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

Post by astronautjones » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 12:28 AM UTC

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…

Post by some-guy » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 12:37 AM UTC

bluedino wrote: post #170

NamTaf wrote: post #156

Why aren't stadiums shared multi-use endeavours? Here, square stadiums are used by rugby (union and league) in the winter and soccer in the summer. Oval stadiums are used by AFL in the winter and cricket in the summer. In between, they occasionally host concerts - for example, when there's away games, or mid-week, or between seasons. This seems like a way better approach than the NFL one. Is it just because NFL / bas…

The NHL (ice hockey) and NBA (basketball) share some stadiums. The NFL (football) and MLB (baseball) used to share a few but I think only one or two still do, if any. But you will find things like monster truck events, dirt bike racing. or concerts at sports stadiums quite often.

Post by wadetandy » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 12:44 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #50

ashark wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If I understand correctly, the Green Bay Packers cut up the ownership of the team something like 3,000 different ways. They did this deliberately so that the team could never move, because it would be impossible to get a majority in favor of moving. When the (first) Cleveland Browns moved, the city negotiated that they had to use a different name. They became the Baltimore Ravens, and Cleveland was able to call the n…

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 12:47 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #100

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.

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

Post by schwap » Thu, Feb 04, 2016, 1:00 AM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #121

rconti wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you live? First of all, we need to get around the inaccurately named regions of the US. If you live in the midwest (the middle of the country; from top to bottom) or the south (southwest of the country), football without a doubt. If you live anywhere else, you can pick and choose. To me, baseball is a lot more intellectually stimulating and has a lot more interesting strategy, but the more I learn about foot…

"If you live in the midwest..." Unless you live in St. Louis, then it's baseball. "...or the south (southwest of the country)" I think you mean the southeast?