San Antonio should get a NFL team (Houston, Dallas: leases, buying)

[lemonfresh]

How many threads concerning the Cowboys are there in the SA forum? Probably not a lot. But we both know SA is a big Cowboys market. Going by that logic, Corpus isn't a big Spurs market because there's no Spurs related threads in their sub forum but we both know Corpus is a big SA market and Corpus would be a city we could count on to support an NFL team but point aside, I honestly think SA could support an NFL alone. However, being able to reach places like the RGV and northern Mexico will be of great benefit to SA.

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

Originally Posted by 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?

San Antonio really doesn't need support from Austin, but It would get some support from the place. For instance, if the Superbowl was held in San Antonio, I'm sure there would be gridlock on I-35, moreso.
I have seen Spurs Billboards in Austin, but agree, as far as support for a San Antonio team, you would probably get more support from Rio Grande Valley, Laredo, Corpus Christi and small towns throughout South Texas. Maybe the rivarly thing.

[tindo80]

Originally Posted by lemonfresh

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

Yes...your point? Are you agreeing with me?

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

Yes, but that has little to do with bringing a football team. If anything, that (being a cheaper city) is more of a reason not to have a team there, from a economic business model standpoint. The goal of expanding the franchise is to get people to pay more, which does not work if they expect to pay less.

If you want to argue SA is a better place for people to live, okay fine, but I thought the topic was reasons why it should/could have a NFL team.

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

Some of my best friends are mormon. Wow, it sounds like you have a bit of pent up hate here. Are you saying Mormons should do not deserve a football team? What does their religion have to do with this?

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

Yes, but the topic of the thread is NFL TEAM. Not hockey, not basketball, not baseball, not soccer. The NFL chooses cities for expansions/transfers differently. Trying to make a comparison between a basketball team moving cities after change of ownership and likelihood of a football expansion team is silly. I recommend reading up on the NFL, how it works, what drives it (money + potential to bring money...things which several other cities beat SA out many times over).

Im sorry, thats just the way things work. $$ is the primary driving force of the NFL...it is a corporation, a Business and a Union above all. Simply saying 'hey we have a moderately large city and we like football too' isnt going to cut it. If it did, the NFL would consist of a hundred teams.

Also, I may not live in SA anymore, but you are talking to someone who was born there, and lived there throughout the whole Alamodome and Riders fiasco.

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

Originally Posted by tindo80

Yes...your point? Are you agreeing with me?



Yes, but that has little to do with bringing a football team. If anything, that (being a cheaper city) is more of a reason not to have a team there, from a economic business model standpoint. The goal of expanding the franchise is to get people to pay more, which does not work if they expect to pay less.

If you want to argue SA is a better place for people to live, okay fine, but I thought the topic was reasons why it should/could have a NFL team.



Some of my best friends are mormon. Wow, it sounds like you have a bit of pent up hate here. Are you saying Mormons should do not deserve a football team? What does their religion have to do with this?



Yes, but the topic of the thread is NFL TEAM. Not hockey, not basketball, not baseball, not soccer. The NFL chooses cities for expansions/transfers differently. Trying to make a comparison between a basketball team moving cities after change of ownership and likelihood of a football expansion team is silly. I recommend reading up on the NFL, how it works, what drives it (money + potential to bring money...things which several other cities beat SA out many times over).

Im sorry, thats just the way things work. $$ is the primary driving force of the NFL...it is a corporation, a Business and a Union above all. Simply saying 'hey we have a moderately large city and we like football too' isnt going to cut it. If it did, the NFL would consist of a hundred teams.

Also, I may not live in SA anymore, but you are talking to someone who was born there, and lived there throughout the whole Alamodome and Riders fiasco.

Don't agree at all, San Antonio has been ready for the NFL for a long time! NFL in Cincinatti, Kansas City, Nashville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Indianpolis? Those cities can support and San Antonio can't? San Antonio having a low cost of living is just a plus. None of those cities are stronger than San Antonio. The city was just touted as having the strongest economy in the country by a leading business source.

Fast foward yourself to 21st century San Antonio and not the early 1990's city you are talking about. Riders Fiasco? Thats almost 20 years ago.

[tindo80]

Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio

Don't agree at all, San Antonio has been ready for the NFL for a long time! NFL in Cincinatti, Kansas City, Nashville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Indianpolis? Those cities can support and San Antonio can't? San Antonio having a low cost of living is just a plus. None of those cities are stronger than San Antonio. The city was just touted as having the strongest economy in the country by a leading business source.

I guess we agree to disagree.

Yes, but there are diversive reasons why those cities have teams. They did not all get their teams as expansions, and some got their teams back when the NFL was a smaller organization as legacy teams (Green Bay is the best example).

In order to get a business to go out of its way and take a big risk, there has to be a money incentive. Simply saying "hey, San Antonio has nearly 2 million people and is really affordable and the people like football" will not do.

1. Cheaper cost of living is not an incentive. Why? Because the NFL is about making money. They are not a charity case. They will move somewhere where they think people will pay the most (in comparison to other places) for tickets to the events and franchise gear, even in a losing season. Ask yourself this, if SA is so ready for the NFL, why has the NFL not approached it, or any other team tried (effectively) to move to SA? On that same note, why does SA not even have a baseball team, which is by comparison a much cheaper sport?

2. SA's business market is not that large, yet. That means no rich millionaires selling out the skybox and front row seats. Yes there are plenty of businesses, but not compared to many other cities of comparable size (the 1- 3 million people metro).


3. As said, SA is likely a runner for an NFL team, but not a front runner. THe NFL, as well as certain teams (Dallas especially) is cautious of adding another TX team. This would cannibalize sales potentially. The Cowboys have a massive following throughout the state of Texas, and always have, and their owner pulls a ton of weight with the owners association. More likely front runners would be cities that either have much more money to toss around (LA would be #1, perhaps a Virginia-DC team), or cities away from other franchises with high appeal (Salt Lake, an Alabama team, a New Mexico Team).

[firstclassflyer]

Originally Posted by tindo80

I guess we agree to disagree.

Yes, but there are diversive reasons why those cities have teams. They did not all get their teams as expansions, and some got their teams back when the NFL was a smaller organization as legacy teams (Green Bay is the best example).

In order to get a business to go out of its way and take a big risk, there has to be a money incentive. Simply saying "hey, San Antonio has nearly 2 million people and is really affordable and the people like football" will not do.

1. Cheaper cost of living is not an incentive. Why? Because the NFL is about making money. They are not a charity case. They will move somewhere where they think people will pay the most (in comparison to other places) for tickets to the events and franchise gear, even in a losing season. Ask yourself this, if SA is so ready for the NFL, why has the NFL not approached it, or any other team tried (effectively) to move to SA? On that same note, why does SA not even have a baseball team, which is by comparison a much cheaper sport?

2. SA's business market is not that large, yet. That means no rich millionaires selling out the skybox and front row seats. Yes there are plenty of businesses, but not compared to many other cities of comparable size (the 1- 3 million people metro).


3. As said, SA is likely a runner for an NFL team, but not a front runner. THe NFL, as well as certain teams (Dallas especially) is cautious of adding another TX team. This would cannibalize sales potentially. The Cowboys have a massive following throughout the state of Texas, and always have, and their owner pulls a ton of weight with the owners association. More likely front runners would be cities that either have much more money to toss around (LA would be #1, perhaps a Virginia-DC team), or cities away from other franchises with high appeal (Salt Lake, an Alabama team, a New Mexico Team).

Another one? What about the Redskins and the Ravens..ain't those enough?

[bresilhac]

Originally Posted by tindo80

I guess we agree to disagree.

Yes, but there are diversive reasons why those cities have teams. They did not all get their teams as expansions, and some got their teams back when the NFL was a smaller organization as legacy teams (Green Bay is the best example).

In order to get a business to go out of its way and take a big risk, there has to be a money incentive. Simply saying "hey, San Antonio has nearly 2 million people and is really affordable and the people like football" will not do.

1. Cheaper cost of living is not an incentive. Why? Because the NFL is about making money. They are not a charity case. They will move somewhere where they think people will pay the most (in comparison to other places) for tickets to the events and franchise gear, even in a losing season. Ask yourself this, if SA is so ready for the NFL, why has the NFL not approached it, or any other team tried (effectively) to move to SA? On that same note, why does SA not even have a baseball team, which is by comparison a much cheaper sport?

2. SA's business market is not that large, yet. That means no rich millionaires selling out the skybox and front row seats. Yes there are plenty of businesses, but not compared to many other cities of comparable size (the 1- 3 million people metro).


3. As said, SA is likely a runner for an NFL team, but not a front runner. THe NFL, as well as certain teams (Dallas especially) is cautious of adding another TX team. This would cannibalize sales potentially. The Cowboys have a massive following throughout the state of Texas, and always have, and their owner pulls a ton of weight with the owners association. More likely front runners would be cities that either have much more money to toss around (LA would be #1, perhaps a Virginia-DC team), or cities away from other franchises with high appeal (Salt Lake, an Alabama team, a New Mexico Team).

You couldn't be more off the mark on who qualifies for an NFL team. Florida and California both have three teams yet I hear no talk of any of those franchises cannibalizing one another. They all seem to do fine in their respective markets including lowly Jacksonville. Which is a mere 67% the size of San Antonio. Also it was more politics than anything else that got San Antonio left out of the last expansion. Jones' politicking to keep the NFL out of South Texas namely.

Secondly, if you don't think there are rich people in San Antonio you haven't been here in awhile. The economy has exploded here in recent years, despite the downturn in the rest of the nation, and as a result San Antonio has become extremely prosperous. And with over four million people living within 100 miles of the Alamodome San Antonio/South Texas would have absolutely no problem selling tickets/merchandise for a local NFL team. For a practical example of this examine the San Antonio Spurs.

And lastly, Commissioner Goodell himself was in San Antonio last fall talking precisely of the city's chances at landing an NFL franchise. He gave a glowing assessment of the city and said that the town is on the right track for a team.

Goodell Talks Up San Antonio's NFL Prospects, Offers No Timetable

[Dopo]

So... how soon will San Antonio get an NFL team?

[bresilhac]

Originally Posted by Dopo

So... how soon will San Antonio get an NFL team?

I'd say within 36 months. Maybe sooner.

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

San Antonio is on the list for the most billionaires, i't has it's share of rich. San Antonio is not the city it was 20 years ago. San Antonio also has the second highest median family income in Texas after Austin, above Houston and Dallas. Also San Antonio is close to 2.1 million, not near 2 million.