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.
Dude, skyline height in no way a definitive indictor of a city's prowess. We've got a bigger skyline than Memphis, but I know you would consider them to be in a different league than BHM. Charlotte has a much taller and nicer skyline than Phoenix . . . and yet the latter's GDP exceeds the former by almost 90 million.
You also forget how small of a base NBA teams need for sustainability. It's the least patron-intensive of the big 4 majors. Chesapeake (Thunder) Arena sits around 18k. The only time they have 18k tookuses in the seats is for marquee games. The Tuesday night matchup against the Raptors isn't bringing in but 7-9k. MAYBE. Well guess what, we live in a metro of over 1 million, and our immediate urban pop (all within 30-45 minutes of downtown) exceeds 700k. We would have zero trouble with attendance. But we're talking about a league that isn't expanding, and a city that doesn't have the infrastructure in place, yet.
But to say BHM couldn't handle an NBA team financially is lunacy. It's almost as insane as thinking OKC is more advanced than BHM in any sense. Ever been to OKC? Our urban core blows theirs out of the water. The activity and occupancy level of our downtown area is lightyears ahead of OKCs. I've been as recently as 2014. OKC wouldn't have the Thunder, save for the energy industry, a few willing investors who were backed by oil and gas money, and cosmic fortune that a team was available at the exact time they were in a position to buy.
In short, there are cities with professional sports which are economically level with BHM, namely Memphis, Jacksonville, and OKC. They were lucky enough to have all of their ducks in a row at the time teams were up for purchase. On average, I go to 3 or 4 Grizz games a year. All random, weeknight games. Tickets are $4 to sit pretty much anywhere and the attendance is somewhere between 6-8k. If you don't think we could replicate that, you're not being honest.
Oklahoma city has over 600k people in the city, three times what bham does. Even if you use a broad msa, they still have over 300k more people than Birmingham. But more important than that, of those 600k people a much higher percentage are middle class and upper middle class than in birmingham city. Yes, if you include hoover, mountain brook, Vestavia and Homewood you get a bunch more of the type of people that nba games are marketed to, but still nowhere near OKC's base......OKC is in a different league than Birmingham....heck just google their skyline and you see it resembles that of Nashville's more than it does bham.
All that's been addressed. That's what she's talking about with the size of the TV market. It trumps the population of the core city and the MSA. Birmingham's TV market is larger than OKC's. That is the more important metric.
The rest of what you are talking about is pure negative speculation on your part which is false. The study in the OP says that Birmingham has enough people with disposable income to support an NBA team. But please, do share your sources that say there aren't enough upper and middle class people here and the height of our buildings means we can't support a pro team other than MLB.
Now how many times does this have to be explained and we keep going around in circles over and over?
You also forget how small of a base NBA teams need for sustainability. It's the least patron-intensive of the big 4 majors. Chesapeake (Thunder) Arena sits around 18k. The only time they have 18k tookuses in the seats is for marquee games. The Tuesday night matchup against the Raptors isn't bringing in but 7-9k. MAYBE. .
lol you lost all credibility here....the thunder actually had 171 straight sellouts(page 4 in link below) at one point this year(going back a few years)...not sure if the streak is still active, but clearly they sell out almost every night. You say something that insane and it's best to just stop the discussion. Also when you make up numbers like that, it's not worth it for me to continue in the discussion because you've shown that you cant be honest as well.
lol you lost all credibility here....the thunder actually had 171 straight sellouts(page 4 in link below) at one point this year(going back a few years)...not sure if the streak is still active, but clearly they sell out almost every night. You say something that insane and it's best to just stop the discussion. Also when you make up numbers like that, it's not worth it for me to continue in the discussion because you've shown that you cant be honest as well.
The numbers at Thunder games really have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. By what you are saying about Birmingham, nobody would have taken a chance on OKC either. It definitely isn't in the top cities of choice for a pro team. In fact, I would say that Birmingham would have been chosen ahead of them if we had the same stroke of luck and prep that they did. OKC owes all of their thanks for the Thunder to Hurricane Katrina and having an arena ready to host the Hornets for a while.
Oh wow, what does that make them, one of the better attended franchises in the league? Splendid. Let's just substitute them for any of the 15 other teams that draw anemic crowds for your average week night snoozer.
Consider this: the worst average home attendance in the NBA this year belonged to the 76ers with 13,940 fans per game. So far for this season, the Barons are averaging 6,445 fans a game. If you don't think that, given both the size of the metro and the considerable enthusiasm that would come with having a big time pro sports franchise in town, at the very least we could average 13,940 in BHM, you're insane.
You honestly think another mere 7k wouldn't come downtown, when some 750k would be living within 30 minutes of a domed facility? Our metro pop is just shy of being level with both OKC and Salt Lake, and they both perform at the top of nba attendance.
Dude, skyline height in no way a definitive indictor of a city's prowess. We've got a bigger skyline than Memphis, but I know you would consider them to be in a different league than BHM. Charlotte has a much taller and nicer skyline than Phoenix . . . and yet the latter's GDP exceeds the former by almost 90 million.
You also forget how small of a base NBA teams need for sustainability. It's the least patron-intensive of the big 4 majors. Chesapeake (Thunder) Arena sits around 18k. The only time they have 18k tookuses in the seats is for marquee games. The Tuesday night matchup against the Raptors isn't bringing in but 7-9k. MAYBE. Well guess what, we live in a metro of over 1 million, and our immediate urban pop (all within 30-45 minutes of downtown) exceeds 700k. We would have zero trouble with attendance. But we're talking about a league that isn't expanding, and a city that doesn't have the infrastructure in place, yet.
But to say BHM couldn't handle an NBA team financially is lunacy. It's almost as insane as thinking OKC is more advanced than BHM in any sense. Ever been to OKC? Our urban core blows theirs out of the water. The activity and occupancy level of our downtown area is lightyears ahead of OKCs. I've been as recently as 2014. OKC wouldn't have the Thunder, save for the energy industry, a few willing investors who were backed by oil and gas money, and cosmic fortune that a team was available at the exact time they were in a position to buy.
In short, there are cities with professional sports which are economically level with BHM, namely Memphis, Jacksonville, and OKC. They were lucky enough to have all of their ducks in a row at the time teams were up for purchase. On average, I go to 3 or 4 Grizz games a year. All random, weeknight games. Tickets are $4 to sit pretty much anywhere and the attendance is somewhere between 6-8k. If you don't think we could replicate that, you're not being honest.
Lunacy? Hardly. Birmingham just barely makes the cut in terms of income to support an NBA franchise and that is completely ignoring the Alabama and Auburn strangleholds on the region. The reality is that Birmingham probably can't support an NBA franchise at the moment, even if there was a facility and ownership group. Perhaps down the road... but I don't see expansion in any league happening anytime soon, with the exception of MLS which Birmingham could definitely support.
Oh wow, what does that make them, one of the better attended franchises in the league? Splendid. Let's just substitute them for any of the 15 other teams that draw anemic crowds for your average week night snoozer.
Consider this: the worst average home attendance in the NBA this year belonged to the 76ers with 13,940 fans per game. So far for this season, the Barons are averaging 6,445 fans a game. If you don't think that, given both the size of the metro and the considerable enthusiasm that would come with having a big time pro sports franchise in town, at the very least we could average 13,940 in BHM, you're insane.
You honestly think another mere 7k wouldn't come downtown, when some 750k would be living within 30 minutes of a domed facility? Our metro pop is just shy of being level with both OKC and Salt Lake, and they both perform at the top of nba attendance.
It is possible that no, another 7k wouldn't come downtown. And you are also assuming that Barons attendance would drop to zero. Are you ever going to tell us what banned member you are?
Some of you seem oblivious to the facts now on the ground.
Again, I know of NO considerations being given to Birmingham, Alabama at present (or in the near future) for the creation or transfer of ANY major league professional sports team.
If you know of such implemented plan, please tell me the source and details. Otherwise, all of what you're doing is essentially talking in the wind, or getting paid to speculate.
Also, speculation about the size of television markets is also silly. In fact younger people are watching less and less "television". Local "TV" markets are becoming irrelevant for the younger demographic. So are "blackouts". With technology you can watch any game, anywhere in the world practically speaking.
At any rate, I'll state this as simply as I can: If Birmingham was a viable, likely market for ANY professional major league sports team, it would already HAVE one, or plans would be afoot and already known. Birmingham has no such teams...period.
From a practical standpoint and moving forward, I'm sure that Birmingham, Alabama might have some extremely tough competition from other locations in the United States and even Canada.
Talking about Birmingham's "chances" might be fun and entertaining, but the realities are that it has not happened, and is not scheduled to "happen" in the very near future. Lots of cities have "chances". Lots of cities also may be better bets too. Business decisions are just that. Yacking and blabbing about "chances" seems worthless given the present realities of the lack of real evidence.
It's just not happening, and has not happened. It's daydreaming...really it is.
Oh wow, what does that make them, one of the better attended franchises in the league? Splendid. Let's just substitute them for any of the 15 other teams that draw anemic crowds for your average week night snoozer.
Consider this: the worst average home attendance in the NBA this year belonged to the 76ers with 13,940 fans per game. So far for this season, the Barons are averaging 6,445 fans a game. If you don't think that, given both the size of the metro and the considerable enthusiasm that would come with having a big time pro sports franchise in town, at the very least we could average 13,940 in BHM, you're insane.
You honestly think another mere 7k wouldn't come downtown, when some 750k would be living within 30 minutes of a domed facility? Our metro pop is just shy of being level with both OKC and Salt Lake, and they both perform at the top of nba attendance.
dude, barons tickets cost like 10 bucks. Even less for some I think. The *average* nba ticket is around 100 dollars. They aren't even comparable. The vast majority of people that go to barons games either can't afford to go to nba games or isn't willing to shell out that kind of money regularly. You are talking about a completely different level of investment.
There is no way Birmingham could support an nba team. Except for Atlanta, the people who generally fill nba arenas are white upper middle class folks. And our white upper middle class folk here all love football and not professional basketball. In Oklahoma city there is much more passion for basketball amongst that market. Memphis has the same dynamic(they love basketball there and that was the case before the grizz came)
Birmingham couldn't even come close to supporting an nba team. As others have said, the idea is lunacy.
Some of you seem oblivious to the facts now on the ground.
Again, I know of NO considerations being given to Birmingham, Alabama at present (or in the near future) for the creation or transfer of ANY major league professional sports team.
If you know of such implemented plan, please tell me the source and details. Otherwise, all of what you're doing is essentially talking in the wind, or getting paid to speculate.
Also, speculation about the size of television markets is also silly. In fact younger people are watching less and less "television". Local "TV" markets are becoming irrelevant for the younger demographic. So are "blackouts". With technology you can watch any game, anywhere in the world practically speaking.
At any rate, I'll state this as simply as I can: If Birmingham was a viable, likely market for ANY professional major league sports team, it would already HAVE one, or plans would be afoot and already known. Birmingham has no such teams...period.
From a practical standpoint and moving forward, I'm sure that Birmingham, Alabama might have some extremely tough competition from other locations in the United States and even Canada.
Talking about Birmingham's "chances" might be fun and entertaining, but the realities are that it has not happened, and is not scheduled to "happen" in the very near future. Lots of cities have "chances". Lots of cities also may be better bets too. Business decisions are just that. Yacking and blabbing about "chances" seems worthless given the present realities of the lack of real evidence.
It's just not happening, and has not happened. It's daydreaming...really it is.
I don't disagree with your overall premise that Birmingham would struggle to support an NBA franchise and that there isn't one coming in the near future... but your assertion that just because there isn't a pro team means it can't work is false. Take Oklahoma City 10 years ago. No team, no plan for a team.... but now they have a team and it is working (though we will see if that success continues of Kevin Durant and/or Russell Westbrook leave for bigger markets).
Los Angeles hasn't had an NFL team for many, many years. There were no plans with merit to get a team back to the area until the last several years. Does that mean Los Angeles could not have supported an NFL franchise 10 years ago?
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.
