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.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,144 times
Reputation: 2925
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
I have my doubts that Las Vegas can support 2 teams let alone 3.
How so? True, the CSA is not even 2.5 million and much of the population works hours unconducive to attending games. But there's a massive tourist and business base that would attend games, even if just to see their team play the Las Vegas one. I don't think Vegas would fall into the same trap as Miami, since I don't feel gambling, clubs and shows are as big a draw as the beach is. Plus, those all tend to be late night activities, which wouldn't conflict with either day or evening games.
The only metropolitan areas with less than 3,000,000 people and more than one other major professional sports league aside from the NBA are Denver and Cleveland.
The Cleveland CSA is the 15th largest in the U.S. Denver is the 16th largest.
The Cavaliers definitely draw from Greater Pittsburgh, Erie, and the Greater Columbus markets.
Cleveland does have the Lake Erie Monsters, an American Hockey League team, and arena indoor football, and both of these franchises do relatively well in the winter. The Arena Football League is down to four teams, even though the Cleveland Gladiators have among the best attendance.
Pittsburgh has a successful NHL franchise, while the Columbus NHL franchise struggles, perhaps because it must compete with Ohio State winter sports, including basketball, hockey and wrestling (popular in Ohio).
The Cavaliers are so well established that it would be difficult for a Columbus or Pittsburgh franchise to compete with the Cavs in the short run. In the long run, the competition likely would impair any two competing franchises in that region.
E.g., the Pirates and the Indians battle for MLB market share in eastern Ohio and western PA, much to the detriment of the Indians who likely have among the smallest effective markets in the MLB (the Mud Hens in Toledo are the long-established AAA franchise of the Detroit Tigers and the Tigers draw well from northwestern Ohio, and Cincinnati and Cleveland battle for MLB market share in Greater Columbus).
How so? True, the CSA is not even 2.5 million and much of the population works hours unconducive to attending games. But there's a massive tourist and business base that would attend games, even if just to see their team play the Las Vegas one. I don't think Vegas would fall into the same trap as Miami, since I don't feel gambling, clubs and shows are as big a draw as the beach is. Plus, those all tend to be late night activities, which wouldn't conflict with either day or evening games.
I think Vegas is a special case. People go to Vegas for the sole purpose of spending money - whether it's gambling, spending too much money at a club, or spending $150 to see David Copperfield perform or paying a lot to see Celine Dion. It's not like in some other cities where it's like "I don't know, we could fit in one of these but not another. Too much money." People, when they go to Vegas, save up their money for the sole purpose of spending it there. It's an entertainment focused city first and foremost.
I have no doubts that Vegas could support at least 1 or 2 professional teams.
Seattle dosent deserve a NBA team. Im not for Canadian teams either. Give it to Virginia Beach and St.Louis.
Not Saint Louis. I wouldn't give it to a stagnant city.
Here's projected 2040 CSA populations (yes, I know, TV market is best). I think the NBA should prioritize these.
The ones in bold have an NBA team
Atlanta 8,733,011 Atlanta Hawks Austin 3,971,820 Boston 9,262,416 Boston Celtics Charlotte 3,754,542 Charlotte Hornets
Chicago 10,027,320 Chicago Bulls
Cleveland 3,239,440 Cleveland Cavaliers
Columbus 3,029,707 Dallas-Fort Worth 11,363,281 Dallas Mavericks
Denver 5,211,848 Denver Nuggets
Detroit 5,144,320 Detroit Pistons
Houston 11,304,086 Houston Rockets Las Vegas 3,290,586 Los Angeles 22,370,066 Los Angeles Clippers/Lakers
Miami 8,702,889 Miami Heat
Minneapolis-Saint Paul 4,718,508 Minnesota Timberwolves
New York 26,152,502 Brooklyn Nets/New York Knicks
Orlando 5,232,112 Orlando Magic
Philadelphia 7,579,321 Philadelphia 76ers
Phoenix 6,668,379 Phoenix Suns
Portland 4,058,762 Portland Trail Blazers
Raleigh 3,299,497 Sacramento 3,313,901 Sacramento Kings
Salt Lake City-Provo 3,517,664 Utah Jazz
San Antonio 3,750,542 San Antonio Spurs
San Diego 4,267,318 San Francisco-San Jose 11,196,284 Golden State Warriors
Seattle 6,203,284
Tampa-Saint Petersburg 3,984,599 Washington-Baltimore 12,676,751 Washington Wizards
So the next 2 should come from the missing 7:
Austin 3,971,820
Columbus 3,029,707
Las Vegas 3,290,586
Raleigh 3,299,497
San Diego 4,267,318
Seattle 6,203,284
Tampa-Saint Petersburg 3,984,599
Of these Austin and Columbus should be moved to the back of the line given the strong focus on College Football. Las Vegas and Raleigh have large markets but, compared to others on the list, they are still quite small.
I would choose, in an ideal world, Seattle and Tampa
Seattle will have 6,203,284 people by 2040, which is huge.
Tampa's current MSA is projected to have 3,984,599 people by 2040. But it also neighbors large MSAs. The Greater Tampa Bay Area (Homosassa Springs, Lakeland, Sarasota, Tampa) will be at 6,204,784 people in 2040, even bigger than Tampa. Orlando's CSA meanwhile will be at 5,232,112 people. So the whole I-4 corridor will be at 11,436,896 people, more than enough to support two teams.
HOWEVER, Tampa will assuredly be blocked by Orlando, which would prefer an extended market size of 11,436,896 to one that is only 5,232,112.
San Diego above would also infringe on LA's perceived market. Raleigh would do the same to Charlotte, Columbus to Cleveland, Austin to San Antonio.
Of the 7 above the only ones who won't do so are Seattle and Las Vegas. In an ideal world, Seattle and Tampa. But I think Seattle and Las Vegas is more likely to happen.
I should say, I think the Magic should have a Market that is Orlando CSA + Ocala + Melbourne/Palm Bay. By 2040, that would be 6,356,717 people.
Tampa should have an NBA team with a Market that is Tampa + Lakeland + Sarasota/North Port + Homossassa Springs. That would be 6,204,784 people by 2040.
Two distinct markets of 6 million+ can each absolutely host a team. So I don't understand why Orlando should get all of Florida north of the Miami CSA as its market.
Missouri is a state of 6,083,672 people as of 2015. That's actually less populous than Greater Atlanta (CSA), Greater Philadelphia (MSA/CSA), Greater Miami-Fort Lauderdale (MSA/CSA), Greater Houston (MSA/CSA), Greater Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex (MSA/CSA), and Greater Boston (CSA).
^ The largest and most populous of those metropolises only has 5 professional sports teams, including 1 club each in the following sports leagues; MLB, MLS, NBA, NHL, and NFL.
Missouri with just a hair over 6 million people already has 2 MLBs, 1 NHL, 1 NFL, 1 MLS. That's 5 teams and Saint Louis is on tap to get one of the next 4 MLS expansion teams (essentially 6 teams for MO). Adding an NBA expansion would be 7. In contrast that's only 3 less teams than TX (a state of 27.5 million), 4 less teams than FL (a state of 20.5 million), 1 less team than PA (a state with 2X the population), 1 more team than IL (another state with 2X the population). MO is a less populous state than WA, AZ, VA, or TN but would have way more teams as a proportion of population.
Do I believe that Missouri as a state should play host to more teams than larger economies, population centers, and media markets such as those metropolitan areas I listed above? No, Saint Louis is already forecast to get the MLS if it gets its finances in order, so I don't think NBA is also needed.
I understand that some of Missouri's teams have spill over fanbases in neighboring states like Kansas and downstate Illinois, but still, no.
Missouri is a state of 6,083,672 people as of 2015. That's actually less populous than Greater Atlanta (CSA), Greater Philadelphia (MSA/CSA), Greater Miami-Fort Lauderdale (MSA/CSA), Greater Houston (MSA/CSA), Greater Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex (MSA/CSA), and Greater Boston (CSA).
^ The largest and most populous of those metropolises only has 5 professional sports teams, including 1 club each in the following sports leagues; MLB, MLS, NBA, NHL, and NFL.
Missouri with just a hair over 6 million people already has 2 MLBs, 1 NHL, 1 NFL, 1 MLS. That's 5 teams and Saint Louis is on tap to get one of the next 4 MLS expansion teams (essentially 6 teams for MO). Adding an NBA expansion would be 7. In contrast that's only 3 less teams than TX (a state of 27.5 million), 4 less teams than FL (a state of 20.5 million), 1 less team than PA (a state with 2X the population), 1 more team than IL (another state with 2X the population). MO is a less populous state than WA, AZ, VA, or TN but would have way more teams as a proportion of population.
Do I believe that Missouri as a state should play host to more teams than larger economies, population centers, and media markets such as those metropolitan areas I listed above? No, Saint Louis is already forecast to get the MLS if it gets its finances in order, so I don't think NBA is also needed.
I understand that some of Missouri's teams have spill over fanbases in neighboring states like Kansas and downstate Illinois, but still, no.
True, but Kansas City and Saint Louis both have about a million people each who live in neighboring Kansas and Illinois. So it's more an area of 8 million, with KC and STL each taking 4 million.
I don't St. Louis should get a team because it's a stagnant, soon-to-be dying industrial town. KC has a lot more promise. And even then I think KC is too small.
But you could argue all of Kansas (3 million) and Southern Illinois (2 million) are covered by MO cities.
True, but Kansas City and Saint Louis both have about a million people each who live in neighboring Kansas and Illinois. So it's more an area of 8 million, with KC and STL each taking 4 million.
Think of it this way;
Greater Chicago has nearly 10 million people and only 6 teams.
Greater San Francisco Bay Area has nearly 8.8 million people and has 7 teams (expected to drop to 6 soon).
Greater Washington DC-Baltimore has nearly 9.7 million people and has 7 teams.
When you consider the excessive size these places have and the extreme amount of wealth, would it really make sense putting 7 teams in MO from a financial viewpoint? They're going to get MLS no matter what in the next expansion, unless Saint Louis somehow backs out, I don't think it also warrants them getting the NBA too.
I think it sucks that MO wont have NBA but they have too many teams for their size, even including Kansas and downstate Illinois, so that 8 million people, that's still way too many teams for that population. Is it really practical for MO to only have 3-4 less teams than states like FL or TX that have several times MO's population?
How about putting 2 teams (an MLS and NBA) in a state with relatively small population growth and future trajectory?
All I'm saying is that the NBA doesn't expand everyday. I know it is selfish, but I kind of want them to put the next round of expansion teams in a more attractive market/state with better longterm prospects. I don't mean this as any slight to MO, but 5 teams already, going on 6 when the MLS expands next is good enough for them, in my opinion.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-22-2016 at 02:00 PM..
Greater Chicago has nearly 10 million people and only 6 teams.
Greater San Francisco Bay Area has nearly 8.8 million people and has 7 teams (expected to drop to 6 soon).
Greater Washington DC-Baltimore has nearly 9.7 million people and has 7 teams.
When you consider the excessive size these places have and the extreme amount of wealth, would it really make sense putting 7 teams in MO from a financial viewpoint? They're going to get MLS no matter what in the next expansion, unless Saint Louis somehow backs out, I don't think it also warrants them getting the NBA too.
I think it sucks that MO wont have NBA but they have too many teams for their size, even including Kansas and downstate Illinois, so that 8 million people, that's still way too many teams for that population. Is it really practical for MO to only have 3-4 less teams than states like FL or TX that have several times MO's population?
How about putting 2 teams (an MLS and NBA) in a state with relatively small population growth and future trajectory?
All I'm saying is that the NBA doesn't expand everyday. I know it is selfish, but I kind of want them to put the next round of expansion teams in a more attractive market/state with better longterm prospects. I don't mean this as any disrespect to MO, but 5 teams already, going on 6 when the MLS expands next is good enough for them, in my opinion.
Kansas City: Chiefs, Royals
Saint Louis: Cardinals
That's three A-tier teams, the same as Wisconsin or Minnesota. NHL is still a B-tier sport so you can't say a city with an NHL team precludes it from getting an NBA or NFL team. Las Vegas is getting an NHL team and I assure you that NFL is going to suck all of the attention in the local media. So I would take out the 'Blues.' even if their fanbase is impressive for NHL. MLS is still developing. Maybe in 20 years it will join the A-tier, but Sporting KC is still a B-tier team as well. So I don't think you can add A-list and B-list sports teams together.
I agree on the last point. As I stated two posts above yours, I think the NBA should prioritize large cities with growing populations. There are 7 cities without NBA teams that can provide that: Austin, Columbus, Las Vegas, Raleigh, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa.
That said, I'm a CSA snob like the best of them, but even I'll acknowledge CSAs mean very little in the grand scheme of things. KC, and Denver, are unique in that their market spheres of influence extend far beyond their TV Markets:
Now with the departure of the Rams, KC's Chiefs might have a market size of Missouri's 6 million + Kansas's 3 million + 2 million in Illinois. That's 11 million people supporting 1 team. That's definitely doable.
If KC or STL get an NBA team, that team would support the same 11 million people and I wouldn't be shocked if a KC NBA team becomes the 'Missouri Arrowheads' or whatever. When teams want to brand themselves outside of a given Metro Area they go 'State' (Minnesota Vikings, Arizona Cardinals) or even Regional (New England Patriots). So the "Missouri Arrowheads" would anchor an area of 11 million people.
Even my Seattle or Tampa picks can't do such a thing.
And for MLB it's even bigger, since the Cardinals have a market size that is enormous:
Their fandom map is ~12 million. Probably even more since the Cardinals are one of the few "National" teams. KC's is 6 million.
So I wouldn't focus on Missouri's state population. It's a unique state in that the two biggest cities border other states, meaning there's tons of people across the rivers who identify with KC and STL.
Right, I think we agree. I definitely agree with you that the NBA should focus on expanding to markets such as Mexico City, Montreal, San Diego, Tampa, Las Vegas, Vancouver, Seattle and the like, which are all both large and fast growing and that fast growing markets like Austin, Nashville, and Raleigh should be permanent residents on the NBA's watch list for future expansion rounds in future decades.
It is a shame. The NBA is (potentially) expanding from 30 to 32 teams. That's only 2 expansion spots for a large and growing number of markets that could easily support a team based off their size or future trajectory but only two will get it.
If the NBA were expanding from 30 to 40 teams, then yeah, I'd say either Missouri city getting a team would be an apt choice. A great choice actually. However, sports leagues not named the MLS don't expand that quickly, due to revenue sharing, television contract negotiations, and such, so two expansion slots is all we get.
I want to see Seattle for the first one.
After that, any of San Diego, Vancouver, Montreal, Mexico City, Las Vegas, or Tampa will do. Tampa wont get one anytime soon because it is too close to Orlando. Mexico City wont get one anytime soon because it has a cultural barrier that could be an impediment to players that play for the team, fans traveling to see teams, or language and communication issues. Montreal mont get one anytime soon because it likely has no arena situation at all and the same probably could be said of Vancouver and San Diego as well.
That leaves Las Vegas with its new T-Mobile Arena. Honestly, the NBA actually seems like the most logical fit for Las Vegas of all 5 sports leagues (MLS, MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL). Las Vegas epitomizes the character of the NBA, which is a flashy league that derives market interest through star power and advertisements. See events like the All-Star game, which for the NBA seems to be way more marketed than All-Star games for other sports leagues. NBA is a very global brand and NBA players enjoy more global stardom than players in any of the other 4 leagues (which is why their advertisements are higher than player's of other leagues and their contracts are more lucrative in free agency). Las Vegas is a great fit for the NBA, not so much the NHL, but hey, at least they sold out the season tickets for the first season. That's a start, I guess.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-22-2016 at 03:52 PM..
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.
