OldSchoolSnapper

Jopal, the circles are pointless at this point. You're talking about what is very likely a $150 million revenue stream and for some reason still pretending that's not an absolutely gigantic thing the Brewers rely on. There's a point in these topics where it becomes clear somebody just doesn't want to say, ok, I probably said more about something than I should have because I didn't really think it through. To your point about the revenue stream being variable, yeah, it's variable, but the floor is still a huge sum of money.

Jopal, I'm sorry, but it just seems like you spoke on something out of sheer ignorance and are trying to double down on it now. What you are saying simply doesn't make any business sense. If they Brewers didn't care about attendance, they aren't doing free shirt Fridays and 25 other promotions throughout the year. They're not giving away seats for 50% off on special days or giving SSH a bunch of free perks to entice renewal. You're just way off on this. If you ever fill out a ticket interest form and don't follow through they will proceed to blow up your phone for weeks. What you need to realize is that all of the things I just said come at a considerable expense to the club, and if that wasn't justified by a large profit, they wouldn't be doing it. There is a reason they said they were "over the moon" with attendance figures once fans were allowed back in last season. This "you'll consume the product anyway" is just way too dismissive and simple. It likely takes a huge quantity of radio listeners or TV viewers to come close to somebody buying 4 seats to a single game financially. The most efficient profit margin is by FAR a butt in the seat that's also buying marked up concessions. They don't care about the fans? Well OK, but they definitely care about their money and that is quite clear. The earlier point that new stadiums and experienced are designed with entertainment and dining options and distractions is fair, but really insignificant. It's all about attendance. And they would not be bothering with all that shift in strategy if they didn't care about attendance. It's just a freezing cold take. Let's pretend that all things are equal. A difference between 1.7mm and 3.1mm though the gate, which the Brewers have seen in the last 18 years, is an approximate gate revenue difference of $41 million. That is without parking or a single penny of food or merch. To suggest that's not hugely significant to the Brewers is just absurd.

Let's say you're a generic business analyst. My main point was more that instead of putting something like "assisted in building new marketing campaigns," you want something like "led campaign that increased year over year shoe sales 45%". Many, many people do the former, but the latter shows clear value and lends itself to discussion in an interview.

I don't, but there's nothing they're going to tell you that isn't on Google or YouTube. All I will say is that today vs even 10 years ago, resumes need actionable things. A list of duties will not tell anyone anything. It's impossible to get specific without any kind of knowledge of position or field but for example: -Stocked shelves vs. -Managed inventory for grocery chain location that saw 25% reduction in food waste and top 3 net sales in market When you are specific about value added it is always better than just rambling about tasks. Shifting careers is easier if you can easily promote yourself as useful. Again, without line of work it is impossible, but sometimes it is as simple as YouTubing a new program, grasping a basic knowledge of it, then, well, lying on a resume and knowing enough to pass an interview, and learning it on the job. A ton of analyst/software positions basically end up with you Googling how to do things anyway. I'm not suggesting you fake being a software engineer, but things like SalesForce, yeah, you can totally lie about and learn as you go.

I have nothing but sympathy for Flores, but what other outcome did anyone expect from the Rooney Rule? I would guess that for the vast majority of HC positions there is a clear board that teams have with their top options. The rule itself is just stupid, and doesn't really do anything other than give the NFL something to point to and say "See, we're trying." There is no chance whatsoever that forcing a team to interview a minority ever got a minority a HC job. A more impactful change would probably be some type of program that gets minority talent in the door at the ground level; a scout outreach program, etc, something like that which provides tangible opportunity and room to grow. A token interview at the HC level, an interview a team doesn't even want to do, achieves absolutely nothing.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but you're simply just wrong. They spend a LOT of money trying to get butts in seats, not just for gate ticket price, but once someone is in the stadium there is a huge amount of captive spending that takes place. This is a way bigger deal for small market than large market where advertising and broadcast contracts can compensate for poor attendance. And in response to the other post, no, those people do not show up regardless of what is happening on the field. The attendance very clearly tracks with winning, sometimes by a difference of a million people per year.

This will be my last season as SSH only because I already paid. My geographic location isn't great fo attending so I only use about half the games anyway, but I'm just done endorsing this sort of thing. I don't agree at all with above that the tickets don't matter. The tickets matter a ton and that is evidenced clearly by how hard they work to sell them. It matters even more for teams like the Brewers with fewer avenues of compensating for poor ticket sales. I don't even follow the logic there. There is 0 cost to listening to Uecker; that is quite obviously way less lucrative than buying 4 tickets per season.

I find Indeed superior to anything else. Especially recently they seem to be getting employers away from applying on their own websites and making them accept resume drops and brief applications. It's possible to apply to 20 jobs in 10 minutes. You can also just a post a resume there and recruiters will find you. I get a lot of callbacks even when I'm not looking. LinkedIn will be more useful in some fields than others. I would say that any objective field of work will do better on LinkedIn. If you're a programmer that knows these specific XYZ languages and have it on your page, you will be inundated by recruiters without doing a lick of work. If it's a more subjective field like general marketing, then LinkedIn is just a bunch of people blowing self-promotional hot air. It's another thing that was distinctive in 2007 but now everyone has one so it's useless. Just friends writing endorsements for each other and people exaggerating their duties.

Why does everyone keep saying this like it is a cold fact? What if they immediately suck and pick a QB in the top 5? If there's one certainty in the NFL it's that you can go from dreadful to good in record time.

Yah, the Aaron Rodgers thing is a great reason why Jordan Love has essentially no chance to lead them deep in the playoffs for 3+ years. It took Aaron Rodgers three years despite being very very good right from the get-go. Not only that, but he fell into a pretty nice roster situation and they built it up incredibly well in those first few years. Rodgers was gifted with a Top 5 defense and a receiving core of Driver/Jennings/Nelson/Jones/Finley. I am not saying that can't have a quick turnaround...Not inferring it will take a half decade plus. However, yah, I am saying they won't be a legit Super Bowl contender for the next three years. Which is where my point of, who cares about the cap space issue and the veterans on the team in the short term. Losing a useful guy or two because of cap really just won't matter. Best case would be a soft rebuild where Love is looking like the answer, they have some cap space to play around with, and can build the roster. I don't really see, considering the cap constraints, how they can make this a run/defense team. Not in the sense to nearly instantly makes Jordan Love able to lead them to a Super Bowl. I think the utter best case you would be looking at is a Jimmy G type scenario. Which every one here seems to make fun of. If we have to dump some guys to trade Rodgers/Adams...do it. Not saying we should go pawn off young long term pieces. Just don't see losing sleep over 30+ year old guys if we have to dump them to make cap room. The Bengals were 2-14 in 2019, still have holes on their roster that, in a vacuum, would make just about say they're "not a Super Bowl contender."

Washington Commanders. The fans are not happy.

I've seen that sentiment about the Bengals a few times now and not sure I get it. The Packers BARELY squeaked by them in October and they took out the #1 and #2 seeds. I think the Packers would have absolutely had their hands full with the Bengals offense.

I think Cincy is going to have a tough time with that defensive front. They have the playmakers to negate it so I still think it should be a decent game. I'm happy with the match-up though. Two pretty benign teams that I don't really care about winning it.

Hope Bengals win, think Rams win.

Getting there has always been the real achievement to me. Yes losing the game stinks but as long as it's somewhat competitive it's a bit of a coin flip.

Thank God. That trash had no place in the Super Bowl TWICE.

That was the Jimmy G special that should have lost the game

That was a really stupid challenge.

I was told the people of L.A. don't care about football because they have the Lakers When the Rams played the Patriots a couple of years ago I happened to be in Hawaii for that Super Bowl. I watched it (sort of) while having dinner at a bar. A group of 3-4 people walked in wearing Rams shirts and jerseys. They glanced at the TV and said "3-0, huh, low scoring game." Then sat at a table facing away from the TV. I remember thinking how weird it all was.

I think SF is going to win the Super Bowl. They will absolutely humiliate the Bengals OL. If they could score at all it has the potential to be a terrible game. But their offense stinks enough to maybe keep it close.

The NFC was most certainly on a platter but the Packers were lucky to beat Cincinnati in October.

A team trading for Rodgers is doing it to win immediately; they are not going to trade a 21 y/o, cheap, star defensive player that immediately makes it harder to win 1/2 the game.

I'm just getting Google updates but this is such a total embarrassment as a Packers fan. I'll never live that loss to SF down. Worse than Seattle in some ways but I think that one still takes the cake. An utterly wasted opportunity, more so than previous years. Garopollo is just awful and they lost to a team that didn't score a TD on offense. Just unbelievable incompetence. And I don't think Cincy is any pushover, but this season was completely wide open for the taking, especially with Buffalo and KC getting knocked off. Cincy is going to have an unreal QB-WR tandem for years though.

There are a lot of guys stuck on 0 or 1 and none take the heat Rodgers does. It's a bunch of nonsense. Rodgers is, essentially, punished because he's very rarely been average enough that the Packers miss the playoffs entirely. Brees had the Saints stuck in .500 purgatory for a good bit of time, other guys like Stafford and Eli throw together a bunch of losing seasons. Even Roethlisberger has led some crappy teams that didn't make the postseason. The end result is that Eli scraps together two Super Bowl runs for a career postseason record of 8-4. That's 8 wins in those 2 seasons and 0-1 four times. And folks pretend that is more impressive than what Rodgers has done, which, this season not withstanding, is take some really average teams to the playoffs where they go 1-1 or 0-1. The 09 Packers went 0-1 in a game Rodgers scored 5 TDs and had 400 yards. And that team was good. They went 0-1 in a season in which he broke his collarbone and came back to win the final game of the regular season. They went 1-1 in a season in which he threw a hail Mary to force OT and then never got the ball. I HATE when postseason records get used to compare QBs. It completely diminishes the achievement of making the playoffs, guarantees a loss every season unless you win the championship, and completely writes off terrible seasons in which you didn't even qualify.

Yeah. That's exactly what he does, but SF might be inept enough that it won't matter.