paul253

Yeah I think Cincinnati really made a good deal here. A fringe prospect and a draft pick for a decent MLB starter who signs a very team friendly extension. I gladly would have given up an equivalent prospect md pick for Gray.

San Diego’s system looks stacked. Four of the top ten LHP prospects amongst others.

Malls are mostly shopping areas with some restaurants and maybe an entertainment venue or two. This would be mostly entertainment with restaurants and maybe a few shops. Add in housing and a hotel and improve access and it could be succcessful. Malls are a thing of the past. Plus, there arent many malls or entertainment areas that are close to MP. Forget about MLB. There are plenty of examples in Milwaukee. 84 South in Greenfield. The Mayfair Collection in Tosa. I don’t know what it’s called but there’s one in Oak Creek. All basically built on empty land and turned into areas with retail, restaurants and housing. This would be essentially the same thing just with more entertainment and less retail. I realize this isn’t going to happen but i do think it’d be a good investment and it would be good for the city. Eventually you connect the street car to Miller Park and it would run right through the new village.

Well I guess it would probably depend on how much land they bought up. If they bought up everything east to, say, the 35th St viaduct that’s a good chunk of land to build on. They could even use some of the Yount or Uecker lots as well. We must have a different definition of “barely”. Yes it’s a doable walk but, again, as someone who has made the walk before it’s much longer than it seems. If it was a nice short leisurely walk there wouldn’t be a need for shuttles. Who said anything about hanging out with kids at bars after the games?

I think “a crap ton” is a bit of an exaggeration. There are like three or four. Also “walking distance” is a bit of a stretch too. I’ve made that walk before and have regretted it about halfway through. If you’ve never actually walked from Bluemound to the stadium it’s a lot further than it seems. And on days when it’s either really cold, really hot, or raining making that walk is absolutely miserable. If you have young kids? Forget about it. As far hotels right by the stadium. Not everyone needs it but some people like it. I much prefer it so I don’t have to worry about either taking public transit or paying for an Uber. Ive been to games in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Minneapolis and have stayed at nearby hotels on all three cities. It’s a very nice option. This doesn’t have to be an either or in terms of tailgating or development. As I said there is a bunch of land east of the stadium that probably could be bought up and turned into a stadium district. It would leave plenty of room for tailgating.

I’ve always thought it made a ton of sense to buy up some land east of the Yount and Uecker lots, tear down buildings that are currently being used by manufacturers and turn into a entertainment area with housing and,restaurants and hotels. The keys would be to get places that people want to go to year round. Maybe a Dave and Busters. You’d also have to do a lot of road work to make access better but I really do think it could work as a stadium district. Remember the casino right there, as is the Hank Aaron State Trial. The Domes aren’t too far and there is an idea going around of rebuilding the public museum next to the Domes. Eventually you could extend the street car down Canal Street to the Stadium too. Tons of possibilities but it would take time and money.

Late to the party here but a few more reasons: 1) His team is ALWAYS going to get the benefit of the doubt and get put in ahead of teams with a similar or even slightly better argument. 2) The talk is the first round games would be played on campus, so his team might have to actually play a non conference team in their stadium, something his Alabama teams have done all of one time since he took over in 2007 and won’t do again until 2022. That’s insane when you think about it. One true non conference road game in 16 years! Some power 5 schools play two true non conference road games on the same season.

Blah.

Yeah my thought is something minor but what? We have minor league hockey. We have indoor soccer. The basketball market is flooded. Some low level soccer team? Quite possibly. As far as NHL it’s not out of the realm of possibility. They specifically built their new arena so it can hold a NHL size rink. Would they really do that simply for Disney on Ice every year and maybe the Frozen Four once a decade? Like I said I’m not holding my breath and I’d put the likelihood somewhere between not happening and yeah right but I can dream. Another thing to consider by the way if it’s something really minor why even bring it up?

I don’t have a link because I don’t have access to the article but Mark Lasry stated this morning in a meeting that he’s interested in investing in another sports franchise to be located in Milwaukee. He said it was way too early to discuss and wouldn’t mention what sport he was referring to but let the speculation begin. Here’s to hoping no it’s an NHL franchise but I wouldn’t hold my breath

It’s all about the money. If Texas can make more money in the Big Ten or SEC then they’ll have no problem leaving the Big 12. Same with Oklahoma. And once one of the leaves it’ll be a mad scramble for all the other teams to get out so don’t end up on the outside looking in like UConn and Cincinnati did when the Big East broke up. I don’t like it. I actually think the Big East could have been a solid conference had everyone stuck around but it is what it is.

The only thing Texas could do is go independent like Notre Dame. If Oklahoma bolts you can bet other schools would look to go too. Yeah you can add schools to replace them but that doesn’t mean the revenue or the prestige of the conference would be the same. I think what would be the most likely to happen is Texas would either join the Big Ten or the SEC.

I’d say it’s more likely because the game actually means something. A bowl game means absolutely nothing. I’d have a hard time seeing a player not play in a playoff game because he wants to protect his draft value. His teammates would be furious. It’s absolutely still a championship. It’s no different than if a player doesn’t play because he’s hurt. If, say, Alabama’s starting QB and starting middle linebacker get hurt in the semis then Clemson proceeds to beat Alabama in the championship game would you claim Clemson isn’t really the champion because two of Alabama’s best players didn’t play? Of course not. I do see an argument for fewer games though. It could be easily solved by eliminating one of the non conference games because EVERY team plays at least one, and almost always two or three games against far inferior teams. Of course they do it for the extra revenue from another home game so schools might want to give them up. But simply eliminating one of those games makes up for any added game that only 8 teams might have to play.

One quick thing to add about the bowl system. It’s becomkng more and more popular for “top” draft prospects to skip the bowl to avoid injury. I get it but it just reinforces the idea that bowl games are glorified exhibition games. I’ve yet to see a top prospect skip a playoff game because those games actually have meaning.

Read an article today that quoted a “big ten source” that says the Big Ten is going after Texas and Oklahoma for when their grant or rights or whatever it’s called expires in 2025. Obviously it’s just a rumor but if this happens the Big 12 will be done and the next round of realignment scrambling will occur. I think it would result in 4 16 team super conferences.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. If they win the championship they aren’t an inferior team. The point is that when the team that the committee says is the fourth best team beats two teams ahead of them en route to the national championship then clearly they weren’t the fourth best team. The committee got it wrong. It’s not their fault because it’s impossible to know for sure the exact order of who is best but they still got it wrong. So if they got that wrong whose to say they didn’t get anything else wrong? You keep saying the fifth best team didn’t earn a chance to au but just because the committee says they are the fifth best team doesn’t make them the fifth best team. It doesn’t mean they didn’t earn a spot. How can anything be more exact then playing the game? College football is a different animal though. Much fewer games to watch which in and of itself harmed more interest. Do people care about every Brewer game as much as they care about every Packer game? Not even close. But they are both still exciting in their own way.

Just for arguments. In 2 of the 4 playoffs so far the “4th best team” as determined by the playoff has won it. So if the 4th best team can win its hardly out of the realm of possibility that the 5th place team can it, especially in years like this when the difference between four and five is minuscule. Not for everyone though. Some teams can lose and still make it while others can’t. Some teams can make it without even winning their conference, yet others can’t. It’s such an inexact science that the fairest way to settle it is on the field. I realize 8 teams is probably is big as you can go, although other divisions go bigger, which is why the solution I proposed earlier, with six conference champions and two at large teams seems like the obvious answer. It eliminates much of the inherent bias that exists when picking these teams.

With all due respect I could not care less what the Vegas line is. That should have zero determination as to whether or not UCF should get a chance? Do I think they could beat any of the top 4? I think they COULD beat Notre Dame and I think they COULD beat Oklahoma. But why should we have to sit here are argue whether or not think team A could beat team B when Team A could just play team B and then we’d know.

Right now the NCAA is not an even playing field. The SEC and ACC play 8 conference games whereas the Big 10 Big 12 and Pac 12 play 9. That’s a huge advantage for the SEC and ACC. Not surprisingly those are the two conferences who have never missed the playoffs. Also, some conferences play FCS teams while others don’t. As OWNC said the way you fix these imbalances is by making them play each other. You don’t just decide who are the best teams on paper and only they get a chance at the national championship.

That’s not the argument. Nobody is saying they aren’t interested in conference titles or bowl games if you’re not in the title hunt. What we are saying is that they aren’t relevant to the national title hunt so the importance is lower. Sorry I meant why do you say Ohio St and Oklahoma don’t have an argument about making the playoffs. Vegas said Michigan was favored to beat Ohio St and look what happened. Again that’s why you actually play the games instead of having a committee figuring out who best teams are. It not less of an accomplishment but it could be less significant in terms of relevance. If winning the conference championship guaranteed you a shot a that national championship then you cannot argue the significance is the same as if it doesn’t. It’s mike every other sport where winning your division guarantees a spot in the playoff. If winning the division didn’t come with the guarantee the significance is less even if the actual accomplishment is the same. Huh? TCU was the 4th ranked team in the country that year. Last year UCF beat Auburn, who was ranked 7th. And if we determine would gets in based on Vegas odds why even play the game?

And yet last year, when you could have made the same argument, UCF goes and beats Auburn, the school that beat both teams who ended up in the NC game. That alone in an indication they could have been competitive in the playoffs. Nobody is suggesting they would have for sure beat Alabama. But you similarly for sure can’t claim they would have lost to them. There’s a reason games should be played on field instead of on paper. What games are you looking at? 2007 Fiesta Bowl: #8 Boise State 43 #10 Oklahoma 42 2010 Fiesta Bowl: #6 Boise State 17 #4 TCU 10 2014 Fiesta Bowl: #20 Boise State 38 #10 Arizona 30 Every time Boise State made a BCS or New Years Six bowl they won, twice beating higher ranked teams. Now I do remember teams like Hawaii and Cincinnati getting blown out in BCS but it’s hardly fair to claim UCF doesn’t deserve a chance because Cincinnati got blown out by Florida in the Sugar Bowl 8 years ago (Cincinnati’s coach left before the game, nkt that it would have necessarily made a big difference but relevant). Why not? I’m just curious.

This is precisely the problem. Your argument is essentially that no team outside the power 5 should be allowed in. Why even have them play power five teams then? Why not make their own division where they will actually get a chance if they deserve one? Oversimplify much? Play a strong schedule. Ok well first off the majority of the teams you play are conference games that the conference schedules. You have literally zero control over whether or not that part of the schedule is strong. You only part you can control is the non conference portion. But two things about that. 1) It takes two to tango. I’m sure UCF would have loved to play Alabama this year in a non conference game. But Alabama would have to agree to it. 2) Non conference games, especially the big ones, are scheduled years in advance. Just because a team is good now deont mean they’ll be good when they play. Just ask Ohio St in regards to TCU. So you can try to schedule tough non conference games but it doesn’t always work out that way. You’re hijacking the argument. Nobody has ever suggested you keep expanding the tournament. We’ve argurd for one expansion. So it’s ascinine for a three loss conference champion (let’s be real the only way they’d get in is if they’d win the conference) to have a chance to win on a fluke (you failed to mention that to even get the chance to win the championship on a fluke they’d have to win two other games against better teams, making their championship a heck of a lot less fluke) but it’s perfectly acceptable for a team to go undefeated two years in a row, one year beating the only team that beat the eventual national champion, and not even get a chance to play for the title? That’s ok? I’m trying to understand what this means. You determine the “best team” by having the really good team play each other. Not by having a group of 13 people sit in a room and try to figure out on paper who “the best team” is. How can you possibly prove that Oklahoma and Notre Dame are better than Ohio St and Georgia? The answer is you can’t. Not unless they play each other. And yes I understand that you can take that argument to the extreme by arguing every team would have to play every team in order to figure out who is best. But by taking all five major conference champions and the highest ranked group of five champion you, as best you can, take the teams who have proven over the course of the year to be the best of the conference and therefore most deserving to be given a shot at the playoffs I’m sure you as a Badger fan had a great time watching that game. But if you understand what I actually argued you’d see that in terms of relevance toward the national championship it had none. When the BCS when in play the only game that directly affected the national championship was the National championship game. Now not only the NC game but the semi finals directly affect the championship. If you expand to 8 then the quarterfinals would directly affect it. And under my format every major conference championship game would affect it because the winner gets in. Which makes getting to the conference championship game i.e. the regular season) meaningful. I cannot understand how you argue the regular season wouldn’t mean anything. The regular season would determine who has a chance to play for the championship. Just like it literally every other sport. So every year exactly four teams are deserving and nobody else is? If that were the case everyone would agree who the four most deserving teams are and there’d be no issue. But how you can sit here and definitely argue that Oklahoma is more deserving this year than Ohio St, or vice versa for that matter, is beyond my comprehension.

An 8 game playoff would make conference championships more meaningful then they are now. Tell me, what has the Big 10 championship meant the past three years? Not a chance to compete in the playoffs. What about the Pac 12 championship? A meaningless, albeit spectacular Rose Bowl appearance. How about a conference championship for a non “Power 5” league. Doesn’t mean squat. Just a trip to a good bowl but never an actual chance. Think about it. A team goes undefeated two years in a row and doesn’t even get a chance to play for a national championship. How is that a good system? As far as the whole “then the 9th and 10th best teams will complain” argument. I don’t buy it. Well they will complain but I don’t buy their complaints. First off they had every chance in the world to make it by winning their conference. And even if they can’t do that they can still be given one of two at large bids. What it would do is encourage tougher non conference games because beating good out of conference teams can really set you apart from other contenders. Plus, the further away from #1 you get the less people actually believe you can win it all. Do you seriously think anyone cares about the 69th best basketball team not making the tournament other than that teams fans? Of course not because the likelihood of them winning it all is next to nothing. An 8 team playoff is such an obvious solution with an obvious setup that I have to think it will eventually happen. The winners of the five “power 5 conferences” get automatic bids, making those conference championships extremely meaningful. The highest ranked group of 5 champion gets an automatic bid IF they are ranked in the committees top 15. So for instance had Memphis beaten UCF this year there would be no group of 5 team worthy. Then two at larges. It also makes the committees job easier as all they need to do make the rankings and pick two at large teams, or three if there are no worthy group of five teams. The first round is played at the higher ranked teams campus and then the semis are played as they are now in those bowls. The other bowls would have to be filled in with non playoff teams. In this setup a conference championship means an automatic bid, which it currently does not, so it is EXTREMELY important. Plus a team that literally has zero opportunity now gets a guaranteed opportunity every year. Much better system in my opinion.

I’d offer up Peralta, Ray, Stokes, Broxton and Davies. I have no idea what the Mets “needs” are but it gives them an immediate replacement for Syndergaard in Davies, a higher end pitching prospect in Peralta, a high ceiling outfield prospect in Ray, and decent outfield prospect in Stokes and another piece in Broxton. Not a clue if that price is too much or not nearly enough but it’s my starting point.

Does “street parking” for Miller Park really exist? If you park on the steeet you have to walk at least a mile to get to the stadium. It’s part of the reason they can get away with charging thirty friggen dollars to park in the lots. Parking at MP is, and always has been an absolute racket. My question is whether the regular bar shuttles were running. My wife went and she said the parking was insane. I suggested she take a shuttle but I’m not sure they were even up and running.