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.
I've experienced a city that got it's first professional team...and the support is always amazing. People who haven't had a home team to cheer for come out in droves to support the new team. It's a very exciting time...so even though a city may not have a proven track record with pro sports, the support is often overwhelming and probably better than in a city used to having pro sports.
It's fun for a little awhile but then it can fizzle. The Orlando market I live in is a good example. The Magic (NBA) do okay when winning but it's not so good when they're losing. Smaller market teams also have trouble attracting the marquee players which plays into the equation as well.
The thing is... a market that already has one or more pro teams might not be able to support another... or at least not support one as well as some of the bigger markets without a sports team (Austin, Louisville, Las Vegas, Birmingham, Virginia Beach, etc)
For instance, St. Louis has three pro sports teams already with a metro area a touch under 3 million. Adding a fourth would give you about 750,000 people per pro team. Compare that with the metro areas I listed which are all significantly larger than 750,000. There are only so many dollars in a metro area to go around. I realize this is not the only factor, but it is a factor. The NBA has done pretty well in cities without other pro teams... San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Sacramento, Orlando, and Memphis all come to mind.
Maybe two out of five on your list, that's with winning teams (San Antonio and Oklahoma City) as Memphis, Orlando and Sacramento are mid-pack or worse in attendance (18th, 23rd and 25th respectively) and not setting the world on fire with apparel sales or TV revenue either which are huge facets of the profitability factor. Your aforementioned St Louis would be a better option than any given it's proven track record as a sports town (despite it's NFL ownership issues) and regional draw in terms of TV market (basically a Top 20 market).
It has almost 2 million people; more than Hampton Roads and Austin. I think market size-wise it's fine but the gambling aspect and high transient factor kind of prevent it from being a good market imo.
You're right about the size (numbers wise) as it's slightly larger than the other two, but I think the size in conjunction with the other entertainment options and limited disposable incomes (Vegas isn't exactly among the wealthier metros- it was decimated during the recession) hurts it's potential as a major league city. Also, like you said, its very transient. I do think that if it had maybe 4 million people it would have a chance simply due to the sheer numbers, but I don't think the demand is there at 1.95 Million people.
Furthermore, while it's slightly larger than Austin or Hampton Roads, it's far more isolated. Austin and Hampton Roads abut other developed areas where as Las Vegas is surrounded by nothing in all directions for a good distance. Professional Sports teams don't pull from just their own metro area. Here in Boston, there are tons of people from Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island and beyond who fill seats at Fenway, Gillette and the Garden. Hampton Roads abuts parts of North Carolina and Western VA that don't have strong major league affiliations. It'll easily tap into those markets even though they're not technically part of the metro. Same goes for Austin. And it's a two way street. If Austin tried to land an NBA franchise, it would probably struggle due to the proximity of San Antonio. On the other hand, if it landed an NHL, NBA, or MLB franchise, it would draw from the San Antonio market. Vegas is really restricted to the people officially in the metro area since it's so isolated.
The thing is... a market that already has one or more pro teams might not be able to support another... or at least not support one as well as some of the bigger markets without a sports team (Austin, Louisville, Las Vegas, Birmingham, Virginia Beach, etc)
For instance, St. Louis has three pro sports teams already with a metro area a touch under 3 million. Adding a fourth would give you about 750,000 people per pro team. Compare that with the metro areas I listed which are all significantly larger than 750,000. There are only so many dollars in a metro area to go around. I realize this is not the only factor, but it is a factor. The NBA has done pretty well in cities without other pro teams... San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Sacramento, Orlando, and Memphis all come to mind.
I think what you said it a huge factor though. It's the reason why I think NO is oversaturated now even with two teams. It's the 51st largest market with 641k people.
It's fun for a little awhile but then it can fizzle. The Orlando market I live in is a good example. The Magic (NBA) do okay when winning but it's not so good when they're losing. Smaller market teams also have trouble attracting the marquee players which plays into the equation as well.
That is probably most true in basketball, then in baseball, and basically a non-issue in football. Not sure about hockey and soccer.
Of course since Orlando's only pro team (I think?) is basketball... it is definitely a problem for them... and could be a looming problem for Oklahoma City, Memphis... even San Antonio and Portland.
That is probably most true in basketball, then in baseball, and basically a non-issue in football. Not sure about hockey and soccer.
Of course since Orlando's only pro team (I think?) is basketball... it is definitely a problem for them... and could be a looming problem for Oklahoma City, Memphis... even San Antonio and Portland.
If anything, I'm more interested in those NBA teams where it's the only game in town.
It's fun for a little awhile but then it can fizzle. The Orlando market I live in is a good example. The Magic (NBA) do okay when winning but it's not so good when they're losing. Smaller market teams also have trouble attracting the marquee players which plays into the equation as well.
It's kinda like that in most cities...look at the Celtics this year - down to #16 in attendance. Even the Lakers were #11. That's two of the most popular franchises ever and they were both down this year.
Smaller markets do have a harder time attracting the superstars, so they have to be more diligent with their draft picks.
Of course since Orlando's only pro team (I think?) is basketball... it is definitely a problem for them... and could be a looming problem for Oklahoma City, Memphis... even San Antonio and Portland.
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.
Smaller markets do have a harder time attracting the superstars, so they have to be more diligent with their draft picks.
