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.
Overall, I think cities are generally well represented in major sports, but every sport has a glaring omission...or two...or three....
LA has no NFL team. They had TWO in the 80s...
Why does Green Bay have Wisconsin's football team? It's not exactly neighboring Milwaukee.
Where is Cincinnati's NBA team?
Where is Kansas City's NBA team, St. Louis?
^ Same for San Diego.
You would think Portland would have more major league teams than the Trailblazers.
More of a name issue, but why are the NFL Patriots the only team to use the "New England" location designation? It's just another Boston team to most people. I guess it went better with the mascot.
Chicago should have two NBA teams. Two NFL teams too.
Charlotte and Jax get NFL teams before Birmingham and Memphis? I guess Alabama has shown it doesn't have any football fans. Guess where two of the most successful USFL, XFL, and CFL-America teams were.
- LA has lost three teams over the years: Rams, Raiders and Chargers.
- Green Bay is an old team. Early football teams were founded in smaller areas.
- Why should Cincinnati, Kansas City and St. Louis have NBA teams?
- Portland has the Timbers. Look into it.
- They were called the Boston Patriots from '60-'70
- No and they did. The latter is now in Arizona.
- Birmingham is not a "major" city. Obviously Memphis does not have the financial backers.
You shouldn't just assume cities should have teams. The financial backers and money for stadiums matters more than the city size.
- LA has lost three teams over the years: Rams, Raiders and Chargers.
- Green Bay is an old team. Early football teams were founded in smaller areas.
- Why should Cincinnati, Kansas City and St. Louis have NBA teams?
- Portland has the Timbers. Look into it.
- They were called the Boston Patriots from '60-'70
- No and they did. The latter is now in Arizona.
- Birmingham is not a "major" city. Obviously Memphis does not have the financial backers.
You shouldn't just assume cities should have teams. The financial backers and money for stadiums matters more than the city size.
Some good points here.
But the Timbers? I had to Google them.
Major American cities without major sports franchises
^^Oxymoron.^^
The City Of Green Bay owns the Packers. The Packers are the only pro team to win 3 NFL titles in a row, only team to win 5 out of 7, and won more NFL championships than any other team.
One thing that's always brought up in question or threads like this: There is this belief that certain cities should have teams because of namesake.
Folks, not every city SHOULD have a sports team. I would love for Fort Worth to get an NBA franchise, but do you have any idea all that would have to happen in order to make that happen? Do you know how many issues can (and already does) get in the way of that?
- Fan support issues since there are mostly Mavs fans in DFW and no telling how many Fort Worthians would even want a team here.
- It would be harder NOW seeing how the Mavs just won a title.
- Even harder with the labor issues. 22 teams lost money last season. That's not encouraging.
- Trying to find exactly what team the city gets IF it approves getting an NBA franchise. Do we wait for expansion (who know's when that'll ever be again?) or do we try to lure in a team that may possibly move *cough* New Orleans *cough*.
- The mentality of many residents in this city NOT wanting to pay for any new arena that can hold NBA/NHL or AHL/other major events.
- Finding some other way of funding if an owner or tax payers don't wanna pay for it.
- The fact that Fort Worth is seen as a secondary city (or suburb) of Dallas and even though there are over 6 million peope in the area, which is well enough to support two NBA teams, Fort Worth isn't seen as marketable.
- The fact that there are already 3 teams in Texas. Even for the NBA, that might be seen as oversaturation for this state.
- Mark Cuban (enough said)
^^^^^
The point of all that I just listed are just examples of questions a city has to ask and solve before it can get a sports team. Even for minor leagues. And I didn't even get into what the facilities must have or go into what other major leagues demand.
So to Hamtonfordbury or anyone else with those same statements and questions, it's not nearly that easy. It's not like a city can just say, "hey, let's get a football team!" There has to be thought, study, support, large enough population, and most of all, funding before you can even think about having a major pro sports franchise in where ever you are.
It looks like to me that noone has mentioned either Fort Wayne or Rochester. IIRC, both those cities once had NBA teams way back when the NBA was first founded.
As for the person who mentioned SF or San Jose not having an NBA team, he/she wasn't quite correct. That area has one already, with the Golden State Warriors! (who play out of Oakland, IIRC) If that poster was thinking the area could support 2 NBA teams, it's always possible it might. (though the other team would probably struggle with gaining a decent footing, considering the history of the Los Angeles Clippers)
And I think I disagree with the person who thinks there shouldn't be NBA teams in KC, StL, or Cincy. I think any of those 3 cities could support a team fine. It's a little more amazing to me that there isn't at least one NBA team in Missouri by now, considering that I think it'd be a no-brainer to have at least one team in that state(and I'm sure it'd have to be in either StL or KC). Though I thought at least one and/or both of those cities(and probably at least KC) once had an NBA team briefly?
And while it'd be nice to have more than 1 NFL team in Chicago again, I have a bad feeling it probably won't happen, unless that team had its own NFL stadium, and didn't have to share Soldier Field w/the Bears. Finally for the person who mentioned Alabama, Birmingham may not need one, considering they probably enjoy University of Alabama football more than enough. (and since NFL franchises already exist in Atlanta and Nashville)
1. Austin TX 2. Louisville KY 3. Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Hampton VA 4.Birmingham Ala 5.Tucson AZ
Major Cities That Just Added Major League Sports Teams
6. Tulsa OK.....WNBA Tulsa Shocks......AFL Tulsa Talons 7. Des Moines....AFL Iowa Barnstormers 8. Uncasville CT....WNBA CT Sun
.... kind of a stretch calling WNBA and Arena League major leagues. I mean, they are to a certain extent, but no where near the Big Four. Same goes for MLS even though it's done very well the past few years...
WNBA & AFL are not major sports franchises .... it's not even borderline
Also, Tucson is a small city that is dominated by college athletics with not much else in the area to draw support from.
Phoenix is the closest large metro and it's already saturated (about 2 hrs away) ..... SD is within easy reach as well .... but other than that there just aren't a ton of bodies, corporations, etc that aren't already putting effort into Phoenix
there is also a big lack of facilities and not much money/desire to build/renovate what they have
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.
Major American cities without major sports franchises
(and since NFL franchises already exist in Atlanta and Nashville)
