But wait, these are our crosstown rivals. Say it isn't so!
http://www.jrn.com/tmj4/wi-sports/Report-UWM-mens-basketball-banned-from-2015-postseason-254627341.html
meanwhile at auburn university...
I don't take any joy in other programs having to go through this. Most of the current players probably weren't around when this started happening and now they have to play a year without hope of a postseason. Hope they can get it straightened out.
This just in from Blacksburg...
I find it funny only because so many UWM-graduate friends were talking mad crap about Marquette's lack of a tournament appearance + coaching snafu during the Vadgers Final Four game. Makes me happy that they have to eat all that crap they talked now. :)
I wouldn't say I'm "joyful" over the ban, but I had just read the article in the Superbar and then the ban came to light.
Quote from: klyrish on April 09, 2014, 05:48:01 PM
I find it funny only because so many UWM-graduate friends were talking mad crap about Marquette's lack of a tournament appearance + coaching snafu during the Vadgers Final Four game. Makes me happy that they have to eat all that crap they talked now. :)
Lotta UWMers running around Larimer Square?
Back in the day, a flight suit and Larimer Square at night was ringing the dinner bell.
Quote from: Crispy on April 09, 2014, 05:38:31 PM
But wait, these are our crosstown rivals. Say it isn't so!
http://www.jrn.com/tmj4/wi-sports/Report-UWM-mens-basketball-banned-from-2015-postseason-254627341.html
I think that as a university UWM has an atrocious washout rate since it is a commuter school. Perhaps the basketball team graduation rate, while atrocious, may in fact be better than for the general student population.
Can current players transfer without sitting? Tiby or Arians worth it?
Quote from: keefe on April 09, 2014, 05:53:11 PM
Lotta UWMers running around Larimer Square?
You'd be surprised how many people from Wisconsin are here in Denver and how just about all of them are "diehard" Badgers fans (yet can't name a single player on the team).
Quote from: klyrish on April 09, 2014, 06:32:04 PM
all of them are "diehard" Badgers fans (yet can't name a single player on the team).
Amazing how possessive those who were graduated from UW-Someplaceotherthanmadison can really be about their adopted team
So, let me pose a question for which certainly a few will attack. Here goes
UW-milwaukee has had something like 5 ADs in the last 6 years. That's just beyond ridiculous, but likely played a role in some of this. I suspect that there were more than a few issues with the academic scrutiny, resources, etc, to help these guys along.
So that leads to my question...wasn't Michael Lovell responsible for hiring at least 3 of these AD's? Wasn't he the President in charge during this investigation at UW-milwaukee?
INCOMING.........
Just give Broeker the job. Don't complicate it.
Quote from: Stone Cold on April 09, 2014, 06:53:12 PM
Just give Broeker the job. Don't complicate it.
Broeker's the guy who had the nerve to come to Scoop and lecture us. No thank you.
Class was in session.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 09, 2014, 06:47:40 PM
So, let me pose a question for which certainly a few will attack. Here goes
UW-milwaukee has had something like 5 ADs in the last 6 years. That's just beyond ridiculous, but likely played a role in some of this. I suspect that there were more than a few issues with the academic scrutiny, resources, etc, to help these guys along.
So that leads to my question...wasn't Michael Lovell responsible for hiring at least 3 of these AD's? Wasn't he the President in charge during this investigation at UW-milwaukee?
INCOMING.........
Lowell assumed duties in the spring of 2011, so they hired former Ohio State AD Andy Geiger on an interim basis in 2012 and the new AD, Amanda Braun, in 2013 under his watch.
Quote from: TedBaxter on April 09, 2014, 07:04:11 PM
Lowell assumed duties in the spring of 2011, so they hired former Ohio State AD Andy Geiger on an interim basis in 2012 and the new AD, Amanda Braun, in 2013 under his watch.
According to UW-milwaukee, Rick Costello (the predecessor of Andy Geiger) was appointed to that position by Lovell
http://www.uwmpanthers.com/genrel/costello_rick00.html
That should make 3.
I'm just asking questions....seems more than fair to ask
I saw Lowell wasn't officially hired until 2011 somewhere.
Chico, did one of your buddies get passed over the Marquette president job?
Quote from: TedBaxter on April 09, 2014, 07:15:56 PM
I saw Lowell wasn't officially hired until 2011 somewhere.
Chico, did one of your buddies get passed over the Marquette president job?
Yeah, I saw that too, but as the release says looks like he was the one that put Costello in charge. Lovell has been there since 2008, just not named officially as President until 2011. Looks like he still had the hiring or supervisory authority of the AD even prior to that.
I've heard nothing but really good things about him as a president at UW-milwaukee. I have, however, also heard that some folks didn't feel he was all that committed to athletics over there. Purely anecdotal stuff...."disinterested" was on comment I heard a few times.
Of course, it is UW-milwaukee and it is hard to get excited or interested.
At any rate, seemed a fair topic to talk about and no, none of my friends were bypassed over for the job....do you think it is a fair topic to discuss? Five AD's in 6 years is pretty crazy...three in four years is crazy. Just wondering why. Probably Fran.
This postseason ban is going to be a real bummer when they go 7-25 and then win the Horizon tournament.
Quote from: Not Chris Otule's Coach on April 09, 2014, 07:23:49 PM
This postseason ban is going to be a real bummer when they go 7-25 and then win the Horizon tournament.
Banned from the Horizon tournament also
Quote from: Not Chris Otule's Coach on April 09, 2014, 07:23:49 PM
This postseason ban is going to be a real bummer when they go 7-25 and then win the Horizon tournament.
So Wardle has a shot at making the NCAA next year now and won't crap his own pants after a UWM beat down?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 09, 2014, 07:25:53 PM
Banned from the Horizon tournament also
What athletics do UWM students have to look forward to now?
Quote from: Not Chris Otule's Coach on April 09, 2014, 07:27:05 PM
What athletics do UWM students have to look forward to now?
Women's basketball?
I have a feeling that the Ath Dept is about the 768th priority for the UWM Chancellor. I'm not making excuses but just pointing out that University functions much different than MU. So much of our identity is tied to hoops.
Quote from: keefe on April 09, 2014, 06:54:19 PM
Broeker's the guy who had the nerve to come to Scoop and lecture us. No thank you.
? Did I miss something?
Quote from: drewm88 on April 09, 2014, 10:47:31 PM
? Did I miss something?
Nope. That wasn't Broeker. It was whoever was behind RoneyEford on here. One of the SID's.
Quote from: MUfan12 on April 09, 2014, 11:00:07 PM
Nope. That wasn't Broeker. It was whoever was behind RoneyEford on here. One of the SID's.
Scott kuykendall
That was a hilarious thread. Someone find it
Edit: fine, I'll do it
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=26707.0
Lol, I had forgotten about that :)
Quote from: Skatastrophy on April 10, 2014, 06:05:16 AM
Lol, I had forgotten about that :)
So, who's up for some high fives?
Quote from: The Process on April 10, 2014, 08:07:33 AM
So, who's up for some high fives?
I LOVE HIGH FIVES!
(http://i.imgur.com/qqtnc5e.jpg)
Quote from: Skatastrophy on April 10, 2014, 08:17:15 AM
I LOVE HIGH FIVES!
(http://i.imgur.com/qqtnc5e.jpg)
Poor Robin.
Maybe this writer can comment on the postseason ban... ::)
http://uwmpost.com/ramblings-of-an-angry-sports-fan-how-marquettes-ego-damaged-milwaukee/ (http://uwmpost.com/ramblings-of-an-angry-sports-fan-how-marquettes-ego-damaged-milwaukee/)
http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/80/19/509aea630604f6ff74b077b94c9ae708-how-i-met-your-mother-high-five.gif
Quote from: Ari Gold on April 10, 2014, 09:50:16 AM
http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/80/19/509aea630604f6ff74b077b94c9ae708-how-i-met-your-mother-high-five.gif
(http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/80/19/509aea630604f6ff74b077b94c9ae708-how-i-met-your-mother-high-five.gif)
HIMYM GIFs deserve to be seen, lol
Quote from: Stone Cold on April 09, 2014, 06:59:30 PM
Class was in session.
Broeker deserves payback. The Mods need to release his email address immediately!
Broeker runs this biatch.
MUScoop is a front operation for Broeker's sleeper cells.
They're keeping track of you.
Quote from: Not Chris Otule's Coach on April 09, 2014, 07:27:05 PM
What athletics do UWM students have to look forward to now?
Well, they do have Varsity Baseball. Something that neither Marquette nor UW-Madison have...
in my opinion...the only reason UWM got hit with this violation is because they didn't cheat (or play the system) well enough. not saying they couldn't have legitimately hit the mark, but to hit UWM with a ban considering the stuff coming out of UNC, the one-and-done at schools like UK, etc. it seems absurd to pick on UWM. flawed system.
Quote from: BrewCity83 on April 10, 2014, 11:56:47 AM
Well, they do have Varsity Baseball. Something that neither Marquette nor UW-Madison have...
Cool, that's sorta beetween Little League and Class A, right?
Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 10, 2014, 01:09:46 PM
Cool, that's sorta beetween Little League and Class A, right?
Well, like our basketball team is somewhere between High School and the D-League.
Quote from: BrewCity83 on April 10, 2014, 01:30:27 PM
Well, like our basketball team is somewhere between High School and the D-League.
The difference being, the best high school baseball players go straight to the minors, while the best high school basketball players go to college, not the D League.
I could care less about college baseball, as could 95% of Americans.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 10, 2014, 02:33:16 PM
The difference being, the best high school baseball players go straight to the minors, while the best high school basketball players go to college, not the D League.
I could care less about college baseball, as could 95% of Americans.
Beat me to it.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 10, 2014, 02:33:16 PM
The difference being, the best high school baseball players go straight to the minors, while the best high school basketball players go to college, not the D League.
I could care less about college baseball, as could 95% of Americans.
You could accurately say that about any college sport outside of football and men's basketball.
Quote from: BrewCity83 on April 10, 2014, 03:44:18 PM
You could accurately say that about any college sport outside of football and men's basketball.
Exactly. Those are the only two that matter.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 10, 2014, 03:46:19 PM
Exactly. Those are the only two that matter.
Even then, they matter far less than most people here realize. A vocal group, but a small group compared to the general populace.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2014, 03:58:30 PM
Even then, they matter far less than most people here realize. A vocal group, but a small group compared to the general populace.
Well, yeah, in the scheme of world history, they matter very little.
But they matter in that the majority of Americans fill out a bracket, watch a bowl game or the Final Four, and are aware of who the winners are.
You can't really say that about any other NCAA sport.
Quote from: avid1010 on April 10, 2014, 12:06:03 PM
in my opinion...the only reason UWM got hit with this violation is because they didn't cheat (or play the system) well enough. not saying they couldn't have legitimately hit the mark, but to hit UWM with a ban considering the stuff coming out of UNC, the one-and-done at schools like UK, etc. it seems absurd to pick on UWM. flawed system.
Thing is, this is easily provable. It's a black and white formulaic process...there isn't a whole lot of wiggle room here. The penalties are clearly outlined as well. You fall below the line, here's the penalty.
The UNC stuff and anything else in that realm requires a lot of investigation, proof, the NCAA has no subpoena power which leaves them somewhat impotent. Simply tougher to prove where the APR really isn't. You either did or didn't meet the requirements.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 10, 2014, 04:01:07 PM
Well, yeah, in the scheme of world history, they matter very little.
But they matter in that the majority of Americans fill out a bracket, watch a bowl game or the Final Four, and are aware of who the winners are.
You can't really say that about any other NCAA sport.
Majority of Americans do not fill out a bracket, watch a bowl game, Final Four. That's the thing, we inflate things grossly because we are sports fans.
As an example, 21.2 million viewers tuned in Monday night. Even the Super Bowl drew 112 million viewers. Not the majority of Americans.
When I see day to day ratings, you would be amazed how few people are really sports fans in this country to the point they watch a lot of sports. That's one of the issues with television costs right now, sports drives the costs and most people are upset because they don't give a damn about sports but the sports leagues\teams\etc demand it be carried to most customers....meaning they all have to pay.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2014, 04:21:14 PM
Majority of Americans do not fill out a bracket, watch a bowl game, Final Four. That's the thing, we inflate things grossly because we are sports fans.
As an example, 21.2 million viewers tuned in Monday night. Even the Super Bowl drew 112 million viewers. Not the majority of Americans.
When I see day to day ratings, you would be amazed how few people are really sports fans in this country to the point they watch a lot of sports. That's one of the issues with television costs right now, sports drives the costs and most people are upset because they don't give a damn about sports but the sports leagues\teams\etc demand it be carried to most customers....meaning they all have to pay.
Thanks for the context. That is really surprising. I would have thought at least half of Americans filled out a bracket, even just the ones who pick teams based on the mascots or to be part of an office activity at work.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2014, 04:21:14 PM
Majority of Americans do not fill out a bracket, watch a bowl game, Final Four. That's the thing, we inflate things grossly because we are sports fans.
As an example, 21.2 million viewers tuned in Monday night. Even the Super Bowl drew 112 million viewers. Not the majority of Americans.
When I see day to day ratings, you would be amazed how few people are really sports fans in this country to the point they watch a lot of sports. That's one of the issues with television costs right now, sports drives the costs and most people are upset because they don't give a damn about sports but the sports leagues\teams\etc demand it be carried to most customers....meaning they all have to pay.
And this is why a la carte TV will take down cable/dish
When they can offer sports a la carte, adios for me. I'd gladly pay $5 for each MU game/Packers game.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on April 10, 2014, 05:30:04 PM
And this is why a la carte TV will take down cable/dish
When they can offer sports a la carte, adios for me. I'd gladly pay $5 for each MU game/Packers game.
Except that those that own the sports have no interest in doing so.
Why would ESPN who can force 100 million customers to pay $6 per month per subscriber, whether you like sports or not give that up for the 30% or 35% that MIGHT be willing to pay $18 per month (same revenue for them) a la carte? There is zero incentive for DISNEY \ ESPN to do that. Furthermore, Disney has to protect ABC, Disney Kids, etc, etc channels and they roll them all into one to demand carriage for all of them. NewsCorp the same thing with their sports \ entertainment channels. So on and so forth.
There is zero incentive for those that create that content to offer it a la carte. Absolutely none.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2014, 05:35:59 PM
Except that those that own the sports have no interest in doing so.
Why would ESPN who can force 100 million customers to pay $6 per month per subscriber, whether you like sports or not give that up for the 30% or 35% that MIGHT be willing to pay $18 per month (same revenue for them) a la carte? There is zero incentive for DISNEY \ ESPN to do that. Furthermore, Disney has to protect ABC, Disney Kids, etc, etc channels and they roll them all into one to demand carriage for all of them. NewsCorp the same thing with their sports \ entertainment channels. So on and so forth.
There is zero incentive for those that create that content to offer it a la carte. Absolutely none.
The reason why those tv networks are part of huge conglomerates is to leverage their power on the providers. Take a look at how diversified their portfolios are..... sports, kids, general public ABC, .... their roots are deep. It's an arms race, which is one of the reasons why Comcast bought Time Warner.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2014, 05:35:59 PM
Except that those that own the sports have no interest in doing so.
Why would ESPN who can force 100 million customers to pay $6 per month per subscriber, whether you like sports or not give that up for the 30% or 35% that MIGHT be willing to pay $18 per month (same revenue for them) a la carte? There is zero incentive for DISNEY \ ESPN to do that. Furthermore, Disney has to protect ABC, Disney Kids, etc, etc channels and they roll them all into one to demand carriage for all of them. NewsCorp the same thing with their sports \ entertainment channels. So on and so forth.
There is zero incentive for those that create that content to offer it a la carte. Absolutely none.
You're living in the past. Absolutely. Who is to stop ESPN from creating an agreement with Roku to carry live streaming events? They already produce the content. I have plenty of friends that have cut the cable cord that miss sports that would pay for the content to be streamed to them.
You're nuts if you don't think this is what is going to happen. Why would ESPN cut a revenue source? There will be people who keep cable for decades (of course, look at land line phones!), but its going to happen much faster than you think.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 10, 2014, 05:44:07 PM
The reason why those tv networks are part of huge conglomerates is to leverage their power on the providers. Take a look at how diversified their portfolios are..... sports, kids, general public ABC, .... their roots are deep. It's an arms race, which is one of the reasons why Comcast bought Time Warner.
I know it well, I live it every day. It's what allows a company to tell the Weather Channel to stick it or the Dodgers to take a hike or the Pac 12 Network to try again, vs the ability to do the same thing with a huge conglomerate that owns many channels that are loved and desired by many different customer groups. These people aren't stupid, Viacom, Disney, NewsCorp, etc....not dumb at all.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on April 10, 2014, 05:51:54 PM
You're living in the past. Absolutely. Who is to stop ESPN from creating an agreement with Roku to carry live streaming events? They already produce the content. I have plenty of friends that have cut the cable cord that miss sports that would pay for the content to be streamed to them.
You're nuts if you don't think this is what is going to happen. Why would ESPN cut a revenue source? There will be people who keep cable for decades (of course, look at land line phones!), but its going to happen much faster than you think.
LOL. What is to stop ESPN from creating an agreement with ROKU to stream events...oh, I don't know, maybe several billion $$ deals with their television carriers that have protections that say they can't do that.
I didn't say forever, but right now Disney would be trading dollars for dimes, these people aren't stupid. Neither are the television providers that negotiate the deals and the protections that are in there.
Ask yourself, why hasn't HBO, ESPN, etc done one of these deals yet? Ask yourself why WWE's stock has dropped 24% in the last 4 days since they announced their first match via streaming. Not hard, really not that hard.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2014, 10:08:51 PM
LOL. What is to stop ESPN from creating an agreement with ROKU to stream events...oh, I don't know, maybe several billion $$ deals with their television carriers that have protections that say they can't do that.
I didn't say forever, but right now Disney would be trading dollars for dimes, these people aren't stupid. Neither are the television providers that negotiate the deals and the protections that are in there.
Ask yourself, why hasn't HBO, ESPN, etc done one of these deals yet? Ask yourself why WWE's stock has dropped 24% in the last 4 days since they announced their first match via streaming. Not hard, really not that hard.
How much does WWE make off their cable deal? To me, it seems like they're adopting the same methodology as the NFL with the NFL network.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 10, 2014, 10:23:54 PM
How much does WWE make off their cable deal? To me, it seems like they're adopting the same methodology as the NFL with the NFL network.
What cable deal? LOL. Everyone told them to go pound sand. No one is carrying their channel. DISH won't even carry their events anymore and there's more of that coming if I were to guess.
In order for the numbers to even come close to breaking even, they need over 1 million buyers via a la carte. They came about 60% of that, which is why the stock has been dumped so much the past 4 days.
Instead of splitting 50-50 on each PPV event, they are now taking only $10 a month from a customer and having to incur all those costs to get it up and running.
Fortunately they are a public company so they can't hide it. As some of the headlines stated earlier this week
"Hugely disappointing online numbers tank stock"
They are trading dollars for dimes. Have at it.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 10, 2014, 02:33:16 PM
The difference being, the best high school baseball players go straight to the minors, while the best high school basketball players go to college, not the D League.
I could care less about college baseball, as could 95% of Americans.
I played baseball at Marquette...
Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 10, 2014, 02:33:16 PM
The difference being, the best high school baseball players go straight to the minors, while the best high school basketball players go to college, not the D League.
I could care less about college baseball, as could 95% of Americans.
Not anymore, many of the best baseball players go to college now under the rules.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2014, 10:33:19 PM
What cable deal? LOL. Everyone told them to go pound sand. No one is carrying their channel. DISH won't even carry their events anymore and there's more of that coming if I were to guess.
In order for the numbers to even come close to breaking even, they need over 1 million buyers via a la carte. They came about 60% of that, which is why the stock has been dumped so much the past 4 days.
Instead of splitting 50-50 on each PPV event, they are now taking only $10 a month from a customer and having to incur all those costs to get it up and running.
Fortunately they are a public company so they can't hide it. As some of the headlines stated earlier this week
"Hugely disappointing online numbers tank stock"
They are trading dollars for dimes. Have at it.
Easy there turbo. I'm not suggesting they're going a la carte. I merely asked a question. They do have a cable deal with USA network, do they not? And now they have the WWE network. I'm just saying, it looks quite similar to the business model that the NFL uses.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 10, 2014, 10:40:16 PM
Easy there turbo. I'm not suggesting they're going a la carte. I merely asked a question. They do have a cable deal with USA network, do they not? And now they have the WWE network. I'm just saying, it looks quite similar to the business model that the NFL uses.
I'm talking about the WWE network they tried to launch the last 3 years and everyone said a resounding no.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 10, 2014, 05:35:59 PM
Except that those that own the sports have no interest in doing so.
Why would ESPN who can force 100 million customers to pay $6 per month per subscriber, whether you like sports or not give that up for the 30% or 35% that MIGHT be willing to pay $18 per month (same revenue for them) a la carte? There is zero incentive for DISNEY \ ESPN to do that. Furthermore, Disney has to protect ABC, Disney Kids, etc, etc channels and they roll them all into one to demand carriage for all of them. NewsCorp the same thing with their sports \ entertainment channels. So on and so forth.
There is zero incentive for those that create that content to offer it a la carte. Absolutely none.
Because the customer base in pay TV is slowly eroding. I can barely stand my pay TV costs, which only increase every year with no content added. For the amount of time that I actually spend watching TV, its actually quite disgusting. If ESPN told me that I could have access to all of their channels for $10 per month, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd do another package with Viacom for their channels. Other than that I can live with network TV, and an HBO package. If it was up to my wife, we'd have cut the cable a while ago. There is no way I'm the only one that would get on board with this quickly. The real issue is that eventually people will get sick of the constant gouging and make the switch over to streaming services even if they don't have the top shelf name brand channels. People will get used to the new stuff for half the cost. When the 100 million subscribers drops to 90 million watch how quickly ESPN etc will change their tunes.
I understand that there are contracts that exist with providers already, but when those expire... watch out. We'll probably end up with a lot less channels to choose from, but costs will probably come down as well.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on April 11, 2014, 10:35:41 AM
Because the customer base in pay TV is slowly eroding. I can barely stand my pay TV costs, which only increase every year with no content added. For the amount of time that I actually spend watching TV, its actually quite disgusting. If ESPN told me that I could have access to all of their channels for $10 per month, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd do another package with Viacom for their channels. Other than that I can live with network TV, and an HBO package. If it was up to my wife, we'd have cut the cable a while ago. There is no way I'm the only one that would get on board with this quickly. The real issue is that eventually people will get sick of the constant gouging and make the switch over to streaming services even if they don't have the top shelf name brand channels. People will get used to the new stuff for half the cost. When the 100 million subscribers drops to 90 million watch how quickly ESPN etc will change their tunes.
I understand that there are contracts that exist with providers already, but when those expire... watch out. We'll probably end up with a lot less channels to choose from, but costs will probably come down as well.
Those contracts go to about 2019 to 2027.
ESPN isn't going to tell you can have access to all their channels for $10...that's the problem. They would take an economic bloodbath.
You sure you have your facts straight about dilution of television subscribers? I think you're going to find it is a lot slower than you think.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/03/18/cord-cutting-the-promise-tv-viewers-keep-on-breaking/
Quote from: keefe on April 10, 2014, 10:37:00 PM
I played baseball at Marquette...
Club baseball? Was Rick Freeman your coach?