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.
Well San Antonio will no doubt be the anchor like San Jose is now in the bay area and San Francisco before that. San Antonio is much larger in area and population than Austin.
Actually San Francisco is of greater importance than San Jose. And San Francisco is probably the main reason why the area has grown so much. Well, there's also the high-tech jobs in San Jose but still.... everyone there commutes to San Francisco because that's where the money is. But it's too small in area so people have moved to San Jose, plus the high tech industry has brought plenty of jobs to San Jose. I don't think that the population has anything to do with either one being the anchor.
Austin has the high-tech jobs too. Austin has been projected to surpass San Antonio in metro. I'd say by 2020 they will be about the same size in metro population. And Austin is still the largest city in the nation without any pro-sports team.
Either way, this is a fast growing region. I'd say any franchise team would be good here, considering its growth. Whether it be in San Antonio or Austin.... I really don't care, just give us a team.
I know people here in Austin are not down with a sports team. I really don't know why. They say, "we have the longhorns" or "we have the Spurs, we don't need a sports team." so, go figure.
Quote:
Ever heard of a CSA or whatever with two affilliates from each network?
i'm not sure what you mean.
I wonder though, why is it that San Antonio has a small tv market?
I wonder though, why is it that San Antonio has a small tv market?
San Antonio and Austin each has a seperate TV market. Why would they want two ABC affiliates and CBS affiliates and so on in the same metro? Besides Austin is 80 miles away from SA. That isn't like the 30 miles between Dallas and Fort Worth.
San Antonio has an affilliate from each network in town, as does Austin.
Well, there's also the high-tech jobs in San Jose but still.... everyone there commutes to San Francisco because that's where the money is. But it's too small in area so people have moved to San Jose
San Antonio and Austin each has a seperate TV market. Why would they want two ABC affiliates and CBS affiliates and so on in the same metro? Besides Austin is 80 miles away from SA. That isn't like the 30 miles between Dallas and Fort Worth.
San Antonio has an affilliate from each network in town, as does Austin.
I hear you. I guess, I'm just saying that any team in general would be good. I'm basing it off of other discussions that I've had on other forums from people that are here from Austin who are against having a pro sports team. And their argument is that it wouldn't be good because "San Antonio already has a basketball franchise and if Austin were to have a basketball team it wouldn't succeed." So I'm saying that if San Antonio were to have a football team then it would be good for both Austin and San Antonio. I don't know... I just would like some more sports in this area. I'm an avid Spurs fan so if San Antonio gets a football or baseball team I'd follow them.
That's just based off of what I saw when I was there. I commuted to San Francisco from Modesto. It seems that everyone from the San Joaquin Valley and the surrounding cities from the Bay Area commute to San Francisco to work there. I could be wrong though.... it's not like I had the time to ask every single person.
I see you edited your post though... did I say something that annoyed you?
it is the 7th largest city. A city is a city. a metro is a metro.
And SA can't blame everything on its smaller metro.
There are metros smaller that are far more dynamic.
Indianapolis
Kansas City San Jose
Las Vegas
Columbus
Charlotte
Providence
Nashville
Milwaukee
Memphis
Louisville
New Orleans etc etc etc are all smaller than SA no matter how you look at it, MSA, city etc and all of these cities are far more dynamic, has far more amenities and all that than San Antonio.
NO matter how you look at it, for a city its size it is whimpy.
no city gracing the top 10 cities list is as whimpy
I really wouldn't include San Jose on that list of smaller metros. The government likes to divide to San Jose and SF MSA's so both metro's seem smaller than what they really are. You combine both of them for the Bay Area CSA and it jumps up to 7 million people., which is a good size.
Also the Bay Area has a lot of teams compared to other areas because the Bay Area combines San Franciso-Oakland, San Jose into one media market. The Bay Area is the 4th largest media market. So no San Jose isn't really a small metro.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,880,875 times
Reputation: 2501
I just get tired of cities like Columbus, SA, Jacksonville, etc. that claim they are large because their city proper population is large. Miami, Atlanta and Minneapolis (to name a couple) have significantly larger metro areas because their central city is too small to support the growth of the metro. It's misleading, that's all. TV networks care more about radial population from a center point of interest, in this case for SA a 50 mile radius yields about 2 million people or something, and a 100 mile radius may be more like 5 or 6 million....I don't know.
What's wrong with Portland? The AL West already needs another team to fill out their division and Portland is larger and more established anyways. I have no problem with Austin-San Antonio to get a team as well but in order of importance here I'd go Portland 1st, then maybe Austin-SA, etc. All of these cities of course getting other existing franchises and no more expansion franchises.
I just get tired of cities like Columbus, SA, Jacksonville, etc. that claim they are large because their city proper population is large. Miami, Atlanta and Minneapolis (to name a couple) have significantly larger metro areas because their central city is too small to support the growth of the metro. It's misleading, that's all. TV networks care more about radial population from a center point of interest, in this case for SA a 50 mile radius yields about 2 million people or something, and a 100 mile radius may be more like 5 or 6 million....I don't know.
What's wrong with Portland? The AL West already needs another team to fill out their division and Portland is larger and more established anyways. I have no problem with Austin-San Antonio to get a team as well but in order of importance here I'd go Portland 1st, then maybe Austin-SA, etc. All of these cities of course getting other existing franchises and no more expansion franchises.
i don't know what makes a city more "important" in your book but Portland's metro has the about the same population as San Antonio's metro. I don't think there's anything wrong with Portland at all, and neither do I think there's anything wrong with San Antonio.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,880,875 times
Reputation: 2501
It's certainly more established as a bigger city for a longer period of time, but I'd assume GDP, population, national presence, etc. as well. They are close though, I'll give you that.
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.
