Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The (1)New Jersey Nets are changing their name to the Brooklyn Nets, so will somebody living in Queens or S.I. not be able to claim the team or feel any less connected with them because they play in Brooklyn?
The Nets have always been a team with an identity crisis. The originally played in New York, and when they moved to Newark, they changed their name to "New Jersey" to differentiate themselves from the New York Knicks.
(2)You seem to be missing the point that it all comes down to money (as do most things in life), and fan support or some imaginary line does not factor in.
I grew up in Manhattan, and I would be able to get to a Nets game quicker in New Jersey than I will at the new Barclays Center.
1. It depends on how they feel about the Nets as they currently are, doesn't it? If they never liked the Nets to begin with they could continue to not like the Nets or maybe love the team simply because they will play in Brooklyn. Who knows. People are fickle. Is it surprising that some people in Baltimore hate the Colts because they left for Indianapolis? Would it be shocking to find out that some people still follow, or possibly root for, the Indianapolis Colts because the Colts have always been their team, regardless of location?
Is it possible that some people may treat the Nets the same way as people in Baltimore treat the Colts now?
2. People seem to be overlooking or misreading my original post (emphasis added):
"For the OP, I'm not sure. I wouldn't say a lack of pro sports is a steadfast indicator of a city's "importance" or "worth". But I wouldn't discount it totally either. I think it shows that a city has a desire to bring all the things having a pro sports team means into their city. Hotels, transportation, retail and restaurants come to mind. It certainly stands to reason that having multiple teams means that people have an even greater desire to buy into "sports" and more hotels and more transportation and more retail and more restuarants.
But even without sports teams, cities can put the time, money and effort into the things I listed before. The lack of a sports team does not necessarily equate to a lack of hotels, transportation, retail, restaurants, etc."
Where ever a stadium/team is located, it has to be able to accomodate all the needs of the 10's of thousands of attendees, and the day to day life of the immediate area. Inside city limits or just inside the metro area, there has to be a way for people to get there. A place to park. A place to eat. A place to sleep. Etcetera.
This is how the cities can be measured. If others choose not to use this yard stick, that's fine. But I would really appreciate it if people were not so forceful in trying to say that there is absolutely no relevance to having a sports team inside city limits or outside the limits. I can take the CTA to Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls, Cubs, and White Sox games. I can take the CTA out to the end of the line and then it's a 2.2 mile journey to the home of the Chicago Fire (MLS), however you choose to make the trek.
If the MLS Fire stadium was INSIDE city limits, it certainly seems like that it is a reason to extend public transit lines out to the stadium with maybe even special routes on game days.
In 2005, there were plans for the Jets to move to a stadium in the Hudson Yards neighborhood of Manhattan, funded by the tax payers of New York. When London won the 2012 Olympic bid, that idea was scrapped, and the Jets/Giants built a stadium 5 miles from Manhattan.
I think that clearly shows that New York is not that passionate about the Jets or the Giants. And that's clearly a measure of NY because.... because.... umm... sorry I lost my train of thought.
Your argument about New Yorkers having more interest in HOCKEY over NFL FOOTBALL because the Rangers play 5 miles east of the Giants/Jets is crazy as well. NYC will always be a Yankees town, but the Giants are easily the #2 team in town, way ahead of the Rangers.
What are you talking about? The Rangers are clearly the most popular team in NYC, followed by the Knicks, followed by (based on the mileage from Wall Street) the Mets, then the Yankees, then the Islanders.
The Jets and the Giants are clearly not popular. They are not even playing in the NY state!
I would really appreciate it if people were not so forceful in trying to say that there is absolutely no relevance to having a sports team inside city limits or outside the limits. I can take the CTA to Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls, Cubs, and White Sox games. I can take the CTA out to the end of the line and then it's a 2.2 mile journey to the home of the Chicago Fire (MLS), however you choose to make the trek.
When it comes to NYC, there is no relevance. Not to pick on Dallas, but if you want to argue that it says something about the city of Dallas that the Rangers and Cowboys play in the suburbs, I am fine with that, as Dallas has a huge suburban population and has tons of sprawl.
Prudential Center (Nets/Devils) and Metlife Stadium (Jets/Giants) are also accessable via Public Transit, I can also take Public Transit to a MLS game as well; and all of these venues are located in an area as urban or more than any sport complex in Chicago.
...Are you trying to tell me that the Chicago Bears have a more passionate fanbase inside the city limits of Chicago than the New York Giants, because their stadium happens to be inside city limits?...
Are they more passionate? I don't know. What I do know is that Chicago has the space, roads, transportation, buildings, and people willing to pay to see a game in Soldier Field in Chicago.
To clarify, I think the metro area does attribute to the actual city, thus a sports venue in the same metro would help boost the city's importance. When I asked the question in the original post I referred to the whole metro and in some cases CSA. Some things were left to be ambiguous because there are no set of rules in your opinion.
To clarify, I think the metro area does attribute to the actual city, thus a sports venue in the same metro would help boost the city's importance. When I asked the question in the original post I referred to the whole metro and in some cases CSA. Some things were left to be ambiguous because there are no set of rules in your opinion.
Thanks for the clarification
With that in mind, we can crown NYC the best of the best of the bestest in the world. I mean, that's where this was going anyway, but now we *know* for certain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
