I absolutely agree on the publicly funded stadium issue. It's kind of a reverse Robin Hood, taking money from the poor for the benefit of the rich.

Both of my brothers-in-law are attorneys (one is the former head of the Ohio Municipal League) who deal heavily in bond(s) and bond issues and my sister-in-law does as well with her Masters in City Administration. My other sister-in-law works for a firm that negotiates stadium naming rights, etc., but I try to ignore that -- she's still OK. Anyway, I'll let them deal with the specific economics.

I'm not talking about bond issues, though. I'm more interested in the way people "feel" about a city and its reputation.

Having grown up in a city (Columbus, Ohio) which, at that time, had no professional teams, but was surrounded by cities of roughly the same size (Cincinnati and Indianapolis -- and, slightly larger population-wise Cleveland and Pittsburgh), industrial base and demographics which had franchises, the ones with pro athletics were considered "major" cities and ours was really not. (Unless, of course, you want to count Ohio State as a professional football team)

Perhaps that kind of thing can be quantified, but I would be suspect of the conclusions because there are so many hidden variables.

Anyway, had there not been a bombing, Oklahoma City was generally not an area that I thought about (until our son went to Norman for college) except during tornado season. When the NBA moves there, though, I'll hear about it a lot.

It seems to me that if there were not benefits -- hidden or not -- no city would care about having a professional team. The "big time" cities have them. At least that's the way it appears to me -- and I've lived in a bunch of them (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Detroit, New York and Denver). I was living in Baltimore when Robert Irsay sneaked the Colts out of town literally in the middle of the night.

ETA that I've also visited and/or televised games in almost every city with a franchise as well as many with "only" major college teams. There's a different attitude.

The Sonics have played at the same location for 40 years - I assure you there's nothing wrong with Key Arena...it's perfectly regulation, or the NBA wouldn't allow games to be played there. What Bennett and other owners don't like is that it's not HUGE. I think it seats around 17,000. It's not a place designed for fine dining before a game, so it doesn't have real restaurants like you'd see at some sports arenas or airports. But it's modern enough that it has tons of concessions areas and plenty of women's bathrooms...that should be a testament to how recently it was renovated, because as women know, older arenas have few women's facilities! :) Anyway, we're still paying for the renovations to Key Arena, which now I guess will be used just for concerts and high school basketball tournaments.

I did actually look into the renovations Seattle did. Calling the Key "old" is definitely a misnomer. There are maybe only a couple of structural elements which are old. The rest was complete gutted.

Best of luck in getting a new team. I hope our new team in OKC works out.

Benefits? National status? You think people care about any city in Colorado because of the Rockies or the Nuggets? Give me a break. Outside of a handful of cities in America, everything else is fly-over territory.

And it's great that you've arbitrarily picked some random thing in a city for the prominence factor. Not a well known university, museum, zoo, beach, mountain resort, etc...you picked a sports team, made a ridiculous statement, and qualified it with a "I think".

I think you make no sense.

You're an idiot. Have something against sports, were you always picked last as a kid?

Are you a neo-nazi?

-Rudey

How do you figure this? Are you saying this is the case for all major sports?

It is generally the case but I don't know enough about hockey and soccer to say that.

The reason it works is that the revenue streams for the luxury boxes usually are tied to the owners and a percentage of the fees from general ticket sales are used to back the bonds for the stadium's construction.

http://www.google.com/search?q=new+s...ri&rls=en&sa=2

I figured I would let you look at the google results if you're really interested.

Yeah, I do think "people" care. And I do think the Rockies, Nuggetts, Broncos, Avalanche, Rapids and our other professional teams are associated with the city and its reputation.

Remember, the average person isn't college graduate and probably couldn't name a museum in most cities -- even some who live there -- but they can probably name the local professional team. My comment wasn't an arbitrary pick -- it's my opinion.

I almost always qualify my opinion with "I thinK" or something like that because I'm clearly not laboring under the assumption that I'm perfect.

You can decide who you think makes "ridiculous" comments, and I'll make my own decision as well.

I hear it's a requirement to have a high murder rate to qualify as a major city. The average person isn't a college graduate and understands murder. Murder, I say.

I think, therefore I am.

-Rudey

Unless it's just not publicized when an owner wants a new stadium, I'm not sure I can agree.

There have been plenty of brand new facilities built in all three major sports over the past 5-10 years that I can think of off the top of my head...and I'm not hearing anything about owners wanting an upgrade from any of them.

I will be willing to bet Jerry Jones, for instance, isn't going to be asking for another new stadium in five years after the completion of, most likely, the most luxurious and sophisticated place to watch a sporting event you can get. I can't imagine Cuban asking for a new place for the Mavs to play basketball in anytime soon either. American Airlines is as good as it gets. These are only a couple of examples, but still....

Also, I'm not really seeing many big changes in general seating to luxury box seats and I go to a lot of sporting events in many different places.

To quote another post: "I think you make no sense."

Sometimes the propaganda technique of transference (trying to deflect an argument by bringing up something completely out of context) just doesn't work.

Nice try, though.

Jerry Jones is a very prominent exception to the rule, as is Cuban - that I'll agree. The fact that they both operate out of Dallas is pretty much luck (for the people of Dallas), and not indicative of the larger trend.

Baseball stadiums are the best examples of the new trend toward smaller stadiums with more luxury seating - PNC in Pittsburgh, for instance, dropped about 10,000 total seats from Three Rivers, but with a much higher concentration of high-dollar, high-revenue luxury boxes. Similar things are happening in the NBA.

Football stadiums don't exactly follow the pattern, mostly because the comparably fewer games played by each team leads to a lot more sellouts (and larger capacity is valued there, mostly to appease population demand). However, luxury seating is still at a premium - the main reason for obsoleting the old Foxboro Stadium so the Pats could build Gillette was that it lacked any sort of premium seating.

The main issue isn't getting rid of regular seats completely, it's a redesign of seating to maximize revenue from luxury boxes. You have to sell a crapload of $19 seats to garner the same revenue as one corporate box.

It's exactly what the Yankees are doing with their new stadium. I'd never heard of it before (dropping regular seating to increase luxury box seating), but that's just probably because I never paid much attention to the details of other new stadiums.