HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Pacific Standard: "America Has a Stadium Problem"

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-24-2013, 12:34 AM
  #76
guinness
swedish milkmaid
 
guinness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Missoula, Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,724
vCash: 500
Team owners are rich, because they can typically talk cities/states into funding their toys.

A prime recent example is Loria and the Marlins new stadium.

And while I'm from metro Detroit, and it would be cool to see the Wings play in a new rink and get out of the concrete bunker, it would fiscally irresponsible for a bankrupt city to handout municipal welfare to a billionaire.

If states/cities actually want to bring people downtown, and that have a lasting impact, make deals that bring jobs and make people want to live there. Without that, people will still just commute from the suburbs for a few hours, maybe hit up a bar/restaurant, and then leave.

That's the difference that cities like SF and Seattle can offer that Detroit or Cleveland can't. Climate doesn't hurt either.

guinness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 10:29 AM
  #77
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
Well, with respect to your first paragraph, I don't think that's what I'm saying. What I am saying is that asking someone about how much cultural value an activity has is like asking someone what they feel about the color blue. There's no right or wrong answer because there is no consensus as to what criteria we could use to evaluate an answer.

Regardless, I think it's also important to note that cultural value is usually restricted to certain areas. If you're talking about Shakespeare or NFL, then neither have much of an impact in, say, Thailand.

But if we agree on a specific area and time frame, then one criterion you could use maybe is how many people remember the activity/work/person. For example, I think more Canadians would be able to give you a breakdown of what happened in the Gold Medal game of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics than give you a breakdown of Macbeth. Does that say anything about cultural value? If more people are cognizant and aware of something, does that confer greater cultural value? I would think there could be some relationship there, because an activity/work/person unknown to most people would likely not have as much cultural value.

Then again, yes, language is pretty important, and events/activities/works that alter it are significant. Ergo, text messaging is of extreme cultural importance.

edit -- Ultimately, I think underlying all of this is a current of elitism. If I can demonstrate, hypothetically, that far less Canadians could give you a synopsis of Macbeth or identify a Picasso painting than giving you a breakdown of a hockey game, I don't think it will influence your opinion on the cultural value of Shakespeare or Picasso paintings. And I think that is because you may just dismiss it as a large portion of Canadians being "distracted" by "bread and circus" and ignorant and apathetic. (When I mean 'you' I don't literally mean you!).

Yes, Shakespeare altered language at some point. But look, I consider myself somewhat intelligent. I've done well in school and I'm in law school, so I feel like I can confidently tell you that I'm fluent in English. Nevertheless, Shakespeare's works feel like a foreign language. You can get a grasp of the differences if you really immerse yourself into Shakespeare and go through all of his works in a short time period. But if you're like me and you've read his works intermittently, then every time you pick it up it feels like a foreign language. Of course, Shakespeare changed the language at one point, and after significant and numerous changes thereafter, we have our current language. But the current language bears little direct resemblance to Shakespeare's language. So it's direct impact on contemporaneous society is a bit limited due to its temporal and evolutionary distance in the development of the English language.

Another criterion might be the economic impact of an activity/work/person. One Leafs game probably has greater economic impact than one year's worth of sales of Shakespeare's works in Canada. (Totally pulled that out of my ass, but yeah).
I'm going to be honest with you, I'm not an artsy kind of guy. Maybe someone else could provide real insight as to how important Shakespeare really was. But as I understand it he allowed English to be a fluid, evolving language. Shakespeare broke boundaries with the language, allowing it to now be a language that absorbs common events and package it in a single word. And because his work was so creative, well articulated, and concise, people accepted the boundaries being broken. Now we can make up words as we go, such as Ipod, whereas before that was challenged or improper.

But you're right that defining cultural importance needs criteria, both geographically and with a fair unit of measure. But that needed to be said? I assumed when people are comparing culture as a broad, vague conversation, we need a holistic context, likely at a species-level perspective. With that that said, yes, sports are culturally important to humans, there's no question. I agree that we as a society cannot ignore that 16 million Canadians watched the gold medal game in 2010. But only a small fraction of the 7 billion humans on earth are influenced by hockey, and likewise with football. Whereas I would argue Shakespeare has/had a greater influence, on the whole.

And that's what I meant when I said the sky is blue. Maybe in Ft. MacMurray, Alberta, Canada the sky is best described as a 231 red:345 blue:156 yellow ratio as per some physicists calculation, but were talking ground-level here. I don't think there's anything elitist about that.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 10:37 AM
  #78
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Burke the Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,392
vCash: 50
Very few people from Montreal will say that the city made the right call by not pulling out all the stops to get the Expos a new open air downtown stadium they desperately needed (The Olympic Stadium absolutely killed the team, they would have been better off staying at the old Jarry Park Stadium). When the team finally left the city suffered a massive loss of prestige and a diminished presence on the North American map.

Burke the Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 11:08 AM
  #79
Saskatoon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
I'll toss you this lob thought just to add to that

This goes back in a way to my thinking about modern culture. Do we need distractions, I think we all do to just unwind. But have modern sports turned from distraction into almost obsession? It was one thing back in the 70's and 80's (dating myself lol) to turn on the TV, hey It's Saturday Night! HNIC is on, time to grab a cold one and unwind from my work week. Oh, wow Toronto made a trade with Philly this week! Wow. Oh boy, Toronto hasn't risen in the standings since last time I watched-playoffs are going to be tight" and you watch the game for 3 hours, take it in, and off you go with your life. And you may not be able to watch a game for at least another week or two, but that's okay, its a nice distraction.

Now, the sports are 24/7, there's high detailed up to the minute betting pools, there's contract talks, if you have enough channels there's a game on every day of the week, there's pre-game/post game shows-and don't get me started on how NFL Sunday is pretty much a dawn to dusk affair with all the games and programming lol.

At what point does it stop becoming an enjoyable distraction, and start becoming almost a second job to follow a team/sport? (There's no answer in particular, merely throwing it out there )
I agree on the need to decompress but what if we didn't compress in the first place? This is probably a separate discussion not related to the business of sports stadiums. 'Treating' yourself with sports is fine, but imagine preventing the reasons that cause people to devote their lives to sports. And not in a 'sports are a disease that need to be stopped' kind of mentality. But rather you found your day to day life so fulfilling you didn't have time for sports.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
By calling sports a distraction, you imply that there may be something to be distracted from, i.e., something we ought to focus on.

What is it? 23 years and going, and I still haven't found an objective answer to what I should be focusing on. Nor have I been able to ascertain the criteria I should use to evaluate whether a particular activity falls within the province of what I ought to focus on. Is there some kind of manifesto online or something? Maybe a to-do list that I missed out on when I skipped a couple classes in elementary?

Shed light on this; give me a purpose!
Haha I don't pretend on having the answer for everyone so I will just use me as an example. Finding your purpose in life is unique to each person and is nothing that can be taught (in my opinion). When I was in high school I didn't fit in very well and it was in that period in my life when sports were most central to my life. I didn't even have it that rough; for me it was more that I didn't care about what my peers cared about so I isolated myself. I followed many sports teams (and played a fair amount personally as well) and that is what entertained me on what would otherwise be a boring night. I had some friends who were far more socially outcast than me and they followed sports even more than I did.

Fast forward several years and as my enjoyment out of life has increased my sports viewership has decreased. As I found friends that I enjoyed I started watching less sports... as I became interested in what I was learning in university I watched less....when I moved out on my own I watched less sports...when I found my future wife I watched less sports..... when I found a job I enjoyed I watched less sports...when I started working for local charity I watched less sports and it goes on. I even play less sports now. In the past 3-6 nights a week were taken up with various teams I was on but now I am not really ever on more than one team at any given moment in the year. Hockey is by far my favorite sport and I have not even attended a NHL game since before I graduated. Not out of some morale superiority complex or anything... just more enjoyable things take up my time and I haven't made it a priority. I probably only watched 2 NHL Playoff games this year and they both were recorded.

I am no saint... I often do selfish things with my free time it just so happens that sports isn't one of them anymore. I am chatting here because I enjoy discussing random things on the internet when I have a slow day a work haha. Luck plays a role in it for me too. I stumbled into a job that I enjoyed and paid well enough that money wasn't a big stress on my life. Random chance has lead to meeting a lot of people that I really enjoy and getting me involved with the community.

To sum up all my random thoughts and answer your question. I can't give you purpose; if you were given complete freedom to have/do anything you want and you still choose sports well then I congratulate you on finding what makes you happy. I'll just say I am happier now then I was at 23.

Saskatoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 11:14 AM
  #80
Brodie
voted best
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 15,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
Then again, yes, language is pretty important, and events/activities/works that alter it are significant. Ergo, text messaging is of extreme cultural importance.
...

Yes, Shakespeare altered language at some point. But look, I consider myself somewhat intelligent. I've done well in school and I'm in law school, so I feel like I can confidently tell you that I'm fluent in English. Nevertheless, Shakespeare's works feel like a foreign language. You can get a grasp of the differences if you really immerse yourself into Shakespeare and go through all of his works in a short time period. But if you're like me and you've read his works intermittently, then every time you pick it up it feels like a foreign language. Of course, Shakespeare changed the language at one point, and after significant and numerous changes thereafter, we have our current language. But the current language bears little direct resemblance to Shakespeare's language. So it's direct impact on contemporaneous society is a bit limited due to its temporal and evolutionary distance in the development of the English language.
I actually don't dispute the cultural value of text messaging. I think people are bringing it up derisively as a strawman, but I've always been someone who supports text speak as an evolution in the written form of English (which has been all about simplification for the past thousand years). But as of now, it hasn't impacted the language nearly as much as the works of Shakespeare. When we begin to see literature emerge in text speak (that might take a generation), it'll be of more obvious value.

Your feeling that Shakespeare is basically written in a "foreign language" is interesting, but the truth of it is you use words and phrases that were his sole invention every single day without even being aware that you're doing it. You don't even have to know who Shakespeare is to be majorly influenced by his works, because they're so thoroughly permeated the very language that you communicate in. I've never actually sat down and read a King James Bible, but I know that it's easily one of the top three or four most influential books in the English language. Now, let's turn our attention to soccer... can it say the same thing? Can soccer influence your speech and thought without you having an intimate knowledge or interest in the game? Can any sport? Is that 2010 Gold Medal game of any value to someone who didn't watch it?

Sports are of cultural value. I'm planning a trip to Ireland in a few months time, that's a place where sports were used as a weapon against cultural imperialism and thus hold an immensely powerful place in the local culture. But sports generally tend to be parochial and of relatively limited interest to the population at large, so in my mind they fall below things of universal importance like communication on any scale.


Last edited by Brodie: 07-24-2013 at 11:20 AM.
Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 11:17 AM
  #81
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke the Legend View Post
Very few people from Montreal will say that the city made the right call by not pulling out all the stops to get the Expos a new open air downtown stadium they desperately needed (The Olympic Stadium absolutely killed the team, they would have been better off staying at the old Jarry Park Stadium). When the team finally left the city suffered a massive loss of prestige and a diminished presence on the North American map.
Since when does a sports team = prestige?

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 12:27 PM
  #82
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke the Legend View Post
Very few people from Montreal will say that the city made the right call by not pulling out all the stops to get the Expos a new open air downtown stadium they desperately needed (The Olympic Stadium absolutely killed the team, they would have been better off staying at the old Jarry Park Stadium). When the team finally left the city suffered a massive loss of prestige and a diminished presence on the North American map.
Blaming Olympic Stadium for the Expos demise doesn't wash.
The Expos acted like a small market team so they were a small market team. They had a meddlesome and inept ownership that destroyed the team just as it was ready to blossom.

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 12:38 PM
  #83
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Burke the Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,392
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWingsNow View Post
Blaming Olympic Stadium for the Expos demise doesn't wash.
The Expos acted like a small market team so they were a small market team. They had a meddlesome and inept ownership that destroyed the team just as it was ready to blossom.
People are much more willing to tolerate small market teams if they are sitting in a nice open downtown ballpark on beautiful summer evening. When you gotta schlep an hour to a dumpy part of town to watch the ballgame in a monstrous concrete cavern, support nosedived once the management problems manifested.

Burke the Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 12:47 PM
  #84
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burke the Legend View Post
People are much more willing to tolerate small market teams if they are sitting in a nice open downtown ballpark on beautiful summer evening. When you gotta schlep an hour to a dumpy part of town to watch the ballgame in a monstrous concrete cavern, support nosedived once the management problems manifested.
You guys in Montreal did not show up, the attendance stats are there. No one in Boston or NY makes excuses. Or even *gasp* Toronto sometimes.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 01:06 PM
  #85
FuriousSenator
Registered User
 
FuriousSenator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Since when does a sports team = prestige?
Why are you here?

Your presence on this board tells me you feel strongly enough about sports, you are willing to discuss and debate them and focus on them for large parts of your personal time.

Sports are one of the few QUANTITATIVELY measurable indicators of a city's prestige. A sports team represents the city in common competitions.

Very very very few other things are as equal all things considered in terms of comparison between cities. For example, who is to say that the New York City Art Gallery (the Met or whatever) is qualitatively better than Ottawa's National Art Gallery? Because it has more paintings? Yah but what if you like Ottawa's offerings better?

But if you asked whether New York City or Ottawa has better sports teams, more city sports championships, more franchises, more stadiums...well there ya go.

OF COURSE there's prestige there.

FuriousSenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 01:12 PM
  #86
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdTheSabresFan View Post
Why are you here?

Your presence on this board tells me you feel strongly enough about sports, you are willing to discuss and debate them and focus on them for large parts of your personal time.

Sports are one of the few QUANTITATIVELY measurable indicators of a city's prestige. A sports team represents the city in common competitions.

Very very very few other things are as equal all things considered in terms of comparison between cities. For example, who is to say that the New York City Art Gallery (the Met or whatever) is qualitatively better than Ottawa's National Art Gallery? Because it has more paintings? Yah but what if you like Ottawa's offerings better?

But if you asked whether New York City or Ottawa has better sports teams, more city sports championships, more franchises, more stadiums...well there ya go.

OF COURSE there's prestige there.

But the thing is: This is a game. It's just a game and to be honest, Ottawa does have a lot of nice stuff, yes it's boring, but lots of cities are. I don't really think in the logn run it matters who won and who lost at a game you will forget happened in 2 weeks from the time it was played.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 01:18 PM
  #87
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
But the thing is: This is a game. It's just a game and to be honest, Ottawa does have a lot of nice stuff, yes it's boring, but lots of cities are. I don't really think in the logn run it matters who won and who lost at a game you will forget happened in 2 weeks from the time it was played.
I think I understand what you are trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong:

If we use the sport of hockey as an example, you are enjoying the game for what it is, and not getting caught up in being a "fan" of a certain team. Your mentality is really is "it's just a game" -you are talking from the basis of being a casual fan/a fan of the sport, not of a particular city or team. So for your own personal view, there isn't "prestige"-it's just a game.

You're seeing a bigger picture. Am I kind of on the mark here?

As far as sports/prestige, well I think it depends on each fans particular view. There are a large number of each fan base who will their team on every game and get caught up in it-the various team boards can tell you that-so for those fans, yes there is "prestige"-heck Leaf fans would love to have the prestige of having a Stanley Cup again. For you (and for me for that matter), you're just more of a general fan-a team wins/loses, oh well there's always next game.

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 02:49 PM
  #88
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 51,036
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
I'm going to be honest with you, I'm not an artsy kind of guy. Maybe someone else could provide real insight as to how important Shakespeare really was. But as I understand it he allowed English to be a fluid, evolving language. Shakespeare broke boundaries with the language, allowing it to now be a language that absorbs common events and package it in a single word. And because his work was so creative, well articulated, and concise, people accepted the boundaries being broken. Now we can make up words as we go, such as Ipod, whereas before that was challenged or improper.
I wouldn't say that Shakespeare meaningfully changed the structure of the language, certainly not at the common level. His plays were only performed on a handful of stages in England prior to the mid-18th, and his poetry was published well after his death, so by the time they became the subject of popular knowledge they were already beginning to sound archaic (imagine an author from the 1850s suddenly becoming popular today -- you would definitely notice a difference in the speech patterns). The English language was in the middle of a major shift toward its modern structure during Shakespeare's lifetime, so he was more influenced than influencer in that respect.

His influence on common language was more in the following areas:
- As a subject of popular academic study since around 1800, his works are a common touchstone for framing discussion of high literature. Virtually everyone in the English-speaking world is aware of him, and many people's knowledge of poetry and stage drama is entirely based on exposure to Shakespeare in school.
- It's possible to attribute many common words and phrases to him, though you have to be careful to recognize that this has as much to do with his timing (being alive at the dawn of popular literacy, and publishing works which were saved rather than discarded) as with his genius.
- He was a genuine genius and innovator of poetic and dramatic form, and pioneered the use of certain literary devices. This is a fairly academic subject, though, not something that greatly influenced the general culture.

In a nutshell -- Shakespeare is a tremendously important cultural figure mainly because he is most people's gateway into serious literature. His influence on day-to-day speech is not especially important, especially once you get beyond his "first recorded source of the word XXXXX" credit.

---- end of Shakespeare tangent ----

I think this conversation would make a lot more sense if we got away from talking about specific people and events, and talked more in terms of general cultural categories -- literature vs athletics, for example. Because after all, you don't build an arena for Sidney Crosby any more than you build a theater for Shakespeare. The idea is that there will be a broad variety of performances in the venue, serving a wide range of interests.

Also, this conversation reminds me of my experience as a school teacher, and the training that we were required to undergo in "multiple intelligences". I came to realize that the value of a particular subject area to a particular person is entirely relative -- for some people, a beautiful turn of phrase or a perfectly proven mathematical equation lights up their brains like a Christmas tree. For others, it's a well-tuned V6 engine or a perfectly executed triple-axel. For any given person, these activities exist on a spectrum of interest and intelligence. Jocks tend to look down their noses at literature the same way geeks look down their noses at sports. It's a matter of people having different intelligences, being engaged with different subject areas, and viewing the "other" as a frivolity.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 03:02 PM
  #89
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I wouldn't say that Shakespeare meaningfully changed the structure of the language, certainly not at the common level. His plays were only performed on a handful of stages in England prior to the mid-18th, and his poetry was published well after his death, so by the time they became the subject of popular knowledge they were already beginning to sound archaic (imagine an author from the 1850s suddenly becoming popular today -- you would definitely notice a difference in the speech patterns). The English language was in the middle of a major shift toward its modern structure during Shakespeare's lifetime, so he was more influenced than influencer in that respect.

His influence on common language was more in the following areas:
- As a subject of popular academic study since around 1800, his works are a common touchstone for framing discussion of high literature. Virtually everyone in the English-speaking world is aware of him, and many people's knowledge of poetry and stage drama is entirely based on exposure to Shakespeare in school.
- It's possible to attribute many common words and phrases to him, though you have to be careful to recognize that this has as much to do with his timing (being alive at the dawn of popular literacy, and publishing works which were saved rather than discarded) as with his genius.
- He was a genuine genius and innovator of poetic and dramatic form, and pioneered the use of certain literary devices. This is a fairly academic subject, though, not something that greatly influenced the general culture.

In a nutshell -- Shakespeare is a tremendously important cultural figure mainly because he is most people's gateway into serious literature. His influence on day-to-day speech is not especially important, especially once you get beyond his "first recorded source of the word XXXXX" credit.

---- end of Shakespeare tangent ----

I think this conversation would make a lot more sense if we got away from talking about specific people and events, and talked more in terms of general cultural categories -- literature vs athletics, for example. Because after all, you don't build an arena for Sidney Crosby any more than you build a theater for Shakespeare. The idea is that there will be a broad variety of performances in the venue, serving a wide range of interests.

Also, this conversation reminds me of my experience as a school teacher, and the training that we were required to undergo in "multiple intelligences". I came to realize that the value of a particular subject area to a particular person is entirely relative -- for some people, a beautiful turn of phrase or a perfectly proven mathematical equation lights up their brains like a Christmas tree. For others, it's a well-tuned V6 engine or a perfectly executed triple-axel. For any given person, these activities exist on a spectrum of interest and intelligence. Jocks tend to look down their noses at literature the same way geeks look down their noses at sports. It's a matter of people having different intelligences, being engaged with different subject areas, and viewing the "other" as a frivolity.
I agree with the "multiple intelligences" idea, we all have our different strengths and interests: I could could go on and on about mask history and it's various aspects, which I know a decent amount about, but ask me something about automechanics, and I could maybe tell you the basic functioning of how an engine works, but that's about it!

I think it's an excellent idea to talk in the more generalities. I think it's also a good way to learn about those who post here, and how our hockey interests vary in intensity and knowledge-helps to get a more rounded idea.

Defining the generals-as you say, like athletics vs other interests can lead to a healthy discussion

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 03:06 PM
  #90
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
I think I understand what you are trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong:

If we use the sport of hockey as an example, you are enjoying the game for what it is, and not getting caught up in being a "fan" of a certain team. Your mentality is really is "it's just a game" -you are talking from the basis of being a casual fan/a fan of the sport, not of a particular city or team. So for your own personal view, there isn't "prestige"-it's just a game.

You're seeing a bigger picture. Am I kind of on the mark here?

As far as sports/prestige, well I think it depends on each fans particular view. There are a large number of each fan base who will their team on every game and get caught up in it-the various team boards can tell you that-so for those fans, yes there is "prestige"-heck Leaf fans would love to have the prestige of having a Stanley Cup again. For you (and for me for that matter), you're just more of a general fan-a team wins/loses, oh well there's always next game.
Yes. 100 percent on the mark.

Melrose Munch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 03:55 PM
  #91
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Zetterberg Era View Post
Using Detroit and their use of private money and state funding is a terrible example here. It looks good optically and requires little research but at the same time it makes you look like a clown for not doing said research and damages how I can receive this article as a whole.

Of note the San Francisco Giants stadium, Indianapolis, Cleveland and Pittsburgh have all used this formula to successfully jump start terrible areas in town and leverage growth. Considering three of those examples are in the Midwest, shouldn't that be a part of why one could argue this is an excellent example for Detroit to follow. They struggle getting people downtown, I have a hard time seeing the hate for this. A bunch of it lies with people that have never been to Detroit and have no understanding of the environment. I understand the no money for stadium arguments, but what about how damaging it is to lose the Wings from the downtown area completely? Surely tapping state funds is advisable in that situation and adding revenue from concerts they cannot currently book downtown and shopping areas they don't have changes this discussion a little. Connecting Midtown and the Entertainment district should be priority one and that is precisely what this project does.
I can speak for Cleveland. The $200-300 million for the Indians and cavaliers facilities did revitalize downtown. Also, without 3 sports teams to we wouldn't be able to market ourselves as a major city. Despite the lack of winning by our teams, sports is an important part of our culture here and without the teams I think a lot more people would have left the region over the years. I know I wouldn't live here without having sports here

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 04:38 PM
  #92
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I wouldn't say that Shakespeare meaningfully changed the structure of the language, certainly not at the common level. His plays were only performed on a handful of stages in England prior to the mid-18th, and his poetry was published well after his death, so by the time they became the subject of popular knowledge they were already beginning to sound archaic (imagine an author from the 1850s suddenly becoming popular today -- you would definitely notice a difference in the speech patterns). The English language was in the middle of a major shift toward its modern structure during Shakespeare's lifetime, so he was more influenced than influencer in that respect.

His influence on common language was more in the following areas:
- As a subject of popular academic study since around 1800, his works are a common touchstone for framing discussion of high literature. Virtually everyone in the English-speaking world is aware of him, and many people's knowledge of poetry and stage drama is entirely based on exposure to Shakespeare in school.
- It's possible to attribute many common words and phrases to him, though you have to be careful to recognize that this has as much to do with his timing (being alive at the dawn of popular literacy, and publishing works which were saved rather than discarded) as with his genius.
- He was a genuine genius and innovator of poetic and dramatic form, and pioneered the use of certain literary devices. This is a fairly academic subject, though, not something that greatly influenced the general culture.

In a nutshell -- Shakespeare is a tremendously important cultural figure mainly because he is most people's gateway into serious literature. His influence on day-to-day speech is not especially important, especially once you get beyond his "first recorded source of the word XXXXX" credit.

---- end of Shakespeare tangent ----

I think this conversation would make a lot more sense if we got away from talking about specific people and events, and talked more in terms of general cultural categories -- literature vs athletics, for example. Because after all, you don't build an arena for Sidney Crosby any more than you build a theater for Shakespeare. The idea is that there will be a broad variety of performances in the venue, serving a wide range of interests.

Also, this conversation reminds me of my experience as a school teacher, and the training that we were required to undergo in "multiple intelligences". I came to realize that the value of a particular subject area to a particular person is entirely relative -- for some people, a beautiful turn of phrase or a perfectly proven mathematical equation lights up their brains like a Christmas tree. For others, it's a well-tuned V6 engine or a perfectly executed triple-axel. For any given person, these activities exist on a spectrum of interest and intelligence. Jocks tend to look down their noses at literature the same way geeks look down their noses at sports. It's a matter of people having different intelligences, being engaged with different subject areas, and viewing the "other" as a frivolity.
What about the philosophy and debate that there's a hierarchy of subjects, one being dependent on the next? An example being the field of psychology is dependent on biology, which is dependent on chemistry, which is then dependent on physics/math theories.

So where people who view athleticism as the most important subject - perhaps rationed by our species' roots - they're dependent on the sciences to heal their wounds. And because the building blocks of literature/language (ie, Shakespeare) are the medium of creating sports, football is dependent on them.


Last edited by MarkGio: 07-24-2013 at 04:53 PM. Reason: minor adjustment
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 05:08 PM
  #93
Brodie
voted best
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 15,599
vCash: 500
I agree that there's a great deal of intellectual snobbery involved in the promotion of capital C Culture over popular culture. I'm sure I'm guilty of elitism in that regard at times, though I generally do agree with what THH says. I'd only say that from my point of view it's about the practical applications of each field... in my experience being well read is far more enriching than knowing every player's on the 1990 Milwaukee Brewers VORP. Now, the two aren't mutually exclusive, obviously, but if you're giving me a choice that's my criteria.

Regarding sports as a measure of prestige, I'm honestly not sure how true that is. Prestige, insomuch as it actually exists, tends to follow population. And the most prestigious cities, I'm addition to being the largest, tend to be the ones with most financial and (high) cultural power as opposed to sporting tradition. It's also very NA centric... Paris, for example, barely rates as a sports city and yet is arguably the most prestigious city on the planet.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 05:25 PM
  #94
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
I agree that there's a great deal of intellectual snobbery involved in the promotion of capital C Culture over popular culture. I'm sure I'm guilty of elitism in that regard at times, though I generally do agree with what THH says. I'd only say that from my point of view it's about the practical applications of each field... in my experience being well read is far more enriching than knowing every player's on the 1990 Milwaukee Brewers VORP. Now, the two aren't mutually exclusive, obviously, but if you're giving me a choice that's my criteria.

Regarding sports as a measure of prestige, I'm honestly not sure how true that is. Prestige, insomuch as it actually exists, tends to follow population. And the most prestigious cities, I'm addition to being the largest, tend to be the ones with most financial and (high) cultural power as opposed to sporting tradition. It's also very NA centric... Paris, for example, barely rates as a sports city and yet is arguably the most prestigious city on the planet.
One can easily get into the debate/argument about what prestige means, in our case here on BoH, to a fan of a hockey team. It's a question I admit I've wanted to ask-using NHL teams and fans for this particular example:

"What do you get out of the team you root for winning the Stanley Cup?

An obvious answer is "It makes me feel good", that's fine-but what does that entail? Having pride when talking with your peers about your team winning the cup? Bragging Rights? But that's only effective if you are talking to your peers who also follow other teams. What about your peers who don't follow hockey? The most you'll get is a "that's nice" type of response. So in this particular example-the prestige could be said to only be applicable to others who share that interest. But for those who don't share it, it's not really an issue.

If I'm going to visit a city, my decision is not based on how good or bad that city is on whether they've won a championship or not.


And to bring this around to the thread topic hand, perhaps with this current situation, there can be had a very thoughtful discussion and analysis about "what do sports give us-economically, culturally , and how does that weigh against the real situation of people's jobs/pensions/finances and how can find a way to make things work that work out for all parties involved"


Last edited by Tinalera: 07-24-2013 at 05:33 PM.
Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 05:31 PM
  #95
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Yes. 100 percent on the mark.
Dayum, I'm really starting to like you Melrose Who woulda thought when we were banging heads during the strike

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 05:36 PM
  #96
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Yes. 100 percent on the mark.
I didn't want my response to you lost in my tomes LOL.

Nice to know some of my instincts are still intact. That plus Saintpatrick's response, it really is interesting to see the more "casual" fans revealing themselves.

Makes me wonder how many of the "nonspecific/casual" fans roam the BoH boards

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 05:36 PM
  #97
J17 Vs Proclamation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Reading.
Country: South Korea
Posts: 8,025
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to J17 Vs Proclamation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post

Sports are of cultural value. I'm planning a trip to Ireland in a few months time, that's a place where sports were used as a weapon against cultural imperialism and thus hold an immensely powerful place in the local culture. But sports generally tend to be parochial and of relatively limited interest to the population at large, so in my mind they fall below things of universal importance like communication on any scale.
News flash ; the majority of whatever comes under the umbrella of art ; whether it is media, literature etc etc, lends itself to a small % of the population. Saying the majority have little interest in sport completely negates the fact that the majority have little interest in a united specific thing.

What do you define as unviversal importance? Notwithstanding the point that your argument is so transparent and contradictory, based upon subjective rules and perceptions that only cater for certain thought, whilst exluding other thought (sport has a MASSIVE cultural impact) what are these universal importance concepts?

People need to stop thinking about sport and it's impact on a basic level. Whether you play it, watch it, are surrounded by it, surrounded by indirect impacts of sport both "economically, socially and politically" you are in some way impacted by sport. It may not be as overtly profound as Shakespear, but is unquestionably there.

Finally, i just read another quote from you suggesting Paris is the most prestigious city in the world (and indirectly, it doesn't like sport). Do you have any empirical evidence for this? No, not likely. How do you define prestigious, how do you assume your view of prestige is the same as the globes and how do you know it isn't a sports city (please don't cite major league teams blah blah). You don't.

J17 Vs Proclamation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 05:43 PM
  #98
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinalera View Post
I didn't want my response to you lost in my tomes LOL.

Nice to know some of my instincts are still intact. That plus Saintpatrick's response, it really is interesting to see the more "casual" fans revealing themselves.

Makes me wonder how many of the "nonspecific/casual" fans roam the BoH boards
You could say I'm a "nonspecific fan". Casual, well, probably not accurate. I'm a hard core fan of the sport, but not hardcore to specific teams though I'm a fan of the Caps and the Habs. As I like to say: I'm a fan of the sport first, and a fan of specific teams a distant second.

That being said, I have many interests and passions so I'm not just hockey 24/7/365.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 05:48 PM
  #99
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by J17 Vs Proclamation View Post
News flash ; the majority of whatever comes under the umbrella of art ; whether it is media, literature etc etc, lends itself to a small % of the population. Saying the majority have little interest in sport completely negates the fact that the majority have little interest in a united specific thing.

What do you define as unviversal importance? Notwithstanding the point that your argument is so transparent and contradictory, based upon subjective rules and perceptions that only cater for certain thought, whilst exluding other thought (sport has a MASSIVE cultural impact) what are these universal importance concepts?

People need to stop thinking about sport and it's impact on a basic level. Whether you play it, watch it, are surrounded by it, surrounded by indirect impacts of sport both "economically, socially and politically" you are in some way impacted by sport. It may not be as overtly profound as Shakespear, but is unquestionably there.

Finally, i just read another quote from you suggesting Paris is the most prestigious city in the world (and indirectly, it doesn't like sport). Do you have any empirical evidence for this? No, not likely. How do you define prestigious, how do you assume your view of prestige is the same as the globes and how do you know it isn't a sports city (please don't cite major league teams blah blah). You don't.
Are you denying that Paris is one of the most prestigious cities in the world? Because, quite frankly, the fact that it IS is so self-evident and axiomatic that it doesn't require evidence. On the other hand the assertion that it isn't is so far beyond the pale that YOU should be providing evidence that it isn't.

The person who claims the moon isn't made of green cheese doesn't have to prove it, the person who claims it is does.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2013, 05:58 PM
  #100
Tinalera
Registered User
 
Tinalera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Known Universe
Posts: 6,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
You could say I'm a "nonspecific fan". Casual, well, probably not accurate. I'm a hard core fan of the sport, but not hardcore to specific teams though I'm a fan of the Caps and the Habs. As I like to say: I'm a fan of the sport first, and a fan of specific teams a distant second.

That being said, I have many interests and passions so I'm not just hockey 24/7/365.
I understand what you're saying.

Myself I'm a casual fan of the sport-I did used to be a decent sized fan of the Leafs (ya ya ya lol) a number of years ago, but came to a point where I just of really stopped being bothered with it. Now due to the locality of where I live, the Leaf coverage is such that I get it whether I want it or not

Tinalera is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.