Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
Hey I took your data set and took out all the ones that didn't support my conclusion and it now supports my conclusion!
|
Except the data set was badly flawed to begin with, and was chosen specifically to suit the conclusion of the original poster. "These other buildings were older" is not a valid argument for the Saddledome still having "13 years" of utility when one considers that the overwhelming majority of the time places like the Forum and MLG existed predated the need or desire for things like luxury suites. And it is no surprise that these old arenas were turfed once the changing economics of the games made modern amenities a necessity.
The original argument also fails to note that these older rinks were renovated significantly over time - far beyond the Saddledome's 1994-95 renovation. The Montreal Forum, for instance, was massively altered several times in its history to dramatically alter seating capacity - something that in modern arenas is no more cost effective than simply building new.
So yes, if you want an apples to apples comparison, you compare a building against other facilities built within the same time period.