How come there is no NBA in St Louis? (Kansas City: chapel, buy)

[STLCardsBlues1989]

NBA couldn't survive here. MLS? Probably. NBA is, from my understanding, probably more expensive. And soccer is very popular around the St. Louis area, especially with kids.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by footballer0607

I just returned home after going to school in the St. Louis area for a couple years. Honestly, not very many of the locals seemed interested in basketball at all; the only city I've been to thus far where baseball reigned supreme and unchallenged. As for people knocking the NBA today, have you even tuned in recently? The league right after Michael Jordan retired did blow, and the lockout sure didn't help. But today's NBA is the best it's been in years; guys like Chris Paul and Lebron James are team players; even Kobe Bryant seems to have embraced that philosophy (at long last). I've heard rumors that the NBA could be moving to Kansas City or Vegas soon, but not sure if that's true or not.

Well, let's take a look at the facts. There's nothing like facts vs fiction.

St. Louis doesn't have an NBA team. It hasn't had a professional basketball team in many decades. 1) Therefore, the NBA will get talked about with much less frequency by local media, and the casual person on the street, etc..2) The NBA as a product has had a lot of trouble getting viewers and selling tickets in recent memory.

The regular tv regular season television ratings for the NBA, have declined every single year since 1996-present. The NBA Finals has joined only the NHL as being one of the major pro sports who's ratings have dipped below a 10.0. There has been a 4 year resurgence in ticket sales in some markets, but again this is tickets sold, not actual fans in the stands which is much lower. The audience for the NBA has moved International, as its means for growth.

The best television ratings come from TNT, not ESPN, not ABC, and previously, not NBC, because of the quality of the production, and on air talent.

As for college basketball, two of the "local teams" have struggled mightily this past decade. Mizzou has a strong basketball tradition, but has been going through a tough stretch, and SLU has had a tough decade for hoops. However, both are on the rise.

The Missouri Valley Conference Basketball Tournament is held in St. Louis every year, and it draws huge crowds. St. Louis also hosts the NCAA Men's Regional Final on a regular basis, and it has had the highest attendance of any Men's Regional in those years. St. Louis also has hosted the NCAA Women's Final Four in basketball, and will do so again this March. The NCAA also regularly hosts the men's first round games in St. Louis as well.

The Mizzou v Illinois basketball game played annually in St. Louis is sold out within 1 hour's time most years.

St. Louis also routinely hosts NBA basketball pre-season exhibition games.

If people in St. Louis didn't like basketball, and they didn't like going, they wouldn't be showing up, and St. Louis wouldn't keep getting these events on a regular basis.

If you don't think locals in St. Louis don't like basketball, perhaps you never left your house while living there?

If you are from the Bay area, I've been to Golden State Warrior games in my time and getting a ticket most years hasn't been challenging to put it mildly. This in a market roughly 3 plus times the size of St. Louis.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by oscottscotto

I (and I can still label my opinion as that of an outsider's view) feel that any football team that chooses to play inside a dome - will not generate the awesome following that non-dome teams generate in their respective cities. Why? Atmosphere. Dome football games cannot compare to outdoor football games. If the Rams played in an outdoor stadium, not only would it spice up downtown a little by looks and gameday noise ... but it would also promote a more excitable atmosphere. The only dome-team that comes close would be the Saints, and that is just because New Orleans is full of absolutely crazy people. But even at that, it is still no outdoor game. All that said, STL does need an NBA team though.

I disagree. While I like outdoor football, facts prove otherwise. The St. Louis Rams sold out every single home game for their first 11 years despite having miserable teams many of those years. The Rams still draw extremely well.

The Seattle Seahawks have had a very strong following since their inception and most of that was played in a dome, with teams not winning more than 8 games in a season. The New Orleans Saints have a very strong following despite inept ownership and management much of their tenure in the NFL, and there are other examples. The Sugar Bowl still plays at the Super Dome every year and people go. The Georgia Dome doesn't have trouble filling up for the SEC title game each season.

The BCS Championship game has been played in Arizona multiple times in recent memory as well as the Fiesta Bowl annually in the new stadium in Glendale AZ, and despite 60ish temps, the roof has been closed every time.

Economically speaking many people reasonably question the economic viability of four major pro sports teams in St. Louis, even in non-uncertain economic times, let alone now. St. Louis is not a large market.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989

NBA couldn't survive here. MLS? Probably. NBA is, from my understanding, probably more expensive. And soccer is very popular around the St. Louis area, especially with kids.

The cost of attending an NBA game and an MLS game isn't in the same stratosphere. Also, the amount of games played per season is not in the same stratosphere either. The NBA is much more expensive to attend and the amount of home games is far greater. The MLS has a summer league schedule with only the St. Louis Cardinals competing at that time for the sports dollar. The Cardinals have a National following and had 3.4 million fans despite a 4th place finish this past season. There is room for the MLS as a viable economic alternative for soccer fans in the St. Louis market. The issue isn't whether or not St. Louis will be able to support an MLS soccer franchise, the issue is having the investors and $$, and also when the league will give them one.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

They already have investors, apparently a pretty wealthy one in the area, and they have the plans ready for a Collinsville Stadium.

And Albert Pujols likes the idea.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989

They already have investors, apparently a pretty wealthy one in the area, and they have the plans ready for a Collinsville Stadium.

And Albert Pujols likes the idea.

Actually the "problem" or issue has been that no local investors stepped forward with much effort to help Jeff Cooper. Believe me, it's been a very big past problem for a long time, not only with the MLS team, but with anyone buying the Rams, Cardinals or Blues. One of the previous sticking points with MLS was St. Louis hasn't had a "big" "local" investor. It has been able to secure non-local investors for some time.

Albert Pujols is St. Louis' version of Steve Nash, adding a local celebrity to package to help sell St. Louis as a viable franchise, shrewdly matching other cities efforts.

The St. Louis contingent has the investors, but would still like to add another bigger local investor to its efforts.

[aaronstlcards]

st. louis had an NBA team a couple of decades ago, but the team moved to atlanta because the team did not have too much fan support. i agree with people though on getting behind SLU, but let's face it, SLU basketball has a long way to go

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by aaronstlcards

st. louis had an NBA team a couple of decades ago, but the team moved to atlanta because the team did not have too much fan support. i agree with people though on getting behind SLU, but let's face it, SLU basketball has a long way to go

It's been 40 years since the St. Louis Hawks last played in St. Louis. They were very good finishing 1st or 2nd in the division every year out of 13, except twice. Ownership wasn't playing in a quality facility and things didn't work out on an upgraded venue.

SLU basketball will be very good/solid in 3-5 years.

[footballer0607]

Originally Posted by Fishtacos

Well, let's take a look at the facts. There's nothing like facts vs fiction.

St. Louis doesn't have an NBA team. It hasn't had a professional basketball team in many decades. 1) Therefore, the NBA will get talked about with much less frequency by local media, and the casual person on the street, etc..2) The NBA as a product has had a lot of trouble getting viewers and selling tickets in recent memory.

The regular tv regular season television ratings for the NBA, have declined every single year since 1996-present. The NBA Finals has joined only the NHL as being one of the major pro sports who's ratings have dipped below a 10.0. There has been a 4 year resurgence in ticket sales in some markets, but again this is tickets sold, not actual fans in the stands which is much lower. The audience for the NBA has moved International, as its means for growth.

The best television ratings come from TNT, not ESPN, not ABC, and previously, not NBC, because of the quality of the production, and on air talent.

As for college basketball, two of the "local teams" have struggled mightily this past decade. Mizzou has a strong basketball tradition, but has been going through a tough stretch, and SLU has had a tough decade for hoops. However, both are on the rise.

The Missouri Valley Conference Basketball Tournament is held in St. Louis every year, and it draws huge crowds. St. Louis also hosts the NCAA Men's Regional Final on a regular basis, and it has had the highest attendance of any Men's Regional in those years. St. Louis also has hosted the NCAA Women's Final Four in basketball, and will do so again this March. The NCAA also regularly hosts the men's first round games in St. Louis as well.

The Mizzou v Illinois basketball game played annually in St. Louis is sold out within 1 hour's time most years.

St. Louis also routinely hosts NBA basketball pre-season exhibition games.

If people in St. Louis didn't like basketball, and they didn't like going, they wouldn't be showing up, and St. Louis wouldn't keep getting these events on a regular basis.

If you don't think locals in St. Louis don't like basketball, perhaps you never left your house while living there?

If you are from the Bay area, I've been to Golden State Warrior games in my time and getting a ticket most years hasn't been challenging to put it mildly. This in a market roughly 3 plus times the size of St. Louis.

Hmm...well lets take a look at some MORE facts, Fishtacos: if the Missouri Valley Conference Tournament, Men's Regional Final, & Mizzou vs. Illinois draw such huge crowds, maybe it's precisely because other than the Billikens, who are a mid-level Division I program, that's the only opportunity to check out hoops in town. In the Bay Area, it's a different story, as, in addition to Cal and Stanford (both the men's and women's teams this year from both schools are ranked, by the way) we have Santa Clara, USF, and last but not least St. Mary's, which is acquiring a national reputation as the main thorn in Gonzaga's side in the WCC.

It's all relative; the vast majority of media coverage and attention was oboviously devoted to the Cardinals, the same of which cannot be said for the A's or Giants out here. As far as getting a ticket for the Warriors goes, were you around to witness the resurgence led by Baron Davis as the Warriors toppled the Mavericks in the 1st round 2 years ago? We let Baron go, too

I believe that if there is a decline in NBA ratings on TV, it has less to do with the caliber of play than with the general image problem the league has been suffering which came to a head with the infamous "Malice at the Palace" with the Pistons & Pacers in 2004. ESPN the magazine did an in-depth story about it, I encourage everyone to look it up.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by footballer0607

Hmm...well lets take a look at some MORE facts, Fishtacos: if the Missouri Valley Conference Tournament, Men's Regional Final, & Mizzou vs. Illinois draw such huge crowds, maybe it's precisely because other than the Billikens, who are a mid-level Division I program, that's the only opportunity to check out hoops in town. In the Bay Area, it's a different story, as, in addition to Cal and Stanford (both the men's and women's teams this year from both schools are ranked, by the way) we have Santa Clara, USF, and last but not least St. Mary's, which is acquiring a national reputation as the main thorn in Gonzaga's side in the WCC.

It's all relative; the vast majority of media coverage and attention was oboviously devoted to the Cardinals, the same of which cannot be said for the A's or Giants out here. As far as getting a ticket for the Warriors goes, were you around to witness the resurgence led by Baron Davis as the Warriors toppled the Mavericks in the 1st round 2 years ago? We let Baron go, too

I believe that if there is a decline in NBA ratings on TV, it has less to do with the caliber of play than with the general image problem the league has been suffering which came to a head with the infamous "Malice at the Palace" with the Pistons & Pacers in 2004. ESPN the magazine did an in-depth story about it, I encourage everyone to look it up.

This is your exact quote: "I just returned home after going to school in the St. Louis area for a couple years. Honestly, not very many of the locals seemed interested in basketball at all."

I provided countless examples which shows that many locals are very much indeed interested in basketball. You now are saying that St. Louis locals are turning out in big numbers at these basketball events because that is their only opportunity to check out hoops in town...your words, not mine. First, this suggests that locals are gasp....drum roll...interested in hoops, something you said they weren't. 2nd considering the list and its diversity in gender, geograpahy, and level of play, I'd say that's a pretty significant group.

Next you proceed to give me the run down on two things, the Bay Area and college hoops in the Bay Area. Let me be upfront and fair, you picked the wrong guy for this discussion because I am familiar with both topics.

St. Mary's, Santa Clara, and USF do not receive great levels of attention in the Bay Area and to say otherwise would be very misleading. It takes a great level of success, i.e. top 25 play, such as St. Mary's this season for any Bay Area media to even notice with any level of decent coverage. And, Santa Clara, while suffering many tough, close losses this season is on the right track by hiring Kerry Keating from the UCLA staff. Kerry can recruit and coach. You are also aware that St. Mary's head coach is a former SLU Billiken assistant? I'm not sure who will have more Aussie's in the next few year's SLU or St. Mary's? But, it will be a lot for both. It's a nice niche to have in the challenges of recruiting in non-BCS conferences.

What you do is you cherry pick teams and time periods that support your agenda instead of giving a full objective complete picture. Plenty of seats available for Cal in most of the past 12 underachieving seasons under Chicago's Ben Braun. And, it should be noted Cal's attendance capacity isn't exactly big. Neither is Stanford's, nor any of the other schools mentioned. Some play in gyms smaller than several local small colleges and high schools. Again, remember, this was about fan interest in basketball to just for a moment get us back on the target topic. And, even though it is irrelevant, you are aware that one of Cal's two losses this season was to Mizzou 93-66, not exactly a close game. You couldn't give tickets away to Golden State games pre Nelly, as in Don Nelson. You know this and you isolate a one or two year window. Didn't they teach you current events, or recent history, let alone actual history at your college?

In 2007, SLU had higher attendance at games than any of the Bay area programs, and for much of the past couple of decades more times than not, SLU has been a top 25 level school in terms of attendance at games. This means that mediocre SLU, and SLU has had mediocre basketball, outdrew any Bay area team. And, Mizzou and Cal were neck and neck in 2007, both teams struggling. Stanford was not struggling, with the Lopez twins etc...but yet there attendance wasn't close to the others. (Brook Lopez is really doing well in the NBA right now btw).

NCAA Men's Basketball Attendance

The St. Louis Rams and Blues have had awful teams in recent years, and the St. Louis Cardinals have made the playoffs many times. They won the 2006 World Series. Of course they are going to get the majority of the coverage. You are aware that the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team has a huge National following, no? You are aware that for many years St. Louis had the Southern most and Western most baseball team, and it's flagship radio station could be heard in almost 50 states? You are aware that fandom for the Cardinals has been handed down from generation to generation, no? You are aware that every other decade since prior to the 20th century the Cardinals have had excellent teams and decades of winning, no? Yes I said 20th century, not 21st. Too bad you were not around for the Rams Super Bowl runs just a few years back when it was all Rams all the time in St. Louis. Ask anyone in St. Louis.

Finally your theory on declining ratings for the NBA doesn't add up because the ratings decline has existed annually since the 1990's, far prior to the incident between the Pacers and Pistons. Had you tried a theory on the late 90's lockout, I would have likely been more receptive.

You didn't let Baron Davis go. He wanted to leave, to go back to his SoCal roots, and to dabble into many things off the court as well as on the court. He simply didn't want to stay.

Although if you haven't read this article on him, you'd probably like it:

Clippers guard Baron Davis is using the NBA as a platform - 12.15.08 - SI Vault