U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which city is most deserving of a major leage sports team?
Las Vegas 18 28.13%
Louisville 11 17.19%
Austin 16 25.00%
Virginia Beach 3 4.69%
Albuquerque 2 3.13%
Birmingham 4 6.25%
Other 10 15.63%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2014, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Aurora, CO
6,557 posts, read 10,261,428 times
Reputation: 9796

Advertisements

Hopefully, for the love of god, the NHL will pick something a little less obvious than "The Gamblers" as the team name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2014, 03:55 PM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,176,091 times
Reputation: 7005
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen73 View Post
Hopefully, for the love of god, the NHL will pick something a little less obvious than "The Gamblers" as the team name.
Of course, the NHL is denying this, but how many times have leagues denied something and 2-3 years later, it turns out to be true...?

Honestly, I think they're just going to expand 2 and move 2. 34 teams doesn't make much sense. Especially for the NHL, right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2014, 06:43 PM
 
Location: C-U metro
1,366 posts, read 2,731,331 times
Reputation: 1162
So will Gretzky own the team? It will be safe for his wife since you can't get a line on any team based in Nevada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
3,451 posts, read 3,395,878 times
Reputation: 2895
There are NHL expansion rumors flying around like crazy right now, and I have to wonder how many, if any, are true. This includes a second Toronto team, which seems very unlikely. I'll believe the Vegas report when it's confirmed! Vegas is definitely the city that could best house its first pro team, but the gambling issue is the elephant in the room here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 07:15 AM
 
3,959 posts, read 3,489,082 times
Reputation: 6361
I don't stay up on NHL enough to be an expert, but haven't they historically had trouble keeping teams healthy in transient places known for heat? I would think Las Vegas would be the worst spot for an NHL team long term.

Although I can see corporate sponsorship strong there. Casinos could use tickets as winnings and such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2014, 08:50 PM
 
462 posts, read 582,469 times
Reputation: 396
I know this will be controversial, but why have two teams for some cities? Does the Bay Area really need both the A's and Giants? Does LA really need both the Dodgers and the Angels? 49ers and Raiders? Chicago Cubs and White Sox? LA Clippers and Lakers? New York is about the only city I could think of that really needs two teams in each sport. LA is spread out, and I could only see second teams being justified in Orange County or the Inland Empire. A lot of it is history, but historically, smaller cities like St. Louis and Boston had two teams at one time. Thankfully that changed. I know someone won't like removing a Chicago baseball team since both are so storied, but it comes down to a matter of practicality. Just move the White Sox to a new city and keep the name and traditions. It worked for the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers. Baltimore and Washington, DC are so close that it is almost worth considering them one city for sports franchises, but not quite. Redskins and Ravens fans would probably have a cow if one left and the other became "their" team.

Leagues could do well to move excess teams in one city to a new market that demands a team, and the team that is left there can grow in support.

Last edited by Hamtonfordbury; 08-28-2014 at 09:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 07:57 AM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,176,091 times
Reputation: 7005
Like I said in previous threads, no city really NEEDS a pro sports team, let alone, 2. But just for the sake of your post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamtonfordbury View Post
Does the Bay Area really need both the A's and Giants?
Yes, because it's a big enough market with multiple large cities.

Quote:
Does LA really need both the Dodgers and the Angels?
Yes, because it's the 2nd largest market in the country, capable of holding even 3 teams in one area, although I personally wouldn't want it to happen.

Quote:
Chicago Cubs and White Sox?
Even though Chicago is large enough, this is mainly just based on history. The Cubs have been around since 1870. The White Sox have been in Chicago since 1900. Both clubs have stuck around and since it's baseball, old things aren't thrown away so easily. Plus their respective fan bases have helped them stay around as well.

Quote:
Just move the White Sox to a new city and keep the name and traditions.
NEVER going to happen...

Quote:
It worked for the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers.
Keep in mind, this happened during the 50's, when the West Coast begin seeing a large boom in population and people migrating there, so the teams just moved with the people as a way to claim "new territory", in a way.

Quote:
Baltimore and Washington, DC are so close that it is almost worth considering them one city for sports franchises, but not quite. Redskins and Ravens fans would probably have a cow if one left and the other became "their" team.
Even though Baltimore hasn't even had the team a full 20 years yet, you're right.

Quote:
Leagues could do well to move excess teams in one city to a new market that demands a team, and the team that is left there can grow in support.
That's just it, you can't just give ANY city that doesn't have something a new team. Plenty of cities demand a team for whatever pro sport. Some cities wish and demand a team, but don't have the numbers or resources to even get one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 10:43 AM
 
462 posts, read 582,469 times
Reputation: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
That's just it, you can't just give ANY city that doesn't have something a new team. Plenty of cities demand a team for whatever pro sport. Some cities wish and demand a team, but don't have the numbers or resources to even get one.
When leagues are wanting to expand into new territory, and "claim" growing cities, they need a slot in the league in which to put them. They can either expand and further dilute the talent pool and championship hunts, or make use of existing teams.

As far as the Bay Area needing a 2nd NFL or MLB team, The Bay Area is only about 8.5 million people CSA. Why don't Boston (8M), Philly (7M), DFW (7M), Houston (6.5M) and Atlanta (6M) have two teams? The Bay Area is often exaggerated in terms of its importance and size. It has one really big city, two medium-large cities, and a bunch of suburbs. It's less than half as big as greater LA. The biggest city, San Jose (1M), has the fewest teams under its name.

Why do "small" cities like Buffalo (1.2M) and Green Bay (360K) have any team while Birmingham (1.3M), Memphis (1.4M), Grand Rapids (1.4M), Greensboro-Winston-Salem (1.6M), Raleigh-Durham (2.0M), Las Vegas (2.2M), or Columbus (2.4M) have none? A lot of this is rooted in the fact that the NFL started out as a Great Lakes bush league. It's a small wonder why Green Bay's team wasn't moved to Milwaukee or some other city. Fervent local support and public ownership are the two main reasons for them staying.

Last edited by Hamtonfordbury; 08-29-2014 at 10:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
3,451 posts, read 3,395,878 times
Reputation: 2895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamtonfordbury View Post
Fervent local support and public ownership are the two main reasons for them staying.
Well, games were split Milwaukee/Green Bay for many years. Packers games were played at County Stadium in Milwaukee from 1953–1994. There are now Green/Gold packaged season tickets for Green Bay home games and Milwaukee fan home games. The old County Stadium ticket holders still get to keep their seats, they just have to drive a couple hours north now. Without Milwaukee, no Packers.

Interestingly, the Bears/Halas bailed out Green Bay twice in its history. It's a great story, and certainly local support is ravenous and is the underlying factor for the pro sports exception that is Green Bay, but there are many other factors, including the support of 2 much-larger metros (Milwaukee and Chicago) that also factor in a good bit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2014, 12:24 PM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,176,091 times
Reputation: 7005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamtonfordbury View Post
They can either expand and further dilute the talent pool and championship hunts, or make use of existing teams.
That's debatable...

Quote:
As far as the Bay Area needing a 2nd NFL or MLB team, The Bay Area is only about 8.5 million people CSA. Why don't Boston (8M), Philly (7M), DFW (7M), Houston (6.5M) and Atlanta (6M) have two teams? The Bay Area is often exaggerated in terms of its importance and size. It has one really big city, two medium-large cities, and a bunch of suburbs. It's less than half as big as greater LA. The biggest city, San Jose (1M), has the fewest teams under its name.
Boston, Philly, Houston, and Atlanta are each in a metro area where there's only ONE large city. DFW has the Rangers right in the middle of the area (Arlington), however, there have been rumors and "talks" of Dallas getting their own team in the National League, one day. Well, that or try and take the Rangers from Tarrant County to Dallas, but that's another story.

Much like DFW, the Bay Area is multiple large cities, not just one. Which brings up the question... 2 mid sized cities? Are you saying that San Francisco is the one "really big city" and San Jose and Oakland are the two medium-large cities? Because you know San Jose, population wise, is the largest city in that area, right?


Quote:
Why do "small" cities like Buffalo (1.2M) and Green Bay (360K) have any team...
Again, history, strong support, and Green Bay is a special case. Green Bay isn't owned by a single owner, it's owned by several stockholders within Green Bay. Because of the history the team has produced with the NFL and its marketability, no way the Packers move to another town. As for Buffalo, they're still in Buffalo because of the fans and Ralph Wilson, but there has been some fears that they may be moved since Wilson passed away and the fact that the city has lost a lot of people since 1960. Buffalo was once a pretty decent sized city, but now has dropped from over 500,000 (within the city proper) to just around 234,000, and since the Bills don't exactly have the same type of ownership and history the Packers do, they're more in danger of moving.

Quote:
...while Birmingham (1.3M), Memphis (1.4M), Grand Rapids (1.4M), Greensboro-Winston-Salem (1.6M), Raleigh-Durham (2.0M), Las Vegas (2.2M), or Columbus (2.4M) have none? A lot of this is rooted in the fact that the NFL started out as a Great Lakes bush league. It's a small wonder why Green Bay's team wasn't moved to Milwaukee or some other city. Fervent local support and public ownership are the two main reasons for them staying.
Well, first off, Memphis has the Grizzlies (NBA), Raleigh-Durham has the Hurricanes (NHL), and Columbus has the Blue Jackets (NHL) AND Crew (MLS), unless maybe you're talking about Columbus, South Carolina...?

Las Vegas doesn't have a team (yet) because it's Vegas and they have gambling. Many league commissioners have feared gambling to be an issue for their respective leagues, however, the city is supposed to be building a new Soccer Specific Stadium for the MLS and there are now rumors of the NHL expanding to Vegas in 2017, just in time for the city's new arena to open.

As for Birmingham, Grand Rapids (they had an Arena Football team, at least), and G-W-S, as well as other cities, they're simply just too small to support teams and don't have the resources to have these teams. There's also the fact that some of those cities are within range of another larger market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top