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.
I don't think there's enough money and support in Portland for 3 pro sports teams. Austin is borderline but they have competition from UT sports teams and San Antonio for the sports dollars....so I would say at the rate of development in Austin, they should be able to support pro teams in the next 5-10 years.
St. Louis MSA is hardly dying, and neither is Cleveland.
Fixed it for you. The metro isn't dying, but St. Louis proper is, and has been for the last 50 years.
Austin probably won't be a pro sports mecca because there's a larger market 80 miles down I-35 - San Antonio, and they already have a leg up in regards to infrastructure w/ the Alamo Dome.
St. Louis is hardly dying, and neither is Cleveland. Maybe you should visit before writing them off. And don't forget where all these new transplants to Austin and Portland are coming from-- St. Louis and Cleveland and Detroit and Chicago, etc-- cities with long sports traditions and fan loyalties. It's not like these newly transplanted Austin residents are going to forsake their home team allegiances to root for some start-up team in Austin just because they moved there.
Yes I have been to Cleveland, last year and I didn't realize everyone was gonna take such issue with this lol.
I saw the census and saw that Pittsburgh and Cleveland metro were losing population so I didn't know saying they were dying metros was offensive but I apologize. Just curious how small metros that are losing population can still support three pro teams. I'm really curious.
Other people have mentioned salient points about why this is true, but what hasn't yet been mentioned is that Cleveland's MSA is significantly misleading. It doesn't include Akron, which would easily be inside just about every other MSA of a similar size. If that number is added (which for any reasonable intents, it should be, then Cleveland is at about 3.5 million, in fact I believe there are about 4 million if not over that living within an hour of downtown. Pittsburgh's MSA is 2.4 and CSA is 2.7, but there is a lot of Western PA not included in that which eats, sleeps and breathes Pittsburgh sports. Austin's Metro is about 1.9, which is quite a bit smaller, also it is surrounded by three other markets that already have teams. Portland is a more interesting case, with metro of 2.3 and CSA of 3.0, however I also don't know that either of those cities have the corporate presence that Pittsburgh/Cleveland have. They are hardly dying cities, I think the suggestion of that ignores entirely who is leaving and who is staying. And, as mentioned in this case the provincial percentage of the population is HUGE. That's why you see markets like Miami or Atlanta or even LA in some cases that are massive but yet can't draw squat.
So how does dying metro like Cleveland and Pittsburgh and St. Louis manage to support 3 teams?
Pittsburgh is not dying. It damn sure isn't booming, but has leveled off from it's dying days. It's a great city. Cleveland and St Louis suck in my opinion.
I saw the census and saw that Pittsburgh and Cleveland metro were losing population so I didn't know saying they were dying metros was offensive but I apologize. Just curious how small metros that are losing population can still support three pro teams. I'm really curious.
I think a lot of it is simply tradition. Cities like Cleveland and Pittsburgh were ranked higher in population in the first half of the 20th century because many of our big cities today had not developed. I believe you already answered your own question.
In 1950, the top cities (city only, but suburbs were not what they are today):
1. New York City 2. Chicago 3. Philadelphia 4. Los Angeles 5. Detroit 6. Baltimore 7. Cleveland 8. St. Louis 9. Washington DC 10. Boston. Pittsburgh was ranked #12. Today, Cleveland is ranked #48 and Pittsburgh is way down the list at #62. Granted these numbers do not include the metro population. Both the city of Portland and the city of Austin have much larger populations than Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Although I am not a big fan of city-only population figures, I am using this list to demonstrate why teams developed where they did, perhaps why they still exist today. The metro population is a much better indicator of how big a place is.
Although somewhat of an oddity, why do the Packers stay in Green Bay? Tradition. Same with Cleveland (minus the old Browns), and Pittsburgh.
Last edited by pnwguy2; 06-27-2015 at 04:41 PM..
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.
