I can't stand Perk - not sure what he brings to the table at all. But do you think it's possible that some of these former athletes take less than a Zach Lowe, just because many of them can? ESPN looks at it strictly from a dollars and cents perspective, and the better analysts (or at least those who can articulate their positions better) stick around, and the higher paid (but better) analysts get the boot? I don't know that it applies across the board, but your mention of Perk at least put that thought in my head as it relates to him specifically vs. Zach Lowe.