Local: S.A. to discuss ways to lure pro franchises

[Trae]

The Falcons game was the marquee of them all (Vick).

[BSofA04]

Originally Posted by TraeSlab713

Yeah the Valley. I belong to a Houston Texans board and we have many people from the Valley. Last year that got barely any Texans games. This year, they got all 16 (or close), because many people down there emailed and phoned one of the TV stations (don't remember which one).

That's good for them. San Antonio only got 7-8 games this year. With the Texans tripling their win total from the previous year, they probably will show 10 this upcoming season, but of course that is dependent on their progression as a football team. Not a lot of people, but a good amount emailed KENS 5 about the lack of Texans coverage. I'd like to see more of them, especially since Carr will be gone. Kubiak has them going in the right direction.

[TexasBoi]

Originally Posted by TraeSlab713

I don't think that San Antonio would have an easy time getting TV market away from the smaller metros around Texas. Cowboys rule in Austin (well Titans now), and the Valley has many Texans fans.

no. Cowboys rule Austin. If San Antonio gets a team, the Cowboys will still rule Austin. Hell maybe even San Antonio as well.

[Trae]

Yeah, but the Titans are growing in Austin, until they lose a few games:



The Titans are growing in Austin, the Cowboys are still king, though.

[NBTX11]

Originally Posted by BSofA04

WOW! Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to write articles. The game vs. the Bills had 58,688 fans (6,312 less than the normal capacity of 65,000). The game against the Falcons and Lions had 65,562 (overflow) and 63,747 respectively. That comes out to 22,300 more fans per game in San Antonio than in Baton Rouge for an approximate average of 63,000. Sounds like the NO media tried to downplayed the actual figures for some unknown reason. We won’t go there.

Exactly. I wonder if people commenting actually went to the games. I did, and I can tell you SA gave loud and enthusiastic support to the Saints while they were here. It became very clear to me while sitting in the Alamodome, that SA would wholeheartedly embrace a franchise of their own. Even though this is "Cowboys" country, that is because we have no team. If we did, most people, myself included would root for "our" team not the Cowboys.

That said, when the Saints left, so did our best hope, probably. I don't think the Chargers come here, so now our best hope is if/when the NFL expands by 2 teams to accomodate the LA market.

[Schertz1]

Originally Posted by TraeSlab713

Charlotte does seem more urban than San Antonio. Just go look at some of the projects going up in its CBD + Uptown.

How are you going to include Corpus Christi and the Valley into San Antonio's market? Both of those places are far away from San Antonio. SA also doesn't have as much disposable income as some of those cities with two pro-teams. Add in Austin, then it probably does. San Antonio-Austin has close to 3.5 million, not over it (if you just add in the metro numbers). Almost 300,000 less actually. Media market is what counts. I don't know how many cities have a metro like Austin a stone's throw away from their own market, you tell me because I can't think of one.

If the Saints could not fully work when they game (some buyouts because games did not sell out), what makes you think they could do it again?

TRAE, like I said I , I grew up in North Carolina and visit there at least once a year. I can guarantee you that lends a greater degree of credibility to my observations. They are from personal experience not from setting in front of a computer in Houston.

Can you even add, the 2005 estimates clearly state San Antonio and Austin have a combined metro of 3,342,326? It is now 2007 and there is over 3.5 million in this area.

The Valley and Corpus Christi are most defiantly in the San Antonio region as far as football is concerned. CC is less than 130 miles and the valley is not much further. Is it so hard to believe people will drive two hours to attend NFL games?

When it comes to disposable income, I am unclear how you are defining it? I was taught it was income after expenses and savings. Clearly, if you make more money in the unnamed towns you speak of, chances are, you are spending more on things such as housing and gas. San Antonio is known for having some of the best values in the Country on both of these among others. So a greater income does not equal more disposable income. Sorry.

[NBTX11]

^^Correct, when the 2007 estimates come out (the 2006 haven't even been released yet), SA will be near 2 mil, and Austin over 1.5, for a total of 3.5-3.6mil.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Schertz1

TRAE, like I said I , I grew up in North Carolina and visit there at least once a year. I can guarantee you that lends a greater degree of credibility to my observations. They are from personal experience not from setting in front of a computer in Houston.

Can you even add, the 2005 estimates clearly state San Antonio and Austin have a combined metro of 3,342,326? It is now 2007 and there is over 3.5 million in this area.

The Valley and Corpus Christi are most defiantly in the San Antonio region as far as football is concerned. CC is less than 130 miles and the valley is not much further. Is it so hard to believe people will drive two hours to attend NFL games?

When it comes to disposable income, I am unclear how you are defining it? I was taught it was income after expenses and savings. Clearly, if you make more money in the unnamed towns you speak of, chances are, you are spending more on things such as housing and gas. San Antonio is known for having some of the best values in the Country on both of these among others. So a greater income does not equal more disposable income. Sorry.

I can add, and the 2005 estimate came out to 3,342,326.

Once I thought about it, the Valley and Corpus Christi don't seem too far away. People travel to Houston from New Orleans to go to Astros games. And on the Houston Texans board, there are many people from the Valley that come to games, some with season tickets.

[BSofA04]

Originally Posted by NBTX11

Exactly. I wonder if people commenting actually went to the games. I did, and I can tell you SA gave loud and enthusiastic support to the Saints while they were here. It became very clear to me while sitting in the Alamodome, that SA would wholeheartedly embrace a franchise of their own. Even though this is "Cowboys" country, that is because we have no team. If we did, most people, myself included would root for "our" team not the Cowboys.

That said, when the Saints left, so did our best hope, probably. I don't think the Chargers come here, so now our best hope is if/when the NFL expands by 2 teams to accomodate the LA market.

Great point. I did attend all 3 games, and it's very clear that San Antonio would thrive in the NFL. The tailgating was top-notch and the fan support for a crappy team, which no one even cared about 3 months earlier, was tremendous. Hell, the Saints only had 1/3 of the year to advertise in San Antonio and look at how great we did. It was nice to be able to see the Bensons riding around the parking lot before kickoff, thanking the fans for showing up (w/ Mayor Hardberger). It's such nonsense to think SA couldn't cut it in the NFL.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Schertz1

San Antonio is known for having some of the best values in the Country on both of these among others. So a greater income does not equal more disposable income. Sorry.

Cost of living basically follows disposable income in a lot of ways - especially in an area like San Antonio which can just sprawl at will. IE, expensive housing doesn't get built if people don't have jobs that pay enough to qualify for the mortgages.

Whether fair or not, the reputation of San Antonio around the country is that it's a 'poor' big city. And because it's grown relatively recently (compared to other 'poor' big cities like Detroit and New Orleans), it's out of luck - new teams go to areas where advertisers want to advertise to TV viewers with a lot of money - not people who have a bit left over because their housing is so cheap.

For instance, here's one chart which shows San Antonio's disposable income per capita at dead last among large metros. Kind of hard to google for this stuff; lots of irrelevant stuff in the results, but at least I found one.

Here's a better chart from Wikipedia, although huge.. San Antonio is pretty much the lowest big city in the list under per-capita income (#182); scores a bit better on household income (note difference vs. Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, which I would surmise is due to smaller households due to large population of retirees).

[Schertz1]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Cost of living basically follows disposable income in a lot of ways - especially in an area like San Antonio which can just sprawl at will. IE, expensive housing doesn't get built if people don't have jobs that pay enough to qualify for the mortgages.

Whether fair or not, the reputation of San Antonio around the country is that it's a 'poor' big city. And because it's grown relatively recently (compared to other 'poor' big cities like Detroit and New Orleans), it's out of luck - new teams go to areas where advertisers want to advertise to TV viewers with a lot of money - not people who have a bit left over because their housing is so cheap.

For instance, here's one chart which shows San Antonio's disposable income per capita at dead last among large metros. Kind of hard to google for this stuff; lots of irrelevant stuff in the results, but at least I found one.

Here's a better chart from Wikipedia, although huge.. San Antonio is pretty much the lowest big city in the list under per-capita income (#182); scores a bit better on household income (note difference vs. Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, which I would surmise is due to smaller households due to large population of retirees).

The disposable income spreadsheet is 10 years old and San Antonio is a different place. I do, however, agree San Antonio is still seen as a big poor city. I do not agree that 39K in San Antonio is less buying power than 41k in Orlando,42k in Cleveland, Jacksonville, or Las Vegas, or 44K in Nashville or Saint Louis and this list can go on. I can't believe any logical person would so I believe the reality is quite different than the perception. I was also wrong in my previous post, disposable income is income after taxes or in most cases net pay. Discretionary income is what’s left after the fixed/variable costs of life (housing, food, energy/fuel, POOR CREDIT HABITS) and can be used for entertainment or savings. This is the income used to attend NFL games.

As far as home prices are concerned, they are cheaper in this region due to an abundance of semi-skilled labor, legal or not. The South-central Texas Labor force and it’s effect, past, present, and future, on the regions standard of living should be another thread. It is , however, closely related to this topic.

[Trae]

Charlotte's metro is actually above 2 million according to Emporis. It is larger than San Antonio's. I knew the 1.5 million number didn't seem right for Charlotte.

[NBTX11]

^^That is the Charlotte CSA, Consolidated Statistical Area, much larger and looser definition of metro area. Their MSA, Metropolitan Statistical Area (definition that SA uses) is only 1.5 mil. If SA used the CSA definition, theirs would be way over 2 mil too. You are comparing apples to oranges. You have to use either the MSA or CSA for both cities to legitimately compare, and Charlottes MSA is 1.5 to SA's MSA of 1.9.

[discojames]

One untapped resource San Antonio could benefit from would be the large population of Northern Mexico. A large number of visitors from there come to San Antonio regularly for shopping and entertainment and have second homes there. Imagine the first NFL team with name, logo, uniforms, and merchandise with a Latin theme? It could open a whole new fan base in the Rio Grande region and even to Monterrey in addition to creating a brand awareness in all regions of our country with its expanding Latino population.

[bresilhac]

Originally Posted by discojames

One untapped resource San Antonio could benefit from would be the large population of Northern Mexico. A large number of visitors from there come to San Antonio regularly for shopping and entertainment and have second homes there. Imagine the first NFL team with name, logo, uniforms, and merchandise with a Latin theme? It could open a whole new fan base in the Rio Grande region and even to Monterrey in addition to creating a brand awareness in all regions of our country with its expanding Latino population.

A terrific point to bring up Disco. The Northern Mexico market which includes Monterrey would be a perfect area to tap for support for a San Antonio based NFL franchise. Many of these consumers spend millions of dollars as it is in shopping and real estate ownership in the San Antonio area. It would be a natural to tap this market for support for a San Antonio NFL team.

As far as the per capita income knock against San Antonio, it doesn't hold much water at this point. San Antonio now has more than enough affluent people to support a number of pro-sports teams. Do the math. Filling the Alamodome 8 or 10 times a year for a city of 2.0 million people would not take much. In fact it would take a minimal effort. Numerous smaller cities do that that are currently in the NFL including Buffalo, Nashville and Charlotte. There's plenty of money in San Antonio and South Texas and to label it a poor region would be a misnomer as it would apply to filling up a sports stadium and supporting a team that plays 8 home games a year.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by bresilhac

A terrific point to bring up Disco. The Northern Mexico market which includes Monterrey would be a perfect area to tap for support for a San Antonio based NFL franchise. Many of these consumers spend millions of dollars as it is in shopping and real estate ownership in the San Antonio area. It would be a natural to tap this market for support for a San Antonio NFL team.

I heard most rich Mexicans from Mexico (Monterrey, Mexico City) travel to the high-end shops in Houston's Galleria than go to San Antonio. Houston has more exclusive ones than San Antonio.

San Antonio is a "poor" big city, though. It can no doubt support (along with the rest of South Texas and the Valley to help) 8 home games a year in the Alamadome.

[KevinFromTexas]

I've also read that up to 50 percent of the condos down in South Padre Island are owned by residents of Monterrey, Mexico.

[SAguy]

Trae-San Antonio is a "poor" big city, though.

Where are you getting this information? You keep wanting to bring down our city but so far the information you've provided is old and out dated.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by SAguy

Where are you getting this information? You keep wanting to bring down our city but so far the information you've provided is old and out dated.

I have heard it said by San Antonio natives on other forums. They say SA feels like a "poor" big city.

I read what I have been saying in this thread, it it doesn't sound right, so from now on I will try and not bash SA.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SAguy

Where are you getting this information? You keep wanting to bring down our city but so far the information you've provided is old and out dated.

If you have some newer data, let's see it. Slightly out-of-date data is much better than your anectdotal assertions (which can easily be counteracted by those of us who say, yes, San Antonio _does_ seem like a poor city).