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

91–100 of 290 posts

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

#91

Post by bringles »

throwaway60453 wrote: post #72
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.

But how were the council members appointed? Resident approval must be involved somehow. If this city council is doing a bad job (seems like it), push for a new council. If the tide is too strong against, you have to challenge ideas.

A lot of folks seem to believe there's a legal apparatus we need to invent that can solve this, when it's perfectly sufficient to just get traction for a critical stance on concussionball (gasp!)

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

#92

Post by baddox »

tamana wrote: post #87
scoofy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's a League. The entire reason for its existence is to be anticompetitive (in business).

Yes. Note the idiom "in league with."

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

#93

Post by frandroid »

btreesOfSpring wrote: post #33

For those interested in the topic, this book [0] is a pretty good starting point for understanding the modern stadium construction game. [0] http://www.amazon.com/New-Cathedrals-Politics-Construction-E...

Now if only stadia were built to last, like cathedrals...

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

#94

Post by [deleted] »

scoofy wrote: post #78
nhebb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#95

Post by brandonmenc »

Touche wrote: post #25
danharaj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> explain the popularity

Besides the hits,

1. The short season

You're always left wanting more.

There's an order of magnitude fewer NFL games compared to the NBA, MLB, or NHL. And it's convenient - you can follow pro football and have most of the year off and, during the season, most of the week off.

2. The action

Yeah, the ball is only in play for a few minutes, but there are 60-70 plays per game - that's a lot of punctuated action compared to the snail's pace of baseball or the constant back and forth of the other sports. And the plays are more likely to be do-or-die drive or game changers than in the other sports. It's way more edge-of-your-seat.

Those two features are somewhat "drug-like," imo.

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

#96

Post by pandler »

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?

Why not try both? The vibe and culture surrounding the two sports are totally different I find. Baseball teams, for instance, play almost every day as opposed to once a week for football. I think at least partially because of that (each game is less consequential), it's more common to casually watch baseball games as opposed to football where it's a proper event and people get really into every game. Depending on where you are, it's probably easier and cheaper to get tickets for a baseball game.

Two totally different sports, really. Buy some tickets to some games and see what tickles your fancy.

If you do go to a baseball game though, I recommend at least once getting bleacher seats (basically equivalent to general entry). That's where the fun happens!

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

#97

Post by derekp7 »

sehr wrote: post #71
sampo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's why I hear some people say that Wrigley Field is Chicago's largest bar, and it happens to have a game field in the middle of it.

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

#98

Post by lotyrin »

rmxt wrote: post #5
draw_down wrote: post #2

No, that's not why. Cities shouldn't do it because sports are not a public concern.

Sports are a form of entertainment....entertainment can and does drive spending.... and spending can contribute to more jobs and more tax revenue. Seems fair that sports are, in turn, a public concern. That isn't to say that building a stadium or hosting the Olympics is inherently a profitable affair.

Last I was aware, there was no evidence that this investment provided any return.

Not that it matters because that still wouldn't justify a huge investment by the public into a private entity without any ownership stake.

If the idea was really to create something resembling a grant to private organizations to create business that stimulates the economy, you would rationally have some kind of process around for screening candidates based on merit and be more diversified in your awards.

I'd like to believe it's anything other than a kind of blackmail where these organizations use their media power (== public opinion) with impunity to bully municipalities into providing them the tax revenue of citizens, wasting money that could otherwise be used for individual or public good, but that's all I can make out of it.

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

#99

Post by nostrademons »

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…

Apparently the limit is now 5% per individual, 30% per family, and stakes can be owned by irrevocable family trusts:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/05/25...

The loophole-finder in me wonders if it would be possible to create "The Mitochondrial Eve Family Trust", for all descendants of mitochondrial Eve, by invitation only. Assets could then be contributed into this trust in exchange for season tickets to a football team, and the trust would own the team. Additional restrictions (eg. X generations of residency in a certain metropolitan area) might apply.

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

#100

Post by mikeash »

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.

There are better ways to get people to educate you than to be a condescending jerk and waiting for angry responses.
Post reply on HN