"You're bringing in dollars from outside the region that wouldn't otherwise be here," said Jack Kleinhenz , theGrowth Association's chief economist.Kleinhenz is aware that many economists pan the inclusion of local spending because they say that's money thatlocal fans would just spend elsewhere even if football becomes kaput in Cleveland. After all, if fans buy hotdogs at the game, that means they might not buy them at the grocery store, the economists say.Still, several economists say the Growth Association's changing of economic impact figures is the sort of financial gymnastics making them skeptical about the true impact.The new $79 million figure was based on surveys of 437 fans - 54 percent of them non-local visitors - duringthe Browns' last three games at Cleveland Stadium, against the Green Bay Packers, the Pittsburgh Steelers andthe Cincinnati Bengals."It's a more complete way of making estimates associated with sport attractions," Kleinhenz said, adding thatinterviewing fans is a more accurate method. "The other figures were based on assumptions, and those werevery conservative assumptions."The $79 million also includes a "multiplier," an economic tool used to measure the ripple effect of spending by,say, a beer vendor who turns around and spends his tips in the area economy.Asked if the $79 million would hold true if the Houston Oilers, the Miami Dolphins and the San DiegoChargers had been the last three home opponents instead of three relatively close Midwest teams, Kleinhenzsaid, "I can't answer that question. But I don't have facts that would tell me otherwise. And if the Browns had aneven better-performing team, that would have increased the number of attendees."Dean Baim, a Pepperdine University economics professor in Malibu, Calif., is wary of economic impact figurestied to sports teams. "When you were growing up, your mom probably said `seeing is believing,' Baim said."This is one area where believing is seeing. If you want to show economic growth, you're going to come upwith the numbers to prove it." Non-local spending might not go away with the Browns, he said."How do you know that those fans wouldn't have come to the rock hall instead of a Browns game?" Baimasked. "If they're that mobile that they can come to Cleveland for the Browns, they may come to Cleveland for some other entertainment."Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College in Northampton, Mass., said the GrowthAssociation's estimates of spending by non-local fans should reflect only spending that stays in Cleveland.In its previous study, the Growth Association estimated that non-local fans each spend $16 in retail shops. Evenif that's true, Zimbalist said, that doesn't mean that, say, a Galleria merchant walks home with $16 in his or her pocket. The retailer, after all, had to buy merchandise, and in fact might pocket only $2.Of the new $79 million estimate, Zimbalist said, "The idea that these figures changed is a product of howillusory these studies are."Rodney Fort, a Washington State University economics professor, questioned the Growth Association's latestestimate that 38,150 non-local fans attend Browns games - compared with the 4,780 estimated in the previousstudy. In the last three home games, the average attendance was 59,510.