4th Quarter

4th Quarter

Sports. It’s that simple
  • FTC Ruling Causes DraftKings and FanDuel to Squash Their Merger

    draftkings fanduel

    DraftKings and FanDuel are no longer merging.  Why?  The FTC was attempting to block the merger, citing that it would be a monopoly.  About a month ago, they released a statement indicating that the combined company would “control more than 90 percent of the U.S. market for paid daily fantasy sports contests.”  Which, for all purposes is, essentially a monopoly.  But the merger stood to be beneficial to both companies, and potentially consumers.  It seems odd, I realize, but they are both doing the same thing.  And in doing so, they are trying to make more money from the consumer.  Why not become one company and benefit from all the profits?  Right now, they are splitting the profits in order to deliver the same product.  It doesn’t make sense.

    The government thinks otherwise.  The FTC was concerned that if they merged there would be no clear competition.  Which makes sense, but outside of the two, there is no competition.  The merger would have helped the two companies who are over spending on advertising.  Essentially competing for business.  To back track for a moment.  There are other companies that would like to be in the game, but because of the legal ambiguity have pumped the brakes on getting into the game.  So its not necessarily the merger that would kill the competition, it’s the unknown legal ramifications from a gambling perspective.  So why put that on DraftKings and FanDuel?

    With the death of the merger, where do they go from here?  To preface that slightly, they had the option of fighting the FTC.  But that would be an extremely long legal battle that might not have panned out for them.  They still have that as an option, but I suspect they will hold off for the time being.  That being said, if the legal ambiguity surrounding this issue were to be resolved, it would certainly bring more players to the game.  ESPN and Yahoo have both shown interest in this arena, but because of the unknown legal status, it’s a non starter.

    draftkings fanduel

    It is my opinion that in some cases, the government needs to keep their nose out of it.  Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a blanket statement.  But what about the “invisible hand” that helps the supply and demand in a free market?  Isn’t there something to be said about letting the chips fall where they may?  No pun intended.  I hope you can see where I’m going with this.  If we are constantly over regulating industries, we are going to be left with a system that can’t grow.  And if the system can’t grow, then there is no opportunity for any kind of competition.

    Sure, the argument could be made that there would not be any room for any other competitors to join in.  But the current system doesn’t allow for that.  So, to me, that’s a cop out.  Yes, people have a choice between DraftKings and FanDuel, but how is that a choice?  That’s like someone saying Burger King and McDonald’s can’t merge because without the two, there is no competition.  Competition will occur naturally if you let it.  If Burger King and McDonalds merged then I only have one option, but it’s the same as the other.  Which, in my opinion is the same as having a monopoly.

    Maybe that’s a bit unclear, but my point is that low competition is just as bad as no competition.  Especially when they’re offering the same product or service as in this case.  I understand that there’s no real other option, so how would you encourage that?  Certainly not by not allowing two companies to merge.  The regulations should allow for the market to work itself and the competitors will eventually come forward.

  • Artificial Intelligence Making Journalism A Little Bit Easier

    If you’re a fan of tennis, and a technology fan, you will like this one.  I myself am only a fan of the latter, but I still find this pretty cool.  Wimbledon is using “Watson” to automate parts of the tennis tournament.  What does this mean exactly?  In the past, journalists would have to create highlight packages and annotate photographs, but now this job is being done using Watson.  Watson is a robot.  Well, kind of. Watson is a form of AI.  He can generate these highlight packages without any human input. He can watch a video feed, and identify the most important parts of the tennis match.

    Which is all really cool.  Isn’t it?  Watson takes certain information and infers its importance.  For example – players shaking hands, celebrating in some way or even by hearing the noise level of the crowd.  Watson can use this information to determine that something important just happened. (I’m referring to Watson as a man, and I realize that “he” is a machine, but I like to qualify “him” in some way) In addition, Watson takes footage from six different courts and annates the reel with stats from the play on the court.


    What’s even more interesting about this is just how efficient it is.  Watson generates a file in 50 minutes, which is then able to be distributed to one of Wimbledon’s media partners.  In the future, it’s estimated that IBM (who created Watson) will be able to reduce this time to just 30 minutes.  30 minutes!  Can you imagine?  In addition, Watson can tag photos to identify players and celebrities.  Which is going to make your searching and identification easier as it will now be found in the metadata.

    Why is this helpful?  It’s going to free up the journalists from having to do work.  I joke.  But honestly, if you’re tasked with this kind of tedious job day in and day out, you’re not going to be able to report on the event itself.  Which is going to give journalists the ability to create more content.  And what media outlet doesn’t want more content?  The argument could be made that Watson is taking jobs away from someone, but I don’t think that’s the case.  After all, how important is that to the job itself?


    Some would also argue that in order to “pay your dues” you need to do all of that crappy leg work. It builds character and helps you rise to the top.  But I think that’s garbage.  The world is changing and I think people need to be able to adapt.  That means to systems and technology.  Just because you had to put in all that work when you were first starting out doesn’t mean that the system shouldn’t change.  I struggle with this a lot in my work environment.  Just because that’s how things were done in 1980, doesn’t mean that it’s still applicable now.  We have progressed since then.  Even if the technology wasn’t available, I’m sure people would have come up with a better way to do something so we aren’t stuck in the past.

    All that being said, I think this is a great idea.  I know we are using this kind of technology in order to make our lives easier, and better in many ways.  But I would like to see this technology being used for a greater good.  That’s always the platform that I stand on, so I will wait patiently to see what that is.