Cities Most Likely To Gain A Pro Sports Team Via Relocation Or Expansion By 2028

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Whats up with the White Sox? I know they are the forgotten stepchild of Chicago but its getting pretty ugly these days.

From todays game:

https://twitter.com/RickTarsitano/st...56535761379331

Unbelievable! Not to mention, the MLB season just started.

People within this thread who have suggested that a second or third team in NYC, LA or Chicago would fare better than one team in say, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, St. Louis et al should refer to this photo.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

People in Wisconsin are stuck rooting for a hockey team from either Minnesota or Chicago. I guess there are fans of either, but I would guess there's general apathy across the state, rather than actively rooting for a team from a city that is otherwise a rival city in the other sports.

You see this elsewhere: what basketball team do people in Pittsburgh root for? Cavaliers? Raptors? 76ers? These are all otherwise rival cities in some way. It can work though, I guess. Somehow people in Buffalo root for the Yankees or Blue Jays, even though Toronto and New York are rival cities in hockey and football.

This is very true. Rather than root for the Dallas Stars, people in general in Houston ignore the NHL. It NEVER gets covered in the local news, possibly including the Stanley Cup Finals unless a local player is being featured. And since Houston produces exactly zero NHL players regularly (the only current NHL player from Houston effectively grew up in Alberta), that doesn't happen.

[Boisebro]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

People in Wisconsin are stuck rooting for a hockey team from either Minnesota or Chicago. I guess there are fans of either, but I would guess there's general apathy across the state, rather than actively rooting for a team from a city that is otherwise a rival city in the other sports.

I'm sure it's changed since I've lived there, but back in the 70s and 80s the NHL was barely on the radar in Wisconsin. college hockey ruled, and the Badgers were the only game you could get on TV (usually tape delayed on PBS).

but if there was an NHL team we rooted for, even if casually, it was the North Stars.

[osmo]

I don't see the Memphis Grizzlies surviving long term. It was brought there under dubious terms and aside from some luck with the draft they have barley done better from a franchise standpoint versus it's predecessor in Vancouver. The franchise is only now going into a true rebuild and it will be the markets first real taste of crap basketball since the team arrived. It's one of the NBA's smallest markets. I don't see the team there in 10 years time form now.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by osmo

I don't see the Memphis Grizzlies surviving long term. It was brought there under dubious terms and aside from some luck with the draft they have barley done better from a franchise standpoint versus it's predecessor in Vancouver. The franchise is only now going into a true rebuild and it will be the markets first real taste of crap basketball since the team arrived. It's one of the NBA's smallest markets. I don't see the team there in 10 years time form now.

Yep, brought to a small, mostly impoverished market. They never had a chance short of being as successful as the San Antonio Spurs, who wouldn't still be where they are without being as dominant as long as they have been over the last 30 years (San Antonio's most ideal sport that could survive long term is football, in theory).

Vancouver didn't get a fair shake, the team was never given a chance to become good, though in turn Canadian teams struggle to attract free agents and retain draft picks, most famously in the case of Steve Francis, who whined his way into being traded away from Vancouver before playing after being drafted by the Grizzlies. Had he sucked it up, they had a team good enough to become competitive shortly thereafter.

[Nomad9]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Yep, brought to a small, mostly impoverished market. They never had a chance short of being as successful as the San Antonio Spurs, who wouldn't still be where they are without being as dominant as long as they have been over the last 30 years (San Antonio's most ideal sport that could survive long term is football, in theory).

I’m curious where the Spurs comments are coming from. I engage in these types of discussions fairly often and have never heard the Spurs mentioned as a team that could/would have been moved. They were in SA a long time before the Duncan/Pop dynasty and seems like they did fine as a franchise. Even if they weren’t considered one of the model franchises in all sports, they’d still probably be fine from a financial and attendance standpoint as the only major pro franchise for hundreds of miles around and in a large, growing city. The fact that it’s overshadowed by its flashier in-state siblings says nothing about its capability of supporting a pro team.

Also, wow @ that Sox picture. This spring is a perfect example why baseball shouldn’t start until May. It is not a good cold weather sport.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by Nomad9

I’m curious where the Spurs comments are coming from. I engage in these types of discussions fairly often and have never heard the Spurs mentioned as a team that could/would have been moved. They were in SA a long time before the Duncan/Pop dynasty and seems like they did fine as a franchise. Even if they weren’t considered one of the model franchises in all sports, they’d still probably be fine from a financial and attendance standpoint as the only major pro franchise for hundreds of miles around and in a large, growing city. The fact that it’s overshadowed by its flashier in-state siblings says nothing about its capability of supporting a pro team.

Also, wow @ that Sox picture. This spring is a perfect example why baseball shouldn’t start until May. It is not a good cold weather sport.

One person made an unfortunately uneducated comment speculating that, and people are riding that like it was ever feasible. It's a non-starter.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Nomad9

I’m curious where the Spurs comments are coming from. I engage in these types of discussions fairly often and have never heard the Spurs mentioned as a team that could/would have been moved. They were in SA a long time before the Duncan/Pop dynasty and seems like they did fine as a franchise. Even if they weren’t considered one of the model franchises in all sports, they’d still probably be fine from a financial and attendance standpoint as the only major pro franchise for hundreds of miles around and in a large, growing city. The fact that it’s overshadowed by its flashier in-state siblings says nothing about its capability of supporting a pro team.

Also, wow @ that Sox picture. This spring is a perfect example why baseball shouldn’t start until May. It is not a good cold weather sport.

The NBA wasn't as big in the 70's and early 80's as it is today, let alone at it's peak in the 90's. David Robinson and Tim Duncan were just the stars that the organization and city needed to make it viable. Both were good on the court and David Robinson was a charismatic superstar off the court and, as a Navy veteran, an excellent face for the franchise in a military town. Not only were they model citizens (Duncan can be a prick and ignorant in private but is a law abiding citizen who doesn't draw many non-basketball related negative headlines) but they were great on it and helped mold the best organization in the NBA.

Without them, there's little chance the Spurs last in San Antonio. Even today, the metro area is only at 2.1 million (despite the large municipal population of 1.5 million) and it has a low level of disposable income per capita for any large MSA. Even with all of their winning, they still struggle to truly sell out games sometimes. Yes, San Antonio is barely a major league market, Austin is much better suited to host pro sports.

They aren't the only franchise for hundreds of miles, Houston has 3 (4 if you count MLS) 180-200 miles away and Dallas-Fort Worth is only 300 miles away with 4 (5). Austin and College Station are close and have big time college sports. Consider that if the Spurs aren't good in the 90's, the Rockets' golden age, then maybe San Antonio fans become Rockets fans.

The only other way they could have survived was being the only game in town, as San Antonio, until recently, had no other high level sports above high school. And UTSA is hardly what can be considered major league, so the Spurs still are it.

[Nomad9]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

The NBA wasn't as big in the 70's and early 80's as it is today, let alone at it's peak in the 90's. David Robinson and Tim Duncan were just the stars that the organization and city needed to make it viable. Both were good on the court and David Robinson was a charismatic superstar off the court and, as a Navy veteran, an excellent face for the franchise in a military town. Not only were they model citizens (Duncan can be a prick and ignorant in private but is a law abiding citizen who doesn't draw many non-basketball related negative headlines) but they were great on it and helped mold the best organization in the NBA.

Without them, there's little chance the Spurs last in San Antonio. Even today, the metro area is only at 2.1 million (despite the large municipal population of 1.5 million) and it has a low level of disposable income per capita for any large MSA. Even with all of their winning, they still struggle to truly sell out games sometimes. Yes, San Antonio is barely a major league market, Austin is much better suited to host pro sports.

They aren't the only franchise for hundreds of miles, Houston has 3 (4 if you count MLS) 180-200 miles away and Dallas-Fort Worth is only 300 miles away with 4 (5). Austin and College Station are close and have big time college sports. Consider that if the Spurs aren't good in the 90's, the Rockets' golden age, then maybe San Antonio fans become Rockets fans.

The only other way they could have survived was being the only game in town, as San Antonio, until recently, had no other high level sports above high school. And UTSA is hardly what can be considered major league, so the Spurs still are it.

All you’re arguing is that if things were different, then things would be different. That could be said about literally any team.

Teams that do well, like the Spurs, can succeed despite not being a major market (especially the NBA or MLB, which are still affordable for middle class families). Packers, Cardinals, Thunder, Saints. My point is that the Spurs are now a historically great franchise in a healthy city that loves them—to suggest they’d move to Austin just because it’s wealthier and fancier is dumb.

On a different subject, there’s definitely a weird baseball vacuum in the south, but I’m not sure there are many great markets for it. Charlotte maybe? Nashville? Neither really strike me as baseball cities. Richmond is too close to DC. I’m not sure which option is best but probably Nashville...maybe they could get a good rivalry going with the Braves.

[Paul in S.A TX]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

The NBA wasn't as big in the 70's and early 80's as it is today, let alone at it's peak in the 90's. David Robinson and Tim Duncan were just the stars that the organization and city needed to make it viable. Both were good on the court and David Robinson was a charismatic superstar off the court and, as a Navy veteran, an excellent face for the franchise in a military town. Not only were they model citizens (Duncan can be a prick and ignorant in private but is a law abiding citizen who doesn't draw many non-basketball related negative headlines) but they were great on it and helped mold the best organization in the NBA.

Without them, there's little chance the Spurs last in San Antonio. Even today, the metro area is only at 2.1 million (despite the large municipal population of 1.5 million) and it has a low level of disposable income per capita for any large MSA. Even with all of their winning, they still struggle to truly sell out games sometimes. Yes, San Antonio is barely a major league market, Austin is much better suited to host pro sports.

They aren't the only franchise for hundreds of miles, Houston has 3 (4 if you count MLS) 180-200 miles away and Dallas-Fort Worth is only 300 miles away with 4 (5). Austin and College Station are close and have big time college sports. Consider that if the Spurs aren't good in the 90's, the Rockets' golden age, then maybe San Antonio fans become Rockets fans.

The only other way they could have survived was being the only game in town, as San Antonio, until recently, had no other high level sports above high school. And UTSA is hardly what can be considered major league, so the Spurs still are it.

San Antonio's metro is fast approaching 2.6 million people and has pretty much always been amongst the fastest growing cities with a strong economy. S.A. is a huge military city but it's economy is far more diversified. It is also an energy hub, and has other multibillion dollar industries centered around Healthcare-biomedical,finance-insurance, manufacturing, IT, aerospace, and tourism. The Spurs are the only major team but it can easily support NFL, MLS, or MLB.

S.A does have semi-pro franchises; S.A. F.C(USL), and until recently WNBA which relocated despite having strong local support. S.A. is also a major sports event host city.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Nomad9

I’m curious where the Spurs comments are coming from. I engage in these types of discussions fairly often and have never heard the Spurs mentioned as a team that could/would have been moved. They were in SA a long time before the Duncan/Pop dynasty and seems like they did fine as a franchise. Even if they weren’t considered one of the model franchises in all sports, they’d still probably be fine from a financial and attendance standpoint as the only major pro franchise for hundreds of miles around and in a large, growing city. The fact that it’s overshadowed by its flashier in-state siblings says nothing about its capability of supporting a pro team.

Also, wow @ that Sox picture. This spring is a perfect example why baseball shouldn’t start until May. It is not a good cold weather sport.

Refer to the first post in this thread - a post from me - for context. My point was that I believe that, long-term, Austin - a city that is only 60-70 miles north of Austin - is likely better suited to be able to support the team long-term than San Antonio.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by osmo

I don't see the Memphis Grizzlies surviving long term. It was brought there under dubious terms and aside from some luck with the draft they have barley done better from a franchise standpoint versus it's predecessor in Vancouver. The franchise is only now going into a true rebuild and it will be the markets first real taste of crap basketball since the team arrived. It's one of the NBA's smallest markets. I don't see the team there in 10 years time form now.

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Yep, brought to a small, mostly impoverished market. They never had a chance.

Nope, I don't think they're going anywhere. The city is devoted to the team, and the team is devoted to the city with one of the most expansive community outreach programs league wide. They play in one of the best arenas in the league. The owner just retained a controlling stake and reaffirmed his commitment to the city. The NBA loves having a team in Memphis due to St. Jude and MLK and other reasons, and has reaffirmed it's dedication to the city and franchise time and time again. The team has gone through one rebuilding phase before (06/07-/09/10), and may be about to go through another one, but through it all and the seven straight postseason appearances they made in the Grit n Grind era (second longest streak only to the Spurs) they've built one of the most authentic connections to the city they call home of any team out there. The Grizzlies *are* Memphis, and they're there to stay.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

Nope, I don't think they're going anywhere. The city is devoted to the team, and the team is devoted to the city with one of the most expansive community outreach programs league wide. They play in one of the best arenas in the league. The owner just retained a controlling stake and reaffirmed his commitment to the city. The NBA loves having a team in Memphis due to St. Jude and MLK and other reasons, and has reaffirmed it's dedication to the city and franchise time and time again. The team has gone through one rebuilding phase before (06/07-/09/10), and may be about to go through another one, but through it all and the seven straight postseason appearances they made in the Grit n Grind era (second longest streak only to the Spurs) they've built one of the most authentic connections to the city they call home of any team out there. The Grizzlies *are* Memphis, and they're there to stay.

I somehow doubt the Grizzlies are Memphis when they've been there for 15-16 years and not even done so much as played for a title, let alone won one.

Unless you're the Green Bay Packers, no one is safe from a move. I don't even know how Memphis has a team, they must get a ton of TV money from the being close to Nashville and Little Rock (or is that a Mavs/Thunder market?).

They may have close ties with the community but it doesn't change how small the market is and how little disposable income they have. That said, the NBA has a ton of small markets but along with New Orleans, Memphis is both the smallest and has among the highest percentage of people with little purchasing power.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

They may have close ties with the community but it doesn't change how small the market is and how little disposable income they have. That said, the NBA has a ton of small markets but along with New Orleans, Memphis is both the smallest and has among the highest percentage of people with little purchasing power.

Memphis is actually the poorest U.S. metro (of those with at least 500k in MSA). Small corporate base, and regional population is stagnant.

I agree that the Grizzlies are a prime candidate for relocation.

I think the Pelicans are slightly less likely to move, because it's a wealthier metro, and while local population is also quite small, NOLA gets a ton of visitors. And NOLA is much bigger than Memphis by CSA (including Baton Rouge and a good portion of gulfside MS).

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

I somehow doubt the Grizzlies are Memphis when they've been there for 15-16 years and not even done so much as played for a title, let alone won one.

You're free to doubt all you like, but your doubt doesn't jive with reality. Sorry. And how many teams can say they've had a legitimate shot at a title over the past fifteen years? Seven? Eight? The Grizzlies hardly deserve to be singled out in that regard, particularly given the fact that over the past decade they've had a fairly significant amount of postseason success and up until this season had one of the longest active postseason streaks in the league while playing in the toughest division.

Unless you're the Green Bay Packers, no one is safe from a move. I don't even know how Memphis has a team, they must get a ton of TV money from the being close to Nashville and Little Rock (or is that a Mavs/Thunder market?). They may have close ties with the community but it doesn't change how small the market is and how little disposable income they have. That said, the NBA has a ton of small markets but along with New Orleans, Memphis is both the smallest and has among the highest percentage of people with little purchasing power.

Obviously Memphis is on the lower end in terms of metro size and income but it's still very much in the ballpark of quite a few other NBA markets such as OKC, New Orleans, Sacramento, Milwaukee etc. so again, why single out Memphis? NBA arenas, as you know, only hold about 17K people and they've only got to do that 41 times a year. So why you doubt that an MSA of 1.4 million couldn't handle that, I have no idea. It's one team. Memphis couldn't support another pro team, but it can and does support the Grizzlies. Over the past eight seasons they've been in the middle of the pack in terms of percentage of tickets sold, outperforming many much larger markets. So you keep harping on market size and income, but that hasn't really affected the results in the past like you seem to think.

[Boisebro]

I was hoping the new Seattle NHL franchise would be called the Metropolitans for old time's sake.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Boisebro

I was hoping the new Seattle NHL franchise would be called the Metropolitans for old time's sake.

No name has been publicly announced yet. I like the Metropolitans as well but keep in mind there is a Metropolitan Division in the NHL.

I feel like the team should have a marine-based name to match with the Mariners and Seahawks. Unfortunately they probably won't be able to match their colours with the other local teams due to their neighbours in Vancouver already using a similar scheme.

[suburbanite]

One thing I find odd is how there is a massive contiguous chunk of the Southeast U.S. with no pro baseball. Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina create this huge gap between the dense group of teams in the Northeast, and the Georgia and Florida teams.

When I was in Nashville it seemed like support was split pretty evenly between Atlanta and St. Louis, with Cincinnati in third place. I think North Carolina has pretty strong support for college baseball, so it seems like a relatively prime target for a team.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

One thing I find odd is how there is a massive contiguous chunk of the Southeast U.S. with no pro baseball. Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina create this huge gap between the dense group of teams in the Northeast, and the Georgia and Florida teams.

When I was in Nashville it seemed like support was split pretty evenly between Atlanta and St. Louis, with Cincinnati in third place. I think North Carolina has pretty strong support for college baseball, so it seems like a relatively prime target for a team.

Nashville and Charlotte are the only markets that could support a team and they'd have a hard time competing. Both are maxed out with two sports teams imo.

Norfolk/Virginia Beach could also but it'd be a struggle.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

One thing I find odd is how there is a massive contiguous chunk of the Southeast U.S. with no pro baseball. Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina create this huge gap between the dense group of teams in the Northeast, and the Georgia and Florida teams.

When I was in Nashville it seemed like support was split pretty evenly between Atlanta and St. Louis, with Cincinnati in third place. I think North Carolina has pretty strong support for college baseball, so it seems like a relatively prime target for a team.

the cardinals have traditionally had a large southern (and western) fanbase that overlaps atlanta and texas teams, with Harry Carays/Jack Bucks clear channel big wattage KMOX that i've picked up on the gulf coast at night. tennessee for instance has 8+ stations that broadcast cardinals games, too. oklahoma city broadcasts cardinals games...mississippi, indiana...

while we are on the subject, i've picked up WGN (radio) in mississippi at night so theres some funny far-flung cubs fans peppered about as a legacy of this big wattage radio station.