Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 290 posts

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#21

Post by oldmanjay »

Touche wrote: post #18
randycupertino wrote: post #13

Between the scam of municipalities losing so much $$ on stadiums, how the stadiums cause urban blight sitting empty most of the time then causing major traffic headaches the other times, and the CTE injury rate, I can't fathom how football still exists today as a popular sport. Seems like the whole thing is a house of cards that needs to collapse.

I don't understand why it exists as a popular sport anyways, it's 5 seconds of action followed by 30 seconds of two guys talking about it. The average football game has 11 minutes of action[1]. Everything but the last ~8 minutes of the 4th quarter is boring. Yet Americans love it. I don't get it. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487042812045750028...

You know what else is boring? Comments of the form "I don't understand something, and my ignorance should be compelling"

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#22

Post by beastman82 »

I'm from St. Louis. The Cardinals also bilked > $500M towards their new stadium despite being the most profitable MLB team.

The mayor went around telling everyone it was a good idea. Of course the touted economic benefits are usually an order of magnitude above reality.

IMO basically capitalized on a huge inferiority complex.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#23

Post by toomuchtodo »

oldmanjay wrote: post #21
Touche wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why it exists as a popular sport anyways, it's 5 seconds of action followed by 30 seconds of two guys talking about it. The average football game has 11 minutes of action[1]. Everything but the last ~8 minutes of the 4th quarter is boring. Yet Americans love it. I don't get it. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487042812045750028...

You know what else is boring? Comments of the form "I don't understand something, and my ignorance should be compelling"

To be fair, that's a non-insignificant amount of HN comments. People should come here with far more curiosity and far less arrogance than they do.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#24

Post by mwfunk »

Touche wrote: post #18
randycupertino wrote: post #13

Between the scam of municipalities losing so much $$ on stadiums, how the stadiums cause urban blight sitting empty most of the time then causing major traffic headaches the other times, and the CTE injury rate, I can't fathom how football still exists today as a popular sport. Seems like the whole thing is a house of cards that needs to collapse.

I don't understand why it exists as a popular sport anyways, it's 5 seconds of action followed by 30 seconds of two guys talking about it. The average football game has 11 minutes of action[1]. Everything but the last ~8 minutes of the 4th quarter is boring. Yet Americans love it. I don't get it. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487042812045750028...

It's best understood as a turn-based strategy game with real-time elements during and between moves.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#25

Post by Touche »

danharaj wrote: post #20
Touche wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why it exists as a popular sport anyways, it's 5 seconds of action followed by 30 seconds of two guys talking about it. The average football game has 11 minutes of action[1]. Everything but the last ~8 minutes of the 4th quarter is boring. Yet Americans love it. I don't get it. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487042812045750028...

There's a lot of strategy between plays. Because the action isn't continuous it has a different flavor from a continuously played game like the other football. It's sort of a hybrid between a real-time game and a turn-based game, which is cool. I think it would be much more interesting if there were more time on the field, but i'm sure the NFL and their advertising partners love all that time that can be filled up wi…

That doesn't explain the popularity, strategy is invisible to the viewer. Chess is not a popular spectator sport.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#26

Post by Touche »

oldmanjay wrote: post #21
Touche wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why it exists as a popular sport anyways, it's 5 seconds of action followed by 30 seconds of two guys talking about it. The average football game has 11 minutes of action[1]. Everything but the last ~8 minutes of the 4th quarter is boring. Yet Americans love it. I don't get it. [1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487042812045750028...

You know what else is boring? Comments of the form "I don't understand something, and my ignorance should be compelling"

I post comments like that to be educated. Some have already offered explanations, so I'm happy to get your downvote if it means learning something.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#27

Post by ashark »

gist wrote: post #12
georgefrick wrote: post #4

Money a city gives towards a stadium should be returned in the form of shares in the team. Otherwise no deal. St. Louis should be selling their shares to LA for a profit right now...

Unlikely. There is competition from other geographic areas. If a team can simply play one venue against another they do have the upper hand unfortunately.

Do any cities own their own teams? I was thinking about this the other day, and as someone who doesn't really follow sports I think I'd actually be more supportive of things like stadium building if the city were involved more heavily—namely, if the city owned the team(s), or at least a controlling share.

I'd also be way more likely to care about and cheer for "our" team if they couldn't just pull up stakes and move to another city if we don't bribe them enough to keep them. Fan loyalty to commercial teams that don't have any real ties to the home city (they don't even have to give up their name if they leave!) strikes me as bizarre.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#28

Post by giarc »

whyenot wrote: post #16

I don't know. When cities get involved in a venture like this, it's usually because that is what their citizens want. For example, Levi Stadium in Santa Clara went before the voters, who approved it's funding model (1). On a moral level, I have a real problem with a sport that when played successfully leads to debilitating brain damage (2), but it's pretty clear I am in the minority on that. 1. Without going too far…

You could likely argue that the people that show up to vote for a stadium funding model are more likely to be sports fans. Probably wasn't a true representation of the citizens desires. Which isn't an excuse, everyone had the ability to vote, but still the decision can't be applied to everyone.

Re: Why a city should not build a stadium for an NFL team

#30

Post by toomuchtodo »

Touche wrote: post #26
oldmanjay wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what else is boring? Comments of the form "I don't understand something, and my ignorance should be compelling"

I post comments like that to be educated. Some have already offered explanations, so I'm happy to get your downvote if it means learning something.

Think about your question:

"I don't understand why it exists as a popular sport anyways, it's 5 seconds of action followed by 30 seconds of two guys talking about it. The average football game has 11 minutes of action[1]. Everything but the last ~8 minutes of the 4th quarter is boring. Yet Americans love it. I don't get it."

better framed as a question like such:

"I'm not quite sure I understand the American fascination with football. Can someone provide context?"

Post reply on HN