Quote:
|
San Antonio an option for Chargers if NFL team bolts, San Diego columnist says http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2012/11/16/9TJ7fdsO.jpg Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Furthermore, I'm not sure the owners would approve it (i.e., Jerry Jones and Bob McNair may push for a vote against a team in SA...right now). And that is not to mention voter approval of funds for a new stadium (in the neighborhood of $500MM-$600MM). It's not impossible...and I'd like to see it happen...but, I too, am not holding my breath...for now. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
There is too much money in expansion and those are probably the only 3 cities that could afford a new franchise in today's NFL. Now if one of those cities gets an expansion team I could see another one getting a relocation, but it would happen in that order. There are 3 teams that are in trouble right now; Jacksonville, San Diego, and Oakland. If at least one of these teams does not move in the next 5 years I would be surprised. Metro's Over 1.5 million: Los Angeles - 18.24 million (CSA) No brainer Portland - 2.99 million (CSA) not an NFL town. Plus two College teams Orlando - 2.92 million (CSA) Too close to Tampa? Money? Sacramento - 2.46 million (CSA) Possible. Stadium? Cali is broke! Salt Lake City - 2.35 (CSA) Too many college teams, not enough Alcohol sales! Columbus - 2.35 million (CSA) They have OSU. 3 NFL teams in Ohio, nope Las Vegas - 2.25 million (CSA) the NFL wont be the pioneer San Antonio - 2.23 million (MSA) Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill - 2.00 (CSA) NC has a team and NCAA is king on tobacco row Austin - 1.83 million (MSA) Not gonna happen Virginia Beach - 1.80 (CSA) Metro is too fragmented Greensboro-Winston Salem - 1.61 (CSA) NC has a team Providence - 1.60 million (MSA) Never Outside of Los Angeles, San Antonio is the only city in the US that could and would support an NFL franchise on a high level. I always discredited the notion of San Antonio supporting an NFL franchise, but over the last couple of years my perception has changed. Getting an NFL Franchise would be huge for the city and the area. Of course, only as long as a stadium deal wouldn't handcuff local government. With all of that said, I like what UTSA has going. If the NFL came to SA it would hurt UTSA's growth (of course if the possibility is there ... too bad UTSA). If the NFL doesn't come I see UTSA growing into a solid football program pretty fast; on the level of a UCF or South Florida within the next 5 years. If the NFL comes, I am not sure if another stadium could be built downtown, but I would think that would be where you would want a new at least partially publicly funded stadium to be. |
CSA and MSA metros should not be ranked together in my opinion not a fair comparison. S.A. Has a bigger population base than many listed and with San Marcos and Austin that strengthens the regions viability of supporting an nfl team. The question isn't whether San Antonio can support a team, its more of a political thing and it probably will never happen.
|
Quote:
All of the Metros on the list that I presented are bigger than San Antonio. I only listed MSA numbers if a CSA does not exist. If San Antonio was part of a CSA, I would have used that figure, but it is not. So in my opinion they are viable comparisons because using CSA where it exists is a better reflection of the market in question. As for the San Antonio and Austin coming together in support of an NFL team, don't hold your breath. If San Antonio gets a team it will be because of San Antonio, not a combination of the two cities. For MLB I believe that the San Antonio/Austin thing holds a little more weight, but not for football...not in this state. I agree that it most likely will not happen and that politics will be the major factor, but outside of Los Angeles, I see San Antonio as the best US Market without an NFL franchise. |
Quote:
|
I think our biggest problem is our media market. We are still very tiny. :duh
I believe our city "leaders" should be more focused on our media market rather than street car. How? I have no idea. By the way, I live in S.A. and I will be driving up to Austin to see the F1 Race! :fireworks: |
Quote:
I am not arguing against SA, quite the opposite, I agree with STLtoSA in that the NCAA is king around here, and I may be a bit bias, but I just don't get that same energy or vibe as I do in SA, and it may be due to the fact that there is no real "core" here as SA has (although there is a 23-story residential tower going up in DT Raleigh, but thats another topic). SA may not be tops in media market share, but it does pop up 8th on "Hispanic or Latino TV Homes", whatever that's worth to the NFL (growing city, growing demographic?), which outside of LA, makes it second on the list as next best possible location. And not for that reason alone, but for the fact that it is a healthy city in a football, beer drinking state, with some numbers to justify, just to name a few. |
Quote:
In addition, Urbanized area does not even factor into the equation for an NFL franchise (at least I don't understand how). As it has been pointed out; Socio-economics, Market size, Corporate presence, and shear fandom are the main components. I think that you miss the point of my initial post...I was arguing that San Antonio outside of LA is the best choice. The list was to show other Metros that do not have a franchise. |
^^ According to this list(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...10_Urban_Areas), SA has a larger UA than all of those cities except LA and Portland. But it's much more than just population for an NFL team to relocate. If that was the case, LA would have had one in a second.
|
Quote:
Anyways, my response wasn't necessary because it appears that Paul' was referring to UA; and to that he was correct. Quote:
In addition, Urbanized area does not even factor into the equation for an NFL franchise (at least I don't understand how). As it has been pointed out; Socio-economics, Market size, Corporate presence, and shear fandom are the main components. Population was only used to produce a list of possible (not probable) NFL candidate cities. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I just wanted to point out that the cities mentioned are not larger cities based on urbanized area or the offical metro rankings, not a secondary list that combines both CSA and MSA. Back on the subject of CSA's. This population classification consits of more than one metro area, and this is why I say its not an equal comparrison versus a single MSA. I am quite aware that the TV market size is the first thing the NFL looks at, and the other things you mentioned, which in fact would favor San Antonio and, put it at the top of the list of possible relocation or expansion cities. San Antonio has the largest corporate base of the cities mentioned, healthy socio-economics and, is, definitely football crazy. However, TV market size isnt really a measurement of a city's size. The Indianpolis TV market is larger than San Diego's and, San Diego is just one rank above, Nashville. Which metro is bigger out of those cities? Having a larger TV market helps more on a marketable standpont and should not be the only indicator if a region can support a team. A large Population base in close proximity to NFL venue is equally if not more important than a television set tuning in 100 miles out. Nonetheless all important factors in attracting a NFL franchise. A future NFL city should be based on how heathly the economy is, future growth, and the regional population even if it crosses into another metro's boundaries. Austin-San Marcos should definitely be a part of San Antonio's equation. As well as all South Texas, the Rio Grande Valley, Corpus Christi, and Laredo. A San Antonio NFL team versus the Dallas Cowboys or Pittsburgh Steelers would certanly sell out over and over. The success of the San Antonio Spurs has made the name 'San Antonio' somewhat of a household name when it comes to pro sports. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.