Comments on: Priorities http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/priorities/ People don't think it be like it is, but it do. Sun, 20 May 2012 08:25:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Cliffy http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/priorities/#comment-151 Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:41:09 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/priorities/#comment-151 I do find it interesting that little - if anything - has been said regarding the Hornets (or are they called something else now?) looking at Oklahoma City. It seemed like folks were willing to sacrifice their first born to keep the Saints, and crucify Benson for even considering the prospect of leaving - yet it seems a foregone conclusion that the basketball team will be replanted (again) in Oklahoma City... where they're getting better and more consistent support. I mean... this is Pete Maravich territory. Is there truly *no* interest in basketball? If so, that begs the question: Why the heck did Shinn leave Charlotte, a hotbed of basketball activity in the first place? Oh, yeah, cuz they wouldn't prostitute themselves like New Orleans was apparently willing to (at the time). As for the boost to local psyche argument, I just remember the countless anecdotes over the past two years of how folks in that area seemed to have nothing but the Saints to hold onto. Now, that's perhaps overblown for literary sensationalism. One last thought: Joe Horn was arguably the most prominent and visible Saint to help during and after Hurricane Katrina. He'll be playing somewhere else next year, cuz he doesn't fit the Saints plans anymore (ironically, as they become a playoff contender after his long career of service there). Apparently *his* impact on the local psyche didn't come into play when the Saints management was making roster decisions at the end of 2006. I'm just wondering where the local outcry is for the Saints to keep Joe Horn, since he gave so much back to the community (at least) the past couple years. Or is it the Saints fans don't mind seeing him go if it'll make the Saints better i.e. more cap-friendly, younger, whatever? That'd be ironic, don't you think? Saints fans quite willing to easily sever ties with a beloved player if it makes their team better for them... you know, kinda like a franchise talking about moving its operation if thats what would be better for them. I do find it interesting that little - if anything - has been said regarding the Hornets (or are they called something else now?) looking at Oklahoma City. It seemed like folks were willing to sacrifice their first born to keep the Saints, and crucify Benson for even considering the prospect of leaving - yet it seems a foregone conclusion that the basketball team will be replanted (again) in Oklahoma City… where they’re getting better and more consistent support. I mean… this is Pete Maravich territory. Is there truly *no* interest in basketball? If so, that begs the question: Why the heck did Shinn leave Charlotte, a hotbed of basketball activity in the first place? Oh, yeah, cuz they wouldn’t prostitute themselves like New Orleans was apparently willing to (at the time).

As for the boost to local psyche argument, I just remember the countless anecdotes over the past two years of how folks in that area seemed to have nothing but the Saints to hold onto. Now, that’s perhaps overblown for literary sensationalism.

One last thought: Joe Horn was arguably the most prominent and visible Saint to help during and after Hurricane Katrina. He’ll be playing somewhere else next year, cuz he doesn’t fit the Saints plans anymore (ironically, as they become a playoff contender after his long career of service there). Apparently *his* impact on the local psyche didn’t come into play when the Saints management was making roster decisions at the end of 2006. I’m just wondering where the local outcry is for the Saints to keep Joe Horn, since he gave so much back to the community (at least) the past couple years. Or is it the Saints fans don’t mind seeing him go if it’ll make the Saints better i.e. more cap-friendly, younger, whatever? That’d be ironic, don’t you think? Saints fans quite willing to easily sever ties with a beloved player if it makes their team better for them… you know, kinda like a franchise talking about moving its operation if thats what would be better for them.

]]> by: Tank http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/priorities/#comment-149 Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:05:59 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/priorities/#comment-149 Several economists (I know the analysis is in Zimbalist's "Baseball and Billions") have studied the economic impact of major league sports teams on their home cities/areas and have pretty definitively established that the teams don't create much incremental economic activity, they just displace it - people spend money on the sports team they would otherwise spend on other forms of entertainment, be they movies, restaurants, Mama Gutzmer... "having the Saints around provides an incalculable boost to the local psyche" - How very odd; I know what each of those words means, yet never expected to encounter them in quite that order. Anyhoo, yes, having the team around gives people something to talk about on Monday morning at work. But personally, I get far less work done while discussing sports than while not doing so. I suspect the effect on the local psyche represents a net cost to the local economy. I do regard myself as a capitalist, but I don't think the term applies to any of the welfare queens who currently own NFL franchises. I do not blame Tom Benson for taking whatever he can get from Baton Rouge, New Orleans, and any other local band of fools waiting to be separated from their money. Bully for him. I do, however, find fault with politicians squandering the scarce resources of an underdeveloped state on subsidies for a private enterprise of little to no net public benefit. Several economists (I know the analysis is in Zimbalist’s “Baseball and Billions”) have studied the economic impact of major league sports teams on their home cities/areas and have pretty definitively established that the teams don’t create much incremental economic activity, they just displace it - people spend money on the sports team they would otherwise spend on other forms of entertainment, be they movies, restaurants, Mama Gutzmer…

“having the Saints around provides an incalculable boost to the local psyche” - How very odd; I know what each of those words means, yet never expected to encounter them in quite that order. Anyhoo, yes, having the team around gives people something to talk about on Monday morning at work. But personally, I get far less work done while discussing sports than while not doing so. I suspect the effect on the local psyche represents a net cost to the local economy.

I do regard myself as a capitalist, but I don’t think the term applies to any of the welfare queens who currently own NFL franchises. I do not blame Tom Benson for taking whatever he can get from Baton Rouge, New Orleans, and any other local band of fools waiting to be separated from their money. Bully for him. I do, however, find fault with politicians squandering the scarce resources of an underdeveloped state on subsidies for a private enterprise of little to no net public benefit.

]]> by: Cliffy http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/priorities/#comment-147 Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:37:51 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/priorities/#comment-147 I presume the state feels that they will experience a positive return on their investment to keep the Saints around i.e. you've got to spend money to make more money, which can then be used on the more mundane pursuits you speak of once the games end. But that's the real question, isn't it? *Do* the Saints actually bring incremental revenue into the state, and specifically the city of New Orleans? Or is it simply state-subsidized entertainment, whereby locals spend (in)disposale income on Saints games and merchandise? I don't have that answer - and I'm not sure where to get it. Naturally, there's also the argument that having the Saints around provides an incalcuable boost to the local psyche (whether or not it also boosts the local economy). Having the distraction of the Saints on sixteen Sundays a year (and last season, a couple extra Sundays thanks to a playoff run) keeps those folks going as they try to rebuild - and overcome so many obstacles.... like rising crime rates and sinking school systems. As a capitalist yourself, do you begrudge Tom Benson for wanting to be profitable with his football team - and thus doing whatever is necessary to ensure a maximum positive cash flow in his business investment? Would he be doing the "right thing" if he were to thumb his nose at Louisiana and go Al Davis - hitting the courts to try and allow the NFL to let him move? Or is he supposed to operate with much lesser resources than even Ralph Wilson has in Buffalo - so that he field a team that is *unable* to get the NFC Championship Game, with a real chance of getting to its first Super Bowl? I presume the state feels that they will experience a positive return on their investment to keep the Saints around i.e. you’ve got to spend money to make more money, which can then be used on the more mundane pursuits you speak of once the games end. But that’s the real question, isn’t it? *Do* the Saints actually bring incremental revenue into the state, and specifically the city of New Orleans? Or is it simply state-subsidized entertainment, whereby locals spend (in)disposale income on Saints games and merchandise? I don’t have that answer - and I’m not sure where to get it.

Naturally, there’s also the argument that having the Saints around provides an incalcuable boost to the local psyche (whether or not it also boosts the local economy). Having the distraction of the Saints on sixteen Sundays a year (and last season, a couple extra Sundays thanks to a playoff run) keeps those folks going as they try to rebuild - and overcome so many obstacles…. like rising crime rates and sinking school systems.

As a capitalist yourself, do you begrudge Tom Benson for wanting to be profitable with his football team - and thus doing whatever is necessary to ensure a maximum positive cash flow in his business investment? Would he be doing the “right thing” if he were to thumb his nose at Louisiana and go Al Davis - hitting the courts to try and allow the NFL to let him move? Or is he supposed to operate with much lesser resources than even Ralph Wilson has in Buffalo - so that he field a team that is *unable* to get the NFC Championship Game, with a real chance of getting to its first Super Bowl?

]]>