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

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by aderwent

Well Atlanta of all places just built a new baseball stadium that is completely outdoors. I think Raleigh and Nashville would be just fine weather wise.

The South has been much more transient than the North, but so is the West. And places like Charlotte and Raleigh are and have been growing so quickly for so long they have plenty large enough "local" bases these days. Nashville is more of a stretch, but if Las Vegas can be successful, so can Nashville.

I'm not saying SE cities can be successful, just that they have relative disadvantages.

Atlanta is an equivalent market as Boston or Philly, yet obviously doesn't have the same fan support or market valuation. I think most reasonable people would agree that Atlanta is a worse professional sports town than its Northern equivalents, and transience plays a part. And, for summer sports, I would imagine that heat and rain would have some impact.

Similarly, Nashville could work, but it won't be valued the same, or have the same fan support, as a similarly-sized, older metro. Nashville might be as big as a (say) Cleveland or Cincy, but really, as a sports market, is more comparable to a Buffalo or Hartford.

[ThePhun1]

@Steely

Which means that more than half the majors didn't average 30k, which sorta underscores my point.

Notice that all of those, except Colorado, Milwaukee and baseball crazed St. Louis, are big market teams and most are traditional powers or highly beloved franchises (if not both). Meanwhile, the reigning World Series champions are absent from that list.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

@Steely

Which means that more than half the league didn't, which sorta underscores my point.

Notice that all of those, except Colorado, Milwaukee and baseball crazed St. Louis, are big market teams and most are traditional powers or highly beloved franchises (if not both). Meanwhile, the reigning World Series champions are absent from that list.

That could account for low attendance early on in the season. When the Astros were looking like they had a shot at making the playoffs, attendance went through the roof.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Notice that all of those, except Colorado, Milwaukee and baseball crazed St. Louis, are big market teams and most are traditional powers or highly beloved franchises (if not both).

milwaukee is pretty damn impressive.

the smallest media market in MLB, yet a top 10 team in attendance.

those silly cheeseheads sure do love drinking beer (and watching some baseball too).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

@Steely

Which means that more than half the league didn't, which sorta underscores my point.

Notice that all of those, except Colorado, Milwaukee and baseball crazed St. Louis, are big market teams and most are traditional powers or highly beloved franchises (if not both).

I'm pretty sure that St. Louis has much of the interior SE market, BTW.

Anecdotal, but my freshman year roommate in college was from Arkansas (outside Memphis) and was a big Cardinals fan. Supposedly Western TN, AR, and MS (basically the Delta) are Cardinals territory.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not saying SE cities can be successful, just that they have relative disadvantages.

Atlanta is an equivalent market as Boston or Philly, yet obviously doesn't have the same fan support or market valuation. I think most reasonable people would agree that Atlanta is a worse professional sports town than its Northern equivalents, and transience plays a part. And, for summer sports, I would imagine that heat and rain would have some impact.

Boston and Phila. are overall better sports towns than Atlanta when you factor in all sports.

But to your other point, it's hot everywhere except at a Giants/Padres maybe the Rockies at times and maybe Seattle [although once the rain ends it can remain in the 80s there] home games in July and August.

It's just as hot and humid and miserable in N.Y., Phila., D.C., Baltimore and Chicago as it is in Atlanta in the summertime. And the past couple of weeks we've seen games canceled in N.Y. and Chicago due to snow.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

It's just as hot and humid and miserable in N.Y., Phila., D.C., Baltimore and Chicago as it is in Atlanta in the summertime.

That's actually not true. The SE is clearly hotter than the North, year-round. And it's also wetter. The SE is the wettest part of the U.S.

Rain does affect attendance everywhere, so if you have more summer rain, you'll have greater affect on outdoor attendance. Somewhere like Miami it rains almost every day in the summer.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

It's just as hot and humid and miserable in N.Y., Phila., D.C., Baltimore and Chicago as it is in Atlanta in the summertime.

not true. atlanta is warmer and more humid than chicago in the summer time.


average daily high:

month --- atlanta --- chicago

may --------- 79.9 ------ 70.0

june --------- 86.4 ------ 79.7

july ---------- 89.1 ------ 84.1

august ------- 88.1 ------ 81.9

september --- 82.2 ------ 74.8

source: wikipedia



plus, the temps for chicago listed above are taken out at ORD which is 13 miles inland from lake michigan, but both wrigley (.75 mile) and comiskular (1.5 miles) are within the "lake effect" cooling zone of lake michigan, so for afternoon ballgame temps, take several degrees off of those averages for chicago's two baseball stadiums.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by JManc

That could account for low attendance early on in the season. When the Astros were looking like they had a shot at making the playoffs, attendance went through the roof.

The Astros were good for the majority of the season. After the first 2-3 weeks, they never spent a day in second place and spent the final three months at 20 games over .500 or better, climaxing at 68-34 in the middle of the summer. So they looked like a playoff team all year.

It probably had more to do with the fact baseball died here as the team sucked for a full decade, including hitting rock bottom only five years ago.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

not true. atlanta is warmer and more humid than chicago in the summer time.


average daily high:

month --- atlanta --- chicago

may --------- 79.9 ------ 70.0

june --------- 86.4 ------ 79.7

july ---------- 89.1 ------ 84.1

august ------- 88.1 ------ 81.9

september --- 82.2 ------ 74.8

5 degree difference on average in July? The cubs play a lot of day games too and the fans still show up.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

5 degree difference on average in July? The cubs play a lot of day games too and the fans still show up.

i was just refuting your statement that chicagos' summers are every bit as warm and humid as atlanta's.

they are not. that was the full extent of my point.

i have made no claim about weather affecting MLB attendance, nor do i care much about such arguments.

[JManc]

I can't speak for Chicago in warm weather, only been when it's cool plus it's on a big ass lake. I can speak for New York which can get absolutely miserable in the summer and just as hot and humid as the south. It just doesn't last as long and the evenings cool off faster. DC is even worse than New York. And Houston...

@ThePhun: all last season?

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by JManc

I can't speak for Chicago in warm weather, only been when it's cool plus it's on a big ass lake. I can speak for New York which can get absolutely miserable in the summer and just as hot and humid as the south. It just doesn't last as long and the evenings cool off faster. DC is even worse than New York. And Houston...

@ThePhun: all last season?

And New York has the big cold Atlantic Ocean next door.

I don't find a 5 degree difference to be that much of a deal breaker for attending a game.

However, northerners or people who are not acclimated to heat, will complain more about heat and vice versa. Southerners will complain about 40 degrees, but to a chicagoan in January they're probably wearing shorts and a hoodie.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

And New York has the big cold Atlantic Ocean next door.

I don't find a 5 degree difference to be that much of a deal breaker for attending a game.

However, northerners or people who are not acclimated to heat, will complain more about heat and vice versa. Southerners will complain about 40 degrees, but to a chicagoan in January they're probably wearing shorts and a hoodie.

I don't either when it's the humidity that makes all the difference which is what makes New York and DC so hellish. Perhaps Chicago too. I'd rather be in Phoenix when it's 110 than DC or Houston when it's 90 any day of the week.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

How is the market saturated? Most of those teams are in five adjacent counties in two parts of California. It'd be a long shot but there's room for a team in Las Vegas, Salt Lake, Vancouver or Portland.

I'd love a team in Vancouver. There's no team in all of western Canada. They're forced to travel huge distances to go root on the Jays in Seattle. It's a quickly growing metro with roughly 2,850,000 people in the Lower Mainland. That makes them a bigger market than Milwaukee, Cleveland, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and St. Louis. They'd surely get a following from the whole province as well as Alberta and points further east. The Mariners would get an instant Pacific NW rival.

BC's Lower Mainland

[JManc]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I'd love a team in Vancouver. There's no team in all of western Canada. They're forced to travel huge distances to go root on the Jays in Seattle. It's a quickly growing metro with over 2.8 million in the Lower Mainland. They'd surely get a following from the whole province as well as Alberta and points further west. The Mariners would get an instant Pacific NW rival.

Doesn't the US/ Canada border provide a barrier as far as fan bases are concerned? I know there is spill over. If I lived in BC, I would have to be a foaming at the mouth Mariners or Seahawks fan to sit in traffic at the border to attend a game.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

National League average attendance 1998 - present:

1998: 2,401,674
1999: 2,380,436
2000: 2,480,194
2001: 2,481,346
2002: 2,309,294
2003: 2,273,813
2004: 2,512,690
2005: 2,583,685
2006: 2,598,741
2007: 2,756,384
2008: 2,755,082
2009: 2,571,627
2010: 2,563,111
2011: 2,547,018
2012: 2,592,218
2013: 2,629,060
2014: 2,615,565
2015: 2,593,535
2016: 2,540,903
2017: 2,553,787


American League average attendance 1998 - present

1998: 2,298,169
1999: 2,286,874
2000: 2,262,557
2001: 2,346,071
2002: 2,207,891
2003: 2,191,745
2004: 2,340,422
2005: 2,360,452
2006: 2,458,741
2007: 2,527,968
2008: 2,464,986
2009: 2,305,178
2010: 2,289,427
2011: 2,333,812
2012: 2,384,555
2013: 2,306,065
2014: 2,299,409
2015: 2,323,798
2016: 2,336,365
2017: 2,290,907

Attendance peaked in 2007 and have not recovered in either league.

One thing I noticed was that during the economy crash baseball took the biggest dip in attendance in comparison to other leagues. Only theory is that with the boosting of strong regional TV coverage nearly every MLB team had a much cheaper, consistent way to view local MLB games. Paying the $xx to get your MLB package and every local game versus the $xxx-$xxxx to see games over the course of a season.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by JManc

I don't either when it's the humidity that makes all the difference which is what makes New York and DC so hellish. Perhaps Chicago too. I'd rather be in Phoenix when it's 110 than DC or Houston when it's 90 any day of the week.

I just went hiking in the middle of the day at 95 degrees. It was bone dry, humidity around 8%. It actually felt good outside. I brought 3 liters of water to stay hydrated, only drank 2 liters over 2.5 hours.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

it's the humidity that makes all the difference which is what makes New York and DC so hellish. Perhaps Chicago too.

well, for what it's worth, not only is atlanta warmer than chicago during the summer months, it's also more humid.

it can get obscenely hot and humid in chicago during the summer, but it's usually in bursts of heat waves, it's typically not the deault all summer long. and in the great lakes region things also tend to really cool off at night, at least moreso than places in the south like atlanta.

a july afternoon temp might be an annoying 84 degrees with high humidity in chicago, but it typically cools down into the lower 60s overnight.

average daily low:

month --- atlanta --- chicago

may --------- 60.3 ------ 48.3

june --------- 68.2 ------ 58.1

july ---------- 71.3 ------ 63.9

august ------- 70.7 ------ 62.9

september --- 64.8 ------ 54.3

source: wikipedia

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

well, for what it's worth, not only is atlanta warmer than chicago during the summer months, it's also more humid.

it can get obscenely hot and humid in chicago during the summer, but it's usually in bursts of heat waves, it's typically not the deault all summer long. and in the great lakes region things also tend to really cool off at night, at least moreso than places in the south like atlanta.

a july afternoon temp might be an annoying 84 degrees with high humidity in chicago, but it typically cools down into the lower 60s overnight.

average daily low:

month --- atlanta --- chicago

may --------- 60.3 ------ 48.3

june --------- 68.2 ------ 58.1

july ---------- 71.3 ------ 63.9

august ------- 70.7 ------ 62.9

september --- 64.8 ------ 54.3

source: wikipedia

So what you're saying is that night games in Chicago are uncomfortably cool for baseball fans in April, May, June, September and October [had it been a couple years ago there would've been an playoff W.S. joke in there]?