San Antonio should get a NFL team (Houston, Dallas: sales, income)

[lemonfresh]

Originally Posted by ged_782

Salt Lake City actually is a bigger Televison DMA (#33) than San Antonio (#37). Las Vegas is smaller at #42. The only other advantage that Salt Lake would have over San Antonio, as I see it, is that Utah doesn't have an NFL franchise, while Texas has two. Nevada doesn't have a team, either.

Yeah, a larger television DMA but SLC is Utah. SA is SA with reach to millions up millions of more people.

At any rate, I don't see San Antonio getting an NFL franchise until Los Angeles gets a team.

True in regards to expansion. Not true in regards to relocation.

[tindo80]

Originally Posted by lemonfresh

Las Vegas? Salt Lake? Probably because one is the gambling mecca of the world and smaller than SA and the other is way smaller than SA.

Smaller, yes, by about 1/3 a million people. However, if size was an issue, LA would certainly be higher on the list. Income wise and popularity wise, LV beats SA hands down. That city gets as many tourist in a month as San Antonio gets in 6. It also generates significantly more dollars per citizen.

Salt lake has about 800k fewer people than SA, but again, generates more money.

I am not saying SA does not deserve a team. It certainly does, but its just not likely. Considering how the SA Riders went, and what the city has done with the Alamodome, it does not seem likely.

[lemonfresh]

Originally Posted by tindo80

Smaller, yes, by about 1/3 a million people. However, if size was an issue, LA would certainly be higher on the list. Income wise and popularity wise, LV beats SA hands down. That city gets as many tourist in a month as San Antonio gets in 6. It also generates significantly more dollars per citizen.

First off, what part of gambling mecca is hard to understand?

Second, LV's median income may be higher but cost of living is much lower in SA.

Salt lake has about 800k fewer people than SA, but again, generates more money.

That has almost entirely to do with the Mormon church. You should read up on it.

I am not saying SA does not deserve a team. It certainly does, but its just not likely. Considering how the SA Riders went, and what the city has done with the Alamodome, it does not seem likely.

And Oklahoma City didn't seem likely to ever have a pro sport team but well, we know how that went.

Anything and everything is possible in pro sports.

[smuboy86]

Honestly San Antonio should shoot for a MLB Team. Neither the Rangers or the Astros have a particularly strong fan base in SA. The tickets are cheaper than NFL games. It might be easier to snag a team (Toronto I'm looking at you). We already have a pretty popular minor league team. Baseball games also seem to already be oriented to the SA lifestyle, it doesn't take alot of money to go and it's generally a relaxing time to spend among friends. Also baseball wouldn't compete with UT Football so it would be easy to attract Austin area fans.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio

San Antonio (Spanish)Armada would be a cool name for a team.

The fact that one of Toyota's competitors makes this vehicle might squash a major local sponsorship opportunity for a local team with that name.

[713 to 210]

Originally Posted by smuboy86

Honestly San Antonio should shoot for a MLB Team. Neither the Rangers or the Astros have a particularly strong fan base in SA. The tickets are cheaper than NFL games. It might be easier to snag a team (Toronto I'm looking at you). We already have a pretty popular minor league team. Baseball games also seem to already be oriented to the SA lifestyle, it doesn't take alot of money to go and it's generally a relaxing time to spend among friends. Also baseball wouldn't compete with UT Football so it would be easy to attract Austin area fans.

Huh? I've mentioned this before in this thread but here goes again, an NFL team averages at most 700,000 tickets sold a season where as an MLB team averages about 2,430,000. That is a huge difference, SA is much better off attempting to get a pro franchise where you only have to sell 700,000 tickets vs. 2.4 million. Only the biggest cities are successful with MLB.

And are you serious about UT football? Come on, that's a different product than NFL and most in SA have no "attachment" to it like they would a hometown team. Austin may or may not support an SA team, you can't bank on that anyhow. How many people from Austin drive down for Spurs games?

[smuboy86]

MLB sells more tickets because there are 4 times as many games a year played versus NFL. There are successful MLB teams in cities smaller than San Antonio already; Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh to name a few, and there are struggling teams in Cities much larger than San Antonio, Toronto I've already mentioned.
As for Austin fans, considering I've met a few at Rangers games in Dallas I'd be will that they would drive to San Antonio. If you want to get people from Austin to attend you have to offer them something vastly different that what UT offers. UT offers football and most of Austin is indoctrinated with being their fans. If their were to be a san antonio football game and a UT game the same day then you would lose the entire Austin Fanbase.

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

San Antonio recieves 26 million visitors per year, so it's one of the most visited cities. Las Vegas attracts about 38 million. Visitors are in Vegas for other things, than going to watch a footbal game. San Antonio would be a much better fit for the NFL, larger population base, respectable F500 base, better economy, a football crazy city. I would say L.A first, but San Antonio would embrace NFL more than any other major city lacking one.

Originally Posted by tindo80

Smaller, yes, by about 1/3 a million people. However, if size was an issue, LA would certainly be higher on the list. Income wise and popularity wise, LV beats SA hands down. That city gets as many tourist in a month as San Antonio gets in 6. It also generates significantly more dollars per citizen.

Salt lake has about 800k fewer people than SA, but again, generates more money.

I am not saying SA does not deserve a team. It certainly does, but its just not likely. Considering how the SA Riders went, and what the city has done with the Alamodome, it does not seem likely.

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

Originally Posted by ged_782

Salt Lake City actually is a bigger Televison DMA (#33) than San Antonio (#37). Las Vegas is smaller at #42. The only other advantage that Salt Lake would have over San Antonio, as I see it, is that Utah doesn't have an NFL franchise, while Texas has two. Nevada doesn't have a team, either.

At any rate, I don't see San Antonio getting an NFL franchise until Los Angeles gets a team.

Salt Lake is a bigger television mkt, it is the only city in the state, and doesn't have a suburb like Austin less than a hour away, lol, Austinites would love that. Of course I'm kidding. San Antonio and Austin territory overlap each other so if it were a DMA it would probably be in the top 15-17 markets.

[Bowie]

It's a big assumption that Austinites would automatically jump on the bandwagon to support an NFL team here. Searching City-Data's Austin forum for mentions of the word "spurs" brings up just 34 threads containing the term, mostly in threads started by imaterry78259, who lives in San Antonio and favors thinking of the two metros as a combined market. If the Spurs aren't on the sports radar in Austin, why would an unproven NFL team be?