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.
Something to consider with some of these teams. For instance, with Buffalo, I would keep the hockey team given that the city is right across the Niagara River from Canada and many come to the games. In terms of Football for the same city, it also has another 1 million plus person metro next to it, along with a substantial amount of Canadians that also come to the Bills games. When you take that into consideration, you go from just looking at the just the 1.16 million in the metro to about 3 million when including adjacent areas, for 8-11 games. To put this into perspective, the Buffalo and Rochester metros combined are essentially the Pittsburgh metro area in population and land size(if not a bit less), let alone the Niagara Region of Ontario included in the mix or people from other nearby parts of NY or NW PA.
With Green Bay, they would just play in Milwaukee like they used to back in the 1970's and 1980's like they used to.
What may hurt some of these growing cities is that they are already in close proximity to other metros with pro sports(i.e.-Orlando with Tampa down the road or even Austin in terms of the NBA with San Antonio) or have such a big college following that it may limit the amount of pro sports in that area.
Oh yea, I completely had a brain freeze and forgot that Buffalo is so close to Rochester!
Jacksonville though is quite small. I think it is the smallest metro/CSA area with an NFL team other than Green Bay.
^
Austin is about as far from Dallas as Baltimore is from NYC, so I disagree, and DFW is the 4th largest metro already, so TX can easily support three teams just like FL and CA. Placing the stadium around San Marcos (to also catch San Antonio fans) would help. I even would consider moving the Cowboys to the same division as this team to create a special rivalry. Also note that a lot of my "lose" choices reflect franchises that have been lukewarm to cold over the past few decades.
Gain:
Austin (NFL, NBA)
Charlotte (MLB)
Columbus (MLB, NBA, NFL)
Nashville (MLB)
Orlando (MLB)
Salt Lake City (NHL)
San Antonio (MLB)
San Diego (NFL)
Seattle (NBA, NHL)
Lose:
Baltimore (MLB)
Buffalo (NHL)
Chicago (one MLB team)
Cincinnati (MLB, NFL)
Cleveland (NBA, NFL)
Green Bay (NFL)
Milwaukee (MLB, NBA)
New Orleans (NBA)
Pittsburgh (MLB)
St. Louis (NHL)
St. Louis losing the Blues? Not sure I understand that. They drew 100% capacity last year and have top attendance most years. Arizona, Florida?
The Blues have been anything but lukewarm or cold.
After all Toronto already has teams in all other major leagues and is a fast growing city.
That was considered, but they already have a CFL team(the Argonauts) and it is close enough for people from the area to go to the games.
The biggest issue with the Bills is the stadium, not the fan base or population. I say that because the area was actually in the running for getting an MLB team when the Colorado Rockies and Florida(now Miami) Marlins came into the league instead.
^
Austin is about as far from Dallas as Baltimore is from NYC, so I disagree, and DFW is the 4th largest metro already, so TX can easily support three teams just like FL and CA. Placing the stadium around San Marcos (to also catch San Antonio fans) would help. I even would consider moving the Cowboys to the same division as this team to create a special rivalry. Also note that a lot of my "lose" choices reflect franchises that have been lukewarm to cold over the past few decades.
Gain:
Austin (NFL, NBA)
Charlotte (MLB)
Columbus (MLB, NBA, NFL)
Nashville (MLB)
Orlando (MLB)
Salt Lake City (NHL)
San Antonio (MLB)
San Diego (NFL)
Seattle (NBA, NHL)
Lose:
Baltimore (MLB)
Buffalo (NHL)
Chicago (one MLB team)
Cincinnati (MLB, NFL)
Cleveland (NBA, NFL)
Green Bay (NFL)
Milwaukee (MLB, NBA)
New Orleans (NBA)
Pittsburgh (MLB)
St. Louis (NHL)
Your lose list is wild? The two most established markets in Ohio only having one professional team between themselves? I don’t even think Columbus would accept in NFL team over Ohio State.
Baltimore and Pittsburgh losing MLB?
Milwaukee, heck, Wisconsin with no team?
Yikes.
Your lose list is wild? The two most established markets in Ohio only having one professional team between themselves? I don’t even think Columbus would accept in NFL team over Ohio State.
Baltimore and Pittsburgh losing MLB?
Milwaukee, heck, Wisconsin with no team?
Yikes.
Remember that in the topic of this thread that this is for what teams would be established in markets today. So, unless I'm wrong on the OP's original intent, it's kind of like there were no pro leagues before and now there are. Of course, we compare them to what the leagues currently are, but again I don't think that's the OP's intent imo.
I firmly believe that Austin/San Antonio would be and should be the next NFL team, but I doubt it will ever happen because Jerry Jones (owner of the Cowboys) doesn't want to lose his territory rights over the area, and Jerry may be the most powerful owner in the league. He's not the richest (Tepper in Carolina) but he is influential in that meeting room.
But for now, I'd say that the current places of teams in the leagues are fine. NHL has a couple issues in Florida and Arizona but apart from that most of the teams in the league would not switch if I was in charge.
Buffalo, Oklahoma City, Green Bay and Cincinnati wouldn’t have any teams.
Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee and Baltimore wouldnot have an MLB team.
Las Vegas would have an NBA and NFL team
Seattle would have an NBA team
Charlotte would have an MLB team
Austin would have an MLB and NHL Team
Hampton Roads would have an NBA team
Salt Lake City would have an NHL team
Columbus would get Cincinnati’s teams
Remember that in the topic of this thread that this is for what teams would be established in markets today. So, unless I'm wrong on the OP's original intent, it's kind of like there were no pro leagues before and now there are. Of course, we compare them to what the leagues currently are, but again I don't think that's the OP's intent imo.
I firmly believe that Austin/San Antonio would be and should be the next NFL team, but I doubt it will ever happen because Jerry Jones (owner of the Cowboys) doesn't want to lose his territory rights over the area, and Jerry may be the most powerful owner in the league. He's not the richest (Tepper in Carolina) but he is influential in that meeting room.
But for now, I'd say that the current places of teams in the leagues are fine. NHL has a couple issues in Florida and Arizona but apart from that most of the teams in the league would not switch if I was in charge.
Remember that in the topic of this thread that this is for what teams would be established in markets today. So, unless I'm wrong on the OP's original intent, it's kind of like there were no pro leagues before and now there are. Of course, we compare them to what the leagues currently are, but again I don't think that's the OP's intent imo.
I firmly believe that Austin/San Antonio would be and should be the next NFL team, but I doubt it will ever happen because Jerry Jones (owner of the Cowboys) doesn't want to lose his territory rights over the area, and Jerry may be the most powerful owner in the league. He's not the richest (Tepper in Carolina) but he is influential in that meeting room.
But for now, I'd say that the current places of teams in the leagues are fine. NHL has a couple issues in Florida and Arizona but apart from that most of the teams in the league would not switch if I was in charge.
MLB too in Florida. Tropicana Field was an epic fail for the Rays when it was built. They're lucky there's so many New Yorkers and Northeasterners in FL because they drive the park's attendance way up for almost 20 reg season games a year with just the Yankees and Red Sox coming to town. The Marlins situation isn't much better. Yet again, they've got deep pockets and Jeter owning the team should keep them competitive. It's amazing how good the Rays are on the field considering their tiny payroll and the stadium they play in.
Buffalo, Oklahoma City, Green Bay and Cincinnati wouldn’t have any teams.
Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee and Baltimore wouldnot have an MLB team.
Las Vegas would have an NBA and NFL team
Seattle would have an NBA team
Charlotte would have an MLB team
Austin would have an MLB and NHL Team
Hampton Roads would have an NBA team
Salt Lake City would have an NHL team
Columbus would get Cincinnati’s teams
Can you explain your rationale for giving Cincinnati's teams to Columbus?
The Cincinnati MSA, while growing slower, is still larger than Columbus's at the moment.
Columbus's CSA is larger than Cincinnati's by a few hundred thousand, but when you incorporate Cincinnati's proximity to the Dayton CSA of 1 million (which I believe should be included in Cincy's CSA), that negates Columbus's current population advantage.
If anything, the two cities should have an equal number of teams.
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.
