If they would have had the #5 pick then they could have had so many teams trying to trade up there for a QB. They'd be ahead of the Chargers and Dolphins who both need QB's. The Dolphins have 3 first round draft picks this year. That would have been such a good haul, potentially grabbing those picks had they won more games. They'd have to leapfrog several teams. Unfortunately at #7 both the chargers and the Dolphins don't need to move up. The only scenario i'd see is if they pick the QB's they need and the Dolphins pull the trigger on a OT to protect their QB, the Panthers would get the 18th and 26th, plus a lower round pick to move up to #7 if the draft board falls to where no OT was taken prior to the Panthers pick.
The thing is, that if the Panthers decide to stay with Cam, they need to protect his blind side and if the best OT is on the board, I don't think they would give up that pick for 2 first rounders. I wouldn't. Especially when it's the best tackle of the draft. I don't know.
IF they stay at the pick and Brown is available or Thomas...Take Thomas.
This has all been thoroughly debated examined and tested by people who are experts in the field. Noll is not one guy out on a limb. The bottom line is the consensus amongst respected experts is that sports stadiums do not provide the economic impact they claim to.
That article was written by a member of the Federal Reserve. Surely he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to money and economic impact. Here are a few quotes from that article I would particularly draw to your attention:
"When surveyed, 86 percent of economists agreed that “local and state governments in the U.S. should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises.”
"In a 2017 poll, 83 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that “Providing state and local subsidies to build stadiums for professional sports teams is likely to cost the relevant taxpayers more than any local economic benefits that are generated.”
It's not that stadiums don't bring in any money, or have any economic impact, no one is arguing that. But the reality is that the numbers show that impact is less than the cost of the subsidies provided, by large margins. This is why the vast majority of economists say they should be discontinued.
Your math about tickets is irrelevant because all of that revenue goes into the private owners pockets. The point is that fewer games means fewer times people are coming to the area and having that impact you are talking about. That's why more games has more impact. Ticket prices and sales are irrelevant because we're talking about the impact on the economy, not actual ticket sales. It's not about how many tickets are bought at what prices, it's about how many times people stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, etc etc etc. And the people who measure these things and look at the data far more than you or I say it's not close, stadiums are a bad deal for taxpayers as an economic investment.
Bottom line, if a cardiologist tells you you'd better stop eating fried foods or you're not likely to last another five years, do you do what the highly trained expert says, or do you sit there and argue with him about whether the burgers you cook on the grill should count or not?