Number of words in the Official Playing Rules and Casebook of the National Football League: 157,801
Number of words in the Official Baseball Rules: 49,699
Number of words in the Laws of Cricket: 30,537
Number of words in the Official Basketball Rules: 26,948
Number of words in the Laws of the Game (of soccer): 23,106
In response to JustJoeP’s comment, more data points:
Number of words in Rugby Union’s Laws of the Game: 37,737
Number of words in the Laws of Australian Football: 23,888
Number of words in Rugby League’s* Laws of the Game: 20,468
Number of words in the rules of Gaelic football**: 13,102
* Rugby Union and Rugby League are related but distinct games. Perhaps an enlightened Rugger*** fan can explain why Union’s rules are nearly twice the length of League’s.
** The linked document also includes the rules for hurling. Those have been subtracted from the total.
*** “Rugger” cf. “soccer”. That is, “Rugby football” (both varieties) is known casually as “rugger” while “association football” is known colloquially as “soccer”. In other words, Brits who make fun of Americans for our use of the word “soccer” are ignorant of the game’s history.
After my recent trip to the Bay Area to report a PBS story about labor in the tech sector, I was struck by this (h/t Sullivan):
“Everyone is competing for the same people, going after the same real estate, the same support services,” Hartz says. “The natural resources of the startup world are getting scarcer and scarcer, and the cost is getting higher and higher. It’s all an outgrowth of an abundance of capital.”
The Wired piece cites the “billboards on highway 101 between San Francisco and Silicon Valley touting startups no one has heard of” which also struck me, as did similar ads on Caltrain.
Timothy Lee argues the problem is housing. He has a point: San Jose and parts of the Peninsula seem ripe for higher-density development.
But I think Lee misses something when he refers back to the original Wired piece’s formulation — that “the natural resources of the startup world” are “people, real estate, and support services”. Isn’t capital one of those “natural resources”? And isn’t it possible that what Hartz (the VC profiled in the Wired piece) means is an overabundance of capital? Can the VC market allocate resources efficiently when there’s an overabundance of those resources?