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.
Right. So why are you two talking about driving distance like it means something?
Because the NBA is not going to put another franchise so close to another that it threatens the existing team's draw. With Chicago and NYC, this is not as much of an issue because of the population base for both metros. Milwaukee is close to Chicago, but it maintains a fervent independence from Chicago (hence the term F.I.B.) and can draw from other areas in Wisconsin. Chicago doesn't need Milwaukee to support the Bulls. Heck, it doesn't even need Waukegan.
Because the NBA is not going to put another franchise so close to another that it threatens the existing team's draw. With Chicago and NYC, this is not as much of an issue because of the population base for both metros. Milwaukee is close to Chicago, but it maintains a fervent independence from Chicago (hence the term F.I.B.) and can draw from other areas in Wisconsin. Chicago doesn't need Milwaukee to support the Bulls. Heck, it doesn't even need Waukegan.
But as we said, it's not about proximity, it's about draw. If the area could support two teams, it wouldn't matter if they were in the SAME city. Even for the NBA. (See LA).
However, the difficult thing about Indy and Cincy is that the two are riiiiiight on the cusp. In that 25-35 range (depending on what list you look at) of DMA ranking.
But I WILL say that Milwaukee is a smaller market than Cincinnati, and still manages, even being closer to a larger city than Cincy is to Indy. It's not unreasonable to think that Cincy could support a team. After all, both Indianapolis and Cincinnati manage solid attendance for their NFL teams, proximity notwithstanding.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,883,459 times
Reputation: 2501
For NBA; Cincy, St. Louis, KC, Louisville, Austin or Baltimore could all have teams, especially the 1st three. If the T-Wolves left for somewhere, I'd rather it be one of those cities.
But I WILL say that Milwaukee is a smaller market than Cincinnati, and still manages, even being closer to a larger city than Cincy is to Indy. It's not unreasonable to think that Cincy could support a team. After all, both Indianapolis and Cincinnati manage solid attendance for their NFL teams, proximity notwithstanding.
I would say that NFL is way different than any other sport. They sell out nearly everywhere that there is a decent team. I hate to say this, but it wouldn't shock me if the Pacers leave Indianapolis in a few years if they don't get better. And if I had to guess, Cincinnati would probably be one of the first places trying to get them.
I would say that NFL is way different than any other sport. They sell out nearly everywhere that there is a decent team. I hate to say this, but it wouldn't shock me if the Pacers leave Indianapolis in a few years if they don't get better. And if I had to guess, Cincinnati would probably be one of the first places trying to get them.
I think Louisville, KC or St. Louis would have a better shot, actually.
As much as I love the Colts, let's admit it -- The Colts are here because of the way Robert Irsay put them here. Otherwise, I don't imagine the NFL would've been wild about putting an expansion or relocated franchise here.
Another thing about Cincinnati and the NBA -- it would have to compete for the basketball dollar w/ lower priced options at UC and Xavier.
MLB: none. I honestly don't think there are any current markets without a franchise that could support one. Maybe in 15-20 yrs. I could see a Charlotte or maybe Portland.
NBA: St.Louis, KC, Louisville, Anaheim, Seattle. Maybe Vegas.
NFL: LA, Portland, Maybe San Antonio.
An NBA team in Kansas City would have to compete with University of Kansas (30-45 minutes away), Mizzou and K-State, even though the latter two are a bit of a drive. I don't see UMKC being any kind of a threat at all, but they might if they ever got competitive.
Big college basketball town. You almost never see any kind of support for any NBA team in KC.
An NBA team in Kansas City would have to compete with University of Kansas (30-45 minutes away), Mizzou and K-State, even though the latter two are a bit of a drive. I don't see UMKC being any kind of a threat at all, but they might if they ever got competitive.
Big college basketball town. You almost never see any kind of support for any NBA team in KC.
I wonder how many folks in KC metro actually make it over to Phogg Allen Fieldhouse for a weeknight game, but your point is well taken. KC does have one big advantage, though -- a new NBA-quality arena that needs a tenant, and the city would probably offer it rent-free.
OKC was a sooner football town until the hornets and then later the thunder arrived. Baseball games aren't always played on Saturdays. There is plenty of chance. Austin is one of the biggest cities in the us without a professional sports team.
OKC is still a sooner FOOTBALL town and yes the majority of the games happen outside of football season. OU sooner basketball is not that popular whatsoever. Not to mention that they easily had a draw because the closest NBA team to them is over 200 miles away. OKC also will only get the NBA as their metro and market is not big enough to sustain more than 1 pro team. You never want to oversaturate a market especially a new one.
This is not the same for Austin (and their market is smaller than OKC) because Austin has a team only 80 miles away and two other teams in the state that are just over 200 miles away. The odds are against Austin ever getting a team. The NHL maybe. But that's it. As far as baseball, you can forget it. MLB would be a disaster in a metro of only 1.6 million and the 49th largest television market.
For NBA; Cincy, St. Louis, KC, Louisville, Austin or Baltimore could all have teams, especially the 1st three. If the T-Wolves left for somewhere, I'd rather it be one of those cities.
I really like this list for the NBA. I agree with all the cities could/should have NBA teams with the exception of Louisville and Austin. I thinki they're more of college towns. I'll give Louisville 5-10 more years before they get one. Although Louisville is the size now when Charlotte got the Hornets (RIP Hornets 1987-2004). We miss you.
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.
