3 for 4 and improves his free throw percentage by double.  

And right around the corner, more than $5 billion in liabilities about to hit them.  A profit margin of under 3% or the quarter...but I will give them this, in Q1 of '12 they actually had negative profit margin.  Of course from '09 to '11 they had about 8.5% profit margin quarterly.  The last seven quarters, a profit margin of 1.11%.  Yikes.  That is not good.  


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303902404579149883903402974

[brandx]

Yup, they earned $32 million on $1.11billion in revenue.  OUCH. When you only made $7.7M on over $1 billion last quarter (think about how small that is), then quadrupling it isn't saying much.  Margins about the size of a gnat's testicles.  That would be like a guy going 1-4 in free throws to start the season and the next day he goes 3 for 4 and improves his free throw percentage by double.  

And right around the corner, more than $5 billion in liabilities about to hit them.  A profit margin of under 3% or the quarter...but I will give them this, in Q1 of '12 they actually had negative profit margin.  Of course from '09 to '11 they had about 8.5% profit margin quarterly.  The last seven quarters, a profit margin of 1.11%.  Yikes.  That is not good.  


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303902404579149883903402974

Reminds of the statistics of the "experts"  who predicted a follow-up market crash in '11, '12, and '13.

Obviously, when a company puts out a huge amount of cash to improve their product, it will have a short-term negative impact.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Reminds of the statistics of the "experts"  who predicted a follow-up market crash in '11, '12, and '13.

Obviously, when a company puts out a huge amount of cash to improve their product, it will have a short-term negative impact.

A bit more complicated than that.  Their COGS is about 72% of their revenue and it's going to increase exponentially in the next few years.  That trend line is not good (nor is it good for anyone in the video space).  It is not merely a matter of capital expense to improve their product, they have huge cost implications on the content they are buying and developing.  A big price increase to their customers is coming one way or another (big in terms of %).  Last time they took it up they had a near meltdown from all the folks that expect the world to run on pixie dust (aka, many of their subscribers).  Content isn't cheap, and they are learning that just like everyone else.

[Tugg Speedman]

Here is the bet ...

you go short NFLX

I will go short the NFL ratings.

We'll check back in 10 to 15 years and see how we did.

[Tugg Speedman]

And you read an article that NFL is close to signing a deal with Google...you did, huh.   

http://www.deadline.com/2013/10/could-netflix-or-google-land-nfl-games/

[Tugg Speedman]

Oh, believe me I'm quite aware of it.  There is a reason why Netflix refuses to release the ratings for those shows, because no one watches them.  We have 4 former Netflix employees in our group.  Yup, you can get them, but no one is watching.

Netflix poised to pass HBO in paid U.S. subscribers as House of Cards, other original shows spur growth
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/21/netflix-q3-2013-subscribers/?__lsa=8546-f2d6

Isn't paid subscribers the only thing that really matters?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Netflix poised to pass HBO in paid U.S. subscribers as House of Cards, other original shows spur growth
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/21/netflix-q3-2013-subscribers/?__lsa=8546-f2d6

Isn't paid subscribers the only thing that really matters?

Uhm, no.  

Is Motel 6 better than the Ritz Carlton?  Motel 6 has more customers (i.e. subscribers).


Netflix is half the price of HBO, of course they will get more subscribers eventually, but what do they do with them?  Netflix charges $8 but their COGS is about $6.50....so they get $32 million in profit on $1.1 billion in revenue.  Ouch.  HBO (part of Time Warner) accounts for about $1.8 billion in PROFIT (not revenues) annually for Time Warner.  Ironically enough, they take in about $8 of the $16 average price point out there charged by cable and satellite systems.  

So who's $8 has been leveraged better?  Don't get me wrong, I'm a Netflix investor even if I don't believe in the fundamentals right now.  Irrational exuberance is sometimes the vehicle you ride.  I think they will continue to grow, I just know what is ahead of them, big price increases, churn, etc.  Doesn't mean they can't do well, they will, but they will have plenty of bumps as a result because their customer base is so used to paying next to nothing for content.  Those days are coming to an end.


Good article on what's going on with them.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/peterlauria/the-netflix-conundrum

[keefe]

Uhm, no.  

Is Motel 6 better than the Ritz Carlton?  Motel 6 has more customers (i.e. subscribers).


Netflix is half the price of HBO, of course they will get more subscribers eventually, but what do they do with them?  Netflix charges $8 but their COGS is about $6.50....so they get $32 million in profit on $1.1 billion in revenue.  Ouch.  HBO (part of Time Warner) accounts for about $1.8 billion in PROFIT (not revenues) annually for Time Warner.  Ironically enough, they take in about $8 of the $16 average price point out there charged by cable and satellite systems.  

So who's $8 has been leveraged better?  Don't get me wrong, I'm a Netflix investor even if I don't believe in the fundamentals right now.  Irrational exuberance is sometimes the vehicle you ride.  I think they will continue to grow, I just know what is ahead of them, big price increases, churn, etc.  Doesn't mean they can't do well, they will, but they will have plenty of bumps as a result because their customer base is so used to paying next to nothing for content.  Those days are coming to an end.


Good article on what's going on with them.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/peterlauria/the-netflix-conundrum

Uh, Total NOPBT for TWX Films, TV Entertainment was $1.2B last year so the other IBU's in that P&L lost a sh1t load of money...

[ChicosBailBonds]

Uh, Total NOPBT for TWX Films, TV Entertainment was $1.2B last year so the other IBU's in that P&L lost a sh1t load of money...

HBO is a huge piece of the pie for TWX, but so is Turner.    Not sure what numbers you are using, but in 2012 they brought in about $29 billion in revenues and nearly $13 billion in gross profits.  Their EBITDA was about $8 billion. 

[keefe]

HBO is a huge piece of the pie for TWX, but so is Turner.    Not sure what numbers you are using, but in 2012 they brought in about $29 billion in revenues and nearly $13 billion in gross profits.  Their EBITDA was about $8 billion. 

2012 TWX Consolidated                        Film, TV Entertainment

Rev          $28,729MM                                  $12,018MM
EBITDA     $ 5,918                                       $  1,228

2012 Gross Earnings were $5,918MM, far short of $13B. My source is the TWX Annual Report

[ChicosBailBonds]

Me too, now.  I got the $13B EBITDA off of Yahoo or Bloomberg.  http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Time-Warner-Inc/Valuation/EV-to-EBITDA   

You sure your $5.9B isn't EBIT, not EBITDA?  That's what it looks like to me.

At any rate,

HBO and Turner combined for $14B in revenue and $4.7B in operating income.  Those are not part of the film and tv entertainment group.  That may be where the disconnect is.

You are correct that the TV Entertainment and Films group is $12B and only $1.2B in operating income.  This is stuff like Warner Bros.

Page 25


Maybe we are saying the same thing, HBO and Turner drive the train mostly.  Warner Bros and the other stuff is crap....not much profit there as you have illustrated.

[keefe]

Me too, now.  I got the $13B EBITDA off of Yahoo or Bloomberg.  http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Time-Warner-Inc/Valuation/EV-to-EBITDA   

You sure your $5.9B isn't EBIT, not EBITDA?  That's what it looks like to me.

At any rate,

HBO and Turner combined for $14B in revenue and $4.7B in operating income.  Those are not part of the film and tv entertainment group.  That may be where the disconnect is.

You are correct that the TV Entertainment and Films group is $12B and only $1.2B in operating income.  This is stuff like Warner Bros.

Page 25


Maybe we are saying the same thing, HBO and Turner drive the train mostly.  Warner Bros and the other stuff is crap....not much profit there as you have illustrated.

I am looking at the report in my Berkshire Hathaway portfolio. If I add back in some fairly aggressive one-times I can get to $6.8B.  In any event, I thought HBO was in Film and Entertainment. If HBO is in "Networks" here is what Mr Buffet tells us about that TWX line of business:

Rev           $14,204MM

EBITDA      $  5,236MM

Clearly significantly better margins than Film/Entertainment. It makes sense that Networks drives the TWX Earnings train so we are in agreement on the actual question. 37% flow through is fairly robust - in the same range as the cell carriers. Problem for TWC is that all the other operating units are a drag on earnings and corporate overheads seem a bit high.

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.deadline.com/2013/10/could-netflix-or-google-land-nfl-games/

Well aware of what "has been considered".  Here's the problem, they can't do it today.  The infrastructure isn't there.

You may want to read the article that came out the very next day

http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/google-addresses-nfl-youtube-tv-deal-rumor-1200735354/

Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft, also killed the idea again a few days ago publicly. Everything I'm saying is in the public domain.  It's one thing to have streaming of movies on Netflix or Youtube where the load balance is distributed as such that not everyone is hitting on one event.  Quite a different thing when you're talking about hitting one program at the same time.

Look for Google, etc, to get involved in enhancing the experience, not delivering broadcasts...if I were to guess.

[ChicosBailBonds]

In a related note, remember months ago when Intel was going to launch a tv service.  Looks like they are backing out, just like Apple did.   Very difficult business to get into.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/30/us-intel-verizon-idUSBRE99T0RN20131030

[ChicosBailBonds]

Follow the $$$......



Majority Of NFL TV Partners Seeing Gains Through Week 8; ESPN Off Slightly



Published November 1, 2013

A majority of NFL TV partners are seeing audience gains for game coverage through the halfway point of the season. NBC’s games have averaged a 13.1 rating and 22.1 million viewers, marking the best average for an NFL primetime package through eight weeks in 17 years -- dating back to 23.9 million viewers in ’96 for ABC’s “MNF” coverage. “SNF” continues to be the most-watched primetime show on all of TV. The net was able to benefit from having one less day of MLB competition this year. Week 7’s Broncos-Colts game had no MLB game up against it, while last year’s Week 7 game (Steelers-Bengals) had NLCS Game 6. “SNF” also has now topped World Series Game 4s three times in four years. Meanwhile, ESPN is the only NFL TV partner seeing a decline this season to date. “MNF” games are averaging an 8.3 rating and 13.1 million viewers, off 1% for both metrics from ’12. NFL Network is maintaining its record-breaking audience figures through the first half of the season (excludes the special Sunday night game on Oct. 6). The net’s 4.6 rating and 7.3 million viewers is on pace to supplant last season’s record-setting averages.

AFTERNOON DELIGHT: Fox is averaging a 12.5 rating and 20.9 million viewers for its Sunday afternoon telecasts, putting the net on pace for its best NFL season on record. The net’s audience is up 23% from five years ago, up 26% from 10 years ago and up 29% from 15 years ago. CBS also is seeing gains for NFL coverage. The 10.7 rating and 17.6 million viewers mark CBS' second-best audience through eight weeks since the NFL returned to the net in '98 (behind only '10).

[jesmu84]

The plot thickens...

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=9931754

[ChicosBailBonds]

The plot thickens...

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=9931754

Yes....it does...though you rarely hear about this....

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/does-cte-brain-disease-found-nfl-players-really-exist

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809542

[brandx]

Yes....it does...though you rarely hear about this....

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/does-cte-brain-disease-found-nfl-players-really-exist

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809542

It wasn't that long ago that there was a cadre of smoking-danger deniers, including Mds and medical 'researchers' arguing that the connection to cancer wasn't proven; that the dangers of second hand smoke were unsubstantiated; and that anti-smoking activists were trying to destroy legitimate family farms and jobs.


Not much different here. Christopher Randolph is on record saying that he does not believe in CTE - hence it would follow that his bias may (and I say may) influence his studies.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It wasn't that long ago that there was a cadre of smoking-danger deniers, including Mds and medical 'researchers' arguing that the connection to cancer wasn't proven; that the dangers of second hand smoke were unsubstantiated; and that anti-smoking activists were trying to destroy legitimate family farms and jobs.


Not much different here. Christopher Randolph is on record saying that he does not believe in CTE - hence it would follow that his bias may (and I say may) influence his studies.

Yup, just as there have been plenty over the years that made medical linkages that turned out to be entirely false.  Remember how breast implants would cause cancer.  Oops.  Not true, but that was all the rage in the media, etc for a number of years.  So it goes both ways.

I think the most important part of the data is that there isn't much difference between CTE in football population and the general population.  That is what I mentioned many months ago.  What is the incrementality by playing football?  How many people get it anyway?  A lot of people can't wait to blame something, cash in, etc, when they were going to get something anyway.  People get lung cancer that never smoke a day in their lives.  There are people that smoke very little and get lung cancer and will blame it on smoking, but were they predisposed to get it anyway?  How many other things did these guys with CTE do that could have also contributed?

Those are all fair questions, but I think a lot of people just want a real easy answer, all wrapped up in a bow.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'd add this....

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/10/fear-of-cte-may-be-unnecessarily-freaking-out-football-players/

Dr. McCarthy points out that, regardless of whether football players are determined to have CTE, the connection to concussions still has not been established by the scientific community:  “At the 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport . . . world experts gathered to discuss the state of head-trauma science.  At the end of the conference, a consensus statement was released that said the following:  ‘A cause and effect relationship has not as yet been demonstrated between CTE and concussions or exposure to contact sports.’

“The statement runs counter to almost everything you have read about CTE, but it received virtually no media attention in the United States when it was released,” Dr. McCarthy explains.  “In part, that’s because it speaks to the far higher burden of proof in the scientific community than the one in the public consciousness.  But that’s the point.  The popular consensus has far outstripped the science.”

[Hards Alumni]

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365113186/

Start watching at the 44:30 mark for the portion on concussions... though the whole program was pretty neat.