Quote from: Daniel on December 10, 2025, 07:29:16 PMShaka is fine and will be fine for Marquette.  He's already gotten better recruiting to Marquette with this freshman class and next years should be good. 

Hopefully this year's class turns out to be like the Kam/Mitchell/Jolp class in terms of production. Promising start with James/Stevens. Phillips also seems like a guy who can light it up once he's acclimated.

Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 10, 2025, 07:03:09 PMWow. Crazy. UofM determined to outdo MSU.

Nah, you can't outdo Tucker and what he did with a rape victim and victims' rights advocate who MSU paid a significant amount to come to campus to meet with the team (adn the paid her a significant amount after Mel did his thing). Sleeping with your 32-year-old "executive assistant?"

Though going to her home and threatening to kill her and himself is taking things to another level.

OKC coukd go 75-7?

Quote from: MuggsyB on December 10, 2025, 07:34:35 PMPurdue up 30 on Minny.  This could help us Saturday? 

It was a 3 point game at half and i bet the farm on Purdue -18.5. Crazy run to start the second half.

Purdue up 30 on Minny.  This could help us Saturday? 

Shaka is fine and will be fine for Marquette.  He's already gotten better recruiting to Marquette with this freshman class and next years should be good. 

Has anybody asked Shaka when the "V" will happen?

Quote from: wadesworld on December 10, 2025, 11:47:17 AMHe's a 6'6", 220 lb 18 year old wing.  He's plenty big to play in the Big East, or any other conference.

The jump shot looks good and has good form, but that's known to be the weakness in his offensive game so hopefully he's continuing to work on that.  Looking only at full game highlights, it seems like his defensive effort will need to be much better in college.  But he looks like he might be the highest upside recruit in Shaka's time here.  Big, skilled dude.

I think Hayward and Crowder were 6'6".    They did ok at Marquette lol

Quote from: GB Warrior on December 10, 2025, 06:58:03 PMI missed the part in which wages weren't incorporated in operating income. This is largely disingenuous because it ignores the expenses associated with running a franchise that are and aren't avoidable...namely, you can avoid paying players, but there are some fixed or rigid costs that can't be and are largely uniform across franchises.

I could tell the Brewers to invest $24M extra to pay the next Blake Snell that is good but injury-prone. And they could do that and still be at a break-even point. But when that investment doesn't pay off, I don't have another $24M to reinvest for another bite at the apple. So while I could do that, no reasonable business person would because it destroys your liquidity and is predicated on everything going exactly to plan. The result is that some teams can afford to take these risks because the ratio of variable to fixed costs is much much higher. Rhys Hoskins is a perfect example of what the Brewers can do. Exorbitant one-year (plus option but whatever) expensive deals that - if they don't pay off - don't destroy your liquidity. This isn't in the same universe as what we are seeing in large market teams. 

The flip side to all of this is the Pirates, who get fat on revenue sharing and TV contracts, product be damned.

Both sides of this need to be closed and addressed, as there is absolutely no reason for anyone to agree for more revenue sharing without the benefit of parity or competitive balance.

Alonso is going to be a good example of this as a contract that would destroy a team like the Brewers but be absorbable by wealthier franchises. I think it's a stupid contract for any team for what it's worth.

How many players made more than the Brewers?