Superdome!?!

dg1979us

Purple Hawk wrote:

Like I said, we could debate this all night. My guess is that Bourbon street is the main attraction in NO. and they don't depend on taxpayer dollars. I just think that private business should build their own homes.

Im not denying that bourbon street is the main attraction. But the nites leading up to the sugar bowl or superbowl you probably have40- 50,000 tourists who are going to spend there money on bourbon street, or somewhere else in the city.

Purple Hawk

dg1979us wrote:

Im not denying that bourbon street is the main attraction. But the nites leading up to the sugar bowl or superbowl you probably have40- 50,000 tourists who are going to spend there money on bourbon street, or somewhere else in the city.

I understand, I just would like to see the numbers.

tybird

Purple Hawk wrote:

Like I said, we could debate this all night. My guess is that Bourbon street is the main attraction in NO. and they don't depend on taxpayer dollars. I just think that private business should build their own homes.

The Saints don't own the Superdome.......I believe that it is publicly owned.

even flow?

For all the white people that will be filling the seats, it better get fixed. It will give those displaced people who now don't call New Orleans home a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside knowing that their football team has a stadium to call home again.

On on the bright side. If the place floods again, they will have a nice shiney palace to retreat too.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

On MNF they just said that it cost $185 million to renovate that stadium...where are our priorities again?

Probably in the same place yours were while you were watching MNF.

Pacomc79

ryan198 wrote:

On MNF they just said that it cost $185 million to renovate that stadium...where are our priorities again?

before you go crazy on that, over 150 billion has already been spent down there by various government and private entities just trying to rebuild infrastructure, (infrastructure they needed before the F'ing storm but that's another story and on Trailers and paying contractors etc. etc. etc.

Benson is ok, let me temper myself first, because there are some really bad ones.... Benson makes a case as the worst owner in the NFL. They have a GREAT fanbase down there, but many I've spoken to said they'd help that A hole pack if he wants to move the team to San Antonio. He overcharges the hell out of the fans for really bad end zone upper deck seats (for a couple years they were 10 bucks in Atlanta I believe they are in the 70 dollar range in NO which is ridiculous. The result is they don't sell out games, and that loses the TV revenue as well, Benson is pissed there aren't more corporations in NO that he can sell luxury boxes to. Not only that, the city essentially gave them the new land in Meterie(sp) for the new facility just as the old one mysteriously burned down leaving Benson to collect that money.

Essentially, the Saints are a diversion, having been down there helping the cleanup effort, they deserve a freaking break. They sold out the basketball games and they've sold out the Saints games too. It's important sometimes for the psyche to have that semblence of normalcy, or point to rally around. Atlanta is the perfect team to come in on monday because we've always had a friendly rivalry with our neighbors to the south. Billions are being spent elsewhere, 185 million is a drop in the bucket when you think about the interest it brings to the region with the NFL (Reggie Bush, Deuce McCalister etc) and then Bowl Games like the Sugar Bowl that bring in millions and millions of tourist dollars that cross pollinate, people see how great down town NO is and they want to come back. Ultimately, some difficult decisions are being made about reconstruction, I don't fault them one bit for making over a 37 year old stadium, it was due anyway. Nagin's folly just made it a necessity. Thousands of jobs depend simply on the Sugar Bowl coming into town

Maybe one day they will get a decent Owner in that town, but that's about as rare as a good politican in those parts.

RainDog

I don't know if I'm the best person to comment on this, because I'm not really much of a football fan - casual at best. But, as mentioned by a number of people here already, the Superdome is more than just a stadium for the Saints. We've got the Sugar Bowl, the Super Bowl is here every few years (we've hosted more Super Bowls than any other city), the Endymion Mardi Gras party, and a host of other tertiary events.

To be honest, while 185 million sounds like a lot - and it is - it's a little less than I thought it would be. The Superdome is old, and I figured with standard renovations on top of storm damage, we'd be paying either way. Hell, tearing it down would have cost a lot too.

Plus, it looks cool.

As a side note, I worked the loading dock for the NFL the last time the Super Bowl was here. While I didn't get to see the game, I did get in free for the Friday night concert (Sting, No Doubt, etc. - and all the Free Drinks I could handle) and the pre-game brunch (buffet style with standard breakfast fare along side pasta, lobster, salmon, steak, ice sculptures, living statues, and all the Free Drinks I could handle). They also set me up with some pretty decent Super Bowl memorabilia like tote bags, ball caps, and, oh yeah, a veritable warehouse full of unused booze (did I mention all the Free Drinks I could handle?). I must say, it was one of the best jobs I ever had, temporary though it was. Almost made a hard core football fan outta me.

So, I can attest to first hand observation of all the money this thing can generate. Or maybe my vision was a little skewed. I seem to remember there being lots of booze, maybe.

1970RR

Purple Hawk wrote:

I'm interested in seeing those articles because we can debate this allnight, but i'm interested in the facts, do taxpayers actually see a profit, or a deficit? ryan seems to know the field, and scientific research always trumps opinions

Try these, although subject is the baseball stadium in DC I think it would apply to all stadiums:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp89.pdf

http://www.reason.com/sullum/111204.shtml

ryan198

farfromglorified wrote:

Probably in the same place yours were while you were watching MNF.

I watch monday night football because it is my job to watch sports and evaulate it from a critical standpoint, not because I stand to make millions of dollars off of it.

jlew24asu

ryan198 wrote:

I watch monday night football because it is my job to watch sports

damn I need that job

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

I watch monday night football because it is my job to watch sports and evaulate it from a critical standpoint, not because I stand to make millions of dollars off of it.

Oh. I see. That's totally different.

ryan198

farfromglorified wrote:

Oh. I see. That's totally different.

It is because I am questioning/training future workers in the sport industry in what they are doing to and for society. If these students see who and/or what sport benefits perhaps positive social change can be made. What's your problem with that?

btw your quote only works if capitalism erases history, which it doesn't.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

It is because I am questioning/training future workers in the sport industry in what they are doing to and for society. If these students see who and/or what sport benefits perhaps positive social change can be made. What's your problem with that?

I understand. Nothing in it for you. Pure sacrifice. I totally get it.

btw your quote only works if capitalism erases history, which it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. Nothing does. Regardless, "erasing history" has nothing to do with the point being made.

dg1979us

ryan198 wrote:

I watch monday night football because it is my job to watch sports and evaulate it from a critical standpoint, not because I stand to make millions of dollars off of it.

Just curious, but what kind of job makes you watch sports and evaluate it from a critical eye other than being a scout? You cant get the social ramifications of how a stadium benefits a city by watching a football game, so just kind of curious what it is you do and why watching MNF is in anyway beneficial to what you do? And I love football, so not complaining thta you watch football, just dont really see how watching it gives you any information into the postives or negatives it has on society.

ryan198

dg1979us wrote:

Just curious, but what kind of job makes you watch sports and evaluate it from a critical eye other than being a scout? You cant get the social ramifications of how a stadium benefits a city by watching a football game, so just kind of curious what it is you do and why watching MNF is in anyway beneficial to what you do? And I love football, so not complaining thta you watch football, just dont really see how watching it gives you any information into the postives or negatives it has on society.

Well I could go on all day with this, but... the main premise is that sport has major a/effects on society and society has major a/effects on sport (Marx's dialectic ontology). So in other words sport is a major pedagogical (big word for teaching) tool in our daily lives. Think, for example, how long you spend watching sports per week, vs. say sitting and reading a book on the economic system of China. For most people the former is far longer and more exciting than the later, so you are then involved in a form of engaged learning - meaning that you process and learn more even if you don't think that it is learning.

What you are thinking of as critical is in the utilitarian sense of how to make sport more exciting. What I view as critical is what's going on in the (sporting) spectacle (Guy Debord has great work on the spectacle) that reflects, is reflected by, and simulataneously shapes society. So, in other words, what are the historical and contemporary dominant, subversive, and emergent themes, messages, priorities, and taken for granted assumptions that are produced and reified through sporting practices. Getting to your question how does this work for MNF:

We have a flyover before every NFL game? Why is that? Who benefits from it? Who pays for it? Where did this practice start?

Why do we sing the national anthem before sporting events? Why is it televised? Who benefits? Who doesn't? (BTW - Hitler popularized the playing of national anthems prior to sporting events by playing the German National Anthem during the Berlin Olympics twice after a German won an event ... think about that time you rise and stand)

Why is it that we watch oversized men, juiced up on steroids, running around and into each other as fast as they can in order to inflict various levels of pain onto other men? Why is it that we as a society choose to watch sports that the average male physiological body can perform better at? What does this say about American society when our favorite sport is American Football, which excludes women at nearly every level, except for sideline speaking parts for 'normative' sexy women?

Why do we get mad at say Terrel Owens or Deion Branch for being greedy b/c they want to receive more money for their labor, which, by the way is the equivalent of one auto accident per game in wear and tear on the body, but not so much at Tom Benson, Robert Kraft, Robert Loiza, etc. for being to miserly to share their enormous wealth? Who owns the media which makes the tv shows which criticize the players and not the owners?

What sort of class system does sport help create and reify? In what ways do different classes utilize the contemporary sporting system? Why does Michael Vick (who's regular season and post-season record is actually quite impressive) get so much criticism, yet Peyton Manning get so much love? In what ways does race, perceived sexuality, etc. play into that?

Anyway this is off the top of my head...and to answer your question I am a lecturer in sport and society at Towson University, a PhD student and TA in this area at the University of Maryland, College Park.

ryan198

farfromglorified wrote:

I understand. Nothing in it for you. Pure sacrifice. I totally get it. No, it doesn't. Nothing does. Regardless, "erasing history" has nothing to do with the point being made.

I love when I present opposing viewpoints, and back them up with strong evidence, then you claim that it has nothing to do with it or you get totally polemical and erase the original meaning behind the statement. If you are arguing that me watching MNF to make a better lecture at Towson University while getting $3100 for the semester is selfish then so be it, I just find that it is quite different than getting $185 million of the Louisianna publics money to finish a stadium. True capitalism in the Ayn Rand sense does involve the erasure of history or historical inequities for it to work, and in the way she argues it can't happen. You being a proponent of Rand in this way would be the same as me being a Marxist or neo-Marxist it can't happen you need to break from her historical context and move her theories into a more nuanced present to even have a shot at posing a good argument using her theory.

dg1979us

ryan198 wrote:

Well I could go on all day with this, but... the main premise is that sport has major a/effects on society and society has major a/effects on sport (Marx's dialectic ontology). So in other words sport is a major pedagogical (big word for teaching) tool in our daily lives. Think, for example, how long you spend watching sports per week, vs. say sitting and reading a book on the economic system of China. For most people the former is far longer and more exciting than the later, so you are then involved in a form of engaged learning - meaning that you process and learn more even if you don't think that it is learning.

What you are thinking of as critical is in the utilitarian sense of how to make sport more exciting. What I view as critical is what's going on in the (sporting) spectacle (Guy Debord has great work on the spectacle) that reflects, is reflected by, and simulataneously shapes society. So, in other words, what are the historical and contemporary dominant, subversive, and emergent themes, messages, priorities, and taken for granted assumptions that are produced and reified through sporting practices. Getting to your question how does this work for MNF:

We have a flyover before every NFL game? Why is that? Who benefits from it? Who pays for it? Where did this practice start?

Why do we sing the national anthem before sporting events? Why is it televised? Who benefits? Who doesn't? (BTW - Hitler popularized the playing of national anthems prior to sporting events by playing the German National Anthem during the Berlin Olympics twice after a German won an event ... think about that time you rise and stand)

Why is it that we watch oversized men, juiced up on steroids, running around and into each other as fast as they can in order to inflict various levels of pain onto other men? Why is it that we as a society choose to watch sports that the average male physiological body can perform better at? What does this say about American society when our favorite sport is American Football, which excludes women at nearly every level, except for sideline speaking parts for 'normative' sexy women?

Why do we get mad at say Terrel Owens or Deion Branch for being greedy b/c they want to receive more money for their labor, which, by the way is the equivalent of one auto accident per game in wear and tear on the body, but not so much at Tom Benson, Robert Kraft, Robert Loiza, etc. for being to miserly to share their enormous wealth? Who owns the media which makes the tv shows which criticize the players and not the owners?

What sort of class system does sport help create and reify? In what ways do different classes utilize the contemporary sporting system? Why does Michael Vick (who's regular season and post-season record is actually quite impressive) get so much criticism, yet Peyton Manning get so much love? In what ways does race, perceived sexuality, etc. play into that?

Anyway this is off the top of my head...and to answer your question I am a lecturer in sport and society at Towson University, a PhD student and TA in this area at the University of Maryland, College Park.

Well thats interesting stuff, but to be honest most every game is the same in the terms of the issues you bring up, so I dont see why actually sitting there watching the game is a necessity in answering those questions. What I mean by that, the NFL is on the same networks every week, the national anthem is before every game, the women reporters work most every game etc etc. I can certainly see where you are coming from, but just dont really understand why these things cant be evaluated by really just watching a few games a year. In other words, you said you were watching the game last nite for work. My question is, what exactly did you get from watching that game that you didnt already know before?

ryan198

dg1979us wrote:

Well thats interesting stuff, but to be honest most every game is the same in the terms of the issues you bring up, so I dont see why actually sitting there watching the game is a necessity in answering those questions. What I mean by that, the NFL is on the same networks every week, the national anthem is before every game, the women reporters work most every game etc etc. I can certainly see where you are coming from, but just dont really understand why these things cant be evaluated by really just watching a few games a year. In other words, you said you were watching the game last nite for work. My question is, what exactly did you get from watching that game that you didnt already know before?

Well, for one thing, the impetus of this thread, that the Superdome got a $185 million upgrade (I probably could have read that somewhere but I spent this summer studying for comps). I was also watching b/c it was a week after the 9/11 pukefest that went on the week before so it's necessary to see how and in what ways they presented the game differently, if at all, than the previous week - which it was. Thus it begs the question, was ESPN really all that worried about the families and people affected on 9/11 or were they using them to make a quick buck off of the emotions of the American people then on to the next week to colonize a new way to feed into the emotions of the American people the following week which they did when they told us how "uplifting it'll be to see the New Orleans Superdome being used". You get this stuff every week and since I teach on Monday's and Wednesday's I usually tell my class to pay attention to it so that we can discuss the subtle differences week to week.

dg1979us

ryan198 wrote:

Well, for one thing, the impetus of this thread, that the Superdome got a $185 million upgrade (I probably could have read that somewhere but I spent this summer studying for comps). I was also watching b/c it was a week after the 9/11 pukefest that went on the week before so it's necessary to see how and in what ways they presented the game differently, if at all, than the previous week - which it was. Thus it begs the question, was ESPN really all that worried about the families and people affected on 9/11 or were they using them to make a quick buck off of the emotions of the American people then on to the next week to colonize a new way to feed into the emotions of the American people the following week which they did when they told us how "uplifting it'll be to see the New Orleans Superdome being used". You get this stuff every week and since I teach on Monday's and Wednesday's I usually tell my class to pay attention to it so that we can discuss the subtle differences week to week.

But are a lot of these issues even NFL related, or society related? A lot of networks capitalized off the emotions of 9.11, a lot of newscasts have attractive women, a lot of events sing the national anthem. So now my question would be, cant you get mostly similar answers by studying the media in general, or another aspect of society? When it comes down to it, the NFL is an entertainment industry, and we have had an Oliver Stone 9.11 film, the ABC movie, etc. I think what you are doing is interesting and I have certainly never watched games from this aspect, however, in the questions you have raised on here (which I know is just off the top of your head stuff), I think you could observe other aspects of society and get pretty much the same answers. Everything that goes on around the game is really no different than any other news, media, or entertainment outlet. They all just play off societies emotions towards tragedy, and allure towards attractive women, etc etc.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

I love when I present opposing viewpoints, and back them up with strong evidence, then you claim that it has nothing to do with it or you get totally polemical and erase the original meaning behind the statement. If you are arguing that me watching MNF to make a better lecture at Towson University while getting $3100 for the semester is selfish then so be it, I just find that it is quite different than getting $185 million of the Louisianna publics money to finish a stadium. True capitalism in the Ayn Rand sense does involve the erasure of history or historical inequities for it to work, and in the way she argues it can't happen. You being a proponent of Rand in this way would be the same as me being a Marxist or neo-Marxist it can't happen you need to break from her historical context and move her theories into a more nuanced present to even have a shot at posing a good argument using her theory.

I'm arguing that your watching MNF is your job, just like providing MNF is someone else's job. I have no problem if either of you are selfish. You seem to be the one intent on proving that your work is of no benefit to you.