Nine years. Four years. Thirty days. Sixty votes. Twenty-two percent. Nineteen schools. Seven hundred million dollars. The finalized text is mostly a set of thresholds, and not one of them is a round
I re-read the rest of Title III last night, and your first prediction resolves — just not the way either of us framed it. The targeting is right. Every eligible entity under 306(4) is a part B institution, and 302(c)(2)(C) gives added priority for membership in an HBCU athletic conference. So it's pointed exactly where you said it would need to be pointed.
The trouble is that the concession isn't assignable, right? It's a competitive national grant program run out of NTIA, scored on need — bond rating, endowment, deferred maintenance, Pell share. No formula, no set-aside. So a member can't go tell a school in his district that it's getting anything. Best he can do is tell them they're eligible to apply.
(Which is where I think your u_i(x) needs another term. It assumes the proposer can direct the payoff to member i, and here he structurally can't, even with the faction identified correctly. P(member i gets paid) = P(six future appropriations) × P(that school wins a competitive award scored against every other HBCU in the country).)
And under 302(f)(1), the rulemaking doesn't even begin until money is appropriated. Compare the antitrust exemption in the same vehicle, which self-executes on signature and comes pre-assigned to named beneficiaries.
So maybe two missing terms rather than one: delivery probability and assignability. Correct targeting with zero assignability might be worse than sloppy targeting with a formula, which feels like something your model could actually test.
One more, because it's the same move: 302(c)(2)(E) gives priority to an HBCU that partners with a "covered entity" — the pooled media entity from Title II. So HBCUs are being steered toward the pool in the same week the P2 got language making their own participation voluntary. That's the cross-faction transfer I mentioned. Leadership paid one faction out of another's position instead of out of its own capacity.
All of which is your machinery and not mine, so tell me where I'm using it wrong, which I am sure that I am.
TL;DR from the corkboard: the envelope's addressed correctly. There's nothing in it, and nobody can promise any particular Pepe that there will be. :)
If I'm reading you right (and lord, you go deep, picturing the Charlie Day meme), "leadership" underpriced the HBCU/CBC faction.
So House prediction doesn't change at this point, just sharpens claim in my model of a "misfire" and expect that faction to dig in.
I re-read the rest of Title III last night, and your first prediction resolves — just not the way either of us framed it. The targeting is right. Every eligible entity under 306(4) is a part B institution, and 302(c)(2)(C) gives added priority for membership in an HBCU athletic conference. So it's pointed exactly where you said it would need to be pointed.
The trouble is that the concession isn't assignable, right? It's a competitive national grant program run out of NTIA, scored on need — bond rating, endowment, deferred maintenance, Pell share. No formula, no set-aside. So a member can't go tell a school in his district that it's getting anything. Best he can do is tell them they're eligible to apply.
(Which is where I think your u_i(x) needs another term. It assumes the proposer can direct the payoff to member i, and here he structurally can't, even with the faction identified correctly. P(member i gets paid) = P(six future appropriations) × P(that school wins a competitive award scored against every other HBCU in the country).)
And under 302(f)(1), the rulemaking doesn't even begin until money is appropriated. Compare the antitrust exemption in the same vehicle, which self-executes on signature and comes pre-assigned to named beneficiaries.
So maybe two missing terms rather than one: delivery probability and assignability. Correct targeting with zero assignability might be worse than sloppy targeting with a formula, which feels like something your model could actually test.
One more, because it's the same move: 302(c)(2)(E) gives priority to an HBCU that partners with a "covered entity" — the pooled media entity from Title II. So HBCUs are being steered toward the pool in the same week the P2 got language making their own participation voluntary. That's the cross-faction transfer I mentioned. Leadership paid one faction out of another's position instead of out of its own capacity.
All of which is your machinery and not mine, so tell me where I'm using it wrong, which I am sure that I am.
TL;DR from the corkboard: the envelope's addressed correctly. There's nothing in it, and nobody can promise any particular Pepe that there will be. :)
great analysis
cheers, man… tryin’. :)