text:
inside zone
Clinic Notes: Darrell Funk
Guest post by Craig Ross.
I talked to Coach Darrell Funk for a bit before his three sessions (all on the inside zone game) and asked him about his impressions re: the defense last spring. He said, "I could feel it in the spring that the defense would be good. Coach Mattison was doing little things that drove us crazy." The coach indicated that he thought his offense would be decent, so he knew that Mattison had a chance to show a lot more than the defense had in 2010. Indeed, Coach Funk stated he had been pretty certain of his assessment.
Funk is a very engaging guy. Like a few other coaches I have talked to (Mark Smith on the current staff, Rod Smith, Scot Loeffler and Mike DeBord on prior staffs) he considers it a priority that the listener understands what he is getting at. And, it doesn't seem to matter whether the listener is a coach, a wanna-be coach, or just some schmo off the street (me, for example). He is a teacher, first, and it shows. At the close of his last session (he was three hours in) I bugged him (well, Brian goaded me; his fault) about the offside's guard first step into the A gap (some call this a "bucket" step, a term Funk doesn't prefer—he likes to say the OL is "giving ground to gain leverage"), and he was pleased that I asked him, demonstrating the technique to make sure I understood the point.
He started his first session saying that he could talk "for two full days" on the inside zone, if anyone was willing to listen. When Brian joined me for session 3, (he had spent sessions 1 and 2 with Coach Mattison) he (kinda) groused about not having the background to learn the "minutia" of these blocking techniques. But after building upon the first two sessions, I could have easily have listened to a few more. Not that I can swear that I was getting more than the various tips of isolated icebergs. And, probably I have some of it twisted around. But, my notes from the first session were close to pristine, before my energy waned.
Here are Coach Funk's basic principles from the first session [the philosophy of the Inside Zone] with the caveat that I am just an ordinary fan. [Though Funk said, "If you just get a tidbit out of this I will be happy."] Jargon is always tough for the non-coach but I think I have most of this "right."
When zoning, Funk and Borges are seeking "hard double teams" at the line of scrimmage. Even though it is zone, they still want physical, hard downhill combo blocks.
The hard double team at the LOS is more important than getting one of the double team blockers to the second level, though, clearly, that's the idea. But, between late on the second level and not getting hard double team blocks at the LOS, Funk chooses "be late."
He doesn't want the offensive line blocking "rules" to vary. He prefers that there not be a lot of exceptions to blocking assignments; it is best if the OL have a few rules, and not a lot of exceptions. Practice time is limited, you can only learn so much. [I have heard coaches say this over and over. Get good at what you do.]
Funk wants the offensive line and the RB to work for "squareness" with their shoulders. He thinks the shoulder angles of the OL and RB should match, as much as is possible. He stressed this a couple of times so I assume this is a key point for him.
He says if your RBs are running with square shoulders and "downhill" the back has a greater opportunity to take advantage of cut backs. He prefers that the RB press the gap and stay square, implying less bounce to the outside and, when there, the opportunity to find a lane (a cut back) when the defense has over-pursued. [I found this very interesting, not something I had heard before, especially the "match" between RBs and OL.]
When they are running zone with "number 16," they often have a read to the backside (but not always). The key for Coach Hoke "and I have heard him say this a hundred times" is that he wants the back to "press the A gap until he can't." Hoke stresses simplicity.
Targeting. Who is going to combo what DL and to what backer? The Coach says the guards never say/call anything but the Center (Tackles? They may communicate with guards on the 30 or Bear fronts) is responsible for making "exception" calls. In the UM offense the exceptions are (primarily) a "30 front" (odd front with a NT right over the center) or a Bear defense. Otherwise, they have primary rules to determine who is doubling and who the target LB is. My assumption is that an OL blocks a lineman if he is covered. If not covered he doubles to the next linemen to his play side. Depending upon the movement of the DL, one blocker releases and looks to the second level, the targeted LB.
OL Splits. The basics are that center to guard is about 2 feet. Guard to tackle, about three feet. But he isn't dogmatic about this or with stance, so long as the lineman isn't tipping run or pass.
Landmarks. Doesn't like angles. He wants each OL to work from "his backside eye to the play side number." He feels this gets back to principle #1, hard doubles at the LOS. And then work to square, finishing North. "Stay low, don't stand up." [As he shows tape in subsequent sessions, he critiques OL play primarily looking to footwork, working to square.] So, let's say the backside guard has a DL over him. The landmark is still BSE/PSN. He wants the OL to work a line of his backside eye to the DL's play side shoulder, thus protecting the backside A gap. In the subsequent sessions, when reviewing tape, I would say these are the keys for Funk.
Footwork. "First step, get out of your footprint." [And gain ground.] The second step is the most important, has got to "get into the ground." Funk makes the second step as the most important coaching point. [He provides examples.]
Get out of your footprint, "get into the ground with your second step," work backside eye to play side number, work to square, finish north. This is the homily.
Oh yeah, "don't stand up." Funk says he has one, young promising OG who "will get there" as soon as he stops standing up.
Two small things that cropped up in his presentation that I found interesting. First, Funk's theme that there just isn't enough time to teach/practice, so getting good at a couple of things is better than doing a lot of stuff not very well. I have heard this from coaches a lot.
Second, and this wasn't that explicit but it was clearly there, was that Al Borges isn't a huge fan of zone schemes. He would prefer to be in a man or gap system. I think Funk can go either way, and might even lean to zone constructs, but Borges isn't convinced. Whether or not this is a tea leaf for the future I don't know. Coach Funk seemed to indicate that it would take him a couple of years to get his zone scheme in sync (a bit different that RR's scheme). So, we get the zone into gear next year and then we transition when Denard graduates? Or not? Next time I get the opportunity, I will ask.
In sessions two and three there was a lot of video demonstration and refinement of the basics outlined in session 1—ergo Brian's comment. In the second session there was a lot of talk about defenders "spiking," specifically "spiking down." That's when a defender attacks a gap from (say) outside of the right guard, looping back into the A gap. Funk talked about the techniques for protecting the A gaps, which were, in fact, variations of the BSE/PSN theme, but with an OL always taking a "bucket" step to the protect the gap to his play side, even if a short jab step and if the OL was "covered."
Picture Pages: Denard Three-In-One Threat
You know the drill by now: always Denard's legs always. Michigan went away from using Denard's legs as a threat against Iowa and suffered through a day where their tailbacks averaged 3.6 yards an attempt. Against Illinois virtually every play saw Michigan threaten a Denard run, often with the additional threat of a triple option from a motioning slot receiver or fullback Stephen Hopkins
Additionally, Michigan brought back Rodriguez's old offset H-back formation. This allowed Kevin Koger to either flare backside and open up the designed cutback runs Toussaint had success with or attack the frontside of the play on QB draws and the like. This stretched Illinois out and gave Toussaint some extra creases.
Toussaint's 65-yarder on Michigan's second play demonstrates both of these changes. It's second and ten after the NT jumped he snap on the first play and Denard missed a keep read on a triple option. Michigan comes out in a formation that could be a shot from any of the last three years but for the WR tight to the line at the top of the screen, who isn't actually a WR but is TE Steve Watson. Illinois responds by shifting its linebackers to the field and half-dropping the free safety.
There are five second level defenders on this play: the three linebackers, the overhang corner, and the rolled-up free safety.
On the snap Koger starts to head backside. The slot LB charges on an exchange as the backside DE comes in unblocked:
By the mesh points defenders one and two are dead on a handoff.
CAUSE OF DEATH, DEFENDER 1: Scrape exchange designed to contain threat of a Denard keeper; Koger's backside block.
CAUSE OF DEATH, DEFENDER 2: Drop into zone designed to combat the threat of a mesh point oh noes play-action pass (that still does nothing to combat a bubble screen or quick out by Hemingway.
Denard sees the DE containing and hands off. Koger comes backside to prevent #1 from running down the line and making the play from behind. Defender three is blitzing up the middle…
…he manages to get through the small gap beween Huyge and Omameh but the two guys combine to slow him down long enough for Toussaint to hit the hole.
CAUSE OF DEATH, DEFENDER 3: Blitz picked up by Huyge and Molk.
The Illinois line creases between Schofield and Molk. With the Illinois line clearly slanting to the playside this is mostly thanks to Molk controlling the NT well enough to prevent him from getting upfield. This defense is clearly designed to get Fitz cutting to the backside of the play; Molk's block means he doesn't have to.
By the time Fitz is hitting the line, the gap is obvious.
When he's two yards past it Illinois is done.
CAUSE OF DEATH, DEFENDER 4: General uselessness of one guy in twenty yards of space against a blocker; need to maintain leverage.
CAUSE OF DEATH, DEFENDER 5: Derp. He's containing Denard Robinson, who doesn't have the ball and was never going to have the ball on this play, or he's anticipating a cutback that he doesn't wait to see develop.
Toussaint gets tackled by his shirt tail because that's what always happens to Fitzgerald Toussaint.
He manages to pick up another 15 yards after the initial contact, but someone needs to get Fitz a slippery jersey.
Items Of Interest
Denard's legs: all threaty and stuff. The zone read fake eliminates one linebacker, which helps the run game but isn't a miracle. When Michigan operates from under center they still eliminate a guy because all defenses leave backside ends for potential bootlegs.
Where operating from the shotgun helps Michigan is with defender #2, who has to back out into a short zone because of the threat of a quick seam over the top. The quick PA ability of the spread 'n' shred means any linebacker who sucks up and reacts is DOA.
This is enough to put Toussaint one on one with a safety. Since that safety derps it's one on none. That's a third player the threat posed by Denard in the gun eliminates. That's their starter and fourth-leading tackler, by the way. Don't know what it is about Illinois safeties and massive breakdowns on Michigan's first possession but I like it.
Molk's block: key. Illinois is slanting the line hard and trying to funnel the play back to their backside blitz. If Fitz has to cut behind Molk that blitz may or may not get home. Since he's got a crease to the side where the Illinois line slanted it has no chance.
This isn't entirely up to Molk. Zone blocking is frequently about taking the guy where he wants to go, then taking him past that point. You can see on the replay that the backside DT is slanting, then stops, then tries to extend as Fitz hits the hole. He waves an arm at him but can do no more.
If the NT pushes hard to the playside Molk is tasked with kicking him past the point he wants to end up at; with the MLB handled by two guys Fitz likely has a cut either way. But not getting blown up/shoved back/chucked provides the crease.
Flinging Koger backside: nostalgic. Michigan also did this with Hopkins when they aligned with two backs. This is likely because of a heavy dose of plays like this where Illinois takes a quick linebacker and shoots him down the line.
A few years ago Calvin Magee said he'd worry about the guy crashing from the end "when he makes the play" on stretches; Illinois's goal with this exchange is to make the guy left unblocked a quicker player with a running start. On inside zones blocking the backside guy is mandatory because all possible creases are in the danger zone.
The bubble: screamingly open here. The slot LB will blitz as the MLB drops into coverage, so… yeah:
On this play the threat of the seam still eliminates the linebacker that the bubble usually forces out of the box*. I am still in favor of at least throwing a few bubbles because they will pick up big chunks if the defense plays like this.
I'm in favor of them generally because they put pressure on the defense by restricting the ways they can align without either getting 8 yards in their face or playing games that end with Worst Waldo passes. I mean, by the snap there isn't a guy on the field with a prayer of defending a slot bubble here.
*[When it doesn't it's forcing a safety either to the line or into a dangerous game of jumping the bubble route and opening up wide open bombs.]
Picture Pages: Zone Minus Read
This week in spread zealotry we've got an example of something you can't do against the spread without getting a face full of Denard: crash. It's second and three early in the third quarter. Fitzgerald Toussaint has just taken an iso seven yards thanks to Molk and Hopkins making quick work of the NT and MLB.
Michigan will run an inside zone from an ace set. I'm pretty sure that Michigan screwed this up because I've never seen an inside zone play on which a guy who is not the end man on the line scrimmage is let go unless he's getting read. Here the backside DE is let go while Watson flares out to block a guy with a longer path to the ballcarrier.
The setup:
Get used to both halves of this. Iowa is in a 4-3 under. The key guy is the DE at the top of the screen—the guy in a two point stance next to the standing SLB.
Michigan runs an inside zone. They double the NT and the SDE (at the bottom of the screen) as the linebackers flow to the LOS.
By the handoff point a couple things have happened. Both linebackers are at the LOS and engaged; the MLB is actually doubled by Lewan and Schofield. Sometimes a doubled LB means you've blocked a play so well that there's no one else to get. Not so much here.
I don't want to make too much of this because this is clearly a bust by the line (in all likelihood Lewan), but when I saw this I immediately wished Michigan was in the shotgun and Denard was reading the guy they let go. He'd have two choices: remain responsible on Denard and open that cutback up (he'd likely recover in time to tackle but not at the LOS) or do what he's doing now and put Denard one on one with the safety.
Similarly, with the linebackers one and two yards off the LOS, a pass like the one that started off their second hurry-up drive would be open. These things are all possible if you're reading the guy you've let go.
When you're not he just tackles you.
Toussaint does make the guy miss, but only by redirecting into a pile of bodies. He gets a yard. On the next play Michigan runs a QB power with Denard that Iowa is all over until two guys fall down after beating their blockers to the spot. Twenty two yards later they've got a first down. A field goal results.
Items of Interest
This seems strictly less effective than the same thing run from the gun. I'm not sure what the advantage of operating from under center on this can be. You hear a lot about getting downhill quickly as an advantage of playing from under center, but pistol sets and even Michigan's old belly setup where the QB is a yard in front of the tailback get guys going downhill pretty damn fast without giving up the mesh read.
The other advantage suggested by commenters when I tried to answer some guy's question about the advantages of the I-Form over the spread was an ability to keep your eyes on the coverage downfield instead of catching a shotgun snap*. Here Robinson turns his back to the defense and has no idea what's going on behind him until he turns around.
So… yeah. Living in a world without post-snap reads is giving up something when your quarterback is mobile.
This is an example of the "ten man football" Borges was talking about. Even so, the play should still work for a few yards. The blocking's decidedly mediocre—in the last few frames you see a DT chucking Omameh, forcing the cutback—but the nice thing about the zone is it's hard for the defense to be right when you've got an effective cutback runner. Toussaint is that.
If the backside end actually gets blocked, Toussaint looks like he has the cutback for decent yardage. While that safety is probably going to come down and hold it to a modest gain, the first down is well within reach. Lewan busts and Michigan gets zilch. That was a theme on the day: one guy doing something wrong on these run plays and Michigan getting stuffed.
I wonder if spread stuff has a greater failure tolerance. You'd think it would because you are optioning off a potential defender and therefore get a double on someone. The alternative is forcing a safety into the box, which isn't bad.
*[Something that didn't seem particularly convincing since the shotgun is the preferred passing formation for long-yardage situations and hurry-up even in the NFL.]
Picture Pages: Linebacker Hesitancy FML
A little more on what looks to me like one of the major issues with the run defense: the two MLBs not reading plays quickly enough. This was one of the videos featured in the UFR, FWIW.
Michigan State has first and ten at the beginning of the third quarter and will run an inside zone from an ace formation; Michigan is in their standard 4-3 under with Kovacs rolled down:
On the snap State starts to develop the run action and the linebackers start creeping forward:
A moment later the handoff point is almost reached and the two LBs are still three and four yards off the LOS.
Contrast this with the MSU defense on Michigan's first and five on their first drive:
Both are two yards closer to the LOS and rapidly approaching. This was a consistent theme: MSU linebackers, even when not blitzing, were screaming at the LOS.
At the handoff there is one blocker for two guys because Heininger was doubled on the backside. Martin is driving his single block into the backfield and Van Bergen is cutting off the outside. Kovacs is still hanging around for backside bounceouts.
The above is not a good setup for an offense.
But Demens does not get outside his block.. and Hawthorne starts moving up into a hypothetical gap that the RB is not headed to. Even if he wants to cut backside the Martin penetration means it will take absolutely forever. Still, he starts moving straight upfield instead of flowing to the hole:
By the time Baker manages to squeeze through the gap left by the DL, Hawthorne is hardly closer to him than when he was three yards behind the LOS and Demens is still two yards downfield, not funneling the play back to help.
Baker pops outside. Countess fills quickly, but can't make the tackle…
…and neither can Ryan.
Items of Interest
The DL cannot do much more than this. They got a two-for-one on the double that leaves a free hitter. On the frontside they drive into the backfield such that the tailback has one realistic option. Short of throwing offensive linemen into the RB, they have done all they can.
The linebackers are uncertain of what they are doing. This has been a theme all year: me complaining about guys pulling in front of the LB's face only for that LB move directly upfield instead of scraping over to the POA. Sometimes poor DL play has washed them out, but often it's just derp.
Both linebackers screw it up here. Demens has to get into his blocker further upfield; failing that he needs to pop outside of him to funnel back to help. He does neither. Hawthorne can't see that his assigned gap is not an option because of the penetration and slows up for what turns out to be no reason. Either could have made this play themselves; it takes both of them screwing up to send it to the second level.
I'm sure they're more concerned about play action than Michigan State was because of the quarterbacks in question, but they get blocked way too often for my tastes. Hawthorne had already given way to Morgan for a series or two in the first half; IIRC this would be one of his last drives before Morgan re-entered for the remainder.
Ed Baker is hard to tackle and fast. I wish he was on the football team I liked instead of one I do not.
Countess does a great job here. I know he misses the tackle but a cornerback impacting a tailback just outside the hash four yards downfield is quality run support. If the linebackers hadn't compounded their Keystone Kops impression by banging into each other and falling over Baker is gang tackled after a moderate gain; as it is only Ryan is there to tackle and he is run through.
Unverified Voracity Starts Sexy WWII
My eccentric Oregon financial advisor doppelganger. Smart Football points to a fellow who goes by FishDuck and is all about zone reads, feeding his dog, the violent-yet-genteel devouring of Mike Patrick, and more zone reads:
An interesting point picked up from Chip Kelly's presentations: Oregon has tipped inside/outside zone for six years without ill effect because declaring the play causes people to overreact to it, which opens up constraint plays. More than that, the zone often acts as its own constraint as over-aggressive players flow playside or bunch up inside, opening cutbacks and bounces.
He's also got a video on Oregon's deployment of power, which it uses as a counter to their usual inside zone stuff. We haven't seen this out of Borges yet, but I'm hoping. My desire to see Michigan pair an opposite-side-of-the-line speed option with the inside zone borders on lust. And by "borders on lust" I mean "invades Poland with sexy tanks."
On point. Doctor Saturday lays out the situation and the stakes on Saturday as well as you can:
When he was hired in January, Hoke's mission was explicitly to roll back the Rodriguez era, to restore whatever it was that made Michigan feel like Michigan again. To that end, even Wolverine fans seemed to find the sudden proliferation of countdown clocks, macho posturing and various Buckeye-related eccentricities laying it on a little thick. But six weeks in, the Wolverines are right on schedule in the national polls, the Big Ten standings and the weekly stat sheets. If they clear the midseason hurdle Rodriguez's teams never could at Michigan State, they can claim one more phase of the mission accomplished.
Kind of a big deal, this game.
Point: Tim. Reportorial ex-girlfriend Tim, who now goes by the bizarrely long moniker "Tim Sullivan" over at Rivals, was a committed skeptic about Rob Bolden since he was one of a trio of touted in-state quarterbacks in the 2009 recruiting class.
Despite the rankings, Tim said the guy didn't know how to play football. It seems like his scouting prowess has been borne out:
Game Over, Man. Game Over. This quarterback contest is done. Urban Meyer remarked toward the end of Penn State's first offensive drive that at Thursday practice, he did not see Bolden complete a single pass over five yards. This makes sense, as Bolden did not throw a single decent pass on the entire first drive. …
Rob looks completely shattered at this point, and it's time for the coaches, players, and fans to embrace the crazy train that is McGloin Moxie Mania.
It's McGloin o'clock in Bolden's Penn State career. Beaten out by a walk-on, does a transfer again beckon? /NYT headline writer imitation
Point: Hoke. Shudder at the awful puntasaur display in the Iowa-Penn State game:
…Iowa got to the PSU 33, faced 4th and 8... and punted. That Guthrie was able to pin PSU on their own 10-yard line (a solid accomplishment) is irrelevant. Punting from the other team's 33-yard line is A F---ING STUPID AND TERRIBLE IDEA. I don't even need statistics to back me up on that one (although they would). Even if Ferentz didn't want to try to convert on fourth down (4th and 8 isn't easy, obviously), why not give Mike Meyer a crack at a field goal? It was a beautiful day, the ball was lined up near the middle of the field, and Meyer has made 50+ yard field goals in the past (this year, in fact). But no. Ferentz gave a vote of "no confidence" to both Meyer and his offense on that play. Iowa probably deserved to lose the game for that decision alone.
Of course, JoePa was determined to out-conservative -- or out-dumb -- Ferentz; he punted three times from the Iowa side of the field, including late in the game on 4th and 2 from the Iowa 36. If he really didn't think his offense could rip off a two-yard gain against a gassed and reeling Iowa defense, I... I just have no words for the level of neanderthal football thinking on display in this game.
Of course, that coaching blunder on Ferentz's part might be narrowly eclipsed by the decision to eschew running a two-minute offense upon getting the ball at the Iowa 20 with two timeouts and 1:42 to go before halftime. God forbid we try to score there. It's not like we don't have a no huddle offense that's been effective this year or a kicker with decent range. Nope.
Even if trying the field goal with Gibbons is a mistake, it pales in comparison to that business. I cannot express how much I love the Mathlete's new Dumb Punt of the Week feature. The inaugural winner is Ohio State's Frank Solich, who punted on fourth and one from the Buffalo 36. Buffalo has the #91 rushing defense. After an 11 yard punt, Buffalo drove for a touchdown. Ohio State lost by a point. The game theory gods do not take kindly to being spited so grandiosely. (See also: Kirk Ferentz.)
I missed another Hoke game theory bit: he got the ball at the 22 with about two minutes left and did not pull the Ferentz. Robinson rushed for a loss of one on first down, then five straight passes got Michigan to the Northwestern 44 before Robinson's third awful interception set up a Northwestern field goal drive. While we've seen Hoke eschew half-ending drives a couple times this year, those were with a minute or less on the clock, not two.
Now… it didn't work out that time, but these things are never 100%. Did it make sense at the time to try to score with a couple minutes left against Northwestern's defense? Yeah.
Glarb glarb glarb. So when Michigan shuffled its fullback on third and one and got owned I had a conniption fit. This was the result of DeBord Doom re-emergence:
That's the corpse of Steve Watson you see getting annihilated at the LOS. Glarb.
BWS picture-pages this and points out that the shuffling fullback opened up the Gardner rollout TD on which he had either the run or pass; I'm not so sure showing the first play is worth the cost to get a yard when your redzone offense seems to be able to get a yard whenever it wants. I like diabolical machinations better when they're like the above Oregon stuff—plenty diabolical in their own right without the counter.
Mitchbreaks. Mitch McGary's impending Michigan decision now seems far less certain:
Recently, reports came out that Mitch was nearing or had made a decision. However, Tim refutes that notion "He hasn't made a decision. I just talked to him tonight (Monday night) and we talked about it a little bit. He's coming home Wednesday night and we're going to sit down and talk about it. They get a four or five day break this weekend so he's flying in to O'hare and my older son will pick him up. We'll be able to sit down and sort things out."
Likely rumor vector: AAU coach to national guy, national guy tizzy checks in with coach a few more times, everyone wants to back off. Confidence level: reduced, but still high.
Etc.: Denard Robinson is healthier this year because he is homeopathic or something. Mark Huyge has had a tough year. Holdin' the Rope doesn't like "smug, pompous buffoon" Mark Dantoinio. Jon Merrill suspension 50/50 to end his career. Sad face.
Picture Pages: Toussaint Jab Step
I like Fitzgerald Toussaint. Think the kid has a bright future if his various limbs stay functional. Enjoy his running style. Get emails from time to time declaring "I don't know what you see in this kid." Sit and ponder these emails. Shake fist. Decide to write post about it. Fitzgerald. Toussaint.
So here's a reason I like Fitzgerald Toussaint: I think his vision and his shake are plus pitches, to borrow from another sport. Here's an example. It's first and ten on the SDSU 16 late in the fourth quarter with Michigan driving to clinch the game. On the next play Vincent Smith will jackrabbit his way into the endzone, but to set that up Michigan's going to Toussaint.
The setup:
If this looks familiar, it should. This was one of the staple formations of the Rodriguez years. Here's Tate running it in the 2009 ND game:
Rodriguez would often send the TE backside to block the otherwise unblocked EMLOS as a counter to scrape exchanges. TE kicks out the guy coming down the line; WLB flies out to contain Robinson on the zone read, and viola:
[one of many examples that have been DMCAed by Thought Equity Motion.]
Michigan did this on the previous play. It was the first time they'd run it all game and it worked like a charm, opening up a huge lane for Toussaint to hit. He did so for eleven yards. When Michigan goes back to the well a second time things will be different.
SDSU's 3-3-5 was less dynamic than advertised. Instead of blitzing like mad from everywhere to mimic different fronts, it was mostly content to line up as very small 3-4s and 4-3s and run twist stunts from them. On this play they actually line up in the stack, which was rare.
On the snap the TE pulls backside as the mesh approaches.
Robinson sees the OLB headed upfield at him and hands off:
The problem is Koger is kicking out the QB contain guy:
This is very similar to problems Michigan had running this play against Illinois last year. When the scraper is hugging the backs of the OL TEs often miss him and head to the obvious guy on the outside. Once your pulling TE whacks the contain guy you've given up the advantage gained by optioning him off and are back to—horror—regular old 3.9 YPC running. When this happened against the Illini, Michigan gained a yard.
Since Huyge has released downfield there is an unblocked EMLOS tasked with the tailback on a play that usually tries to go backside. (This is a zone, but it is a zone with an idea of where it's going to end up.) Omameh is actually doing a good job on his guy since the play design nominally expects the ball to go behind him. Unfortunately, that means there's nowhere to go further playside. There is no room.
So Toussaint makes some. In the above frame you can see he's evaluated his situation and is about to take a critical step. This is what he does with it:
That's weird. It's easier to see on the video, but Toussaint takes this jab step outside and then bursts back upfield.
This little jab step… what is it? He slows for a half-beat and sticks that leg out as if he's going to veer outside, then shifts direction and heads away from the scraper. Is it just instinct, or is it a deliberate attempt to set up his block? Does Toussaint even know? This happened in a blink. This may be one of those things even the person doing it can't explain.
The result is most apparent on the guy Omameh is blocking:
In frame one the NT has already committed his momentum to the other side of Omameh's block because of the jab step; in frame two he's kindly GTFOed, giving Toussaint a lane as Schofield and Molk donkey a linebacker who blitzed into them. Toussaint set this up with the step, which convinced the NT he needed to fight to the other side of Omameh without slowing him down enough for the unblocked scraper to catch him.
Result: Toussaint runs up his OL's backs for nine yards.
Watch it twice. Watch the step, and then focus on Omameh and the guy he's blocking. See that yank that suddenly repositions the defender? That's the NT moving himself to where he thinks he needs to be.
Interesting Stuff
Will this be consistent from Toussaint? This is a play SDSU RPSed that Toussaint made into nine yards almost by himself with that jab step. Is that a fair representation of his vision and his ability to make split-second decisions that get him lanes other guys don't, or was it getting lucky? I don't know, but I do know that the last couple weeks I've had occasion to use "lovely" more than once to describe a Toussaint run. Early returns are "not lucky."
Back to the well. Yeah, this wrinkle was a Rodriguez staple. It worked like you draw it up the first time. This time it worked like you don't draw it up; Smith would come in and run it a third time for a touchdown, but he'd have to weave his way through defenders to do so. I'm not sure whether running it three times in a row was a good idea—it worked but clearly SDSU adjusted to it. Against better run defenses this might end up going splat. To be fair, the third one was a second and one from the seven.
Coaching points with coach Rod. In the Illinois game Michigan adjusted to the Illinois adjustment by the end of the game, coaching that pulling TE to ID the scraper hiding behind the line and blocking him into the endzone for a touchdown. It'll be interesting to see whether Michigan makes that adjustment if necessary in future games.
Further wrinkles. So there was this, which was brought out right at the end of the game, and the speed option you've heard and read so much about, a speed option that seemed to use outside zone "basketball on grass" blocking. That's an encouraging echo of the Rodriguez ground game, when most games of import saw new features being deployed.


text:
Shop Top Rated products + Free Shipping
+ free shipping
Stereo Speakers starting at $99.95
Free Shipping on Bluetooth Headsets
+ free shipping
+ free shipping
+ free shipping
Docking Speakers starting at $149.95
Free Shipping on SoundLink Bluetooth Speaker
+ free shipping
Free Shipping on Home Theater Speakers
+ free shipping
Free Shipping on Television Systems
+ free shipping
These offers have not been verified to work. They are either expired or are not currently valid.
$150 off Acoustic Wave Music System
10% off SoundLink Mini Bluetooth Speaker II
Home Entertainers Gift Guide items as low as $349.95
Sports Fans Gift Guide items as low as $149.95
Students Gift Guide items as low as $129.95
Travelers Gift Guide items as low as $179.95
Holiday Gift Guide items as low as $149.95
$100 Bose SoundTrue Headphones + Free Shipping
Up to 50% off any order - Black Friday Offers
The latest sale and newly discounted products from Bose
Bose 251 environmental speakers - White
Bose 251 environmental speakers - Black
10% off SoundLink Bluetooth Speaker III
Bose CineMate 15 home theater speaker system - Black
Bose QuietComfort 20 Acoustic Noise Cancelling headphones...
Bose 151® SE environmental speakers - White
Bose 151® SE environmental speakers - Black
Free Shipping on SoundTrue Ultra in-ear Headphones
Free Shipping on Bose SoundSport in-Ear Headphones
Free Shipping on SoundTouch 10 Wireless Music System
Free Shipping on SoundTouch 20 Series III Wireless Music System
Free Shipping on SoundLink Around-Ear Wireless Headphones II
See All Bose Product Deals (21)
Found a great deal or code? Share the savings!Get Started
250 Promo Codes
Used in the Past Month
From innovative home theater and Wave systems, to QuietComfort headphones and mobile options, every Bose product combines lifelike sound, elegant design and refreshing simplicity.
Bose has built an audio empire on its quest for perfect sound. Since 1964, when MIT electrical engineering professor Amar Bose started the company, Bose's goal has been to create an experience that makes recorded music sound as if it's being played live. That pursuit has paid off: These days, Bose produces a line of highly-regarded home and commercial products, ranging from computer speakers to stadium sound systems. NASA and the Sistine Chapel are among Bose's top clients.
Consumers can get that otherworldly sound experience for less by shopping online with Bose.com promo codes. The company offers an extensive line of high-quality iPod docking stations, home-theater systems, car audio setups, speakers, and thousands of other premium products. Shop Bose.com to find:
Bose also offers educator discounts and refurbished products, for those who want Bose quality without the hefty price tag. Whatever your musical preference, it's sure to sound even better when you save on your new audio setup with Bose coupon codes. Visit bose.com/wave or bose.com/tz663 to find out additional information about Bose's Wave system.
From: J.Crew
Extra 40% off Sale items
From: Papa John's
$10 X-Large 3 Topping Pizza
From: Raise
Up to 15% off Half Price Books gift cards from Raise.com
From: iTechDeals
$9 iTD Gear Bluetooth Sport Headphones + Free Shipping

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Blucora (NASDAQ:BCOR) has been in the news for all the wrong reasons lately. First, the company was hit with accusations of possible policy violations which resulted in the stock taking a plunge. A couple of days later the company released their fourth quarter earnings, beating both revenue and EPS expectations, but lowered guidance for the next quarter. Management revealed that Google (NASDAQ:GOOG), their largest search partner and contributor of the lion's share of their search revenue, had renewed their partnership but only partially.
The last time I wrote about the company in October 2013, I had analyzed its growth potential based on recent performance and acquisitions. In the same article I noted concerns regarding its relative inexperience in the mobile space and heavy dependence on Google, but overall it still appeared to be a good growth opportunity. Recently, in the light of events mentioned above, I decided to take a more cautious "hold" approach towards the company. This was because these events brought into sharper focus for me the importance of the following:
1. Blucora's dependence on Google.
2. Need for better information on the company's future strategy.
Dependence on Google
While I have no way of knowing about the accuracy of any of the accusations raised against the Company, it does make one thing very clear. Even the suggestion of a doubt on the future of the Blucora-Google partnership can wreak havoc on the stock. For context, the Search segment of the company's business is about 75% of their revenue and Google alone accounts for nearly 85-90% of it. So at least at present, Blucora's success is closely intertwined with its relationship to the search giant.
It helps that the company announced in its earnings call last week that Google had renewed its partnership with them until 2017 in the desktop search area. However the renewal did not extend to the mobile and tablet space. The immediate implication is the financial headwind, reflected in lowered guidance. The long run implication is the possibility of a further break in the alliance with Google in the future. Since the Android OS has the largest market share in the mobile market globally, it also implies that Google is the search engine of choice in that medium. So the end of Blucora's mobile/tablet agreement with Google is a blow to the company.
But to put this into perspective, mobile is a relatively small driver of the company's search revenue at present. Management stated that about 85% of the search traffic from Google comes over desktop, which is still covered under their renewed agreement. Alternatively, on the mobile front the company has other liaisons like Yahoo! (NASDAQ:YHOO) that will continue to power their searches. Also the mobile/tablet market still has a lot of uncharted territory; so the company could potentially carve a niche for itself in that space. Management mentioned plans during the recent earnings call to explore search and non-search solutions like text, video, etc. But there is still not enough clarity around the company's plans for mobile growth. In my last article as well I had concerns about the Search segment's lagged development in this field. But with this latest development with the Google partnership, this issue has become more relevant.
Needed Clarity on Long Term Strategy
In the recent past the company has made a move to diversify its revenue streams through the acquisitions of the DDIY tax business TaxAct and the ecommerce business Monoprice. Both segments have been performing fairly well, although ecommerce sales were softer than expected in the fourth quarter. Overall the ecommerce segment generated revenue of $39.7 million in the fourth quarter with order growth of about 10%. TaxAct revenue grew at about 75% year over year while recording a loss, in line with expectations, due to seasonality in the tax business. It is expected to track guidance in the 2014 tax season.
At present these two acquired segments combined comprise only about 25% of the company's total revenue. They are also very different from the company's core search business. But while they may not be obvious synergistic acquisitions, they may turn out to be useful diversification tools that the company needs. One advantage is that they open up the growing DDIY tax and ecommerce market to the company that could potentially grow into a larger proportion of sales in the future. In fact, if the company has more future acquisitions planned that are executed and integrated successfully, then this may be a way to reduce the heavy dependence on search and Google. But again, the long term strategy on acquisitions and vision of what the company wants to evolve into, is not very clear at the moment.
At present Google is certainly the mammoth in the search landscape. So in the near future at least, the success of Blucora's search segment is tied closely to its partnership with Google. Currently I am comfortable with a more cautious approach of having a neutral position towards the company. I would like to wait and watch how it operates in the mobile world without Google and get more information on what plans it has in the future of building a business that is not overwhelmingly dependent upon one partner.
Disclosure: I am long BCOR. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure: I am a self-taught individual investor and this article expresses my views based on my own research and is not professional investment advice. I am not being influenced or paid by any organization to write this article.


text:
2017 REGISTRATION - February 6
Thank you to everyone who came to race, spectate, or to volunteer for the 2016 race. It looked like everyone was having a great time even when it was downpouring! The race was a challenge this past year with a wet course, but we believe everyone finished the race with no significant injuries. The Wolfman Triathlon committee has created a downloadable (and fillable) survey. Please fill out this survey and give us your thoughts about what you like, don't like, or would like to see in the future. Please email surveys to: firstname.lastname@example.com
Race Results are up!
Volunteer Organizations
All profits are donated to 10 nonprofit organizations that volunteer to help with the event.
- Wisconsin Bike Patrol
- Antigo Boy Scouts
- Elcho X-Country Ski Club
- Antigo Swim Club
- Antigo Bike & Ski Club
- White Lake Historical Society
- Troutland Rescue
- Antigo HS Girls Varsity Swim Team
- Boys & Girls Club
- Elcho High School
- LAMBA - Langlade Area Mountain Bike Association
- LAMBO - Lakeland Area Mountain Bike Organization
2016 Entertainment - The Brothers Burn Mountain
They may be a blur of motion when they perform live, but on their new release, "When You Crave a Sweetness," The Brothers Burn Mountain show that they're also inventive songwriters whose musical panorama extends beyond simple, athletic energy. Recorded [in part] at Sparta Sound Studios in Sparta, Minn., with Rich Mattson at the helm, the new disc shows it's impossible to pin this duo - brothers Jesse and Ryan Dermody - down to any definitive sound or style, as they simply career from track to track with the abandon of a rabid dog in a vigorous mash-up of sensibilities. Even the word eclectic comes up short describing the brothers Dermody.
Help keep the Wolfman clean!
We are asking all racers/spectators/participants be mindful of waste. Please observe the garbage and especially the recycling containers before, during and after the event. Let's all work together to keep waste to a minimum and if at all possible, recycle and/or re-use. THANK YOU!


text:
Demand Media (DMD) Q3 2012 Earnings Call November 5, 2012 5:00 PM ET
Julie MacMedan - Vice President of Investor Relations
Richard M. Rosenblatt - Co-Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Mel Tang - Chief Financial Officer
Ross Sandler - Deutsche Bank AG
Sameet Sinha - B. Riley & Co., LLC, Research Division
Sean Sun-Il Kim - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division
Brian Patrick Fitzgerald - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
Michael B. Purcell - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division
Patrick D. Walravens - JMP Securities LLC, Research Division
Good afternoon. My name is Jay and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome, everyone to Demand Media's Third Quarter 2012 Financial Results Conference Call. Today's speakers will include Julie MacMedan, Richard Rosenblatt and Mel Tang. A question-and-answer session will be made available to all attendees at the end of this call when prompted. [Operator Instructions]
And now, we will turn the call over to Julie MacMedan, Vice President of Investor Relations. Ms. MacMedan, you may begin.
Julie MacMedan
Thank you, Jay, and good afternoon, everyone. On behalf of Demand Media, welcome to our third quarter 2012 conference call. And thanks for everyone joining us today.
You can find our press release along with supplemental materials posted on the Investor Relations section of our corporate website, which is located at ir.demandmedia.com.
On the call with me today are Richard Rosenblatt, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; and Mel Tang, our Chief Financial Officer. Following the Safe Harbor statement that I will make, Rich will update you on our business. Mel will then provide details on our third quarter financial performance and key operating metrics, and finish with guidance for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ending December 31, 2012. Following the prepared remarks, we will open up the line for Q&A.
Before we get started, we need to make the following Safe Harbor statement. We would like to remind everyone that during today's conference call, management will make certain forward-looking statements, which are subject to various risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from our current expectations discussed in such forward-looking statements.
In particular, comments about our anticipated future revenue, earnings, operating expenses, page views and growth rates, as well as statements regarding our business strategy and objectives, plans, intentions, operating outlook and planned investments are considered forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to different materially from anticipated results are detailed in our press release furnished to the SEC.
I would also like to point out that during this call, we will discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures while talking about the company's financial and operating performance, including revenue ex-TAC, adjusted EBITDA, adjusted EPS and certain free cash flow metrics. A reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to their most directly comparable GAAP measures can be found in the financial tables included at the end of our press release. In addition, unless otherwise noted, all references to traffic-related metrics in our remarks today are based on comScore data.
Lastly, before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that today's conference call is being recorded and that it's also available via webcast on the Internet through our Investor Relations website. A replay will be available on the site.
With that, I'll now turn the call over to Richard Rosenblatt, our Chairman and CEO. Rich?
Richard M. Rosenblatt
Thank you, Julie, and welcome to our 2012 third quarter results call. We reported record revenue and profitability this quarter, driven by strong traffic growth to our core owned and operated properties. We also made significant progress in areas where we see accelerating growth potential going forward.
During Q3, our properties reached more than 125 million monthly unique visitors and generated more than 1 billion monthly worldwide page views, both all time records. Well, what is driving this success? It's our action-oriented content, our engaging communities and our expansive monetization platform. Let me give you a few examples.
First, our content. Whether it's an article on Planet Celebration, a video showing a busy mom how to plan a family meal or a mobile app helping a jogger map her route, we make an impact on 125 million people's daily lives every single month. Using our vast portfolio of digital products, services and popular websites, we deliver the quality content and rich online experiences consumers demand.
All the things people need to run their daily lives are found in our properties. We call it Content For Real Life. Over the past year, we improved and expanded our content creation and distribution platforms, and significantly remediated our content library. All in all, we really raised our game. We elevated the quality of our creators, segmented them into specific content categories based on their expertise, expanded the diversity of our articles and added assignment editors to make sure we better curate our content.
As quality increased, so did our distribution. A year ago, virtually all of our new articles were published to our own properties. Today, almost half our articles are being published to our network of content partners. Going forward, we expect our content creation and distribution to be even more diversified. Given this product -- given this progress, for the first time in over a year, we ramped our content spend for 2 straight quarters.
Second, our engaged community. We had built a dedicated and engaged community across our properties. Let's talk about LIVESTRONG.COM for instance. In Q3 alone, via our applications, this community tracked over 6 billion calories. That means our members logged more than 129 million minutes of exercise, which equates to 246 years, and they lost a total of 416,000 pounds just this quarter.
Our growing LIVESTRONG community continues to be supportive and engaged despite the recent headlines about Lance Armstrong. To clarify, our relationship is with the LIVESTRONG Foundation, not with Lance, and we are aligned in empowering people to live healthier lives and we support the important work of the foundation. We have built a powerful destination, popular application and a very engaged community. None of this has changed and we have seen no material impact on the consumer traffic, or the metrics.
Third, our expansive monetization platform. We believe that our approach to monetization positions us well to leverage the best aspects of direct and network monetization. Our monetization philosophy embraces diversity by incorporating direct ad sales along automated exchanges. We seek to ensure that our inventory is optimized for the best advertiser and the best user experience. The combination of our intent-driven audience, our premium content production capabilities and our ability to integrate mobile, video and social elements to the display mix, positions us well to take advantage of the advances that are occurring across multiple advertising platforms. These 3 strengths, our content, our community and our monetization platform, are driving our success as we continue to set record highs in traffic and audience on each of our core properties.
First, eHow. For internal data in September, eHow attracted over 100 million unique visitors worldwide for the 11th consecutive month. We also became the #13th largest web domain in the U.S., up from #16 in June. The total worldwide audience of LIVESTRONG is up 97% year-over-year in September. And LIVESTRONG continues to rank as a top health property throughout the U.S., right now #3 in September.
The Cracked network, which includes IndieClick, for the first time became the #1 humor property in the United States in September, with over 9.8 million unique visitors. Further, Cracked is also #1 humor site on mobile with 3.5 million unique visitors. This continued and growing success of our core owned and operated properties has positioned us to move aggressively into additional growth areas. Let's discuss these areas and our progress. Content Channels, mobile, video, and international.
Our Content Channel solution help brands and publishers attract new audiences. During Q3, content partner revenue grew significantly versus Q2, driven primarily by 38% page view growth just quarter-over-quarter across our partner sites according to our internal data. During the quarter, we launched 7 new channels, expanded existing channels and added new partners. We are achieving very attractive, estimate internal rates of return on content for our partners, which is why we are increasing production in this area. We see it as a growing opportunity to distribute our data-driven content more broadly, and we expect Content Channels to be a significant growth driver in 2013 and beyond.
Mobile. One of the most exciting growth opportunities across the company which utilizes our content, community and monetization platform is mobile. Because mobile is such a natural extension of our existing business, we expect to be one of the big winners from a secular shift to mobile.
The vast majority of our content library of content is a natural fit for the mobile device as it's short and actionable. Consumers are using their mobile devices to access our content at different times during the day than they do on their desktop, which means to-date, mobile has been accretive to our audience. We reached 24 million unique visitors via mobile traffic to our owned and operated properties in September, up from 20 million in June.
We continue to improve the mobile experience for these consumers. For example, we've gone through responsive designs across all our properties, whereby the content changes based on the screen size of the device.
But more importantly, we believe that mobile represent a tremendous new opportunity for our content-creation capabilities. We are highly focused on new content formats and new types of content that leverage the unique aspects of the mobile device. Mobile devices are untethered, always on, and capable of everything, from communication to photography to commerce. We see a lot of new content possibilities in the future.
Let's talk about the monetization on mobile. Like desktop monetization, companies with scale and expertise should achieve superior mobile monetization rates. We are using our platforms and team to optimize this growing inventory. Mobile RPMs continued to increase in Q3, growing more than 40% compared to Q2.
As on a desktop, our intent-driven content on mobile should monetize higher than industry averages. We continue to stay on the leading edge of mobile monetization as the marketplaces and technology continue to evolve rapidly.
Video. We've continued to view video as an important long-term growth opportunity and have built a platform as a key competitive advantage in this increasingly important digital medium. We continue to scale and expand our video publishing capabilities with increased video content production on our owned and operated sites and for our Content Channel partners. Through our YouTube original program relationship, we've been able to showcase our expertise in creating broadcast-quality video optimized for online viewing. While we, like many others, are awaiting word from YouTube on renewals, we are leveraging this know-how into other video initiatives. For example, our standard video production was up 30% quarter-over-quarter, which includes video production for Content Channels as well as our international sites. And we expect to continue to invest in video across all distribution channels, including our owned and operated, as well as YouTube.
International. International expense is another long-term growth area that is benefiting and should benefit from our content, community and monetization platforms. By implementing our domestic learnings, we have been able to exponentially grow eHow en Español site with visits nearly doubling quarter-over-quarter according to our internal data.
We reached critical mass in September with more than 5 million visits and our page views continue to increase sequentially, driven by both search and social. The site today has over 1.5 million highly-engaged Facebook fans and Facebook referrals drove nearly half of the total page views in Q3. This is also according to our internal data. Our strategy is to leverage these learnings into additional markets over the coming quarters.
Now turning to Registrar. We have invested in building our Registrar platform into second largest in the world in anticipation of leveraging this valuable asset for the new gTLD expansion. In Q3, our Registrar platform grew 11% driven by the expanding number of domains on our platform. Our team is focused on building the infrastructure to support new business models that will be created by gTLDs.
To reiteratively share in our last call, we believe the introduction of new gTLD ushers in a historic opportunity and a multibillion-dollar industry with more than 230 million domain names currently under registration. We expect to benefit from this opportunity in a number of ways. We anticipate increased domain registrations for our existing Registrar business and we plan to add 2 new revenue streams. We'll become a registry in our own right and provide registry services for other parties. We expect these new opportunities to enhance our revenue growth and expand our margins.
Recently, ICANN provided a more definitive schedule that accelerated the delegation of new gTLDs into Q2 2013. In December, ICANN intends to hold a lottery to assign numbers to determine the order of new gTLD application reviews, contract negotiations and then the ultimate launch. We expect gTLDs to begin being delegated after ICANN's meeting in Beijing in April 2013. We expect priority will be given to the internationalized domain names, known as IDNs, as the first new gTLDs to go live. This means that the first non-IDN gTLDs will likely go live in late June of next year, which is a full quarter earlier than we all previously expected. After that, ICANN expects to delegate 80 to 85 new gTLDs per month with a target of 1,000 per year.
As we've discussed previously, there is an objection process built into ICANN's timeline. We believe that our applications are clearly within ICANN's guidelines and we have a strong competitive position with respect to our applications. We will continue to keep you updated in further calls.
Summing things up, our leadership in content, community and monetization is driving record performance and continued momentum in our core business. We are ramping investment in text and video content production for our core properties and new distribution points. In addition, we are well-positioned to capitalize an important shift to mobile, and we plan on taking a leadership position with new gTLDs.
Now, I'll turn the call over to Mel to review our Q3 financial results and business outlook. Mel?
Mel Tang
Thank you, Rich. We are pleased to report another strong quarter, again delivering on the 3 financial themes we introduced earlier this year. First, accelerating top line growth led by Content & Media; second, significant cash flow generation; and third, investments in new growth opportunities. In light of our strong year-to-date performance and outlook, we are increasing our guidance for 2012, which I will cover towards the end of my prepared remarks.
Now, let's discuss our third quarter results in more detail. Revenue, excluding traffic acquisition costs or TAC, was $92.8 million, up 19% year-over-year. Adjusted EBITDA was $27.6 million, up 28% year-over-year, resulting in 210 basis points of year-over-year margin expansion as a percentage of revenue ex-TAC to 29.8%. Free cash flow was $16.6 million, up from $6 million in the year ago quarter.
Our Content & Media business drew the -- drove the majority of our top line growth. More specifically, year-over-year Content & Media revenue ex-TAC growth accelerated from 18% in Q2 to 24% in Q3 to $58.8 million. Owned and operated revenue grew 18% and network revenue ex-TAC grew 48%. Our owned and operated revenue increase of 18% was driven by 33% year-over-year growth in owned and operated page views to 3.4 billion, led by strong growth in our core owned and operated websites, particularly eHow and LIVESTRONG. This traffic growth was partly offset by an 11% year-over-year decline in owned and operated RPMs to $13.49 due to higher growth from properties with lower RPM page views, such as LIVESTRONG and international properties. And two, incremental traffic growth for mobile where we are experiencing significant RPM growth but which currently have lower RPMs. Sequentially, owned and operated RPMs were essentially flat compared to $13.50 reported in Q2.
Network revenue ex-TAC growth was driven by a 50% increase year-over-year in network RPMs ex-TAC to $2.70, reflecting revenue growth from our growing network of content partners such as YouTube, and a 2% decrease in network page views to 5 billion, due to lower traffic from our front [ph] enterprise partners offset partially by growth from new Content Channel partners and our IndieClick publisher network.
On to our Registrar. Revenue was $34 million, up 11% year-over-year, driven by 12% year-over-year growth in end-of-period domains to $13.7 million, due primarily to growth from large resellers, and a 2% decrease year-over-year in annualized revenue per domain or ARPD to $9.99 due to a mix shift to these larger, higher-volume resellers.
Turning to consolidated operating expenses. Our Q3 GAAP operating expenses were $93.6 million, up 10% year-over-year. Excluding depreciation, amortization, stock-based comp and other non-GAAP adjustments, total operating expenses were $71.3 million, down 210 basis points as a percentage of revenue, driven primarily by mix shift to higher-margin Content & Media revenue as well as operating leverage from product development and G&A expenses, offset partially by higher sales and marketing as we invested in marketing initiatives.
Which takes us to Q3 cash flows. Cash flow from operations was $24.6 million, up 12% year-over-year, even as our revenue shifts from registration revenue that's collected upfront to higher-margin advertising revenues from our Content & Media business. Discretionary free cash flow was $20.1 million, up slightly year-over-year as well as quarter-over-quarter while reflecting higher CapEx associated with infrastructure for our gTLD initiative.
Now, onto free cash flow. In Q3, we generated $16.6 million of free cash flow versus $6 million in the year-ago quarter. While the $10.6 million year-over-year improvement primarily reflects lower content investment as it compared to last year, for the first time in over a year, we increased our investment for 2 consecutive quarters, reflecting an important inflection point for our business.
On that note, I want to spend a few minutes updating you on our content investments. As Rich mentioned, our content creation and distribution platform has come a long way over the past year. First, we extensively remediated and removed content; second, we significantly improved the quality and diversity of new content produced; and third, we successfully diversified our content distribution channel. Importantly, we accomplished the above while achieving high cash on cash returns from our content investments. The combination of these factors lead us to increase our content investment quarter-over-quarter by 40%. Going forward, we intend to continue to increase our investment in content in an aggressive yet disciplined manner.
We believe that our ongoing focus on expanding our distribution and production capabilities will open new content opportunities. And we are particularly excited about mobile and international markets where we are seeing double-digit traffic growth month over month.
Now, a brief update on our balance sheet and liquidity. At September 30, we had $112.9 million of cash and equivalents, no long-term debt and net of our $10 million in letters of credit, $95 million available under our $105 million revolving credit facility.
Now, onto financial guidance. We are introducing guidance for Q4 and updating our previously issued full year 2012 guidance. Our updated 2012 guidance reflects a few key trends. Top line growth, driven by continued accelerating Content & Media growth.
Within Content & Media, Q4 revenue driven by owned and operated traffic growth in our core properties. We expect RPMs up slightly as compared to Q3 levels, reflecting some seasonal strength in improving mobile RPMs.
In our Registrar business, our growth rate over the past few quarters reflects the focused expansion in our reseller base where we have executed the strategy of onboarding high-volume but lower our ARPD resellers ahead of new gTLDs. Going forward, we expect Registrar growth to return to its historic high, single-digit growth rate until new gTLDs are issued as we turn our Registrar resources to focus on preparing for scaling the gTLD growth opportunity.
Our Q4 2012 adjusted EBITDA guidance reflects our commitment to deliver current year results while continuing to invest in the long-term growth initiatives that Rich talked about. Also, we plan to continue to generate strong free cash flow while reinvesting in data-driven strategic investments such as content in new gTLDs. As I mentioned earlier, we intend to significantly increase our content spend above levels achieved in Q3.
Specifically, for Q4, we are guiding to revenue ex-TAC of between $95.5 million and $97.5 million, implying 19% year-over-year growth at the midpoint. Adjusted EBITDA between $27.5 million and $28.5 million, implying a 29% margin on revenue ex-TAC at the midpoint. Adjusted EPS of between $0.10 and $0.11 per share, implying 38% year-over-year growth at the midpoint. For full year 2012, we are increasing our guidance to revenue ex-TAC of between $359.8 million and $361.8 million, implying 16% growth at the midpoint, up from our previous midpoint of 14%. Adjusted EBITDA between $101.6 million and $102.6 million, implying a 28.3 margin on revenue ex-TAC at the midpoint. And adjusted EPS of between $0.37 and $0.38 per share, implying 52% growth at the midpoint, up from our previous midpoint of 44%.
To summarize, Q3 was another strong quarter for Demand Media, and we are excited to return to growing our content investments and to continue to pursue other growth opportunities in front of us.
That concludes my prepared remarks, I would now like to open the line for Q&A.
Question-and-Answer Session
[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from the line of Ross Sandler with Deutsche Bank.
Ross Sandler - Deutsche Bank AG
I just had 2 quick questions on the Registrar side of the business. So Mel, it's been decelerating a little bit over the past few quarters, and I think you just said high-single digits for 4Q despite a slightly easier comp. So what do you guys think of the long-term growth rate in that segment? And is high-singles the way to think about it outside of the new gTLD initiatives? And then, the second one is around -- Google recently introduced this exact match domain algorithm change, which sounds kind of confusing. But from what I understand, it's targeted toward keyword-based domains. Do you think this will have any impact on industry volumes going forward? Can you just talk a little bit about what you're seeing from the industry volume side?
Mel Tang
Sure. So on your first question on the long-term growth as it relates to Registrars including TLDs, yes, I think what we did last year was go out and onboard resellers to increase our distribution reach ahead of TLDs. And so, copy against that, that's leading to the deceleration. Going forward, I do think that will you see year-over-year growth or more in the high-single digits on the Registrar? Once gTLDs get delegated and launched, that should have a dramatic impact on our growth rates, but that's yet to be determined based on the outcome of the process. On your second question on the exact match domains, specifically as it relates to the Registrar business, we haven't seen an impact thus far. And then on the media side, it doesn't apply to us. So as far as the exact match domains, not a big impact on us.
Next to the line of Sameet Sinha with B. Riley.
Sameet Sinha - B. Riley & Co., LLC, Research Division
Yes. A couple of questions regarding guidance. You -- in the fourth quarter guidance, the midpoint implies a slowdown versus what you did in the third quarter. Can you speak about the reasons for that? Also, EBITDA guidance implies a slight decline from third quarter where seasonally, it's a really strong quarter for you. So, can you talk to that?
Mel Tang
I think on our revenue guidance at the midpoint, our percentage growth is consistent with Q3, and I think it really reflects a little conservative -- conservatism about the macroeconomic environment, the impact of Hurricane Sandy, the elections. But I think that it is consistent with Q3. And then, on EBITDA, I think you're referring to margins relative to Q3. That reflects our intention to continue to invest in these long-term growth initiatives that Rich talked about, essentially taking the outperformance in Q3 and investing them for the long haul.
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Sean Kim with RBC Capital Markets.
Sean Sun-Il Kim - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division
A couple of questions. First, on network RPMs. I think it benefited significantly from YouTube. Should we expect the same type of RPM trends in the network side going forward? And also, on your cash, I think you ended the quarter with something like $113 million of cash and you guys filed a mixed shelf recently. How should we think about the use of cash, acquisitions versus buybacks? I don't think you bought back any stock in the quarter. Any color there would be helpful.
Mel Tang
So on network RPMs, in Q3, certainly benefited from YouTube. That should continue into Q4. Really depends on kind of how some of the page view dynamics on the network side go. And on the cash balance and where we see use of -- or deploying capital, we look at a combination of acquisitions, increasing content spend. And the shelf really is there to provide maximum flexibility should we need to deploy capital and strategic investments.
Next, we have the line of Brian Fitzgerald with Jefferies.
Brian Patrick Fitzgerald - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
I was wondering if you noticed any changing dynamics since Google upped its commitment around YouTube to the tune of $200 million. And then as a follow-on, could you give us a sense of what you see in terms of either CPCs or kind of click-throughs for YouTube videos versus text-based content, say, on eHow?
Richard M. Rosenblatt
Brian, I'm sorry are you talking when they increased up to $200 million a while back?
Brian Patrick Fitzgerald - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
Richard M. Rosenblatt
No, I think -- as you know, they rolled out different channels at different times. I'm sorry, are you talking about the advertising commitment?
Brian Patrick Fitzgerald - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
Yes, sir, the advertising...
Richard M. Rosenblatt
Advertising commitment. You know what, like I said in last conference call, this is not an issue about the quality of the content, or issue about [inaudible] advertisers. Those 2 components are both, have been very easy for YouTube in fact. The only part that has been challenging is driving enough traffic to deliver. So I think we did see some increase, but that's still the question that they're having across all their channels. But we are seeing, if you look at LIVESTRONG Woman for instance, you're continuing to see subscriber growth quite quickly for that category. But we saw a small impact, but that is just something that, I believe, YouTube is trying to figure it now, is the best way to drive traffic through their channels.
Mel Tang
And on your question about monetization on YouTube videos, I think we've seen fairly consistent trends. I don't think anything worth noting in terms of fluctuations. I don't know if that was the question you were asking, Brian.
Next, we have the line of Michael Purcell with Stifel, Nicolaus.
Michael B. Purcell - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division
A couple questions. One, could you give us the percentage what Google was contributing in the quarter in eHow? I think eHow is about 1/3 of revenues last quarter. And then I had a follow-up on the network page views. It looks like it was down just slightly year-over-year on network comping over the acquisition. But could you just give us a sense of if -- I'm assuming that the YouTube page views are on the network. If those are going up, is there something else declining in the network page views?
Mel Tang
Yes. So let me cover your 2 questions. First is, in this quarter, Google was 52% of -- contributed 52% of eHow pages views. That's pretty much consistent with last year at 51% and last quarter of 51%. So fairly the same there. On network page views, what you're seeing there is 2 offsets: One, which is your Pluck enterprise page views coming down as a result of some customer implementations as well as some seasonality. And then on -- offsetting that is growth in our Content Channel partnerships that -- as well as our IndieClick year-over-year.
Michael B. Purcell - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., Research Division
Okay so I understand the Pluck. And then, I'm sorry, just in Google as a percent of total revenues?
Mel Tang
Google as a percent of total revenue is 37%.
[Operator Instructions] Next, we have the line of Sameet Sinha with B. Riley.
Sameet Sinha - B. Riley & Co., LLC, Research Division
gTLD expense, I think, even a little lower than what you were guiding to, do we assume that's going to be more fourth quarter loaded? And also, can you talk about the mix of advertisers between direct and AdSense in exchange? And my final question will be how should we think about free cash flow moving forward considering that you're increasing your content expense? Any color around there would be appreciated.
Mel Tang
I didn't quite get your second one. But let me talk about the gTLD expense of $3 million. That reflects really just some of the timing that's occurred over the year and getting pushed out. I think you're going to see some expenditures in Q4. It might bleed into Q1 of next year. Just really, it hinges upon the timing of when the process will hit milestones. On the third one, in terms of free cash flow going forward, we haven't come out with 2013 guidance, but clearly, I think as we continue to grow our top line EBITDA performance, we'll be looking to reinvest smartly and we'll be transparent about where that cash flow is going to go.
Sameet Sinha - B. Riley & Co., LLC, Research Division
My third question had been about what percentage of revenues were of advertising revenues direct advertisers versus the exchange?
Mel Tang
I think...
Richard M. Rosenblatt
Branded advertising.
Mel Tang
So branded advertising is fairly consistent, about 10% of total revenues.
We have the line of Patrick Walravens with JMP Securities.
Patrick D. Walravens - JMP Securities LLC, Research Division
How should we think about 2013? [ph] Can you give us any -- I know you don't want to guide yet, but can you give us any hints in terms of how to think about it?
Richard M. Rosenblatt
I've had - let me jump in. You're talking about 2013. I think the best way to think about is kind of the 2 themes that I was focused on, was you're seeing significant growth in our core business. From our content corpus continue to grow as well as the new content format and just the whole process around our studio. And then, we're taking that platform and all those learnings, and the creators, and the algorithms and everything we did to put that into mobile, international, video and a number of other areas. So I think you're going to hear us, in 2013, talk much more about how our core business continues to grow, but how we're able to leverage our content, our active community and our platform across these new areas in what we think is a really competitive way, right. I mean if you think about the assets that I've talked about for a long time, but are now 125 million people visiting our sites every single month, the amount of expert creators we have that can create large volumes of intent-driven content and a community that is active, looking for whether it's apps, or mobile, or mobile and apps, mobile web, we're going to take those off our network to Content Channels to the mobile device to different countries as well as to video and whatever new platform comes about.
Patrick D. Walravens - JMP Securities LLC, Research Division
So I mean, would you be disappointed, Rich, if you didn't accelerate revenue next year -- revenue growth next year versus this year?
Richard M. Rosenblatt
That's a hard question to answer. But as you've seen, we've accelerated revenue growth every quarter since the beginning of this year. So obviously, that's our continued goal. I mean, we want a business that continues to grow.
Next, we have the line of Ross Sandler with Deutsche Bank.
Ross Sandler - Deutsche Bank AG
I just had one other follow-up on the O&O page view growth. So I think you guys had rattled off some growth rates for either uniques or page views for LIVESTRONG and Cracked which were 90-plus percent, if I heard correctly. And then you just said that the eHow page view generation from Google was, I guess, pretty consistent year-on-year. So how do we reconcile -- so you got 33% overall O&O page view growth, what are like the kind of trending lines within that between eHow, LIVESTRONG, Cracked and then anything else that flows through that line?
Richard M. Rosenblatt
I think, Ross, I think one of the things is eHow continues to grow significantly also, but the mix is changing. So while Google still generates about the same amount of page views, you're continuing to see a diversification of page views across different mediums, which is exactly what we were trying to do. So I did -- by saying that LIVESTRONG grew 97% year-over-year, eHow continued to grow. And I think I've mentioned on comScore, it continues to grow. So I don't know if that was what that question was related to...
Ross Sandler - Deutsche Bank AG
Yes. I mean, I guess it would just imply that eHow internal page view growth is something that's kind of below that average of 33%. And then Cracked and LIVESTRONG are growing much faster, but off of a smaller base. Is that kind of the right way to think about it? Like 15% to 20% for eHow, and then the balance is...
Richard M. Rosenblatt
No, no. Sorry about that. But actually, eHow grew significantly higher than that. Cracked -- LIVESTRONG grew 97%, Cracked grew less only because you are seeing a big adoption in the mobile device when it comes to Cracked. But on the page views for eHow -- Mel, do we break that out?
Mel Tang
We don't break it out, but it was significantly higher than the average. So I think, if you think about the -- how you get back to that 33%, Cracked is lower than that average due to, one, to the fact that Rich mentioned. But also, we're continuing to test a few ways to improve the yield on that site. And so, that had some slowing aspect to the page view growth. But eHow and LIVESTRONG were the big drivers of growth this quarter, and you had Cracked a little bit lower than the average.
Ross Sandler - Deutsche Bank AG
Okay. Yes. That's super helpful, Mel. And then just one other clarification. I think you said that branded ad sales was around 10% of overall revenues. So that's overall revenue ex-TAC or around 20% of owned and operated revenues. Is that about right?
Mel Tang
The 10% is on total revenues. But it still gets you roughly in the same ballpark.
And that question will come from Sean Kim with RBC Capital Markets.
Sean Sun-Il Kim - RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Research Division
Just a follow-up on gTLD expenses. For the TLDs, where there are multiple applicants in an auction situation in the future, do you guys sort of expect to spend a certain amount of money in an auction situation? Can you -- is there an expectation for that?
Mel Tang
Yes. I think it really depends on which TLD. As we mentioned in the past, we've done pretty in-depth bottoms up analysis of what we're willing to value each TLD at. And I think we are prepared to go after the ones that we think are valuable and having that value guides those in our mind, allows us to deploy our capital to the right places and in the right amounts.
Richard M. Rosenblatt
[indiscernible] To think the way we think about the TLDs is the way we think about a piece of content is, we look very closely what the long-term return is going to be, and we'll spend the amount of dollars that hit that return. But we won't spend more. So that way, we can go across many, many TLDs and have kind of financial discipline to pay the right price. And why we think, in some cases, we may be able to pay more, is because of our distribution as well as our level of data, which we think is a real competitive advantage.
Julie MacMedan
Great. Well, that concludes our Q&A session. And we really thank you for joining us. We look forward to reporting our Q4 results and speaking to you then.
Richard M. Rosenblatt
Thank you very much.
This concludes today's conference. You may now disconnect.
Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.
If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: firstname.lastname@example.com. Thank you!


text: Thirty-five years ago this year, your State Credit Union began serving you and hasn't stopped. Through perseverance, dedication and drive the State Credit Union has become your primary financial institution. The Credit Union serves over 10,000 members throughout West Virginia, and is 64 million in assets, and is considered to be a full service financial institution.


text:
Radiation Safety Sign: X-Ray Radiation
Warn of the use of X-ray radiation to protect those in the area with this sign.
- Radiation symbol, as well as the pink and yellow color scheme warn of radiation
- X-rays can cause cancer, as well as other health problems
Selected Material Details
- Flexible 4-mil thick vinyl with acrylic adhesive
- Non-glare surface printed
- Moisture resistant
- Service temperature range: -40° to 176°F
- More Information
Make shopping easier!
Please provide us with your e-mail address so that we can retrieve your cart if we become disconnected. If you would rather not, just click "No thanks" and we will take you to your cart.
No thanks, just add this to my cart
Related Products
OSHA Danger Safety Label: High Radiation Area
Safety Sign: Wi-Fi Hot Spot
OSHA Danger Safety Sign: Laser Radiation - Avoid Eye Or Skin Exposure To Direct Or Scattered Radiation - Class IV Laser Product
OSHA Caution Safety Label: Microwave In Use
Radiation Safety Label: Hazard
OSHA Caution Safety Label: X-Ray Radiation
Choose your safety signs and safety labels from custom or stock. No minimum quantities are required, no set-up fees and most importantly no additional charge for colors or logos.
Once you find the safety sign or safety label that delivers the information or warning message you need, consider having your custom or stock order shipped within 24-hours.


text:
Primary humoral immunodeficiencies: An overview
- Author
- Francisco A Bonilla, MD, PhD
Francisco A Bonilla, MD, PhD
- Section Editor — Immunology and Immunodeficiency
- Associate Professor of Pediatrics
- Harvard Medical School
- Section Editor
- E Richard Stiehm, MD
E Richard Stiehm, MD
- Editor-in-Chief — Allergy and Immunology
- Section Editor — Immunology and Immunodeficiency
- Distinguished Research Professor of Pediatrics
- David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
- Deputy Editor
- Elizabeth TePas, MD, MS
Elizabeth TePas, MD, MS
- Deputy Editor — Allergy and Immunology
- Deputy Editor — Pediatrics
- Instructor in Medicine
- Harvard Medical School
The term "primary immunodeficiency disease" denotes disorders resulting from the mostly inherited defects of the immune system. Multiple isolated defects and combined disorders have been described, including humoral immunodeficiencies, the severe combined immunodeficiencies, and disorders resulting from phagocytic and complement defects.
The symptoms, signs, and molecular pathophysiology of the major humoral immunodeficiencies will be reviewed here, as well as pertinent aspects of the laboratory evaluation and differential diagnosis. An overview of the laboratory abnormalities observed in the different primary humoral immunodeficiencies is presented in the table (table 1). General considerations and descriptions of methods used in the evaluation of immune system function are discussed separately. (See "Laboratory evaluation of the immune system".)
Humoral immunodeficiency refers to diseases resulting from impaired antibody production because of either a molecular defect intrinsic to B cells or a failure of interactions between B and T cells [1]. Cellular immunity is largely intact, in contrast to diseases classified as combined immunodeficiencies, despite underlying T cell defects in some of these diseases. (See "Combined immunodeficiencies" and "Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID): An overview".)
Antibody deficiency characteristically leads to recurrent, often severe, upper and lower respiratory tract infections with encapsulated bacteria (eg, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae) [2]. Children commonly present with recurrent otitis media, sinusitis, and pneumonia. The same is true of adults, although otitis media is less common. Viral infections of the respiratory tract also occur with greater frequency and severity in these patients [3]. Additional infectious diseases may be associated with particular syndromes. (See "Acute otitis media in children: Epidemiology, microbiology, clinical manifestations, and complications", section on 'Risk factors'.)
Common associated findings in children include poor growth and failure to thrive, recurrent fevers, and poor school attendance and performance [4]. Chronic diarrhea is seen in both children and adults [5]. Autoimmune disease is occasionally the presenting feature in adults. Primary humoral immunodeficiency should also be considered in patients with nodular lymphoid hyperplasia in the gut or unexplained hepatosplenomegaly.
Subscribers log in hereTo continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:Literature review current through: Dec 2016. | This topic last updated: Mon Nov 23 00:00:00 GMT+00:00 2015.The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.References
- Notarangelo L, Casanova JL, Fischer A, et al. Primary immunodeficiency diseases: an update. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004; 114:677.
- Ballow M. Primary immunodeficiency disorders: antibody deficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 109:581.
- Kainulainen L, Vuorinen T, Rantakokko-Jalava K, et al. Recurrent and persistent respiratory tract viral infections in patients with primary hypogammaglobulinemia. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010; 126:120.
- Wood P, Stanworth S, Burton J, et al. Recognition, clinical diagnosis and management of patients with primary antibody deficiencies: a systematic review. Clin Exp Immunol 2007; 149:410.
- Agarwal S, Mayer L. Pathogenesis and treatment of gastrointestinal disease in antibody deficiency syndromes. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009; 124:658.
- Farr M, Struthers GR, Scott DG, Bacon PA. Fenclofenac-induced selective IgA deficiency in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1985; 24:367.
- Guillemin F, Bene MC, Aussedat R, et al. Hypogammaglobulinemia associated with gold therapy: evidence for a partial maturation blockade of B cells. J Rheumatol 1987; 14:1034.
- Lee AH, Levinson AI, Schumacher HR Jr. Hypogammaglobulinemia and rheumatic disease. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1993; 22:252.
- Williams A, Scott DL, Greenwood A, Huskisson EC. The clinical value of measuring immunoglobulins when assessing penicillamine therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 1988; 7:347.
- Knight AK, Cunningham-Rundles C. Oxcarbazepine-induced immunoglobulin deficiency. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2005; 12:560.
- Okumura A, Tsuge I, Kamachi Y, et al. Transient hypogammaglobulinemia after antiepileptic drug hypersensitivity. Pediatr Neurol 2007; 36:342.
- Abe S, Suzuki T, Hori T, et al. Hypogammaglobulinemia during antipsychotic therapy. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 1998; 52:115.
- Azar AE, Ballas ZK. Reversible panhypogammaglobulinemia associated with the antiepileptic agent levetiracetam. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2008; 101:108.
- Hayman G, Bansal A. Antibody deficiency associated with carbamazepine. BMJ 2002; 325:1213.
- Joubert PH, Aucamp AK, Potgieter GM, Verster F. Epilepsy and IgA deficiency--the effect of sodium valproate. S Afr Med J 1977; 52:642.
- Maeoka Y, Hara T, Dejima S, Takeshita K. IgA and IgG2 deficiency associated with zonisamide therapy: a case report. Epilepsia 1997; 38:611.
- Pereira LF, Sanchez JF. Reversible panhypogammaglobulinemia associated with phenytoin treatment. Scand J Infect Dis 2002; 34:785.
- Rice CM, Johnston SL, Unsworth DJ, et al. Recurrent herpes simplex virus encephalitis secondary to carbamazepine induced hypogammaglobulinaemia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007; 78:1011.
- Revy P, Muto T, Levy Y, et al. Activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID) deficiency causes the autosomal recessive form of the Hyper-IgM syndrome (HIGM2). Cell 2000; 102:565.
- Imai K, Slupphaug G, Lee WI, et al. Human uracil-DNA glycosylase deficiency associated with profoundly impaired immunoglobulin class-switch recombination. Nat Immunol 2003; 4:1023.
- Quartier P, Bustamante J, Sanal O, et al. Clinical, immunologic and genetic analysis of 29 patients with autosomal recessive hyper-IgM syndrome due to Activation-Induced Cytidine Deaminase deficiency. Clin Immunol 2004; 110:22.
- www.correlagen.com (Accessed on February 11, 2010).
- Hennig C, Baumann U, Ilginus C, et al. Successful treatment of autoimmune and lymphoproliferative complications of patients with intrinsic B-cell immunodeficiencies with Rituximab. Br J Haematol 2010; 148:445.
- Karaca NE, Durandy A, Gulez N, et al. Study of patients with Hyper-IgM type IV phenotype who recovered spontaneously during late childhood and review of the literature. Eur J Pediatr 2011; 170:1039.
- Combined immunodeficiency
- Protein-losing states
- Medications that cause hypogammaglobulinemia
- Other causes of acquired humoral immunodeficiency
- Clinical manifestations
- Laboratory findings
- Treatment
- IgA deficiency
- Specific antibody deficiency
- IgG subclass deficiency
- Selective IgM deficiency
- Selective IgE deficiency
- Hyperimmunoglobulin D syndrome


text:
West Green House
B860/0039 Rights Managed
530 pixels on longest edge, unwatermarked
Request/Download high-res file
Please login to use the price calculator
Credit: PAUL HARCOURT DAVIES/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
Release details: Model release not required. Property release not required.
Keywords: border, borders, botanical, botany, building, climbing, colour, colourful, colours, england, full, garden scene, hampshire, horticultural, horticulture, kniphofia, lush, many, mass, mixed, multiple, named garden, plant, planting, plants, sedum, shed, summer, view, vine, viola, west green house, west green house garden, west green house ng, white, yucca
Licence fees: A licence fee will be charged for any media (low or high resolution) used in your project.


text:
Stressed? Depressed? Overwhelmed? Frustrated?
Looking for an outlet to share your real feelings/mood without the need to maintain your Social Media persona?
MoodUp provides an environment for you to share your mood, and receive supportive comments/feedback from other users.
The idea is simple:
- Share your mood with the MoodUp community
- Other users post helpful comments/feedback
- You thank and rate the feedback
Mood posters receive helpful, supportive comments back from the MoodUp community...
Commenters are rewarded with some thanks and a rating...
Some Highlights:
- Mood posts are anonymous. Feel free to share and express your real feelings without worrying about what your Facebook 'friends' would think.
- Support others by commenting. Commenters are identified only by their selected icon/image.
- Minimize irrelevant posts. You can mark a mood or comment as inappropriate (long press).
- Reduce harrassment. Rating a comment as zero will block further comments by that user against that mood.
This is an initial Beta release. Expect issues, crashes, etc.
General feedback welcomed - let us know what you like, dont like, think should be improved, etc.
Note: The current version is suited to small screens. The tablet layout is a little 'all over the place' :-(


text:
Check in from 14h / Check out prior to 12h
Eurotel Hotel Perols: Find photos, reviews, information, amenities and compare prices for 3 stars hotels in Perols, France.
Located in the Languedoc-Roussillon Wine Region, Eurotel Hotel Perols is the perfect base for those wanting to visit the area's highly-regarded wineries. It also provides a free shuttle service, a swimming pool and an express check-in and check-out feature.
Hotel description
This 3-star hotel offers a 24-hour reception, meeting rooms and a concierge. It also provides conference rooms, room service and a wake-up service.
Eurotel offers elegant rooms equipped with a hair dryer, a flat-screen TV and heating. All private bathrooms provide a bathtub.
Eurotel Hotel Perols houses both a restaurant and a bar where guests can relax at the end of the day. A range of breakfast options are available in the hotel's dining room.
Eurotel provides easy access to Park and Suites Arena. The hotel offers convenient access to Montpellier - Mediterranee Airport.
Hotel features
Room Service, Restaurant, Bar / Lounge, Air Conditioned, Hair Dryer, TV, En suite
Concierge, Elevator / Lift, 24 Hour Reception, Conference Room(s), Wake-up Service, Meeting Rooms, Photocopier, Express Check-In/Check-Out
Swimming pool, Bath / Hot Tub, Garden
Airport shuttle
Private Toilet
Availability and Prices
Booking Site
Room Type
Per room
Per night
Per night
Users who viewed Eurotel Hotel Perols also viewed these 3 stars Perols hotels:
Search hotels
based on