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

191–200 of 290 posts

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

#191

Post by jkaunisv1 »

stevefeinstein wrote: post #52
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…

Well, it's a good thing they've locked in a team, because no one in their right mind would build one in Green Bay Wisconsin today when there are fools in warmer climates literally throwing money at anyone who will move a team.

NFL disruption tactic: calculate sites of new major cities based on projected global temperatures, ice cap melt and rising water changing coastlines; start minor league in those cities. Wait.

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

#192

Post by irishcoffee »

jimbokun wrote: post #177
v64 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's starting to all seem like Farmville. Something terribly boring, that somehow the general public has convinced itself is a lot of fun. Is it really such a crazy idea that people like things that you don't? I like football and don't like soccer. Some people have fun playing Farmville. There's no objective criteria for entertainment, everyones' brain is tickled in different ways by different activities.

"Some people have fun playing Farmville." Do they? I had this in mind when I made that comment: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cleverest-explanation-as-... Makes an interesting argument about Farmville's success being based more on creating social obligations, than on being inherently enjoyable. I was wondering if some of football's continuing popularity also rests on social obligations, like people in your munic…

> I suspect there are those, like yourself, who actually like watching the games. But I also suspect there are a large number of people who watch for social reasons.

I just can't be on the internet anymore without reading about 'social' anymore.

People watch teen mom for 'social' reasons, or 'the bachelor' for social reasons. Top chef, hells kitchen, x-files, I can keep going.

Humans are 'social' creatures by nature. Competition is human by nature. Survival of the fittest, feats of strength, preening, showing off, being knowledgeable about current events, speaking intelligently about the goings-on on the world, communication and idle chat about pop culture, thats how some people relate in their day-to-day 'shallow' interactions with others.

I can't do this whole 'social' thing anymore. Its almost getting to the point where prime numbers are offensive, because they're too unique, its not fair to the other numbers. Am I alone in this? Am I just that ignorant? Sincere question, as I'm a fairly left-leaning person highly motivated to bring the 'little guy' up and make a positive impact on humanity.

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

#193

Post by philwelch »

stplsd wrote: post #35

I am from Europe and this looks almost surreal for me. It is unheard of here that team simply packs players and go to other city. Sport culture and sport business so different in USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_Wimbledon_F.C._t...

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

#195

Post by bsder »

etler wrote: post #171
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…

They used to be very common. There used to be football and baseball shared stadiums as well as basketball and hockey shared stadiums too. I don't know why exactly it changed, I think everyone just wanted their own special place.

Stadiums purpose built for baseball are way better than dual football/baseball stadiums. They are also a lot better for other events as you are significantly closer.

The problem with football stadiums is that you really don't get a good view of the field since they are all about packing in the maximum number of people at a single event. Consequently, nobody really wants to host anything there.

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

#196

Post by ArkyBeagle »

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...

Sorry - not gonna stop liking things you don't like :)

Football and baseball are things to which people are inoculated when young. I suppose the same is true of basketball but I'm just not familiar with it beyond attempting to play it in a pickup fashion while in school.

You'd think curling would be boring, but I've watched it a few times and there's a lot going on.

And never mind golf, which I love to watch. It's been compared to watching grass grow. I can't argue.

At least in the college game, there's the issue of "tempo", which has a tactical as well as (I'm sure) a desire to reduce that time between plays. "Tactical" because it puts pressure on the defense to assemble more quickly.

It gets even worse - I like college ball, but the pros look to me like they just run their pattern and stop, where you might find a college quarterback that will improve most of a game.

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

#198

Post by rconti »

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?

Doof, correct. Planning a SW roadtrip so that's on the tip of my fingers.

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

#199

Post by joelrunyon »

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…

Well...that's just like your opinion man...

Amazed that people still think that other wide-held opinions can't be valid because one person doesn't like it.

Some people say "computer stuff" is boring. Doesn't change the fact that there are entire huge communities (this being one) dedicated to it.

Different people have different opinions. The inability to comprehend that says more about the person making that statement than it does about the people with a wide-held opinion.

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

#200

Post by rhino369 »

PeCaN wrote: post #63
mwfunk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's like Total War but with big dudes, a ball, and a time control.

Total war has time control. You obviously never tried the "Run your light calvary around the map until the attacker loses because the clock" trick.
Post reply on HN