Conference hbahba::cam_sports

Good idea.

Mods, can you write-lock the Cleveland Browns note until the Bucs go there
and rename themselves?  I want to see if Hal can find his way over here.  :-)

    
    See note 265.

    
    	No, You won't see me over here much at all!!!  I hope the 
    	Ravens die a long death!
    
    		Modell is a lier!
    
    	Never trust this man!!!
    
    
    		I'm glad as hell he is out of Cleveland!
    
    
    	WOOF!
    

    
    
    >> I'm glad as hell he is out of Cleveland!
    
       That makes two of you.    
    

    
    
    		So all these years we endured, the Browns are the best
    	blah blah blah, bernice is a goddess blah blah blah.  Now
    	Art pulls stakes and you could care less.  Great fan loyalty
    	Hal.  Better change your WOOF to a CAW CAW CAW, or whatever 
    	freekin sound does a raven make.
    
    
    
    						Shark
    
    

RE                      <<< Note 279.6 by SUBPAC::SKALSKI >>>

> ... or whatever freekin sound does a raven make.
    
   "But the raven, sitting lonely on that placid bust, spoke only
    That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
    Nothing further then he uttered; not a feather then he fluttered;
    Till I scarcely more than muttered,"Other friends have flown before;
    On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before."
    Then the bird said,"Nevermore.""
                                  
                                       - Edgar Allan Poe
  George

    
    
    	Hey, I didn't forsake the Browns...they forsaked the fans of 
    	Cleveland!  Art LIED!  He lied to the fans, the city and to
    	the players!
    
    	It will be worth the wait!!!
    
    
    		WOOF!
    	

"Prophet!" said they, "thing of evil--prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that heaven that bends above us--by that God we both adore--
Tell these soul with sorrow laden, if, within the distant Aidenn,
We shall cheer our sainted Browns, whom the owners sent to Baltimore---
Cheer our rare and radiant Browns, whom the owners sent to Baltimore?
Quoth the raven, "Nevermore."

  George (with apologies to EAP)

    
    
        George has been watching the Simpsons again.

    
    
    	Oh great, so George how much for that talking bird of yours?
    
    
    					:')
    
    
    

>Baltimore Ravens 1996 Schedule 
>
>SEP. 15   at Houston         1:00
>SEP. 22   Bye          

So on 22-Sep they pick up and move to another city?

Steve

    
    Anybody see those UGLY uniforms the Ravens are going to wear?  They're
    even worse than the dull togs the Browns used to wear.

  Feathers?

  George

    
    I love the uniforms and the helmet.  The last two expansion
    areodynamic cat logos were so lame.  
    
    It's tough - I hate what Modell did, but I really want to
    root for Marchibroda and Baltimore did deserve a team.  Too
    bad they had to get it this way.

    
    	The unis look too much like Northwestern, Purple and Black.  I
    guess that all new uniforms are either purple or teal these days,
    because those are the colors that kids like.
    	No doubt Baltimore deserved a team, but the way that they had to
    PAY THROUGH THE NOSE for it is the real bad thing!
    	Fanwise, they are more loyal down there than up here, I found that
    out going to Camden Yards last September.  They don't turn their backs
    on a team when they're losing.

    > They don't turn their backs
    >    on a team when they're losing.
    
    Is this a reference to the Redsox?  They've been drawing very well for
    the second worst team in baseball and the fans at the games seem very
    supportive.  Try Philadelphia or NewYork.

      Or detroit

... and kiss Andre Rison goodbye.

Seems ol' Andre din't wanna take a pay cut. In a move that presaged the
complete demise of the team, the then Browns signed Rison up to a
contract that made him the highest paid WR in the league.

Now he's unemployed.

Ya gotta luv the way the NFl deals with contracts. A 3-year term means
this year and then maybe. I caint beleive the players union bought it.

TTom

    But they keep the signing bonus which is like a guarantee.  It's
    actually good for the players as a whole; tough on individuals.  f.e.
    when Lou Gorman tied up Clark, Dawson etal that money was gone which
    meant less for those currently performing.
    
    The cap itself has a problem with the true, performing superstar like a
    Bret Favre or Emmitt Smith but is good in terms of forcing teams to pay
    out up to the cap.

      I have a question concerning the 'fair' city of Baltimore and
      I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned...
    
      Didn't Baltimore feel very strongly that they got shafted when
      the Colts left?  Didn't they feel that what was done was
      reprehensible???
    
      On that basis, WHY did they receive the Browns?  Are they not
      villains in the exact sense that they were villainized???  This
      to me is unbelievable!
    
      If Modell offered the Browns to Baltimore, I would hope Baltimore
      would have said, "UP YOURS!!!"  We KNOW what that is like!  And
      just waited and hoped to receive a new franchise.
    
      It just boggles my mind that they embrace the same treachory with
      which they were treated.  Almost makes you think they deserved to 
      lose the Colts in the 1st place!
    
    						Tony

  Well maybe not. If your team fumbles away the ball you feel really bad but
if another team you are playing the following week fumbles do you stand back
and tell'm to go ahead and pick it back up because you know how bad losing
the ball feels?

  Baltimore fumbled the Colts by not giving the team what they wanted and
Indianapolis recovered. A few years later they saw Cleveland fumble the Browns
so this time they made the play and recovered the team. 

  In case you haven't noticed, the NFL is not exactly a gentleman's sport at
either the player or owner level.

  George

    
    Do the Ravens play the Colts at home this year by chance?  That would
    be interesting.....
    
    

  >> Baltimore fumbled the Colts by not giving the team what they 
  >> wanted and Indianapolis recovered. A few years later they saw 
  >> Cleveland fumble the Browns so this time they made the play 
  >> and recovered the team. 

     Baltimore didn't fumble. Irsay packed up and left in the middle
     of the night like the egg sucking dog that he is, leaving generations
     of loyal Colts fans behind. Indianapolis waved a wad of dough in his
     face and Bobby-boy sold Baltimore out without a second thought. Modell 
     is an even bigger scumbag. If that's possible. He had the most rabid 
     fans in the league, years of sellouts and he skipped town on 'em.
     And to where? To Baltimore. Baltimore should known better. They felt
     what it was like to lose an old-line franchise that generations had
     grown up loving. They should have been above it all. INstead they're
     just propagating this game of musical franchises by throwing money at 
     lowlifes who can only make it in professional football via emotional
     blackmail. It'll come around again. Go to bed with a snake and you
     better expect to get bit. 
    

  Well I'm not sure of the details of the Colts leaving town but in Cleveland
the argument many people put forward was that the city built a basketball
stadium, they built a baseball park, and they built a rock and roll hall of
fame, so if it was really a football town why did they make the Browns new home
such a low priority?

  As for calling the owners snakes, a reality check is needed here. These teams
are businesses and in a free market society businesses will do what ever is
best for their bottom line. Businesses have no feelings other than what they
sense through their profit and loss statement. If anyone else profits from what
a business does it's only because of trickle down economics. When times are
good that works pretty well but as soon as there are clouds on the economic
horizon figure any business to act in their own best interest regardless of who
gets hurt. 

  I'm not saying that teams playing musical chairs with host cities is good for
the game (any game) but to expect anything else is a bit naive. If you want
business to behave any way but maximizing profits there is only one choice,
regulation. In today's political climate regulation of business is not a very
popular alternative so expect this to get worse before it gets better.

  George

  >> These teams are businesses and in a free market society businesses 
  >> will do what ever is best for their bottom line. 

     "Free market" and the NFL are mutually exclusive. We're talking about
      government subsidizing businesses here on top of revenue sharing and 
      salary caps. If there is an industry that is less "free market" than 
      the NFL I don't know what it is. 

   >> Businesses have no feelings other than what they sense through their 
   >> profit and loss statement. 

      And that's where the problem is. We're not talking about XYZ Corp.
      where the extent of your tie to the organization is gauged by your
      vested economic interest. Emotions come into play here and there's
      a sense of a team "belonging to a city" to the point where even forty
      years after they move some people will say things like "the Braves
      are as much a Boston team as the Red Sox". 
    

RE        <<< Note 279.27 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>     "Free market" and the NFL are mutually exclusive. We're talking about
>      government subsidizing businesses here on top of revenue sharing and 
>      salary caps. If there is an industry that is less "free market" than 
>      the NFL I don't know what it is. 

  Depends on what you mean by government. State and local governments fall into
a weird category. While they are governments from a legal point of view, they
are individual entities from an economic point of view. If it was the federal
government deciding who would play where then footing the bill that would be
macro economics and government control. However when cities compete with other
cities within a larger market which they do not control that is micro economics
and the cities are just another group of players in the economic game.

  As for things like revenue sharing and caps, that does not impact movement
of teams among competing cities, that has to do with the relationship between
players and owners.


>      And that's where the problem is. We're not talking about XYZ Corp.
>      where the extent of your tie to the organization is gauged by your
>      vested economic interest. Emotions come into play here and there's
>      a sense of a team "belonging to a city" to the point where even forty
>      years after they move some people will say things like "the Braves
>      are as much a Boston team as the Red Sox". 
    
  No, here you are being naive. From a fans point of view there may be emotions
involved but if the fans don't express that emotion in the only place it counts
by pushing their city to compete economically for a team, then their emotions
do not come in to play. 

  These teams are businesses and like any business the tougher the economic
climate becomes, the nastier they will get. In the old days they may have been
toys for the rich and some of those rich guys may have had the best interest of
the game at heart but today their value has escalated to where even the rich
have to treat them like businesses.

  Expansion has made this a tough market and like any business, the tougher the
economics become, the less the owners will care about anything but the bottom
line. Baring Federal regulation these teams will become more and more ruthless
and will care less and less about the fans. As that happens, those areas which
are willing to compete will have the edge in landing a franchise in the game of
musical cities.

  George

    
    	Model is a LIER!!!!!
    
    
    		LIER!!!!
    
    		L I E R !~
    
    		L  I  E  R  !
    
    
    
    	L     I     E    R    !    
    
    
    	Plain and simple!!!
    
    	Thank god he's out of Cleveland and I hope he never comes back!!!!
    
    
    
    		WOOF!!!

  Model is the same as the head of any other successful company. If you don't
want guys like that in town you'd better kick out the Cavs, Indians, General
Electric, and the lot of them. 

  On the other hand if you want professional football, better be prepared to
compete on the open market with the other cities who want teams and are willing
to pay the going rate. 

  George 

  >> Depends on what you mean by government. 
  
     No, it doesn't. Your statement was that "these teams are businesses
     and in a free market society businesses will do what is best for their
     bottom line". It doesn't matter who is subsidizing the business the fact
     is that it *is* being subsidized. It's not "free market. The NFL never
     has been.

  >> but if the fans don't express that emotion in the only place it counts
  >> by pushing their city to compete economically for a team, then their 
  >> emotions do not come in to play. 

     I always thought that the "only place it counts" was at the gate or
     in front of the tv if tickets weren't available. Now the rules have
     been changed and "the only place it counts" is in the form of sub-
     sidies. That's wrong. It could not be more plainly wrong.

    

        <<< Note 279.32 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>     No, it doesn't. Your statement was that "these teams are businesses
>     and in a free market society businesses will do what is best for their
>     bottom line". It doesn't matter who is subsidizing the business the fact
>     is that it *is* being subsidized. It's not "free market. The NFL never
>     has been.

  Tommy, you are getting all wrapped up in words and their popular use instead
of looking at the mechanics of free market economics.

  When it comes to economics, free market means entities (public or private)
competing within a larger space that none of them controls. This is called
micro economics. A controlled economy is one in which the government puts heavy
restrictions or actually controls the entities within it's jurisdiction by law.
This is macro economics. 

  Most of the teams in the NFL, NBA, and MLB operate within the United States
but the U.S. Federal Government does not attempt to control where these teams
play. Yes the cities are governments, but from an economic point of view when
it comes to getting a franchise they can not do so by regulating the market.
They can only compete for a franchise the way you or I might shop for tomatoes
at the local grocery store. Regardless of how they are organized, they are
buyers and the teams are sellers in a larger free market.

>     I always thought that the "only place it counts" was at the gate or
>     in front of the tv if tickets weren't available. Now the rules have
>     been changed and "the only place it counts" is in the form of sub-
>     sidies. 

  When the local governments pay out this money it's a lot more purchasing
that it is subsidy. If the Federal Government had rules as to where the teams
played then paid the teams money to make up what they lost, that would be a
subsidy. When cities are paying out this money it's a lot more like private
concerns competing in an open market. 

  It's like when a town decides to buy a new truck to use as a snow plow. They
shop at Ford, GM, etc then use government funds to purchase a truck. Although
it is public money it is not a government subsidy. They are purchasing their
truck on the open free market. Same thing when they buy a team. It's a subsidy
only when the government in question controls the market, not when they are
competing as an independent entity.

> That's wrong. It could not be more plainly wrong.

  Maybe it is but there is little that can be done about it short of federal
regulations controlling where teams get to play and in this political climate
those types of federal regulations are not likely.

  George

   >> instead of looking at the mechanics of free market economics.

      Wrong. If you start out with the premise that NFL franchises 
      operate under the principles of free market economics then you're
      starting with a flawed premise and completely ignoring reality.
      Subisdies, revenue sharing and salary caps are all anathema to
      free market economics and they all exist under the current NFL 
      economic structure. If NFL franchises were subject to the
      vagaries of free mnarket economics the second largest city in
      the country would have a franchise and cities like Jacksonville 
      probably wouldn't. Adn Art Modell would have been out of business
      years ago. Get free market economics out of your head because they 
      don't come into play here at all. At all.
 
    >> It's like when a town decides to buy a new truck to use as a snow 
    >> plow. They shop at Ford, GM, etc then use government funds to purchase 
    >> a truck. Although it is public money it is not a government subsidy. 
    >> They are purchasing their truck on the open free market.  Same thing 
    >> when they buy a team. 
    
       Except they don't buy a team, they guarantee a team owner a profit.
       That's a subsidy. I've never heard of a town guaranteeing a truck
       a profit and a new garage.
    

	Geez, it's been awhile since my economics classes.  I thought micro
	economics was economics on a (relatively speaking) small scale and 
	macro economics was economics on a larger scale.  What I think George 
	just described as micro and macro econimics was, in fact, two economic
	approaches, capitalism and socialism.

	Kevin

Agree, Kev.

Not that I'm taking any GREAT interest in this, tho'.....

      For once, I agree 100% with Tommy.
    
      George, I differ with you from one fundamental standpoint.  You
      seem to approve of a certain morality from the standpoint of, "Thats
      the way it is."  
    
      I don't.
    
      I don't care if everyone does it.  And by the way, I don't think 
      we'll be seeing the Packers leave GREEN BAY.
    
      There is a distinction between the acknowledgment that teams leaving
      may be a pervasive part of the morality of this thing we call pro-
      fessional football and whether or not doing so is morally right.
    
      As I said, I don't care if virtually everyone does it.  The frequency
      of this morality is (for me) no defense of its occurance as in
      whether or not its right.  You seem to say its right simply because
      it happens.
    
      Professional sports especially had the impact of playing a big part
      in civic pride, in bearing part of the identity of a locale.  There
      is, in my mind, something much more pure about the idea of identi-
      fying the Colts with Baltimore for example as opposed to simply being
      a business whose mentality includes a 'too easy willingness' to hail
      from just about anywhere.  Thats just the way I feel about it.
    
      (As a sidenote, this is not to imply that corporations do not have
      this impact to some extent.  Milwaukee had home-based companies such
      as Pabst, Miller, Schlitz, Allen-Bradley.  Now, Schlitz is owned by
      Strohls and Miller is owned by Phillip Morris.  Allen-Bradley went
      from being private to being a subsidiary of Rockwell.  These
      companies had a tendency to give to their community.  When they are
      owned by a company that originates from somewhere else, the tendency
      to 'give back' to the community lessens.)
    
    							Tony
                                             

>     I don't care if everyone does it.  And by the way, I don't think 
>     we'll be seeing the Packers leave GREEN BAY.

	I wouldn't be so sure.  I thought the same thing about 
	the Steelers and Pittsburgh before Modell's stunt.  These
	days you just never know.



	billl

RE        <<< Note 279.34 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>      Subisdies, revenue sharing and salary caps are all anathema to
>      free market economics and they all exist under the current NFL 
>      economic structure. 

  Revenue sharing and salary caps are not involved with the decision to locate
teams in a city. These are not subsidies for the reasons I mentioned before.

>If NFL franchises were subject to the
>      vagaries of free mnarket economics the second largest city in
>      the country would have a franchise and cities like Jacksonville 
>      probably wouldn't. 

  Not necessarily. Just because you can afford something that doesn't mean
you will purchase it in a free market. Maybe Jacksonville wants a team more
than L.A. and is willing to pay the price. Obviously if L.A. wanted a team
they would fork over the money and purchase one.

>       Except they don't buy a team, they guarantee a team owner a profit.
>       That's a subsidy. I've never heard of a town guaranteeing a truck
>       a profit and a new garage.
    
  Wrong, if a town takes out a loan and pays a dealer for a truck at a price
which is greater than the wholesale price the dealer paid that is a guaranteed
profit for the dealer but it is not a subsidy.

  George

some real good apples, oranges and turds in here...

I think most people would call what cities do through their tax
donations, tax deductions and tax incentives with regard to pro teams is
a subsidy.

For instance, the people of the City of Charlotte, County of Mecklenberg
and State of North Carolina all paid taxes to help build what is now
called Ericsson Stadium. This stadium is owned by a corporation which is
wholy owned by the Panthers. They have the onliest say as to which events
happen there and the dates for those events. Any money made is kept by
the corporation.

I think this goes above and beyond paying Manufacturer Suggested Retail
Price.

TTom

RE                       <<< Note 279.35 by BSS::NEUZIL >>>

>	Geez, it's been awhile since my economics classes.  I thought micro
>	economics was economics on a (relatively speaking) small scale and 
>	macro economics was economics on a larger scale.  What I think George 
>	just described as micro and macro econimics was, in fact, two economic
>	approaches, capitalism and socialism.

  No, micro economics has to do with evaluating entities competing within an
economic system which they can influence but which they do not control. That
can include individuals, companies, or local governments operating within
a national economy.

  Macro economics has to do with the impact of the nation which controls the
economy on that economy. The best example would be the impact the United States
government has on the U.S. economy.

  For example, if GM decides to lower the prices of it's trucks to compete with
Ford and other companies within the U.S. economy, that's micro economics. If
the Fed lowers the interest rates, that's macro economics. 

  If Baltimore antes up money to buy a team away from another city within the
U.S. economy that's micro economics. If the United States passes a law giving
the department of Commerce the power to regulate where teams go then congress
grants money to subsidize the team, that's macro economics.

  George

RE                     <<< Note 279.37 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>

>      George, I differ with you from one fundamental standpoint.  You
>      seem to approve of a certain morality from the standpoint of, "Thats
>      the way it is."  
    
  Where did I say I approved or disapproved of anything?

  I'm just calling it like I see it. Regardless of how people feel, baring
federal regulations that determine where teams play this will only get worse.

  George

>  I'm just calling it like I see it. Regardless of how people feel, baring
>federal regulations that determine where teams play this will only get worse.

That's the ticket, let's get the government involved. They are so good at
solving problems, let's hand sprots over to their jurisdiction.

Of course, we can let the american people continue to vote with their
pocket book which, of course, will inevitably cause some equilibrium in
the comings and goings.

Pretty soon, ever town that's interested will have been burnt either by
the team coming to town or by leaving town.

TTom

    Macro-econ. also cover the international economy and things such as
    comparative advantage for nations.

  >> Revenue sharing and salary caps are not involved with the 
  >> decision to locate teams in a city. These are not subsidies 
  >> for the reasons I mentioned before.

     There's one of those non sequiturs that you're so famous for.
     Revenure sharing and salary caps were mentioned in regards
     to "free market econmics" not subsidies. Subsidies are another
     reason why the belief that NFL franchises operate under "free
     market" principles is farcical.

  >> Not necessarily. Just because you can afford something that doesn't 
  >> mean you will purchase it in a free market. Maybe Jacksonville wants 
  >> a team more than L.A. and is willing to pay the price. Obviously if 
  >> L.A. wanted a team they would fork over the money and purchase one.

     If there were free market economics in the NFL LA wouldn't have to 
     fork over the dough. The economic benefits of being located in LA 
     would more than make up for the lack of subisdies. That's the reason 
     why there are two baseball teams and two basketball teams in the
     LA area and *NO* football teams.
    
  >> Wrong, if a town takes out a loan and pays a dealer for a truck at 
  >> a price which is greater than the wholesale price the dealer paid 
  >> that is a guaranteed profit for the dealer but it is not a subsidy.

     Towns tell owners in writing "we will guarantee you a profit". Have
     you ever told a car dealer that? Have you ever built a car dealership
     for a car dealer?
    

RE        <<< Note 279.45 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>     There's one of those non sequiturs that you're so famous for.
>     Revenure sharing and salary caps were mentioned in regards
>     to "free market econmics" not subsidies. Subsidies are another
>     reason why the belief that NFL franchises operate under "free
>     market" principles is farcical.

  And this is one of those diversions into meaningless rat holes which you are
so famous for. What we are talking about here is the economics of teams moving
from city to city and how cities compete for those teams in a way that behaves
like a free market. This has nothing to do with salary caps. The city that puts
up the most wins, just as the guy who bids the most at an auction wins. That's
free market regardless of where it comes from. 

  Economics can and often is viewed at various levels of abstraction. What
we're talking here is the economics of teams moving from city to city, not
the relationship between teams and players. When viewing salaries, salary caps
prevent a completely free market but looking at the relationship between teams
and cities is something else entirely. There is no cap limiting the amount
cities can promise a team when bidding on the open market for one of those
teams to come to town. 

>     If there were free market economics in the NFL LA wouldn't have to 
>     fork over the dough. The economic benefits of being located in LA 
>     would more than make up for the lack of subisdies. That's the reason 
>     why there are two baseball teams and two basketball teams in the
>     LA area and *NO* football teams.

  Now back up a level and view the whole thing at a higher level of abstraction
and you will see that when the owner makes his decision to move he considers
all of the economic input both public and private. When Model looked at L.A.
and Baltimore he looked at all sources of income. It mattered not that some
was from a public till and some private, money is money. When all was counted,
Baltimore outbid L.A. on a free market with no one imposing any restrictions.

  That's not the same as the government regulating that he go to Baltimore
then subsidizing his being there. At the micro economics level Baltimore acts
as a player in a free market regardless of how they raise their money.
    
>     Towns tell owners in writing "we will guarantee you a profit". Have
>     you ever told a car dealer that? Have you ever built a car dealership
>     for a car dealer?
    
  So fine, they signed a contract. How is that any different than if a large
private company owned the stadium and signed a contract guaranteeing the team
a profit? Where do you get this idea that signing a contract guaranteeing
someone a minimum amount of money makes the thing a subsidy?

  George

These debates remind me of Prometheus.

After ol' Prometheus stole the fire, the gods got angry at him and chained him
to Mount Erebus (I think that's the name).

Every day, an eagle would come by and painfully tear out his liver.  Every
night it would grow back.


That's what this reminds me of....

RE             <<< Note 279.47 by CAM::WAY "and keep me steadfast" >>>

>Every day, an eagle would come by and painfully tear out his liver.  Every
>night it would grow back.

  Well, that's the story the Greeks told. What actually happened was that
Prometheus stole a track team called the sludge from a city-state in northern
Greece, moved them to the ancient city-state of Baltimore and renamed them
the Fire.

  The Eagle who lived in the near by city-state of Philadelphia was enraged at
the idea of the Fire cutting into his fan base so every week he flew down to
Baltimore and stole the liver from which the Fire made hot dogs to feed their
fans. It didn't work, however, because the citizens of Baltimore had guaranteed
the Fire an unlimited supply of liver so they were able to feed their fans
anyway. 

  George

 >> And this is one of those diversions into meaningless rat holes 
 >> which you are so famous for. What we are talking about here is 
 >> the economics of teams moving from city to city and how cities 
 >> compete for those teams in a way that behaves like a free market. 


     Here's what you said in note 279.26:

     " These teams are businesses and in a free market society businesses 
        will do what ever is best for their bottom line."


      "Teams" not "cities". No, the NFL is not a free market system. Period.
       It's not been argued that cities aren't actively competing for teams. 
       The original question was should they. When you're Baltimore and you're
       at or near the top in every negative statistic from teen pregnancy to
       high school drop out rate, should you really be spending tax dollars 
       on a football team and to make some rich guy even richer? 
      
    
    >> Now back up a level and view the whole thing at a higher level of 
    >> abstraction and you will see that when the owner makes his decision 
    >> to move he considers all of the economic input both public and private. 
    >> When Model looked at L.A. and Baltimore he looked at all sources of 
    >> income. It mattered not that some was from a public till and some 
    >> private, money is money. When all was counted, Baltimore outbid L.A. 
    >> on a free market with no one imposing any restrictions.

    Patently wrong. Under NFL rules, there is a blanket marketing agreement.
    Jerry Jones flaunted that agreement and is embroiled in a lawsuit. If 
    a team in LA or New York or Chicago was truly an independent entity and
    could cut it's own deals without revenue sharing, naturally the teams
    in the larger cities/markets would be more than the teams in Cincinnati
    or KC or Jacksonville. Modell didn't take all income into consideration.
    He took the income he wouldn't have to share into consideration. What is 
    happening with the NFL's topography starting to resemble that of the
    CBA is a direct result of the lack of a free market system
    

    
    >> So fine, they signed a contract. How is that any different than 
    >> if a large private company owned the stadium and signed a contract 
    >> guaranteeing the team a profit? Where do you get this idea that 
    >> signing a contract guaranteeing someone a minimum amount of money 
    >> makes the thing a subsidy?
    
       Because there's no money to be made. That's why people aren't lining
       up to throw money at our own little greedhead, Beggin' Bob Kraft, and 
       his stadium deal. It has to be public money because a private corp.
       would have to turn a profit to justify it to their stockholders.
       It's a subsidy.

RE        <<< Note 279.50 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>      "Teams" not "cities". No, the NFL is not a free market system. Period.

  No one said it was. What I'm saying is that when they are searching for
cities they operate within a free market, not that they are a free market.
Go up one level of abstraction.

>       It's not been argued that cities aren't actively competing for teams. 
>       The original question was should they. When you're Baltimore and you're
>       at or near the top in every negative statistic from teen pregnancy to
>       high school drop out rate, should you really be spending tax dollars 
>       on a football team and to make some rich guy even richer? 

  No, that's not the original debate. The question was should they take another
cities team based on the fact that they went through the pain of losing a team
and should know what that feels like. No one said anything about social issues
and were money was best spent. That's another debate.
      
>    Patently wrong. Under NFL rules, there is a blanket marketing agreement.
    
  I'm not talking about that market. Again you are stuck in your one level of
abstraction thinking about things like player salaries and merchandizing.
I'm talking about the market in which cities compete for teams by offering
them just the type of thing you admit Model took into consideration.

>       Because there's no money to be made. That's why people aren't lining
>       up to throw money at our own little greedhead, Beggin' Bob Kraft, and 
>       his stadium deal. It has to be public money because a private corp.
>       would have to turn a profit to justify it to their stockholders.
>       It's a subsidy.

  The fact that there is no profit is not what makes something a subsidy. In
this case the city is acting like an individual and making a purchase just as
someone might buy a painting at an auction for considerations other than
profit.

  When Baltimore offers the guarantee it's a form of bidding, something that
sweetens the pot. The reason Model went to Baltimore was that they offered
the best deal which is something that only happens in a free market.

  George

    Modell didn't make his deal in a free market.  He operated behind the
    scenes, secretly to make his deal.  There was no market for cities but
    there was demand.  If it wasn't "sport" then the government would move
    in on this "black market".  The method of "moving in" should not be
    directly against cities but by removing the current interference with 
    free market behavior that the government overlooks today with the nfl.
    
    I believe it would certainly be in the interest of the federal
    government today to outlaw all "drafts" of amateur athletes and direct
    any and all sports teams to desist from non free-market behavior in
    hiring of college or high school athletes.  I'm not really sure this
    would require anything beyond a dept of commerce memo since even the
    courts said that type of thing is illegal unless collective bargaining
    is in place and it's not for amateurs who want to become pros.
    

 >> The fact that there is no profit is not what makes something 
 >> a subsidy. 

    From the American Heritage Dictionary:

    subsidy - financial assistance, as that granted by a government to
              a private enterprise.

   
    It fits Modell to a 'T'. Baltimore could have bought a football
    team for less than what they promised Modell.

 >> The reason Model went to Baltimore was that they offered the best 
 >> deal which is something that only happens in a free market.

    In a truly free market Baltimore couldn't compete with LA. They don't
    have the numbers or the media base. In a truly free market, the NFL
    would be smaller and clustered around big cities or hardcore football
    towns like Cleveland. The lack of a free market is what sent the
    Browns to Baltimore not the presence of one.

RE        <<< Note 279.54 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>    From the American Heritage Dictionary:
>
>    subsidy - financial assistance, as that granted by a government to
>              a private enterprise.

  It has always been your position that the dictionary is not valid proof as to
the definition of words. But tell you what, if you are willing to admit that
you were wrong in that debate in which you said the dictionary was not a valid
source for the definition of the word "sport" then I will stipulate that the
money given to Baltimore was a subsidy. 

>    In a truly free market Baltimore couldn't compete with LA. They don't
>    have the numbers or the media base. In a truly free market, the NFL
>    would be smaller and clustered around big cities or hardcore football
>    towns like Cleveland. The lack of a free market is what sent the
>    Browns to Baltimore not the presence of one.

  Not necessarily. In a free market if someone who has greater purchasing power
(e.g. L.A.) does not care to exercise that purchasing power then the price is
set by those who are willing, not those who are able, to pay the price. 

  George

  >> It has always been your position that the dictionary is not 
  >> valid proof as to the definition of words. 

     Has it really? I wonder what I believe really *is* valid proof
     as to the definition of words. Zen And The Art of Motorcycle
     Maintenance? Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas? Green Eggs And Ham?

  >> But tell you what, if you are willing to admit that you were wrong 
  >> in that debate in which you said the dictionary was not a valid source 
  >> for the definition of the word "sport" then I will stipulate that the
  >> money given to Baltimore was a subsidy. 

     You mean the definition of the word sport that could encompass
     everything from nosepicking to ice hockey? Sorry, I can't oblige
     you.

    

I'd have to doubt _Green_Eggs_and_Ham_ as a definitive source for words,
because there's only 48 different words in that story.


Also, how would one judge nosepicking as a sport?  Depth of dig?  Consistency
of "sinus oyster" found?  I'm at a loss....

>Also, how would one judge nosepicking as a sport?  Depth of dig?  Consistency
>of "sinus oyster" found?  I'm at a loss....

As a sprot it's more in the ilk of diving than football. Judges assign
values to the scoring. Size, shape and consistency all count as well as
neatness and originality.

TTom

      Pirsig probably has a handle on it...

RE        <<< Note 279.56 by MSBCS::BRYDIE "I need somebody to shove." >>>

>     Has it really? I wonder what I believe really *is* valid proof
>     as to the definition of words. Zen And The Art of Motorcycle
>     Maintenance? Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas? Green Eggs And Ham?

  Beats the heck out of me. I've been puzzling over that for years.

  With a pname like "I need somebody to shove." I think you can safely scratch
Zen off the list.

  George

>  With a pname like "I need somebody to shove." I think you can safely scratch
>Zen off the list.

OK, George - quick!  Which song did that quote come from?

RE  <<< Note 279.61 by IMBETR::DUPREZ "It's Baseball And You're An American" >>>

>OK, George - quick!  Which song did that quote come from?

  Well it sounds like the Jefferson Airplane song with Gracey Slick singing, I
forget the title, how does it go? 

    "want some body to love
     Oh, I need some body to love
     Oh, I'd love some body to love
     Gotta Find some body to love"

  Jack Casady's base rumbling in the background, the voice/lead guitar duet on
the next verse with Joma Kakonen.

    "Tears are run'en.
     Run'en down your chest.  [lead] "da da da da da da da"
     And your friends baby,
     they treat you like a guest "[lead] "di-di-di-di-di dah dah""

  That one?

  George

It's a recent song, I believe by Soul Asylum.  And it doesn't have much
to do with violence against others.

Go back to the 60's!  And take Billte with you, it's on his way to the
50's... :-)

  Ok, you've convinced me. Tommy is using Zen to select definitions from the
dictionary.

  George

    If it's all the same can I skip the 60s and go straight to the 50s.

    I thought it was a play on the old Queen song "Somebody to Love"

>  Ok, you've convinced me. Tommy is using Zen to select definitions from the
>dictionary.

I looked at my message three times now, and I still have no idea where you
got this.

>   I thought it was a play on the old Queen song "Somebody to Love"

Tommy is the ultimate authority - it's his p-name...

George,

On this particular subject you're full of it.  If you didn't try to sound like
an expert on most things I wouldn't have bothered with this. 

Kevin

Dictionary definition:

Microeconomics - a study of economics in terms of individual areas of activity 
(as a firm, household, or prices)

Macroeconomics - a study of economics in terms of whole systems esp. with 
reference to general levels of output and income and to the interrelatios 
among sectors of the economy

George's definition:
                <<< CAM::$1$DUA5:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SPORTS.NOTE;1 >>>
                                  -< SPORTS >-
================================================================================
Note 279.33                   Baltimore Ravens note                     33 of 69
CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI "Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs"    50 lines  26-AUG-1996 11:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
  When it comes to economics, free market means entities (public or private)
competing within a larger space that none of them controls. This is called
micro economics. A controlled economy is one in which the government puts heavy
restrictions or actually controls the entities within it's jurisdiction by law.
This is macro economics. 

.
.
.
  George

Kevin's stab:
                <<< CAM::$1$DUA5:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SPORTS.NOTE;1 >>>
                                  -< SPORTS >-
================================================================================
Note 279.35                   Baltimore Ravens note                     35 of 69
BSS::NEUZIL                                           9 lines  26-AUG-1996 12:14
                                   -< huh? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	Geez, it's been awhile since my economics classes.  I thought micro
	economics was economics on a (relatively speaking) small scale and 
	macro economics was economics on a larger scale.  What I think George 
	just described as micro and macro econimics was, in fact, two economic
	approaches, capitalism and socialism.

	Kevin

RE  <<< Note 279.68 by IMBETR::DUPREZ "It's Baseball And You're An American" >>>

>I looked at my message three times now, and I still have no idea where you
>got this.

  You must look beyond the immediate note Grass-hoppah and understand the
greater string from which it came. The ideas from one note flow to the next
like the water flows from the mountains to the sea. Your note joins the others
just as one stream joins the ones before to form a might river.

  The Zen of Noting,
  George

>like the water flows from the mountains to the sea.

It's more like another fluid that flows...

yeah but Soul Asylum ain't IT anymore so it's time for a new one........

;^)

mc

Soul Asylum aint even in the estate conveyance vehicle.

Right now I'm wearing out the lasest Patty Smith.

TTom

    Here we go deja vu all over again, we did all this before and Tommy's
    p-name explanation is somewhere in the flotsam and jetsam of junk-ville

RE                      <<< Note 279.74 by SMART2::CHILDS >>>

>yeah but Soul Asylum ain't IT anymore so it's time for a new one........

  Does this imply that some Soul Searching is needed?

  George

><>yeah but Soul Asylum ain't IT anymore so it's time for a new one........

>  Does this imply that some Soul Searching is needed?

>  George


 In your case I'd say that's an unequivalently yes.........

 mc

RE                      <<< Note 279.78 by PECAD8::CHILDS >>>

>>  Does this imply that some Soul Searching is needed?
> In your case I'd say that's an unequivalently yes.........

  Ok, then I stand corrected. Tommy the benevolent humanitarian is only
expressing love and fellowship with his "Need some body to shove" and is finding
the way of Zen while I will go look for a cobbler to replace the bottoms of my
shoes. 

  OOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm...........

  George

 Who cares what Tommy's feeling or needing with his p-name? Certainly not me
 and I really don't mind that you never ever agree with him. I also like your
 style but I don't like the fact that you love it more than I do and feel the
 need to drone on endlessly to see your prose in action. That's why I think
 you need to do some soul searching and find a better balance and a style
 that might except that's other can be right too not just you........

 mc

Whoa Mike.  Heavy stuff.

We're going to have to put up a sign, like Lucy did in the Charlie Brown comic
strips that say the Doctor is In....


Cool....

I wasn't trying to be heavy just helpful........

;^)

  Funny how my notes in these long debates are always a response to someone
else yet I'm the only one accused of entering too many notes. Obviously someone
else is keeping pace or I'd be having a one man argument yet I don't see any
of my opponents getting the same criticism. Looks like a double standard to me.

  Of course what you really mean is that it's fine for my opponents to state
their case as often as they like because you agree with their point of view.
You don't like to see my responses because you don't like to see the other
side of the story.

  But hey, prove me wrong. Start giving this flack to the guys who are keeping
up with me note for note.

  Don't think I'll hold my breath for that one,
  George

    
    I don't want to get into this debate.  I find it interesting, that so
    many people have differing views of economics.  Makes me wonder how
    many people ever studied it.  However, I can't let this one pass.
    
    >  But hey, prove me wrong. Start giving this flack to the guys who are
    > keeping up with me note for note.
    
    Since you appear to be an expert in every subject, I suppose you also
    know mathematics.  If so, here is my challenge to you.  Find ONE person
    in the entire notes conference that has entered as many notes as you
    have done.  You must use ALL the notes on the topic.  I have not
    checked to see if there is anyone, but I'm willing to bet there isn't.
    
    If you can find ONE person that fits the criteria (and use facts not
    facks(tm)) then I will bow to your superior knowledge.  But if you
    can't find one, what does that lead us to believe?  Should we believe
    the facts you present?
    
    Marc
    

    
    A HINT:
    
    Notes> dir 279.*
    
    MAIEWSKI	23 notes
    BRYDIE	11 notes
    HAAS	 6 notes
    BREEN	 6 notes
    DUPREZ	 5 notes
    CHILDS	 4 notes
    
    So close...the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th highest totals COMBINED are EQUAL to
    the highest total.  Oh well, I'm sure there are notes in another note
    to prove me wrong.
    
    Marc
    

  You are counting the wrong thing. You should count the number of notes on
each side of the debate, not the number of notes entered by each noter.

  For example, if there are 5 guys on one side of an argument and 5 guys on the
other, each guy only has to answer one out of every 5 points. Otherwise you get
four ("I agree with him") type notes for each point.

  But if one guy is arguing against 5 guys then that one guy has to enter 5
times as many notes to answer all the points raised by the other side. 




  Balanced debate:

           Side 1                      Side 2
           Guy 1.1                     Guy 2.1                       
           Guy 1.2                     Guy 2.2                       
           Guy 1.3                     Guy 2.3                       
           Guy 1.4                     Guy 2.4                       
           Guy 1.5                     Guy 2.5

  Each guy averages 1 note in 10.

  One sided debate (George against 5 guys)                       

           Side 1                      Side 2
           George                      Guy 2.1                       
           George                      Guy 2.2                       
           George                      Guy 2.3                       
           George                      Guy 2.4                       
           George                      Guy 2.5

  Only guy on side 1 has to answer points from 5 guys on side 2 resulting in
more notes.

  If you count the number of notes per side rather than the number of notes
per person, you find that each side is entering the same number of notes thus
each side is equally responsible for keeping the LDUC going.

  George

      I've stayed outta these debates for the most part, but George, the
    reason I think you may be getting "singled out" is because your sooooo
    long winded.
    
      Are you the kinda person that constantly talks through a movie?
    
      Tim

RE        <<< Note 279.87 by MFGFIN::JACKSON "Profit millions,lose job" >>>

>      I've stayed outta these debates for the most part, but George, the
>    reason I think you may be getting "singled out" is because your sooooo
>    long winded.

  If you will notice, in these LDUC's I only enter one reply per note entered
by the other side. Collectively the guys I'm debating blow just as much "wind"
as I do.
    
>      Are you the kinda person that constantly talks through a movie?
    
  If no one else is talking, I stop talking.

  George

It ain't the quantity so much as the quality of the debate that
is suffering.  Debates which go as follows pretty well suck, as 
these things go:
    
(1) "It really stinks that Baltimore would raid the public till to steal
     a team when the same was done to them (implying that 'raiding the 
     public till' for such purposes is *wrong*)."
    
(2) "Well, no.  That's the free market."
    
(3) "No, that not the free market.  That's the public till, the people's
     money.  It's government subsidy."
    
(4) "No, it's not a subsidy, it's free market 'purchasing'".
    
(5) "It comes from the government; it's a subsidy".
    
(6) "But it's local, not federal.  Therefore it's not a subsidy.  But I
     will agree that it's a subsidy based on the dictionary definition
     if you agree that figure skating is a sport..."
    
    etc., etc., etc...
    
    
    This bleeper careened off the tracks at point (2).  The guy made 
    a valid point, that the city of Baltimore screamed and cried that
    buying a team away from another city was somehow ethically and 
    even legally *wrong* (they filed eminent domain lawsuits and the 
    like), and then turned around and did the very same thing.  
    Nothing more.  Not that it's illegal.  Not that anyone cares what
    you call it when a city turns over such money, a gift, a purchase,
    a subsidy, blackmail.  Just that Baltimore didn't like it on 
    principle, claimed it was *wrong* but then did the very same thing.
    
    glenn
     

glenn,

This reminds me of _Planes, Trains and Automobiles_ where Steve Martin
gives John Candy a tip on how to make a story more interesting, something
to the effect of suggesting it might be better if'n the story had a point
to it.

TTom

Atleast for me George it has nothing to do with agreeing with someone else's
point. I've agreed with your side of the fence and the other side of the fence
too. The problem is simple all you ever see is the fence and the need to
fortify that fence no matter what. The fence can be flat on the ground with
you in one of those Wiley Coyotte land impressions and your still trying
to lift the fence back up. All I can say is I've enjoyed reading your stuff
for the last few years, for about the last two months now I've found myself
either just browsing your stuff or hitting that next unseen key. 

mc

    
    
  >> This bleeper careened off the tracks at point (2).  The guy made 
  >> a valid point, that the city of Baltimore screamed and cried that
  >> buying a team away from another city was somehow ethically and 
  >> even legally *wrong* (they filed eminent domain lawsuits and the 
  >> like), and then turned around and did the very same thing.  
    
      Get into one of those discussions with George and he launches into
      "when people watch a sport they share a common fantasy that it means
      something etc. etc. etc." and before you know it you have a headache
      like someone took a ballpeen hammer and an icepick and went to work
      on your skull. Make that mistake once and you'll never do it again or
      live to regret it. George says he doesn't remember the circumstances
      of the Colts' departure from B'more but I do. I remember the footage 
      of Mayflower trucks slinking off into the night like they stole some-
      thing. And they did. I remember news crews the next day interviewing
      the man on the street and in the bars and grown men literally crying
      in their beers. And in between sobs telling tails of going to Colts
      games with their dads. Muttering about Unitas and Berry and Mike Curtis.
      There was a general pall about the city like you often in small towns 
      see when a plane crashes with several members of the town aboard. I 
      remember futile attempts to fight to keep the team despite the slap 
      in the face. I remember Irsay upon arriving in Indy and telling the 
      townsfolk in his combative way that "This isn't your team, it isn't 
      our team, it's *MY* team!" and Indy taking it because they desparately
      wanted to be big league. After all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth 
      in B'more when the Colts packed up and slinked off into the night, it's 
      painfully obvious to 99.99% of the sports public how incredibly hypo-
      critical they are but they want to be big league too and for some stupid
      reason they think an NFL franchise will help make them so. I say 99.99%, 
      knows that B'more is exercsing the height of hypocrisy guess who the 
      other .01% is.
    

RE                      <<< Note 279.91 by PECAD8::CHILDS >>>

>The problem is simple all you ever see is the fence and the need to
>fortify that fence no matter what. The fence can be flat on the ground with
>you in one of those Wiley Coyotte land impressions and your still trying
>to lift the fence back up. 

  This is the beginning of good advice. If we change that "you" to "you and
the guys you argue with" and cite them as well as me then I think you have a
good point.

  It takes two to tango. I'm willing to do my part to reduce LDUCs if that's
what people want but it's hard for me to respect this criticism when the guys
standing in the other bombed out area trying to lift up their side of the fence
don't get 1% of the criticism that I get.

  Case in point, that "free market" response I gave to the "teams moving sucks"
note was more in the spirit of "yeh, but because all cities can do it there's
not much you can do about it". The debate over whether I should have used the
term "free market" since this involves government spending started in the
following note by someone who keeps pace with me in LDUC's step by step yet
never seems to get criticized for his part in these debates. Note .-1 is a
good example provided by "Mister Love and kindness" himself.

  That in turn causes me to treat this type of criticism with a great deal of
skepticism. Were I to see others getting criticized for their part in these
LDUCs without regard to the side they took, then I would consider it far more
seriously.

  George

As Glenn said in .89,

>                          Just that Baltimore didn't like it on 
>   principle, claimed it was *wrong* but then did the very same thing.

Suggesting that they have adopted the principle, if you can't beat 'em,
join 'em.

It's a pity that Tommy and George have evidently reached the point where
they automatically disagree with each other, because buried in the verbiage
was the very important point that it is the structure of the league's
financial system that has resulted in the unseemly display of cities in
competition with other cities for the privilege of handing the keys to
the treasury to a greedhead with an NFL franchise.

Note that this is composed of George's argument (there is competition
between cities that looks very much like competition in the free market)
and Tommy's (what the NFL owners are looking for is income not subject
to revenue sharing).  This is worth talking about, if you're interested
in the business of sports, especially with revenue sharing now coming
to baseball (though to a lesser degree).

But that's not really the important question, it seems to me.  I agree
entirely with Tommy that a city with Baltimore's problems has higher
priorities than reacquiring NFL football.  My impression is that most
of us here feel this way.  So I ask this:  if Baltimore's action cannot
win the support of this self-selected group with an above average interest
in sports, who then is for it?  Why are not the Baltimore mayor and city
council going to be tossed out in a landslide at the next election?

You know, I remember when the Dodgers moved to LA.  The sweetener was
Chavez Ravine--just the land.  The outcry was enormous and the debate was
intense, and I don't recall if it was resolved by referendum or what.  Of
course, the city has made back the value of the land in various taxes many
times over, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it was a good deal
for city and franchise alike.  But it appears that today, a city can offer
a package worth about two orders of magnitude more, and nobody raises their
voice.  Have times changed so much in 40 years?

Steve

    
    If ya don't quit pissing and moaning, i'll write lock this freaking
    note.  None of this crap has poop to do with the Ravens.

  >> So I ask this:  if Baltimore's action cannot win the support of 
  >> this self-selected group with an above average interest in sports, 
  >> who then is for it?  

     The answer is obvious - Baltimoreans. Which we aren't. Just like
     the rest of these franchise moves, it's popular in the one and
     only place where it needs to be - in the bidding city. They don't
     care that they're looked upon as carrion feeders because they're 
     getting a football team and they'll be big league. It seems to 
     escaped the Baltimores and Nashvilles and Memphises that LA was
     big league when it had the Rams and it's big league today now
     that the Rams have gone. Indy was a hick burg before the Colts 
     got there and it's a hick burg now. Here in Boston, Beggin' Bob 
     Kraft has modified his threat to take his Pats and leave if he 
     didn't get a free stadium because he sure as hell wasn't going 
     to get it. Like every other city in America, Boston has bigger 
     problems than having an NFL franchise. Never mind the social 
     ills, we call ourselves the Athens Of America but our cultural 
     institutions are quite frayed around the edges. The Public 
     Library is crumbling inside and out as is the city zoo which is 
     an out and out embarassment and has been for years. We have no 
     Opera House. Strike that - there is a place called the Opera House 
     and it used to be a beautiful place - 30 years ago. Now, it sits 
     in the middle of the Combat Zone beyond repair and  beyond recog-
     nition. The last time I went there 12 years ago I spent as much 
     time dodging the falling chips of paint as I did watching the concert.
     Boston like most American cities has a lot of needs but making a 
     rich man richer isn't one of them. I really wish people would
     smarten up.
  
    

  >> So I ask this:  if Baltimore's action cannot win the support of 
  >> this self-selected group with an above average interest in sports, 
  >> who then is for it?  
  >
  >   The answer is obvious - Baltimoreans.
    
    To be more precise, though, it's not Baltimoreans, it's 
    DC-beltway Marylanders.  And the deal was (at least mostly) a 
    Maryland state legislature concoction (funded by state lottery,
    likely hitting the city of Baltimore disproportionately but not
    by law), not involving the city of Baltimore per se.  That at 
    least lessens some of the burden on the city itself.
    
    But when Tony asked the original question "how does Baltimore live
    with itself?", my immediate reaction didn't have to do with economics,
    but rather of the city of Baltimore and the state of Maryland in 
    general.  Ballimer ain't Ballimer anymore.  The crowd that'll support
    the Ravens won't be the old Colts fans of the 1960s, but will instead
    hail from Yupperville MD.  There's no internal conflict here because
    most of these suckers didn't live in Baltimore or Maryland at the 
    time, and half of them don't know who Johnny Unitas is, much less
    ever saw him play.
    
    glenn
    

and speakin of them Ravens...

The guy on 1-on-1 sports thised morning read some article that said that
more people in Cleveland watched the Ravens beat the Raiders than watched
the Indians play during the same time slot. The Ravens got a 15+ rating
while the Indians drew a mere 6.

TTom