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.
In terms of possible expansion one has to think that tradition-oriented MLB isn't going to realign. The only division without 5 teams is the AL West which includes the Texas Rangers, LA Angels, Oakland A's and the Seattle Mariners. Viable markets that would fit reasonably well within that territory are Portland, Salt Lake City and Oklahoma City.
Two points on this. Traditionally, re-alignment has occurred a few times in conjunction with expansion. The Braves were once in the Western division, for example, and Milwaukee changed leagues, which is about as radical as you can get and still call it baseball.
Second, any expansion would require two teams, because the schedule can only work with an even number of teams (otherwise one team would have to be off every single day, making 6 games per week not possible). I agree that the AL West would get a team, but it could theoretically get two. So why not Portland and Oklahoma City?
Then again, taking PeterRabbit's point into consideration, we already aren't able to field 30 MLB teams, so where would we find the players for teams 31 and 32?
Well they are on the Fort Worth/Arlington side of the Metroplex so we wouldn't have to ask for one. There are just some people on the Dallas side who feel they should have a team to mark as Dallas.
If Cuban got hold of the team, that probably would have happend..... who knows?
And I don't see how San Antonio is a terrible idea. The way I see it, if friggin' Oklahoma City can get an NBA franchise, why not put MLB in San Antonio?
Because Oklahoma City and San Antonio are simply too small for the MLB market. They would be worse than the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates of today. OKC is smaller than San Antonio. They will have to do with the NBA. If any other of the four major leagues was to consider OKC, it would probably be NHL and that's not likely. For San Antonio, it would probably be the NFL but again, that is not likely. Both cities do not have the market size, corporate base, or population base to support a 162 game season year in and year out.
^Dallas does not need another team. It really barely supports the Rangers as it is when they aren't in the running for a World Series like they are this year. Every time I see the Rangers on TV I notice not even half of the people are in the stands.
It should be Portland, San Antonio or Indy, and I think Portland should get it so the AL West have 5 teams like the rest of the divisions (except the NL Central, which needs to move Houston probably).
It's not that it's hard to support the Rangers (though remember, this is all Cowboys, all the time). It's just that it's hard to support them. First, they play in probably the worse environment in MLB. It's HOT in June-August in North Texas. Phoenix and Houston has a roof. Miami gets sea breeze showers every day in the summer to cool them off relatively. Atlanta is in a higher elevation. North Texas sits on a flat hot prairie and they have no roof. When the BPA was built (opened in 1994), it was before the age of retractable roofs. But when the temps are around 100 every day in July and August and it doesn't really cool off that much at night, you really don't feel like sitting out there to watch a game. You're out there trying to fight yourself from getting a heat stroke as well as watch the game at the same time.
Second, sorry JJG, but the Rangers play in a terrible location. About as bad as the Rays. Baseball ballparks need to be in urban locations with many activities surrounding it. All the new ballparks are doing it (Washington, Minnesota Houston, Miami). It is in the middle of a soulless location. Either DTFW or DTD (which DTD I think would be better since it will be serviced by public transit, more bars, and more retail options than any other place in the entire metroplex) would do.
Because Oklahoma City and San Antonio are simply too small for the MLB market. They would be worse than the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates of today. OKC is smaller than San Antonio. They will have to do with the NBA. If any other of the four major leagues was to consider OKC, it would probably be NHL and that's not likely. For San Antonio, it would probably be the NFL but again, that is not likely. Both cities do not have the market size, corporate base, or population base to support a 162 game season year in and year out.
Well of course I'm not saying OKC should get an MLB franchise (or anything for that matter.... sorry Okies), but I just don't see it as impossible. I guess numbers are numbers.
And I pretty much expect someone to say that the Ballpark should be in Downtown Dallas because it's better. Of course I disagree (strongly) but it doesn't matter. Arlington's gonna shine for a while in about a week.
Well of course I'm not saying OKC should get an MLB franchise (or anything for that matter.... sorry Okies), but I just don't see it as impossible. I guess numbers are numbers.
And I pretty much expect someone to say that the Ballpark should be in Downtown Dallas because it's better. Of course I disagree (strongly) but it doesn't matter. Arlington's gonna shine for a while in about a week.
Don't get me wrong. I only say DTD would better because that's where the bulk of the metroplex population lives (more people live in the Dallas-Plano-Irvin division than the Fort Worth-Arlington division), a growing transit system, and a huge potential for an exciting environment. I think the same would happen if it was in downtown Fort Worth. I'm mostly talking about experience and the Ballpark outside of the stadiums leaves little to be desired.
Virtually anything is better than Arlington which is nothing more than an ordinary suburb.
Don't get me wrong. I only say DTD would better because that's where the bulk of the metroplex population lives (more people live in the Dallas-Plano-Irvin division than the Fort Worth-Arlington division), a growing transit system, and a huge potential for an exciting environment. I think the same would happen if it was in downtown Fort Worth. I'm mostly talking about experience and the Ballpark outside of the stadiums leaves little to be desired.
Virtually anything is better than Arlington which is nothing more than an ordinary suburb.
The reason why many entertainment venues are located along I-30 in Arlington and Grand Prairie is because of location not because of the environment. Some people already find it hard to drive from say Frisco to Arlington as it is. If the stadium was located in downtown Ft Worth or Dallas it would be even farther to get to for twice as many people. You have to remember that the downtowns of Houston, Miami, and Atlanta are also the center of their population. Even if nobody lives there the population of those metros surround their dowmtowns so it's a no brainer to have sports stadiums built there. DFW is different. If you had a map showing the distribution of the metro's population the center would be around DFW airport or Irving and Arlington is not far from there.
Arlington could actually get something going with more mixed use development around the stadiums and the core of the town. And of course, MASS TRANSIT.
It's not officially a city until you at least have a bus.
The reason why many entertainment venues are located along I-30 in Arlington and Grand Prairie is because of location not because of the environment. Some people already find it hard to drive from say Frisco to Arlington as it is. If the stadium was located in downtown Ft Worth or Dallas it would be even farther to get to for twice as many people. You have to remember that the downtowns of Houston, Miami, and Atlanta are also the center of their population. Even if nobody lives there the population of those metros surround their dowmtowns so it's a no brainer to have sports stadiums built there. DFW is different. If you had a map showing the distribution of the metro's population the center would be around DFW airport or Irving and Arlington is not far from there.
I get your point by saying downtown Houston and Atlanta. Downtown Miami is not the center of Miami metro though. If anything, downtown Ft. Lauderdale is the center since it's halfway between the extreme Northern suburbs in Palm Beach and Southern Martin county and Dade and Northern Monroe County. This is why the Dolphins play basically on the Broward-Dade county line. It will only be hard for people in Western Tarrant County and Western Denton County residents to get to the stadium in DTD. But they could easily park at one of the TRE stations or one of the new suburban DART stations and ride the trains to the game and won't have to worry about traffic either.
I'm just saying that if you're looking for one of the top ballpark atmospheres outside the stadium before, during, and after a game, the ballpark in Arlington is way way at the bottom. I understand your point if we're talking about theme parks. But not sporting events (outside of football because football stadiums and all that it brings needs to be in a low dense suburban location).
Last edited by Spade; 10-26-2010 at 03:33 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.
