OldSchoolSnapper

Not picking on anyone involved as the comments are to be expected for the kind of signing Douglas was, but: viewtopic.php?p=1406342#p1406342 Sometimes very small moves are huge moves.

Like it or not MLF plays the analytics and I had no doubt he was going for it. Personally, I think it's absolutely the right call to go for it. The 3 points only even marginally outweighs the large field position advantage if you fail. Opponent starting a drive inside their own 5 is always favorable imo. I think this early in the game I'd rather have that than 10-3. It always feels like there is a high propensity for mistakes.

The last time I visited one of those hellscapes I had to drive half an hour to Spectrum to return a modem that was Charter's which they made a big deal of as though I had any control over that whatsoever. Haven't been a customer since.

Douglas has been the Sam Shields addition on this team. Hopefully nets the same result. I was a big fan of that pickup at the time but he's exceeded expectations. It is still pretty incredible to me they were able to just pick up a guy with that game of proven on-field experience.

Cable is sadly the optimal choice for anyone whose top priority is watching every single local sports game they can. I don't have cable and I know there is a lot of resistance to this idea but in my opinion it is the truth. It's not relevant to me because I'm simply not sitting down to watch 150 Brewers and 65 Bucks games for a multitude of reasons. If you're dropping in a couple times a month, it's an enormous price gouge. The rest of the service is awful. In my experience of saving a few dollars with other options, you do sacrifice some quality. When I've had cable, I can count on one hand the number of times I couldn't see what I wanted. With streaming there are issues much more frequently. I'm in a weird Spectrum pocket where the Internet service is $17.99 a month, so the VPN/streaming route is a massive savings for me. But I still end up not using it enough to justify YouTubeTV or something. Personally I would rather read a book or go snowshoeing/hiking than watch TV that often, but if someone is dead-set on catching all the Brewers they can, without a bunch of annoying flopping between junk, cable still wins. Unfortunately. I'm experienced in piracy and it's wonderful for me, but my Dad is simply never going to use a firestick and a laptop to see the Brewers. It just won't happen.

I think the talent pool had really eroded during the last couple season in New England, to a level that seems more clear now. I don't think there's any way Brady plays for NE last year like he did for Tampa. His total lack of mobility is a liability now if he's not well protected and Tampa can still run pretty effectively when they want to. The tales of Brady's demise seemed to be overstated and the reality was that the team was in a bit of a downturn. Sort of reminds me of Favre going to Minnesota, to an unquestionably better roster and putting up great numbers again. Maybe he's a tick down from where he was 6 years ago but still really good. And Belichick is clearly a really great coach.

I personally think the Packers will stomp either the Rams or Cardinals. There is only one team that concerns me and it's Tampa. And I think it's either us or them out of the NFC. If the standings hold we'll be playing them in the 2nd round. But with the NFC so top-heavy the seeds appear not to matter all that much aside from the one team getting a week off. I'd rather lose to Tampa in the 2nd round than the 3rd if we're going to blow this again. The #1 seed has a good chance of playing a 12-5 (or similar) Rams team in their first game. There aren't any real gimmes. Home Field doesn't give me any confidence with the Packers anymore, but getting a week off with all of our injuries would be nice.

Is Red Baron that cheap? My Dad bought it all the time but I thought I remembered it being like $4 in the 2000s. Cheap to me is Jacks vs Orvs and Jacks is in a league of its own. Can still sometimes get a Jacks for $2.50, awesome deal.

thread didn't disappoint me

I'll laugh if they bring Bortles back again. The guy could make like $160k this year off standing around for 4 days.

I feel both are pretty much not talked about nationally lol. But beneficial is pretty vague. Can they increase quality of life? Yes for a relatively small number of sports fans. They don't do a whole lot outside of that.

Because they most likely already live near one and you'd sound like an incredible dork selling this to a prospective employee especially one under 30. However, I encourage you to look into the correlation between those two companies and median home values and what happens to those values after those places move in to town. The items you are suggesting draw people to a city, drastically fall down their list as they leave their 20s and enter their 30s and 40s where most spending takes place. And I can assure you that in the case of Target, you're dead wrong. There are lots and lots of people who bypass their closer department store to get to the nearest Target. This is exactly the reasoning that economists use to point how economically useless it is. "“One is just dollars and cents. Does it add to the city’s revenues? Does it increase the bottom line or improve the bottom line of cities’ businesses? Does it add jobs? Does it add incomes? And the consensus is that any impact of a sports franchise tends to be very, very small in terms of dollars and cents.” That’s because attending sports events is just one of multiple ways people spend recreation dollars. If they don’t have games to attend, they’ll simply do something else, said Greg LeRoy, the executive director of Washington, D.C.-based Good Jobs First. “If people go to the soccer games more, they’ll be going to the movie theater less. They’ll be going to the skating rink less. They’ll be going to restaurants less, or other things that they would be inclined to do with their leisure time.” There is no evidence that building stadiums results in any significant income or employment or taxable sales growth in cities that invest in public sports facilities, Victor A. Matheson, a professor of economics at The College of The Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. and a former Major League Soccer and USL referee, said in a phone interview. “… You’re not talking about something that’s going to be used very much,” Matheson said. “You know, you’re talking about something that’ll be empty 11 out of every 12 days during the course of a year. So, that’s not something that’s likely to really be a local neighborhood driver because, again, who’s going to start a sports bar that you can use 25 games a year.”

This isn't actually true and I work for a national retailer. If that were the case, then there is no incentive for the company to put a location there. This IS why a location like Hartford, home to about 16k people, has no Home Depot or Menards. It would just cannibalize the stores in West Bend or Menomonee Falls and harm the bottom line because of the added operating expense. They all have formulas where the distance between locations correlates to a larger profit margin. Moreover, believe it or not, something like a Target or a Starbucks is actually a consideration for a prospective homebuyer. The presence of either is more typically in an area people want to live; a sports team doesn't have that kind of appeal to the same number of people.

I actually think that this makes a STRONGER argument about the importance of the Brewers' stadium revenue, actually. Many of the studies cited above's theses revolve around the idea that if people weren't spending their money at the stadium, they'd be spending their money at the bar up the street. In the case of Miller Park, you've got people coming in from Madison/Oshkosh/where ever that not only wouldn't be spending their money at the bar up the street in Milwaukee, but they're specifically doing their spending because of the amenities AT the park and every dollar that comes from that is hypothetically a dollar that doesn't get spent in the city of Milwaukee otherwise. I do think the other item that isn't properly accounted for in these calculations are special 'bring people to the city' larger events. IE, Milwaukee doesn't host the 2002 All-star game without Miller Park, nor do the Packers end up hosting the draft without all the spending they've done surrounding the stadium. Those extraordinary events do undeniably bring money into the market that simply wouldn't be here otherwise, and that does have value to the city. All-Star game or Draft are literally a single weekend though. It can only be so drastic. A new Target at Bayshore open 364 days a year dwarfs that kind of impact. This is why I think people get so thrown off by this. Everyone remembers a crazy night on Water Street that takes place every 12 years during a championship. It is much more memorable than the parking lot that's packed at some store every night after 5pm.

There are intangibles that add value to the community, for sure, but that is pretty much never how these projects are sold to the public. They market them as economic masterpieces and they are lying when they do it. I have been in favor of every proposed new stadium or renovation in WI during my lifetime because I AM A FAN, but I still cringe when hearing the sales pitch and the number of people who argue those talking points with friends and peers. One of the problems is that sports fans have a drastically overstated perception of how many people actually care about sports. It's a lot of people, but there are more who would just be "Oh, they're leaving, cool." However we happen to be fans of the one sports franchise in the country where the city may disappear from existence if that team left. >But, they're doing their spending in Milwaukee rather than Stevens Point or Oshkosh, which is obviously a benefit to Milwaukee as a city. I don't know how this could ever be quantified, but if it somehow could, my guess is that it would be stunning to about 99% of people how insignificant of a sum that would be. Even someone like the Brewers who play a ton of games, you're only getting significant traction with these folks on a limited number of weekend dates. And even on those dates, it is a small % of the overall attendance.

https://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/stadium-economics-noll-073015/ https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=honors_mathematics - "Studies have shown that, while franchises can give the economy a boost in the short term, there are little to no long-term positive effects." https://qz.com/1934567/how-sports-actually-affect-the-economy/ - paywalled but probably the best one https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/207443 "The professors based their report on new data as well as previously published research in which they analyzed economic indicators from 37 major metropolitan areas with major-league baseball, football and basketball teams. "The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area," Humphreys and Coates noted in the report." Arenas, which are better for cities because they can be used all year for a million things, are still just kind of meh. One economist claims if all sports teams left CHI the impact would be less than 1%. And claims that a baseball team has about the impact of one department store. This should not really be all that surprising. The volume just isn't there with a sports team vs. a Target that employs a bunch of people year-round, is constantly open and reaches many more people. I love sports. Sports are cool. Sports definitely bring me to Milwaukee. But I'd find something else to do. It just doesn't make sense as something that would "stimulate" anything.

Because they can sell the jersey for thousands. No. It's because if they don't charge them for the jersey ($500) it's an expense counted against the salary cap. I don't think the 3rd string LG's jersey is worth thousands in re-sell and that's who makes up most of the roster.

I mean the teams existence in an area does boost the economy, really not debatable. Now if you want to argue the public funding of most stadiums outweighs that...fair argument. You're right, it's not debatable, because it has been debunked dozens of times. In freak scenarios like Green Bay, yes, but the presence of a sports team doesn't boost the economy. It's disposable income that gets spent somewhere else. The Bucks run last summer helped the immediate area downtown, but it's all money that would have been spent elsewhere. All the claims owners make like job creation and trickle-down spending to other businesses is more or less an outright lie that's been disproven time and time again by a number of scholars. Having some teams and shiny arenas brings people who hang out downtown, but if those things aren't there they spend money a few miles away.

Nobody has really played the Chiefs better than Jordan Love did for the last month.

Remember the few hours when some folks here were convinced the Packers would have to beat the Vikings in January to win the division?

I've had the best results using a crust that uses both 00 and all-purpose flours. There is a Roberta's dough recipe you can Google that I've used a bunch of times. Sometimes 00 can be hard to find. Glorioso's has it.

It isn't a wash, because Avi Garcia just signed for $53 million. That's what we replaced. We basically addressed the hole he created with what we were paying JBJ. JBJ gave us nothing, so if we had something earmarked to replace Avi, we can do something else with it now.

I think the part people aren't excited about is a) it's more or less a wash with Garcia gone and b) we had to do it to undo signing JBJ in the first place. But that's over and done, you have to move forward and improve the team. And yeah, sometimes that's correcting your mistake.

I mean, I don't fervently follow the Badgers, but this is pretty much how I'd describe them most seasons. Aside from having Kaminsky, they are basically always a potential Sweet 16 team that can also lose to Northwestern on a given night. I've always felt like the football team is perpetually overrated and disappoints, while the basketball team seems to exceed expectations quite often and not until very recently got the credit it deserved.

Obviously it was both. But I think Boston is happy to have JBJ. I remember Schoop saying he just never felt comfortable in Milwaukee. Sometimes it just happens and analytics won't help you find out that a guy just doesn't fit in somewhere. Some moves just flop. I liked the signing originally, I know plenty of folks did not. I am also happy to move on from it, acknowledge it was bad...but I think you get more of the career norm JBJ in 2021 for Boston. I'd have less confidence in him doing that here. It just did not seem to work, though I had an open mind about him getting a 2nd chance. Clearly the Brewers thought they couldn't afford him that chance. I think losing Garcia made it obvious they had to get a safer bat on the roster.