Maybe It's Time to "Occupy Radio"

I honestly wish I knew the thought process that goes on in the minds of radio executives. I really wonder how they can delude themselves into thinking that doing away with the things that make radio successful as a medium will actually help the industry. They must either be completely ignorant of how the medium they choose to be a part of operates, or they must be so driven by the all-out desire to balance the books that it completely supersedes any pangs of guilt or conscience about what they are doing to the public.

So it is that more heads rolled yesterday in radio stations across the country, part of yet another attempt by debt-riddled radio corporations to stave off bankruptcy. In other industries, people get laid off and the supposed "99%" march in the streets that this is done just to pad profits and burnish CEO bonuses. In radio, people get laid off because the station owners have massive billion-dollar debt payments they have no chance of making, and they are trying to buy time or just kick the can further down the road. And people get upset and howl in outrage, but ultimately they either settle into listening to their new devalued, less local options, or they stop listening to terrestrial radio and switch to satellite, Pandora, or their iPods.

Clear Channel laid off nearly 200 people yesterday, and while those numbers aren't overly staggering (especially when compared to the hundreds more they let go on President Obama's inauguration day), it was the fact that these people were all on-air personnel or worked in programming. These were the people who make your station "your station", as in the station that serves YOUR community, that chose the music YOUR community wanted to hear, that talked about the things YOUR community cares about. All of that, gone. Replaced by a model that Clear Channel actually says is "more local" and uses "assets other stations don't have"... and they say that with a straight face.

If by "other assets", they are referring to the Elvis Durans, Ryan Seacrests, and syndicated right-wing talkers of the world, yes, Clear Channel, by virtue of their ownership of Premiere Radio Networks, has those. But the competition has assets that Clear Channel doesn't have... LOCAL PERSONALITIES. Not that many of them are live anymore at the other radio stations, mostly because those companies have had to slash to the bone in order to keep their ad rates competitive with CC. It is truly rare now to call a radio station with a request and have anyone actually in the studio to answer the phone. And in the case of local talk, that is the one real chance a community has to talk about important issues. The letters page (at least in the case of the Sub-Standard, errrr, Post-Standard) is a rotation of the same 10 letter-writers, mostly with extremist views, and does not really contribute much to the discourse. What's the filter on local talk radio? The call screener, and if you sound good enough to get on the air and have something to contribute, odds are you're going to get through. But when your only option now is to wait in the queue with the hundreds of other people calling national talk shows, odds are you won't get through.

And what about the human cost of such layoffs? Well, it's all across the spectrum. In the case of the Clear Channel cuts, 3 former colleagues I consider to be both colleagues and friends were needlessly sent packing. They didn't do anything to deserve this... the one on-air person (whom I have referred to in the past on this blog as "Local Talk Host") had good ratings. But now in addition to being lines on a balance sheet, they don't fit within the new CC model of doing things, which is: Fewer local talk shows, no live middays on music stations, and the most unpardonable sin of all: No live evenings on music stations. I used to work the night shift. That is when you connect with your younger audience... time was (and it wasn't that long ago) young people listened to the radio at night, while doing homework, or while out and about with friends. I certainly did when I was young, and I loved the opportunity to interact with people on my night shift. Many night jocks made interaction their thing and were very successful at it... reminding us that it's the connection with the audience that matters in radio and keeps people listening. Even if you don't call in yourself, the fact that you hear others doing it makes you feel like the DJs are talking to YOU.

Speaking of nights and human costs... Cumulus laid off Jim Ladd. Jim freaking Ladd! Los Angeles rock radio royalty, the man who kept the original spirit of free-form FM rock radio alive for so many years after consultants and corporate edicts banished it from the airwaves. Ladd is the guy Tom Petty sings about in "The Last DJ"... "Who plays what he wants to play and says what he wants to say." Now, nobody plays songs especially for you on KLOS in Los Angeles at night, and if there isn't going to be anyone there in Los Angeles, what are the odds that anyone's going to be there in Columbus, Georgia or Peoria, Illinois? Also let go from Cumulus Los Angeles, Howard Hoffman... another true original of music radio, the guy behind the infamous "Nine" tape, a terrific DJ in his own right in the late 70s on WPIX-FM and WABC in New York. These are legends, getting flushed down the drain so that these executives can make their lenders happy... for another 5 minutes.

See, the problem is these moves only save the day temporarily. Lew Dickey at Cumulus, after seeing companies going belly-up for overmerging in recent years, actually thought that one more merger would prop up stock prices! How STUPID do you have to be to believe that would honestly happen? So to get his sweetheart deal, the banks told him to make $50 million in "savings" from the new combined Cumulus-Citadel. Where do you think those "savings" come from? Uh huh, on-air talent's salaries. So they are only beginning to slash and burn, and I know people who work for those newly acquired stations, and I fear their heads will roll soon as well. And Clear Channel? They can cut all they want... and some fear that CC's "Final Solution" is to wipe out everyone who is local, and ultimately run their 850 stations (more than that if you count the "Aloha Trust" stations that they still operate) with a minimal number of nationally syndicated personalities, all from one master control in Cincinnati. But in the end, they STILL will not make those multi-billion dollar debt payments, because they will NEVER generate enough profit to pull it off. And then what happens? Bankruptcy? Liquidation? Heritage stations' transmitters getting shut off, possibly never to be turned back on?

You just have to feel now that radio doesn't listen to us anymore. We listen to radio, but it doesn't listen to us, the public, whom the FCC mandates they are supposed to serve. The last time Clear Channel slashed positions, I wrote a terse demand on Twitter, asking that for the good of the radio industry and the public it serves, that CC declare bankruptcy NOW. At least maybe now, they could get decent asking prices for their stations and not be pressed into bargain basement, everything-must-go mode that would send prospective radio investors (assuming there are any out there) fleeing like mice. But with Bob Pittman at the helm (and boy, is the reputation of the man who gave us MTV getting flushed down the crapper for this), apparently the mood at CC (and indeed at Cumulus) is to go down with the ship. Meanwhile, we are silenced. We the people are silenced. All in the name of... well, I can't even call it corporate greed anymore, maybe that's what it was in the late 90s when the buying spree happened, but now it's just corporate egos refusing to give up when there is every indication that they should for the greater good.

Does this rhetoric sound familiar? It should. It's exactly what you hear from Occupy Wall Street. But while they go after their choice targets, they ignore radio. Why? Probably because radio is part of that "evil corporate media" that they hate so much, and why should they feel sorry for people losing their jobs there? But if they want the media to change its ways, they have to demand it, and they have to do so first and foremost by demanding that these large corporate radio owners give the public their airwaves back. After all, according to the FCC and many Supreme Court decisions, the airwaves BELONG TO THE PUBLIC.

So, I issue the following challenge to the Occupy movement: If you really stand for the common American and for giving voice to the "silent majority", MARCH ON CLEAR CHANNEL AND CUMULUS. I realize that might be difficult to do in a lot of cities, because in many cases, the radio giants have retreated to nice, suburban office parks, but I also know that there are some cities (such as Syracuse) where a march would not require going very far. And Occupy San Antonio should be marching on Clear Channel corporate headquarters REGARDLESS of how far away it is. I would advocate the same of Occupy Atlanta and Cumulus, but unfortunately, the mayor of Atlanta shut that protest down. Still, this is something that needs to happen. Bring the nation's attention to the fact that they are being silenced.

Do that, and I might actually support you... regardless of how disorganized and way too far to the Left you appear to be. I will even delete my iHeartRadio app, even though it means I can't listen to many of my favorite radio stations anymore.

State of the Tube 2011

My fellow TV-loving Americans, the time has come for me to conduct my annual review of what is worth watching and what is not. As the new fall season is in full swing, and a couple of shows have already fallen by the wayside ("Playboy Club" and "Free Agents", we hardly knew ye... because we barely watched ye), it is time once again for me to give my annual State of the Tube Address. The way this works is I run through what I have reviewed and decided to add to my weekly repertoire of must-watch shows... and by that, I mean must-watch via DVR because I am a grad student and have absolutely NO time to watch anything live anymore.

Let's start with Sunday night, the way the good lord intended. It appears that "The Simpsons" may call it a day after this season, and if so, let's commend the creators and talent of this show for putting together 23 seasons of comedy, a feat never before seen on American network television and likely to never be seen again. That said, I don't really watch that show anymore because the show just lost the freshness it had in its early years, which I guess is understandable when you've been on for over two decades. The only Sunday show worth my viewing time right now is still Fox's "Family Guy", which has pumped out two really good (if exceedingly warped) episodes to start the new season. Now, it's gone for a few weeks for baseball playoffs, but hopefully it picks up where it left off in November.

Monday night brings us "How I Met Your Mother" on CBS, still chugging along in its 7th season, and finally starting to give us pieces of how Ted actually WILL meet his kids' mother. Now will it happen this season? Who the hell knows. The creators of this show have done so well stringing us along for 6 years; as long as they continue to give us welcome side distractions like the "Duck Tie", we probably won't care. Most of the attention on the CBS Monday lineup has been focused on "Two and a Half Men", since Charlie Sheen had his whole "winning" ordeal and got replaced by Ashton Kutcher. I've never found the show interesting or funny, so I couldn't care less, and the show that follows, "2 Broke Girls", is completely and totally unfunny.

Tuesday used to be an off night for TV watching for me, but Fox pulled me back in with "New Girl". The show has great writing, a hilarious cast... and Zooey Deschanel. Watching her character, "Jess", is like watching an amalgamation of various close women friends of mine, emphasizing their most attractive personality quirks... and Ms. Deschanel is, of course, quite easy on the eyes. Nice move by Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie fame locking that one down. During the baseball playoffs, Fox is giving it added exposure by shifting it to Wednesday at 9:30, and I hope that it doesn't lose steam from being positioned against ABC's stellar Wednesday lineup (which I will get to shortly). I gave the new CW thriller "Ringer" a shot, because it's always great to see Sarah Michelle Gellar back on television. However, this show failed the "two episode" test. I tend to give a new show two episodes to grow on me, because if it has a very strong pilot, then you want to see if the writers put everything into the pilot and ran out of steam afterward... and in this case, they did. By the end of the 2nd episode, I found myself quickly losing interest. Fortunately, NBC's "Parenthood" has not lost any steam in its 3rd season. Still perhaps the best ensemble cast on television, and they tackle so many real stories on that show, most notably the struggles of Adam and Kristina Braverman to raise a son with Asperger's Syndrome.

Wednesday night is owned by ABC. They have put together an awesome lineup of television on that night. "The Middle" continues to make me laugh hysterically; the Heck family's quirky Indiana mishaps have not lost an ounce of charm. I have yet to watch "Suburgatory", but it's in a prime spot of real estate, like the shows that used to run on NBC in the 8:30 Thursday slot between "Friends" and "Seinfeld". "Modern Family" won a pile of Emmys a few weeks ago, and they continue to show why every single week. The writing on that show is consistently brilliant; this show single-handedly brought back the family sitcom genre, and it is easily the best show on television. Not that the show after it, "Happy Endings", is a slouch... this new sitcom that debuted back in the spring is also laugh-out-loud funny, and has a tremendous cast including Damon Wayans, Jr., Elisha Cuthbert, and the manically hilarious Casey Wilson, whose talents I thought were wasted during her short run on "Saturday Night Live".

If that wasn't good enough, ABC placed the new hit drama "Revenge" at 10:00 and it's already wowing everyone, myself included. This show more than passed the "two episode" test for me. Emily Van Camp is one hell of an actress, and not too bad looking either (I loves me them Canadian actresses)... each episode reveals just how elaborately her character has constructed this devious plot to bring down the people who ruined her father's life. Anyone who wants to see the "evil rich" get theirs probably enjoys this show big time. The only other show worth mentioning on Wednesday nights actually comes from the other side of the pond... BBC America's "The Hour". This show blends the retro-cool of "Mad Men" with the spy intrigue of a Bond movie... and the sexual tension between Freddie and Bel recalls the best of Mulder and Scully from "The X-Files". Unfortunately, the British sometimes only make 6-8 episodes of a series, so the last episode of "The Hour" has already aired, but if you can catch it on demand or the reruns, definitely do so.

That brings us to Thursdays... yes, I admit to watching "The Vampire Diaries". I make no apologies for it. It's got great writing, suspense, a good dash of gory violence, and yes, teenage romantic angst. I'm told the show sticks to the books from which it emerged pretty well, which apparently has not been the case with "True Blood". My other go-to show on Thursdays is FX's "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia". The gang from Paddy's Pub is still the craziest bunch of sociopaths on television, and every time you find yourself saying, "Did they really just DO that?" you have to remind yourself what show your watching, and then realize, "Ah, yes, coming from these guys, I can believe that..." However, "Always Sunny" will have some interesting competition in that Thursday 10pm slot in a few weeks, when MTV brings back "Beavis & Butthead". Yes, America's two favorite 90s slackers are back, and if the trailer is any indication, they pick up right where they left off, skewering current-day pop culture in much the same way they did way back when. I'll have to start DVR'ing both...

Friday night is "Fringe" Night. Fox moved the sci-fi show there last year, and many feared the move would kill the show, but it kept right on shocking us and reeling us in, particularly at the end of last season when Peter Bishop was (literally) wiped out of existence. How they bring him back is guaranteed to be yet another of the many WTF moments this show has brought us in the past few years.

So, there you have it... I care not about the "X-Factor" or "The Sing-off" (even though it has Ben Folds and Sara Bareilles as judges), nor "Dancing With the Stars" or any other dumb reality show, so of the scripted shows that are out there, the ones above are the ones I think are worth watching. Now there are many I haven't gotten into or had a chance to watch, both new and returning, but hey, I'm not a professional TV critic, I'm a 3rd-year doctoral student who is soon to be facing qualifying exams and a dissertation, so cut me a little slack. "30 Rock" returns in January for what may well be its last good season (as Alec Baldwin will be leaving after this year), "Mad Men" also returns next year, and I'm sure more surprises will come out of the woodwork like "Happy Endings" did last spring. That's what keeps us coming back faithfully to our televisions (or Hulu). Thankfully, TV, unlike radio, doesn't have a major content problem.

Thank you, good night, and god bless television.

If You Want Something Done Right...

Not too long ago, Michael Smerconish (syndicated talk show host) wrote that our paralyzed government may not be able to do anything to put people back to work and get us out of our economic difficulties. The jobs bill proposed by the president is stalled in Congress over the usual differences... Democrats want more spending and higher taxes, Republicans want less of both. If nothing passes the Congress by the holidays, it's doubtful anything will pass before the next election because who wants to try to pass anything contentious in an election year?

Meanwhile, corporations continue to not hire because of the "economic uncertainty". Well, I've got news for you guys... it's not very likely that you're going to get anything that makes the situation more "certain" for quite some time. So, it's all on you. But Smerconish seems to think that even that is not likely. He suggests that we may have to fix this ourselves. I could not agree more. We need to find our own way out of this economic mess, one struggling household at a time, making the right decisions to benefit themselves (and maybe by extension, those around them).

And not by protesting. I'm sorry to pour cold water on the Left (am I?), but Occupy Wall Street is not the beginning of a revolution. It's a bunch of 20-something sons and daughters of privilege who have nothing better to do with their time, and are, quite frankly, starved for attention. How else do you explain the fact that despite a disproportionate share of media attention devoted to these people (mostly because they're in NYC), they spend half their time complaining about a perceived lack of media coverage? And of course, their supporters have immediately started in with the elitist opinions... if you don't like what they're doing, you're obviously too stupid to understand it. Uh, no... I'm not too stupid, I understand completely why they are protesting... I just don't happen to agree with what they're doing and think it is energy that could be channeled in different ways.

Also, they apparently don't care about any business-owners, small or big. According to the Huffington Post, the businesses adjacent to the park where the protestors are camped out are suffering because their customer base does not want to navigate through the crowds. The protestors themselves have vandalized the businesses, use them only for freebies and to charge their phones, refuse to buy anything, and berate the employees. Apparently, they cannot tell suffering small businesses from the major corporations that may deserve their wrath. As this has now spawned similar "occupations" in other cities, I can only hope that the people protesting there are a little more hospitable toward the struggling mom-and-pops that need the most help in this economy.

And STOP saying you are the "99 percent". I get that you are protesting against the mythical "richest 1%" (many of whom have appealed to the president to raise their taxes and really should escape scrutiny), but do not make it sound like the rest of the population are with you and agree with your demands. Truth is, it's likely more like 23%. The usual 23%. The same 23% that still like to revisit Bush v. Gore on occasion, even though it's now 11 years in the past.

The next thing I say is going to piss off the Left even more, but it's true... this is the same "grass roots" bubbling of activity that produced the Tea Party. Two years ago, everyone was pissed at Congress and corporations and the president, so they decided the answer was libertarianism... but the movement was hijacked by the Right and its Christian and corporate kingpins. Now, everyone is more pissed at Congress and corporations and the president, so they're deciding the answer is... well, whatever it is these protestors want. And this movement will be hijacked by the Democratic Party as a means of channeling support to the president and the effort to retake the House. Unlike the Tea Party, I don't foresee ultra-Left "Occupy Wall Street" candidates running for office next year, but it's not like Nancy Pelosi needs to be pushed to the Left like John Boehner has been pushed to the Right. In the end, you'll once again end up with an uber-liberal Left on one side, a reactionary Right on the other side (responding to this burst of Left-wing activity), and NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

The reality is that the Dems will co-opt this movement. The fear is that some of the black-clad, handkerchief-covering-mouth types who like to attend G8 protests (and the occasional Stanley Cup-deciding hockey game) will infiltrate these protests and turn it into a Seattle-style orgy of smashed shop windows and cops beating every head they can reach with their batons. I hope to hell that does not happen.

Change will occur when the angry protests and demonstrations come from MODERATES. Therefore, it's on us - the majority of Americans whose politics lay in the center - to let corporations and government know that we won't take it anymore. And it doesn't take an occupation to accomplish it. Here's one thing you can do: support small businesses, because they WILL create jobs if their profit margins increase, even if Corporate America will not. Because they are small enough to listen to you, the consumer, with whom they deal everyday. And as part of that, if you know of a company raking in billions in profits but laying off thousands, DON'T do business with them anymore. Vote with your feet. Think other people won't do it? Well, that's fine, but don't let that discourage YOU from doing what you feel is right. See, it's the same logic as these protests, just channeled in a more immediate way, and something we all can do as part of our everyday routine, which makes it a lot easier to be done en masse.

Another suggestion, one inspired by today's sad news... We just lost Steve Jobs, and as billboards like to tell us, Jobs and Bill Gates started their corporate empires during a recession, just like the one we're in now. Now is the time to take chances. If you have the next big idea, go for it. Jobs' passing should really remind us about the power that good ideas combined with initiative will accomplish. And along those lines, if there are other ways you think you can help the economy and push businesses to create jobs, get out there and do it! You've got nothing to lose, really. Sure a few thousand loud, angry voices on Wall Street will generate a lot of attention, but the silent efforts of millions will really bring about change.

Sports Shorts 2011

The Mets have concluded another losing season. Frustrated? You bet I am. I thought that sweeping out all of the things that were dragging down the franchise (Jerry Manuel, Omar Minaya, the bloated contracts, the players who didn't give a shit) and bringing in fresh blood with good track records would put things back on track. I don't doubt that Sandy Alderson is a good baseball man, and that J.P. Ricciardi and Paul DePodesta are smart guys as well (and I will get around to seeing "Moneyball" one of these days), but their first major decision was not a good one, and it's determining how the team does now and, well, through 2013 apparently.

Hiring Terry Collins was a bad move. Sure, it looked good for about 5 months when everyone was proclaiming how great he and the team were doing "in the face of everything the team has had to deal with." Then, with about 20 games to go... the team invoked the ghosts of Septembers past. Here's the damning evidence, in case you needed reminding (and I certainly didn't):

2006: 15-15 (the prelude to the October heartaches that would follow)
2007: 14-14 (a little misleading... they started 9-2 and were riding high going into those last 17 games)
2008: 13-12 (again, misleading... they started the month 7-3 before Collapse II)
2009: 11-20
2010: 14-16
2011: 12-16 (7-14 in the last 21 games)

A frustrated Collins went to the press in the last week of the season and complained that his team had quit. Well, isn't it HIS responsibility to do something about that? Now I understand that this team has had a lot to deal with this year... most notably the finances and the continuing fallout from Irving Picard's attempt to take the Wilpons for every cent they have. They also had to deal with Wilpon trashing the team in the New Yorker, Jose Reyes' impending free agency, the trade of Carlos Beltran, and lots of injuries... Ike Davis' season ended in May, Reyes missed chunks of the season, David Wright missed 2 months, Daniel Murphy's season ended early, and Johan Santana's attempt to come back from arm surgery this year faltered. Through that all, the team kept hitting, found young players who were eager to contribute... and that wasn't good enough.

Why? Culprit #1: the pitching. Dillon Gee was a revelation, and had a fine rookie season, but he hit the wall just before the All-Star Break, finishing a pedestrian 6-6 after his red-hot 7-0 start. R.A. Dickey was a hard-luck loser, the only Mets starter who seemed to not get any run support; at one point, he was 5-11 before finishing 8-12 with a solid 3.28 ERA. Chris Capuano put up the numbers you would expect from a #5 starter (11-12, 4.55 ERA). After that, it gets ugly. Jonathan Niese's development stalled, his numbers looking more like Capuano's than a guy who was counted on to be a solid #2 going into the season. Mike Pelfrey imploded, going from a 15-game winner in 2010 to 7-13 with an ERA a full run higher in 2011. Pelf went from #1-by-default with Santana out to someone who could be pushed for the #5 spot in the rotation next spring. The bullpen was horrible, especially after Francisco Rodriguez was traded in Milwaukee. DJ Carrasco could not get anyone out (6.02 ERA)... and yet, Collins kept putting him in games. Bobby Parnell and Jason Isringhausen were iffy at best as closers.

All too often, the Mets' offense were asked to outscore its opponents, and when you have to do that, you're not likely to win more than you lose. The solution is obvious: Fire pitching coach Dan Warthen. The pitching staff was 13th in the league in ERA, playing its home games in a VERY pitcher-friendly park. But that's not going to happen. Collins believes that the poor pitching was because we don't have a lot of pitching talent, and that Warthen really "gets the most out of his pitchers." Yeah... the most runs allowed, the most losses, the most walks...

So we have a manager who can't control his team and refuses to blame his pitching coach for having a godawful pitching staff. Reyes, the Mets' first-ever NL batting champ, is a free agent. The attempt to sell part of the team to David Einhorn fell apart, making it all the more likely that the Mets will be unable to pay for Reyes or, well, anyone on the market this offseason. Last year at this time, I was optimistic that with the right people in charge, the Mets could bounce back. Now, I feel like the losing is going to continue for the foreseeable future. Yes, we have a good young nucleus (Gee, Justin Turner, Davis, Josh Thole, Lucas Duda, Ruben Tejada) and some solid veterans (Wright, Dickey, Angel Pagan)... but we also have Jason Bay, and Wright had another lousy season this year, and Pagan's numbers fell off this year. We also still have awful pitching, although Santana's return next year should help. Most of all, you just have a sense of a franchise that is adrift and not making any strides to get better, with a manager who has never won more than 85 games in a season. Meanwhile, every other team in the NL East is poised to be better than us in 2012. Depressing times, indeed.

As for those teams that are actually good enough to be in the playoffs (sorry, Boston... and Atlanta... actually, I'm not sorry for you, Atlanta), Tampa is riding their wave of momentum to an early lead over Texas in their ALDS, but that can only last so long, and the Rangers are still the Rangers. The Yankees dodged a bullet with the postponement tomorrow night... now they only have to face Verlander for an extended period once. Your ALCS this year will be the same as the ALCS last year: Rangers-Yankees. The Phillies could have folded up the tents at 3-0 in the 1st inning tonight against the red-hot Cardinals, but they bounced back big time. The Cards did pound the Phils a couple weeks ago, so this won't be an easy series, but the Phillies will prevail. The Brewers jumped out to a 1-0 lead in their series with Arizona, and with their ridiculous home record and dominant bullpen, they should be able to advance. Your World Series? Yanks-Phils. 2009 rematch. The winner proves that their fans can talk the talk and their team can back it up... the loser earns the right to have the entire baseball world laughing at them for the entire offseason (when they're not laughing at the Red Sox and Braves, that is).

One final note... As some time has now passed since the stunning news came out about Syracuse and Pitt jumping from the Big East to the ACC, what I'm going to say here probably has been said previously by everyone from commentators to fans to Jim Boeheim. However, this is my space to say what I feel about things, so I need to get this out. I can believe that SU made its move because the Big East failed to act swiftly enough to ensure its stability as a BCS football conference. Let's face it... football moves these decisions, nothing else. Daryl Gross wants SU football to stay relevant, and to do so, they have to be in a BCS conference, not one that slides to mid-major status while retaining its hoops dominance. So here we are, and it's tough because all I know is Syracuse in the Big East, and there's all that history, football as well as basketball. It's a new era in college sports, and as we all know, it's driven by the almighty dollar, so we're just gonna have to get used to it. I think we can all agree, though, that the next 2 years are going to be a little awkward while we run out the clock on Big East membership.