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.
MLB isn't like the other pro sports with smaller venues and fewer games. You have to have an area that will support 81 home games per year, which also is in a large media market to generate TV revenue. MLB won't move a team into an area where it will eventually have to be supported by revenue sharing from the more profitable teams which reside in major metros.
Thought this might make a good topic. Maybe too sports related for this thread, but not here to talk sports as much as cities that should have teams that don't vs. cities that do and shouldn't.
Here is an example.
Two MLB teams in Chicago. I understand NYC having multiple major league teams, it just goes with their history. But Chicago having both an NL and AL team seems too much when there are so many (albeit smaller market) cities that don't have ML baseball: Charlotte, New Orleans, Buffalo, Portland, Salt Lake City, Nashville, Indianapolis... to name a few. Most of these have at least two major league sports teams in town.
Notable large metro areas with none of the 4 major leagues
Las Vegas
Virginia Beach/Norfolk
Hartford
Louisville
Birmingham
(There are others that could make the list, but limited to cities with no other city in their state with a major league team).
LA being the second largest market in the US, having two teams in the NHL, NBA and MLB each and not having a single team in the NFL is one of the oddest of all the sports city conundrums.
Other oddities along these lines?
the cities in bold virtually have no chance to get an MLB team. Charlotte is a maybe. But that's it. What hurts Indianapolis is what's around it. The Reds, Cardinals, and Cubs have that market sewed up.
Because the fans and the city actually support the team.
Not really. I always see a ton of empty seats when the Jags play. Jacksonville having a team is certainly a fluke. That place having a pro team of any kind will always be one the craziest mysteries.
LA is the only big city in the US that's doing it right when it comes to sports, in my opinion.
And note that many winter Olympic Athletes, and most Summer Olympic Athletes come from Southern California. Southern Californians would rather participate-in than watch sports.
I see how hard the elite level athletes train at our club. There is no financial payoff, but they probably work harder and are in better physical shape than most processional athletes.
the cities in bold virtually have no chance to get an MLB team. Charlotte is a maybe. But that's it. What hurts Indianapolis is what's around it. The Reds, Cardinals, and Cubs have that market sewed up.
One of the reasons I started this post is because of MLB's lack of representation in the south. For decades, the Cardinals and the Reds were the closest teams to the South. From the 60s thru the 90s, Atlanta was the only team in the southeast when the two Florida teams came online. Yet southern cities like New Orleans, Charlotte and Nashville have two major league teams and Raleigh, Memphis, Orlando and Jacksonville have one.
There are metro area markets that have as small (if not smaller) market than a place like Charlotte or Nashville and support an MLB team: Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Stl Louis, Cleveland... All of these cities have languished in growth while these southern cities are growing much faster. Will we see one of these leave their small market for a lateral move like this... but one that would have a brighter future?
Not really. I always see a ton of empty seats when the Jags play. Jacksonville having a team is certainly a fluke. That place having a pro team of any kind will always be one the craziest mysteries.
I have to agree with this. Florida has grown large enough to support two teams in any of the majors, but three? The only way Jacksonville makes sense is if Tampa or Miami didn't have a team. Kind of like Orlando being in the NBA instead of Tampa Bay or Raleigh having the NHL franchise in North Carolina instead of Charlotte. BUt 3 seems too many.
I am sure if some entity in Southern California could come up with a stadium, the Jags would be moving pronto.
One of the reasons I started this post is because of MLB's lack of representation in the south. For decades, the Cardinals and the Reds were the closest teams to the South. From the 60s thru the 90s, Atlanta was the only team in the southeast when the two Florida teams came online. Yet southern cities like New Orleans, Charlotte and Nashville have two major league teams and Raleigh, Memphis, Orlando and Jacksonville have one.
There are metro area markets that have as small (if not smaller) market than a place like Charlotte or Nashville and support an MLB team: Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Stl Louis, Cleveland... All of these cities have languished in growth while these southern cities are growing much faster. Will we see one of these leave their small market for a lateral move like this... but one that would have a brighter future?
The thing is, Milwaukee, Cleveland, St Louis, etc are historical teams and have existed when baseball was America's sport. Football has solidly replaced it. If baseball makes a comeback, I can see many more cities with a team. I believe cities like Nashville, Charlotte, New Orleans, Indy, Salt Lake City, Portland, and OKC could support a team.
^Then those cities should put up or shut up. If a team is losing money, they would move. If they are not, no way they would move to an unloyal market.
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.