BrisbanePanther

Also agree that if the fans and Raleigh are so passionate they can just make the drive to Charlotte...just like all the other passionate fans in the Triangle. Two hours is no excuse, I mean that's basically the distance from Milwaukee to Green Bay. That's not half the population of the city of Green Bay in Lambeau every game...including Monday night games and Thursday night games. And Milwaukee is nowhere near as wealthy as Raleigh and their populations are almost the same. Just make the drive or even generate enough market for Amtrak to run.

Actually, but from personal experience, seeing Charlotte on TV did cause me to look more into it and eventually move there for a while. Maybe I'm highly unique and the only person who's done so, but I doubt it. Was there enough like me to justify to cost of whatever it was that got Charlotte on TV? Not sure. But we do know that have entertainment and cultural offering plays a role in being attractive for corporate relocations--particularly HQs who tend to bring their higher-paid staff. Ironically, know what else an economist will say is uneconomic? Schools, hospitals, and libraries. Those "investments" are wholly uneconomic in the classic sense--so much so that they rely on trying to attribute quantitative monetary value to their qualitative non-monetary social benefits, which is also squishy. And it also means weirdness that most are uncomfortable with like trying to put a price tag on a life when determining the number of hospital beds or surgeon suites to help people recover quicker (which goes back to the lost productivity value of them not working) or the expected income potential of a student if the student/teacher ratio is lowered through a new school or school expansion--assuming that the student stays in the region for the 30-year term that most economic studies work within. That's why I go back to the simple rightness/wrongness of public dollars supporting billion-dollar industries (oh, but then again, if we follow that tether, massive road expansions also subsidize billion dollar industries if they aren't tolled so maybe we accept subsidizing one vs the other based on the perceived benefit to us individually). That may be the core issue here, but relying on economics to support the position can turn into the equivalent of "live by the three, die by the three" when taking a stance.

And ironically, every single one of those teams moved to or will move to privately-financed arena/stadiums. The new A's stadium in Oakland would have been privately-financed as well. Las Vegas actually has multiple private arenas.

Sorry, but economists should be right there with politicians for trustworthiness. I know that they're good for saying that sports teams have the same economic value as a department store... But they also say that too much employment is a bad thing. They also say that the economy requires a certain number of people to be unemployed to be a 'good economy'. In fact the current threatened recession is 100% by design of economists who were "trying to take the heat out of the economy", only it's now getting away from them when thought they could control the levers that would force people out of work. Modern economists are mostly dopes who work in an abstract laboratory that treats people's lives as numbers to be sacrificed to satisfy their "invisible hand" deity. Source: I spent years working with economists working on major projects, and they can make any proposal look "good" for the economy or "bad" for the economy by a simple change in Excel. TL;DR: A position based on the right/wrong of public dollars supporting billionaires is one thing, but I recommend not using economists to support that position.

Whatever it is, I suspect there will be some tea leaves to read regarding timing of a new stadium, which would fetch huge dollars by itself. Also have to keep in mind that there'll be other stadiums coming too which could take some potential sponsors, including new ones in Buffalo, Nashville, and DC (which will almost certainly have their pick of sponsors in a mega-deal to compete with Bezos). In fact, I think a new DC stadium could break the $500m sponsorship mark. That being said, my contenders would be: American Airlines Field due to the Charlotte hub, but I'm not sure airlines are throwing money like this at sponsorships anymore. I also think it could be a random one like: Samsung Stadium--but then again this feels like the name for a new (or heavily renovated) stadium. The tech upgrades, customer experience, and product placement takes care of itself. All the video boards, ribbon boards, monitors, wifi, everything--all Samsung and probably special features for Samsung phone owners (like me! ).

Steph might actually be the best Charlottean native athlete ever. Too many people forget home when they get big. Charlotte is doing well that he stays connected via the Panthers.

Not sure why, but I really liked this moment for Branch. Good on him for coming back today.

Are we getting close to Hooker-in-the-3rd time? If he's not picked by Seattle, barring a trade that sounds like the likely outcome.

Was gonna say the same thing. It had to torture them that we were #1. Couldn't use all the commercials up then.

Oooh TEN... Hooker? Levis?

This is Joey Porter Jr. for PIT. The story writes itself.

Pretty sure Malik was there--and I think by himself for a looooooong time.

I think they'd pick around 7-10 next year. I don't think they got trounced in most of their games this year and they are undoubtedly better. I think HOU goes .500 in their division. If they collect three wins elsewhere (TB, ATL, maybe one more) they're 6-11. IND, TEN, AZ, LAR, GB, CLE will all likely be worse than them, plus 1-2 surprise teams. I think HOU will be picking Marvin Harrison II next year for Stroud with CLE's pick.

Unless someone trades back into the 1st, there'll be plenty of storylines related to Levis and Hooker being picked. Seattle, Minny, maaaaybe NO...if they're drafted by any of those teams the spotlight automatically goes to their current QBs. Might be destabilizing, so not sure they're worth that risk to those teams especially since they'll all be trying to make the playoffs.

If he's not taken at 17 or 19, he's a Day 2 pick...unless someone trades up for him (which I think is more likely).

I figured PIT would be taking him.

Totally agree. What they gave up for Anderson is akin to Tepper throwing money at creating Charlotte FC. Total luxury that makes him looks like a genius if it works, and if it doesn't, no worries since they used some of their excess anyway and won't miss it as much as if they were poorer.

They may not live it down if they don't take him...Georgia player staying local? Might be their only excuse for not taking anyone else.

If there was a more perfect replacement face that you could see saying "Get the f--- off my field"...

Houston had plenty of extra to give. Little actual cost to them. They just cashed in the value they got for trading Watson.

This is the best top of the draft in a long time.

Well ok Seattle. Levis to LV...LeVis to LV...maybe it was in our face the whole time!

Yep, and would be an easy fan hit in Nashville, and could just be hitting his prime (even though it'd be at 30) right when they move into the new stadium.

Let's see what Tennessee does...Stroud, Lawrence, Richardson in the same division. They can't stay put. I think they take Hooker at 11.

I think they have cap room, and I think still at least Cleveland's 1st next year--maybe more. Plus Tunsil is re-signed, so he has his anchor.