owbc

Roof closing already?

I didn't know that. I think it makes it difficult to get the puck to the center of the ice, since most of the play in hockey is along the boards. Although it does potentially open up some space. It also makes the sightlines really bad on the third tier of the Kohl Center.

Now I can definitely agree that there's no comparison between NHL and college hockey. I had season tickets when I was a student at WI and even the national championship team was frustrating to watch at times. The narrow rink definitely helps things a bit in the NHL. But the NHL players are also just incredibly skilled with puck handling and only a few elite college players are even close. It is great to see all the former Badgers in the NHL postseason this year by the way. I think you guys have convinced me that the NHL would succeed in Milwaukee. But it does fine in the southern cities also. It would also be great for youth hockey in the Milwaukee area.

It just seems that the Admirals do not draw much local attention. I know they are seeing significant gains in attendance lately, but I think much of that can be attributed to the work that John Greenberg is doing. An NHL team in Milwaukee would certainly have a passionate fan base, because that's just how Wisconsin sports fans are, but I can't see them consistently putting up the required attendance numbers over the long term. So you would be left with a small but passionate group, which is the same situation as the struggling southern teams. If the Bucks leave, then the situation might be different. But the next team to relocate will have several new arenas and ownership groups to choose from, so the odds of an expansion team landing in Milwaukee before 2025 are nearly 0.

Hockey is doing just fine in the south. Yes, the NHL went overboard back in the '90s, but it's clear that the sport can succeed in warm climates. Most of the cases of empty arenas are caused by perennially bad teams, but teams up north like the Islanders, Blue Jackets, and Avalanche have the same problem. In South Florida it is nice to have hockey for all the northern transplants down here--and the team has plenty of loyal supporters. Nashville has one of the most dedicated fan bases in the league and even Phoenix gets loud in the playoffs. There are not very many hockey fans in Milwaukee and most if not all of the southern cities support the NHL better than Milwaukee ever would. I'm happy with either LA or Phoenix in the cup final--both would be great for the sport. LA vs. NY would draw lots of media attention.

Arroyo threw some nice pitches to Hart but there is no excuse for Lucroy popping up on the first pitch. Too bad Izturis couldn't bail them out.

This one might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Their depth is just abysmal right now. Even if the replacements are serviceable, the bench is full of players that would never have made the 2011 roster. It's especially bad because it's only May 7th and they already had issues even before these injuries popped up. I don't expect anyone to "give up" on the season or for the team to completely tank. They might still go .500 and hang with the contenders if they can pitch ok. And you never know if some of the rookies can get going. But if I take off the Brewers-glasses, it sure looks like a long season is upon us.

Marquette's lease at the BC is mediocre at best. The best I can find is the details of their contract from 2006, which has expired, but I doubt the numbers have increased more than 10-15% since. LINK. Marquette pays $19,600 per game to rent the BC. Marquette gets $14,000 per game of suite revenue. Total. That's a whopping $200 per suite per game. The Bradley Center gets the first $80,000 of merchandise sales. After that, Marquette gets 20%. Marquette has to default to the Bucks in scheduling. It doesn't say anything about concessions--which is important since Wisconsin made $723,000 off basketball concessions in 2010-11. Marquette's basketball revenue is $15.6 million, compared with $16.4 million for Wisconsin. So they are doing fine in the revenue department. Without knowing the expenses it is hard to say what kind of profit they are making compared to WI, so I can't comment on whether an on-campus vs. off-campus arena is better. The per-game lease price seems fair, or about $350,000/year to rent the facility. But they are completely getting screwed over on the suites. It's tough to compare to a new arena. But if the Bucks are gone from the BC, Marquette can probably work a deal to sell the suites themselves and get a much larger cut. Or, with the new arena, they would still only get a small cut of the suites, but it would be a larger sum and there would be more suites. There's no reason to think Marquette would get a higher % of suite revenue, it would still be very small relative to their overall revenue. Rent would also be much higher at the new arena and they would still have to default to the Bucks. There is no way Marquette would be able to make any appreciable financial contribution to a new arena--their athletics department does not make a profit. They would have to sign a lease similar to the current one. My point is that a new arena is not necessarily the better option for Marquette. But you have to think they will work a deal to get there in the end, even if it means they don't make any additional money. Like others said, the marketing value to recruits/fans is probably the trump card. There's no way the BC would get removed to build a new arena. Good luck selling that one to the taxpayers--destroying a 25-year old arena that was given to the city as a gift and is far superior to the next-door neighbor. Not happening. Then you have to ask whether it is even worth it to tear down the US Cellular Arena. Although I never went to a game, it seems like the US Cellular Arena is a nice fit for UWM, while the BC would be cold and spacious. So I think the "Cell" stands until UWM gets an on-campus arena. There clearly isn't any other use for the land since the Park East is just a few blocks away and has been vacant for years. And finally--where are the Bucks going to play for 2 years if they tear down the BC and put the new arena on that parcel? They would lose tens of millions of dollars if they played at the Cell, and Miller Park would never work. If they build it next door, why waste millions tearing down the BC?

Why is the BC suite deal bad for Marquette? It's because Marquette has no control over them. And that isn't going to change with the new arena, the Bucks will again control the suites and Marquette will have to fight for a small percentage of the revenue. If Marquette stays in the BC, the suites will all be open and Marquette will be in a position to take full control of them and get back close to 100% of the revenue. There is a reasonable probability that Marquette would make more money at the BC, even if the new arena has double or triple the number of suites. Now--in the end--I think you are right and Marquette will move. But it is far from a guarantee. I fail to see how the US Cellular Arena would lose any tenants with a third arena. There is no guarantee that UWM or the Wave would move to the BC, neither has any use for the BC's spacious upper level. The US Cellular arena also has other events--high school graduations, small concerts, a roller derby tournament, church groups, etc. None of those events would be better suited to the Bradley Center.

Now, as for Marquette, the question is, what do they stand to gain by moving into a new arena? They might increase revenues, but that will depend almost completely on what kind of deal they strike with the new arena's governing board. It also depends on if the arena is run by the same group as the Bradley Center or not. They could potentially negotiate a better deal if two arenas are competing for their services. But I don't even know if Marquette is worth enough for that to happen--they draw about 275,000 to the BC in 2011 vs. around 650,000 for the currently unpopular Bucks--and the Bucks have much higher ticket prices (remember, the Marquette students pay $7/game and account for about 1/4-1/3 of that Marquette attendance total). So Marquette might not get much of a chunk of the amenities that a new arena would offer. I see some big advantages for Marquette staying the BC as the primary tenant. They could possibly get a deal that gives them free reign to make significant changes/renovations. I can see the BC looking more like a campus arena--decorated fully in blue and gold. They could take over control of the suites and make appropriate renovations to increase revenue. A permanent team store could be built. The Admirals might have something to say about that, but they definitely come in third place and could even be moved to the new arena (it would be crazy not to have an ice rink, even if the seating configuration is for basketball).

Very good thoughts by foamboy. The fact is, plain and simple, that the Bucks will be out of Milwaukee by 2020 without a new arena. It's bad for the city to have the Bucks leave. I know people in Milwaukee generally do not follow the NBA (myself included) but all it takes is one big draft pick to completely change that. The NBA is also growing in popularity and having a team means global recognition for the city to some extent. I think the stadium district and the Brewers should stay out of it. The arena fight is going to be difficult and take many years. Around half of the population is going to be strongly opposed. If the stadium district looks like they are in favor of extending the tax, it will look bad. The Park East seems like the best location. I hadn't thought of the valley, but now that the spot behind the east lot is occupied, it doesn't make sense if you can't share the parking lots. The idea of making tailgaiting a Bucks tradition has potential though. But I think the Brewers should stay to themselves. Although there is one potential exception--and that would be if Mark A. is interested in buying the Bucks. But I don't think he would be--and getting involved in the arena battle is risky for his reputation. For whatever reason, the Brewers have collaborated with almost every other Milwaukee entertainment option--except the Bucks (maybe the Bucks weren't interested?) The other valley option is to collaborate with the Potawatomi tribe. The Mohegan Sun have their own 10,000 seat arena in Connecticut and the WNBA team plays there. So it is possible. They are spending $100 million on a hotel, so it seems like a $100 or even $150 million contribution to an arena would not be unreasonable. Give them the naming rights to the arena and place it adjacent to their casino. It looks like there is space to the west. The Park East area is just begging for the new arena. The parking and entertainment options are already there and it would be easier to sell to the public since the space is in desperate need of development. It also helps that the county owns the land which eliminates the acquisition cost. A potential problem is that the parcel between McKinley and Juneau looks too narrow for an arena. So they might have to acquire the block adjacent to the Bradley Center also, which could be a major hurdle. It seems like foamboy's idea to merge the districts would be the best way to go about getting the financing. It is essential to keep the public contribution as low as possible to increase the chances of approval. Regardless of your opinions on public financing of arenas, other cities have shown that it can still get done and the window isn't closed (yet). A $350-400 million arena is nothing compared to the $1 billion+ cost of baseball/football stadiums these days. Overall my feeling is that this successfully gets done in 2-3 years and a new arena opens around 2016-2017. But it really all depends if Kohl is committed or not. I think he will fork out at least $100 million. A new arena would significantly raise the selling price of the Bucks and Kohl would stand to recoup most of that investment.

Weeks is trying way too hard. That slider for strike 2 was about a foot away from his bat.

Is there any difference between Gonzalez and Yuni at the plate?

Selling? Really? They are 2 games out of the second wild card. Yes, the division title is looking lost, but all the other WC contenders have their own set of problems. There is still time to trade for help and time for some of the slow starters to turn it around. The Brewers always lose games on the road, especially on the west coast. Not to mention they started 14-20 last year. Way, way too early to panic. If they are still under .500 in 2 months, then it will be a concern. But even a .500 record at the ASB isn't the end of the season with the new playoff format.

There is a thread going at LL: LINK

Fixing the umpiring might be the best way to reverse the trend of declining offense in MLB. Too often, hitters have to swing at pitches on the corner because it's "too close" to take given that umpires consistently miss the borderline calls. Using an automated system would be best, the fans watching at home already immediately know if it was a ball or a strike, and it seems like the automated system is good enough to be used in games. I guess you could argue that a good pitcher's ability to "expand the zone" is part of the game, but I think fairness is more important. With a consistent strike zone, hitters can be more selective and scoring will go up. Since any fully automated system is never going to happen, a compromise might be to allow the hitters and pitchers to challenge borderline calls, similar to the system used in Tennis. Replays would be instant and shown on the scoreboard. Challenge issued, umpire presses a button or points to press box, and bam, call confirmed or overturned in less than 20 seconds. Each team gets one challenge per half inning, if they win then they get another. As an added benefit, the instant feedback would almost certainly improve the human umpires and get rid of stupid mistakes like not calling a strike down the middle that the catcher dropped. Within a few months, nobody would even notice the system and it would only get used a few times per game. I am actually less in favor of expanding replay to safe/out calls. We do not want a situation like in the NFL where every close play is reviewed. Baseball calls are often too close to call anyway, and the umpire usually has a better view than any of the camera angles. I think one challenge per team at most should be allowed so that it is only used in important situations. The good news is that umpires do not influence the outcome of the game very often in MLB--and there are so many games that the good/bad calls tend to even out over time. So I don't think the issue is as pressing as other sports, especially those dealing with subjective foul calls or penalties.

Yikes, what kind of reoccurring nightmare is this? You have to give the guy credit for sticking with it. At least this time we're not paying him to pitch against us. Also nice to have a game start at a reasonable hour for a change.

Gallardo's fastball looks flat tonight. McClendon throwing already. What a disaster.

Looking at the replay, that ball was closer to Braun than Morgan.

It doesn't matter if the tickets are free, these crowds above 35,000 on an April weeknight against the Astros are ridiculous. These games used to have crowds in the 15,000 range, even when the Brewers were decent in the '07-'09 years. If the Brewers make a run at the division title, they will easily beat the team attendance record again.

Bobby V's having a tough week in Boston. 14 unanswered for the Yankees now after the Red Sox scored the first 9.

I haven't seen much of the Brewers this year, but from what I have watched it seems like they are fortunate to be 6-8 instead of 4-10 or something like that.

I was impressed that he got Bob Uecker in about 15 questions since he's a sports figure, comedian, and actor. For Prince Fielder, he got it right after he asked if he was fat. He also knew Ryan Braun but it took awhile.

Good discussion here. There is definitely a problem that some people don't like baseball down here. I am talkng about the young people that I talk to who are native. This is an important distinction. The transplants live in Broward and Palm Beach. The ballpark is in Miami. Driving from Palm Beach to Miami is like driving from Milwaukee to Chicago. It's like a completely different city. That was part of the supposed benefit of putting a football/baseball stadium near the turnpike where it was easy to get at from both sides and name the team the "Florida" Marlins to represent all of South Florida. The result? A failure. Not surprising if you think about it--the weather was one factor--older people are less inclined to put up with bad weather--and they also already had other allegiances. I think weather and the bad stadium were the top 2 factors since attendance was still pathetic when popular teams showed up and the roof doesn't help the Rays much. Sun Life was the worst stadium in MLB and it wasn't even close. It seems like you can get a really good positive feedback when you have a new stadium combined with a winning team. The causal fans and media are already paying more attention because of the ballpark and when the team plays well, word really gets out and the success carries over for a number of years. The Marlins are trying to replicate that. If not, attendance will drop, but when the team eventually has success, it will be easier to get the fans back in because the stadium is nice. It's just frustrating to hear the garbage about how baseball isn't popular in Florida and Marlins Park will go a long way towards changing that if people get rid of their preconceptions and see that virtually every city with a bad ballpark had the same problems that the Marlins did with attendance. The only year the Marlins were contenders for the whole year was 1997 and they had above-average attendance that year. And the offseason moves after that year didn't exactly inspire fan loyalty.

Way too many people bashing the Marlins for no good reason. And that includes the local media and almost everyone not familiar with the situation. It seems like people want baseball to fail down here, I don't get it. Three consecutive crowds of 30,000+. From what I can tell, the last time that happened was the final week of the 2003 season. There were probably only about 10 games last season when there were more than 10,000 people actually in the seats. I would estimate that many games had 2,000-3,000 fans. Not to mention the other intangibles that you don't see without being down here. The Marlins are "cool" again. You see the new Marlins gear everywhere. The team is in the local sports conversation. And it looks like the Clevelander behind the left field fence is one of the craziest places to watch a game in all of baseball. Everything about the ballpark is great. People really like it. The parking issue has turned out not to be a major problem. The Ozzie issue seems to be a bigger story in Bristol than it is in Miami. I don't get it at all. Milwaukee should know better, since the Brewers have been the subject of unnecessary media bashing many times.