Gonzo? You there, dude?

**gonzo** · 10-24-2011 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by FTHurley

They're responsible for whatever it takes to succeed as a business. Part of succeeding as a business is attracting top competitors. Part of attracting top competitors is provide a risk/reward ratio that is attractive to those competitors.

That is right, it is about providing, like I said, not about managing like you said.

If I have a pool full of sharks, and a bag of money with a million dollars at the bottom of it, and I throw out the challenge to offer that bag of money to anybody willing to jump in and grab it, I have established the challenge. It isn't up to me but up to those that take up the challenge to decide whether it can be done or not. They are the ones managing that risk. They are the ones that decide, hey I'm single, down on my luck what have I got to lose, or hey I'm married, with a family and a good job earning lots of money, not worth the risk.

Because the challenge has been established it isn't up to me to manage the risk for them by reducing the number of sharks, that would undermine the event, by making it "easier". The only thing I am responsible for in this regard is creating enough incentive to lure people into the shark tank. So instead of reducing the number of sharks, I increase the amount of money. In doing so, the challenge remains the same, the difference is the reward has been increased.

It's like the tight rope walker. Without the use of a safety net establishes a certain challenge. Adding a safety net makes that challenge easier. It's not up to me to make the events easier, it's up to me to provide enough incentive to entice somebody onto that tight rope without the safety net.

It's up to those that choose to walk out on that rope to decide whether it is worth the risk or not!

**FTHurley** · 10-24-2011 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by gonzo

That is right, it is about providing, like I said, not about managing like you said.

If I have a pool full of sharks, and a bag of money with a million dollars at the bottom of it, and I throw out the challenge to offer that bag of money to anybody willing to jump in and grab it, I have established the challenge. It isn't up to me but up to those that take up the challenge to decide whether it can be done or not. They are the ones managing that risk. They are the ones that decide, hey I'm single, down on my luck what have I got to lose, or hey I'm married, with a family and a good job earning lots of money, not worth the risk.

Because the challenge has been established it isn't up to me to manage the risk for them by reducing the number of sharks, that would undermine the event, by making it "easier". The only thing I am responsible for in this regard is creating enough incentive to lure people into the shark tank. So instead of reducing the number of sharks, I increase the amount of money. In doing so, the challenge remains the same, the difference is the reward has been increased.

It's like the tight rope walker. Without the use of a safety net establishes a certain challenge. Adding a safety net makes that challenge easier. It's not up to me to make the events easier, it's up to me to provide enough incentive to entice somebody onto that tight rope without the safety net.

It's up to those that choose to walk out on that rope to decide whether it is worth the risk or not!

So to use the shark-tank example, presumably you're doing this because you think you can make money selling tickets to the show, right? Or maybe it's a TV contract or concessions - the point is that you as a good American are looking to make a buck here, too. And you should be trying to do that. I'm on board with everybody getting rich!

But if nobody takes up your challenge, or the people who do just aren't compelling enough to get people to watch, then you're not going to make any money with your big (expensive) shark tank. You're putting in the cost of maintaining the tank and feeding the sharks all for nothing. So what do you do? You keep tweaking that product until you start attracting some of the divers that fans might want to watch, and then you can make money.

One way to do that is to add some money to the bag at the bottom of the tank. But you can't add so much that you don't make any money, or you're back to the original problem.

Another way is to reduce the number of sharks in the tank. But you can't reduce the number so much that there's no challenge in the dive, or nobody will watch, and you're again back where you started.

Since you have a limited amount of money you can stuff in the bag and still stay in business and maintain your big beautiful shark tank and keep your sharks fed, you have to tweak both end. You have to add some reward (cash in the bag) while reducing some risk (the number of sharks), while trying to maintain enough risk to keep the fans interested and retain enough money to turn a profit.

And that is called managing the sport.

**gonzo** · 10-24-2011 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by FTHurley

And that is called managing the sport.

I agree, but we were talking about managing the risk, not managing the sport. In your scenario you are managing the sport.

The diver is the one who manages the risk. It's up to the diver to decide whether his life is worth risking or not. Not the organizer of the event.

**gonzo** · 10-24-2011 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by FTHurley

So to use the shark-tank example, presumably you're doing this because you think you can make money selling tickets to the show, right? Or maybe it's a TV contract or concessions - the point is that you as a good American are looking to make a buck here, too. And you should be trying to do that. I'm on board with everybody getting rich!

But if nobody takes up your challenge, or the people who do just aren't compelling enough to get people to watch, then you're not going to make any money with your big (expensive) shark tank. You're putting in the cost of maintaining the tank and feeding the sharks all for nothing. So what do you do? You keep tweaking that product until you start attracting some of the divers that fans might want to watch, and then you can make money.

One way to do that is to add some money to the bag at the bottom of the tank. But you can't add so much that you don't make any money, or you're back to the original problem.

Another way is to reduce the number of sharks in the tank. But you can't reduce the number so much that there's no challenge in the dive, or nobody will watch, and you're again back where you started.

Since you have a limited amount of money you can stuff in the bag and still stay in business and maintain your big beautiful shark tank and keep your sharks fed, you have to tweak both end. You have to add some reward (cash in the bag) while reducing some risk (the number of sharks), while trying to maintain enough risk to keep the fans interested and retain enough money to turn a profit.

And that is called managing the sport.

Further to that Hurley, as I stated in my other post, the challenge has been established. While I understand what you are getting at, that you need people willing to take up the challenge or nobody will buy tickets, the point of not tampering with the established challenge is that nobody is going to come see somebody attempt it with less sharks. That is what I mean by establishing the challenge. As a promoter you have it in your mind what will attract an audience, it is then up to you to entice competitors. It's up to them to manage the risk.

**FTHurley** · 10-24-2011 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by gonzo

I agree, but we were talking about managing the risk, not managing the sport. In your scenario you are managing the sport.

The diver is the one who manages the risk. It's up to the diver to decide whether his life is worth risking or not. Not the organizer of the event.

Actually, they're both managing the risk. The risk is the heart of what the sport is, and both halves of the event negotiate on the appropriate level of risk for an appropriate reward. If either party doesn't feel that ratio is right, they walk away from the table. Sure, there are other things they can negotiate and manage that have nothing to do with risk (the TV deal and revenue split, for example), but in the end, the risk/reward is the entire reason the sport exists. It is, after all, diving into a shark tank to retrieve a bag of money. The sport and the risk are difficult to distinguish.

**FTHurley** · 10-24-2011 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by gonzo

Further to that Hurley, as I stated in my other post, the challenge has been established. While I understand what you are getting at, that you need people willing to take up the challenge or nobody will buy tickets, the point of not tampering with the established challenge is that nobody is going to come see somebody attempt it with less sharks. That is what I mean by establishing the challenge. As a promoter you have it in your mind what will attract an audience, it is then up to you to entice competitors. It's up to them to manage the risk.

But what if you can't attract competitors that anybody wants to watch? It's fine to declare that dammit, this is the product and those guys are cowards, but what if nobody takes up the challenge? That tank needs maintenance every year, and that costs money; money you're not making with your empty-ass tank arena. So you can tweak the challenge and hopefully get a few competitors, or you can go out of business, proclaiming to everybody who will listen how you were right, dammit.

Also remember that UFC didn't become a money-making machine until after they moved away from the almost literally no holds barred format they had initially and became a regulated fight promoter with rules. Did some people want to watch guys fight with no rules, and cheer the eye-gouging? Yeah. But a hell of lot want to watch it with the rules that are now in place. UFC had to regulate the risk in order to survive, and in doing so, it actually thrived.

**lotuspoweredbyford** · 10-24-2011 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by gonzo

There was absolutely no good that was going to come from me posting last week. Emotions were high, they probably still are, the only thing I stood to do was further complicate life for the mods in an already difficult situation. I figured the best thing I could do was just stay away.

Gotta agree with you there.

**gonzo** · 10-24-2011 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by lotuspoweredbyford

Gotta agree with you there.

Feel better?

**lotuspoweredbyford** · 10-24-2011 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by gonzo

Feel better?

Nope. But thanks for asking.

**gonzo** · 10-24-2011 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by lotuspoweredbyford

Nope. But thanks for asking.

Would you like to slap me instead? Punch me? Spank me maybe?

**lotuspoweredbyford** · 10-24-2011 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by gonzo

Would you like to slap me instead? Punch me? Spank me maybe?

Nope, but thanks for asking.

**Ken** · 10-24-2011 08:30 PM

I'd like to punch you....'if the offer stands member wide

**BizzyV** · 10-25-2011 12:45 AM

Not everyone who watches indycar races watches for the same reason. Personally I like watching racing. But I'm not gonna sit there and pretend that I am anymore valuable to the person who watches for the "pucker factor." We all have eyeballs and wallets which matter to the people who enable us to keep racing. After the Texas race I distinctly remember my dad saying "most of the time, I'll say that I would jump in there and do that but seeing the way they pinch each other on the front straight... no way in hell. every lap I was thinking someone was gonna die." And yep, he's coming back next year. The "pucker factor" can still be there without it REALLY being a matter of life and death... which in 99% of Indycar wrecks, and I'd venture to say 80-90% of the time a car goes into the fence or even interlocks wheels, it isn't.

The cars and sport should be made as safe as humanly possible while keeping the sport marketable as "the baddest mofos in the world do stupid stuff." That's not mutually exclusive, methinks. You can make it look alot more dangerous than in reality it is. I think that's a reasonable goal for Indycar. Watching these cars with ALMS rears dart around each other at 220 is still going to entertain the hell out of me... even without the knowledge that a wheel tie up means that a car is flying at a pole. I'm not ashamed to say that I enjoyed the hell out of those first 11 laps. That was nuts! And while I was thinking "if somoene screws up, someone's gonna die..." it's not THAT fact that kept me watching.

At the end of the day racing is never going to be safe. There is acceptable risk. Dan knew that when he kissed his wife and strapped into the car for the final time at Vegas. So did every driver who lived to see Monday. So do I when I strap into my car on Sunday. So does everyone who gets behind of the wheel of a car on Monday rush hour. Hell, so does everyone who lights up a cigarette.

... not sure when we started talking about shark tanks and tight rope walkers.

**gonzo** · 10-25-2011 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by BizzyV

Not everyone who watches indycar races watches for the same reason. Personally I like watching racing. But I'm not gonna sit there and pretend that I am anymore valuable to the person who watches for the "pucker factor." We all have eyeballs and wallets which matter to the people who enable us to keep racing. After the Texas race I distinctly remember my dad saying "most of the time, I'll say that I would jump in there and do that but seeing the way they pinch each other on the front straight... no way in hell. every lap I was thinking someone was gonna die." And yep, he's coming back next year. The "pucker factor" can still be there without it REALLY being a matter of life and death... which in 99% of Indycar wrecks, and I'd venture to say 80-90% of the time a car goes into the fence or even interlocks wheels, it isn't.

The cars and sport should be made as safe as humanly possible while keeping the sport marketable as "the baddest mofos in the world do stupid stuff." That's not mutually exclusive, methinks. You can make it look alot more dangerous than in reality it is. I think that's a reasonable goal for Indycar. Watching these cars with ALMS rears dart around each other at 220 is still going to entertain the hell out of me... even without the knowledge that a wheel tie up means that a car is flying at a pole. I'm not ashamed to say that I enjoyed the hell out of those first 11 laps. That was nuts! And while I was thinking "if somoene screws up, someone's gonna die..." it's not THAT fact that kept me watching.

At the end of the day racing is never going to be safe. There is acceptable risk. Dan knew that when he kissed his wife and strapped into the car for the final time at Vegas. So did every driver who lived to see Monday. So do I when I strap into my car on Sunday. So does everyone who gets behind of the wheel of a car on Monday rush hour. Hell, so does everyone who lights up a cigarette.

... not sure when we started talking about shark tanks and tight rope walkers.

I don't like the pucker factor, I hate pack racing and I don't want to watch a race in fear that somebody is going to get hurt or killed.

Is that what you guys think?

**FTHurley** · 10-25-2011 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by gonzo

I don't like the pucker factor, I hate pack racing and I don't want to watch a race in fear that somebody is going to get hurt or killed.

Is that what you guys think?

Yup.