CML got his annual extension...

[Coug95man2]

AND a significant raise for the assistants. Jacob Thorpe is always on top of things:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/may/02/wsu-assistant-football-coaches-receive-raises/

 

[WASH ST A&M FAN]

I appreciate Thorpe's last 2 paragraphs.

It's important to educate that WSU is well below Pac12 standards & showing UW PAYROLLS gives context.

 

[Observer11]

I appreciate Thorpe's last 2 paragraphs.

It's important to educate that WSU is well below Pac12 standards & showing UW PAYROLLS gives context.

It doesn't matter how much the neighbors make if you can't pay your own mortgage.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I appreciate Thorpe's last 2 paragraphs.

It's important to educate that WSU is well below Pac12 standards & showing UW PAYROLLS gives context.

It's great that he gave that information so there is perspective for anyone inclined to yell that we are paying our assistants too much. If anything, outside of WSU winning the conference, I'd like to see Leach's salary remain static for another year or two and allocating even more money to our assistants. He'll let Bill know if it becomes a problem.

 

[Coug95man2]

It doesn't matter how much the neighbors make if you can't pay your own mortgage.

I don't know that anyone is saying to just run up the "credit card" or anything. But it's a good tool to show the public that WSU needs financial support. We need more donors, existing donors need to see if they can give more, we need to try and make more games, etc. etc.

 

[Observer11]

I don't know that anyone is saying to just run up the "credit card" or anything. But it's a good tool to show the public that WSU needs financial support. We need more donors, existing donors need to see if they can give more, we need to try and make more games, etc. etc.

Multiple year deficits say otherwise.

 

[Coug95man2]

Multiple year deficits say otherwise.

Multiple year deficits show we are running up the credit card? Really? Do you have those numbers? I understand we are in debt but that deficit isn't growing, as I understand it.

 

[M-I-Coug]

If anyone has seen what's happening to ESPN, their numbers, their revenue, their layoffs, the Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover story, knows that ESPN is in bad shape. Real bad shape.

Why do I bring this up? I'm concerned about the future of TV revenue.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...e-future-of-tv-and-they-re-not-really-into-it

 

[CougEd]

It doesn't matter how much the neighbors make if you can't pay your own mortgage.

If that is the case we need to be in a different neighborhood.

 

[CPtheCoug]

Multiple year deficits show we are running up the credit card? Really? Do you have those numbers? I understand we are in debt but that deficit isn't growing, as I understand it.

I wonder if those are entirely cash loses (hint they are not).

 

[YakiCoug]

I wonder if those are entirely cash loses (hint they are not).

Ah, another "sky is falling" shriek is about to be resurrected (the aPaulogetic, $600,000 Club sharks; i.e., M-Island, Ediot) see red ink/blood in the waters and they're circling).

 

[Flatlandcoug]

If anyone has seen what's happening to ESPN, their numbers, their revenue, their layoffs, the Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover story, knows that ESPN is in bad shape. Real bad shape.

Why do I bring this up? I'm concerned about the future of TV revenue.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...e-future-of-tv-and-they-re-not-really-into-it

ESPN has multiple problems that they need to figure out and the problem is that the solutions don't work well together.

1) In an attempt to control the delivery of college football, they have overpaid for the product that they are receiving. They are going to have to cut their offers on the next round of contracts with conferences.

2) In order to pay the broadcast rights fees that they've agreed to, they need to keep their prices high. Unfortunately, a lot of people just don't care enough about watching sports to pay the fees that ESPN needs to charge. So they need to cut their fee to cable networks, but that further hampers Item #1.

3) In order to attract and keep viewers, they need comprehensive sports coverage but that means that they need to continue to overpay the conferences.

4) Maybe it's just me as I'm getting older, but I really don't enjoy the way that ESPN covers sports. Because they are trying to appeal to the biggest markets, they tend to run stories about the same teams over and over and over and over on pre-recorded loops for much of the day. There are hours on end where there is no new content being presented and very little coverage of anyone that isn't considered relevant to the biggest markets.

The good news for the Pac-12 is that the conference is well positioned for the future in owning its own network. Although it's been a letdown so far, they have control over their product to a greater degree than others. At some point, The Pac-12 Network needs to realize that a small reduction in price is worth getting the DirecTV market and working on spreading the brand more. The SEC, B1G and others better enjoy their high rights fees while they can because that is changing soon.

 

[Observer11]

I wonder if those are entirely cash loses (hint they are not).

When you are referencing 'cash losses', I assume you are implying that in a given year perhaps cash has not been spent - but most assuredly, over time cash has been spent. Things like depreciation are simply a method to allocate costs (cash spent and/or debt incurred) over time.

As for allocation of overhead - who is paying for things like heat and electricity for the athletic facility? Just because WSU central admin writes the check doeesn't mean the athletic department didn't use air conditioning or heat - which all cost CASH to provide.

I might grant you the courtesy of charging athletes in-state vs. out of state tuition - or possibly even saying why are they being charged at all since the classes are going to take place with or without them - but the deficits are very real and they should be a cause for concern as not just alums but as taxpayers. They biggest myth being perpetuated on these message boards is that somehow the annual deficits are just accounting mumbo jumbo - they're simply not.

 

[Observer11]

If that is the case we need to be in a different neighborhood.

With the changing landscape of broadcast right fees, that is going to happen sooner rather than later unless some form of parity or revenue-sharing is spread over all institutions in the NCAA.

I could easily see a power conference of, say, 24 to 48 members that pull TV ratings and choose to continue in the arms race, another tier of 60 that are kind of middle of the pack but simply can't keep pace and then the remainder dropping into lower tiers based on their economics.

 

[BiggsCoug]

If you want to make money you have to put butts in seats.

WSU has danced around the issue of what gets people to Pullman for decades. Win games every year, create a culture of giving/attendance with students while they're on campus, win your backyard on game day.

Instead, ship games to Seattle, sell out winning seasons to highest bidding non conference opponents, go cheap on coaching hires, go cheap on facilities, ignore your local backyard fans, do absolutely nothing to create a culture of future giving with current students.

If there were ever an example in college athletics of what NOT to do, WSU is it.

There have been improvements with Moos. Just not enough. You can't count on TV money when they look to be going out of business.

 

[Coug95man2]

ESPN has multiple problems that they need to figure out and the problem is that the solutions don't work well together.

1) In an attempt to control the delivery of college football, they have overpaid for the product that they are receiving. They are going to have to cut their offers on the next round of contracts with conferences.

2) In order to pay the broadcast rights fees that they've agreed to, they need to keep their prices high. Unfortunately, a lot of people just don't care enough about watching sports to pay the fees that ESPN needs to charge. So they need to cut their fee to cable networks, but that further hampers Item #1.

3) In order to attract and keep viewers, they need comprehensive sports coverage but that means that they need to continue to overpay the conferences.

4) Maybe it's just me as I'm getting older, but I really don't enjoy the way that ESPN covers sports. Because they are trying to appeal to the biggest markets, they tend to run stories about the same teams over and over and over and over on pre-recorded loops for much of the day. There are hours on end where there is no new content being presented and very little coverage of anyone that isn't considered relevant to the biggest markets.

The good news for the Pac-12 is that the conference is well positioned for the future in owning its own network. Although it's been a letdown so far, they have control over their product to a greater degree than others. At some point, The Pac-12 Network needs to realize that a small reduction in price is worth getting the DirecTV market and working on spreading the brand more. The SEC, B1G and others better enjoy their high rights fees while they can because that is changing soon.

I think you've also missed one. In today's political climate, a self-titled "sports only" channel should not be delving into politics. When you do so, you are alienating, roughly half of the nation. Which they have done a good job of. We all get preached at every night on the news, regardless of political party. And over the past 10 years, the political climate has heightened to extreme levels. Sports should be steering away from that and ESPN has not. Sports should, IMHO, be an escape from every day life. It's where an ultra-lib and an ultra-conserv can cheer for the same team without politics killing the moment. ESPN has killed that concept, to a certain extent.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I think you've also missed one. In today's political climate, a self-titled "sports only" channel should not be delving into politics. When you do so, you are alienating, roughly half of the nation. Which they have done a good job of. We all get preached at every night on the news, regardless of political party. And over the past 10 years, the political climate has heightened to extreme levels. Sports should be steering away from that and ESPN has not. Sports should, IMHO, be an escape from every day life. It's where an ultra-lib and an ultra-conserv can cheer for the same team without politics killing the moment. ESPN has killed that concept, to a certain extent.

"to a certain extent" hell - they have drawn a line in the sand (as has most of television) and said "if you hold any conservative values, gfy", which is the biggest hypocritical punch in the d!ck ever considering their soft stance on the women beaters in the NFL. Yeah, they give lip service to the topic and feign their shock and outrage, but within a day or two all is forgotten and forgiven.

Personally I can't wait for the end of ESPN. Disney got WAAAAAAAY too greedy and full of itself and ruined a perfectly good product and I would like nothing more than to see it go away and get replaced by a channel that offers sports news with a dash of commentary, not the other way around. Start showing the B sports again, like tennis, auto racing (not NASCAR), etc.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I think you've also missed one. In today's political climate, a self-titled "sports only" channel should not be delving into politics. When you do so, you are alienating, roughly half of the nation. Which they have done a good job of. We all get preached at every night on the news, regardless of political party. And over the past 10 years, the political climate has heightened to extreme levels. Sports should be steering away from that and ESPN has not. Sports should, IMHO, be an escape from every day life. It's where an ultra-lib and an ultra-conserv can cheer for the same team without politics killing the moment. ESPN has killed that concept, to a certain extent.

Politics and sports is tough. I didn't really give a crap about Kaepernick refusing to stand I think way too many people got butt-hurt over it. He wasn't trying to be loud or objectionable and I think our first amendment rights are a good thing when used properly. I don't think he is in a position to claim to have been harmed by "The Man" but whatever...I didn't care. Unfortunately, the media (cough, ESPN, cough) was trying to draw attention to themselves and used him as a way to get people pissed off and watching ESPN. So, yeah, I agree that they would be better served to focus on the product on the field and spend less time worrying about politics.

 

[GrayOnGray]

McSports + a one sided political agenda. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[CPtheCoug]

When you are referencing 'cash losses', I assume you are implying that in a given year perhaps cash has not been spent - but most assuredly, over time cash has been spent. Things like depreciation are simply a method to allocate costs (cash spent and/or debt incurred) over time.

The quick response is "no".

Any allocation, or re-allocation, is already captured amongst other costs. If/when WSU (or the athletic department) reports depreciation expenses in the millions that is not cash out the door.

You clearly ignored my use of the word 'entirely'.

Sure there are losses each year, but not in the catastrophic 'the sky is falling' sense that gets perpetuated on these message boards.


WSU/the Athletic Department will be fine.

 

[Observer11]

The quick response is "no".

Any allocation, or re-allocation, is already captured amongst other costs. If/when WSU (or the athletic department) reports depreciation expenses in the millions that is not cash out the door.

You clearly ignored my use of the word 'entirely'.

Sure there are losses each year, but not in the catastrophic 'the sky is falling' sense that gets perpetuated on these message boards.


WSU/the Athletic Department will be fine.

If you're going to dismiss what the numbers say as "the sky is falling" at least acknowledge that 'sticking your head in the sand' is the mirror image of that response.

Singularly, the losses may not be that bad. Cumulatively, it's adding up to a boatload of money no matter how you want to account for it.

 

[CougEd]

I think you've also missed one. In today's political climate, a self-titled "sports only" channel should not be delving into politics. When you do so, you are alienating, roughly half of the nation. Which they have done a good job of. We all get preached at every night on the news, regardless of political party. And over the past 10 years, the political climate has heightened to extreme levels. Sports should be steering away from that and ESPN has not. Sports should, IMHO, be an escape from every day life. It's where an ultra-lib and an ultra-conserv can cheer for the same team without politics killing the moment. ESPN has killed that concept, to a certain extent.

ESPN's problems can be traced to two factors..and none of it has to do with the political aspects that you are referring to. A very good friend of mine worked for the world wide leader and told me long before Colin K that ESPN was in trouble. Cable subscriptions were way down and ESPN's biggest mistake was they tripled their payments to the NBA. They paid 500 million for the rights in the previous agreement. In the one they signed about two years ago they paid 1.5 billion for the rights to televise the NBA. It is a math problem, not a political one.

 

[CougEd]

The quick response is "no".

Any allocation, or re-allocation, is already captured amongst other costs. If/when WSU (or the athletic department) reports depreciation expenses in the millions that is not cash out the door.

You clearly ignored my use of the word 'entirely'.

Sure there are losses each year, but not in the catastrophic 'the sky is falling' sense that gets perpetuated on these message boards.


WSU/the Athletic Department will be fine.

Are you saying revenues are keeping up with expenses? What happens when the Pac 12 network negotiates their next contract? If we don't keep extracting TV revenue from ESPN (a company in cost cutting mode), ABC (solid), and the Pac 12 network( struggling) then I would argue with the term "fine". At some point their will be a saturation. When? Well WSU and OSU are two schools that are the most at risk. We can only generate money from 33,000 seats. And we cant fill those and never have been able to .

 

[Coug95man2]

ESPN's problems can be traced to two factors..and none of it has to do with the political aspects that you are referring to. A very good friend of mine worked for the world wide leader and told me long before Colin K that ESPN was in trouble. Cable subscriptions were way down and ESPN's biggest mistake was they tripled their payments to the NBA. They paid 500 million for the rights in the previous agreement. In the one they signed about two years ago they paid 1.5 billion for the rights to televise the NBA. It is a math problem, not a political one.

Oh, I've worked for them many times, as well. I've heard talk for years. But they went from digging a hole for themselves, to making sure there were 2 or 3 guys in the hole digging. The political side has been well documented. Even an ESPN writer researched and found that 80% of the staff donated to the Dems. 20% to the Repubs. The guidelines that were publicly released showed bias. Firing Schilling, firing Ditka, the Sage Steele thing... all silencing the right. And none of these things had anything to do with the 100 firings to clean house kinda thing. Link to the article in December:

http://www.espn.com/blog/ombudsman/...espn-dealing-with-changing-political-dynamics

I get it that this is a part of our lives. Muhammad Ali, Jackie Robinson, Tillerson. But report and move on. And if there is something political to be had, make sure there's a balanced panel. By firing those that have right leanings (the above), just insures you isolate and abandon anyone watching that has the same right leanings.

 

[CougEd]

Oh, I've worked for them many times, as well. I've heard talk for years. But they went from digging a hole for themselves, to making sure there were 2 or 3 guys in the hole digging. The political side has been well documented. Even an ESPN writer researched and found that 80% of the staff donated to the Dems. 20% to the Repubs. The guidelines that were publicly released showed bias. Firing Schilling, firing Ditka, the Sage Steele thing... all silencing the right. And none of these things had anything to do with the 100 firings to clean house kinda thing. Link to the article in December:

http://www.espn.com/blog/ombudsman/...espn-dealing-with-changing-political-dynamics

I get it that this is a part of our lives. Muhammad Ali, Jackie Robinson, Tillerson. But report and move on. And if there is something political to be had, make sure there's a balanced panel. By firing those that have right leanings (the above), just insures you isolate and abandon anyone watching that has the same right leanings.

Well then you know the "political agenda" had nothing to do with their letting people go. Didn't they force Tom Jackson to retire? These problems were made when they signed up the NBA at the time people (young people) started streaming their stuff on their phones and iPads and other devices.

Isn't Sage Steele still with ESPN? What percentage of republican leaning people were let go vs left leaning?

I know ESPN shut down a very profitable fantasy games division in Seattle which probably 90% donated to the democratic party.

 

[dgibbons]

Are you saying revenues are keeping up with expenses? What happens when the Pac 12 network negotiates their next contract? If we don't keep extracting TV revenue from ESPN (a company in cost cutting mode), ABC (solid), and the Pac 12 network( struggling) then I would argue with the term "fine". At some point their will be a saturation. When? Well WSU and OSU are two schools that are the most at risk. We can only generate money from 33,000 seats. And we cant fill those and never have been able to .

The PAC-12 kept all streaming rights as I recall. So the PAC-12 owns the future.

 

[dgibbons]

If you're going to dismiss what the numbers say as "the sky is falling" at least acknowledge that 'sticking your head in the sand' is the mirror image of that response.

Singularly, the losses may not be that bad. Cumulatively, it's adding up to a boatload of money no matter how you want to account for it.

Some of the deficit could be cured through accounting changes. Athletics is used for marketing the university as a whole. Just as an example does the Athletic Department need to be charged with covering the cost of Moos and Leach's salaries if the whole university benefits?

Better yet, if Athletics drives enrollment as the administration seems so fond of saying, why doesn't Athletics get a cut of the tuition for bringing those new students in?

 

[CPtheCoug]

If you're going to dismiss what the numbers say as "the sky is falling" at least acknowledge that 'sticking your head in the sand' is the mirror image of that response.

Singularly, the losses may not be that bad. Cumulatively, it's adding up to a boatload of money no matter how you want to account for it.

I'll just categorize this under "responding just to respond".

WSU will be fine...

Are you saying revenues are keeping up with expenses? What happens when the Pac 12 network negotiates their next contract? If we don't keep extracting TV revenue from ESPN (a company in cost cutting mode), ABC (solid), and the Pac 12 network( struggling) then I would argue with the term "fine". At some point their will be a saturation. When? Well WSU and OSU are two schools that are the most at risk. We can only generate money from 33,000 seats. And we cant fill those and never have been able to .

What if Mt. Rainier explodes? What will you do then? What if it erupts during football season? Will WSU cancel their home games? How will that affect department revenue? Will the pass be closed? How will that affect home prices? What if the palouse aquifer drys up? What then? Will the University close? If so what will happen to the football team? Is it Spokane's fault this time?

 

[dgibbons]

I'll just categorize this under "responding just to respond".

WSU will be fine...



What if Mt. Rainier explodes? What will you do then? What if it erupts during football season? Will WSU cancel their home games? How will that affect department revenue? Will the pass be closed? How will that affect home prices? What if the palouse aquifer drys up? What then? Will the University close? If so what will happen to the football team? Is it Spokane's fault this time?

It's always Spokane's fault.

 

[Observer11]

I'll just categorize this under "responding just to respond".

WSU will be fine...



What if Mt. Rainier explodes? What will you do then? What if it erupts during football season? Will WSU cancel their home games? How will that affect department revenue? Will the pass be closed? How will that affect home prices? What if the palouse aquifer drys up? What then? Will the University close? If so what will happen to the football team? Is it Spokane's fault this time?

And I'm undecided as to whether to classify this as "ostrich" or "head in sand".

Technologically challenged or would insert Animal House Kevin Bacon "All is Well" gif.

 

[YakiCoug]

I'll just categorize this under "responding just to respond".

WSU will be fine...



What if Mt. Rainier explodes? What will you do then? What if it erupts during football season? Will WSU cancel their home games? How will that affect department revenue? Will the pass be closed? How will that affect home prices? What if the palouse aquifer drys up? What then? Will the University close? If so what will happen to the football team? Is it Spokane's fault this time?

Little Edith's head must be swimming with all these hypothEDicals... . God, what an ediot, and one who uttered not a word over how 6 and 40 was affecting the WSU athletic budget back in those halcyon days.

 

[YakiCoug]

It's always Spokane's fault.

And Doba's...

 

[CPtheCoug]

And I'm undecided as to whether to classify this as "ostrich" or "head in sand".

Technologically challenged or would insert Animal House Kevin Bacon "All is Well" gif.

I understand financial statements and how to grow a business... If you are scared of these losses... At this point in the cycle... Get off the porch.

Things will never be as perfect as you want them to be. We are not in danger yet, WSU will be fine....

 

[Observer11]

I understand financial statements and how to grow a business... If you are scared of these losses... At this point in the cycle... Get off the porch.

Things will never be as perfect as you want them to be. We are not in danger yet, WSU will be fine....

How long is your 'cycle'? We are seven years into annual deficits. And they are not declining. And every year we hear "well, we need more donations" - but those haven't changed much at all either. That's a problem. That speaks to either personnel or process - if not both.

Just set the time frame for metrics and start the clock. Constantly kicking the can down the road another year and hoping for process improvement won't translate to measurable results.

I am more than willing to accept the concept of "Athletics is the front door to the university" - but paying for a $13 Million door every single year is a really expensive door. For that amount of jack, WSU could create the most kick-ass admissions PR/Advertising program in the country.

 

[froropmkr72]

It's always Spokane's fault.

Blame it on Obama and at least half the population will believe you.

 

[CPtheCoug]

How long is your 'cycle'? We are seven years into annual deficits. And they are not declining. And every year we hear "well, we need more donations" - but those haven't changed much at all either. That's a problem. That speaks to either personnel or process - if not both.

Just set the time frame for metrics and start the clock. Constantly kicking the can down the road another year and hoping for process improvement won't translate to measurable results.

I am more than willing to accept the concept of "Athletics is the front door to the university" - but paying for a $13 Million door every single year is a really expensive door. For that amount of jack, WSU could create the most kick-ass admissions PR/Advertising program in the country.

Except that's not $13mil cash out the door.... It's far far less. Still a cash loss in there, but not catastrophic....

 

[Observer11]

Except that's not $13mil cash out the door.... It's far far less. Still a cash loss in there, but not catastrophic....

So how long is it? And when does the clock start?

 

[YakiCoug]

Blame it on Obama and at least half the population will believe you.

And Alex Jones will come up with a conspiracy theory about it ...

 

[CPtheCoug]

So how long is it? And when does the clock start?

At this point, why bother answering you? No matter what response I give you are going to nit-pick it (be honest).

Like for instance, and I am sure you are well aware of this, that the "parent" entity Washington State University sets aside revenue annually (net of specific expenses) to fund future bond and general debt repayment requirement for various programs within the umbrella of the University system. As you are a well educated individual you'll already know that these allocations show up as a cash expense on the University's income statement and are transferred to their balance sheet as a restricted liquid asset. This is not to be confused with cash-out-the-door expenses. The Athletic Department debt obligations are roughly $5.2 million annually as of FYE 2016. That is an over estimation btw as I didn't feel like hearing you whine that I am not being conservative enough. The University's Athletic Department revenue allocation (which is constantly adjusting) as reported is currently $22.9 million. Without accounting for anything else (adjustments in future revenue/expenses/etc.. or future revenue allocation) the revenue allocation can service the Athletic Department annual debt obligations for roughly 4 and a half more years before the Athletic Department will have to start servicing the debt themselves. This is unlikely to happen as the University constantly adds/adjusts this value each fiscal year.

Now before you scream "BUT THE UNIVERSITY SHOULDN'T BE PAYING FOR STADIUMS AND OTHER ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT DEBTS!!!" I just want to point out that this is a national standard. Even income positive athletic departments rarely fund the entirety of their own debt themselves.... But but but $22.9 million is a lot you say? Not really, actually. The University's total equity as reported is $1.6 Billion... with a "B". Their revenue allocation to athletics is a mere 1.4% of equity... in the big business world we call this "Pocket Change". Their revenue allocation is also amongst the lowest of all of the "other related university entities and projects".

Can the University as a whole improve financially? Yes.
Can they cut excess spending to improve their bottom line? Yes.

Can the Athletic Department improve financially? Yes.
Are they improving financially? Yes - Revenue increased YOY by $5.6 million - One of the best in growth amongst the University System's related entities. They also have $3.3 million in unearned revenue in the pipeline as well.
Can Athletics cut excess spending to improve their bottom line? Yes. It is a goal of Moos and the University to find ways of becoming more efficient, but we also must grow our "brand". As expenses are cut in one area, they are added toward new projects in other areas.

Did Athletics report a loss last year? Yes.
Is it a full $13 million out the door? No.
Can they improve? Yes.

Are we in a catastrophe state? No. Not at all.

Now are you still going to continue to whine and imply my head is in the sand? Or are you going to step down from your high horse....?

 

[425cougfan]

Well then you know the "political agenda" had nothing to do with their letting people go. Didn't they force Tom Jackson to retire? These problems were made when they signed up the NBA at the time people (young people) started streaming their stuff on their phones and iPads and other devices.

Isn't Sage Steele still with ESPN? What percentage of republican leaning people were let go vs left leaning?

I know ESPN shut down a very profitable fantasy games division in Seattle which probably 90% donated to the democratic party.

Ed, I'm going to be blunter than I have been in the past, since the years go by and you don't seem to get it ... few things are more annoying than a guy who, rather than making substantive points, just asks a bunch of annoying questions. If you care enough about the issue, you take the 3 seconds to do the research and answer the question. We're not a bunch of virtual assistants who sit around waiting to answer all of your stupid questions.

Instead of asking "didn't they force Tom Jackson to retire," for example, you can do the same search I just did (https://www.google.com/search?q=tom.....69i57j0l5.2336j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) in three seconds and write something like "rumor had it that they were going to demote Tom Jackson and he retired. See here." It's not that hard. This wasn't even a great example, since it's referring to something that is relatively unlikely to have authoritative treatment anywhere, but it still was easy to handle in a reasonable way through a few seconds of research.

Let's go to the next line ... no, Sage Steele is not at ESPN, as literally two seconds with Google, typing "Sage Steele ESPN" into your freaking browser bar, would show you. See here. Seriously, this crap is annoying and makes people more inclined to want to give you crap instead of discussing your substantive points. Come on, man.