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

[mello]

^^ Sacramento/Milwaukee are on another level of metro than Memphis but most of your post seems sensible. I think a comparison of the smallest NBA metros would be fascinating those clearly being : NOLA, Salt Lake City, OKC, and Memphis.

Here is some inside information on San Diego that I don't think has been shared yet in this thread I haven't read it all. With the departure of the Chargers we are now by far the biggest metro with just one major sports team.

Joseph Tsai the CEO of Ali Baba (Asia's version of Amazon) lives part time in La Jolla, his wife and children live here full time. He wants to build a new arena just behind PetCo Partk, this area has tons of highrises going up as we speak. He currently owns 49% of the Nets and is networth is 12 billion. Obviously he is not going to try to move the Nets to San Diego, however he may just be getting his foot in the door with Adam Silver.

Many speculate he will flip his 49% of the Nets to some rich New Yorker and try to purchase the Pelicans and or Grizzlies to relocate them to San Diego. San Diego has a solid economy and a booming downtown which becomes a bigger destination for tourism with every year, the demographics are good here for hoops lots of young Asians with money who are really in to basketball and we are clamoring to have a good owner and a team of our own once again in the wake of Chargers leaving which has been a crushing blow.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

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.



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.

Just because they can survive doesn't mean they're safe. The biggest thing they have going for them is that they're the only game in town.

But Memphis has the toughest go of it except New Orleans because they have to compete with the NFL, a long time NFL team.

The Grizzlies should be fine but you never know.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

An arena can still be a stadium, which is why I used it as a catch all word. Not all arenas are even covered, it's just a modern invention. Many "arenas" look like open air theaters or stadiums.

If the arena can house football, soccer, and/or baseball, sure.

Some basketball-sized arenas are called stadiums. But they could be called castles too. Doesn't make em castles.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The caption of the pic at its source: "The eastern stands at Levi's Stadium are almost empty as the second half of Sunday's game . . . ."

Probably at the end of half time.

Ok. But was it preseason?

[mhays]

A 30-second internet search suggests that Forbes puts the Grizzlies at the bottom end of team values. A small market, low incomes, relatively small corporate presence...pretty obvious why. (Who ever said attendance was the main thing?)

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by mello

^^ Sacramento/Milwaukee are on another level of metro than Memphis

How so (using what criteria)? I've been to all three, and let's just say I didn't exactly find Sacramento or Milwaukee to be shining centers of affluence, corporate wealth, culture or any other category that Memphis might also lack.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by mhays

If the arena can house football, soccer, and/or baseball, sure.

Some basketball-sized arenas are called stadiums. But they could be called castles too. Doesn't make em castles.

You might wanna go to the dictionary, or Ancient Greece/Rome for that matter. That might clue you in on how the term "arena" as used for venues that host indoor events only is mostly a modern invention.

It's no different than the use of state (a US subnational territory) or state (a sovereign country). It was used to refer to the latter for much longer than the former.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by mhays

A 30-second internet search suggests that Forbes puts the Grizzlies at the bottom end of team values. A small market, low incomes, relatively small corporate presence...pretty obvious why. (Who ever said attendance was the main thing?)

It's miraculous how they exist in that town. But as the only game in town they just might hold on.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

How so (using what criteria)? I've been to all three, and let's just say I didn't exactly find Sacramento or Milwaukee to be shining centers of affluence, corporate wealth, culture or any other category that Memphis might also lack.

Regardless of what you feel, there's the simple reality. There's a reason each only has one other sport combined.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Regardless of what you feel, there's the simple reality. There's a reason each only has one other sport combined.

What simple reality are you referring to? And, last time that I checked, Milwaukee has two professional sports teams, but what does how many teams each city has have to do with my question?

The person I responded two basically said that Sacramento and Milwaukee are "in a different category" than Memphis; I'd like to know how so/by what measure, as I find all three to be equally mediocre.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

You might wanna go to the dictionary, or Ancient Greece/Rome for that matter. That might clue you in on how the term "arena" as used for venues that host indoor events only is mostly a modern invention.

It's no different than the use of state (a US subnational territory) or state (a sovereign country). It was used to refer to the latter for much longer than the former.

ACTUAL usage is very different. You're not a sports fan are you? Let's look at wikipedia:

Zero NFL stadiums have "arena" in their name. 17 say stadium.

Zero NBA arenas have stadium in their name. Nine say arena. Center is also common.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by mello

I think a comparison of the smallest NBA metros would be fascinating those clearly being : NOLA, Salt Lake City, OKC, and Memphis.

Via Reddit:

Here is the ranking of NBA TV markets by population, according to Nielsen, in case you were wondering (which you probably weren't):
Rank Team
1-2 New York Knicks / Brooklyn Nets
3-4 Los Angeles Lakers / Los Angeles Clippers
5 Chicago Bulls
6 *Toronto Raptors
7 Philadelphia 76ers
8 Dallas Mavericks
9 Golden State Warriors
10 Washington Wizards
11 Houston Rockets
12 Boston Celtics
13 Atlanta Hawks
14 Phoenix Suns
15 Detroit Pistons
16 Minnesota Timberwolves
17 Miami Heat
18 Denver Nuggets
19 Orlando Magic
20 Cleveland Cavaliers
21 Sacramento Kings
22 Charlotte Hornets
23 Portland Trailblazers
24 Indiana Pacers
25 San Antonio Spurs
26 Utah Jazz
27 Milwaukee Bucks
28 Oklahoma City Thunder
29 New Orleans Pelicans
30 Memphis Grizzlies
*Issa guestimate.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

What simple reality are you referring to? And, last time that I checked, Milwaukee has two professional sports teams, but what does how many teams each city has have to do with my question?

The person I responded two basically said that Sacramento and Milwaukee are "in a different category" than Memphis; I'd like to know how so/by what measure, as I find all three to be equally mediocre.

We already explained it to you.

Sacramento and Milwaukee are both bigger and have more disposable income per capita, meaning not only are there more people in and around each market but there's more people who have money to spend on entertainment and live entertainment. It's nothing to get offended over and it doesn't mean Memphis can't work long term as an NBA market.

Don't be such a homer, if you're from Memphis.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by mhays

ACTUAL usage is very different. You're not a sports fan are you? Let's look at wikipedia:

Zero NFL stadiums have "arena" in their name. 17 say stadium.

Zero NBA arenas have stadium in their name. Nine say arena. Center is also common.

I guess you forgot about the Bulls' old Chicago Stadium.

Based on my responses in this thread, obviously I'm a sports fan. In modern conventional logic, arena generally means a place for indoor events. That doesn't mean that the definition has changed, an arena can be defined as what we now days refer to as a stadium. They're actually interchangeable and an arena can certainly be called a stadium, it's like the difference between dogs and wolves or a lake and a pond.

And this has drawn on long enough, it was a minor point (not mistake, I used the word "stadium" as a catch-all phrase) in one of my posts that you are insistent on trying to correct me on but you don't know the true definition, just conventional/modern logic. If you want to be so insistent on correcting me so you win the debate, know the definition.

[ThePhun1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allianz_Arena

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

How so (using what criteria)? I've been to all three, and let's just say I didn't exactly find Sacramento or Milwaukee to be shining centers of affluence, corporate wealth, culture or any other category that Memphis might also lack.

Both Sacramento and Milwaukee are significantly larger and wealthier than Memphis. Sacramento is more than twice the size by MSA and CSA, and has more than twice the economic might. Also, Sacramento has rapid growth and Memphis has basically no growth.

Also, how would visiting a place be of any value? How do you ascertain nuances of regional population, growth or wealth by visiting?

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Both Sacramento and Milwaukee are significantly larger and wealthier than Memphis. Sacramento is more than twice the size by MSA and CSA, and has more than twice the economic might. Also, Sacramento has rapid growth and Memphis has basically no growth.

Also, how would visiting a place be of any value? How do you ascertain nuances of regional population, growth or wealth by visiting?

Milwaukee is not significantly larger but it's certainly much more affluent.

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the sox fans are certainly there in chicagoland, in great numbers, they're just a cynical bunch who won't go to the ballpark and support their team just because.

sox fans need a reason to show up, whereas cubs fans will show up just to drink and be merry in america's largest outdoor bar, even if the team on the field is mediocre.

I think this speaks to something and I can't quite put my finger on it. It seems as if most professional sports teams have the problem the Sox have, to one extent or another, while a few- and many college teams- enjoy the beneficial position the Cubs have.

I think professional teams need to do more to make a day or night out to see them more than a day or night out to see them, but that might be so obvious as to not be worth saying. But the blocks around whatever New Comiskey is now called certainly don't help. Likewise (since I live in Baltimore now), while Camden Yards is amazing and there's bars and restaurants to the northwest of it, to the northeast and east there's blocks of blank streetwalls, and to the south of it there's just parking lots.

On the other hand, I've loved going to the Verizon Center in DC. The venue, the complex it's a part of, and the neighborhood around it is all fun and engaging. And the Wizards' attendance is meh. So I dunno.

But the model of high ticket prices (I know baseball isn't bad, but still) just to watch something you could watch at home or at a bar seems to be dwindling like it did when games first started being televised. You need to do more to bring people out than just put on a game, and ideally do it in a place where people already want to be. A baseball game can be more or less like a candy bar in the checkout aisle of a grocery store if you do it right, and that's what a lot of college football is and it's certainly what Cubs games are to a lot of people.

[Crawford]

Keep in mind that big markets have advantages that go far beyond attendance. Even if the White Sox have pathetic attendance, I guarantee their TV, radio and sponsorship deals are vastly more lucrative than if they were in a smaller market.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by cannedairspray

But the blocks around whatever New Comiskey is now called certainly don't help.

this point also dovetails with my earlier rant about stupid fucking reinsdorf tearing down old comiskey. if he wasn't such a monumentally short-sighted doofus, the white sox could still be playing in one of the absolute coolest stadiums in all of baseball, playing in a classic ballpark with the same kind of "special" status as wrigley or fenway . a ballpark that actually matters, with real history, real charm, real character, as opposed to the monument of generic banality that the sox currently play in, surrounded by 75 acres (literally!) of surface parking lots.

there's just not much magic in the game-day experience in and around New Guaranteed US Comiskullar Rate Field.

and it sucks because it didn't have to be that way.



i only got to go to old comiskey with my dad about a half dozen times as child before it was so unceremoniously tossed aside in 1990, but what a special place it was.

one of my fondest childhood baseball memories was attending the 1983 all-star game, which comiskey hosted, with my dad.

oh, to have a time machine, if only for one afternoon.


source: http://www.horschgallery.com/photo/c...-panorama.aspx