How come there is no NBA in St Louis? (St. Louis: costs, vs)

[BoomBoxing]

I would be fine swapping out the rams for cardinals. Not the teams per se, but the names and logos. That would be crazy, I'm not sure anything like that's ever happened in pro sports. I guess the thing with the Winnipeg Jets is somewhat similar.

[DinsdalePirahna]

Originally Posted by BoomBoxing

I would be fine swapping out the rams for cardinals. Not the teams per se, but the names and logos. That would be crazy, I'm not sure anything like that's ever happened in pro sports. I guess the thing with the Winnipeg Jets is somewhat similar.

Kind of happened with the Cleveland Browns

[Fishtacos]

It'll be nice when the Blues finally get an adult owner with adult money and adult management.....that's "sports" adult money of which I speak.

[Ihatespoiledbrattypeople]

Originally Posted by DinsdalePirahna

Its simple. LA really doesn't need the NFL to give it credibility, (Besides there is USC and UCLA provide plenty of football action). A will also not publicly finance a new stadium, (although the deal being worked out is a bit on the shady side).

and why are people in L.A. comfortable and content with having to settle for College Football?

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by Ihatespoiledbrattypeople

and why are people in L.A. comfortable and content with having to settle for College Football?

Because unlike the mid-tier cities of the country (in particular those in the Midwest), there are a million other things to do and sports are relatively less important:

entertainment/media capital, mountains, beaches, concerts, more nightlife, multiple other sports outlets, the Chargers within 2 hrs, UCLA vs. USC in college FB, etc.

When you factor in how populous the urban area is and the success of the pro franchises in LA, pro sports support there is actually fairly pathetic as a result. Pound for pound, it certainly pales in comparison to other large markets that might lack the beach/mountain scene (Chicago, NYC, Philly, Boston, DC, etc.).

[Joke Insurance]

If they ever get a team, I'd call them the Brewers

[stlouisan]

They had the St. Louis Hawks and they won a championship here in 1958. Ever since moving to Atlanta, they haven't won another one.To my knowledge, the only reason they were sold was that the owner had a falling out with the city. I think the main reason we don't have an NBA team is the consensus that STL probably is not large enough to support the NHL and NBA, especially during the same seasons. The only cities that have both NBA and NHL teams are generally quite a bit larger than STL (Minneapolis, Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York)...although Phoenix is only slightly larger (3,250,000). However, I would be all for an NBA team...I disagree with the consensus, however. I believe that STL could support a basketball team.

Also, whoever commented on the ownership of the Blues, not so fast. This is a young team that had a very decent shot at the Cup this year and still does...it was decisively proven that the Kings team we saw this year, was literally impossible for everyone, not just us, to overcome. I think that all the Blues need to do is score more goals, and they'll be perfect. This group of guys really has not been tested that much, and we don't really know what to expect. If the Kings can win a Stanley Cup after a 45 year drought, that's proof that the Blues can. I personally think it's only a matter of time.

[orangefuscia]

^Denver - Broncos Nuggets Avalanche Rockies - and I see population figures that consistently put the metro around 2.6-2.7 million.

What an NBA season though! Linsanity, Lebron's first ring (me and my boyfriend are huge heat fans!) great playoffs and a lot of young talented teams. The league is in great shape.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by stlouisan

They had the St. Louis Hawks and they won a championship here in 1958. Ever since moving to Atlanta, they haven't won another one.To my knowledge, the only reason they were sold was that the owner had a falling out with the city. I think the main reason we don't have an NBA team is the consensus that STL probably is not large enough to support the NHL and NBA, especially during the same seasons. The only cities that have both NBA and NHL teams are generally quite a bit larger than STL (Minneapolis, Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York)...although Phoenix is only slightly larger (3,250,000). However, I would be all for an NBA team...I disagree with the consensus, however. I believe that STL could support a basketball team.

Also, whoever commented on the ownership of the Blues, not so fast. This is a young team that had a very decent shot at the Cup this year and still does...it was decisively proven that the Kings team we saw this year, was literally impossible for everyone, not just us, to overcome. I think that all the Blues need to do is score more goals, and they'll be perfect. This group of guys really has not been tested that much, and we don't really know what to expect. If the Kings can win a Stanley Cup after a 45 year drought, that's proof that the Blues can. I personally think it's only a matter of time.

One of the things the Kings did was add a few more costly pieces to their puzzle. The game has shifted back to defense and goaltending. The Blues and Kings had similar teams, but the Kings were significanty bigger and also had better playoff goaltending. New Blues ownership is an upgrade, a stabilizing force. However, let's cut to the chase and be blunt. The only person in the Blues new ownership with economic resources to play with big boys, is Andy Taylor. And, Taylor is well known for not being much of a sports person. No doubt the Blues can win a cup.

In terms of the NBA, so much of the discussion took place earlier in this thread. Phoenix for example, has been a financial disaster in the NHL, and the league has owned the team for years. More metros of comparable size don't have all 4 sports teams than do. The twin cities is a comparable sized market, and Denver is as well. Then you get into a discussion about the region and other factors etc..

[stlouisan]

Originally Posted by orangefuscia

^Denver - Broncos Nuggets Avalanche Rockies - and I see population figures that consistently put the metro around 2.6-2.7 million.

What an NBA season though! Linsanity, Lebron's first ring (me and my boyfriend are huge heat fans!) great playoffs and a lot of young talented teams. The league is in great shape.

Denver also has a lot of tourism that I don't think St. Louis gets, which might be a reason they get a lot of other support. Not to mention, Denver has a lot of medium-sized areas close by to it...Fort Collins, Cheyenne, Colorado Springs...and lots of tourist destinations. I would be willing to bet a lot of Denver's sports population comes from all around Colorado. Without the Rocky Mountains, I doubt Denver would have four sports teams.

Denver and Phoenix are the only two cities similar in size to STL with teams in all four major sports (football, baseball, hockey, basketball). The only other cities as large as St. Louis which have three major sports teams are Cleveland and Pittsburgh. I'd be willing to bet that Denver and Phoenix's tourist industries fuel a lot of their sports teams. Not to mention, Phoenix and Denver are situated near several other cities...Tucson, Colorado Springs, etc.