dannyjnoonan

I think Best Place at the old Pabst Brewery will let you do that. Not positive, but worth a call: http://www.bestplacemilwaukee.com/banquets.html

"You're entirely missing my point." No. You are. "The owner is not paying him to do the work. The owner is paying him because he wants to reward the player for being an athlete for the school he likes." Exactly, which is what he should be free to do in this free country of ours. "It has nothing to do with work." It has everything to do with work, and risk taking, on the field. "It would corrupt the system." Too late. The system is already SUPER corrupt. The guys that make the enterprise valuable are not paid by said enterprise, and are basically not allowed to make money from any source. The system is not corrupt because people break the rules. It's corrupt because the rules are corrupt." "If you're going to go that, you may as well just let athletes take free handouts." Yes, that sounds like a fair thing to do in this free country of ours.

"any stipend that would go to football and baseball players would then have to be given to all athletes, who work just as hard as football players do, but just not in a money-making sport." No they wouldn't. The athletes in the other sports aren't performing a service that is worth as much. "i couldn't get into UW because of grades, yet Rashard Griffith could barely spell his name and he gets to go." Another great reason why minor league sports shouldn't be tied to college in the first place. "What he's worth to who? He's certainly not worth $25 an hour to the restaurant owner who is paying him." Um, then the restaurant owner wouldn't pay him that. And if the restaurant owner would pay him that, then he is worth that much. He's probably worth more to others. The rules that prevent these people from getting paid for something that's so lucrative are so anti-American. "Also think about the $200 "tips" other boosters would leave them." Yes, many of these athletes would benefit from such $200 tips. "The limits were negotiated by the unions and the league." The 18 year olds that would benefit from lowering the age did not get a say, as they were not part of the union at the time. It's obvious age discrimination. "Hockey's is actually the best system in my opinion. A player goes to Juniors or college, gets drafted. Then the drafting team can sign him or let him go back to school but they retain his rights for a number of years until the decision is made for him to turn pro. I wish baseball and basketball would go to that kind of system." I agree. Lots of good stuff about this system.

"Let's say Joe Football wants a job and applies at a local restaurant where the owner is a booster and a huge fan. What prevents him from giving this player $25 an hour and doesn't make him do any work?" So he'd be getting paid what the market establishes he's worth. And that's a bad thing how? "But they also have college baseball where they don't get paid. No matter how many leagues you have going on, you're still going to have college football and college basketball. And people are going to pay to watch it and it's going to make money for the school." I admit that it'd be impossible to change the system at this point to untangle the lower levels of basketball and football from college. It's unfortunate, but true. But that's exactly why they should be paid what they're worth.

I'm sorry to hear of his passing, but Andy Rooney wasn't a very good guy. At least his public persona was not that of a good guy over the past 20 years or so. I actually think it was his 2007 column about baseball that really turned me off. I just tried to google it and couldn't find it, which makes me think it's been taken down from his site. But I happened to have saved it, so here's the text of the original column [with my own comments in brackets]. This one goes beyond bitter and senile to me. It's racist. It's elitist. It's poorly written. It's full of lies. It's just so so negative. Here it is: Baseball has never been my game. I never liked it as a kid, probably because I could never throw a ball very well. My friends said I threw like a girl and that's enough to put any young boy off a game. As I've probably told you — after over 4,000 columns it's sometimes hard to remember what I've said before — my father took me to a Yankee game when I was about 10 years old and Joe DiMaggio struck out three times. [Andy Rooney was born in January of 1919. Joe D came up in 1936. So either "about 10 years old" means 17-and-a-half at the youngest, or he's lying about seeing Dimaggio play when he was a kid. Also, Dimaggio struck out 369 times in 1,736 career games. That's about once every five games. I'm not saying he never struck out three times in one game, but it probably didn't happen more than once or twice. He also hit 361 home runs, so the odds of Andy Rooney seeing Joe Dimmaggio strike out three times in one game are roughly the same as the odds that he saw him clout three dingers in one game.] My disinterest in baseball as a kid has lasted all my life. I'm still not interested in the game. I don't watch it on television or follow it in the newspaper. I know all about Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, but today's baseball stars are all guys named Rodriguez to me. They're apparently very good but they haven't caught my interest. [He actually wrote that in something that was going to be published] I also think baseball needs some rules changes, too. For example, the player who starts the game as pitcher should have to play all nine innings without a substitution. A pitcher hardly ever plays more than a few innings and then the manager replaces him with someone who isn't as good. [i just don't get why anybody would read a column he wrote about anything and take it seriously. If he doesn't understand baseball, why is he writing about baseball? Baseball hasn't been like that in 100 years. This is like saying a running back should have to play every down. And obviously, relief pitchers aren't always worse than starters. They're just different.] I think baseball managers dominate the games more than the players do and more than coaches do in other sports. There are 30 major league baseball teams, but sometimes it seems as though the New York Yankees are the only team that ever wins the World Series. There have been 102 World Series since 1903. The Yankees have been in 39 of those and they've won 26. Five teams have never won a World Series. What in the world keeps baseball fans in those cities coming to games? [This was in 2007, so lets list those five teams: Milwaukee Brewers, San Diego Padres, Houston Astros, Colorado Rockies and the Seatle Mariners... and the Washington Nationals, Texas Rangers and Tampa Bay Devil Rays. That's 8 teams. Even more than five teams have never won the world series. Maybe Andy is on to something here. I wonder if any football teams had never won a Superbowl as of 2007? Lets see, there's the Vikings, the Falcons, the Lions, the Bills, and the Seahawks. That's five. But there's also the Chargers, the Eagles, the Browns, the Bengals, the Saints, the Cardinals, the Panthers, the Jaguars, the Titans and the Texans. That's 15. There is obviously more parity in baseball than in football (or basketball) by any conceivable measurement. It's not so much that Andy gets this wrong. Lots of people get this wrong. It's that he did ZERO research to come to his conclusion. But he gets to say whatever he wants on TV and in print once a week for a huge sum of money.] The figures they keep giving us on broadcasts of baseball games are batting statistics, the amount being paid the players, the number of fans in the stands. There are other statistics I'd like to hear more often. When a player comes up to bat, they can tell me what his batting average is but I'd also like to know how many times he's struck out. Tell me how many different teams he's played with. Which player on either team has made the most errors? What's the average IQ of a baseball team compared with the IQ of a professional football team? [First of all, "how many times a player strikes out" is a "batting statistic" and broadcasters tell us this all the time. Second of all, I'm sure the average IQ of a baseball team is much higher than the average IQ of crusty old 60 Minutes "journalists."] It seems like a major mystery that baseball has never caught on in other countries the way it has here. [baseball is the most popular sport in The Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Japan, Cuba, Panama, Venezuela, Nicaragua, South Korea, and Taiwan. The USA had just gotten stomped in the World Baseball Classic when this article was written.] There are baseball leagues in several countries but their citizens' interest is mostly in soccer (football as they call it). [Wait, they call it "football"? How's Japan's "football" team?] Cricket is popular in some countries, but it makes hopscotch seem exciting. It's easier to understand why our football game isn't played in other countries. Football is complicated. It takes a lot of practice and it's expensive. All players need for a soccer game is a ball and a pair of shorts and shoes. It's harder for a bunch of kids to get together Saturday morning and go to a vacant lot to play football than to play either soccer or baseball. [i know you guys aren't going to believe this, but sometimes my friends and I get together and play football. We've been doing it for years. Lest you think I am some snobby rich person, I swear that all it takes is a ball and a pair of shorts and shoes. And sometimes a coat and mittens in these parts.] Some of the best times of my life were playing football, and some of the best friends I made were fellow football players in high school and college. You're more dependent on teammates in football than in baseball and a bonding takes place. [How can he possibly know this? He stated that he's never played baseball and that he throws like a girl.] In a football game, you're dependent on the players on either side of you. In a baseball game, you're pretty much on your own. [Well, unless you get a base hit and don't want to be left stranded on the base. Or you throw to first to get a player out and you want the first baseman to catch the ball.] Basketball is a better team sport to me than baseball, but size means too much in basketball. I never got taller than 5-foot-9 and didn't make the basketball team in school. I ended up as the backstroker on the swimming team. I was a good swimmer but hated doing laps for practice. The water was always cold and after half an hour in the chlorinated pool my eyes were red and my skin wrinkled. It took the fun out of swimming. [i'm not quite sure what he's talking about here. He started out talking about team unity and now he's talking about chlorinated eyes. It's almost as if Mr. Rooney is crazy.] Considering the fact that who wins or loses any game makes no difference whatsoever in our lives, it's interesting how important a game can seem to us sometimes. The greatest sports loss of my life was a high school football game. We were undefeated and the game was the last of the season. It ended in a scoreless tie and we were crushed by what seemed like the worst defeat of our lives. [This has nothing to do with his theme. It's just some nonsense.]

Of course they should be paid--at least the football and basketball players. Well, let's back up. First of all, it's stupid to have lower levels of sports like football and basketball tied to college in the first place. Other than tradition, I see no good reason for it. Minor league football and basketball should be treated just like minor league baseball, or like the lower levels of soccer in the rest of the world. It should be club and it should be pro. That said, this position is unrealistic in the current climate where people have been supporting their college teams for generations. So if you're going to keep minor league football (yes, that's what division 1 college football is) tied to college, you have to pay the players. They're drawing big crowds of paying customers and making no money off of it even though they're the ones taking the risks. The coaches get paid like NFL coaches. The schools get profits like NFL team owners. The only difference is that the people that are actually making the whole thing profitable aren't getting paid.

Houlie24x wrote:Yeah I hate just going out and running a couple miles. It's not fun. Soccer is a lot more fun. I like that I'm forced to run harder as well since I don't want to let the rest of the team down. If you ever need an extra player let me know. I'm always looking to play some more. Yup, these two things are exactly why I advocate the fitness methodology that I advocate. It adds the team/competition element to fitness training. It makes it fun. And the intensity element makes it much more effective. I would agree with southpaw on his lifting advice. Do the compound lifts. Lift heavy, 5 reps or fewer per set. Generally speaking, stick to barbells and dumbells and stay away from the goofy machines that "isolate" or that use pulleys and stuff.

Sugar is not stored in your body any more than broccoli would be. The entire equation depends on calories in vs calories out. Everyone has a maintenance level of calories, a number of calories that if consumed in a given day you will stay the same weight. This number exists regardless of what you do throughout the day. If you sit on the couch all day, your body still burns x number of calories just to keep you alive. Working out increases this number, since you are using more energy(calories). If you eat above that number you are hypercaloric, or have a surplus of calories. Those extra calories will be stored by the body, most likely as fat tissue as potential energy(that's what fat is). On the opposite end, if you eat below that number you are hypocaloric. In that scenario your body has to burn potential energy to keep you alive. Fat stores or muscle are burned as calories to fill the gap. In the simplest sense, being hypocaloric is the only thing needed to lose weight. Your body WILL burn fat in the absence of enough maintenance calories. A high fat, low carb keto diet like danny uses is just a type of diet. It doesn't change the scientific facts and the mechanisms in place. It still comes back to calories in vs calories out.Trying to respectfully disagree, but sugar is stored differently than broccoli. As Southpaw is saying, if you eat fewer calories than you consume, you lose weight. We measure the macronutrients in calories or grams, but your body operates in terms of fuel. If you eat more fuel than your body needs, which most people do, the body is forced to store this excess. It's how it's stored that differentiates the macronutrients when we're talking about body composition. All carbs are converted to glucose. (to be clear, broccoli actually is mostly carbohydrates, including sugar, which would indeed be converted to glucose--it just has way fewer carbohydrates than bread or pasta or cake). When you eat food, the body digests the macronutrients (carbs, proteins and fats). If there's too much glucose in bloodstream the pancrease responds by secreting insulin. Insulin is a hormone that allows glucose to gain access to the interior of muscle and liver cells. Glucose is a fuel, but it's also toxic in high amounts. So when the glucose levels in the blood are too high, your body tries to get it out of the bloodstream by storing it as glycogen in liver and muscle cells. Once those cells are full, any additional glucose is converted to and stored as saturated fat. This also leads to insulin resistacnce, which basically everyone agrees is a main cause of obesity and type 2 diabetes. I assure you that it would be really really hard to eat enough broccoli that the calories you got from it would end up as saturated fat or give you diabetes. But all it takes is a can and a half of coke to trigger this kind of response. There's basically no way you can trigger it by eating protein and fat. If anyone thinks I might actually be right about this, I encourage you to look into it more. I'd start with this NY Times article by Gary Taubes: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all

I wouldn't call what you're advocating a complete waste of time, but it's certainly not the best way to get healthy, IMHO. I think we'll probably come to look at the conventional wisdom, low-fat, high carb diet as the equivalent of leeching at some point in the near future, but I could be wrong. Good luck with your personal training business. "Being right too soon is socially unacceptable." -Robert A. Heinlein

Brewcrew79, I don't do a ton of snacking, but when I do I eat almonds or other nuts, sometimes beef jerky, sometimes string cheese (although I know a lot of people are down on dairy, I haven't gone that far yet. Still a Wisconsin boy first). Or Pork Rinds! (although those obviously have other problems with--fried and overly salty etc) Meals are usually eggs for breakfast, sometimes with bacon. If I'm running late I'll do a whey protein shake instead. Usually a salad with chicken for lunch. Dinners are usually a peice of meat + a veggie or a salad. I've come up with a lot of low-carb meals over the years too though. I make 3 different kinds of chili that are all paleo and awesome. And really, I do cheat from time to time.

Again, you're taking something I say and twisting it. If I say something is the best way, you're taking it as me saying it's the only way. I DIDN'T disagree that calorie reduction works for weight loss. I disagreed that it's the BEST way to lose weight. Yes I realize sugar is a carb. I guess I realize that "carbs are calories" in some contexts of the words and I'm not gonna nitpick. I hope you don't believe the equation is so simple though. You don't actually believe that calories from protein, carbs and fat are all used by the body in the same way, do you? You realize that body composition is affected (I'd say drastically) by things like fat burning, ketone burning, glycogen storage, protein turnover, glucose levels etc. etc., right? I sit at a desk all day because I am a lawyer. I also co-own a CrossFit gym where a train a few classes a week.

Of course I'm suggesting that cutting sugar is a better idea. And again, you're hallucinating that I'm saying things that I'm not saying. "People can't reach their goals while eating carbs"? Where did I say that? What I said was that cutting carbs might not be necessary, but it seems sufficient to me. Reducing sugar intake is much more effective than reducing calories, and it's easier and better for you too in the vast majority of circumstances. And why should he not look into CrossFit? Every workout can be scaled. You can do 50% of the movements with dumbells and a pull-up bar, and 80% if you add a barbell. That's a lot less equipment than a treadmill or an elyptical machine. A workout is posted for free on the main site every day (crossfit.com) and scaling options are there in the FAQ. Most people that CrossFit never set foot in a gym. They just follow the main site (although for some of the more complex lifts, I'd definitely reccommend training with a coach for a while). And personally, I do find it more fun in a gym setting. I'm not saying that it's the only way, I'm saying it's the best way. People get enthusiastic about it because it harnasses competition and team--two things that most of us lose as motivators once we're done with high school or college sports (or never had if we never played sports). You may be "into fitness" enough to lift weights and elyptical on your own, but human nature seems to make most people prefer to work out with friends and a stopwatch--once we try it. And I really fail to see how I sound more cult-like than you do. I certainly don't see how it's any more cult-like than triathlon or volleyball or bodybuilding or anything else.

Southpaw, Wha? Of course not. I'm actually kind of scratching my head as to which law of thermodynamics you hallucinated that we were talking about. Care to elaborate? (Just speculating, but you're thinking the 1st Law applies, but that would mean that you'd have to view the human body as a simple, static, closed system?) The "everyone is different" thing is PC and all, but as a species and when it comes to health, we're more similar than we are different. Sure there are people who have conditions that make them different, but for the vast majority of human existence, humans ate and lived a certain way and it worked (tribal wars, trauma and disease not withstanding), and most of it still works now. If we're looking at the history of mankind, you are the one in the minority in your diet approach. Is low carb "necessary" to lose weight? Maybe not, but it certainly seems sufficient to me. And this approach is gaining a lot of traction, even outside my "cult." Check out Gary Taubes to get you started. As somebody that trains people, I can tell you that people that train the way I do see results. And more importantly, they LOVE it. I can also tell you that almost all of them come to us after not seeing results and becoming totally bored with some trainer at a franchise gym. You may say I'm culty, but I'm not even trying to push the CrossFit brand (even though I do own a CrossFit gym in Milwaukee. I'm not selling memberships here, and I'm well aware that CrossFit didn't invent variation, intensity or functionalty. But it did package them well, and the name is an easy shorthand for that methodology). I can see the "culty" label in some ways, but I think it's just because you globo-gym guys don't really understand how people can be so into fitness. I think it's a good thing when people are enthusiastic about being in shape. I think the "conventional wisdom" of low fat and long slow distance is the cult. It's brand new in the grand scheme of things, and people cling to it even in the face of an onslaught of new evidence. Is CrossFit necessary for seeing results? Of course not, but if your desired result is general fitness, it absolutely does work.

If you're looking to improve your squat and deadlift, a lot of guys at my gym have found big gains in those lifts with this program: http://www.amazon.com/Simplest-Effective-Training-Increase-Strength/dp/0557248299

I disagree with almost everything here (except that I agree that drinking water is good). What you eat is just as important as how much. Not all calories are created equal. If you stress just cutting down that calorie number you'll be hungry and misserable. In general, to lose weight (or specifically, to lose fat), the most important things, in order of importance are: -Stop eating sugar. Or at least added sugar. I could get into the science of it if you want, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll just say this: it's all about insulin. When you eat sugar, excess is stored in your liver and muscles as glycogen. When you have too much glucose in your blood stream, your pancrease responds by producing insulin. Insulin's job is to allow glucose to be stored in muscle and liver cells as glycogen. However, if those cells are already full of glycogen (if you have a "normal" American diet and are not VERY active, they're almost always full) the excess glucose is converted to fat. In other words, fat doesn't make you fat, sugar makes you fat. (This is an incredibly simplified account of what happens, but gimme a break, it's a Brewer message board). Also, after like 2 weeks of being sugar free, you barely miss it. -Drastically cut back on carbohydrates, especially those from grains. All carbohydrates are eventually converted to glucose, and your body isn't really designed to handle more than like 100g of carbs a day, maybe. (The average American eats something like 650g a day. I think the USDA reccommends 350g a day, but (a) they're the department of AGRICULTURE, which seems like a conflict of interest to me, and (b) they do keep reducing that number, so even they're starting to come around on that). Southpaw noted that if he cut down his carbs he wouldn't have energy, but I've never met anyone that tried going sub 100g of carbs a day and had any problems with energy. I work out a lot and have plenty of energy. Also, after like 2 weeks of being low carb, you don't even miss high carb foods. -Lift heavy and/or work out at high intensity. Lots of people reccommend biking or running marathons or hopping on the elyptical or whatever (what I like to call "long slow distance, or LSD), but that's a way less efficient use of your exercise time than a 15 minute, high intensity workout, or a heavy lift. Not only will you burn more calories during the workout, you'll also get a much greater "after burn" effect and a hormonal response that causes you to produce more testosterone, which is great for burning fat too. -Vary your exercises. I'm 32 years old and am in better shape than I've ever been. I swam and ran cross country at the college level, but my body fat % is lower now than it was in my late teens/early twenties. I was a pretty good athlete, but I was always the guy that didn't quite look like he could swim a 55 second 100 butterfly or run a 16:30 for 5k since I bought into the "eat carbs for energy" nonsense. Now I kind of do look like I could post those times. And it's functional too. I can still run under 18 for a 5k (and I only run like 10 miles a week), deadlift 415, do about 30 pull-ups, etc. etc. And that's for a guy that sits at a desk all day. Find your nearest CrossFit gym. You'll be amazed at what happens, and you'll start to enjoy working out.

We just opened less than a month ago. Stop by any time for a workout and see if you like it. You can send me a private message if you want more info (I don't mean to hijack this thread!). The website is brewcitycrossfit.com

The gym is at 408 W. Florida St., just east of the Ironhorse. Stop by, we offer neighbor discounts! We're planning a post-workout brewery tour at the Milwaukee Brewing Company this Friday, and we want to do the same at Great Lakes sometime in the next couple weeks. That's the kind of gym we are. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif If you're interested, our website is brewcitycrossfit.com I ran by that tapas place the other day and was wondering when it would be open. It looks pretty awesome.

I second this. InsomniacInkRoss, I just opened a CrossFit gym right accross the roundabout from the Great Lakes Distillery. It's getting to be an awesome neighborhood!

I'd buy a season ticket to an MLS team. I think Milwaukee could support it. Milwaukee's youth soccer program is HUGE and has been for the last 25 years, so most people my age (31) have a better knowledge of soccer than people 10 years older, not to mention families of kids still playing youth soccer. We also have a fairly large hispanic polulation for a midwestern city, amongst which soccer is more popular. But mainly, soccer is just growing in popularity everywhere in the US. Did anyone walk down Brady St. during the world cub? I'd guess we could sell over 10,000 tickets to 20 games a season or whatever. And wouldn't a soccer stadium look great in the Park East Corridor?

If it's nice out, grab a beer at The Yard at The Ironhorse Hotel. It's a great patio in a cool Harley themed hotel. Leon's Frozen Custard is also a must. Also, while I think you should tailgate, if you decide not to, there are a few bars near your hotel that have shuttle busses that will take you to the game. I know The Milwaukee Brat House has one--it's on Old World Third St. just a few blocks south of Aloft. AJ Bombers might too, but I'm not sure of that.

I can do 15 or 16 chin-ups from a dead hang, and probably 13 or 14 pull-ups from a dead hang. I can do well over 30 CrossFit-style kipping pull-ups. P90X might be a fad to the extent that it comes in a box and has a gimicky name, but the idea behind it is sound. Variation and intensity work, and they've worked long before people started running marathons or doing 3 sets of 10 reps on the bench.

I just started With the Old Breed. Yeah, it's awesome.

Everyone has different ideas of fitness. I'd say that running a calorie deficit will work, but it's not the simple equation some people have described. I think cutting carbs and eating "real food" is more important. It's all about insulin. Never tried p90X but I've been doing CrossFit for like 4 years, and p90X is basically CrossFit in a box, minus the heavy lifting. My understanding is that it works great, but is time consuming and gets boring as you start cycling through it again and again. We have a ton of people come to the CrossFit gym that have done p90X and just needed to mix it up a bit. It's not perfect, but it's probably a good investment, at least for a while.

I think it's been amazing so far. I almost like it better than Band of Brothers, but that's probably because my grandpa was in the 1st Marines and fought in most of the battles they cover. He volunteered for the Marines after Pearl Harbor. After training in San Diego, he joined the 1st Marine division as a replacement towards the end of the battle of Guadalcanal. He went on to fight in three major battles; Cape Gloucester New Britain, Peleliu and Okinawa. In between battles, he had "R&R" in Melbourne Australia and the Island of Pavuvu. After the Battle of Okinawa, he was probably headed for the invasion of the Japanese mainland which obviously never happened. If it had, there is a very good chance that I wouldn't be around to write this. Instead, he spent five months in China after the Japanese surrender and didn't return home until January 1946. So in this series, they cover all these battles and places. The detail really strikes me. I remember him talking about the rats running over him, while he tried to sleep on Pavuvu (one of the rest and relaxation places). This detail is mentioned in the series. There are two areas where the series differs from my grandpa's itinerary. It covers the battle of Iwo Jima, which he (and, I believe, the 1st Marines) did not participate in. And it does not include his stint in China.

They've won four division titles with Beane at the helm, at least.With that pitching staff, they probably could have won those division titles with Dean Taylor at the helm... Well, maybe not, but you get my drift. Are you suggesting a team's personnel has nothing to do with the GM? Do you... like... know what a GM does?