tmwiese55

Didn't the yankees get caught at this too?

I'd generally agree with the notion how they set up the bullpens ended up chewing up some spaces that would've made for better bleacher seats than currently exist. But it is what it is at this point, nothing they can do about it now. Side note in regards to all ballpark construction I've thought of over the years is that since CF is now basically off limits to fans due to batter's eye that they should find a way to incorporate the bullpens into the same CF area that is wasted. Not sure I've seen it done yet but I'm not an expert on every park.

Good talk everyone. I'd say the biggest summary on this specific Boomer vs young people and education topic is that when the boomer says "I did this hard work thing and sacrificed this, worked 2 jobs, etc if you would too you'd be fine" is that very many of the young people are doing those exact same things and still coming out with massive debt.

Great post by True Blue, well said. The wifes/GF issue is what I was getting at as well. In theory, providing more spots like this will actually reduce the negative aspects of the drinking in terms of bothering the real deal baseball diehards. But yes the tailgating culture is what will keep the attendance respectable through the ups and downs of the team.

I get all that, but think about this this spin. This social/drinking demographic you guys apparently don't like (even though we're in WI and the team name is Brewers) would alternatively just be at a bar, correct? Which with the phrasing here most people on this side of the argument would also 'frown upon' or however you want to phrase it. So in their mind this is at least 'doing something' or getting out and doing something different as opposed to the same bars over and over. It's doing something more social/active/entertaining than sitting in a bar, which obviously get old. Then throw in that in a group of friends, simply not everyone is going to be a baseball nut that wants to watch straight for 3.5 hours when only 12 minutes of it is action. Why not provide options for those folks for a middle ground instead of taking the attitude of telling them to stay home if they're not a baseball nerd like me/us. I mean, I'm sure a bunch of people have this dilemma with their spouse. I mean, what's the harm? This is exactly what MLB teams need to be doing to appeal more to the younger generation. This is the correct move. I wanna say there was a thread on here in the last year on this topic and ideas like this were definitely brought up. Maybe even by me, I vaguely recall mentioning something similar to the Duck Blind at Mallard's games in one of the OF corners.

Looks like Coach Chryst is about to pick up that much needed W vs OSU after all, haha.

I'd generally agree. I was just under 20 years ago and it was basically pamphlets. Websites of course existed for each school but the breadth of information out there compared to now isn't even close. Still, I think the main point is still the same.

That may be true, but I don't think it will magically get cheap. Room and Board is expensive and from personal knowledge I know the typical college is in the red when it comes to residence life. They definitely aren't making money off people living on campus. ~$10k yearly tuition isn't that crazy in my opinion, but the $25k+ tuitions probably are not sustainable. Even at a cheap college you are talking $20k a year ($80k total) to go if you have to live on campus. If you only get basic federal loans that leaves $55k to find in the couch cushions. Just roughly speaking. I am not even sure it can get cheaper. Is LSU going to demolish their water park? Are schools going to tear down the luxury living quarters? If people continue to fill these universities where is the motivation to change? Spitballing here, not arguing, just throwing out ideas. If the loan systems weren't in place putting a glut of money into this industry to attend schools and all that, then people wouldn't be filling the universities and costs would have to go down? But, the problem with that is then the already wealthy people might have an even greater advantage that they're the only ones who can afford college and thus creating an even bigger wealth gap. Or, maybe it works well enough that the costs come down enough that normal people can afford in the bootstrap the 'boomer' in this thread was saying by just working hard while in college and maybe coming out with a bit of debt, not a mountain. Perhaps more people choose trade or tech type schools and that gap in the workforce is fixed. IDK

He's so ridiculous that his stat lines are kind of to just start blending in as expected and no big deal at this point. Keep in mind, stats are a bit inflated form what we've been accustomed to the last 20ish years due to pace and all that. But still, the guy is just ridiculous to watch. Still generally feel the general public isn't fully aware of the level this kid is at

Good point. Yes, I don't know how people are affording it. I look at young families with 2-4 kids and say the parents are a teacher and a nurse. Good solids jobs, they've done everything right their whole life. But combined income probably in the 100K neighborhood. Daycare is also crazy expensive now. I see these folks and I have no idea how they're doing it. How are they paying off their loans, their mortgage, daycare, cars, all the other kids costs, saving for retirement, saving for the kids college? I can only assume they're massively in debt, living basically month to month, and saving nothing. And have no money left for vacations or actual life enjoyment. Granted, they probably don't go on 10 vacations a year like I do so don't have that cost, but still. I can't imagine their balance sheets look good at all, unless they have help from their parents.

Think of this way your last monthly payment after 10 years is more money than what a 'boomer' had to pay for a whole semester of tuition in the 60s/70s. Plus, your rent now vs then is also 10X or more higher. Totally agree with Nodak's issue there, there has to be a more creative solution than wiping away.

100% agree with OSS on the college being overprescribed. Kind of what I meant with my line about how society kind of looks down on or shames people if they don't go to college. I've been saying that for years now, way too many kids go to normal college. And I witness people (cousins, friends etc) who are or were given a hard time if they don't want to go to college, would rather work in the trades or construction instead. That needs to change, there is nothing wrong with not going to college. If you have any connections to industries needing to hire the trades, cement, construction and thing of that nature there is a massive shortage and they're way backed up on work. And, those people can now charge a heck of a price for that work. There is a niche/demand in the market big time in that space if any of ya'll have kids approaching these types of decisions of what to do with their lives after HS

bah, In my day I walked to school and work both ways uphill in the snow. If she worked harder she'd have paid that off, seems like a lazy entitled kid to me. I bet she bought coffee some days, just irresponsible with her money

Yup, my summary and OSS's paragraph imo is exactly the problem. I forgot to mention in mine too that generation once in control also increased rent/housing costs by about 10X gouging the current young people. It's funny this person is exactly falling into the whole point of what this term is getting at and doesn't realize it. Even as far as falling for the art history spin that the boomers like to put on it that's completely exaggerated. That said, I'd generally agree with a more creative solution than to just wipe away all loans. And if you make college fully free (without reigning in the costs/salaries, etc with it) it's a huge tax burden on the people that isn't really sustainable either. And would lead to tons of kids just wasting away the government's money to party for a few years. The systems in Europe seem ripe for that type of thing based on stories I've read. Some there even cut the checks to the kids first (who can then blow it partying or gambling) rather than direct to the schools, seems like an easy loophole to correct there to me. Granted, it's been a few years since I've read on that topic so maybe that is better now.

Get degrees for nothing, with those degrees get into power. Then demand degrees for most jobs (and kind of look down on people if they don't get degree). You're also in charge of the schools and then jack up the cost of said degrees (while also gouging us in taxes for education spending to pay for your own huge salaries and pensions). Set up a basically predatory loan system and rates for people to attend the school. Tell young people only way to make it in America is with the degree so just take the loan, it'll be fine. Then, when they get the degrees don't hire them for jobs because they don't have enough experience. All while running the country on a multi trillion dollar deficit every year that someone is going to have to pay for eventually. Stealing the money from our SS funds to pay for right now more than likely leaving the young people with no SS. Then bash millenials for thinking they got a raw deal.

Good post OldSchool. Also, have to say I loved SB's last line about being a positive influence in his sphere and keeping an open mind. If everyone had that attitude the world would be such a better place. I've also said similar things in regards to some of the hot button racism/sexism topics of the current days. I'm talking more about the 'ignorant' type level of them (which I think we could find a better word to describe), not the extreme ridiculous clear cut hate level. As in, there is not some magical way to implement a policy or snap your fingers and fix this stuff. Be a positive influence in your areas and the change will keep coming as more and more people interact. The somewhat confrontational way it's going right now is just putting folks in boxes and pitting them against each other, making people defensive, etc.

I'm in the middle of this in that I technically count as a millennial but am on the edge. Which is another thing, the line should be at like say age 30ish right now. Kind of around whether or not you grew up with cell phones/internet your whole life or not. Not at 37 or whatever the actual line is. First, I of course think it's just dumb and not helpful to judge and put people in boxes like these terms do. But one thing I'd add to the topic is that all we hear about is how awful Millennials and young people are right? Well, I travel around a lot and do a lot of stuff, different cities, types of people etc. In my experience it is the older people who are the rudest in regards to just basic human interaction. Sure, maybe a millennial is on their phone too much and apparently that's a huge deal to some, but really it isn't affecting anyone else (if not driving). I'm talking about straight up rude things like cutting off in lines, being jerks to service industry people, just generally oblivious to common courtesy. Kind of like with an attitude of life has beaten me down, so I'm gonna do my thing and don't care. Just one small observation I've picked up on. Of course, I'm not saying all or even majority are like this. Just that I see it more often in the boomer type generation than with young people. For anyone ripping on the young people for coming up with this phrase back, I'd say just take a second and think. These people have essentially been being shamed, shunned and ripped on with this millennial term and everyone blaming the worlds problems on them even though the reality is they've had nothing to do with putting the world/country in the current state it's in. Why shouldn't they eventually say something back.

Aaaand Fleck parlays these rumours into more guaranteed money today. Shocker.

I have no idea on it. I know SMC is solid but they're still mid major. Gonzaga usually beats them handily, but of course they do hang sometimes. Tough to know what to expect out of UW, I homer bet UW and the under just for the entertainment. We'll see. As Plush said, I also was annoyed with all the iso stuff for Happ. He was sooo good though that I get it, but I also hope having to play a team game again brings back the ball movement that made FF teams so good. Obviously I'm not saying this team is anywhere near that, I just mean the quick passing/motion Spurs type stuff that team was doing. Key word for is "hope", I'm not all that confident

I believe in Stearns comments on these moves he specifically said Huira is not changing to 1B. So probably can rule that out and eliminate from discussion. BAsed on other comments regarding kind of the glut in the market at this position combined with the logic of us being MKE. I would not expect a big name one like Abreu. Plan on a cheaper type guy here. I'd guess a RH as well. But I also want to say Stearns did mention Shaw by name as someone who can cover this spot, so take that FWIW.

Yes, I would think people just didn't think deeply enough to know the difference. Off the top of my head I for sure wouldn't have known which is which. Fundraisers, I agree. But from a different perspective than doing the work and cost like was mentioned. I mean from being pressured into buying this stuff from friends and co workers. Like, you're the one sending your kids to private schools, I don't see why I should feel like I have to give you charity to do it by buying overpriced food, magazines, etc. Of course there are other examples of things besides schools, but this especially gets me as pretty much every school system in the Madison suburbs is really good and Madison property taxes are really high (relative to the state) to pay for these good schools.

I was surprised by this news. Thought he'd be back to give some stability with so many other variables at other positions. Well at least now I'm a bit excited about what's gonna happen. Even if I'm a bit scared/skeptical on what it's going to be.

His name has been thrown out there already. He's a self brander marketer so I'm sure it's all coming from his camp. Worst case, he'll be able to parlay this good season into more guaranteed money from MN. Personally, I think FSU should be able to do better than him and a program with their stature shouldn't need to bring in his schtick and brand himself over the program. Another thing, he has no southern or SEC area connections, he's been all midwest. So I think they should be able to do better. So I guess, yes I do think it's too big of a leap for him. Maybe MSU could make sense this offseason? Also, I think a legit promotion like that for Fleck would need him winning at least 2 of the last 4 regular season games, getting to Indy and at least showing up vs OSU. I'd guess the point spread of MN vs OSU in a dome would be about 28.5. Speaking of MSU, I saw someone say Dantonio could make sense for FSU after he gets canned at MSU. Logic I'd think being to get an established veteran voice in control. How about you on Fleck?

Wonder if Scott Frost is kicking himself fro going to Nebraska now. I know it's his alma mater and all so I'm sure he's happy to try and fix that. But, moving to FSU from UCF would've been a perfect fit.

As much as I know it's been going poorly there, still seems a bit much to fire a guy mid season in year 2. I mean, give the guy a chance. Unless there was just something cancerous going on behind the scenes we're not privy to.