NFL stadium-mania - when, not "if", it comes to Baltimore

[Mista T]

The construction of new NFL stadiums or major upgrades has been accelerating at a pace similar to the mid/late-90s stadium boom:


Cowboys & Cardinals new Taj Mahals, plus a new $2B Hackensack Dump in Jersey
Superdome upgraded with Katrina reconstruction $$ (many thanks to you & me & other US taxpayers)
Arrowhead got $1/2 billion new clubs, scoreboards
Bears & Packers & Jaguars upgrades
Miami added new escalators, expanded concourses, and plans to add a rooflet to shade fans
Metrodome replacement is a legislative conference meeting away from funding
Rams & St. Louis are trading proposals for mandatory hundreds of millions Dome upgrade
Blank wants a new topless stadium built in safer area of Atlanta
49rs to build a new stadium at Santa Clara with $80,000 PSLs
Raiders may follow into Santa Clara



Every NFL owner (except Ralph Wilson) is continually looking over his shoulder at what his business partners are doing -- e.g. ticket price gouging by all NFL teams. With half the NFL teams in new or recently refurbished stadiums, how long will it be until Steve Bisciotti makes demands for upgrades ... or hints that there are greener pastures elsewhere? :grbac:

It won't happen here because:


Bisciotti is a local boy? Maybe. but he also became a billionaire by being a smart businessman
our stadium is too new? maybe, but Atlanta, Jax rebuild, St Louis aren't old, and they are also modern football-only stadiums
our publicly funded stadium helps make the Ravens profitable? Sure, but stadium upgrades could add to the profitability.



It's going to happen. I predict sooner rather than later: within 3 to 5 years the Ravens will start complaining about being in the lower tier of NFL stadiums and looking for a "public/private partnership" to fund upgrades. I predict in the $1/2 billion range. Watch your wallets!

(btw: Tony L had some April foolery about a new stadium a few months ago about building a new suburban stadium. That joke may not be far from the mark).

[Shas]

The construction of new NFL stadiums or major upgrades has been accelerating at a pace similar to the mid/late-90s stadium boom...
It won't happen here because:

...because we were already part of the last boom.

Most of the stadia you listed are much older, or replaced much older models. The Georgia Dome is comparable because it was built in '92, but that's even older than M&T, opened in 1998. The roof idea comes up, but that's a tough sell, even more now that they have nearly committed to expanding the convention center with an adjoining arena.

[Greg]

It won't happen here because:


•Bisciotti is a local boy? Maybe. but he also became a billionaire by being a smart businessman
•our stadium is too new? maybe, but Atlanta, Jax rebuild, St Louis aren't old, and they are also modern football-only stadiums
•our publicly funded stadium helps make the Ravens profitable? Sure, but stadium upgrades could add to the profitability.

I think the Ravens legally locked themselves in with "Permanent Seat Licenses" that we have instead of the 30 year "Personal Seat Licenses" others, like the Panthers, used. I think a pretty good case can be made in court by the owners of these PSLs that the Ravens sold us an everlasting product.

Now they may make the case we can still use our licenses in Birmingham or where ever and that might fly, but it also precludes the selling of PSLs to the fans in the area of the new stadium. I am no lawyer but the different wording, I think, has tied them to Baltimore in a way that might not have been realized at the time.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

The construction of new NFL stadiums or major upgrades has been accelerating at a pace similar to the mid/late-90s stadium boom:


Cowboys & Cardinals new Taj Mahals, plus a new $2B Hackensack Dump in Jersey
Superdome upgraded with Katrina reconstruction $$ (many thanks to you & me & other US taxpayers)
Arrowhead got $1/2 billion new clubs, scoreboards
Bears & Packers & Jaguars upgrades
Miami added new escalators, expanded concourses, and plans to add a rooflet to shade fans
Metrodome replacement is a legislative conference meeting away from funding
Rams & St. Louis are trading proposals for mandatory hundreds of millions Dome upgrade
Blank wants a new topless stadium built in safer area of Atlanta
49rs to build a new stadium at Santa Clara with $80,000 PSLs
Raiders may follow into Santa Clara



Every NFL owner (except Ralph Wilson) is continually looking over his shoulder at what his business partners are doing -- e.g. ticket price gouging by all NFL teams. With half the NFL teams in new or recently refurbished stadiums, how long will it be until Steve Bisciotti makes demands for upgrades ... or hints that there are greener pastures elsewhere? :grbac:

It won't happen here because:


Bisciotti is a local boy? Maybe. but he also became a billionaire by being a smart businessman
our stadium is too new? maybe, but Atlanta, Jax rebuild, St Louis aren't old, and they are also modern football-only stadiums
our publicly funded stadium helps make the Ravens profitable? Sure, but stadium upgrades could add to the profitability.



It's going to happen. I predict sooner rather than later: within 3 to 5 years the Ravens will start complaining about being in the lower tier of NFL stadiums and looking for a "public/private partnership" to fund upgrades. I predict in the $1/2 billion range. Watch your wallets!

(btw: Tony L had some April foolery about a new stadium a few months ago about building a new suburban stadium. That joke may not be far from the mark).

Totally agree...give them 6-7 years and we'll start hearing the chirping. Stadiums seem to only last about 20 years these days and M&T is on year 15.


...because we were already part of the last boom.

Most of the stadia you listed are much older, or replaced much older models. The Georgia Dome is comparable because it was built in '92, but that's even older than M&T, opened in 1998. The roof idea comes up, but that's a tough sell, even more now that they have nearly committed to expanding the convention center with an adjoining arena.

The Rams are also are throwing a fit and I think their stadium is only a year or 2 older. I believe the Dolphins are talking about upgrades (http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/thedailydolphin/2010/01/07/new-roof-highlights-proposed-renovations-for-dolphin-stadium/). Even the Panthers are looking into something 10-15 years down the road. (http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/23/panthers-talking-about-new-stadium/)

I don't think it'll happen quite as fast as T put it, but it's coming...

[LC_Ravens_87]

...because we were already part of the last boom.

Most of the stadia you listed are much older, or replaced much older models. The Georgia Dome is comparable because it was built in '92, but that's even older than M&T, opened in 1998. The roof idea comes up, but that's a tough sell, even more now that they have nearly committed to expanding the convention center with an adjoining arena.

Agreed.


See the power outage at Candlestick this year or that whole roof collapsing at the Metrodome...and the Raiders play at the last full multi-purpose stadium in the NFL. Superdome = Most Destructive hurricane in US history.

The Ravens share one of the best sports complexes in the country with great road and Metro access (go to a Redskins game) in the best location in downtown Baltimore. I don't see the greener pastures.

[Captain Silver]

Heinz field and Lincoln Park are on par with M&T in terms of location, transportation, and amenities and I don't think they are sweating.

If anything, I hear more bitching out of DC about their monstrosity then anything.

[Mista T]

I think the Ravens legally locked themselves in with "Permanent Seat Licenses" that we have instead of the 30 year "Personal Seat Licenses" others, like the Panthers, used. I think a pretty good case can be made in court by the owners of these PSLs that the Ravens sold us an everlasting product...... the different wording, I think, has tied them to Baltimore in a way that might not have been realized at the time.

Greg -- re-read Article 1 in your PSL agreement:


the Seat Licenses granted to to Licensee to purchase the number of Season Ticket(s) for the designated Stadium Area shown on Exhibit A during such period of time as NFL football is played at the stadium

[AirFlacco]

I think the Ravens legally locked themselves in with "Permanent Seat Licenses" that we have instead of the 30 year "Personal Seat Licenses" others, like the Panthers, used. I think a pretty good case can be made in court by the owners of these PSLs that the Ravens sold us an everlasting product.

Now they may make the case we can still use our licenses in Birmingham or where ever and that might fly, but it also precludes the selling of PSLs to the fans in the area of the new stadium. I am no lawyer but the different wording, I think, has tied them to Baltimore in a way that might not have been realized at the time.


I know a couple of fans that had original PSLs and just sold them at a profit
so it is a good investment of sorts.

Oriole Park is getting some age but still looks better than most stadiums and is
still the best place in the country to watch baseball.

[landspeed]

I know a couple of fans that had original PSLs and just sold them at a profit
so it is a good investment of sorts.

Oriole Park is getting some age but still looks better than most stadiums and is
still the best place in the country to watch baseball.

I love camden yards.

[ravensfan1996]

They have already been upgrading the stadium the past few years, they have added new HD scoreboards, new artificial turf replaced, added more seats, added a few bar areas.... The club suites and levels are already top notch and on par with any modern stadium taking up 2 levels of of the middle concourse. I dont see where any if much improvement is needed.

[Brtnder81]

There is nothing wrong with this stadium. The only upgrade I would like to see is escalaters to the upper deck. Other then that what more could they do? a roof? They cant do what they did at Camden yards with replacing the seats with wider more comfy seats with better sigh lines because they would have to reduce the seating capacity which wont happen

[GOTA]

The reason why owners want new stadiums is for revenue. The Ravens are a top 10 revenue team, they were 8th in 2010. The Falcons were 26th, the Vikings were 30th, the Raiders 31st etc....that's why those teams want new stadiums.

Adding a roof or 3-D scoreboards or comfy seats won't increase revenue. Adding more luxury boxes is what does it. No reason for any of this in Baltimore

[Flipping Birdie]

The reason why owners want new stadiums is for revenue. The Ravens are a top 10 revenue team, they were 8th in 2010. The Falcons were 26th, the Vikings were 30th, the Raiders 31st etc....that's why those teams want new stadiums.

Adding a roof or 3-D scoreboards or comfy seats won't increase revenue. Adding more luxury boxes is what does it. No reason for any of this is Baltimore

:iagree: This is all making an issue out of a non-issue.

[HoustonRaven]

It's always about revenue, but luxury boxes are not the sole means of revenue / revenue increases.

If Steve Biscotti is shown a model proving that the teams revenue will increase with a new stadium, complete with an extra 10,000 seats, you bet he'd start lobbying for it.

GOTA correctly points out we're one of the higher revenue generating team. As our popularity increases so does revenue. And as the revenue increase, so too does demand for tickets, PSL's, etc. There are three solutions to this increase in popularity -- raise prices, add more seats or build new a stadium that accomplishes both.

Personally, I'd love to see a Reliant type stadium in the Baltimore area. A retractable roof would make the building a year-round destination for events in addition to the football season. The money generated from such a venue would pay for the stadium in a matter of years so you'd need not worry if the funds used were public or not.

[DrUnk]

Don't know what every became of it, but my buddy works for a very large construction/development company. About 2 years ago, he said the company was drawing up plans to add another deck to the stadium, to bump it to 100K capacity. Maybe it was a concept?

[Bhcforlife]

I have never gone to a Ravens home game in the 10 years I've had season tickets and thought "This stadium is really dated. It could sure use some work or a replacement."...no doubt that massive renovations or a new stadium will be needed down the road, but that is way, way down the road IMO, certainly not in the next five to ten years. The only thing I could see at this time is escalators to the upper deck, as others have mentioned. But this doesn't seem like something they want to do, considering the upgrades and renovations they've done in the past few years have never mentioned this even being considered.

[flraven]

I don't see the Ravens wanting a new stadium for quite a few years. As others have posted, they keep doing upgrades and stuff to it. And as long as they remain pretty high up in the revenue ranking, they'll stay happy.

[Mista T]

Personally, I'd love to see a Reliant type stadium in the Baltimore area. A retractable roof would make the building a year-round destination for events in addition to the football season. The money generated from such a venue would pay for the stadium in a matter of years so you'd need not worry if the funds used were public or not.

Me too. Reliant is the best NFL stadium that I have visited. More vertical design for better perspectives, as in urban venues like the Superdome. Retractable roof, glass paneled club section facing inside.

But the probability of our seeing a Reliant type stadium here are between slim and none. Baltimore politicians have twice killed retractable roof plans. Hell ... our planners and political leaders are so pathetic as to kill even the basic amenity of escalators. The only way I see a Reliant type stadium would be if plans were to fizzle for the downtown basketball arena to adjoin an expanded Convention Center, and a domed football stadium were to replace it.

Notwithstanding some of the contray opinions above, I do believe that the Ravens will be seeking major upgrades to the stadium in the not-too-distant future. We may have the #10 revenue producer today, but that will likely slip due to improved revenue from other teams: stadium upgrades at Minneapolis & St. Louis and/or possible Los Angeles expansion/relocation and/or Bills to wealthy Toronto. The Ravens continually look over their shoulders at other teams to establish ticket prices in the upper half of NFL teams, and I expect they do so for total revenues. I don't believe the Ravens will get back into the same rate of ticket price gouging of the previous decade for fear of creating blackouts, so I look to stadium "improvements", five years or so out, as a mechanism to gain more revenues. e.g. more clubs seats and suites around the video boards. Don't be surprised to see a portion of the midfield lower decks also converted to premium seats.

Just don't hold your breath until the missing escalators are installed - there's no revenue benefit by adding comfort to upper deck patrons.

[Real Fan Dan]

It's going to happen. I predict sooner rather than later: within 3 to 5 years the Ravens will start complaining about being in the lower tier of NFL stadiums and looking for a "public/private partnership" to fund upgrades. I predict in the $1/2 billion range. Watch your wallets!


I'm thinking in 10 years they'll start pushing for a major upgrade. Also, although you are right about the PSL clause, I believe the Ravens did in fact sign a 30 year lease with the Maryland Stadium Authority.

Now Mista T you make some good points here, but quite frankly I've only heard one person say that M&T is anywhere near the "lower tier" of NFL stadiums. Most folks who have visited the Vault pretty much raved about it as compared to other stadia. No sir I'm afraid the only person who I've heard really complain about it is, well, you. :)

[OC Bob]

I have been to a fair amount of stadiums and M&T is up there with the best of them. If there was a great demanded for luxury boxes, then maybe I could see either a major overhaul or even a new stadium but Baltimore just does not have that need. As far as I can tell, they did it right the first time with the number of boxes. They could add some more regular seating to M&T to increase revenue by completely closing in the corners of the upper deck. Just my humble opinion but I think the stadium, with some minor tweaks is fine for the next 10-20 years. It would be nice to see some better/permanent entertainment areas (bars) off of the lower concourse.

[HoustonRaven]

I don't think T is complaining.

But he is right, IMO. When it was built, it wasn't a top tier stadium. Here we are almost 20 years later, other stadia have been built since, pushing M&T further down the list in terms of accommodations. So in that regard, it does sit toward to bottom. I'd characterize it as the top of the list of the bottom 30% of stadia.

I'd put Oakland, Candlestick, FedEx, Miami (whatever they are calling it these days), Buffalo, San Diego and Tampa behind M&T.

[Jayc00]

I don't think T is complaining.

But he is right, IMO. When it was built, it wasn't a top tier stadium. Here we are almost 20 years later, other stadia have been built since, pushing M&T further down the list in terms of accommodations. So in that regard, it does sit toward to bottom. I'd characterize it as the top of the list of the bottom 30% of stadia.

I'd put Oakland, Candlestick, FedEx, Miami (whatever they are calling it these days), Buffalo, San Diego and Tampa behind M&T.

Top of the bottom 30% is still kind of low. Besides the ones you listed I can think of another 7-10 to rank under M&T which IMO would put them at least in the middle of the pack.

[DarthCorvax]

But the probability of our seeing a Reliant type stadium here are between slim and none. Baltimore politicians have twice killed retractable roof plans. Hell ... our planners and political leaders are so pathetic as to kill even the basic amenity of escalators. The only way I see a Reliant type stadium would be if plans were to fizzle for the downtown basketball arena to adjoin an expanded Convention Center, and a domed football stadium were to replace it.

We're talking about two different entities. As I understand it, while the City has input into the Stadium situation, whatever it may be, it's out of their hands as MSA runs the show. So I'm not sure it'll be up to the city whether the Ravens get a new stadium or what that stadium looks like. (Besides, Hyman Pressman is long gone)

Having said that, I think that the City, whether the new arena is tacked onto the Convention Center or not (and certainly moreso if the new arena isn't built), would support a new Reliant-style stadium for the Ravens in 15-20 years from now.

As it stands now, they've been dragging their feet on the Hackerman arena proposal, but they're still looking down the road at a still-relatively new DC Convention Center and the still-uncompleted National Harbor as well as up the road at an evolving Philadelphia stadium complex area. They're going to have to come around at some point if they're serious about competing in the next few years, let alone in the next 20-30 years.

If they are, I think the City will be looking for every edge to compete (as we've seen with them doing everything they possibly can to keep the Grand Prix alive). While the City wouldn't own or control a new Reliant-style stadium, I'm sure they would want to work closely with MSA to connect the two facilities for conventions and other events.

These are the same people who started a free bus service where MTA already goes and have floated the idea of building a footbridge across the Harbor. I don't think a Reliant-style stadium, if replacement of M&T becomes an issue, would be out of the conversation from the City's POV. They'll still have a city-built hotel to fill at the time and if the casino is built nearby, they'll have slots machines and tables to fill as well.

Besides, the fact of M&T and the changes that have been made in that area have driven up home prices. A new stadium with a continued Ravens presence as well as any new outside amenities will help to drive real estate prices up further. That would mean more tax revenue for the city, which puts them in the position of having skin in the game (even more if the Westport development goes through finally by that time)

Whatever the Ravens stadium situation ends up being at that point, assuming Bisciotti still owns the team, I expect the relationship between the team and the MSA to be as good as it is right now. By all accounts, the relationship is very good and certainly better than the O's, who have been in the City much longer. I think at that time, both sides will understand that how important the team is to the City and the area and will come together to decide what the future of the stadium will be. I think upgrades will be on the table, but I think a Reliant-type stadium will be there as well. It might even become the elephant in the room and the Ravens might not even be the ones trying to drive the conversation. They might just want more suites and premium seats.

[Trackmaster]

I thought that teams usually signed 30 year agreements when they move into a publicly funded stadium. Maybe that's just for baseball. But I don't see much of a point to adding a roof to M&T. Not many of our games have rain or snow, it's not like we're up north or anything, or down south where it gets really hot. The only real reason to do it would be to be able to host the Super Bowl.

In terms of the seating capacity issue. NFL stadia are artficially small due to the blackout rule. Every stadium in the league could comfortably be 100,000+ if they wanted to be (several college stadia are well over 100,000), but no team wants to risk a non sellout where the game won't be available to their home market. Get rid of the blackout rule, and you'll see stadia expanding, and tickets becoming more accessable to the masses.

[flraven]

I thought that teams usually signed 30 year agreements when they move into a publicly funded stadium. Maybe that's just for baseball. But I don't see much of a point to adding a roof to M&T. Not many of our games have rain or snow, it's not like we're up north or anything, or down south where it gets really hot. The only real reason to do it would be to be able to host the Super Bowl.

In terms of the seating capacity issue. NFL stadia are artficially small due to the blackout rule. Every stadium in the league could comfortably be 100,000+ if they wanted to be (several college stadia are well over 100,000), but no team wants to risk a non sellout where the game won't be available to their home market. Get rid of the blackout rule, and you'll see stadia expanding, and tickets becoming more accessable to the masses.

I'm not so sure this would work. Didn't FedEx add several thousand seats to push their capacity up to about 90,000, only to remove most of them a couple years later? Granted, a lot of them were "obstructed view" seats like we used to have in the lower sections at Memorial Stadium.

[Real Fan Dan]

I don't think T is complaining.

But he is right, IMO. When it was built, it wasn't a top tier stadium. Here we are almost 20 years later, other stadia have been built since, pushing M&T further down the list in terms of accommodations. So in that regard, it does sit toward to bottom. I'd characterize it as the top of the list of the bottom 30% of stadia.

I'd put Oakland, Candlestick, FedEx, Miami (whatever they are calling it these days), Buffalo, San Diego and Tampa behind M&T.

The Ravens will play their 15th season in M&T this Fall.

To your list i would also add the stadia in Jacksonville, Nashville, Cleveland and San Diego. Those are the ones (plus your list) that I have been to that are not quite as good as M&T. I also didn't think much of the Superdome, but some folks think having a roof somehow makes the stadium better. I disagree. Football was meant to be played out of doors, in the cold.

Then there are the serious hellpits of the league, made so by the stench of the assholic fans moreso than the building itself: Philadelphia, New England and Oakland. Some would also say Pittsburgh, but i've been there - the place is cool and the people were nice. They just send all their assholes down here. ;)

[kenlutz]

The construction of new NFL stadiums or major upgrades has been accelerating at a pace similar to the mid/late-90s stadium boom:


Cowboys & Cardinals new Taj Mahals, plus a new $2B Hackensack Dump in Jersey
Superdome upgraded with Katrina reconstruction $$ (many thanks to you & me & other US taxpayers)
Arrowhead got $1/2 billion new clubs, scoreboards
Bears & Packers & Jaguars upgrades
Miami added new escalators, expanded concourses, and plans to add a rooflet to shade fans
Metrodome replacement is a legislative conference meeting away from funding
Rams & St. Louis are trading proposals for mandatory hundreds of millions Dome upgrade
Blank wants a new topless stadium built in safer area of Atlanta
49rs to build a new stadium at Santa Clara with $80,000 PSLs
Raiders may follow into Santa Clara



Every NFL owner (except Ralph Wilson) is continually looking over his shoulder at what his business partners are doing -- e.g. ticket price gouging by all NFL teams. With half the NFL teams in new or recently refurbished stadiums, how long will it be until Steve Bisciotti makes demands for upgrades ... or hints that there are greener pastures elsewhere? :grbac:

It won't happen here because:


Bisciotti is a local boy? Maybe. but he also became a billionaire by being a smart businessman
our stadium is too new? maybe, but Atlanta, Jax rebuild, St Louis aren't old, and they are also modern football-only stadiums
our publicly funded stadium helps make the Ravens profitable? Sure, but stadium upgrades could add to the profitability.



It's going to happen. I predict sooner rather than later: within 3 to 5 years the Ravens will start complaining about being in the lower tier of NFL stadiums and looking for a "public/private partnership" to fund upgrades. I predict in the $1/2 billion range. Watch your wallets!

(btw: Tony L had some April foolery about a new stadium a few months ago about building a new suburban stadium. That joke may not be far from the mark).


The avg life on an NFL stadium is 30 years before upgrades or repairs or even new stadium comes into play...so not for another 20 years or so

[flraven]

The Ravens will play their 15th season in M&T this Fall.

To your list i would also add the stadia in Jacksonville, Nashville, Cleveland and San Diego. Those are the ones (plus your list) that I have been to that are not quite as good as M&T. I also didn't think much of the Superdome, but some folks think having a roof somehow makes the stadium better. I disagree. Football was meant to be played out of doors, in the cold.

Then there are the serious hellpits of the league, made so by the stench of the assholic fans moreso than the building itself: Philadelphia, New England and Oakland. Some would also say Pittsburgh, but i've been there - the place is cool and the people were nice. They just send all their assholes down here. ;)

Agree with you about the Superdome, its like watching football in a movie theater.

And also Philly. They have a nice stadium, but the fans there are first class assholes. I've been showered with peanuts, and the vendors/concessions staff there are rude to the other team's fans. I happened to be there with a Steeler fan and the concessionaire refused to serve someone in a Steeler jersey. It was a preseason game against the Ravens, and these people were just plain assholes.

[Corvus Corax]

In the not too distant future, I perceive a trend toward REDUCED seating for live games. Ticket prices will go beyond even what middle-to-upper-middle incomes can afford. Only the rich will be able to afford to attend (and legitimately brag that they were there to witness) live sporting events. It will be very similar to live boxing matches in Las Vegas or Madison Square Garden where ringside seating will cost far more than Pay Per View (PPV). Season-ticket holders won't be attending games, they will instead be PPV subscribers. That means, of course, that only they and the rich (who will actually attend the games) will be the only ones watching.

If you think that is an absurd notion, let me remind you of pro sports events that used to be commonly televised free on one of the original three major airwaves networks (ABC, NBC, CBS). NHL games apparently are found only on the NBC Sports Channel (cable/satellite). NFL games are now on ESPN (Mondays) and the NFL network (Thursdays). NBA games are on ESPN/TNT. College football games on ESPN2/3. Almost all Oriole games are televised exclusively on MASN/MASN2. The poor miss a lot of action.

It is just a matter of time before most 'fans' (short for fanatics) will face a hard choice between lifestyle basics and watching their favorite team perform. How are they going afford to get their weekly/daily 'fix'?

CC

[RavenScallywag]

If you think that is an absurd notion, let me remind you of pro sports events that used to be commonly televised free on one of the original three major airwaves networks (ABC, NBC, CBS). NHL games apparently are found only on the NBC Sports Channel (cable/satellite). NFL games are now on ESPN (Mondays) and the NFL network (Thursdays). NBA games are on ESPN/TNT. College football games on ESPN2/3. Almost all Oriole games are televised exclusively on MASN/MASN2. The poor miss a lot of action.

But aren't our Thursday and Monday night games also picked up by a local affiliate? I only recently got cable back, and I still don't have the NFL network, but I remember watching the Falcons game in 2010...

[BcRaven]

In the not too distant future, I perceive a trend toward REDUCED seating for live games. Ticket prices will go beyond even what middle-to-upper-middle incomes can afford. Only the rich will be able to afford to attend (and legitimately brag that they were there to witness) live sporting events...

I'm cool with $1,000 tickets, $100 hot dogs, $75 beer, and $50 diet Cokes. I can take the wife and (5) kiddies to a game or two, and still have enough left over to support my sister-in-law. So what if I'm broke in my retirement years. Isn't a couple of live pro football games a year worth it? ... Bc

[flraven]

But aren't our Thursday and Monday night games also picked up by a local affiliate? I only recently got cable back, and I still don't have the NFL network, but I remember watching the Falcons game in 2010...
Unless something changes this year, a local affiliate (WJZ ?) usually carries games only shown on ESPN and NFLN.

[cmorris28]

In the not too distant future, I perceive a trend toward REDUCED seating for live games. Ticket prices will go beyond even what middle-to-upper-middle incomes can afford. Only the rich will be able to afford to attend (and legitimately brag that they were there to witness) live sporting events. It will be very similar to live boxing matches in Las Vegas or Madison Square Garden where ringside seating will cost far more than Pay Per View (PPV). Season-ticket holders won't be attending games, they will instead be PPV subscribers. That means, of course, that only they and the rich (who will actually attend the games) will be the only ones watching.

If you think that is an absurd notion, let me remind you of pro sports events that used to be commonly televised free on one of the original three major airwaves networks (ABC, NBC, CBS). NHL games apparently are found only on the NBC Sports Channel (cable/satellite). NFL games are now on ESPN (Mondays) and the NFL network (Thursdays). NBA games are on ESPN/TNT. College football games on ESPN2/3. Almost all Oriole games are televised exclusively on MASN/MASN2. The poor miss a lot of action.

It is just a matter of time before most 'fans' (short for fanatics) will face a hard choice between lifestyle basics and watching their favorite team perform. How are they going afford to get their weekly/daily 'fix'?

CC

I agree with this. There is too much money in PPV not to go that route. They will charge the average fan $10 a week to watch his or her favorite team and make billions. 9 Billion in revenues in 2012 will look like a drop in the bucket vs 30+ billion they could make PPV. Not sure I agree with ticket prices at the stadium but could happen.

[cmorris28]

Unless something changes this year, a local affiliate (WJZ ?) usually carries games only shown on ESPN and NFLN.

Local stations only pick up pre-season games.

[flraven]

Local stations only pick up pre-season games.

According to the Ravens web site, Week 1 against Cincinnati is on both ESPN and WJZ. So maybe its just when the games are on the NFL Network, people that don't get that channel can't see them.

http://www.baltimoreravens.com/Gameday/Schedule.aspx

[JustaslowZ06]

We just got a bunch of upgrades, as someone else mentioned. Turf, HD Scoreboards, etc.....

I still think it's funny they have old tube TV's out in the concourse area, and NONE anywhere near the smoking sections in the lower area's. I've sent emails and letters requesting such but guess we'll see for this year, as nothing changed last year.

As it is I could see another 10 years or so before they even start talking new stadium. orry but anyoe who has traveled to other stadiums(not just seen them on TV) should know we still have a pretty damn good stadium. Fedex is newer and is a dump comparatively. Tenn same thing. Indy was nice, same with Reliant. The monstrosity in Dallas was pretty nice but yo can tell there are ALOT of seats where you can't see squat. And the list goes on.

[Dirt1]

I don't see the Ravens doing any real chirping for another 10 years at the least. Even then it would be for reasonable renovations. Baltimore isn't going to build a new baseball or football stadium for at least another 20 years. The Rams want upgrades that total about $700 million. To me, that situation isn't as much about the stadium as it is them trying to find an excuse to leave St. Louis and move back to LA.

[JustaslowZ06]

I could actually see them adding those moving walk things you see at airports on the ramps leading to the upper decks. Would actually be a neat upgrade.

[Mista T]

I also didn't think much of the Superdome, but some folks think having a roof somehow makes the stadium better. I disagree. Football was meant to be played out of doors, in the cold.

See below re Superdome.

I disagree with your interpretation re about "how football was meant to be played". Historically, football had been equated with nippy Fall "sweater weather", not the brutal cold of late December & January.

Before the NFL became the major TV sport and expanded its teams from 12 to 32 and its season from 12 to 14 to 16 headed to 18, and playoffs from a single game to the multi-tiered event of today, its season ended shortly after the college season ended with the Army-Navy game around Thanksgiving, after which the colleges went South for bowl games. The bitter cold, blizzard conditions, along with the shirtless morons hamming it up for the TV cameras, are late 20th Century byproducts of NFL playing games in open air stadiums in the Winter for TV audiences.



Agree with you about the Superdome, its like watching football in a movie theater.

My opinion is the opposite .... I lived several years in New Orleans, attending most Saints games, and I still occasionally attend games there while on travel. In my opinion, the Superdome is still one of the best stadiums in the US. Outstanding sightlines in the vertically oriented downtown stadium. AC comfort in the midst of the oppressive Louisiana heat & humidity. Fantastic, very comfortable place to watch a game, with noise levels achievable only in a domed stadium. The post-game festivities outside the stadium and down nearby Bourbon Street can't be matched at any other NFL city. I rank the Superdome as one of the top three NFL stadiums (from a fans perspective, not caring about suites), and New Orleans is up there with Nashville as my favorite road trip destination.

NFL powers are obviously in some agreement: New Orleans is tied with Miami for the most Super Bowls (10) after this season.

[steelerhater]

I love camden yards.

So do the Yankees:(

[Jayc00]

Agree about the outside of the Superdome but the inside is nothing to get excited for, just another stadium. I went there when the Ravens played back in 06 I believe and as far as just the stadium by itself I can't see how it can be a top three. I admit I did have a BLAST and no other city's festivities when going to a game can match it.

[DarthCorvax]

It is just a matter of time before most 'fans' (short for fanatics) will face a hard choice between lifestyle basics and watching their favorite team perform. How are they going afford to get their weekly/daily 'fix'?

CC

I don't think it's an absurd notion. Sans PPV, it's pretty much that way now. One used to be able to get into an NFL game for a few bucks. You can barely get by the cover charge or buy a McDonald's meal and watch at home for that price. PPV is the next logical step. Besides, with so many people in areas following different teams, the NFL will soon catch on that they should offer team-specific packages and such on a PPV-subscription basis.

However, I think before ticket prices get too out of hand, you'll see a sort of restructuring of finances. The reason being that if it's too expensive for regular people to go to games, governments will withdraw public support for stadium financing.


The Rams want upgrades that total about $700 million. To me, that situation isn't as much about the stadium as it is them trying to find an excuse to leave St. Louis and move back to LA.

I agree. I can't think of any logical reason to spend that much to upgrade that stadium when you can get a whole new one at that price. Besides, the NY and Dallas stadiums were around 25% more expensive, however, they were built in NY and Dallas by their owners.


So do the Yankees:(

Not tonight. :)

[Corvus Corax]

But aren't our Thursday and Monday night games also picked up by a local affiliate? I only recently got cable back, and I still don't have the NFL network, but I remember watching the Falcons game in 2010...

Based on my personal experience, it appears that only the two cities/metro areas who have teams in the game, are granted free access by the NFL on a local channel. Now WHICH channel seems a bit confusing to me. I don't know if there is an established rule(s). You would think an ESPN game would be shown on the local ABC affiliate since the two networks are now part of the same conglomerate. But NFL Network games - what is the rule for them?

This appears (to me at least) to be the only concession in pro sports today to accommodate fans without cable-satellite access.