XZero771679666304

A big part of me is going to be relieved to see the changing of the guard for the Illini. And that was a stupid, stupid, non-foul.

Brutal.

Crap, that was a bad call.

Dammit, that was clutch.

Seems like a lot of them were down and then out...not the typical brickfest from behind the arc. This game is getting into the area where I'm going to be really disappointed if the Illini lose.

Seems they're trying to get Egwu going, he's shot quite a bit. They might be doing quite a bit better if he could actually hit a shot. That does appear to have been the gameplan, but it isn't working and I'm not sure they will stick with it. When all else fails, they revert to firing up 3's. Yeah, they need to continue to drive the ball. They're much better from 3 when they're kicking the ball out and it's a rhythm shot. Like everyone else. The hesitance to slash/dive of our guys is totally frustrating, mostly because they're really good at it when they do.

If Illinois doesn't have one of its 10 minute dry spells, I think they can absolutely beat Miami.

I saw it being a 10+ point Minny win, with a good chance of being an outright blowout. The Gophers underachieved heavily coming in, and were a terrible matchup for UCLA.

Minnesota/UCLA is the most predictable "upset" of the tourney thus far. This pretty close to being what I imagined happening.

They're going to to lose.

It happens literally every game. Sometimes it's only for a few minutes, too often it's for 10-15. Sometimes I think the seniors just can't get past their Weber conditioning.

Now we've reached that part of every game where the Illini can't score for a prolonged stretch.

This is pretty much the definition of crapping the bed. F you, Wisky.

Of course Wrigley draws regardless. The Cubs drew nearly 3 million people last year to see a [expletive] awful team plays its third consecutive awful season. That's half a million more than the Mets who still have a newish ballpark and played a similarly awful season. Attendance is down from the peak but it's still phenomenal. Wrigley won't sell out every game no matter the record. But denying that Wrigley is a draw is taking the argument way beyond anything resembling a reasonable opinion. Interpreting my statement in the most extreme manner possible. Of course Wrigley is a draw, but not nearly enough of one to ride on that alone. Go check out attendance numbers going back 20 or 30 years; there is no guarantee of great attendance. The facts bear this out. People are turning out on the back of their memories of Sammy Sosa, '03-04', '07-'08 and the Epstein honeymoon, but attendance is waning, and will continue to wane until the on field product improves. I mean, it wasn't that long ago when the Cubs didn't even draw two million, let alone three. People's memory on this issue is really short. If the rebuild went sideways and the team were terrible with no headline act like Sosa, and the renovations never happen, the team could find itself in a very bad financial way relative to the other large market teams. There's no sweet TV deal or huge advertising revenue to fall back on. Wrigley is a draw, but it is not some kind of golden goose that will keep the masses enthralled and coffers full on its own merits.

You should have stuck with MSU. (you were a Sparty fan back in the day, right?)

omg, don't even start. It's horrifying how many people don't know it's a state. Anyway, that was a pretty epic choke job by UNM last night. They're a way better team than they showed.

Now we're going with last year's team would've drawn close to the same amount in Rosemont? lol Did I say that? I'm simply arguing against the notion that Wrigley is going to draw regardless, as if it is some exception to the rule, a "golden goose". It's not. If the Cubs are bad, the stadium won't be full. And with relatively little advertising dollars being derived from the park itself, the net result might not be worse financially than with a bad team and a park in the 'burbs. Now if the neighborhood/city relent and the Ricketts can proceed with their plan, that's a whole other thing, then Wrigley becomes a money machine. But the point in all of this discussion is how to bring that to pass, because the old dump isn't laying any golden eggs right now.

The notion that Wrigley sells out even when the Cubs are terrible because it's just so awesome and nostalgic and people just love to hang out there is an overblown fallacy. Attendance took a big uptick in the early 2000's and has been trending downward in the past few seasons. Go back further and there you'll find that poor attendance was the rule rather than the exception. Wrigley isn't a golden goose. It's a dilapidated shithole in dire need of renovations the neighborhood and city seem loath to allow. The product drives attendance, just like anywhere else. No one wants to see the team moved to [expletive] Rosemont or Schaumburg, but if the powers that be keep dicking around with the team's right to maintain their own facility, it is a scenario that needs to be entertained (or at least seriously threatened).

A stadium butted up against an airport, minimizing access points that will choke access points from all those drivers parking in the huge lots and airplanes taking off or landing every 45 seconds would be a disaster and to suggest otherwise is idiotic. They'd still sell it out (when they are good). It'd be an undesirable logistical hairball, but that wouldn't decimate attendance as much as some here are saying. To me, a disaster would be if they only half filled the stadium on an consistent basis.

Some people sort of are... Pretty much. There's a matter of degrees here. Wrigley >> Stadium in the heart of the city > Stadium in the city as long as an El stop is close > Stadium in Rosemont. Neither come close to the current ideal, but one is clearly better than the other. I think that's all pretty implicit, but the notion that even the worst of those options is a "disaster" scenario (so bad it can't seriously be considered) is pretty ridiculous. I don't think anyone would argue that a properly refurbished Wrigley isn't by far the best (and most likely, hopefully) scenario, but the Cubs really have to take some of their freedom back from the neighborhood/city.

I'm positive there would be. Getting the Cubs would be a coup for any of these towns, and I'm sure they'b be willing to provide partial funding.

Some people sort of are... Pretty much.

I'm not a proponent of moving the team to the burbs, but saying they couldn't draw there is just a paper thin cover for the real reason they hate the idea: that city residents would then be the ones inconvenienced. The Cubs would routinely sell a suburban park out just fine, logistical issues withstanding. It'd be a far less desirable setting for a ballpark, but it wouldn't kill attendance.

I'm shocked the Marlins have a group of fans.

Nobody's really arguing that, it's against the people who are saying hey Rosemont isn't such a bad idea!! Or maybe Skokie!! It's about time the suburbs got their fair share! I would love a new stadium, so I honestly don't think a brand new stadium in Rosemont is a bad idea, per se. It's not my ideal idea, but if that ended up happening, I would definitely be excited about getting a brand new park, which we couldn't do in the city. As someone who hasn't lived in Chicago since I was too young to pay attention to such things, I'm genuinely curious as to whether there would be a non-Wrigley option other than the suburbs. I don't think it's anyone's burning desire to see the Cubs move to the burbs, but if idle threats are going to be made, I don't see where else could be possibly be mentioned.