SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Feb 09 2011 09:30 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020705610.html

I like sports, but this is why I can no longer love them.

Posted: Feb 09 2011 10:41 pm

Sports, especially professional ones, are simulated tribal combat intended to channel your natural instincts for war and tribalism into a harmless venue. This way, you will never revolt against anything. Why? Because then you might miss the game! GO LOCAL SPORTS TEAM! "WE" ARE GONNA BEAT THEIR ASSES!!!

There's nothing wrong with playing sports for recreation, I like to do so myself. But watching overpaid whiners and assholes play a fucking game? Giving them money to watch them do it? Dedicating your entire life to a useless pursuit of keeping up on your mock army's progress and cheering them on? Fucking pathetic.

So truly American, though.

Posted: Feb 09 2011 10:42 pm

Whoever that SuperLesbo is that wrote this article, needs to get a clue. So Jerry Jones tried to break the record for most fans to attend the big game. He under produced and now they are working with the 400 some not 1200 fans who were affected. Then she goes on to talk about how Stadiums are financed by taxes. So what? If you want to bitch about tax payer money going to the football team move them out and the see how much tax money you get. I don't see how the two points correlate into a single article.

It's not like this is a common occurence. It's the superbowl, people go nuts and want to be at the biggest game of the year. It's their own fault for paying that much for 2nd hand tickets. Also if she wants to complain about NFL game ticket prices, try going to a OSU PSU game or OSU MICH game. Those tickets regardless of the teams ranking go for $300+ a seat and those aren't even good seats. [/Rant over]

Posted: Feb 09 2011 11:11 pm

While I agree that Jerry Jones can and should charge what he wants to for events in his stadium because people are dumb enough to pay them, I AM going to bitch about public monies being used to finance them. Like many other states, Texas is facing a huge budget shortfall, and while 90% of the reason is due to poor management and waste on behalf of our legislature, money is pissed away on giving breaks to people that don't need them.

In the 1990s, San Antonio built the Alamodome with public money to attract an NFL franchise, which is absolutely stupid because one will never come here. Now, we have a concrete pile downtown to host the NCAA Women's Regional Tourney every other year. Whoopee.

I just don't see why the Super Bowl needs to rotate sites. Let the NFL build a permanent stadium for itself somewhere warm (think Vegas) and have a consistent plan for it.

I do admit I may be a tad hasty on the economic impact, because I haven't been able to find any figures on what income was generated in the DFW area, particularly for all the strippers that were bussed in.

Posted: Feb 09 2011 11:58 pm

I would be all for the NFL having a set aside arena just for the superbowl, but of course owners are going to bitch that they are missing out, as will cities because they benefit the most by having all the people attending and the media. I think it's good for cities to host but if Dallas would have made it to the SuperBowl I can only imagine the headlines about how the Cowboys had an unfair advantage playing on their homefield and blah blah blah.

All in all the cities have themselves to blame for being under budgeted. If they don't give tax dollars to remodel the owners WILL acquire the funds somehow. San Antonio went about it all wrong, You acquire the team or win a bid to be a host city THEN build your arena.

Don't even get me started on the CBA.

Posted: Feb 10 2011 07:36 am

Yeah, I'm with Douche on this one. Way too much liberalism in that article from someone who just hates rich people and thinks NFL seats should be free in socialist utopia.

This is capitalism, what we as Americans pride ourselves on. "Go big or go home" has been the American motto now for at least a decade and there is nothing bigger and more American than Jerry's stadium in Arlington. You guys would rather the Super Bowl be played in a high school field somewhere in Missouri than a luxurious, glitzy stadium that stands for everything Americans love to show off to the rest of the world?

Capitalism also means that he can charge whatever the fuck he wants for tickets and you as a consumer can choose to pay that price or not. Personally, I choose not to because I know seeing an NFL game in person is a pretty lame experience. Others enjoy it and choose to pay the price. No one is forcing people to buy tickets to an NFL game so this writer's outrage over inflated ticket prices is retarded. If NFL owners get greedy and attendence falls, rest assured capitalism will kick in and the prices will lower. That's how economy works.

And yeah as Douche said, to bemoan the "taxpayer's burden" is also a fallacy since the taxpayers agree to kick in a certain amount of money toward a new stadium every time a new one is built. It's not extortion, it's legitimate business done by the officials who were democratically elected by the people. Taxpayers contributions toward new stadiums are part of that particular city's tourism budget because to have an NFL team in your city is a big deal for that particular economy and usually worth the investment. If a city or its people don't want to pay, then the owner has to make a decision to go ahead without contributions or move to a city who will. Again, it's business.

Anyone who thinks the NFL exists purely for the people and thus should be priced for the masses is either an idiot or a communist. It's business.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

There are some things I am fine with. A state paying for part of a stadium. The truth is, it brings in revenue to local businesses, hotels, etc. It increase the number of major events that the state has in the form of concerts, gatherings, and offbeat sporting events. The amount of money spent in the state outside of the football world is a tremendous amount and it does help the economy. Of course, how much the state should pay is the real question. At some point there is a balance between "worth it" and "not worth it".

What I am not OK with is flying Navy Jets over a closed stadium at the price of $450,000. What the fuck.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

GPFontaine wrote:

What I am not OK with is flying Navy Jets over a closed stadium at the price of $450,000. What the fuck.

100% agreed. There probably isn't a single thing in that article I agree with, but it is pretty ridiculous to spend that much money on what amounts to absolutely nothing.

Posted: Feb 10 2011 05:40 pm

I forgot where I read it, but there is supposed to be some sort of symbolism for the Jets to do a fly over of huge sporting events. Almost on the level of the National Anthem or something. The story fails to mention that the fans aren't paying for this service, and that it falls upon the NFL and Arena owner.

Posted: Feb 10 2011 06:11 pm

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-Super-Bowl-flyover-may-have-cost-450-000-W?urn=nfl-319475

The flyover was something I had no problem with. Even though it was with the roof closed, it was still broadcast on TV. It's cheaper for the Navy to spend the (estimated) total than buy an advertising slot, even with the planes being flown from Virginia.

Flyovers are not paid for by the requestee. You can download the form to request a flyover from your local air force base/naval air station.

Posted: Feb 10 2011 06:26 pm

Tomdincan wrote:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-Super-Bowl-flyover-may-have-cost-450-000-W?urn=nfl-319475

The flyover was something I had no problem with. Even though it was with the roof closed, it was still broadcast on TV. It's cheaper for the Navy to spend the (estimated) total than buy an advertising slot, even with the planes being flown from Virginia.

Flyovers are not paid for by the requestee. You can download the form to request a flyover from your local air force base/naval air station.

Meh I was half right.

Posted: Feb 10 2011 06:39 pm

Eh, it's better than being a quarter right (or less) like I'm turning out to be. Honestly, I don't even know why I put this up, since the only thing that really irritates me is the money that the state spent when Jerry clearly has the means to pay for it himself. I didn't mean for it to turn into a knock on capitalism, because that was not my intent. I just think there may be a better way to go about presenting the Super Bowl.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Feb 10 2011 08:22 pm

Meh, I think you have a point, Tomdincan (and the article until it goes all "No public money for stadiums"

The Super Bowl this year was a fiasco, and I do think next year it needs to be toned down a few notches.

Posted: Feb 11 2011 08:35 am

UsaSatsui wrote:

The Super Bowl this year was a fiasco, and I do think next year it needs to be toned down a few notches.

I'd agree with that. I think the problem with the SB is that the hype is so much better than the game. I mean, it really is just another football game after all; there's nothing special about it when compared to a regular season game.

They either need to tone it down (or at least get a decent band for the halftime show) or make the game itself more special. The AFC vs NFC thing used to be a drawing point for me until I realized the AFC plays the NFC all the time during the regular season. Maybe it should be a series of games like in other sports to make it truly epic?

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Feb 11 2011 10:46 am

Pandajuice wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

The Super Bowl this year was a fiasco, and I do think next year it needs to be toned down a few notches.

I'd agree with that. I think the problem with the SB is that the hype is so much better than the game. I mean, it really is just another football game after all; there's nothing special about it when compared to a regular season game.

They either need to tone it down (or at least get a decent band for the halftime show) or make the game itself more special. The AFC vs NFC thing used to be a drawing point for me until I realized the AFC plays the NFC all the time during the regular season. Maybe it should be a series of games like in other sports to make it truly epic?

The problem with a football "best of X" is it fucking kills the players.

Posted: Feb 11 2011 12:28 pm

I know, but I'm sure most of the players would love more than one shot at winning the Super Bowl. Maybe instead of the proposed 18 game season that a lot of players aren't a fan of, they can stick with 16 games and make the SB a best out of 3 type deal.

It'd be a lot more interesting that way anyway.

Posted: Feb 11 2011 03:24 pm

All this bitching about how overblown the Super Bowl is, and guess what? This year's was the most watched television program in history. Sorry, they won't be making the event "smaller" any time soon.

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

And yet they didn't even get someone who could sing the National Anthem correctly.

Posted: Feb 11 2011 05:54 pm

Just imagine how many more people will watch if they do find someone who can sing the national anthem, and someone who doesn't need autotune to not suck completely for halftime.

Posted: Feb 12 2011 07:54 am

Man, that halftime show is going to look so hilariously dated in just a few short years.

"Lol, is that auto-tune? That's so 2010." They may as well have built a time machine, travelled to 1991 and threw Vanilla Ice on stage.

Posted: Feb 12 2011 05:26 pm

Pandajuice wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

The Super Bowl this year was a fiasco, and I do think next year it needs to be toned down a few notches.

I'd agree with that. I think the problem with the SB is that the hype is so much better than the game. I mean, it really is just another football game after all; there's nothing special about it when compared to a regular season game.

They either need to tone it down (or at least get a decent band for the halftime show) or make the game itself more special. The AFC vs NFC thing used to be a drawing point for me until I realized the AFC plays the NFC all the time during the regular season. Maybe it should be a series of games like in other sports to make it truly epic?

I was actually thinking of something around those lines...Where the top 4 teams get byes and they play the lowest seeds but it wasn't confined to the conference, so basically the Colts and Patriots could possibly play in the Superbowl. There have been a couple times where the two best teams of the entire league are in the same conference and they don't get to play for all the marbles because it has to be NFC vs AFC.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

See, I didn't watch the Superbowl. Because I don't care about football. Or sports in general, for that matter.

Was I disappointed because of the apparent failure of entertainment this year? No. I don't give a shit. But I got to laugh at everyone I know who went and was sorely disappointed.

On a lighter note, Black Eyed Peas was a terrible choice for half time this year.

Posted: Feb 12 2011 08:12 pm

Ace of Base or Real McCoy would have been better.

Posted: Feb 13 2011 07:06 am

Fuck yeah, Ace of Base rule!

Posted: Feb 22 2011 01:36 am

Pandajuice wrote:

I know, but I'm sure most of the players would love more than one shot at winning the Super Bowl. Maybe instead of the proposed 18 game season that a lot of players aren't a fan of, they can stick with 16 games and make the SB a best out of 3 type deal.

It'd be a lot more interesting that way anyway.

The one game or go home aspect is part of what makes the NFL what it is. Even during a 16 game regular season, every game is extremely important.

As for some of the other comments in the thread:

The new breed of owners represented by Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder will ruin the NFL.
Their puppet Roger Goodell is already doing his part.