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

131–140 of 290 posts

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

#131

Post by jimbokun »

jowiar wrote: post #79
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I actually think the experience of watching basketball, hockey, and soccer are more similar to each other in having fast paced, flowing action.

Football and baseball are more punctuated, stop-start action.

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

#132

Post by ableal »

nostrademons wrote: post #99
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…

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…

Clever, but probably some spoilsport judge would frown at families with 7 billion members.

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

#133

Post by vermontdevil »

To be fair, that stadium now can be used for conventions. It's attached to a large convention center.

The problem was for years the Convention Authority couldn't use the stadium 6 months a year (August to Jan) as NFL releases their schedule around March (I think). Conventions are typically planned far ahead than NFL.

Now maybe the Convention Authority can start to utilize the space and pare down the debt faster. Who knows.

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

#134

Post by throwaway60453 »

bringles wrote: post #91
throwaway60453 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> push for a new council

Kinda late, since the stadium is already built.

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

#135

Post by tamana »

bringles wrote: post #91
throwaway60453 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When you fire a council, you don't get the money back.

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

#136

Post by tremon »

draw_down wrote: post #2

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

Sports definitely are a public concern. Exercise improves health (well maybe this doesn't apply to football ;).

A better question would be whether these grand spectacles actually increase sport participation in the general population, and if that same effect can't be attained in a cheaper way.

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

#138

Post by ansible »

moheeb wrote: post #56
epoch1970 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The social aspect can't be ignored. Football is typically held up as the quintessential American sport in many regions of the country. Those who don't proclaim their interest or love for it do so at the risk of being seen as outsiders and potentially treated as outcasts. This starts at a very early age for many Americans due to the close ties between the education systems and football programs. Starting while they're…

I think you nailed it. " They can be seen as a form of religion, in some sense. " In my family it was Sunday School with mom and then football with Grandpa and Dad. Football is kind of like drinking...even if you don't like it at some point it is easier to just pretend and fit in.

It also has something more fundamental than religion... it is tribalism. Us versus them. You get to be part of the accepted in-group, and get to hate the out-groups. That kind of need is wired deep in people's brains.

Ideally, all this effort would be put towards a more productive end, such as rooting for your local FIRST robotics team.

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

#139

Post by rickycook »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #86
scoofy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Private company, go start yer own football league if you don't like it, etc.

that's a pretty horrendous way to change what's morally wrong with the world

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

#140

Post by [deleted] »

jimbokun wrote: post #108
joelrunyon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't fathom how football still exists today as a popular sport Your first three points make sense, but don't lead to this conclusion at all. People are not going to rationally say "football leads to traffic so I'm not going to watch it anymore." Football is entertaining, which is why it has an audience. Whether or not the negatives you outlined above are funded by the gov't is an entirely different matter.

Football is very boring. I used to enjoy it, at least when the Steelers are playing. Then I got into soccer, eventually getting a more expensive cable package to watch the Premier League. Now when I watch football again, I am painfully aware of the time between plays, the incessant commercials, and now the ever increasing number of "official reviews". Seems like every 3rd or 4th play, an official has to leave the fie…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN