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

211–220 of 290 posts

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

#211

Post by adventured »

jimbokun wrote: post #115
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?

Probably football if you're interested in contemporary culture, baseball if you're more interested in U.S. history. Baseball has more history and tradition associated with it, football is currently much more popular.

To be fair, the MLB is wildly popular.

73.7 million attendance last year, by far the world's most attended league. There isn't a close second. To pull 30,517 fans per game to 2,417 games is truly astounding.

To put it into context, the MLB is almost as popular as the NBA and NHL combined.

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

#212

Post by serge2k »

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…

> Soccer, the action flows pretty constantly

Yeah, but it's the same level of action in a single NFL play spread over an entire match.

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

#213

Post by serge2k »

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...

I don't watch normally but I left the seahawks playoff games on in the background while I did other stuff. It's okay.

Watching with other people is pretty good. You chat while the commentators are going on about whatever or they are playing yet another incessant commercial then you watch the play and go back to talking.

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

#214

Post by serge2k »

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.

I had a good time at the last baseball I went to (company event).

Didn't even see a minute of baseball.

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

#215

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

ableal wrote: post #132
nostrademons wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It wouldn't make sense to consider family lineage from before the team existed. That alone limits how much you can expand the pool of eligible shareholders.

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

#216

Post by cmurf »

adventured wrote: post #204
gozur88 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What infuriates people is these deals are always sold to the public as some sort of net-positive redevelopment, instead of what's really happening, which is a transfer of tax money to team owners. With orchestras and ballets and performing arts centers everybody knows up front you have an ongoing financial liability. And the numbers are smaller.

> which is a transfer of tax money to team owners It's primarily a transfer of money to players. In the next ten years players will earn around $50 to $55 billion in income. That's drastically beyond anything owners will either earn via operations or extract through capital gains via a sale. Take the Houston Texans for example. They're stated as the 7th most valuable NFL franchise per Forbes, generating $114m in oper…

That makes me feel better, actually. It's obscene money, and I don't agree with the subsidy. But, the players get beat up, and CET. Some commit suicide.

Fans paying high ticket prices, parking, meh whatever, make them pay more instead of begging from taxpayers though.

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

#217

Post by chucksmash »

giarc wrote: post #36

I live in Calgary and our NHL arena is nearing the end of it's life. Our mayor, Naheed Nenshi, has been very vocal about public funding for arena's and is holding the owners group and the NHLs 'feet to the fire' so to speak. >I have said for a long time — and continue to strongly believe — that public money must be for public benefit and not private profit. [0] I don't think he's necessarily against using public mone…

*Atlanta Flames

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

#218

Post by curun1r »

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…

If you're trying to game the system, why try to create a definition for family when one already exists that serves your purpose?

Just have your team be owned by the Hominidae family.

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

#219

Post by ocean3 »

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…

If you don't enjoy some sport then it can be boring. As a cricket fan that too "Test" cricket(the one which takes 5 days) to complete i find "Soccer" or Football as its know here boring. Cricket even has regular scheduled breaks for commercials. I used to love football at one time, but too many boring draws and player behavior led me away from it.

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

#220

Post by adamwong246 »

ansible wrote: post #138
moheeb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you ever heard of Dunbar's Number? http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
Post reply on HN