Fantasy football strategy, rankings, and podcasts

There's no denying that the climate is changing due to all the fossil fuels that we're burning. It would be great if we could just replace all of that, but it's going to take gradual changes. What solutions are actually out there to replace all of the stuff we've been burning for the last 150 years?

Listen to the Retrospectical Podcast Episode 18 - Clean Alternative Energy Today & Tomorrow

We currently still burn coal and natural gas for the majority of the electricity in the United States. Natural gas is only about half as bad as coal, and has been taking over some of the share that coal once had. These are still both ultimately a limited resource, natural gas reserves in the United States are projected to last just over 80 years. Coal reserves are larger, projected to last 260 years at current rates, but that's an awful lot of carbon to be released into the atmosphere.

It's simply unreasonable to think that society could continue long-term and continue to rely on fossil fuels.

Wind – Wind energy is consistent on a year-to-year basis in terms of total power generated, however it does fluctuate a lot over the short term. Sometimes, the wind just isn’t blowing. It’s a very cheap alternative to coal and gas, after all, the wind is free. Wind farms can be found all over the country now with 5% of the US's energy is now wind generated.

Denmark has 14 offshore wind farms which powers about 40% of their homes. On some windy days, the entire power consumption of the country can be covered by wind power alone. Offshore wind is more consistent and has less of a visual impact (a pet peeve of mine – who really has a problem with the look of a new wind turbine anyways?). The downside is that construction and maintenance of offshore wind farms is much more expensive, for obvious reasons. 11.4% of the electricity in the EU is now generated by wind power, with the entire world at 4%.

How does it work? – Like most ways of generating electricity, all it takes is the rotation of some magnets, and viola, you’ve got power. Wind turbines are some of the most basic, borrowing a few tricks from the airplane industry to make the fins more efficient in the wind, they just rotate a central shaft and electricity is made.

What are the benefits? – Well, aside from the initial capital costs, the cost to operate a wind turbine is very low, with maintenance being the only real expense. There is no fuel for the turbines to run on, and the impact to the environment is minimal. Wind farms do need to be spread out over a large area (typically, they are separated by a distance of at least 7x the diameter of the fins), but those areas can still be used for farming and other land-intensive uses. Putting a wind farm out at sea further reduces its impact on regular life and increases its efficiency, at a higher initial and maintenance cost, of course.

What are the downsides? – Well, to put it simply, they don’t work if the wind isn’t blowing! Wind power is efficient and reliable over the long haul, but it must be supplemented with other forms of electricity to be a part of the power grid.

One of the interesting things you can do with wind is compliment it with hydroelectric power. When the wind is working well or there is little demand, you can shut off the hydroelectric dam, or even pump water back into the reservoir (the greater the pressure behind a hydroelectric dam, the more power it generates).

Solar - Solar prices continue to fall, with prices continuing to approach the cost of fossil fuels, making solar power a very attractive clean energy option. Solar power has experienced incremental improvements over the last couple of decades that have made it more and more competitive in the modern markets.

Like wind energy, solar is intermittent, meaning that it must either be used immediately, stored immediately, or sent into the power grid along transmission lines to be used immediately. Solar is still emerging when it comes to widespread use, accounting for only 0.6% of all energy sources in the US.

How does it work? – Electricity can be generated with the sun in two different ways. First, there are traditional solar panels using photovoltaic cells, commonly known as solar cells. This technology is what has seen gradual improvements over the last couple of decades and now these panels can be seen in giant arrays that are essentially power plants – the largest of which can generate 579 MW (about the capacity of the US’s second largest wind farm). Unlike more traditional ways of generating electricity, there is no heating of water involved here. The sunlight shining on the PV cells knocks electrons loose and creates a potential difference – thus creating a voltage and usable electricity. This process is more efficient as the sun gets brighter (sunny days) or more intense (more direct rays, nearer to the equator).

The second way to create energy with solar power is using a system to concentrate the solar power, also known as solar thermal energy. There are several implementations of this technology currently in use, including the parabolic trough. In this method, a tube of some kind of fluid is placed at the focal point of a reflective parabola and the entire unit is rotated throughout the day for maximum effect. This is currently the most efficient use of land in a solar power setup. You can also make a solar power tower, which is just kind of badass. In Spain, the PS10 and PS20 solar plants have been built and they are pretty impressive looking. A field of mirrors are all set just right and rotate throughout the day so they all concentrate the sunlight into a very small area on the tower, which superheats water to 275 degrees Celsius.

 A solar thermal energy plant in Spain.

What are the benefits? – Generally considered much more aesthetically pleasing than wind turbines, solar panels and solar farms do not suffer from the same NIMBY issues that have kept wind from spreading more. Solar also lends itself to a more “off the grid” approach. In areas with high amounts of sunlight, a battery storage system like Tesla’s Powerwall is all you need to make sure you have electricity 24/7. Solar is more consistent than

In some areas of the country, you can have your house totally done up with solar panels and the cost is basically free. A company called Sunpower will install all the panels and hook them up to the system for zero money up front. You wind up making monthly payments that are roughly equivalent to your old utility bill to pay down the system. You can also, like wind power, sell your excess energy back to the power grid. Imagine a nice hot day where you’re running your AC, watching TV, eating ice cream and still sending spare power back to the grid for a profit.

What are the downsides? - Well, there’s still a long way to go in terms of efficiency in solar power. The best solar cells are still only about 40% efficient, so there’s still a lot of room for improvement. The initial cost is also very high, and could easily take 10-15 years to pay off the investment (the Sunpower option looks like it could be 20 years). The availability of sunlight is also an issue – people living in more northern latitudes are not going to get as much out of solar energy and thus it is more expensive. PV cells are also made up of some elements that can be toxic to the environment and these items must be disposed of properly. You also need a lot of land if you want to build a solar plant, and unlike wind, this land can’t really be used for farming. Finally, as we know here in Chicago, the sun is just not going to shine all the time.

Hydroelectric – Hydroelectric power is probably the oldest and most well established clean energy source, with it being produced in 150 countries. Hydroelectric plants account for 9 of the 10 largest power plants in the world. China alone generates 17% of its entire domestic energy with hydroelectric plants, aided by the new Three Gorges dam, the largest power plant of any kind in the world. The Three Gorges Power plant generates a whopping 22,500MW, compared to the US’s largest plant, Grand Coulee, producing 6800MW. (Hoover dam has a capacity of 2000 MW).

 The Three Gorges Dam in China.

Some countries are already very big into hydroelectric power. Norway gets 98-99% of its electricity exclusively from hydroelectric sources. Paraguay gets 100% of its electricity from hydroelectric dams, thanks to the giant Itaipu dam on the Paraguay-Brazil border. Paraguay actually exports about 90% of the energy it creates to Brazil, thanks to this and several other dams throughout the country.

How does it work? – In most cases, certainly in all of the largest cases, a large dam is built in order to build up a reservoir so there is a constant supply of water with a very high pressure behind it. A larger height behind the dam results in an increase flow rate of the water and thus more power is generated. Then it’s very simple, just like most power plants, water (this time it’s not heated to steam, but used as its falling) turns a turbine which generates the electricity needed.

What are the benefits? – Hydro power is very flexible, needing only a couple of minutes to go from a cold start to a full load. This allows power production from the hydro plant to be increased or decreased based on demand. These plants are relatively cheap to run and build (the three gorges dam will cover their costs in just 5-8 years after full output), and provide very low cost electricity, from only 3 to 5 cents per KWh. It’s also very clean, generating only a bit of Co2 during construction.

What are the downsides? – The large reservoirs that are built to power a hydroelectric dam destroy the environment that once existed there. Large amounts of silt can accumulate upstream, filling up the reservoir in extreme cases. This decreases the nutrients in the water downstream. Dams are also a huge impediment for migrating fish. Water levels can also vary in some areas based on seasonal rain/snow fall and a reduced level in a reservoir will lead to a lower power production. Dam failures can be catastrophic and have killed more people than nuclear accidents.

Nuclear - 20% of our power comes from Nuclear. It's considered a carbon-free energy, but does generate nuclear waste. All of our power plants were built no later than the 1970's, so one of the big problems we have now is that we're working with old technology.

How does it work? - A Nuclear plant works just like any other power plant we have (coal, natural gas, etc). Heat from burning fuel (uranium in this case) is used to heat up water, turn it to steam and use the steam to turn turbines. It's all pretty simple and has lots of benefits, as well as some pretty big downsides.

What are the benefits? - Nuclear power does not produce any carbon emissions - in that sense it's a clean energy and does not in any way contribute to global warming. So this is definitely, when done right, helping our situation right now. Of course, nuclear power does generate some awfully nasty waste, but we'll get to that in a moment.

Traditional ore deposits account for about a 200 year supply at current consumption rates, with about another 280 years undiscovered in the ground. The big hope for the future is that re-use of current waste stockpiles and new technologies can extend the life into the tens of thousands of years.

What are the downsides? - Well, the nuclear waste that is leftover once the life of the fuel rods is over is a big problem. The current storage options are inefficient and could take tens of thousands of years to be safe. The actual power plants are also potentially very dangerous, as has been seen in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and most recently in Fukushima.

Clearly, there are some very serious issues when it comes to nuclear power, but it is getting better. For example, a young Nuclear Physicist named Taylor Wilson presented a TED talk in 2013 about his idea for a sealed molten salt reactor that would supply 50 MW on average and only need to be refueled every 30 years. It would even run on decommissioned nuclear weapons. And if you're unsure if Wilson knows what he's talking about - he's the kid who was just 14 years old in 2008 and became the youngest person in history to achieve nuclear fusion.

Other Alternatives - Biomass - This is considered renewable because instead of burning something we dug out of the ground, we burn trash, wood, crops, sewage and animal waste. This is common in some areas where landfills are not practical. In fact, Hawaii uses a significant amount of biomass energy to help supplant wind and solar.

Geothermal energy can also be used to generate electricity. Geothermal is the most efficient renewable source, with plants operating at 92% of its capacity, compared to 34% for wind and 25% for solar. There are also biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel, generally used for vehicles now.

Hydrogen power can provide some remarkable steps forward for transportation fuels, but there are a few hurdles to cross. It is definitely dangerous, but then again, so is gasoline. It also takes a lot of electricity to generate the hydrogen. Once you've got it, however, it burns really clean, the only exhaust is pure water. Currently, hydrogen gas is mainly used for rocket fuel, but there's actually 12 hydrogen gas stations in California, but vehicles are not that widespread since that's the only place you can fill up.

Fusion - Fusion is the holy grail of energy. In theory, a sustained fusion reaction will be clean and actually output more energy than it takes to start the reaction. Currently, however, we're not there yet. It still takes more energy to start the reaction than we get out of it, and we haven't found a way to sustain the reaction yet. There's a huge lab in California, the National Ignition Facility that is working on Fusion. In France, they are building ITER, a gigantic combined effort research megaproject. The goal of this reactor is to actually prove that you can get more energy out than you put into the system. It's designed to output 500MW, while only needing 50MW to operate. It's not happening any time soon though, as this project isn't expected to start running experiments until at least 2027.

The 2016 NFL offseason is fully underway. Fantasy drafts are just a couple months away, pretty soon guys will start running plays without pads and we'll get some fake football in just about 3 months! (August 7, HOF game, GB v IND). There have been lots of big free agent moves, as well as some big time draft picks.

(Listen to the Fantasy Football Podcast: 5/3/16, NFL Draft 2016 Rookies & Free Agents)

Free Agent Moves

Quarterbacks -

Brock Osweiler (HOU, 4yr, 72mil) - Signed a massive contract with Houston - with numbers like that, he's undoubtedly the starter this year. I see his value as a mid to low QB2, but with the good receiving threats in Houston, he could have some decent upside.

Robert Griffin III (CLE, 2yr, 15-22mil) - The guy who wasn't even given the honor of Kirk Cousin's clipboard last year has signed with Cleveland for a modest deal, worth up to $22 million. RG3 still has to compete to earn his job against Josh McCown and (possibly) 3rd Round pick Cody Kessler. Given the rest of the offensive roster, particularly the receiving core, I don't know who'd even want the job.

Sam Bradford (PHI, 2yr, 36mil) - Re-signed with Philly for a number that might indicate he could be their starter. But then the Eagles traded up to the 2nd pick, drafted a QB (more on him later) and Bradford has been pouting ever since. Now, as of March 9th, it looks like Bradford has ended his holdout.

Mark Sanchez (DEN, Traded from Eagles) - Sanchez was traded for only a conditional 7th round 2017 pick AND the Broncos drafted a QB near the end of the first round. Despite this, it seems like Sanchez is currently the front-runner to start in Denver this year. The strength of the run game, WR core and that defense immediately puts him in the upper QB2 discussion, possibly a lower QB1.

Other moves: Ryan Fitzpatrick is still without a contract. It's been quite a drawn-out negotiation with the Jets, and a few other teams have dipped their toes into the water, but now it seems like there's a 50/50 shot that the Beard doesn't get anything done before the season starts. Chase Daniel signed for 3 years, 21 million with the Chiefs, but he's just their very well paid backup QB. Brian Hoyer signed on with the Bears as their backup (a position that has seen at least 1 start each of the last 6 years).

Running Backs -

Matt Forte (NYJ, 3yr, $12mil) - Forte is certainly going to be the opening day starter on the Jets, however he has both Bilal Powell and Khiry Robinson behind him. Powell already is a solid 3rd down back, so Forte's role may be limited compared to what he's been used to most of his career. Forte being here in the first place is possible, due to the exit of...

Chris Ivory (JAX, 5yr, $32.5mil) - Ivory's landed himself a decent contract on a team that was not blown away by TJ Yeldon's performance last year, though it was still respectable. Ivory will be a serious weapon on a team that had the best pair of WR's last year, one of the best young QB's in the league, and some say, the best looking draft in 2016.

Lamar Miller (HOU, 4yr, $26mil) - Miller also landed a big contract, though it's still a little surprising that Miami let him go. In Houston, Miller will be the main head of a timeshare, though he's slated to get decent majority of the touches. He should be the RB1 we all have expected him to be in the past.

Alfred Morris (DAL, 2yr, up to $5.5mil) - At first, this move looked like a good one for Morris - he would be running behind an offensive line that got Darren McFadden over the 1000 yard mark last year. Then draft day came and now it looks like Morris will be firmly in the 2nd position on the depth chart where he might just be called in for short yardage situations when Elliott needs a breather.

Demarco Murray (Traded to TEN) - Most people would agree that Murray was not used right in Philadephia last year, and he should improve just by moving to a new team. Despite the Titans selection of Derrick Henry in the 2nd round this year, Murray should be a guy who gets a lot of carries this year.

Other RB Signings: Arian Foster is still a free agent, having stated that he will wait until he's fully healthy before signing with a team. Stevan Ridley signed with the Lions. Marshawn Lynch retired, leading the way for Thomas Rawls to take over.

Wide Receivers -

Marvin Jones (DET, 5yr, $40mil) - Wide Receiver was clearly the thinnest position in free agency this year, this being the biggest move and the best free agent is proof of that. Jones will attempt, with Golden Tate, to fill some megatron-sized shoes.

Travis Benjamin (SD, 4yr, $24mil) - Leaving the depleted Browns WR core in even worse shape, he arrives in San Diego, a team that had a very depleted WR group last year. Hopefully Keenan Allen returns to form this year - if so, he and Benjamin could provide a solid 1-2 punch for Philip Rivers, with Antonio Gates taking care of the middle of the field.

Mohamed Sanu (ATL, 5yr, $32.5mil) - It's been a good off-season for ex-Cincinnati Bengals wide receivers. Sanu will be replacing Roddy White in the Falcons offense, and should prove to be a lot more useful than White's last couple of years. Sanu could wind up as an every week starter as a WR3/flex early on in the season.

Other WR moves - Mike Wallace signed with the Ravens. Brandon LaFell signed with the Bengals - they're one of the only teams that really lost depth this year. Nate Washington signed with the Patriots. Rueben Randle signed with the Eagles. Rishard Matthews is on the Titans now. Still unsigned: Anquan Boldin, Roddy White, Andre Johnson

Tight Ends -

Ladarius Green (PIT, 4yr, $24mil) - Green moves into the Steelers' high powered offense to replace the retiring Heath Miller (pause for Heeeeeeaaaaath). Green wasn't going to be the featured guy in San Diego, with Gates coming back for another couple years. We can assume that he's going to love his new spot, and so will, I assume, Ben Roethlisberger. Green is an easy TE1 this year.

Coby Fleener (NO, 5yr, $36mil) - It seems that the Saints have realized that they need to have a serious TE in their offense, and Ben Watson is not going to last much longer, so they turn to youth. Fleener should be an easy TE1, as he was a good receiving TE when he had Andrew Luck throwing him the ball, he just wasn't getting enough chances.

Martellus Bennett - (Traded to Pats) - Bennett's act was wearing thin in Chicago, so the bears sent him to New England (what a terrible punishment). He'll be the best compliment to Gronkowski since Aaron Hernandez - let's just hope he can keep his head on straight.

Other TE Moves: Ben Watson signed with the Ravens. Gates, Zach Miller, Dwayne Allen re-signed. Vernon Davis signed with the Redskins. Jared Cook signed with the Packers.

2016 Fantasy Rookies (see Shawn's Article for in-depth player profiles)

Quarterbacks:

Jared Goff (Rnd 1, Pick 1, Los Angeles Rams) - The Rams traded an awful lot away to acquire the number 1 pick. I expect to see him under center for their first game in L.A.

Carson Wentz (Rnd 1, Pick 2, Philadelphia Eagles) - This is the pick that has Sam Bradford's panties in a bunch. The Eagles traded up to pick Wentz, but with the money they just paid Bradford, it's hard to know who will be the starter this season.

Paxton Lynch (Rnd 1, Pick 26, Denver Broncos) - The third QB taken in the first round, the Broncos also traded up to pick this QB. Lynch doesn't seem like he's going to start right away in Denver, probably to get some time behind a veteran QB.

Christian Hackenberg (Rnd 2, Pick 51, New York Jets) - This pick adds to the mystery surrounding who will start this season for the Jets. Will it be Geno Smith? Will they sign Fitzpatrick? Can the rookie compete for a starting job?

Running Backs:

Ezekiel Elliott (Rnd 1, Pick 4, Dallas Cowboys) - Some people thought that the Cowboys would go elsewhere with the 4th overall pick, but I see this as Jerry Jones being unable to pass up the shiniest, best toy in the store. Lucky for him, this one is real gold, rather than the fool's gold Manziel pick that he almost took a few years ago. Elliott should start right away, and I'm already hearing people talk about him as a potential overall #1 RB in fantasy for this season.

Derrick Henry (Rnd 2, Pick 45, Tennessee Titans) - Henry will get plenty of work in his rookie campaign, but may not be very fantasy relevant with DeMarco Murray carrying the load this year in Tennessee.

Kenyan Drake (Rnd 3, Pick 73, Miami Dolphins) - Drake is a speedster that will be a compliment to Jay Ajayi in the running game. This is good news for Ajayi owners, as it seems that this pick indicates that the Dolphins will be full speed ahead with Ajayi as the starter.

C.J. Prosise (Rnd 3, Pick 90, Seattle Dolphins) - Shawn's overhyped sleeper did indeed shoot up the draft board, being the 4th overall RB taken.

Wide Receivers:

Corey Coleman (Rnd 1, Pick 15, Cleveland Browns) - The Browns needed WR depth perhaps more than any other team. They wound up taking three more WR's in the 4th and 5th rounds. It's clear that the WR position is as up for grabs as any in the league this year.

Will Fuller (Rnd 1, Pick 21, Houston Texans) - Shawn predicted that some team would fall in love with Fuller and his deep ball capability, and he was right. That team was Houston, and it might actually be a good fit. With Fuller lining up opposite of DeAndre Hopkins, Brock Osweiler has some fancy new toys to play with this year.

Josh Doctson (Rnd 1, Pick 22, Washington Redskins) - Shawn's favorite WR in the draft, Kirk Cousins has a nice compliment to DeSean Jackson. Add Jordan Reed to the mix, and you have a receiving core than can keep up with some of the other big names in the division.

Laquon Treadwell (Rnd 1, Pick 23, Minnesota Vikings) - Can someone say WR run? The Vikings haven't had a proper number 1 at WR in a while, so this pick was obvious. Pairing 3rd year QB Teddy Bridgewater with some rookie talent is just the ticket now that the Vikings are moving their games back indoors.

Sterling Shepard (Rnd 2, Pick 40, New York Giants) - As Shawn said, Shepard is the best slot receiver in the draft, and filling that need is going to help the Giants a lot. Odell will be able to hang out on the outside more often, and they need to replace Rueben Randle's receptions anyway.

Michael Thomas (Rnd 2, Pick 47, New Orleans Saints) - The Saints always cycle through a lot of WR's every year - heck, every game really. There will be chances for the rookie, but I don't think he'll be emerging as a fantasy starter this year.

Tight Ends:

Hunter Henry (Rnd 2, Pick 35, San Diego Chargers) - Shawn went three for three on the TE draft order, and had Henry at the top. Henry was clearly the top TE this draft and went to a team that doesn't take the position lightly. Knowing that Gates will be gone in a few years and Green is now in Pittsburgh, drafting Henry is a smart move for the long term, but don't worry about him in redraft leagues this year.

Austin Hooper (Rnd 3, Pick 81, Atlanta Falcons) - The Falcons are still trying to replace Tony Gonzalez, and while Hooper isn't exactly anything special like Gonzalez, he should get some opportunities right away.

Nick Vannett (Rnd 3, Pick 94, Seattle Seahawks) - He's a big TE that got drafted by a team that has a lot of buyer's remorse with the currently injured Jimmy Graham. He'll certainly take some time to develop into a regular starter, but he could rise fast if Russell Wilson likes throwing him the ball.

The term "cord-cutting" has been thrown around for several years now. Many people are interested in saving money from ever rising cable bills and some people never went in for traditional media in the first place. Usually, cutting the cord means that you're interested in partially or completely replacing your traditional TV watching with alternate sources. This could mean subscribing to Netflix or Hulu (or often times, multiple services), and having some kind of device to watch it on. There are, of course, tons of different combinations.

Retrospectical Ep 16 - Cord Cutting Guide: Cable Alternatives

The Numbers

According to a 2015 study, 15% of American adults qualify as cord-cutters - meaning that they once paid for cable or satellite TV, but no longer do. 24% of people do not have any kind of cable or satellite TV, a majority of them citing the fact that it's too expensive or they can access what they want elsewhere online or via an antenna. This trend, of course, is more prevalent with young people - 19% of young adults have cut the cord and another 16% never had one in the first place.

Price is the driving factor for most people when they decide not go to with a service, be it cable TV, satellite, or even broadband internet in the home (which peaked in 2013 at 70%, now is down to 67%). A growing number of people, 13%, are going with a smartphone and no broadband at all. So, the big question with cord-cutting is - can it save me money, and how much?

First of all, I don't think anyone thinks that their cable bill is cheap. They're often subject to regular increases and confusing bundles - sometimes cancelling a service actually can raise your monthly rate! Last year, the average bill hit $99, which is a 39% increase since 2010. Add that to the average monthly broadband bill - $47 for Time-Warner customers - and it seems like finding some relief on a $150 monthly bill is a good idea.

The Networks

First, we'll look at the options for content, because after all, if you don't have something to watch, what's the point?

- Netflix - Cost (7.99/9.99/11.99 monthy), the increased cost is for multiple concurrent streams (1/2/4) on one account, and HD service at the 9.99 level. Netflix is perhaps the most well known of streaming options, and features tons of original content. With 75 million subscribers, as many as 2/3rds of these users share their account with at least one other person. While Netflix doesn't condone this, they do offer the different tier packages to accommodate multiple users on one account.

Netflix made 450 hours of original content in 2015 (16 original series) and plans to make 600 hours this year (10 of those, Daredevil Season 2, were excellent). Award winning shows like House of Cards have lead the way for all streaming companies to have legitimate talent creating top notch television. In my opinion, Netflix is a must in any cord cutting setup.

- Hulu - Cost (7.99/11.99 monthly), the increased cost is for a commercial-free version of Hulu, so yes, there are commercials with the base plan of $7.99 per month. Hulu tends to feature a lot of new network content that has a shorter shelf life. They have a bit of everything, like most of the services, and have started to venture into original content as well. You can also add Showtime to Hulu.

- Amazon Prime - $99 per year, this provides you with access to their streaming content and free 2-day shipping, music streaming and more - there's actually a lot of smaller perks that may or may not apply to you. For example: same day delivery in Chicago, New York, Baltimore and Los Angeles. Amazon Prime features just handful of original programming series (Transparent, Man in the High Castle), but they do make a surprising amount of pilots, which they then have users vote on to decide what shows will be made into a series.

- HBO Now - $14.99 monthly, by far the largest catalog of originals in both quantity and quality. It's basically the same as HBO Go, which is available to regular HBO subscribers, but available without the $100 cable bill attached to it. So if the only show you're into is Game of Thrones, then you can subscribe for a few months and take the rest of the year off.

- FX, ESPN, USA and a number of other networks have streaming sites as well, however they all require a cable/satellite subscription. Pay-per-title services like iTunes and Google Play also have new releases available, for both TV shows and movie. This is the kind of network you may need to borrow a password for.

- Sling TV - $20 monthly (one device at a time), several add on packages are available, but this is the cheapest way to add access to some of the basic cable networks such as AMC, CNN and ESPN. This is a cheap option if you still really want to have live TV, and especially live sports. (ESPN, TBS, TNT, ESPN2, ABC are all included in the base package).

SlingTV requires a broadband internet connection, but so do the rest of these really. Sling TV runs off of a number of set top devices (more on these later) and does not have any of its own hardware. Sling TV does not generate its own content.

- MLB/NHL/NBA – Cost: MLB 85 (single team)/110 (league), NHL ~$130 (league), $105 (single team), NBA $7 (single game), $120 (full season, one team). The NHL and MLB offer you an option to stream all of the games, while the NBA does not offer that yet. The main problem with these packages is that they still black out the local broadcasts, so that means you still need to subscribe to cable in Chicago if you want to watch White Sox games on MLB.tv. All of these services also lower their prices as the season goes on, so if you’re just the kind of person who follows the month before the playoffs start, this works out well for you.

So, there you have four content providers, three sports and a low cost streaming cable option. I would be negligent in my duties if I did not discuss, on drinkfive.com, how you’re going to watch football. Thankfully, almost every game is on broadcast TV, which means all you need is a decent antenna on your HDTV and you’re already getting football games. Half of the Thursday night games (possibly all if Fox picks up the rest of them – and Twitter just signed a deal to manage all of the TNF online content, so who knows what that might entail). Every game on a Sunday is broadcast on free TV - of course, mostly to local markets. The trouble comes when you want to stream the Monday night game – your only option is to purchase Sling TV, have a cable subscription, or have a Verizon phone that offers it. The big fantasy football channel – NFL Red Zone, is also only available through a cable subscription, although again, Verizon users have the option to pay extra to get this straight to their phone, though that’s not really a good TV replacement.

The Devices

- Roku - ($130 for new Roku 4) – Roku is one of the most established third party suppliers of cord cutting hardware. Roku doesn’t generate any content itself, but does provide a lot of free content through many “channels”, and it also provides apps for its device for people to log into and access. For example, you can use Roku to access your Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, ESPN, HBO and other accounts in order to stream everything. Roku also supports Sling TV.

Roku is a small device you hook up to your TV via HDMI and connect to the internet via WiFi or Ethernet. This is a way to have a much smaller footprint and much better streamlined setup when compared to an HTPC.

- Amazon Fire – ($85 for FireTV, $40 for Fire Stick) – This is a set top box that can run its own applications, stream content with your Amazon Prime account, and has lots of other features, similar to Amazon Prime, which may be more or less helpful to you. Fire is probably the best in terms of computing capability – it even lets you download and install some games (though not many, storage space is very limited). The Fire Stick has almost all the same capabilities, but has its hardware toned down a little.

- Chromecast – ($35 for the base and Audio models) – Chromecast is different from the previous two devices in that it doesn’t provide any kind of interface for you to interact with. Chromecast is tiny compared to the other two devices (easy to leave at a hotel room!). Chromecast will just stream the screen of a PC or android device – it then takes over processing the stream and doesn’t need to necessarily burn your phone’s battery down while you use it. There are also mobile and web apps that are Google Cast enabled (HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Youtube).

- Apple TV – ($150/32gb, $200/64gb) – Apple TV is a 4^th generation standalone set-top device, similar to the Roku or Amazon Fire, and it’s designed to play extra nice with all of your apple products. Apple TV features apps from all of the major streaming networks, and were the first to offer HBO Now, which is thankfully out of its exclusivity period. Apple TV can sync with a computer running iTunes in order to stream photos, music or video.

- HTPC - Home Theater PC – This is usually an option for hobbyists that want to fully customize everything, By hooking a computer up directly into your entertainment system, you are given a huge amount of options right away – all you need is a wireless keyboard & mouse combo (and the computer, of course). Different software packages, such as XBMC or Plex, will allow you to install apps similar to a Roku and also manage your media library. This is definitely the most expensive option, but also the most customizable one.

- Xbox/Playstation – Both of these gaming consoles offer streaming TV options at this point in the game. Xbox is compatible with most networks, but of course requires you to already have an account, usually through a cable provider. Playstation does currently work with HBO and Epix.

Summary

So, there is a large variety of options currently available for you to make your very own media package. Unfortunately, there is no direct replacement for traditional cable/satellite TV, so there will be tradeoffs based on your own interests. This isn’t always a downside, as people have been clamoring for years for an a la carte option from the big providers so consumers can just get the stations that they want.

We still don’t have the option to just pick what networks we want, but we’re getting closer all the time. Sometimes you just borrow a buddy’s password to catch up on Mr. Robot or something like that and it fills the gap for the shows you don’t have access to. Sometimes the providers themselves are restrictive, perhaps unnecessarily. The best example of this is that while HBO Go is on Roku, you cannot use the app if your HBO subscription is through Xfinity. Just another example of the plethora of red tape that people cut the cord just to avoid.

So, how do you end up saving money? Well, here’s a few example packages that should provide enough entertainment: (Based on the average bill of $99).

#1 (The Standards) – Netflix HD ($10/month), Amazon Prime ($8.25/month), Sling TV ($20/month) comes out to about $39/month. You’ll want to get a Roku for your main TV and probably a Chromecast to take with you and to use on another TV. That will set you back another $165, but you will make that up in the first 3 months. (Savings of $60/month).

#2 (The Thrones Fan) – HBO Now ($15/month), Amazon Prime ($8.25/month), $40 Amazon Fire Stick. For a monthly cost of less than $25, you have access to the entire HBO catalog, as well as everything that Amazon Prime is currently offering. For $65, you can be all set up, much cheaper than one month of cable! Of course, if all you care about is one TV show, you can even cancel HBO when it’s not on (or just subscribe after the season is over and marathon it – not suggested). (Savings of $74/month, but you probably weren’t paying that much to begin with).

#3 (The Everything) – Netflix HD ($10/month), Hulu Plus No Commercials ($12/month), Amazon Prime ($8.25/month), HBO Now ($15/month), Sling TV ($20/month) comes to $66/month, which is still a savings of $33 per month. A package like this, however, compares better to our bulky cable setup at the studio, which is closer to $130/month (meaning you’re still saving about 50%!). To go with this, you’ll want a Roku or Apple TV and probably one or two Chromecasts. (Savings of $33-$64 per month).