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

71–80 of 290 posts

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

#71

Post by sehr »

sampo wrote: post #60
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...

As someone who recently moved to the US, should I first try to learn about American football, or about baseball?

Definitely football, it's more popular (unless you're in St. Louis).

Baseball games are really fun to watch in person though, more so than football in my opinion. It's just an excuse to drink and shoot the shit while hearing a bat crack every once in a while, always a great night out

Also checkout basketball, especially if you're in the bay.

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

#72

Post by throwaway60453 »

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…

Excuse me, local resident here.

Santa Clara City residents approved $400 million in financing.

City Council went ahead with a promise for ... $1.3 billion so far. So most of it was not voted on at all.

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

#73

Post by FussyZeus »

onetwotree wrote: post #42

The Green Bay packers have an interesting approach to this problem, although it requires a fanatical fan base and special ownership provisions, and the fact that the team can't leave Green Bay (without a vote by the shareholders, who are all fans, which will never, ever, happen). When they want to improve their stadium, they issue stock and sell more season tickets. This works because Packers stock cannot be sold or…

I'm glad there are other Wisconsinites who don't give a shit about football. HELLO FRIEND

That said, those of us in Brown County still got stuck with a 0.5% tax hike to pay for the stadium on sales tax, which I wouldn't mind so much except it stuck around about 4 years longer than it was supposed to.

Being a resident close by I can attest to what the evidence says: The argument that stadiums augment the local economy is hoo-hah. The area around the stadium is more built up, sure, and plenty of businesses do well there but the vast majority of the money goes right into the Stadium and of course the NFL, the only exceptions being the local motels (which can't be doing that well, they all look like slum housing).

Honestly I'd pay the 0.5% tax hike forever if we got rid of the stupid thing and stopped locking up the Green Bay metro area every Sunday.

Edit: For the record, it's not the amount of the tax hike, I realize I'm bitching over pennies. It's the principle that I'm subsidizing an industry that makes so much fucking money they have no business getting tax breaks on toilet paper, let alone facilities like Lambeau Field.

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

#74

Post by quadrangle »

cowardlydragon wrote: post #59

The NFL is a unionized, state-supported, maximally regulated market with rigid spending requirements, price fixing, supply shortages... ... held up as the conservative free market jingoistic ideal.

Unions only come into existence because of capitalism. In a cooperative, the employees are the owners, so there's no such thing as a union.

The NFL is certainly not maximally-regulated, in that more regulations are possible.

But the key here is that corrupt corporate wealthy powerful people are always happy to claim that whatever they are doing to stay wealthy and powerful is actually based on some ideal whether that's socialism or capitalism or whatever. It's basically never true, of course.

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

#76

Post by samstave »

st3v3r wrote: post #41
Touche wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You did not. You posted that comment to make yourself look smugly superior to others.

Thats why I am awesome, because I don't ever make smug comments. You should upvote me for it.

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

#77

Post by realdlee »

sampo wrote: post #60
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...

As someone who recently moved to the US, should I first try to learn about American football, or about baseball?

Start with baseball. Season starts April 3. Football season ends this Sunday with the Super Bowl. You can pick up football in August.

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

#78

Post by scoofy »

nhebb wrote: post #55
onetwotree wrote: post #42

The Green Bay packers have an interesting approach to this problem, although it requires a fanatical fan base and special ownership provisions, and the fact that the team can't leave Green Bay (without a vote by the shareholders, who are all fans, which will never, ever, happen). When they want to improve their stadium, they issue stock and sell more season tickets. This works because Packers stock cannot be sold or…

The NFL changed the ownership rules, and the Green Bay model cannot be repeated elsewhere. "The NFL does not allow corporate membership. Instead, it requires clubs to be wholly owned either by a single owner, or small group of owners, and requires that at least one owner owns a 1/3 stake in the team. The Packers are granted an exemption to this rule, as they have been a publicly owned corporation since before the rul…

That seems extremely anti-competitive. I wonder if that rule could be challenged.

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

#79

Post by jowiar »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #46
Touche wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's strategy, and in a broadcast (as opposed to attending a live event), there are commentators to explain it to the average viewer. There are also amazingly spectacular plays, which you can appreciate whether or not you understand the strategy. That doesn't explain why it's more popular than, say, basketball, though...

The problem with basketball as a spectator sport is that the marginal importance of any particular small piece of the game is small, and predictable. There may be awesome feats of athleticism and skill, but they really don't count for a lot, and by the end of the game, you could remove any one (or more) of them and the result of the game would have been the same.

When you think about what makes, say, movies exciting, it's plot twists. And a basketball game has a very high change of having none -- the better team plays a bit better than the lesser team, and at the end of the game, they have a few more points.

For football, baseball, hockey, and soccer, there are far more plot twists.

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

#80

Post by richsherwood »

greenbay_ftw wrote: post #44

Green Bay has an interesting structure in that it is a non-profit with the community owning shares of it, and have no financial incentive to own it -- only team support and voting rights. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers#Community_ow... ) It would be a fascinating experiment if more teams did this, but I can't imagine an owner giving up control like that.

The Saskatchewan roughriders do this as well. Its CFL though.
Post reply on HN