ed

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-mariners-tom-murphy-is-making-the-most-of-it/ Sounds like he worked on changing his approach this off-season. Hopefully that means he can sustain some of the success he's had this year.

i like the pick up, but 'game changer' is a bit premature there. he did not look very good in the limited time he had last year - definitely a (big) project.

-$78k in realtor fees and ~$8k every month it's in there market. I don't see this thing likely being a big win for him.

eh, asking price. look at that price history - the thing was put on the market every year, starting in 2014 at $1.9M, with the price coming down every year until oats bought it in 2018 at $1M. although i'm sure bama will make make sure he's taken care of it it doesn't attract interest on the market.

I've posted this before, but the wnba is a joke. even top picks aren't guranteed a contract. max salary is like $115k (after 6 yrs). Last year's top pick signed for $52k/yr. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/sports/wnba-los-angeles-sparks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/sports/basketball/diana-taurasi-focusing-on-playing-in-russia-where-the-money-is.html

So you're basically saying the same thing - talented enough to be top players on a legit top 25 team, bench players in the sec. But not sour grapes. And the board complains mid majors doesn't get respect from the majors / polls / committee. Ha.

No, this wasn't some generic, out years talk. Dooley was previously talking about us being ranked next year. Maybe preseason votes (but not ranked), despite losing so many key seniors. Now, those recruits are bum bench players in a good conference, but could have helped make us better than those teams in the good conferences. Doesn't grok, sour grapes.

We were talking about being top 25 and being the Gonzaga of the east. That's obviously, inherently, competitive with SEC teams. I don't think anybody was really all psyched at the thought that "we're really building a top MAC team!"

the point was pretty explicit - a month ago people on this board were claiming our best recruiting class would help us become contenders. Now, the same recruits, which could make us into contenders, are apparently bench level players in a different conference. That's a lot of sour grapes, or a whole lot of being on oats' jock (or both, which is what I really think it is).

You do now. 😉 A month ago you were talking about oats building a dynasty. 😂

But we weren't talking about using any lower standards for us - we were talking about building into a perennial top 25 team and these guys being good enough to help us do that. That's not a lower standard than Alabama has.

So a month ago we're talking about being legit contenders, and the best recruits we've ever had. Now these guys, who were going to help solidify our status as perennial contenders (and maybe bring us to the next level!) are sitting the bench at a school that didn't make the tournament. Yea, probably some sour grapes there from us.

I disagree - this board, not too long ago was asking about interest and engagement. These are active threads that people are interested in, and they get locked. Makes no sense if you want to build a community.

wes clark was dismissed from missouri.

Uh, support that based on who played this year.

Seriously, I wasn't arguing or debating. This wasn't a bullshit "I'm just asking" 'question'. I just wanted to know who the f' business first was. They appear to be nobodies.

There's no right or wrong. I'm **asking** who are they, and why should we care. If nobody knows, well, I guess I know the answer. 😉

In SoCal since I graduated. As for caring, I'm still not sure why I should care about the national rankings of a random online source. What makes them worth anything? It seems to be "**buffalo** business first"? - does anyone outside buffalo care what they have to say? If not, what does it matter what their rankings say? Are they any better than a ranking from, for example, the Cortland standard (insert random local paper of your choice)?

What is Business First, and why should I care? I've literally never heard of the org.

And your meta discussion is WAY better. 😉

i don't donate. thought about it, but i don't know what i'm donating to. there's no plan (at least not one widely available). looked into the excellence fund - a slush fund for a ncaa coach? the jokes practically writes itself. plus the hassle of booster rules? uh, no thanks. blue and white fund? i don't even know what it is - bullsblueandwhite.com doesn't resolve, and bullsbwf.com is blacklisted at work (our blacklist/whitelist is customizable, but commercially based). somebody should look into that. but seriously, a plan. a workable plan, not a pipedream. edit: oh yea, and nobody ever got back to me about tickets for the ncaa tournament. the ub basketball ticket site had info about the mac tournament up after selection sunday - you had to go back up a level to find any info about the tournament. ub doesn't really make it easy to be a fan.

well, there's no news. so i guess we should all shut up and leave the board until something shows up and go back to the good old days of there being like 2 active threads with 4 people posting? ha.

so we've gone from they suck, to they should pay more because they go to final fours - do you want to deal with the past or the present? 😄 the pac-12 has had (going back to ancient history) SIX teams win the national championship. ucla, arizona, oregon, and washington all have been on top of the conference in recent years. should all the coaches somehow be paid more than the others and nobody be fourth? how's that work? and arizona's base salary is more than ucla's - not their fault that alford can't get it done. 😛

It's tough to compare without details - Calipari's base salary (just under $8M) was about the same as the UCLA offer, so it's more than a show me offer. And putting that aside, you think $2.6M is cheaping out on a coach? There's only about 20 schools that pay more than $3M, and a handful above $4M. How much more do you think they should pay, and why?