Which city most deserves a pro sports team? (Grizzlies, Seattle Supersonics, Carolina Hurricanes)

[happytown]

Considering the REAL exposure and prestige....I only count the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, ....MLS(sort of). The true major league sports in the nation would be the above. Otherwise almost every city in America would be in the major leagues if you counted the AFL or triple A baseball ect...Anyway not to belittle but dont you find the AFL a bit cheesy? It def is not considered a major league sport.

[UNT_Eagle]

1.Okla. City - ready for an NBA team

2.Birmingham, Ala - Would be neat to see a baseball or basketball team there.

3.Nashville, Tn - could get an MLB team if they got the support!

[scootertrash61]

Originally Posted by wpotsie

How about getting another team in San ANtonio, TX. We are the seventh largest city in the U.S. We just passed Dallas and are still growing like crazy! I definitely think that Vegas should be seriously considered. Austin might not be a bad choice, even though UT is there. It's also growing like crazy and the population is big enough to sustain a fan base for both the UT and a pro team.
Hartford, CT??!! Are you crazy? The population is only 129,000 and is declining. Privodence has only abouth 180,000 but at least is still growing. Albuquerque, NM has almost half a million and Oklahoma City might not be bad either. Memphis is quite large, too.

true san antonio is the 7th largest city, but it's only the 37th largest market/metropolitan area in the u.s. "city" population numbers can be very misleading because they vary so much in the amount of land they cover.

[scootertrash61]

Originally Posted by jfre81

The way that's going, would Seattle ever end up getting the NBA back if (now looking more like when) the Sonics do move?

seattle/tacoma is the 14th largest market w/ around 4 million people and also has quite alot of wealth so i would bet they get another franchise in the not too distant future

[scootertrash61]

Originally Posted by jfre81

But they're wanting to move out of Seattle because they won't build them a new arena, right?

Are they gonna do this for the next team that comes up?

good question

[Synopsis]

Originally Posted by scootertrash61

true san antonio is the 7th largest city, but it's only the 37th largest market/metropolitan area in the u.s. "city" population numbers can be very misleading because they vary so much in the amount of land they cover.

I think San Antonio is a victim of being in a state with so many pro franchises already that major league owners would look at it as being over saturation. If SA were in Kansas or Iowa, there would be no doubt it would be a magnet for another pro franchise.

[Lethal_Poison]

Originally Posted by desert sun

I dont see why Oklahoma City would be a better choice for an NBA team over any other metro its size,put a NBA team in any city without a pro team and it will sell out in its first year,and OK City may have a larger metro but the city limits are almost the same,Albuquerque reached over 500,000 residents this year and Ok City has a little more than that but three times the land size and Albq is growing faster as were going to be the next hollywood with the 2 new movie studios were getting.OK City also has cheap land as does the rest of the midwest so they are able to get things built a little better.They do have a nice arena though.I think Birmingham would be a good choice along with Virginia Beach,Albuquerque, and even Omaha givin their location.Boise is too small ,way to small,to even consider,they dont even have a triple a baseball team, but who knows basketball arenas are small and NCAA arenas fill up so why wont they,personally Id rather go to a college basketball game than the NBA .

Speaking from a Hampton Roads (Virginia Beach), perspective, basketball would be an incredibly poor choice here, and would go under quickly.

The following cities would probably be a better choice then any of the cities you mention

- Charlotte again. Yeah, the Hornets left, but Charlotte can support NBA, and is a growing, vibrant city, with a tremendous corporate presence. A better owner then George Shinn is needed.

- St. Louis- Supports a major league level team in all other sports, and supports them fairly well. This is probably the largest media market that doesnt presently have a basketball team within a reasonable distance (I think Chicago is probably the closest). They could probably play in the Scottrade Center.

- San Diego- Largest city in the country without an NBA team.....really not sure why they dont have one. They would probably have to build a new arena.


- San Jose- The ignored city in California. The area is very affluent, and has a good population base (almost 1 million in the city limits), and has supported the Sharks, dispite the Sharks being garbage most of their history, and playing a non traditional sport to California. The Sharks are also the only game in town, with San Jose not having any other major league teams. Yes, it could be argued that they are close enough to the bay area to be considered served by the Warriors, but keep in mind, LA supports two teams, and the bay area of California has a larger, and more affluent base then Los Angeles. I contend they could easily support two basketball teams, especially since one is based across the bay in Oakland.


- Columbus, OH- Cleveland successfully supports the Cavs on half the population, and a largely blue collar work force, along with a major league team in two other sports. So why not Columbus? They only have the Blue Jackets, and an almost new arena that can seat 20,000 for basketball.

[Chaparral]

Originally Posted by Lethal_Poison

The following cities would probably be a better choice then any of the cities you mention

- Charlotte again. Yeah, the Hornets left, but Charlotte can support NBA, and is a growing, vibrant city, with a tremendous corporate presence. A better owner then George Shinn is needed.

Ummmm... you mean, like the Bobcats?

Originally Posted by Lethal_Poison

- San Diego- Largest city in the country without an NBA team.....really not sure why they dont have one.

They did have one. Until the Clippers moved to greener pastures in L.A., primarily due to lack of attendance.

Chap

[cathy J.]

Originally Posted by Patsfan20

Richmond having a Pro team is delusional, and here is why; the city govt. here are so bass ackwards that they can't even handle a farm team. The downtown area would have a tough time drawing people into it, for it needs to clean itself up first. VA will never have a pro team because of the surrounding teams won't allow it, and the cities and counties don't get along with each other, causing the inner cities to struggle with funds. It just isn't going to happen here, just another reason I'm moving back to Charlotte.

I have to agree.

Because of Virginia's "independent city" goverment, cities and counties are in direct competition with each other for money. Heck in many parts of Virginia city buses can't even travel into nearby counties.

Plus I have heard that Virginia doesn't allow naming rights on indoor arenas ( Fairfax's George Mason Univeristy is an exception ). if that is true then that right there is a kiss of death in getting any team into "Ol' Virginia.

West Virginia has a better chance in getting a pro-sports team than Virginia.

[FarNorthDallas]

The Hornets are trying to figure out a way to get out of New Orleans without looking like they are abandoning a sinking ship. The "new and revised" New Orleans can only support the Saints.

Whether they end up in OKC, I don't know. I think they were pleasantly surprised by their stay there even though the city might have lacked a social life for the players. Perhaps they ended up enjoying being big fish in a small pond.

OKC proved themselves with all the support they have there, corporate, fan and otherwise, and they deserve a permanent NBA team.

That's just what I think.