FVBrewerFan

Not a friend or foe of Marquette, but what is their identity? That's what comes to mind whenever I watch an MU game the last few years.

They did show the overhead camera, but bodies on top shielded the ball, really couldn't see anything clearly.

Original content is only thing keeping Netflix alive. Very forward thinking of them, but I doubt it will be enough long term. They should buy/ merge with Hulu, but that may be just delaying their demise. You have Google (yttv), Amazon, and Disney. They want Netflix to die on its own, if they lose patience one of them will just buy it. Why even have Netflix? They offer me a free 30 day trial all the time. So I do that once or twice a year to binge their shows I want to see.

I've had You Tube TV for 2 weeks now, can't believe I didn't ditch cable a long time ago. $50 gets me almost all the channels I had with Spectrum. I did a lot of research on all the streaming services, and YTTV seemed to be the best choice.

I get it now. Gen X is clearly better than either Millennials or Boomers. After all, we gave you drive- thrus and the USFL. You're welcome.

Then they're going to achools they can't afford. Delay going to college a year or two, start off at a two year school, live at home for all or part of the time. Maybe stidy more in HS so tou get a scholarship to your dream school. You simply don't need to take on massive debt to get a degree. At least not in WI. What I noticed at the HS my kids attended, most wanted to go to Madison, and if not it better be a prestigious university out of state. Well, you know what, maybe you can't afford that. I couldn't either, but I'm not complaining about it.

I hate replay, always have. It just kills the excitement of the moment, and that's what sports is all about. Otherwise, may as well just read a report at the end of the season to see who won it all. Not to mention replay is still wrong/ inconsistent, so what's the point? Replay is only half the problem though. It's the rules. The more they have tried to define a catch, DPI/OPI, roughing, helmet/helmet, etc. they've made things much worse. Now you have refs trying to fit every unique event on the field into a rigid set of rules and it's a mess. I much rather leave it up to the reps if they believe a QB hit was excessive, if a catch looked like a catch, if there truly was PI, etc. There was a time everyone generally agreed on those types of calls, now you have refs trying to figure out on every play what is the right call vs what rule IV) 87a411ii says it's supposed to be. I want to see action and big plays happen in real time, not flags and replay delays. The fact NFL broadcast crews now often times have a "rules expert" in the booth says it all.

Correct, they didn't get a raw deal with student loans. Degree for nothing? Ok. My parents couldn't afford tuition. Student lians weren't really a thing then. I worked part time 9 montns a year, full time during summer starting at 15. Then worked full time for two years after HS, and worked all through college. Sorry, no sympathy here. You could do all that today and you would not have 1/4 of the balance paid. Sorry bud, you're just out of touch, and the reason this thread exists. They weren't a "thing" because you didn't need them. My wife's hairdresser has an economics degree. You're so off on this one, it's just laughable. The premise of your argument, and calling it that is generous, is that 90% of the country took out student loans to study philosophy. The government screwed the people, it's that simple. When the federal government guarantees the loans there is no incentive for the universities to manage costs of make it affordable. They can make it as expensive as a house, which it is, and it won't matter because people can get the loans. Fast forward a few years and you have a secretary of toilet paper making $160k. It's predatory, as someone else said. Not true. It's impossible for me to be out of touch because I recently went through this whole process with my millennials. Friend of my daughter went to UW-Whitewater and recently graduated with a degree in accounting. He paid for it 100% on his own. I don't know if he had any $1,000 scholarships here and there, maybe he Stafford loan everyone gets. So it's just factually wrong to say it can't be done. I know of others who went to a two year UW school to take are of general studies classes and lived at home. Much cheaper classes, and 0 for room and board. To be fair, I'm only familiar with WI schools, but in WI it's absolutely possible to get a degree without running up student loans. Also, I don't know where I ever said 90% of loans taken out are for philosophy degrees. But these liberal arts degrees aren't an insignificant number. Look at Lawrence, you have thousands of students at that one liberal arts college alone. And if that's what you want to do, great, just don't complain how you have $80,000 in loans.

Correct, they didn't get a raw deal with student loans. Degree for nothing? Ok. My parents couldn't afford tuition. Student lians weren't really a thing then. I worked part time 9 montns a year, full time during summer starting at 15. Then worked full time for two years after HS, and worked all through college. Sorry, no sympathy here.

So you go to achool for a couple years, now you're 20. Still too young to figure out taking out loans for an art history degree is a good idea? I don't have any sympathy. You're bright enough to go to college, but not bright enough to figure that out? That's on you. It may suck, but you made the choice. The solution they want is even more laughable. Have strangwrs pay it off for them, and make tuition free moving forward. Any guess what that will do to the cost of a BA degree?

Sounds like this is some sort of generational civil war, and I don't see it that way. 90% of the milllennial talk, and now boomer talk, is tongue and cheek. It's not hostile. Obviously throughout time there's going to be differences between generations. I have two millennial children, I don't look at what they or their friends do as any better or worse- just different outlook on things sometimes. Te one generality I do see in many millennials that bothers me a bit is the entitlement attitude. I go my BS degree in philosophy, now where is my job the world owes me? And why do I have these student loans I have to pay off that I agreed take out? I know, someone else should pay them off! Other than that, it's just fun to make jokes about it because the stereotypes are there. Brunch, don't know how to use a screwdriver, etc. Just as millennials make fun of me fr not being on twitter, instagram, etc. We're all so quick to be offended these days.

there is no chance that the brewers rebuild. Hader and Yelich are at the top of their positions on reasonable salaries. The brewes will find a new 1st baseman and one has to believe that Stearns thinks he can do better, because the option was reasonable IMO. The Thames signing was out of the blue when this board was trying to figure out who would be our 1st baseman. I think history repeats itself. I really hate definitive statements, it's not you it's me. Just like there's no way they make the playoffs this year. Having Yelich and Hader in their prime is hardly a reason to prevent them from rebuilding. They do need 24 other players. The rotation is: Woodruff Davies ? ? ? ? ? Plus, they need a C,1B, 3B, and arguably a SS. Just playing devils advocate a bit here, but wouldn't take much to make a case for rebuilding. And I'll repeat, I don't thin they will either...but its not unthinkable either.

There is a chance they go rebuild mode. I don't think they will, but there is that chance. We'll have to wait and see what Stearns says or does next, you would think if they'e not rebuilding Stearns would say so soon to squash that talk. This board will be an interesting place if they trade Yelich and Hader.

They don't need more out of Adams, they need more out of Clark. He was the 1st round pick, and was proving it earlier in his career. I'm sure he gets doubled a lot, but all great players do and still find a way to make plays. The Raji comparison is pretty accurate actually.

True. Early on, it was hey this defense is built for take-aways. Now that has fallen off. How about bend, don't break? Sort of, I guess. On offense, running game looks great, then non-existent. Pass protection is great or awful. I still really don't know what their offense is yet. Most of this is due, I believe, to limited talent. And then some of that talent is very young. But in general, I see a defense that is reacting rather than imposing their will. They don't get enough pressure on the qb, and rarely blitz. Middle of the field is always open for business. I want early season Savage back. On offense, yea, nobody's getting open. But is that, in part, because they're still predictable? I guess I was expecting more imagination this year. No matter what I hear, I'm still convinced this offense is a mish mosh of the game plan/ play called and what Rodgers wants to do.

Saw this earlier, good pointing it out. As much as the hype last year was around letting it fly. The stability of having tons of points in the paint with top notch efficiency was crucial to have in your back pocket every night as variance happens on 3s. Bledsoe is good at this, but has been bad so far. Giannis, same as we've talked about. But Xs and Os mentioned here and the copying Tor D to stop this, have to have the motions and things just mentioned here as other ways to get creases to the hoop. Yea, even during the season last year when they were cruising I said I hated Giannis with the ball in his hands at the top of the key. I'm really disappointed Bud hasn't (seemingly) changed the offense at all. Giannis should be roaming more without the ball. Swing it around until you get it to him in the post or slashing into the lane. He can even driver from further out once the ball moves around and he's not just standing still with a wall in front of him. Who knows, maybe Giannis is pulling a Rodgers and just winging it. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the feel for the game to pull that off. They appear to be SO tight, starting with Giannis. They need to R-E-L-A-X. Either way, you can tell me not to panic, but I'm close. I don't buy the "working 3 guys in" theory. The other great teams are working in new players, doing just fine. Same with the Bucks last season- and they were dealing with A LOT more changes. New coach, new system, etc. NBA is not a league where a team gets hot late in the year and wins it all. Champs in this league do it wire to wire, and that's why my finger is hovering over the panic button.

FG attempts within 5 feet: Last season: 2nd in NBA This season: 29th

Right, a trade can hurt the cap by both teams in the trade. Also sellers realize in the NFL, you can fairly easily go worst to first in a year. So unless a player is in their final year, hesitant to trade good players. Determining value is also much tougher, there's not objective stats like baseball.

Game plan worked vs KC. Sit back and give them the under stuff, make it tough to get into the end zone. Blown coverage on Kelce's TD and Williams penalty/dropped INT were 11-14 points there. I'm sure it was tempting to blitz a statue like Moore, but they respected all the speed KC has. Only blitzed like twice that I recall. I think we'll see a lot more blitzing vs Rivers, another statue. But I agree, Chargers are not an automatic win by any means.

Actually, mostly Andy Reid. I wouldn't have punted it, but I wouldn't call that a terrible mistake. Understandable why he did it, and they did down the ball at the 2. He needed his defense to step up, and it didn't. I was commenting on Jones. Thank you to Andy Reid for covering covering him with a LB the whole game.

Actually, mostly Andy Reid.

Exactly. They're not rolling people, but that's ok. Something to be said for getting used to winning tight games.

Go five wide here and let Rodgers run for the 1st down.

Can they actually run the ball to end the game like the old days?

We also have a kicker. And, by the way, no kick or PR for a TD against us tonight like many predicted.