|
Post by PantherU on Nov 3, 2011 23:10:58 GMT -6
Also, to whoever is "GonnaGetYouSucka" on the JSOnline message boards, I look forward to meeting you in person on Saturday night so you can tell me why my personal life is worth bringing up in public on the JSOnline comment section.
|
|
|
Post by illwauk on Nov 4, 2011 18:18:54 GMT -6
The idea of baseball being shut down to make way for football was brought up before, so I was replying with that in mind. But to answer your question, I don't see how playing in a D3 stadium even further out of the way than we are now really helps anything. Have you seen our D1 "stadium"? Have you seen renderings for this "D3 stadium"? And I had mentioned this as only a temporary replacement until the Village with a new baseball stadium is built. No one goes to games as is ... so distance shouldn't matter in this case. The problem is, no one would go to the games even if they were across the street from the union. For as much as we hear that football will "never work" because of the Packers and Badgers, no one seems to understand how little it makes sense for a school like ours to have a baseball program, especially with one of the better MLB clubs being a 10 minute drive from campus. A baseball program means that a new diamond has to be built in addition to a new soccer pitch and possibly even instead of the new arena everyone is so excited about. A football team could play on the field we're already building for soccer and use the scholarships and equipment funds from a discontinued baseball program to help offset Title IX issues that might come up. In a lot of ways, it's actually more economical to have football.
|
|
|
Post by DunneDeal on Nov 5, 2011 9:02:38 GMT -6
I would hate to see Baseball go, but from all the problem I hear they have; Facilities, Spring Weather, Location, Costs; would dropping Baseball for Hockey, LaCrosse ect be better
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Nov 8, 2011 2:55:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2011 6:57:31 GMT -6
Who is going to read that?
|
|
|
Post by illwauk on Nov 8, 2011 8:52:05 GMT -6
Who is going to read that? I just did. Goodness forbid someone should show that they've actually researched the topic instead of assuming football will never work at UWM because a bunch of scholars and intellectuals (like those who comment at jsonline) think teams that play a two hour drive from campus are gonna hurt our chances to draw fans.
|
|
|
Post by Hack on Nov 8, 2011 9:21:51 GMT -6
So much idiocy on the UW board. Heads in the sand.
I particularly liked the guy who had high school friends that went to UWM and lived at home, then goes on to say he hasn't lived in Milwaukee since 1970.
Uh, OK.
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Nov 8, 2011 15:23:12 GMT -6
In the end, "BadgerRepublic" stated that he would fight anything that would possibly hurt the Badger program.
I gave my two cents as to why I wouldn't see the Badgers and Panthers as "competing" for recruits, but alas they do have a point that their walk-on program would be diminished by players taking scholarships at Milwaukee. Among those players could have included Ricky Wagner, a kid three years behind me at WA Hale who was a walk-on tight end but now the starting left tackle and an NFL prospect.
In the end, this is my answer to those who think Milwaukee will steal recruits from Madison's walk-on base: who the f--- cares? I'm sorry, but we do not exist to help fill Madison's non-conference schedule. Their attitude towards us, and the attitude of some of the hybrid Badger/Panther fans toward us, is a real problem.
|
|
|
Post by gman2 on Nov 8, 2011 15:24:25 GMT -6
Wow, Jimmy, nice post. I disagree on this though: A team like Milwaukee (years down the road) could catch lightning in a bottle like BSU and go undefeated against a soft schedule and end up in a BCS bowl. I'm not saying we're going to do it, I'm just saying it's possible. Ball State almost did it a couple years ago until they lost in the MAC Title game. It not enough to simply go undefeated in a "soft" schedule, that does not get you into a BCS bowl game. You have to dominate your "soft" opponent pretty much every game. You are allowed the "trap" game every year, the one that you win that is close (for Boise State the Air Force game). If it were a matter of simply going undefeated, that wouldn't cut it.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Nov 8, 2011 18:19:56 GMT -6
Jimmy, a point of order. I have no idea why you suggested in that thread (especially after all the heavy lifting I did ) that my reason for being skeptical about Panther football is my allegiance to Badger football. That is not true and has never been true. Like you (and as I said in the thread) I first of all don't believe Milwaukee football would affect the Badger program. As I also said, I find the suggestion that Milwaukee shouldn't have scholarship football because it will hurt the Badger walk-on program borderline offensive, because that suggests that it's more important to let Wisconsin get good walk-ons than it is to give kids additional scholarship opportunities. Anybody who knows me knows that my absolute first principle about college athletics is that it is above all about providing opportunities and great experiences to the student-athletes. My concerns about starting a football program at Milwaukee are strictly about its potential viability and the resources it would take to get it off the ground. I actually agree that the only choices are to "go big or go home." Pioneer level football would be a complete waste of time. Even FCS football would be a long term loser. But the bet we would be making on striving for big-time (FBS level) football would be huge, and there is no getting around the fact that it would have the potential of crowding out many other good things we could do with the Milwaukee program. I met with the development people about the on-campus arena this week. Trust me, that alone is going to be very, very heavy lifting. The inevitable push for big donations for a football program would swallow that. The only interrelationship between Wisconsin football and Milwaukee football for me is my concern that local fans are so accustomed to the level of football played in the Big Ten and the quality of the Madison game day experience that it will simply not be possible to satisfy or attract local fans with what is likely to be, at best, a MAC level program. Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not dissing the MAC. But we already see how difficult it is to attract casual fans to our hoops games, as good as the Horizon League is, and I think that's in large part because we have to compete with the Marquette and Wisconsin hoops experiences as much as anything. The same problem could occur with football. All that said, I recognize that our administration is very much committed to exploring this idea, and I admire your passion about it. But to be clear, the fact that I'm a fan of Wisconsin football does not even remotely affect my thinking about Milwaukee football. If we really did overcome the massive issues and started a program at Milwaukee, the only issue it would create for me is figuring out how I could see both games if the two schools are playing at home on the same day. P.S. I also think the Wisconsin Paperboard site is by far the best candidate for a stadium location. I understand all the issues it would entail, but it's the only potentially available footprint east of the river that could accommodate a facility that wouldn't be rejected out of hand, as the Downer Woods and the lakefront would be. And if you can't put a stadium on the east side, within EASY commuting distance of campus, no one should ever speak of the football idea again. Miller Park or State Fair Park? Not. A. Chance. Not just for political reasons but because there would be utterly no way those locations could provide a collegiate game day experience. And if you can't generate that experience, there is absolutely no reason even to think of doing this.
|
|
|
Post by uwmfutbol on Nov 8, 2011 20:43:40 GMT -6
There's no shortage of morons among the Badger fan base, unfortunately. There are a lot of good ones too, but they're overshadowed by the insecure d-bags.
|
|
|
Post by Pantherholic on Nov 8, 2011 22:27:09 GMT -6
BadgerRepublic's posts are an entertaining read. Anyone who starts a post stating they're being chauvinistic should clearly be taken seriously . I would love to see the crusade he and "many like me" launch. Hopefully his parent's WIFI doesn't go out.
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Nov 9, 2011 17:58:18 GMT -6
Jimmy, a point of order. I have no idea why you suggested in that thread (especially after all the heavy lifting I did ) that my reason for being skeptical about Panther football is my allegiance to Badger football. That is not true and has never been true. Like you (and as I said in the thread) I first of all don't believe Milwaukee football would affect the Badger program. As I also said, I find the suggestion that Milwaukee shouldn't have scholarship football because it will hurt the Badger walk-on program borderline offensive, because that suggests that it's more important to let Wisconsin get good walk-ons than it is to give kids additional scholarship opportunities. Anybody who knows me knows that my absolute first principle about college athletics is that it is above all about providing opportunities and great experiences to the student-athletes. I didn't mean that you think that we would affect the Badgers at all, I simply meant that as someone who is a Badger fan, you have no 'need' for a football program at Milwaukee. That's what I was getting at. My concerns about starting a football program at Milwaukee are strictly about its potential viability and the resources it would take to get it off the ground. I actually agree that the only choices are to "go big or go home." Pioneer level football would be a complete waste of time. Even FCS football would be a long term loser. But the bet we would be making on striving for big-time (FBS level) football would be huge, and there is no getting around the fact that it would have the potential of crowding out many other good things we could do with the Milwaukee program. I met with the development people about the on-campus arena this week. Trust me, that alone is going to be very, very heavy lifting. The inevitable push for big donations for a football program would swallow that. I think we can just cast aside any idea of Pioneer League football. The students at Cleveland State were asked to vote on a fee increase to support a non-scholarship Pioneer League team and they scoffed at it, and I think ours would as well. As you say, "Go Big or Go Home." I think FCS football, should we garner an invitation to the MVC, would be our kickoff point should we go after football. The OVC doesn't make much sense if we want to move forward and independence won't get us into I-A FBS. I do know that because of the student fee, we're looking at about $40 million over the life of the fee ($25 per student per semester for 25 years comes out to just under that if we go no higher or lower than 31,500 students) and we've already spent a small chunk of that paying for the design and plan for the arena. So as I understand it, unless we are going for the gold and building a $79 million arena with all the "fix-ins," a football program will require more money to get off the ground if the inevitable goal is to become an FBS program. Just looking over this year's numbers, four of the 13 MAC football programs reported their football programs in the black (only one of the four made under $1 million, barely). What I take from that is you don't need to be a BCS conference football program to be financially viable. Does that mean me would? No, not necessarily. But this opens up the possibility that a MAC-level program could be something other then a financial windfall. Only one MAC program reported a loss, which means 8 teams were too nice to themselves to report they lost money. The only interrelationship between Wisconsin football and Milwaukee football for me is my concern that local fans are so accustomed to the level of football played in the Big Ten and the quality of the Madison game day experience that it will simply not be possible to satisfy or attract local fans with what is likely to be, at best, a MAC level program. Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not dissing the MAC. But we already see how difficult it is to attract casual fans to our hoops games, as good as the Horizon League is, and I think that's in large part because we have to compete with the Marquette and Wisconsin hoops experiences as much as anything. The same problem could occur with football. This is definitely a significant concern. I would say that the state has been pretty much pampered on the football front for 20 years, what with the Barry Era in Madison and the Ron Era and Ted Eras in Green Bay. It is very possible that the team would be facing a fan base that may not accept a MAC level program because of all the good teams the Badgers have put up over the years. Of the MAC programs that are making money, Western Michigan is really the only one that is in a no-man's land. When Monty Porter came to apply for our AD job that went to George Koonce, he mentioned how WMU is operating in this terrible triangle between South Bend, East Lansing and Ann Arbor - and still doing well. I think that if the fans in the city are abrasive to the MAC, they would be like that because unlike the fans at Western Michigan, Ohio and Eastern Michigan, they are not used to the MAC. Obviously. Part of me believes that the football program's move up to I-A would generate enough good will to make fans think that anything is possible and perhaps the MAC is just a blip on the radar. After all, if a team were to begin in, say, 2018 and join the MAC in 2022 (two years longer than the UTSA to WAC move), it would show a remarkable move upward for this Milwaukee program in just 20 years. I think a lot of people on this board are like me and were not here pre-Bo Ryan, and therefore do not remember a time when the NCAA Tournament was thought of as unreachable. In 1995, the NCAA Tournament was a head-in-the-clouds goal, as was averaging 1,000 fans a game. In 2004, the Sweet Sixteen was a crazy goal and averaging 5,000 a game was pie in the sky. In 2011, our "hardcore" fan base is barely impressed by a regular season title, 4,000 fans per game and two wins over the national runner-up. If we were to pick up a football program, then make the move up to the MAC in a short amount of time, I believe a lot of people would think that it's only a matter of time before we're a Big East (or the equivalent) level program - even if we never pass the MAC, they would be hopping on the bandwagon as it rolls down the road. So I don't think being a MAC football team would freak people out; I think people would be excited to see the program being upwardly mobile and support the team. This is all theoretical of course. All that said, I recognize that our administration is very much committed to exploring this idea, and I admire your passion about it. But to be clear, the fact that I'm a fan of Wisconsin football does not even remotely affect my thinking about Milwaukee football. If we really did overcome the massive issues and started a program at Milwaukee, the only issue it would create for me is figuring out how I could see both games if the two schools are playing at home on the same day. The good thing about the prospective program is that unlike basketball, the program really only needs to avoid scheduling against Madison. We wouldn't play on Sundays, so no need to worry about the Packers. There are no Bucks or Golden Eagles, just Badgers. Another problem would be the Brewers, but you're running up against four dates where the Badgers and Brewers also play, and the Brewers almost always begin at 7 p.m. - freeing up the Panthers to take 11 or 3:30, whichever time the Badgers don't play. Of course, if they were in the MAC, they'd be able to avoid the Badgers with weeknight games - nationally televised weeknight games. P.S. I also think the Wisconsin Paperboard site is by far the best candidate for a stadium location. I understand all the issues it would entail, but it's the only potentially available footprint east of the river that could accommodate a facility that wouldn't be rejected out of hand, as the Downer Woods and the lakefront would be. And if you can't put a stadium on the east side, within EASY commuting distance of campus, no one should ever speak of the football idea again. Miller Park or State Fair Park? Not. A. Chance. Not just for political reasons but because there would be utterly no way those locations could provide a collegiate game day experience. And if you can't generate that experience, there is absolutely no reason even to think of doing this. I believe this is true as well. Only if an established Panther team grows exponentially to the point where a stadium of considerable size is needed and the campus area cannot accommodate it would I support a stadium at the Mile or elsewhere. I don't know where the stadium would be if not for the WPC site, but along the river in Kern Park or the area immediately northwest of Riverview Dorms could be bought up on the cheap. The good news on the WPC site is that area, including Riverside Park, has about three locations you could fit a 20,000-seat grandstand. Just fit a 10,000-seat semi-permanent bleacher stand on the other side and you have 30,000 capacity in a small space. Looking on Google Maps, the area of WPC doesn't look big enough, but you need to go down there and look at it for yourself - the space is monstrous.
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Nov 9, 2011 18:29:04 GMT -6
The way to envision it on Google maps satellite view (and yes, I have done this many times over the years) is to expand the view and frame the area you are looking at so it's big enough to show you both the WPC property and Shorewood field next to the high school. Looking at it that way it seems apparent a MAC-sized stadium could fit with some careful planning. It could also be a very cool setting over the river if you did it right, while still being separated enough from most of the residential neighborhood to lessen NIMBY concerns. And of course it's in a perfect location to take advantage of the existing bar/restaurant infrastructure in the North Avenue district. We can dream, anyway.
Unrelated question: you mentioned in your post on the Badger board that hockey is a serious possibility. Do you know if it's under consideration that the on-campus arena for basketball would also accommodate hockey? Or would we be looking to the Bradley Center for hockey. The latter creates the same problem as playing hoops at the cell, but the former creates a very significant additional scheduling load on the on-campus facility (almost an unbearable load if women's hockey is also under consideration) and it also complicates the design and ratchets up the cost significantly. Cost is going to be a huge issue, obviously. (Even moreso since all I can afford is to sponsor the trash cans, or maybe a couple bubblers. Gotta win that lottery.)
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Nov 9, 2011 21:39:27 GMT -6
The way to envision it on Google maps satellite view (and yes, I have done this many times over the years) is to expand the view and frame the area you are looking at so it's big enough to show you both the WPC property and Shorewood field next to the high school. Looking at it that way it seems apparent a MAC-sized stadium could fit with some careful planning. It could also be a very cool setting over the river if you did it right, while still being separated enough from most of the residential neighborhood to lessen NIMBY concerns. And of course it's in a perfect location to take advantage of the existing bar/restaurant infrastructure in the North Avenue district. We can dream, anyway. It's one of the reasons I love MWU's architecture thesis so much. The problems that most of our most ardent fans have with the prospective basketball arena is the entertainment and restaurant options in the immediate vicinity. While Rick's design will almost undoubtedly include significant space for this (he has said it himself on a number of occasions publicly), it's easier to envision the re-purposed WPC building and being able to spend money before and after the game in any number of bars. Even with the size of our current fan base of 4,000, a Saturday afternoon game is likely to fill up the Eastsider, Von Trier, Verducci's (ugh), BBC, Hooligan's, Replay, whatever they call Live! nowadays, the Y-Not Tavern, and the La Piazza space once I can con someone into buying it and letting me run it as a Panther sports bar. Running it down and building a football stadium there would guarantee North Avenue is Milwaukee's Party Central even if the crowds are smaller than even football's most stringent detractors believe. This is an area of the East Side that people don't consider campus despite the fact that its businesses are staffed and used almost entirely by the students that live in the neighborhood. To me, North Avenue has become Campus and building our football stadium (or the basketball arena for those who live in the here and now) on the WPC property is one of the best options we have. The really great part is that WPC really wants to leave the area, and without buyers their price has to drop sometime - the university might even be willing to go a higher price than private developers have because of the fact that we wouldn't pay taxes on the highly-taxed property. This is a no-brainer even if all we do is use it to build another dormitory. Unrelated question: you mentioned in your post on the Badger board that hockey is a serious possibility. Do you know if it's under consideration that the on-campus arena for basketball would also accommodate hockey? Or would we be looking to the Bradley Center for hockey. The latter creates the same problem as playing hoops at the cell, but the former creates a very significant additional scheduling load on the on-campus facility (almost an unbearable load if women's hockey is also under consideration) and it also complicates the design and ratchets up the cost significantly. Cost is going to be a huge issue, obviously. (Even moreso since all I can afford is to sponsor the trash cans, or maybe a couple bubblers. Gotta win that lottery.) I know that a hockey rink needs significantly more space so you're pushing out the ground floor; likely you'd make the lowest level risers much like the chairback seats at the KC. I'm not inclined to do that because I'd like a basketball arena to be a one-use facility - it's why I like Miller Park so much, it's got one use. I don't know if anyone's suggested it, but before the Admirals played at the Milwaukee Arena and then Bradley Center, they played their games at Wilson Park's Ice Arena. The arena still exists and currently seats 2,000. If we wanted, the arena could be easily expanded to 4,000 seats and you could pack the house. Hockey wouldn't be on campus, of course, but it would have its own place and hot damn that place would be loud. With the pep band and all their instruments, you'd only need about 1,800 people to completely fill the place up. Just an idea - and a cheap one at that. Here's a pic: Personally, I think the club hockey team should be playing there, but that's just my idea.
|
|