1. (and by far the biggest reason) - Espn built their model on charging insane rates to have ESPN in cable packages and they were on almost every cable TV package. They did this by buying up major sports so that any sports fan had to have ESPN to reasonably follow their sport of choice. Overpaying for sports only works when you can make it back up in subscriber fees, which is no longer the case. As people have cut the cord they are losing subscribers and revenue just from cable subscriptions to the tune of 100 million dollars a month.

2. There is a ton more on TV these days. I have had to cut off shows I really like and not start shows that come highly recommended because of the number of TV shows that are on that I really like and try to watch weekly. DVR, Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Streaming, etc... you don't have to flip channels to find something...there is almost always something you can watch that you want to watch more than the ESPN filler tv. I used to watch a ton of ESPN but it was almost always "It's better than anything else on right now." The way TV works these days that just isn't the case unless it is live TV. I watch almost no ESPN unless it is live sports and I think huge amounts of people are there with me.

EVERYTHING AFTER THIS IS WAY DOWN THE LIST....

There may be other excused people give for not watching ESPN, some even legitimate. Obnoxious, hot take driven, personalities, too much influence on sports leagues and college sports, treatment of their personal team, some people on the network don't agree with your politics, but all in all these reasons are exacerbated by the market drive forces of 1 and 2. There are other options to cable which kills subscriber fees and there is always something better you can watch.

(04-26-2017 01:26 PM)cpawfan Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 01:16 PM)Banter Wrote:  I'm not sure anything could "sound" more Cincinnati than thinking ESPN is "too liberal."

Actually it is a pretty well covered topic across the US.

Outkick the coverage has been reporting on it for quite some time
Latest http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-f...day-042617

ESPN admits they are going to be more political
http://www.espn.com/blog/ombudsman/post/...e-for-espn

If you can't see/hear the slant in their politics, then you have a problem. ESPN made a huge story out of the transition of the 1976 Olympic Decathlon gold medal winner. I won't bother going into Michael Sam and Colin Kaepernick.

Can't say I have watched much ESPN since the Big East breakup,and now I only watch UC football & Basketball so I don't have a great idea of what is going on. and while I admit they do lean to the left it is far less egregious than other media outlets. I'm not sure how Jenner, Sam and that NBA player would not be big news for ESPN considering their stories. Sexuality and gender are still "taboo" topics in the USA, and those will continue to be stories till people gain acceptance.

Colin Kaepernick was just hilarious, but he turned it into a comedy of errors, and I could see how that could get annoying.

(04-27-2017 07:08 AM)kyucat Wrote:  I would like to think that one reason for the ESPN cable cutting is a some what a result of talking about the same schools ad nausea. the fans of the other 60 G5 schools who get little or no coverage get tired of hearing about Alabama etc etc, You know the teams. There is really no reason to tune in ESPN because there G5 teams or conference will not be talked about. ESPN off season coverage is just about 15 schools mostly from the SEC, Big 10nand ACC which now have there own network which covers teams in there league. So why subscribe to espn when you have your own network. I tend to think espn has cannibalized it self by adding these competing networks where they may receive a smaller cut if any from them.
Of course we all know espn paid way to much money to those 5 conferences while short changing other schools. Even the TV ratings are tilted. We all know that watching Northwestern, Purdue, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Kentucky football games put the nation on the edge of our seats. ESPN has created its own monster and it killing them. My thoughts what is yours.

The funny thing is that I know tOSU fans who don't watch ESPN because they feel they don't get enough respect and think the network is too focused on the SEC and ACC. When I lived in Columbus, Mark May and Collin Cowherd (he was with ESPN at the time) were probably more hated than just about anyone.

It also dips into the professional sports. Its great coverage if you are a fan of the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Cowboys, Patriots, Jets, Lakers and Cavs... everyone else not so much.

I realize ESPN is just trying to capture the attention of the largest markets and fan bases, but tuning out whole chunks of the country is not a good business model.

Andy Katz gets the axe

Seth Greenberg‏Verified account @SethOnHoops · 2h2 hours ago

The best teammate I ever worked with was let go yesterday. @ESPNAndyKatz is incredibly talented & the most genuine & sincere person I know.

(04-26-2017 12:53 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:33 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 10:52 AM)AeroCat Wrote:  Link

How does ESPN struggling affect realignment or the next AAC TV contract?

I've been bamboozled for awhile at the folks over at the conference board who think we are gonna get a payraise come next TV contract. The quality of play and addition of Wichita certainly warrant it, however, ESPN simply cannot afford to pay "big bucks" to another conference.

The exodus of subscribers is only going to make it worse next time around.

I agree with Geef, I'm thinking we may be the first conference to go the full streaming service route in some form, i.e. Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, or Hulu. I'm not exactly well versed in contract negotiations however, so I could be spewing BS.

I suspect that the "next" contract will likely be in the range of the current contract, but with a modest "bump." (Depending on whose figures you use, right now we're getting a base media deal of between $2-$4 MM/year...) The conference content does GO UP with Navy and Wichita State...those were good moves by the Conference to shore up it's negotiating position. But I agree with you that the money, by ESPN, simply isn't there. I also agree with BC#1 that you need a competing network to get into a "Bidding War" with, and barring NBC looking to supplement their Notre Dame deal on the main-line, I don't see any other likely networks. (If we're talking NBCSN/FS1/or CBSSN, and basically similar $$$ amounts, you have to weigh out the exposure you get from ESPN...and I can't see a second-banana offer from Fox or CBS being much more than the second-banana offer we have from ESPN...)

The issue with streaming platforms is PRODUCTION. The transmission is one thing, but the production values have to be weighed here too. From cameras, to mixing, to "on-the-air" call-crews...someone has to produce the product to be transmitted. Now, ESPN hasn't done much for us since the BE-football days, but you still have to find someone to produce the game if you want people to watch it.

That's one thing the Networks give you that isn't really easily replaced.

Everyone always argues the exposure between ESPN and FS1. I don't pay much attention to the football recruiting but I keep up to date on the basketball side. This "amazing" ESPN exposure has landed the AAC 0 top 100 players for the 2017 season. The big easts "horrible" exposure on FS1 has landed them 11 top 100 players for 2017. FS1 will continue to grow now that they have B1G games to air.

How the h*ll has the SC6 crew survived this and they axe Katz and Dana O'Neil?

Kiss my ass ESPN..and get ready to hunt for stations that carry UC games

I agree with a lot that has been said here I use to have espn on as back ground noise when doing things now I hardly ever watch it not enough actual sports to much political stuff if I want to hear that I would watch the news and some of the people like Steven A Smith just get on my nerves

(04-27-2017 08:04 AM)Spinal070508 Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:53 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:33 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 10:52 AM)AeroCat Wrote:  Link

How does ESPN struggling affect realignment or the next AAC TV contract?

I've been bamboozled for awhile at the folks over at the conference board who think we are gonna get a payraise come next TV contract. The quality of play and addition of Wichita certainly warrant it, however, ESPN simply cannot afford to pay "big bucks" to another conference.

The exodus of subscribers is only going to make it worse next time around.

I agree with Geef, I'm thinking we may be the first conference to go the full streaming service route in some form, i.e. Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, or Hulu. I'm not exactly well versed in contract negotiations however, so I could be spewing BS.

I suspect that the "next" contract will likely be in the range of the current contract, but with a modest "bump." (Depending on whose figures you use, right now we're getting a base media deal of between $2-$4 MM/year...) The conference content does GO UP with Navy and Wichita State...those were good moves by the Conference to shore up it's negotiating position. But I agree with you that the money, by ESPN, simply isn't there. I also agree with BC#1 that you need a competing network to get into a "Bidding War" with, and barring NBC looking to supplement their Notre Dame deal on the main-line, I don't see any other likely networks. (If we're talking NBCSN/FS1/or CBSSN, and basically similar $$$ amounts, you have to weigh out the exposure you get from ESPN...and I can't see a second-banana offer from Fox or CBS being much more than the second-banana offer we have from ESPN...)

The issue with streaming platforms is PRODUCTION. The transmission is one thing, but the production values have to be weighed here too. From cameras, to mixing, to "on-the-air" call-crews...someone has to produce the product to be transmitted. Now, ESPN hasn't done much for us since the BE-football days, but you still have to find someone to produce the game if you want people to watch it.

That's one thing the Networks give you that isn't really easily replaced.

Everyone always argues the exposure between ESPN and FS1. I don't pay much attention to the football recruiting but I keep up to date on the basketball side. This "amazing" ESPN exposure has landed the AAC 0 top 100 players for the 2017 season. The big easts "horrible" exposure on FS1 has landed them 11 top 100 players for 2017. FS1 will continue to grow now that they have B1G games to air.

I am not so sure the exposure has anything to do with the difference in recruiting between the two conferences. The Big East brand is stronger than the AAC-- particularly in hoops. Moreover, there are better recruits in the BE's backyard (NYC, NJ, Philly, Maryland/DC/North VA, etc. vs. Houston, Tampa, Tulsa, etc.). Finally, your team's conference has better coaching than the AAC.

(04-27-2017 08:04 AM)Spinal070508 Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 12:53 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:33 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 10:52 AM)AeroCat Wrote:  Link

How does ESPN struggling affect realignment or the next AAC TV contract?

I've been bamboozled for awhile at the folks over at the conference board who think we are gonna get a payraise come next TV contract. The quality of play and addition of Wichita certainly warrant it, however, ESPN simply cannot afford to pay "big bucks" to another conference.

The exodus of subscribers is only going to make it worse next time around.

I agree with Geef, I'm thinking we may be the first conference to go the full streaming service route in some form, i.e. Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, or Hulu. I'm not exactly well versed in contract negotiations however, so I could be spewing BS.

I suspect that the "next" contract will likely be in the range of the current contract, but with a modest "bump." (Depending on whose figures you use, right now we're getting a base media deal of between $2-$4 MM/year...) The conference content does GO UP with Navy and Wichita State...those were good moves by the Conference to shore up it's negotiating position. But I agree with you that the money, by ESPN, simply isn't there. I also agree with BC#1 that you need a competing network to get into a "Bidding War" with, and barring NBC looking to supplement their Notre Dame deal on the main-line, I don't see any other likely networks. (If we're talking NBCSN/FS1/or CBSSN, and basically similar $$$ amounts, you have to weigh out the exposure you get from ESPN...and I can't see a second-banana offer from Fox or CBS being much more than the second-banana offer we have from ESPN...)

The issue with streaming platforms is PRODUCTION. The transmission is one thing, but the production values have to be weighed here too. From cameras, to mixing, to "on-the-air" call-crews...someone has to produce the product to be transmitted. Now, ESPN hasn't done much for us since the BE-football days, but you still have to find someone to produce the game if you want people to watch it.

That's one thing the Networks give you that isn't really easily replaced.

Everyone always argues the exposure between ESPN and FS1. I don't pay much attention to the football recruiting but I keep up to date on the basketball side. This "amazing" ESPN exposure has landed the AAC 0 top 100 players for the 2017 season. The big easts "horrible" exposure on FS1 has landed them 11 top 100 players for 2017. FS1 will continue to grow now that they have B1G games to air.

I wasn't trying to argue about the Big East... If Fox picks up the AAC, it'll be as a secondary property (The Big East and the B12 are their primary). So the question becomes, if the money is close or the same, which are you better served being on...Fox or ESPN?

At this moment (and it could well change), I think the "push" still goes to ESPN. ESPN still has more market coverage and generally better production values. Assuming the AAC is going to fill a "secondary" or even a tertiary property slot behind one (or more) of the Power conferences, you have to look at some of the lesser-tangible qualities. If Fox Sports has a BE or B12 on their primary network, do you want to get slid to the second channel? I'd argue that at least ESPN2 is still in the ESPN family...

But things can and do change. If Fox Sports takes advantage of some of the talent ESPN is laying off they could easily bolster their network offerings.

I just don't see the AAC being any network's prime property. We're filler. If NBC were to pick up the contract, it would be secondary to Notre Dame and when ND is playing, the AAC game would be on Versus or whatever the NBCSN channel is called. If it's ABC-ESPN, we're third fiddle behind pretty much everyone and we're playing on ESPN2/ESPNews/ESPN Desportes, ESPN3 etc... If CBS picks up the contract, we're behind the SEC and the majority of games will be on the CBSSN. It is what it is.

So you have to look at who will give you the best exposure, sometimes.

As long as all of the AAC games are on the Fox Network and I don't have to hold streaming subscriptions to ESPN, FOX Sports, and CBS Sports at once, I will happily watch on Fox Networks and will never watch ESPN again.

(04-26-2017 03:48 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 01:52 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 01:42 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  This isn't a trend unique to ESPN. It's the diluting of cable viewership and the cord cutting from many. If ESPN was the only station having these issues I'd buy the political BS. It's not. ESPN needing to readjust its business model has been obvious to anyone who follows the direction that TV is going.

The Right Wing Attack dogs love to call anyone who stands up for minority rights SJWs and love to bring it into every type of conversation regardless of what is going on. Newsflash... it's not right wing people bailing on ESPN. People like me watch far less than ever before as well. too many better alternatives out there unless we are talking live sports. I'd rather DVR the many great episodes of TV off many stations... or hell like many other people on the left I know, cut the cord altogether.

Mark I think you have developed an instinct while posting on this board to over defend the left. My social beliefs are incredibly liberal but to deny that people who are tuning in expecting sports talk and instead getting social/political talk rammed down their throat has not led to a decline in viewership is ridiculous. Hell I'll even stay away from social and political stuff, I got tired of turning on sportscenter and seeing 15 minutes of make a wish bull ****. It's great that players are doing charitable things like that but I honestly don't give a ****. I want sports. It's pretty simple.

I'm sorry, but the default on this board is to immediately blame anything and everything on the mythical "left." As someone who has voted for major candidates in both major political parties (including voting republican for president in the primary in the desperate hopes of having a presidential candidate I felt good about and in the Ohio Senate Race this past election) it cracks me up reading the constant attack on the left on this board and then me get called out when I don't want to make everything about politics. It's easy to come off as a lefty when the constant refrain on the board is anti government and everything (education, science, media, hell now sports media) is some vast left wing conspiracy.

I started this, let me further explain my point of view. I love sports like most here; it also serves as escapism for me. I would feel the same way if a networks commentators were talking about investment, 401K options or fiduciary responsibilities.

I turn into sports programming for ... ***SPORTS***

(04-27-2017 07:35 AM)Banter Wrote:  Can't say I have watched much ESPN since the Big East breakup,and now I only watch UC football & Basketball so I don't have a great idea of what is going on. and while I admit they do lean to the left it is far less egregious than other media outlets. I'm not sure how Jenner, Sam and that NBA player would not be big news for ESPN considering their stories. Sexuality and gender are still "taboo" topics in the USA, and those will continue to be stories till people gain acceptance.

Sexuality is flaunted openly, most people don't give a ****. Gender is being stretched to the point of meaninglessness. I think a lot of folks are being forced to more traditionalistic and conservative ways of thinking by the constant preaching we hear in media, politics and academia. It's funny... the sof called liberals of this country remind me of the Christian right of the 90's. Moralist retards. We have an entitlement culture, that's because in a corporatist nation, what satisfies our immediate desires is profitable and well liked by the elite. Everybody wants to hear nice things about themselves. A hedonistic, dumbed down society in which everyone is great and nobody needs to feel bad about themselves. Unless they're white and have a dick, because somebody's grand parents treated members of a particular minority(who's also probably dead at this point anyway)badly.

Despite the fact this is just as racist as the events and culture people are feigning outrage about, we're still expected to care. I don't think this paradigm can continue, as the baby boomers die out and their cultural appropriation dies with them, things are going to drastically change. The wonderful thing about the internet, is it's actually making people more tribal and insular. This bubbling conflict in the country affords the entrepreneurial among us certain opportunities.

Quote:How do you replace the irreplaceable? My thank you to Andy Katz

By Jon Rothstein
Posted on Apr 27, 2017 MATT A. BROWN/ICON SPORTSWIRE


Where does a column that you never thought you’d ever write begin?

Perhaps with a thank you.

Thank you to Andy Katz for being the pied piper.

Thank you to Andy Katz for being who myself and many others who wanted to get into this business tried to emulate.

And thank you to Andy Katz for most importantly being the person who took the time to help young college basketball reporters when he definitely didn’t have to.

ESPN’s layoffs of nearly 100 different employees on Wednesday ripped many of our insides out over the past 24 hours and also painted a broad sense of reality; nothing is guaranteed in this business.

Unfortunately, I always felt the only guarantee the college basketball media had was Andy Katz on ESPN.

As I was wrapping up college in 2004, I vividly remember watching Andy do a news and notes segment during the NCAA Tournament and told a friend “that’s what I’d like to do one day.”

It’s very rare when you get to meet and develop a relationship with the person you aspired to emulate, but that’s eventually what happened.

I introduced myself to Andy a few months after that when I was working as a freelancer and we’ve kept in touch ever since.

In a business where schadenfreude is more common than anything else, Andy is and was the polar opposite.

He constantly listened.

He constantly encouraged.

He constantly gave sound advice.

And most importantly, he was and is as genuine of a human being as you’re going to meet in your life.

Several times over the past five years, Andy would take time out of his schedule to meet me when I was in Connecticut to offer guidance on what was going on in my career.

Several times when I would leave our meetings, I remember walking to my car and saying, “I can’t believe how nice this guy is and he doesn’t have to be.”

So when I woke up Thursday morning and saw that Andy was involved in Wednesday’s layoffs, I entered a state of shock that I have never endured as a professional.

Having a college basketball season without Andy Katz at the forefront of its coverage is like having another Rocky sequel made and hiring someone other than Sylvester Stallone to play the leading role.

No one knows what the future will hold for Andy, but anyone that’s been around him knows that there’s a plethora of chapters left in his novel.

During a time like this, there isn’t a right thing to say or do.

The only thing to say is thank you.

So one last time, thanks to Andy Katz for setting the bar in our sport as high as you have and taking the time to be a great friend and mentor along the way.

From President Obama to his colleagues at ESPN to the hundreds of college basketball coaches he’s interviewed in the last two decades, Andy always had the innate ability to make the person he was talking with feel beyond comfortable regardless of the situation and did so in the most casual, yet professional manner.

Maya Angelou once said, “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

Andy Katz gave me the hope at a young age that I had a chance to do what I loved for a living and I’ll never forget how that made me feel.

So one last time, thank you.

Jon Rothstein has been a college basketball insider for CBS Sports since 2010 and is the lead college basketball columnist for the FanRag Sports Network. He is also the host of the College Hoops Today Podcast via Compass Media Networks, which is available via iTunes. Rothstein is also a regular in-studio correspondent for both WFAN and CBS Sports Radio. He currently lives in Manhattan.

https://www.fanragsports.com/cbb/replace...andy-katz/

I don't care about ESPN's political leanings one way or another. I don't watch anything outside of live sporting events, and I generally don't care about politics. However, if ESPN is indeed trying to lean to the left, I can't understand why they would expend energy to do that as I think most people who watch ESPN couldn't care less about those stances, or they would be annoyed that they have to watch that in lieu of sports news or programming.

Most people I know haven't quit ESPN or cable because of the political leanings of ESPN - it's because ESPN and cable don't provide enough value in their programming to justify the subscription costs and ESPN refuses to go direct to allow people who are only interested in sports to watch.

(04-27-2017 01:23 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  Sexuality is flaunted openly, most people don't give a ****.

I agree with some of your points, but I don't believe for a second that a majority don't give a ****. While some think Academia and the like are pushing gender identities on us, just remember it was not long ago that science through use of phrenology proved that Africans were sub-human. Things, and our understanding of life, and the human brain change.

(04-27-2017 02:42 PM)Banter Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 01:23 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  Sexuality is flaunted openly, most people don't give a ****.

I agree with some of your points, but I don't believe for a second that a majority don't give a ****. While some think Academia and the like are pushing gender identities on us, just remember it was not long ago that science through use of phrenology proved that Africans were sub-human. Things, and our understanding of life, and the human brain change.

Sorry, but according to modern polling, a majority across all demographics other than black, don't care. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...-marriage/

As far as the use of 19th and early 20th century naturalism with regard to minorities and other races, we've come a-ways.
I don't really see phrenology as relevant to modern science, or a society who has functional MRI and other methods of examining the neurology of a person. I understand your point, our conclusions continue to clear as more data is contributed. Still, science has no place for partisanship or cliques. "This isn't a God damned city council meeting" to reference Reservoir Dogs. What is, is. What isn't, isn't.
The salient point being that science tells us things are objectively true. That reality is not subjective, relativistic or negotiable. Yes, it is unfortunate that people suffer but there's never going to come a point in human history, where everybody gets along with everybody. I don't think that slowing down the class to help the dumb kids, is as impactful as taking the slower learners or the disinterested aside and giving them outside instruction/help. When you do that, you just add their mediocrity to the rest of civilization.


In a survival sense, might is something to be admired, not admonished. We don't harm the less fortunate, we don't go out to maim or kill as was the case during chattel slavery but we also don't kowtow in front of the disenfranchised and pander, like a bunch of butlers and sycophants, in some delusional hope that we can rectify a past mistake. What has happened in prior generations, is in the past. If some folks don't want to let go, that's on them. I don't accept the burden of someone else's sins and if anyone wants to force the issue they can go fornicate with the nearest livestock to them. As a country, most people would never agree to have their potential held back; so as to prop up other people's precious egos and sensitivities. The only society worth living in is a free one. "Live free or die" isn't just some empty mantra or platitude. Our liberty is what makes life worthwhile, it's also the only thing that keeps the population from dragging their elected representatives out of bed at night and massacring their loved ones in front of them.

Less we wish to repeat more recent history, the Murrah building comes to mind.
Just saying...

(04-27-2017 03:05 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  As far as the use of 19th and early 20th century naturalism with regard to minorities and other races, we've come a-ways.
I don't really see phrenology as relevant to modern science, or a society who has functional MRI and other methods of examining the neurology of a person. I understand your point, our conclusions continue to clear as more data is contributed. Still, science has no place for partisanship or cliques. "This isn't a God damned city council meeting" to reference Reservoir Dogs. What is, is. What isn't, isn't.
The salient point being that science tells us things are objectively true. That reality is not subjective, relativistic or negotiable.

The problem with your statement is demonstrated by the very definition of "science":


By its very definition, science is limited to the human scope, will never be all-encompassing due to the infinite nature of universe at a microscopic and macroscopic level, and as a result is - at its very nature - subjective, relativistic, and negotiable. Sure, there are some things that most can agree upon, but we likely have present-day equivalents of 19th and 20th Century phrenology that are being used as proof that a particular element of our existence is the way it is for a certain reason.

Science has done much good for humanity, but has also been invoked in much destruction as well. In two centuries (if we haven't pushed ourselves to extinction), humankind will likely be looking back at today's edition of modern science and scoffing at what we held to be true just as we are today as our ancestors.

(04-27-2017 04:42 PM)crex043 Wrote:  The problem with your statement is demonstrated by the very definition of "science":

noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

By its very definition, science is limited to the human scope,

MMmmm multiple problems I have with that.

Our observations aren't limited to our own faculties, we can appoint any observer, number of observers or variety of observers we feel like. We can have rabbits, chickens, apes, aliens or even robots observe the result of experiments. So no, it's not inherently "human" in scope.
More over, the scientific method is still being applied to new things because science has yet to uncover everything about the universe. That doesn't change the fact that science only works with the spatiotemporal realm, time and space. We live in a finite reality, if it were infinite we wouldn't call it time and space. Both of those things are finite, both of those things are limited in nature and scale. Therefor, there is a finite deal of information contained within. So no, science will not continue to go ad-infinitum. Contrary to what romantics like to say, the universe started as a primeval atom no bigger than a grain of sand. It's finite, not infinite. It's expanding at a vast rate, that's not the same thing as infinity.

As for the general sentiment, I refer to science as the scientific method. Not an institution. Science is observation and experimentation, yes. But only the data therein. The people are irrelevant. Science is not a human institution, science is a methodology.
As for subjectivity, tolerances and laws, aren't like art. You can't just say everything is whatever you like. The computer you're using right now has passive electronic components that can only work when the resistors stay within the tolerance levels dictated by the colored multiplier bands on their ceramic cases. The capacitors wouldn't really be of much use either, if they just held back however much electricity they felt like. If you think there's a lot of variance in these things, pull out your multimeter and check yourself. The laws of nature are the same. If I wish to determine the velocity of an object after it makes impact with something, there's an equation for that. You know why people use it? Because it's not something different for every person, every time.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/a...id=UE09DHP


Back to the original topic, I wish I had that kind of grace in being laid off. Then again, he may well have some massive severance coming his way...