Bucks open tonight

weeds

Fiber deprived old guy.
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
5,692
Reaction score
1,791
Location
Oshkosh, WI
@Boston and on National TV Christmas Day. Going to be an interesting season... Think the Bucks have enough talent around Giannis?
 
OP
OP
weeds

weeds

Fiber deprived old guy.
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
5,692
Reaction score
1,791
Location
Oshkosh, WI
Yeah, that was a heart breaker but to be honest, I wasn't "feelin' it" anyway. Just seemed like the Bucks would find a way to kinda blow it on this night.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
That was a sick loss. 3 point bank shot goes in and then Giannis can't make both FT's to send it to OT? Both Basketball and Baseball have such long seasons that I don't get too vested in the early games. I will say this, I love Holiday. I think he was a very smart addition, although I will miss George Hill. Bledsoe just seemed like the odd fit into the Bucks starting lineup. Now we just need a Center. Brooke is too inconsistent on offense, but makes up for it on defense. Sadly, I think the Bucks have lost some depth on their bench in the last 2 years, which used to be their strong point. Will be interesting to see how Bud juggles the minutes this year. Giannis played 36 minutes last night, last season he only played around 30/game.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
Anyone else besides me sick and tired of chasing their tail to be able to watch Bucks/Brewer games? Seems like whenever I find a TV provider that I like, they get into a pissing contest with one of the major sports channels and drop them. FOX (FSN) being the latest casualty. Oh well, the radio isn't that bad. :)

Although this was written for the Minnesota based market, it was a pretty good writeup on the future of FSN and really sports channels in general. The point that they made about how much of the sports coverage is hidden in the subscription cost and how most of that is carried/paid for by people who don't even watch the Sports is thought provoking. I have always said that someday, most sports will become pay per view and that may not be all that far off anymore.

Q&A: Where are we with streaming? What should a Minnesota fan do? - StarTribune.com
 
Last edited:

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I think pay per view will kill sports. You don't want to limit access like that if you want to continue to have a strong and growing market. It might make some short term dollar sense, but long term I think it's a terrible idea and one that has proven over time to benefit a very small number of people that eventually dries up.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
I think pay per view will kill sports. You don't want to limit access like that if you want to continue to have a strong and growing market. It might make some short term dollar sense, but long term I think it's a terrible idea and one that has proven over time to benefit a very small number of people that eventually dries up.
A significant % of a fan base are people who didn't grow up watching the sport. They aren't going to pay to see something they are not into. But if it is free and there is a player they heard about they might watch a couple of games and become a fan. Take Giannis. People in Milwaukee who never watch may have coworkers talking about him to the point where they decide to watch a game. Are they going to pay $20 / month to try it out? Nope.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
I think pay per view will kill sports. You don't want to limit access like that if you want to continue to have a strong and growing market. It might make some short term dollar sense, but long term I think it's a terrible idea and one that has proven over time to benefit a very small number of people that eventually dries up.

Oh I agree, if I suddenly had to pay to watch every game, I might pass. However, as you break down your cable/satellite/streaming bills, you are already paying for it now. When including it in their packages for a mere $2-5 month people hardly noticed. However, when all of a sudden a streaming service has to raise their rates 2-3 times due to how much the leagues want in exchange for the rights, people are going to choose to go elsewhere.

The "free networks" (FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC) are able to pull this off due to advertising revenues generated. However, just like we are seeing Netflix, Hulu, Prime and others spin out their own series and broadcast them "commercial free", there will come a day that advertisers will decide TV isn't the most economical way to spend their advertising dollars.

We should all thank those non-sports watching people that pay huge cable bills and buy advertised products, because right now, they are helping to offset the economics of us being able to watch sports for "free".

This really isn't that much different than what happened with game tickets. Used to be almost anyone could afford to hit a game or two. Now, its a huge investment to do so. Not surprising when you have sports paying individuals $40M/year to play.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
weeds

weeds

Fiber deprived old guy.
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
5,692
Reaction score
1,791
Location
Oshkosh, WI
Oh I agree, if I suddenly had to pay to watch every game, I might pass. However, as you break down your cable/satellite/streaming bills, you are already paying for it now. When including it in their packages for a mere $2-5 month people hardly noticed. However, when all of a sudden a streaming service has to raise their rates 2-3 times due to how much the leagues want in exchange for the rights, people are going to choose to go elsewhere.

The "free networks" (FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC) are able to pull this off due to advertising revenues generated. However, just like we are seeing Netflix, Hulu, Prime and others spin out their own series and broadcast them "commercial free", there will come a day that advertisers will decide TV isn't the most economical way to spend their advertising dollars.

We should all thank those non-sports watching people that pay huge cable bills and buy advertised products, because right now, they are helping to offset the economics of us being able to watch sports for "free".

This really isn't that much different than what happened with game tickets. Used to be almost anyone could afford to hit a game or two. Now, its a huge investment to do so. Not surprising when you have sports paying individuals $40M/year to play.


Truthfully, that is part of the reason I stopped going to the stadium. The cost, so it's not a huge leap for me to NOT watch any sporting event when they start sticking it to us - and that day is coming. Yeah, even the Packers. Drives my son crazy that I balk at going to Lambeau but hey, you pay a small fortune to attend and end up being surrounded by drunken idiots and really cannot watch the games as I watch. That's the beauty of getting old {right Bill? :roflmao:} - stuff like NFL Football, that was once important, isn't necessarily vital any more.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
Well, I haven't paid a cable or satellite bill in over a decade :) Their benefit to me has far exceeded their cost a long time ago. At this point in my life if I was outside of the "home network" and had to pay to see a game on TV, I'm sure I wouldn't and if i couldn't see that many games a year anymore, it wouldn't be a stretch until football was a non-issue for me anymore.

I like the game, i really do, but if they try and make it an exclusive club, i'm out.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
I like the game, i really do, but if they try and make it an exclusive club, i'm out.

Much like what happened to Boxing. I have never gotten into boxing, but after reading some history, it seems like it was once one of the more popular sports in the U.S. Then greed took over and boxing made some pretty terrible decisions with Pay Per View, trying to bilk more money from its fan base by expanding the number of "titles", thieving managers, medical concerns, fixed fights, etc. Never really read whether it has recovered and has been successful in the U.S. Guessing very few casual fans know many new boxing names. Unlike the days of Mohammed Ali, Frasier, Forman, Leonard, Tyson, etc.

I imagine that the NFL has watched the cautionary tale of Boxing and they won't make some of the same mistakes. What they might due inadvertently though, is drive up prices so high, that advertisers might find more economical ways to spend their dollars in a ever changing market, leaving the NFL struggling to keep up with the economics of high salaries.

Ticket prices to see events will go as high as the market allows it, but be careful teams, that can drop out at a moments notice. The UW Hockey Program is an example of this. Years ago, tickets were hard to come by and sky rocketing every season, due to a successful program and a growing demand. When the team started losing, the season ticket holders said "enough", myself included and dumped more than half the tickets.

The Packers organization has been fortunate, they have a strong following in a tiny market and its been bolstered even more by fielding a lot of successful teams in the past 25+ years. However, that is just ticket sales, much of their revenue comes from the television contracts. If at some point Television switches to a "pay as you use system", I doubt the NFL survives it, or at least not by continuing to be able to pay the huge salaries that it does. The major networks are smart enough to not put the NFL in a pay per view situation, but the companies who pay the big dollars to advertise, might decide the new price tag for a 30 second spot is too high.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
Predictions on Bucks?

I don't have a good feeling about this team at all. Just too inconsistent all year long. The Heat knocked them out early last season, but I don't think they will do it again. However, the Nets bought a stud team and are just loaded (James Harden, Kyrie Irving and Kevin Durant). If they stay relatively healthy, I don't see the Bucks winning more than 1 or 2 games.
 
Last edited:

TEXPAC

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
111
Reaction score
19
I think they will go to the finals. Anything can happen after that!!!!!
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
I think they will go to the finals. Anything can happen after that!!!!!

Optimistic for sure, with the Nets and 76'ers between them and that. I read that Bud's job might depend on them doing just that, making the finals.
 

TEXPAC

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
111
Reaction score
19
They did well against both of them during the season. I think they have a better team formula this time......
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
3,152
Reaction score
575
Optimistic for sure, with the Nets and 76'ers between them and that. I read that Bud's job might depend on them doing just that, making the finals.

I hope so because not many are bud fans...his refusal so far to play his stars more than 30 min a game in the playoffs is a determent to the team. Hopefully he's ammended or abandoned that if we can't win with 34 playing 30 min we don't deserve to win attitude.

Ive been at the arena for some recent games this season and I'll say this about the team... although khris Middleton is still making every play look like a struggle just to stay on his feet. Dru Holiday is the most impressive player I've seen the bucks have other than gianis during the gianis era. Honestly probably going back to the big 3/Michael Redd days. The dude is a legit player, so smooth. Saw him go behind his back for a step back 3 smh wow was it pretty

What does that mean for how far they go here?idk if they can get past the heat in the first round I like their chances to at least make the eastern conference finals. Could they beat the nets with 3 fhofers, I doubt it but you never know
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
Some of you still sure the Bucks are legit?

While an exciting first game and a win in OT, the Bucks didn't look anything like a Championship team to me. 62% FT shooting and 16% on three's, they are going to have to do better than that, just to get by Miami. While an entertaining game, was rather frustrating to watch the Bucks just not being able to play a consistent game. One time down the court they look like a great team, next time down awful and that is on both sides of the ball.

They also need to tell Giannis to pass the ball when the other team is in "foul mode". 6-13 from the charity stripe is just not acceptable.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
3,152
Reaction score
575
Who understands why bud didn't call timeout at the very end of regulation, when 34 had the ball in the corner. Why not call timeout and get the ball into the hands of a guy who can shoot free throws and ice the game
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
On the plus side . . .

  • Middleton = money.
  • Jrue is getting dangerous close to being one of my favorites. Just like how smooth he plays and the high level of effort.
  • They played well below their ability and still won, it was an off-night
  • They are still getting used to playing together. They are not near their apex.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
They are still getting used to playing together. They are not near their apex

I think that while slightly true for pretty much any team, it shouldn't be an excuse for this team. The Corp team has had most of the year together. Jrue is the only real new piece this season and that isn't much different than Matthew's last season and other players previous years. Nor any different than every NBA team each year.

Now the Nets, you might have a point there.

This looks much like what we saw last season I am afraid. A team that for some reason isn't as a whole equal to or greater than the talent of the individual parts added up. I love Bud, but starting to realize why he might be on the hotseat.
 
Last edited:

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top