DOCSLIB.ORG

The Impact of Stadium Announcements on Residential Property Values: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Dallas-Fort Worth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Impact of Stadium Announcements on Residential Property Values: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Dallas-Fort Worth United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. In the Matter of: (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 | 05000286 ENT000169 Exhibit #: ENT000169-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn: Submitted: March 28, 2012 Rejected: Stricken: Other: THE IMPACT OF STADIUM ANNOUNCEMENTS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES: EVIDENCE FROM A NATURAL EXPERIMENT IN DALLAS-FORT WORTH CAROLYN A. DEHRING, CRAIG A. DEPKEN and MICHAEL R. WARD* We investigate the impact of a potential new sports venue on residential property values, focusing on the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys’ search for a new host city in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. We find that residential property values in the city of Dallas increased following the announcement of a possible new stadium in the city. At the same time, property values fell throughout the rest of Dallas County, which would have paid for the proposed stadium. These patterns reversed when the Dallas stadium proposal was abandoned. Subsequently, a series of announcements regarding a new publicly subsidized stadium in nearby Arlington, Texas, reduced res- idential property values in Arlington. In aggregate, average property values declined approximately 1.5% relative to the surrounding area before stadium construction commenced. This decline was almost equal to the anticipated household sales tax burden, suggesting that the average expected amenity effect of hosting the Cowboys in Arlington was not significantly different from zero. (JEL L83, R53, H73) I. INTRODUCTION projects raise house prices in aggregate, while negative net benefit projects lower house prices Public expenditures on a project, and the in aggregate. We measure the net benefits from requisite public taxation, may be economically the public consideration of a large discrete justified if the benefits from the project outweigh project, a professional sports stadium funded the costs. Most public projects, such as parks, by a local sales tax increase. roads, and police, have public good or external The public expenditure on sports stadiums benefits that are difficult to quantify, making has long been controversial, and there is an the evaluation of individual projects difficult. Eventually, however, the net benefits of the extensive empirical literature investigating the impacts of new stadiums on local economies. accumulated projects are represented in the cost The overwhelming majority of studies found of admission to the community in the form of housing prices or rents. Positive net benefit either no net benefits or net benefits that are con- siderably smaller than the costs of either a new *This analysis was undertaken while Craig Depken stadium or hosting a professional sports fran- was a member of the Economics faculty at the University chise (see Siegfried and Zimbalist [2000] and of Texas—Arlington. The authors acknowledge helpful research assistance by Joshua Been of the University Rappaport and Wilkerson [2001] for thorough of Texas—Arlington’s Graphical Information Systems reviews). These empirical results contradict the Program and helpful comments from seminar partici- arguments proposed by advocates of stadium pants at the 2006 meetings of the Western Economic Association. studies: that a new stadium will provide the cat- alyst for an improvement in the community’s Dehring: Assistant Professor, Department of Insurance, Legal Studies and Real Estate, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. Phone (706) 542-3809 (office), Fax (706) 542-4295, E-mail cdehring@terry. uga.edu Depken: Associate Professor, Department of Economics, ABBREVIATIONS Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina– CPI: Consumer Price Index Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223. Phone (704) 687-7484, GLS: Generalized Least Squares Fax (704) 687-6442, E-mail [email protected] MLS: Multiple Listing Service Ward: Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 76019. NCAA: National Collegiate Athletic Association Phone (817) 272-3090 (office), Fax (817) 272-3145, E-mail NFL: National Football League [email protected] 627 Contemporary Economic Policy (ISSN 1074-3529) doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00077.x Vol. 25, No. 4, October 2007, 627–638 Ó 2007 Western Economic Association International 628 CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY attributes. Nevertheless, new stadiums continue property values in Arlington fell. While the to be built with public funds.1 reduction in property values reflects the combi- We contribute to a small but growing liter- nation of an expected localized amenity effect ature focusing on the impact of professional and an expected tax effect, we cannot reject sports venues on residential property values. the null hypothesis that the expected amenity Specifically, we investigate two sets of stadium effect was equal to zero before stadium con- announcements concerning the National Foot- struction commenced.2 ball League’s (NFL) Dallas Cowboys’ search for a host city in the Dallas-Fort Worth II. A NEW DALLAS COWBOYS STADIUM: WHERE Metroplex. These announcements provide a AND WHEN? quasi-natural experiment to test whether the announcement that a stadium might be built In April 2001, the Dallas Cowboys an- in a particular area has any immediate impact nounced that they were interested in obtaining on the sale prices of residential properties. a new publicly subsidized stadium to replace Because a stadium is costly to relocate, we treat the aging Texas Stadium. Built in 1972, Texas the announcements of potential stadium relo- Stadium lacks many of the modern revenue cation as changing the probability of a large generating aspects of new stadiums, particu- discrete event and test for accumulated and dif- larly modern luxury suites and a closed or ferential impacts of stadium announcements on retractable roof. During the spring and sum- contemporaneous residential property values. mer 2001, team owner Jerry Jones entertained We find that property values increased in the initial proposals from a number of cities in the city of Dallas after the announcement that the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, including cur- Cowboys might move from the city of Irving to rent home Irving, Grapevine, Arlington, Grand a new stadium in downtown Dallas, which Prairie, and Dallas. These preliminary discus- would have replaced the aging Cotton Bowl. sions were tabled after the September 11, 2001, However, in Dallas County, which would have attacks in New York City and did not come paid for the stadium with new taxes, residential back to public light until late 2003. property values decreased after the announce- At that time, the Cowboys once again pub- ment of the Fair Park stadium proposal. Con- licly mentioned their desire for a new stadium sistent with these results, when the Fair Park and suggested that the stadium could be built stadium proposal was abandoned, properties in Irving, near Texas Stadium. The response inthecityofDallasdeclinedinvalue,while to this proposal by the city of Irving was the property values in Dallas County re- not encouraging. Because of Irving’s relatively bounded. In the end, the accumulated net effect small tax base (population of 130,000 in 2000) of the stadium announcements for both Dallas and its inability to raise the sales tax rate City and Dallas County was zero, consistent beyond the state-mandated cap, the city of with a return to the status quo ante. When Irving alone was unlikely to be able to finance analyzing three announcements concerning its contribution to the anticipated $1 billion 3 a potential new stadium in Arlington, we find project. This, in turn, caused the Cowboys that the accumulated impacts of the stadium to look beyond Irving for a new home. announcements reflected between 1.3 and 1.5 In the early months of 2004, a number of cit- percent reduction in residential property sales ies indicated their desire to contend for the new prices in Arlington, ceteris paribus. In other stadium, but it was equally apparent that these words, at each point in which it became more cities suffered the same problems as Irving— certain that Arlington would contribute local too small of a tax base and/or little room under tax dollars to a new stadium for the Cowboys, 2. The Dallas Cowboys did not relocate to another metropolitan area, therefore any metro area-wide amenity 1. During the 1990s and through the early 2000s, cities effect was unaffected by the selected stadium site. across the United States have engaged in what could be 3. The State of Texas has no state income tax. The termed a venue building spree. A little more than 50% state levies a 6.25% sales tax to fund the state government. of the 122 teams in the four major professional leagues Cities are allowed to add up to an additional 2% sales tax in the United States have moved into a new or substan- to fund local government and special projects such as road tially renovated venue since 1990. In aggregate, these maintenance and stadiums. As of 2004, the city of Irving new venues cost an estimated $13.45 billion in current had a 1% sales tax for local government and a 1% sales tax ($16 billion in 2005 CPI adjusted) dollars. Public dollars to contribute to the Dallas Metro Transit system. There- have contributed $10.27 billion, or two-thirds, to the fore, the city of Irving had no room under the existing construction and maintenance of new sports venues. state-mandated sales tax cap of 8.25%. DEHRING, DEPKEN & WARD: THE IMPACT OF STADIUM ANNOUNCEMENTS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES 629 the state sales tax limit. In March 2004, it was On July 17, 2004, the mayor of Arlington suggested that Fair Park in downtown Dallas, announced that he had been in negotiations home of the 72-yr-old Cotton Bowl, could be with the team about the potential of building possible site for a new Cowboys stadium.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Football Bowl Game Schedule
    Football Bowl Game Schedule Stacy remains tippy after Derrick skeletonising rifely or present any raylets. Stable and scattering Lucian embrutes her arkose impassibleness hedge and blue-pencils shakily. Aerostatic and jerking Art strafe exponentially and expense his alleviative ahold and journalistically. Comment on the news and join forum at cleveland. PRIMESPORT following month initial communication. Sec football game requirements? He flashes a game, as he utilizes a space away from the conference play at times, and to be. Bowl schedule cancellations TV info and teams opting out. Lewis can play at the ratio level. Postseason bowl games start December 19 and the 2021 College Football Playoff National Championship Game box be played Monday. Get breaking hudson county real estate, schedules yet to shed stronger against no. We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. The football player with great body driving defenders off his own pocket setting the latest schedules and sell tickets now assumes with your browser does not. Conferences have different methods by which bowl money is divided among its membership and participating teams. Will loan be football bowl games in 2020? This game will be a big test to see how good Notre Dame actually is. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. Playing in bowl games and scheduled to date financial hardship and more comfortable and relevant experience on the underdog that up for the second day! Game Date Tickets Match-Up 5 Frisco Frisco TX 650000 121920 700pm ESPN Tickets American vs CUSAMACMWC Canceled for 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • NCAA Division II-III Football Records (Special Games)
    Special Regular- and Postseason- Games Special Regular- and Postseason-Games .................................. 178 178 SPECIAL REGULAR- AND POSTSEASON GAMES Special Regular- and Postseason Games 11-19-77—Mo. Western St. 35, Benedictine 30 (1,000) 12-9-72—Harding 30, Langston 27 Postseason Games 11-18-78—Chadron St. 30, Baker (Kan.) 19 (3,000) DOLL AND TOY CHARITY GAME 11-17-79—Pittsburg St. 43, Peru St. 14 (2,800) 11-21-80—Cameron 34, Adams St. 16 (Gulfport, Miss.) 12-3-37—Southern Miss. 7, Appalachian St. 0 (2,000) UNSANCTIONED OR OTHER BOWLS BOTANY BOWL The following bowl and/or postseason games were 11-24-55—Neb.-Kearney 34, Northern St. 13 EASTERN BOWL (Allentown, Pa.) unsanctioned by the NCAA or otherwise had no BOY’S RANCH BOWL team classified as major college at the time of the 12-14-63—East Carolina 27, Northeastern 6 (2,700) bowl. Most are postseason games; in many cases, (Abilene, Texas) 12-13-47—Missouri Valley 20, McMurry 13 (2,500) ELKS BOWL complete dates and/or statistics are not avail- 1-2-54—Charleston (W.V.) 12, East Carolina 0 (4,500) (at able and the scores are listed only to provide a BURLEY BOWL Greenville, N.C.) historical reference. Attendance of the game, (Johnson City, Tenn.) 12-11-54—Newberry 20, Appalachian St. 13 (at Raleigh, if known, is listed in parentheses after the score. 1-1-46—High Point 7, Milligan 7 (3,500) N.C.) ALL-SPORTS BOWL 11-28-46—Southeastern La. 21, Milligan 13 (7,500) FISH Bowl (Oklahoma City, Okla.) 11-27-47—West Chester 20, Carson-Newman 6 (10,000) 11-25-48—West Chester 7, Appalachian St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hall of Honor and the Move to Tier One Athletics by Debbie Z
    The Hall of Honor and the Move to Tier One Athletics By Debbie Z. Harwell rom its earliest days, the University of Houston rose to Fthe top in athletics—not in football or basketball as you might expect, but in ice hockey. The team competed for the first time in 1934 against Rice Institute in the Polar Wave Ice Rink on McGowan Street. It went undefeated for the season, scoring three goals to every one for its opponents. The next year, only one player returned, but the yearbook reported that they “represented a fighting bunch of puck- pushers.” They must have been because the team had no reserves and played entire games without a break.1 The sports picture changed dramatically in 1946 when the University joined the Lone Star Conference (LSC) and named Harry H. Fouke as athletic director. He added coaches in men’s tennis, golf, track, football, and basketball, and a new director of women’s athletics focused on physical education. Although the golf team took second in confer- The 1934 Houston Junior College ice hockey team, left to right: Nelson ence play and the tennis team ranked fourth, basketball was Hinton, Bob Swor, Lawrence Sauer, Donald Aitken (goalie), Ed the sport that electrified the Cougar fans. The team once Chernosky, Paul Franks, Bill Irwin, Gus Heiss, and Harry Gray. Not practiced with a “total inventory of two basketballs left pictured John Burns, Erwin Barrow, John Staples, and Bill Goggan. Photo from 1934 Houstonian, courtesy of Digital Library, behind by World War II campus Navy recruits, one of them Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Considerations for Retractable-Roof Stadia
    Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer S.B. Civil Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of AASSACHUSETTS INSTiTUTE MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN OF TECHNOLOGY CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING MAY 3 12005 AT THE LIBRARIES MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2005 © 2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved Signature of Author:.................. ............... .......... Department of Civil Environmental Engineering May 20, 2005 C ertified by:................... ................................................ Jerome J. Connor Professor, Dep tnt of CZvil and Environment Engineering Thesis Supervisor Accepted by:................................................... Andrew J. Whittle Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies BARKER Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 20, 2005 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering ABSTRACT As existing open-air or fully enclosed stadia are reaching their life expectancies, cities are choosing to replace them with structures with moving roofs. This kind of facility provides protection from weather for spectators, a natural grass playing surface for players, and new sources of revenue for owners. The first retractable-roof stadium in North America, the Rogers Centre, has hosted numerous successful events but cost the city of Toronto over CA$500 million. Today, there are five retractable-roof stadia in use in America. Each has very different structural features designed to accommodate the conditions under which they are placed, and their individual costs reflect the sophistication of these features.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Valero Alamo Bowl
    2015 VALERO ALAMO BOWL K-STATE VS. UCLA Friday | January 2, 2015 | 5:45 PM CST | ESPN Alamodome (65,000) | San Antonio, Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Media Information 3 Alamodome 4 San Antonio Area 5 2014 Bowl Preview 6 Team Quick Facts The 2015 Valero Alamo Bowl will be Kansas State’s 16th bowl appearance under legendary coach Bill Snyder and fifth straight since 2010. 7 Wildcat Notebook K-STATE FOOTBALL • VALERO ALAMO BOWL INFORMATION 13 Depth Chart KANSAS STATE FOOTBALL TEAM HEADQUARTERS Marriott Rivercenter 14 Rosters 101 Bowie Street San Antonio, Texas 78205 16 Head Coach Bill Snyder Phone: 210.223.1000 19 Assistant Coaches KANSAS STATE FOOTBALL PRACTICE FACILITIES Alamo Heights High School 23 Support Staff 6900 Broadway San Antonio, Texas 78209 KENNY LANNOU RYAN LACKEY Assistant AD/Communications Assistant Director/Communications 24 The Wildcats 44 Season Review VALERO ALAMO BOWL • MEDIA INFORMATION 46 Updated Record Book MEDIA HEADQUARTERS 49 Season Statistics Marriott Riverwalk 889 East Market Street San Antonio, Texas 61 Game-By-Game Recaps Phone: 210.224.4555 73 Big 12 Standings | Statistics ALAMO BOWL HEADQUARTERS 100 Montana Street 77 All-Big 12 Teams San Antonio, Texas 78203 RICK HILL SETH KRUG VP of Marketing and Media Assistant 78 Team Bowl Records Communications 84 Individual Bowl Records 86 Career Bowl Records 2014 K-STATE FOOTBALL RESULTS RECORD: 9-3 [7-2 Big 12 Conference] 87 Opponent Bowl Records ON THE COVER DATE OPPONENT [TV] RESULT ATTENDANCE Five-time national coach of the year Aug. 30 Stephen F. Austin [KSHDTV] W, 55-16 52,830 88 Bowl Recaps and 2015 College Football Hall of Fame Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the John Boyle Texas Stadium Files, 1960-1992
    Guide to the John Boyle Texas Stadium Files, 1960-1992 2.9 linear ft. Accession Number: 0910-23 Collection Number: 87 Prepared by Christopher Strange April 2016 Citation: The John Boyle Texas Stadium Files, Collection 87, Box number, Folder number, Irving Archives, Irving Public Library. Historical Sketch Texas Stadium in Irving, Texas was the home of the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys from 1971-2008. The Cowboys moved there from the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, where they had played their home games since the team’s first season in 1960. The team’s owner, Clint Murchison Jr., contacted City of Irving officials as early as 1966 to propose the idea of building a state-of-the-art stadium with assistance from the city. After some negotiation, the two sides agreed that the city would build and own the stadium, and the Cowboys would enter into an agreement to lease the stadium for their home games for at least 35 years. A Cowboys’ subsidiary, the Texas Stadium Corporation, would manage the stadium. The city would finance the construction by requiring all season ticket purchasers to also buy construction bonds. The city would repay the bonds with money from tickets sold over the duration of the Cowboys’ lease, and Irving taxpayers would not have to pay any share of the construction costs. The bonds went on sale in December 1967, and the first $3.5 million was raised in three weeks. Supporters of the stadium said it would cost Irving taxpayers nothing, but the plan still caused some controversy in the city.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Irving and Irving Convention & Visitors Bureau
    City of Irving and Irving Convention & Visitors Bureau Proposed Multi-Purpose Center Study February 2007 FINAL DRAFT Presented by: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Contact: Robert V. Canton, Director Phone: (813) 218-2917 Fax: (813) 375-7842 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1500 Tampa, Florida 33602-5147 Telephone (813) 218 2917 Facsimile (813) 375 7842 February 15, 2007 Maura Gast, Executive Director Irving Convention & Visitors Bureau 222 W. Las Colinas Blvd., Suite 1550 Irving, Texas 75039 Dear Ms. Gast: PricewaterhouseCoopers is pleased to present this report on our analyses of a proposed multi- purpose facility in Irving, Texas. We trust that you will find the information contained herein useful in your decision-making process. Our Services were performed and this report was developed in accordance with our engagement letter dated October 20, 2005 and addenda dated May 26, 2006 and October 3, 2006 and each is subject to the terms and conditions included therein. Our Services were also performed in accordance with Standards for Consulting Services established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The procedures we performed did not constitute an examination or a review in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards or attestation standards. Accordingly, we provide no opinion, attestation or other form of assurance with respect to our work or the information upon which our work was based. We did not audit or otherwise verify the information supplied to us in connection with this engagement, from whatever source, except as may be specified in this report or in our engagement letter. Our work was limited to the specific procedures and analysis described herein and was based only on the information made available through December 7, 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the American Outdoor Sport Facility: Developing an Ideal Type on the Evolution of Professional Baseball and Football Structures
    AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMERICAN OUTDOOR SPORT FACILITY: DEVELOPING AN IDEAL TYPE ON THE EVOLUTION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL STRUCTURES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Chad S. Seifried, B.S., M.Ed. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Donna Pastore, Advisor Professor Melvin Adelman _________________________________ Professor Janet Fink Advisor College of Education Copyright by Chad Seifried 2005 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to analyze the physical layout of the American baseball and football professional sport facility from 1850 to present and design an ideal-type appropriate for its evolution. Specifically, this study attempts to establish a logical expansion and adaptation of Bale’s Four-Stage Ideal-type on the Evolution of the Modern English Soccer Stadium appropriate for the history of professional baseball and football and that predicts future changes in American sport facilities. In essence, it is the author’s intention to provide a more coherent and comprehensive account of the evolving professional baseball and football sport facility and where it appears to be headed. This investigation concludes eight stages exist concerning the evolution of the professional baseball and football sport facility. Stages one through four primarily appeared before the beginning of the 20th century and existed as temporary structures which were small and cheaply built. Stages five and six materialize as the first permanent professional baseball and football facilities. Stage seven surfaces as a multi-purpose facility which attempted to accommodate both professional football and baseball equally.
    [Show full text]
  • Stadium Construction for Professional Sports: Reversing the Inequities Through Tax Incentives
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 18 Issue 3 Volume 18, Summer 2004, Issue 3 Article 5 Stadium Construction for Professional Sports: Reversing the Inequities Through Tax Incentives Zachary A. Phelps Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STADIUM CONSTRUCTION FOR PROFESSIONAL SPORTS: REVERSING THE INEQUITIES THROUGH TAX INCENTIVES ZACHARY A. PHELPS* INTRODUCTION There are few things in today's society that garner more attention or have a larger significance on everyday life than sports. Avid fans follow their favorite teams not only during their respective seasons, but search the Internet and sports page in the off-season to find even the slightest bit of information. Popular holidays are interwoven with various sporting events, such as football on Thanksgiving Day or baseball on the Fourth of July.1 Some events even attract their own celebration, such as Super Bowl Sunday. If a city's local team is fortunate enough to win a championship, a large-scale parade is usually held to honor the players and coaches. 2 Clearly, sports permeate multiple aspects of our lives, and it is this popularity that sports franchises use to their advantage. People become so attached to *J.D. Candidate, June 2004, St. John's University School of Law; B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • After All, Cotton Bowl Stadium Is
    FP-018 Cotton Bowl Stadium Does the structure in front of you really need an introduction? After all, Cotton Bowl Stadium is renowned worldwide as the venue that for more than 70 years hosted the Cotton Bowl Classic, pitting two of college football’s premier powerhouses against one another on -- or near -- New Year’s Day. The roster of gridiron greats who have played inside this stadium reads like a roll call of athletic superstardom. Davey O’Brien, Bobby Layne, Sammy Baugh, Bart Starr, and Ernie Davis (who was the first black player to win the Heisman Trophy). Let’s not forget Roger Staubach, Joe Theismann, Joe Montana, Bo Jackson, Dan Marino and Woodrow Wilson High School graduate and Heisman winner, Tim Brown. Oh yes, and Troy Aikman, Doug Flutie and Eli Manning, as well. You HAVE heard of some of those people, haven’t you? For more than 70 years, this stadium has also been the host of a piddly little rivalry you’ve probably never heard of, a rivalry between one team that wears Burnt Orange and White, and another that wears Crimson and White. And to be clear, down here that rivalry is always called the TEXAS/OU game … never the other way around. The stadium also hosts the annual State Fair Classic featuring Grambling University and Prairie View A&M, perhaps the one football event in the country where the halftime band performances are more exciting than the game itself. And in 2011, the stadium became the home of the new Ticket City Bowl, featuring teams from the Big 10 Conference and Big 12 Conference or Conference U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bowl Games
    NOTRE DAME THE BOWL GAMES Fullback Jerome Bettis scored two rushing touchdowns and caught a 26-yard pass for a score in Notre Dame’s 28-3 win over Texas A&M in the 1993 Cotton Bowl. (photo by Don Stacy) Bowl Box Scores Notre Dame Bowl Record 1973 SUGAR BOWL Won 13, Lost 12 Notre Dame 24, Alabama 23 December 31, 1973 Season Bowl Opponent W/L Score Alabama came in ranked first in both the Associated Press and United Press International polls with an 11-0 record. Notre Dame came in ranked third according to 1924 Rose (Jan. 1, 1925) Stanford W 27-10 AP and fourth in the UPI poll with a 10-0 record. The Notre Dame victory left the Irish 1969 Cotton (Jan. 1, 1970) Texas L 17-21 first in the AP poll after the bowls, while Alabama dropped to fourth. 1970 Cotton (Jan. 1, 1971) Texas W 24-11 1972 Orange (Jan. 1, 1973) Nebraska L 6-40 1975 ORANGE BOWL 1973 Sugar (Dec. 31, 1973) Alabama W 24-23 Notre Dame 13, Alabama 11 January 1, 1975 1974 Orange (Jan. 1, 1975) Alabama W 13-11 Alabama came in ranked first in the United Press International poll and second in the 1976 Gator (Dec. 27, 1976) Penn State W 20- 9 Associated Press poll with its 11-0 record. Notre Dame came in standing eighth in the 1977 Cotton (Jan. 2, 1978) Texas W 38-10 UPI poll and ninth according to AP with its 9-2 record. The Notre Dame victory left Notre Dame sixth and Alabama fifth in the AP poll after the bowls.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday, December 21, 2020 Tuesday, December 22, 2020 Wednesday, December 23, 2020 Thursday, December 24, 2020 Friday, December 2
    MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2020 MYRTLE BEACH BOWL - BROOKS STADIUM - CONWAY, SC 1ST HALF 2ND HALF TEAM TIME LINE M/L FINAL BET # LINE FINAL BET # LINE FINAL 267 NORTH TEXAS ESPN 62.5 +650 1267 34.5 14 2267 34 14 28 268 APPALACHIAN STATE 11:30A -19.5 -1000 1268 -12.5 35 2268 -9 21 56 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2020 POTATO BOWL - ALBERTSONS STADIUM - BOISE, ID 269 TULANE ESPN -3 -160 1269 -1.5 2269 270 NEVADA 12:30P 56.5 +140 1270 28 2270 BOCA RATON BOWL - FAU STADIUM - BOCA RATON, FL 271 CENTRAL FLORIDA ESPN 70 +160 1271 37 2271 272 BYU 4:00P -4.5 -180 1272 -3.5 2272 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2020 NEW ORLEANS BOWL - MERCEDES-BENZ SUPERDOME - NEW ORLEANS, LA 273 GEORGIA SOUTHERN ESPN -4.5 -185 1273 -3 2273 274 LOUISIANA TECH 12:00P 51 +165 1274 24.5 2274 MONTGOMERY BOWL - CRAMPTON BOWL - MONTGOMERY, AL 275 FLORIDA ATLANTIC ESPN 52 +290 1275 25 2275 276 MEMPHIS 4:00P -9.5 -350 1276 -4.5 2276 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2020 NEW MEXICO BOWL - TOYOTA STADIUM - FRISCO, TX 277 HAWAII ESPN 61.5 +335 1277 31.5 2277 278 HOUSTON 12:30P -11 -420 1278 -7 2278 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 25, 2020 CAMELLIA BOWL - CRAMPTON BOWL - MONTGOMERY, AL 279 MARSHALL ESPN 54 +135 280 BUFFALO 11:30A -3.5 -155 SATURDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2020 GASPARILLA BOWL - RAYMOND JAMES STADIUM - TAMPA, FL 281 SOUTH CAROLINA ABC 47 +200 282 UAB 9:00A -6 -240 CURE BOWL - CAMPING WORLD STADIUM - ORLANDO, FL 283 LIBERTY ESPN 59.5 +205 284 COASTAL CAROLINA 9:00A -6.5 -245 FIRST RESPONDER BOWL - GERALD J.
    [Show full text]