Official NFL Discussion Thread

[GatorBait19]

I agree as well but I think the main problem was that one Super Bowl in I believe it was Detroit between the 49ers and Bengals. Where due to bad weather both teams had a hard time getting to the stadium.

However, I think NYC/NJ would not be as bad, because unless there is a major storm, that area does not get really bad weather.

 

lmao, they couldn't even find the stadium from the sky

 

I agree with Remi still, with the econ rebounding the superbowl in New York would be a great place (business capital) where millions of people are with tons of night clubs.

 

But the arguement for Miami and Tampa is, warm weather, only whether problem would be rain, and tons of party life as well

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Comradebot" data-cite="Comradebot" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>And is also the birthplace of the Olympics.<p> </p><p> Call me crazy, but I think that trumps New York's size and money in terms of the Olympics.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You're crazy. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> Yes, let's ignore the fact that the birthplace was not prepared to handle an event of that size. With <strong><em>SEVEN YEARS</em></strong> advance notice, they still couldn't get their act together. And let's not forget the fact that financing their end of hosting the Games almost bankrupted the entire country. VH1 could do a where are they now on Athens. Oh wait, <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2008/0721/p04s01-wogn.html" rel="external nofollow">it's been done already</a>. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1036373/Abandoned-derelict-covered-graffiti-rubbish-What-left-Athens-9billion-Olympic-glory.html" rel="external nofollow">Two</a> or <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=ro-beijinglegacy082408" rel="external nofollow">three</a> times, in fact.</p><p> </p><p> Nostalgia is all well and good, on top of preparedness. It should be the tiebreaker, not the deciding factor. Not many countries can build world class facilities and have 10,000+ additional hotel rooms online in five to seven years. Let's see how Rio does (London obviously isn't a concern). About the best part of Rio hosting in 2016 is you can buy a condo there now and dump it in 2015 for probably two to three times what you paid for it. Or keep it and rent it out for ridiculous amounts (like the German family in '96 that rented my great-aunt's house in Macon for $9,000 a week).</p><p> </p><p> And yeah, I know my bitterness is showing.</p>

[GatorBait19]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You're crazy. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /><p> </p><p> Yes, let's ignore the fact that the birthplace was not prepared to handle an event of that size. With <strong><em>SEVEN YEARS</em></strong> advance notice, they still couldn't get their act together. And let's not forget the fact that financing their end of hosting the Games almost bankrupted the entire country. VH1 could do a where are they now on Athens. Oh wait, <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2008/0721/p04s01-wogn.html" rel="external nofollow">it's been done already</a>. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1036373/Abandoned-derelict-covered-graffiti-rubbish-What-left-Athens-9billion-Olympic-glory.html" rel="external nofollow">Two</a> or <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=ro-beijinglegacy082408" rel="external nofollow">three</a> times, in fact.</p><p> </p><p> Nostalgia is all well and good, on top of preparedness. It should be the tiebreaker, not the deciding factor. Not many countries can build world class facilities and have 10,000+ additional hotel rooms online in five to seven years. Let's see how Rio does (London obviously isn't a concern). About the best part of Rio hosting in 2016 is you can buy a condo there now and dump it in 2015 for probably two to three times what you paid for it. Or keep it and rent it out for ridiculous amounts (like the German family in '96 that rented my great-aunt's house in Macon for $9,000 a week).</p><p> </p><p> <strong>And yeah, I know my bitterness is showing</strong>.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> question, if you get the Superbowl are you going? Do you go to home games now (that's more because I want to see the type of fan you are)? I went to the last two (partly because of the press pass) and I talked to people there that paid 300 a ticket for the nose bleed, plus another 10 for the beer, 8 for the dog, and 50 just for a trinket</p><p> </p><p> to me for the avg fan or even the mind blowing fan that barely goes to a game, it shouldn't matter where the Superbowl is played.</p><p> </p><p> Florida and New Orl. are great places for the super bowl because they have day life and night life, plus the fact that RJ is considered one of the top stadiums in the world, Miami has the history and so does NO. Also these three cities rely on tourism and are big service industry econ.</p><p> </p><p> Now once again I am not taking anything away from the Superbowl in New York, I think it'd be a great game, (plus the fact that I wouldn't have to go to it:D) But I think the NFL's biggest worry is the high profile stars who don't want to sit in the cold. I don't get it myself, they're more than willing to have rain fall upon them, but when it comes to the cold weather..... no way jose</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Also remember how bad China was? Olympics don't care I would assume lol</p>

[LoganRodzen]

<p>A Super Bowl in NY would be awesome. The things that are available to fill up the week leading to the game are endless. I obviously don't live in NY and don't know how the economy is but I bet it's better than most places because of all the tourism they receive year round. It's not as if the city (really) needs it - I'm sure some other places could benefit more. </p><p> </p><p>

I've only been to NYC twice but both times were memorable. I had been to cities like Boston and Montreal, but NYC was like nothing I'd ever seen before. Being from Maine that isn't saying much, but it sure left a hell of an impression on me.</p>

[Remianen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="GatorBait19" data-cite="GatorBait19" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>question, if you get the Superbowl are you going? Do you go to home games now (that's more because I want to see the type of fan you are)? I went to the last two (partly because of the press pass) and I talked to people there that paid 300 a ticket for the nose bleed, plus another 10 for the beer, 8 for the dog, and 50 just for a trinket</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> First, yes. I was at 40 in Detroit, 41 in Miami, 42 in Phoenix, and I'll be at 45 in Dallas. I'm a Broncos fan and typically attend 2-4 home games at Invesco every season (this season was unusual as I got to go to 7 games total, only 3 at Invesco though). Was at both 32 and 33 when my team did the back to back thing.</p><p> </p><p> And I wish my tickets were only $300. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="GatorBait19" data-cite="GatorBait19" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>to me for the avg fan or even the mind blowing fan that barely goes to a game, it shouldn't matter where the Superbowl is played.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I beg to differ. When you as a taxpayer are on the hook for a new stadium that's often priced well beyond your ability to actually go to the damn thing regularly (like the Cathedral of Baseball, for example), it would help if that stadium generated additional revenue to justify its expense. Events like the Super Bowl generate BILLIONS in economic activity, a lot of that in tax revenues (rental car taxes, hotel taxes, etc). And yup, I was at the MLB All-Star Game last year too. I better had been, I helped pay for the damn thing.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="GatorBait19" data-cite="GatorBait19" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Florida and New Orl. are great places for the super bowl because they have day life and night life, plus the fact that RJ is considered one of the top stadiums in the world, Miami has the history and so does NO. Also these three cities rely on tourism and are big service industry econ.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes and combined, those two places have hosted what, 18 of the 44 Super Bowls to date? Wait, no. Counting the old Tampa Stadium, 24 of the 44 Super Bowls have been held in New Orleans or Florida. MORE THAN HALF. Come on! Indianapolis built a stadium and were immediately awarded a Super Bowl. Now, I dunno if this is apparent but I've been in Indy in February. It's COLD. But Lucas Oil's retractable roof mitigates that.</p><p> </p><p> I'm not casting any aspersions on Florida or New Orleans. What I'm saying is, <em>give someone else a chance</em>. 24 of 44. If they want cold weather cities to build new stadiums, give them the same deal the Cowboys and Colts got. Otherwise, every city that isn't eligible for a Super Bowl should get the Green Bay Packers treatment (read: no one from the league saber rattling about 'the need for updated facilities'). We're not talking about Buffalo here. We're talking the Capital of the World, the largest media market this country has. To quote Dr. Evil, "Throw us a frickin' bone here". Hell, we even built a stadium for the lame ass MLS Red Bulls!</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="GatorBait19" data-cite="GatorBait19" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Also remember how bad China was? Olympics don't care I would assume lol</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I don't know about that. China did in 18-24 months what Greece couldn't do in FIVE YEARS. China's problem was culture shock more than anything else. Shutting down the airports when the opening and closing ceremonies started is something NO nation on the planet would've done. Their infrastructure was done, they built venues from scratch specifically for the events. They didn't even sneeze at the cost.</p>

[GatorBait19]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>First, yes. I was at 40 in Detroit, 41 in Miami, 42 in Phoenix, and I'll be at 45 in Dallas. I'm a Broncos fan and typically attend 2-4 home games at Invesco every season (this season was unusual as I got to go to 7 games total, only 3 at Invesco though). Was at both 32 and 33 when my team did the back to back thing.<p> </p><p> And I wish my tickets were only $300. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I beg to differ. When you as a taxpayer are on the hook for a new stadium that's often priced well beyond your ability to actually go to the damn thing regularly (like the Cathedral of Baseball, for example), it would help if that stadium generated additional revenue to justify its expense. Events like the Super Bowl generate BILLIONS in economic activity, a lot of that in tax revenues (rental car taxes, hotel taxes, etc). And yup, I was at the MLB All-Star Game last year too. I better had been, I helped pay for the damn thing.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Yes and combined, those two places have hosted what, 18 of the 44 Super Bowls to date? Wait, no. Counting the old Tampa Stadium, 24 of the 44 Super Bowls have been held in New Orleans or Florida. MORE THAN HALF. Come on! Indianapolis built a stadium and were immediately awarded a Super Bowl. Now, I dunno if this is apparent but I've been in Indy in February. It's COLD. But Lucas Oil's retractable roof mitigates that.</p><p> </p><p> I'm not casting any aspersions on Florida or New Orleans. What I'm saying is, <em>give someone else a chance</em>. 24 of 44. If they want cold weather cities to build new stadiums, give them the same deal the Cowboys and Colts got. Otherwise, every city that isn't eligible for a Super Bowl should get the Green Bay Packers treatment (read: no one from the league saber rattling about 'the need for updated facilities'). We're not talking about Buffalo here. We're talking the Capital of the World, the largest media market this country has. To quote Dr. Evil, "Throw us a frickin' bone here". Hell, we even built a stadium for the lame ass MLS Red Bulls!</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <strong>I don't know about that. China did in 18-24 months what Greece couldn't do in FIVE YEARS. China's problem was culture shock more than anything else. Shutting down the airports when the opening and closing ceremonies started is something NO nation on the planet would've done. Their infrastructure was done, they built venues from scratch specifically for the events. They didn't even sneeze at the cost</strong>.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I meant because they had other problems then infrastructure, IMHO the reason New York gets shafted so much is because of the small area. People don't think of New York the State, they think New York the city. Outside of the city though there is a lot of space, and the Olympics in New York would give teams like Bills, Knicks, Nets, Rangers, etc their new stadiums</p>

[BHK1978]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="GatorBait19" data-cite="GatorBait19" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I meant because they had other problems then infrastructure, IMHO the reason New York gets shafted so much is because of the small area. People don't think of New York the State, they think New York the city. Outside of the city though there is a lot of space, and the Olympics in New York would give teams like Bills, Knicks, Nets, Rangers, etc their new stadiums</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Buffalo does not even deserve to have a team. Heck I always rag on Patriots fans for not supporting their team when they stunk. However, at least the Patriots fans did start to show up again when the team started to win.</p><p> </p><p> You can't say that for the Bills fans. In the 1990's they had some of the greatest teams but the fans did not even show up to watch them. Now that they suck they really don't support them.<img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[GatorBait19]

<p>also, I don't ever seeing Packers or Bears getting a new stadium any time soon. There is to much history with them, just like the Garden, Fenway, and Wrigley</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>

Also a big reason why Cowboys got theirs, is the capacity they can sit, AZ because of the design of the stadium.</p><p> </p><p>

It's not always about where it is, but the also the look of the stadium.</p><p> </p><p>

The last one in Cali was in San Deigo if I am correct, and that's because all their Stadiums are ugly. I had to go to a Seahawks game last year and their Stadium is truly breath taking, but they'll never get a Superbowl. Packers and Bears have History, but open roof Stadiums are a turn off.</p><p> </p><p>

The Tribune down here also works with WADE 620 AM and when Tampa had the Superbowl Roger (Comish) was on with Dan Silio talking about the Superbowl and Silio (whose from Connecticut) asked why haven't we had a cold weather game. Roger replied with "We have, we had Detroit a couple years back and Lucas Oil here in a couple". Silio response was "No I mean a real cold game, one where snow might fall, some of the greatest games in history have been played in snow". Roger's response was quick and to the point "Simple, unlike rain, snow provides a different challenge, not just for the players and coaches, but for the fans, they pay hundreds of dollars to watch our game and we want to make sure they are comfortable."</p><p> </p><p>

So that could be another reason. But Remi, if New York gets the Superbowl, when I got up there to take notes for the game I get two press passes I'll give you the other <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

[GatorBait19]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Buffalo does not even deserve to have a team. Heck I always rag on Patriots fans for not supporting their team when they stunk. However, at least the Patriots fans did start to show up again when the team started to win.<p> </p><p> You can't say that for the Bills fans. In the 1990's they had some of the greatest teams but the fans did not even show up to watch them. Now that they suck they really don't support them.<img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> eh, Bills fans are die hard and passionate. Remember though they play near a bunch of other teams and Buffalo is a dying city, I remember going up there this year for the Bucs vs Bills and they were pretty full, but the stadium sucks, team is horrible, and it was windy.</p><p> </p><p> Look at the Bucs, they play in what many people call the crown jew of the NFL, they have one of the greatest training facilties in the NFL and they were horrible last year, players don't want to sign here (even though you have all these great things, like those two things and no state income tax) also even with the stadium being a nice as it is, we couldn't draw fans cause we suck</p>

[BHK1978]

Yes but the Bills did not draw when they had the best teams in the AFC. They were not drawing when they had Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, etc. Their games were being blacked out locally because the fans did not support them. Granted they do play in a large stadium and it gets really crappy up there in the winter.

[GatorBait19]

Yes but the Bills did not draw when they had the best teams in the AFC. They were not drawing when they had Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, etc. Their games were being blacked out locally because the fans did not support them. Granted they do play in a large stadium and it gets really crappy up there in the winter.

 

I could be very wrong, but I remember seeing game footage of them during those four superbowl years and having packed stadiums

[BHK1978]

I could be very wrong, but I remember seeing game footage of them during those four superbowl years and having packed stadiums

 

I could be wrong as well, maybe someone with more knowledge could give us an answer one way or the other.

 

Actually never mind, I can't find anything that backs up what I said and everything that backs up what you said (it being a recent thing). So I guess I was wrong (but I am always wrong so it is no big deal).

[Remianen]

I meant because they had other problems then infrastructure, IMHO the reason New York gets shafted so much is because of the small area. People don't think of New York the State, they think New York the city. Outside of the city though there is a lot of space, and the Olympics in New York would give teams like Bills, Knicks, Nets, Rangers, etc their new stadiums

 

That's the culture shock I was talking about. Snot rockets, for example, are a way of life in China. It's why the citizens of Beijing and the surrounding areas had to take CLASSES in how to act while the foreigners were swarming their towns.

 

And NYC is the only 'New York' that matters. We have all the facilities in the downstate area needed to host the Olympics. Heck, for the major sports, we wouldn't even need to reuse facilities like many past cities have done. Basketball in MSG, Baseball in the Cathedral (Citi Field for the prelims, only the important games should be held at Yankee Stadium), and so on.

 

also, I don't ever seeing Packers or Bears getting a new stadium any time soon. There is to much history with them, just like the Garden, Fenway, and Wrigley

 

No, the Packers won't get a new stadium because they can't really afford a stadium up to modern specs. Bar has been raised. Do you really see a billion dollar stadium being built...in GREEN BAY? That's not an insult on the area residents, it's a testament to their priorities. They can't tack on taxes on tourists to offset the cost like NYC or south/west central Florida or Phoenix can, because they don't get the kind of tourism volume to make that worth doing. The population and income differences also lend credence to the 'why would we pay for a billion dollar stadium?' issue.

 

The Bears COULD get a new stadium, if the McCaskeys wanted one. But they'd have to pony up part of the cost and that's not how they operate.

 

Also a big reason why Cowboys got theirs, is the capacity they can sit, AZ because of the design of the stadium.

 

It's not always about where it is, but the also the look of the stadium.

 

Um, you don't really believe this, do you? If you truly believe this, then explain the Super Bowl committee basically telling the Niners that if they built a new stadium, the committee would support and encourage a Super Bowl be held there. Is that because they like the look of the stadium (that hasn't even moved beyond the conceptual stages yet)? True, support and encourage is not the same as guarantee but that's just lawyer speak. When Cowboys Stadium was constructed, how long after was it awarded a Super Bowl? The first owner's meeting after the stadium had been officially realized (read: the foundation is down so there's no turning back now), six months after Jerry Jones revealed the stadium's full design plan to the public. Until some city government calls the NFL's bluff and tries to get a guarantee in writing, that's the closest to a guarantee that there is.

 

The last one in Cali was in San Deigo if I am correct, and that's because all their Stadiums are ugly. I had to go to a Seahawks game last year and their Stadium is truly breath taking, but they'll never get a Superbowl. Packers and Bears have History, but open roof Stadiums are a turn off.

 

Well, I don't know the difference between an ugly stadium and a pretty one. All I care about are the facilities, the boxes, the seats, the logistical details. I also think that playing football in a bubble is like scuba diving in your bathtub so open roof stadiums are my preference.

 

The Tribune down here also works with WADE 620 AM and when Tampa had the Superbowl Roger (Comish) was on with Dan Silio talking about the Superbowl and Silio (whose from Connecticut) asked why haven't we had a cold weather game. Roger replied with "We have, we had Detroit a couple years back and Lucas Oil here in a couple". Silio response was "No I mean a real cold game, one where snow might fall, some of the greatest games in history have been played in snow". Roger's response was quick and to the point "Simple, unlike rain, snow provides a different challenge, not just for the players and coaches, but for the fans, they pay hundreds of dollars to watch our game and we want to make sure they are comfortable."

 

Does this not completely invalidate your 'it's not where it is, it's what it looks like' assertion?

 

So that could be another reason. But Remi, if New York gets the Superbowl, when I got up there to take notes for the game I get two press passes I'll give you the other

 

Wish I could take you up on that. But if New York gets a Super Bowl (which I seriously doubt), I'd need somewhere around 100 tickets for all the friends and family that are no doubt going to want to come in for the game.

 

I'm curious though. How many people outside of Tampa call Raymond James the crown jewel of the NFL? Because given the number of people I know in Indianapolis, I hear the same thing from them about Lucas Oil. And let's not even talk about what people in Dallas say about their stadium. How could a 10+ year old stadium be 'the crown jewel' when there are better stadiums in existence?

 

Besides, I know people in Ybor City who think RJ is an eyesore and a waste of taxpayer dollars, given the underhanded way the referendum to get it financed was handled? (I dunno wth that means but that's what I was told)

[GatorBait19]

That's the culture shock I was talking about. Snot rockets, for example, are a way of life in China. It's why the citizens of Beijing and the surrounding areas had to take CLASSES in how to act while the foreigners were swarming their towns.

 

And NYC is the only 'New York' that matters. We have all the facilities in the downstate area needed to host the Olympics. Heck, for the major sports, we wouldn't even need to reuse facilities like many past cities have done. Basketball in MSG, Baseball in the Cathedral (Citi Field for the prelims, only the important games should be held at Yankee Stadium), and so on.

 

 

 

No, the Packers won't get a new stadium because they can't really afford a stadium up to modern specs. Bar has been raised. Do you really see a billion dollar stadium being built...in GREEN BAY? That's not an insult on the area residents, it's a testament to their priorities. They can't tack on taxes on tourists to offset the cost like NYC or south/west central Florida or Phoenix can, because they don't get the kind of tourism volume to make that worth doing. The population and income differences also lend credence to the 'why would we pay for a billion dollar stadium?' issue.

 

The Bears COULD get a new stadium, if the McCaskeys wanted one. But they'd have to pony up part of the cost and that's not how they operate.

 

 

 

Um, you don't really believe this, do you? If you truly believe this, then explain the Super Bowl committee basically telling the Niners that if they built a new stadium, the committee would support and encourage a Super Bowl be held there. Is that because they like the look of the stadium (that hasn't even moved beyond the conceptual stages yet)? True, support and encourage is not the same as guarantee but that's just lawyer speak. When Cowboys Stadium was constructed, how long after was it awarded a Super Bowl? The first owner's meeting after the stadium had been officially realized (read: the foundation is down so there's no turning back now), six months after Jerry Jones revealed the stadium's full design plan to the public. Until some city government calls the NFL's bluff and tries to get a guarantee in writing, that's the closest to a guarantee that there is.

 

 

 

Well, I don't know the difference between an ugly stadium and a pretty one. All I care about are the facilities, the boxes, the seats, the logistical details. I also think that playing football in a bubble is like scuba diving in your bathtub so open roof stadiums are my preference.

 

 

 

Does this not completely invalidate your 'it's not where it is, it's what it looks like' assertion?

 

 

 

Wish I could take you up on that. But if New York gets a Super Bowl (which I seriously doubt), I'd need somewhere around 100 tickets for all the friends and family that are no doubt going to want to come in for the game.

 

I'm curious though. How many people outside of Tampa call Raymond James the crown jewel of the NFL? Because given the number of people I know in Indianapolis, I hear the same thing from them about Lucas Oil. And let's not even talk about what people in Dallas say about their stadium. How could a 10+ year old stadium be 'the crown jewel' when there are better stadiums in existence?

 

Besides, I know people in Ybor City who think RJ is an eyesore and a waste of taxpayer dollars, given the underhanded way the referendum to get it financed was handled? (I dunno wth that means but that's what I was told)

 

What I meant by look like is, they like their stadiums looking (NEW) that's what I should have put that more than what their designs are. Lucas and Ford got theirs because they are domed.

 

And Ray Jay is considered the crown Jew by a lot of writers and NFL people, it has a ship in it, the contruction of it (how it fits the Bucs with endzone sections looking like old age shacks), and the field and how it drains to how the grass grows. Plus the fact they have two of the biggest Video Screens in the league (not the biggest so not to be taken out of context)

 

A referendum is a direct vote either yes or no. Pretty much the Stadium was on a bill with new school building and improvement to public safety, so it passed 53 to 47.

 

How do you know people in Ybor City....... they have a grand population of like 10, it's not even a city. They fall under Tampa rules and city limits. It's more of a club area with Ghetto's surrounding it. also I do not believe it is an eyeore (better than George Steinbrenner Field ) they keep it nice on the outside with 8 huge poster of star players every year. Also it isn't really around anything. Maybe the old stadium was the eye sore

 

The Stadium only cost 168.5 million to build (back in 97), it was built mainly from volunteers and the waste of money I could agree with but I blame that more on government than the Bucs. Bucs were just smart, they were on the verge of moving, city panicked and they signed a lease were Bucs made most of all the money with none of the cost. But they don't make the money of concerts, college games, or other events. It has brought 2 Superbowls in 10 years and more than likely will add a 3 by the 16 year, which have helped pay for it really. City last year announced we made probably 500 million just from the two superbowls, over 600 millions from the Outback bowl games, so yeah.

 

Also, Citi Field and Yankee Stadium would be useless in the Olympics.

1) Baseball is played during the Olympics (the majors)

2) there is no baseball in the Olympics. (anymore)

 

Also I've talked to people up in New York, who believe Madison Square Garden is a joke, they say it's nothing like it use to be and question if the renovations will even make that big of a difference. I've Also heard that it is an eye sore itself

[GatorBait19]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation

 

wow that would be amazing, I doubt he gets it (because of the simple fact that no one knows what will happen with the CBA and the salary cap) but this could be interesting

[TheEdgeOfReason]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation

 

wow that would be amazing, I doubt he gets it (because of the simple fact that no one knows what will happen with the CBA and the salary cap) but this could be interesting

 

He can want all he likes. No way he gets it. Raiders already regret giving Aso $15m a year, Revis ain't worth another $5m on top of that. Not to mention he'd need at least one more year playing at this level before I'd think about giving him Aso money.

[GatorBait19]

He can want all he likes. No way he gets it. Raiders already regret giving Aso $15m a year, Revis ain't worth another $5m on top of that. Not to mention he'd need at least one more year playing at this level before I'd think about giving him Aso money.

 

something I found interesting about the article, was how Ryan needs Revis for his defense to work. Now I am not saying Revis isn't a great CB (I refuse to put him as the best until he plays the same next year), also many seem to forget the Jets had the 8th best defense 5th in scoring, but Ryan's defense have always finished 6th or better, twice being 1st (Ravens in 06-07, Jets 09-10), once in 2nd (Ravens 08-09), once in third (Ravens 05-06), once in 6th (Ravens 07-09) and all of those were with a good CB in McAllister, but he was never on the same level that Revis played with last year. So I found that interesting.

 

But I believe with out Revis he's D would still do well. If your D being a great D relies on one player it would scare me because of the fact a simple injury or contract dispute hurts you.

[Remianen]

A referendum is a direct vote either yes or no. Pretty much the Stadium was on a bill with new school building and improvement to public safety, so it passed 53 to 47.

 

Wait. So the decision to fund a new stadium was attached to an issue regarding building new schools and improving public safety (i.e. buying new police cars, upgrading the jail, etc)? Okay, that's shady. If people say 'no', the schools and cops suffer. If they say 'yes', the local team gets a new stadium. Damned if you do....

 

How do you know people in Ybor City....... they have a grand population of like 10, it's not even a city. They fall under Tampa rules and city limits. It's more of a club area with Ghetto's surrounding it. also I do not believe it is an eyeore (better than George Steinbrenner Field ) they keep it nice on the outside with 8 huge poster of star players every year. Also it isn't really around anything. Maybe the old stadium was the eye sore

 

Ybor City reminds me of Chelsea (10 years ago, at least) in a lot of ways. It seems like the spot where many of the young professionals who have lost their freakin' minds (given the prices of condos there, due almost solely to the neighborhood) gravitate to. Mind you, I'm not saying RayJay is a bad thing. I'm one of those people who believes area residents need to STFU and put out when it comes to building new stadiums. You wanna keep the team? Then expect to build a new venue every 15-25 years and quityerbitchin.

 

The Stadium only cost 168.5 million to build (back in 97), it was built mainly from volunteers and the waste of money I could agree with but I blame that more on government than the Bucs. Bucs were just smart, they were on the verge of moving, city panicked and they signed a lease were Bucs made most of all the money with none of the cost. But they don't make the money of concerts, college games, or other events. It has brought 2 Superbowls in 10 years and more than likely will add a 3 by the 16 year, which have helped pay for it really. City last year announced we made probably 500 million just from the two superbowls, over 600 millions from the Outback bowl games, so yeah.

 

Take those numbers with a grain of salt. I can tell you unequivocally, they're exaggerated. City governments use a term 'total economic impact' with regards to big events (meetings, conventions, sporting events) and that tends to include numbers they couldn't possibly have access to.

 

Also, Citi Field and Yankee Stadium would be useless in the Olympics.

1) Baseball is played during the Olympics (the majors)

2) there is no baseball in the Olympics. (anymore)

 

Baseball is going to be re-added to the Olympics at some point (perhaps 2020), I have no doubt of that.

 

Also I've talked to people up in New York, who believe Madison Square Garden is a joke, they say it's nothing like it use to be and question if the renovations will even make that big of a difference. I've Also heard that it is an eye sore itself

 

Those people are morons, sorry. MSG isn't anywhere near the same as RayJay. Isn't that kinda obvious? There's a difference between a new stadium with next to no history and an arena that has hosted many of the largest events in history, across all entertainment platforms. I could see that argument being made about Yankee Stadium (since many of its area's residents can't really afford to attend many games there and it's not 'The House That Ruth Built', being new and all) but MSG? Come on. I don't think even the stench of the modern day hapless Knicks could tarnish that arena's reputation.

 

The Jets are in serious trouble though. Mangold isn't much of a concern (it doesn't take much to be the highest paid center in the league) but Brick is going to cost HUGE and Revis deserves Asamougha money. Harris is iffy. It's not too hard to replace an inside 'backer in Rex's scheme.

[GatorBait19]

Wait. So the decision to fund a new stadium was attached to an issue regarding building new schools and improving public safety (i.e. buying new police cars, upgrading the jail, etc)? Okay, that's shady. If people say 'no', the schools and cops suffer. If they say 'yes', the local team gets a new stadium. Damned if you do....

 

 

 

Ybor City reminds me of Chelsea (10 years ago, at least) in a lot of ways. It seems like the spot where many of the young professionals who have lost their freakin' minds (given the prices of condos there, due almost solely to the neighborhood) gravitate to. Mind you, I'm not saying RayJay is a bad thing. I'm one of those people who believes area residents need to STFU and put out when it comes to building new stadiums. You wanna keep the team? Then expect to build a new venue every 15-25 years and quityerbitchin.

 

 

 

Take those numbers with a grain of salt. I can tell you unequivocally, they're exaggerated. City governments use a term 'total economic impact' with regards to big events (meetings, conventions, sporting events) and that tends to include numbers they couldn't possibly have access to.

 

 

 

Baseball is going to be re-added to the Olympics at some point (perhaps 2020), I have no doubt of that.

 

 

 

Those people are morons, sorry. MSG isn't anywhere near the same as RayJay. Isn't that kinda obvious? There's a difference between a new stadium with next to no history and an arena that has hosted many of the largest events in history, across all entertainment platforms. I could see that argument being made about Yankee Stadium (since many of its area's residents can't really afford to attend many games there and it's not 'The House That Ruth Built', being new and all) but MSG? Come on. I don't think even the stench of the modern day hapless Knicks could tarnish that arena's reputation.

The Jets are in serious trouble though. Mangold isn't much of a concern (it doesn't take much to be the highest paid center in the league) but Brick is going to cost HUGE and Revis deserves Asamougha money. Harris is iffy. It's not too hard to replace an inside 'backer in Rex's scheme.

 

I didn't mean the rep part, I meant people say it's an eyesore and it isn't getting any better.

 

but that it's an eyesore, cost a lot, and people question the renovations seeing how it's the second time. No one is questioning the reputation of the building. I just know people who've been there and don't see it as the same building it use to be and believe MSG V should have been accepted instead of renovating the 50 year old building

 

and on the Jets, someone once told me, with success comes trouble. Jets did well last year and players did well, now they want their money.

 

I also read on ESPN about certain players who have been trouble makers in the Labor talks complaing now about being restricted or not being signed, found the restricted players extremely funny that they are complaining about not getting long term contracts.

[BHK1978]

Those people are morons, sorry. MSG isn't anywhere near the same as RayJay. Isn't that kinda obvious? There's a difference between a new stadium with next to no history and an arena that has hosted many of the largest events in history, across all entertainment platforms. I could see that argument being made about Yankee Stadium (since many of its area's residents can't really afford to attend many games there and it's not 'The House That Ruth Built', being new and all) but MSG? Come on. I don't think even the stench of the modern day hapless Knicks could tarnish that arena's reputation.

 

The Jets are in serious trouble though. Mangold isn't much of a concern (it doesn't take much to be the highest paid center in the league) but Brick is going to cost HUGE and Revis deserves Asamougha money. Harris is iffy. It's not too hard to replace an inside 'backer in Rex's scheme.

 

Tad bit off topic but when I went to the Royal Rumble a couple of years back I was all psyched to finally get to see MSG. And let me tell you I was very disappointed in that place, it was a dump! The seats sucked, it was hard to get in and out of there, and they started to let everybody in at one time. When this happened all I could think about was, what happened at the Who concert in Cincinnati in the 1970’s.

 

I respect that place for all of the great history that has happened there, but for an arena that was opened in 1968, well it shows its age. I mean the old Boston Garden with all its warts was a better arena in my opinion and that is not saying much either because the place was a crap hole as well.

 

I know as a New Yorker you probably view it with Rose Colored glasses. However, I just cannot see the reason why everyone makes that place out to be great.

[Remianen]

I know as a New Yorker you probably view it with Rose Colored glasses. However, I just cannot see the why everyone makes that place out to be great.

 

Uh, no. I don't like MSG at all. I'm a modernist. I think old venues need to keep up with the times or be replaced. I was actually in favor of the plan to tear down the Central Post Office across the street and expand Penn Station with a new MSG as the centerpiece. It would modernize the arena significantly while keeping it essentially in the same place it's in now.

 

But judging an arena made in an era where luxury was a tertiary consideration on today's standards, is totally wrong as well. There are movie theaters that are more comfortable and luxurious than MSG. But it's like saying a Chevy Malibu is a better car than a Studebaker Hawk. Fuel economy and "power" weren't primary considerations for cars in the Studebaker's era but they are now. Likewise, when MSG was built, many of the things fans value today weren't primary considerations. How many arenas built in the 60s and 70s had luxury boxes or premium seating? MSG's last renovation encompassed the facade, to give it the same look, but updated. Renovating the outside is all well and good, but not when the INSIDE is still like a roach motel.

 

Nowadays, arenas need to be destinations in and of themselves. It's one reason I love the new Yankee Stadium. In fact, since, what late 80s/early 90s when Camden Yards and Skydome opened, this has been the trend in new builds. I just take issue with 'MSG is an eyesore' because it's asinine. A building, surrounded by several TALLER buildings (Post Office, the New Yorker, the Hotel Pennsylvania, the Southgate Tower, MACY'S Herald Square, etc), is an eyesore?!

[GatorBait19]

Uh, no. I don't like MSG at all. I'm a modernist. I think old venues need to keep up with the times or be replaced. I was actually in favor of the plan to tear down the Central Post Office across the street and expand Penn Station with a new MSG as the centerpiece. It would modernize the arena significantly while keeping it essentially in the same place it's in now.

 

But judging an arena made in an era where luxury was a tertiary consideration on today's standards, is totally wrong as well. There are movie theaters that are more comfortable and luxurious than MSG. But it's like saying a Chevy Malibu is a better car than a Studebaker Hawk. Fuel economy and "power" weren't primary considerations for cars in the Studebaker's era but they are now. Likewise, when MSG was built, many of the things fans value today weren't primary considerations. How many arenas built in the 60s and 70s had luxury boxes or premium seating? MSG's last renovation encompassed the facade, to give it the same look, but updated. Renovating the outside is all well and good, but not when the INSIDE is still like a roach motel.

 

Nowadays, arenas need to be destinations in and of themselves. It's one reason I love the new Yankee Stadium. In fact, since, what late 80s/early 90s when Camden Yards and Skydome opened, this has been the trend in new builds. I just take issue with 'MSG is an eyesore' because it's asinine. A building, surrounded by several TALLER buildings (Post Office, the New Yorker, the Hotel Pennsylvania, the Southgate Tower, MACY'S Herald Square, etc), is an eyesore?!

 

http://www.thewallpapers.org/photo/9590/madison_square_building-003.jpg

 

just looks like an eyesore to me, but that's my opinion

[GruntMark]

Clearly time to replace it with Futurama's Madison Cube Garden.

 

But yeah, its not a very attractive building.

[GatorBait19]

Clearly time to replace it with Futurama's Madison Cube Garden.

 

But yeah, its not a very attractive building.

 

 

i'd buy season tickets if they did

[Remianen]

http://www.thewallpapers.org/photo/9590/madison_square_building-003.jpg

 

just looks like an eyesore to me, but that's my opinion

 

By that logic, so are BOTH Guggenheim museums. The fact that you don't even SEE the arena from all four cardinal directions, before you actually get it to (no, not even from 33rd street - you see the Borders on the corner), makes me question that. An eyesore to me (coming from a big city perspective) is one that cannot be ignored and stands out like a sore thumb within the neighborhood it's located in. Given the variety of architecture (again, the Post Office, Macy's, the nasty dump called the Hotel Pennsylvania, several of the buildings that house fashion houses, etc) in that neighborhood, MSG doesn't fit that description for me. YMMV.