In Colts talks, Indy is facing same fate as other markets that lack huge corporate, TV presence.

By Matthew Tully
matthew.tully@indystar.com


From the moment Mayor Bart Peterson and his squad of stadium negotiators first sat down with Indianapolis Colts officials, they had little chance of overcoming a host of built-in disadvantages.

The mayor's plan as he walked into the team's Northwestside complex in 2002 was to persuade the team to eventually sign a long-term lease likely including a new stadium.

But the city lacked the attractions NFL teams love -- a huge television market, a massive fan base or a deep roster of Fortune 500 companies and wealthy locals eager to fill pricey club seats and luxury suites.

The city had no leverage.

And without that, Indianapolis taxpayers were likely destined from Day One to pay more for a new stadium than their counterparts in big-time NFL markets.

In fact, a review of financing plans for the NFL's 10 most recently constructed stadiums found taxpayers in the five larger markets paid about 45 percent of the bill. But taxpayers in the five smaller markets -- including Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Denver -- paid more than 80 percent of the cost of new stadiums.

"Everything in negotiations is about leverage," said Indianapolis attorney Fred Glass, a close Peterson ally who led the city's negotiations with the Colts. "We had no leverage to say, 'Well, if you don't do a deal, we won't do a deal and you won't be able to be on TV in Indianapolis.' "

Smaller markets offer less of the revenue -- from local TV and radio deals, suite sales and sponsorship agreements, for instance -- that helps teams stand out in a league that shares billions of dollars in national television earnings. That, along with the desire of cities such as Indianapolis to have big-city attractions, gives teams muscle to ask for more.

"It's not an accident," Glass said, "that the smaller markets tend to have the less-positive lease arrangements."

Under the stadium agreement the mayor and Colts owner Jim Irsay finally reached late last year, the Colts would contribute $100 million to a stadium project costing about $625 million. But the contribution comes only after the city pays the team $48 million to break its current lease.

As state lawmakers near completion of a plan for financing a stadium, many critics question whether the Colts are giving enough. Others say the deal is an example of how the NFL takes advantage of cities eager to build their reputations and economic engines.

There is another, fundamental explanation for why teams get better deals in cities such as Indianapolis, said Allen Sanderson, a sports economist who studies stadium issues at the University of Chicago. He pointed to a rumor that has found its way to Indianapolis and a host of other cities as they moved to build new stadiums -- that teams in those cities were headed to NFL-free Los Angeles, the nation's second-largest city. That perpetual vacancy and its promise of vast revenues for any team that fills the spot further erode the bargaining power of other cities.

"The league presumably has more leverage in a smaller community because the threat to leave is more credible there," he said.

A fair playing field?

Phil Heimlich has heard all of the arguments about the financial challenges many teams face. But that doesn't make the Hamilton County, Ohio, commissioner feel better about the stadium deal his county reached with the Cincinnati Bengals nine years ago.

Taxpayers paid about 94 percent of the cost of the $453 million Paul Brown Stadium. The team, meanwhile, also receives money for nonfootball events and concessions, and the county could end up paying tens of millions of dollars for costs incurred on game days.

Heimlich said he was particularly annoyed when the Bengals received $119,000 generated by the Rev. Billy Graham's crusade at the stadium in 2002.

Indianapolis also has agreed to give the Colts money from nonfootball events, and from naming rights, parking and concessions.

Frustrated with their lease, the Hamilton County Commission voted last year to join a lawsuit against the Bengals and the NFL, accusing them of intimidating the county into a sweetheart deal. Heimlich said the league has a monopoly and, with threats to leave cities, uses that power "to extract outrageous lease terms."

A similar lawsuit in Pittsburgh -- among the league's smaller markets, like Cincinnati and Indianapolis -- was tossed out of court. In Cincinnati, stadium critics hope their case will succeed and help other cities.

"One argument the Bengals have made is that our deal is no worse than anyone else's," Heimlich said. "That's not much consolation. A lot of cities got held up."

But some say the lawsuit is political sour grapes. Andy Furman, who hosts a sports radio show in Cincinnati, said callers to his show are largely supportive of the stadium. The general feeling, he said, is: "The stadium is in. It's done. So why don't we just move on?"

The Bengals declined to comment.

In Indianapolis, the mayor and the Colts defend their stadium agreement. They emphasize their deal excludes the financial guarantees for the team that have proven so costly in the current lease. Small market or not, the Colts will have the burden of turning a profit in the future.

"It's all our responsibility," said Pete Ward, the Colts' senior executive vice president.

In the big leagues

In recent years, during a nationwide stadium boom, many negotiations have included a common argument. Consider this sentence from a 1998 Denver Post story, just after voters approved a tax increase for a new stadium: "Stadium backers tried to convince voters that a new tax-subsidized home for the Broncos would . . . ensure that Denver remains a 'big-league' city."

In Indianapolis and in cities such as Cincinnati, politicians and other stadium supporters also have warned that the loss of a team would mean losing valuable "big-league" or "major-league" status.

"We're still a city trying to establish our reputation as a great American city," Peterson said. "And we can't afford the setback of losing the Colts."

Kevin J. Delaney, a Temple University professor who co-wrote the book "Public Dollars, Private Stadiums," argues that both large and small cities pay too much for stadiums. But he said the pain is particularly sharp in smaller markets -- where government budgets have fewer dollars to spare.

The use of the term "big-league city" is an attempt to prey on the fears of taxpayers in smaller markets, Delaney said. Though fans in Philadelphia and Dallas love their teams, he said, they aren't worried about being seen as a backwater if abandoned by a sports franchise.

"But in a city like Indianapolis, it has some resonance," Delaney said.

Still, taxpayers in many top markets have chipped in generously for stadiums. While the New England Patriots and Washington Redskins built their own stadiums, taxpayers in Texas paid about three-quarters of the cost of a stadium for the Houston Texans.

Public spending on new stadium projects is appropriate, NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said, because the venues and teams provide significant returns.

"The team is a significant economic asset to the community and the state," he said of the Colts. "So I think investment on all sides is warranted."

Colts officials have long talked about the struggle of competing while being located in Indianapolis. Across a series of financial categories, the Colts are looking up at other teams.

In 2004, Forbes reported the Colts' annual revenue of $145 million was the fourth lowest in the league, $100 million behind the Washington Redskins. According to Nielson Media, Indianapolis is the 25th-largest television market, behind cities such as St. Louis and Pittsburgh.

The Colts' ticket prices are in the league's bottom half. A list compiled by Team Marketing Report, a sports marketing firm based in Chicago, shows ticket prices across the league generally decrease with market size.

All of these statistics were sitting on the table when city and Colts officials formally began their stadium negotiations in late 2002. They played a key role in shaping the deal the two sides eventually reached.

But in the end, stadium backers say, the benefit is worth the cost.

"We don't have to do it," the mayor said. "No one is forcing us to do this. It's our choice: Do we want to be an NFL city or not?"

Green Bay does fine.

in all fairness, Green Bay is an exception in the NFL.

Green Bay does fine.

the reason the packers do so well is because their market is in no way limited to just greenbay. the whole friggin state of wisconsin, along with portions of the UP, is the packers market area (well except for up in the northwest corner, allegiances gradually change to vikings football as you get up there). wisconsin is a bit rare in that a team located in one city has been able to so completely capture the unceasing adoration of an entire state, to the extent that most wisconsinites would drive however long it takes to see a game at lambeau without even thinking about it.

the strength of the packers/wisconsin relationship is not typical for most other franchises.

Here's the chart from this same article:

What the public pays
Comparing public financing burdens for 10 recently built NFL stadiums:

FIVE LARGER MARKETS
• Reliant Stadium (Texans): 73%
• Gillette Stadium (Patriots): 0%
• Ford Field (Lions): 30%
• Lincoln Financial Field (Eagles): 39%
• Qwest Field (Seahawks): 73%

FIVE SMALLER MARKETS
• Invesco Field (Broncos): 75%
• Heinz Field (Steelers): 56%
• Paul Brown Stadium (Bengals): 94%
• Browns Stadium (Browns): 81%
• The Coliseum (Titans): 100%

Proposed Colts stadium: 90%

This article discusses the lack of leverage that small markets have in new stadium discussions. I think that the fact that the city and community of Green Bay owns the Packers pretty much gives them all the leverage that they need. Surrounding population becomes irrelevent at that point.

The Tax payers in Brown County (Green Bay)is footing a very large portion of the remodeled Lambeau field for the Packers by themselves. In fact the county tax hike in Brown county to finance the remodel almost failed it passed 52% to 48% . I don't live in Brown county but my local news is from Green Bay and I know many residents are still upset over how much they will have to fork over for the payment of the latest improvements to Lambeau field, unlike Miller Park in Milwaukee where the tax burden for paying for that stadium is spread over 5 counties, Lambeau is being paid for solely by the fine people of Brown county.

Packers are the 2nd most popular team in the NFL, and 1st in some polls.

Packers seem less popular the more south you go in Wisconsin. Not many of the blacks in Milwaukee seem to like the Packers at all (or the Bucks for that matter) , and the Badgers are the #1 team in Madison.

that is total bs man! The Packers are huge in Southern Wisconsin...they get front page every game and pregame....ahead of the Bucks and the Brewers. As for blacks not liking the Pack--that is also bs. There are tons of black people who love the Packers....although there are many who are flat out fairweather fans. Milwaukee practically shuts down on Sunday game days.

let's not make this about Wisconsin, now!

At least in Madison it seems less enthusiastic about the Packers than the Badgers. All the black people I see, even in cities like Philadelphia, are Cowboy, Redskin, or Titans fans. Not to stereotype, but that is what it seems like.

All the black people I see, even in cities like Philadelphia, are Cowboy, Redskin, or Titans fans. Not to stereotype, but that is what it seems like.

well, you should visit chicago sometime, the VAST majority of black football fans in this town are indeed bears fans, just like it is for every other racial and ethnic group in the city.

Yeah i know what you mean, there's tons of 'Boys and 'Skins fans that are black, but there are a lot of black Eagles fans too, I do know know what u mean though.

in all fairness, Green Bay is an exception in the NFL.

Yeah, they're a huge exception in the NFL. They're the only publicly owned team. They have a board of directors, just like a publicly owned company. That's one of the reasons why the Packers have never moved from tiny little Green Bay and a reason why they're the least likely team in the NFL to be relocated.

And where does the idea that blacks in Milwaukee don't like the Packers come from?

Also, up until recently, they played several games in Milwaukee during the regular season every year.

the reason the packers do so well is because their market is in no way limited to just greenbay. the whole friggin state of wisconsin, along with portions of the UP, is the packers market area (well except for up in the northwest corner, allegiances gradually change to vikings football as you get up there). wisconsin is a bit rare in that a team located in one city has been able to so completely capture the unceasing adoration of an entire state, to the extent that most wisconsinites would drive however long it takes to see a game at lambeau without even thinking about it.

the strength of the packers/wisconsin relationship is not typical for most other franchises.

The Packers still have a large following in Minnesota and throughout the Plains states as well. If any of you have watched a Packers vs. Vikings game in the Dome or a bar in the Twin Cities area, it's apparent that there are plenty of Packer fans living in the Twin Cities or nearby.

Kansas City, which is a small market team, doesn't seem to have any problems funding the Chiefs. With the third highest average attendance in the NFL and 14 consecutive years of sell out games, KC is in a decent position. Then again no one around here wants a new stadium.

The Packers still have a large following in Minnesota and throughout the Plains states as well. If any of you have watched a Packers vs. Vikings game in the Dome or a bar in the Twin Cities area, it's apparent that there are plenty of Packer fans living in the Twin Cities or nearby.


I heard Minneapolis is one of the most intelligent cities....I guess this is further proof. :)

Double Post

This is off topic but, aren't the Packers the only NFL team owned by a city? I heard that somewhere and always thought it was true.

At least in Madison it seems less enthusiastic about the Packers than the Badgers.

No. I lived there. You're wrong.

bottom line...the Packers are popular everywhere in Wisconsin. You go find some random hermit on the Apostle Islands---and I bet you that he has the DirectTV NFL Ticket package.

This is off topic but, aren't the Packers the only NFL team owned by a city? I heard that somewhere and always thought it was true.

I don't know if they're owned exclusively by the city, but I know they're the only publicly owned team in the NFL.

Looks like we have leveled the playing field quite a bit.

The packers are not the most popular team btw! In the late 90s maybe when they were on top, but as of now i would not agree with that.

Milwaukee Bucks: If i had to geuss a majority of bucks fans exist in the Milwaukee suburbs. This team is the least state wide and is soley supported by Mil-metro. No one from the apostle island's(tip of north wisconsin) would have a season ticket on nba tv. Im suprised mil has kept the bucks in the bradley.

Indianapolis colt's should be fine for a long time. Once you get someone like payton manning the most popular (maybe?) quarterback in the nation, you gain tons of bandwagon fans.

I read the whole thread and didn't even realize it was from April

^^And not only that, it's nearly two years old

This is off topic but, aren't the Packers the only NFL team owned by a city? I heard that somewhere and always thought it was true.No, they're not owned by the city of Green Bay. They're owned by private citizen shareholders. The Packers are very much like a corporate structure with a team board of directors and shareholders from all over the country. The Packer situation with the tax levied on the taxpayers of Brown County is unique in this respect. The team is essentually owned by the fans of the team. Not some super-rich person sitting in the 80th floor of an ivory tower. So the renovation of Lambeau Field was to the benefit the Packer fans, enabling the team to remain competitive verses the big market teams when competing in the free-agency market of today and into the future.

How the hell did the Bengals get Paul Brown stadium for 450 mil just five/six years ago and the Vikings stadium is projected to cost in the 800 mil range?

There's your bullshit there.

the deal for small market cities is bad and baqsically unfair. there is one saving grace (and it is a BIG one):

A small market investment in its NFL team puts it on a fairly level playing field.

A small market investment in its MLB team is ofen an exercise in futility.

The NFL shares broadcasting rights and licencing among all its franchises. Size of market does not translate huge differences in size of profit. Huge LA lost 2 NFL teams in the same year; I doubt that wold have happened if the Rams and Raiders controlled their own broadcasting. In the NFL, no matter the size of the market, you can be a player. If it weren't for being a Bears fan, I'd say: GO SAINTS! New Orleans seems to prove the point.

MLB does little for Pittsburgh or Milwaukee or Cincinnati when they build new stadiums. Their payrolls will never compete with the likes of the Yankees or Red Sox.

So, at the very least, cities that invest in NFL stadiums get a bigger bang for their buck than those that invest in MLB stadiums. Not that either is a great investment or the best use of scarce city funds.

[QUOTE=edsg25;11254676]
MLB does little for Pittsburgh or Milwaukee or Cincinnati when they build new stadiums. Their payrolls will never compete with the likes of the Yankees or Red Sox.

[QUOTE]

Thats why I admire the NFL alot more than baseball. In one decade you could be worst in the league and superbowl champs, every team with good management and players can be successful. As for MLB its so hard to win a title..plus there is only 8 playoff teams! This is off topic: they should add more teams to the playoff race!

wow...talk about digging in the archives!

Smaller cities spend huge sums of money to try to get the trappings of bigger cities: pro teams, transit systems, etc., but ignore the very things that might make them more real world class cities.

Indy's "sister city" of Columbus, Ohio seems not to have suffered from not having an NFL, NBA, or MLB team - they are doing better than Cleveland and Cincinnati too.

The MLB/NFL thing isnt entirely true. Take Detroit for example. Previous to 2006, both the Tigers and Lions sucked for years and years. And then both built new stadiums.

But the Tigers got better, and the Lions still are awful and will continue to be awful for years to come. Just the luck of the draw I guess...

Detroit is not a smaller city though. It's one of the big dogs.

Smaller cities spend huge sums of money to try to get the trappings of bigger cities: pro teams, transit systems, etc., but ignore the very things that might make them more real world class cities.

Indy's "sister city" of Columbus, Ohio seems not to have suffered from not having an NFL, NBA, or MLB team - they are doing better than Cleveland and Cincinnati too.

Buckeyes and NFL in Columbus. C'mon!

The MLB/NFL thing isnt entirely true. Take Detroit for example. Previous to 2006, both the Tigers and Lions sucked for years and years. And then both built new stadiums.

But the Tigers got better, and the Lions still are awful and will continue to be awful for years to come. Just the luck of the draw I guess...

gibson, detroit may have suffered from many things, but being small market was never one of them.

This is really getting off topic but since everyone is throwing 2 cents in i will too:)

Being from the northern chicago suburbs most of the time i would easily say that about 30-35 percent of the people are packer fans. Before the bears won a few games and people remembered they had a team all you would see is packer wear around. On my old street out of 24 homes i think it was 13 families on the street in IL were packer fans and most of the kids i grew up with( i had some say in making sure of that also:banana: ).

i know this is old, but that was a really stupid comment by Badger about black people in milwaukee not liking the packers or bucks. go to a bucks game just once. plus i see black people wearing GB gear all the time in this city.

I'm still just amazed that the 3rd largest metropolitan area in all of North America and the second largest media market in the USA, Los Angeles, doesn't have an NFL franchise. To me, that is just fricken incredible.

Don't worry. With Goodell at the head of the NFL, you will have an NFL Franchise in Los Angeles and, quite possibly in Toronto, faster than the blink of an eye.

I'm still just amazed that the 3rd largest metropolitan area in all of North America and the second largest media market in the USA, Los Angeles, doesn't have an NFL franchise. To me, that is just fricken incredible.

2 basketball teams
2 baseball teams
hollywood

:they have alot after considering all that. California has alot of sports to go around. Maybe that is why they have not pushed for one. i do agree its ironic to think that one of the top cities does not have an american past time.

Don't worry. With Goodell at the head of the NFL, you will have an NFL Franchise in Los Angeles and, quite possibly in Toronto, faster than the blink of an eye.Okay. So will it be a brand new franchise or one that does another midnight evacuation from another city?

That would be neat to see toronto get an NFL team; well, considering its a 75 percent american. well maybe not that.

Don't worry. With Goodell at the head of the NFL, you will have an NFL Franchise in Los Angeles and, quite possibly in Toronto, faster than the blink of an eye.

pipe dream, i realize, but i'd still love to see an AFC team in Chicago. We once had two teams. We could have supported the Cards if they stayed. We could support an AFC team along with the Bears.

The key to small markets affording these sports stadiums is trying to make sure you maximize your investment. Indianapolis is building the new LOS that will also host multiple NCAA sporting events (every year), concerts and will be attached to the convention center so that the field can be used as exhibit space for conventions. This may not off set all the costs, but it sure beats building an NFL stadium that gets used only 8 or 9 times a year.

the deal for small market cities is bad and baqsically unfair. there is one saving grace (and it is a BIG one):

A small market investment in its NFL team puts it on a fairly level playing field.

A small market investment in its MLB team is ofen an exercise in futility.

The NFL shares broadcasting rights and licencing among all its franchises. Size of market does not translate huge differences in size of profit. Huge LA lost 2 NFL teams in the same year; I doubt that wold have happened if the Rams and Raiders controlled their own broadcasting. In the NFL, no matter the size of the market, you can be a player. If it weren't for being a Bears fan, I'd say: GO SAINTS! New Orleans seems to prove the point.

MLB does little for Pittsburgh or Milwaukee or Cincinnati when they build new stadiums. Their payrolls will never compete with the likes of the Yankees or Red Sox.

So, at the very least, cities that invest in NFL stadiums get a bigger bang for their buck than those that invest in MLB stadiums. Not that either is a great investment or the best use of scarce city funds.


yeah, but with an NFL team you only get 8 home games for all of the money you spend on a new stadium. in baseball, you get 82. there is certainly a benefit to that as far as getting the most use out of your $$. Your team may not have a chance in hell of getting in the playoffs, but your stadium gets used. Football stadiums seem like such a waste (unless it is a dome used for other activities, etc.). 8 games!?!? I'm glad Milwaukee's team is in Green Bay, we don't need an empty stadium here 357 days a year.

yeah, but with an NFL team you only get 8 home games for all of the money you spend on a new stadium. in baseball, you get 82. there is certainly a benefit to that as far as getting the most use out of your $$. Your team may not have a chance in hell of getting in the playoffs, but your stadium gets used. Football stadiums seem like such a waste (unless it is a dome used for other activities, etc.). 8 games!?!? I'm glad Milwaukee's team is in Green Bay, we don't need an empty stadium here 357 days a year.
the old Lambeau stadium did sit empty and lifeless as you described, except for the 10 games (gotta count preseason).

This is exactly why the Packers pushed so hard to get a renovated stadium a few years ago. By adding the atrium facility, restaurants, and attaching the Pro Shop and Hall of Fame and other amenities, the stadium is now busy with activity year-round. I'm surprised that even during the recent losing, the stadium has a constant level of activity around and inside of it. And it's not just tourists buying a T-shirt and posing next to a Brett Favre cutout, either. I am amazed at the sorts of events they have there now. Large conference-type stuff, weddings, you name it. Most fo the activity is in the attached atrium but even the field is now used for other events such as hockey games, snowmobile racing (yee ha!), I think they had some motocross stuff there, stuff like that.

All of this generates a constant stream of revenue, and I believe it is important to keep the franchise afloat (that's why I voted to tax myself, and I've never regretted it. Note: If the team had a rich owner like other teams, I would not have voted for nor supported a tax. GB was just too unique...it's a publicly-owned team & facility).

It will be intereisting, though, to see how long this renovated stadium can maintain it, or what they'll have to do next to stay competitive in the revenue world (which of course is needed to stay competitive on the field).

P.S. domes suck. Even the vikings are realizing this, and last I heard, their latest proposal for the new stadium is for an open-air one (even though Minneapolis is actually farther north than Green Bay). . The old Humpty Dumpty dome is so pathetic. Yeah it gets used for a lot of different activities, but face it, it's pathetic. Humpty Dumpty of all events, but master of none. The Vikings don't like it, the Twins didn't like it, the Gophers are moving out too.

yeah, but with an NFL team you only get 8 home games for all of the money you spend on a new stadium. in baseball, you get 82. there is certainly a benefit to that as far as getting the most use out of your $$. Your team may not have a chance in hell of getting in the playoffs, but your stadium gets used. Football stadiums seem like such a waste (unless it is a dome used for other activities, etc.). 8 games!?!? I'm glad Milwaukee's team is in Green Bay, we don't need an empty stadium here 357 days a year.

milw, of course a city gets more bang for its buck for MLB than the NFL. Not only are there only eight games, but those eight games are usually played on Sundays where the use of the surrounding city area does not take place; besides, people tailgate. but consider this: because of the fewer number of games, it is easier to support an NFL team than a MLB team. If you are small market and out of the pennant race by August, there are going to be a lot of 13,000 recorded attendances.

Is there the waste in a football stadium you describe? sure. but the city is still getting a lot of media exposure for that NFL stadium. I don't know how you translate that into profit for the city, but it is there.

obviously milw is better off with MLB than with the NFL. I just wish that MLB was fairer to its smaller market franchises. i'd like nothing better than to see the brewers become one of the NL's better fanchises.

the old Lambeau stadium did sit empty and lifeless as you described, except for the 10 games (gotta count preseason).

This is exactly why the Packers pushed so hard to get a renovated stadium a few years ago. By adding the atrium facility, restaurants, and attaching the Pro Shop and Hall of Fame and other amenities, the stadium is now busy with activity year-round. I'm surprised that even during the recent losing, the stadium has a constant level of activity around and inside of it. And it's not just tourists buying a T-shirt and posing next to a Brett Favre cutout, either. I am amazed at the sorts of events they have there now. Large conference-type stuff, weddings, you name it. Most fo the activity is in the attached atrium but even the field is now used for other events such as hockey games, snowmobile racing (yee ha!), I think they had some motocross stuff there, stuff like that.

All of this generates a constant stream of revenue, and I believe it is important to keep the franchise afloat (that's why I voted to tax myself, and I've never regretted it. Note: If the team had a rich owner like other teams, I would not have voted for nor supported a tax. GB was just too unique...it's a publicly-owned team & facility).

It will be intereisting, though, to see how long this renovated stadium can maintain it, or what they'll have to do next to stay competitive in the revenue world (which of course is needed to stay competitive on the field).

P.S. domes suck. Even the vikings are realizing this, and last I heard, their latest proposal for the new stadium is for an open-air one (even though Minneapolis is actually farther north than Green Bay). . The old Humpty Dumpty dome is so pathetic. Yeah it gets used for a lot of different activities, but face it, it's pathetic. Humpty Dumpty of all events, but master of none. The Vikings don't like it, the Twins didn't like it, the Gophers are moving out too.

oh believe me, I don't like domes. I detest them. lambeau field works great for green bay. it is great that green bay has the packers. and it is in a good location in the green bay area. i'm just saying that as a milwaukeean, i wouldn't want to have a downtown football stadium, it just seems like a waste of space. so many cities have downtown football stadiums now and they are like black holes.

oh believe me, I don't like domes. I detest them. lambeau field works great for green bay. it is great that green bay has the packers. and it is in a good location in the green bay area. i'm just saying that as a milwaukeean, i wouldn't want to have a downtown football stadium, it just seems like a waste of space. so many cities have downtown football stadiums now and they are like black holes.

agreed. but baseball is another matter. i realize the lay of the land worked against it, but it sure would have been an impressive sight if Miller Park's high and unique roof was juxaposed to an adjacent downtown skyline.

miller park does offer something the downtown parks don't and is unique in MLB for it: tailgating. But this park still belonged downtown. imagine how the marquette interchange would have looked if this structure was on its s.w. corner....it'd be enough to keep people away from Pottawatomi!

I couldn't agree more with the above comments about how Fball stadiums are a big drain. In Cincy, the Bengals sellout their 8 home games and draw a respectable crowd for the two pre-season games (technically sellout, but not everyone shows up). They then try to get creative...usually hosting several HS football games a year that somewhat regularly reach crowds over 30,000...then there is the occasional concert....and then they also have banquet space that is used for HS dances and other occasions.

All in all, the stadium still sits empty the vast majority of the year, and is taking up prime real estate along the riverfront/downtown. A dome would have been much more usable year round, but would have also raised the already bloated price tag of PBS even higher.

I couldn't agree more with the above comments about how Fball stadiums are a big drain. In Cincy, the Bengals sellout their 8 home games and draw a respectable crowd for the two pre-season games (technically sellout, but not everyone shows up). They then try to get creative...usually hosting several HS football games a year that somewhat regularly reach crowds over 30,000...then there is the occasional concert....and then they also have banquet space that is used for HS dances and other occasions.

All in all, the stadium still sits empty the vast majority of the year, and is taking up prime real estate along the riverfront/downtown. A dome would have been much more usable year round, but would have also raised the already bloated price tag of PBS even higher.

I wish PBS would have built a retractable roof.

I went to the last home game featuring the Bengals/Steelers and there was an announcement that that game was like the 26th consecutive sell-out.

I went to the last home game featuring the Bengals/Steelers and there was an announcement that that game was like the 26th consecutive sell-out.

ahh hemmm.....WHO DEY!!!!!!!!

*oh wait...errr*

P.S. domes suck. Even the vikings are realizing this, and last I heard, their latest proposal for the new stadium is for an open-air one (even though Minneapolis is actually farther north than Green Bay). .

i feel about domes the way that you do, puant, but let's not forget a key component: domes built after the metrodome are convertible to open air. the cities that build these structures want to play football outdoors but also want the option of indoor play as necessary. Does that mean I'm unhappy that soldier field was built as an outdoor stadium. no. but i do recognize where the convertible domes are built, it can allow for the best of both worlds.

let me use MLB rather than NFL for this example:

if the current era of new ball parks began with Camden Yards and the retropark concept and constantly continued when each year it seemed another city aquired a new park with bells and whistles....


......when the last of the teams (Yanks, Mets, Nats, Twins, etc.) build theirs, will there be:

• a pause (a long pause) in MLB ball park construction

-or-

• has the shelf life of a MLB park gotten so short that the process of building anew will keep on going without skipping a beat

?????

leaving the cookie cutter stadiums in places like StL, Cin, Pgh, Phil, Atl, etc. aside, we see examples of places like Tampa Bay and Detroit replacing relatively new football stadiums. Will we see the same thing in MLB or will there actually be some breahing time when the last of the new MLB stadiums is built?

2 basketball teams
2 baseball teams
hollywood

:they have alot after considering all that. California has alot of sports to go around. Maybe that is why they have not pushed for one. i do agree its ironic to think that one of the top cities does not have an american past time.

not to mention USC and UCLA

2 basketball teams
2 baseball teams
hollywood

:they have alot after considering all that. California has alot of sports to go around. Maybe that is why they have not pushed for one. i do agree its ironic to think that one of the top cities does not have an american past time.

Hey we got a football team in Los Angeles. They're called the USC Trojans :nocrook:

Most people outside LA believe the Rams and Raiders left because of low football attendance, which wasn't true at all. The owners of both teams had certain issues basically. We didn't whore ourselves to the NFL because no one supported a new stadium funded by tax dollars. And the NFL has been reluctant to bring a team here because they want to see a totally new stadium. We have an incredible stadium in the Coliseum with a history that puts most existing stadia to shame, all it needs is a little modernizing. But that's not good enough for the NFL as it seems.

When the stars align and the wind blows in the right direction, the NFL will come back to Los Angeles...
...In the meantime, GO SAINTS!!!

let me use MLB rather than NFL for this example:

if the current era of new ball parks began with Camden Yards and the retropark concept and constantly continued when each year it seemed another city aquired a new park with bells and whistles....


......when the last of the teams (Yanks, Mets, Nats, Twins, etc.) build theirs, will there be:

• a pause (a long pause) in MLB ball park construction

-or-

• has the shelf life of a MLB park gotten so short that the process of building anew will keep on going without skipping a beat

?????

leaving the cookie cutter stadiums in places like StL, Cin, Pgh, Phil, Atl, etc. aside, we see examples of places like Tampa Bay and Detroit replacing relatively new football stadiums. Will we see the same thing in MLB or will there actually be some breahing time when the last of the new MLB stadiums is built?

I believe that there will be a pause (somewhat long pause) before you see another round of stadium construction like we have seen recently. The reason being is that I don't see any politician making the decision to support the replacing of a more than adequate structure.

I would also hope that the baseball stadiums that have been built to be historic in appearance and fit into the urban fabric will be there to stay for some time. Cities are no longer plunking down spaceships on the outskirts of town for their teams...they are weaving them into the fabric of the city, this is a much harder sell to people to suggest tearing down a structure thats part of a community, rather than its own entity.

I believe that there will be a pause (somewhat long pause) before you see another round of stadium construction like we have seen recently. The reason being is that I don't see any politician making the decision to support the replacing of a more than adequate structure.

I would also hope that the baseball stadiums that have been built to be historic in appearance and fit into the urban fabric will be there to stay for some time. Cities are no longer plunking down spaceships on the outskirts of town for their teams...they are weaving them into the fabric of the city, this is a much harder sell to people to suggest tearing down a structure thats part of a community, rather than its own entity.

oh, i don't think there is any question: the owners fully understand what downtown does for the experience. i think we can drop any fear of the old sea of parking lots days.