Sports in Austin

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by We vs us

The San Antonio Raiders?

Economist: NFL team could succeed in Central Texas

The combined might of Austin and San Antonio is strong enough to support a professional football team, according to new research from a California economist.

“I think an NFL team with a stadium between San Antonio and Austin would be successful,” Roger Noll, economics professor emeritus at Stanford University, told the San Antonio Business Journal.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...ral-texas.html

Please stop it with the San Antonio Raiders! If the Raiders move from Oakland, they are moving to Vegas. The NFL wants them in Vegas...and Vegas already has an investment group ready to break ground on a $1B-plus stadium.

Furthermore, the Austin-San Antonio region will not have an NFL football team for at least 10-20 years (if at all).

I think a MLS or NHL team is more realistic. Neither Austin or San Antonio can support a MLB team alone...at least now. And a "joint" team in any sport will not be viable until the cities (urban areas) are much closer together and that there is a reliable, fast mode of transport from each city center to the stadium site.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Neither Austin or San Antonio can support a MLB team alone...at least now.

Based on what?

Austin is larger than at least a couple team locations, while San Antonio is probably bigger than the bottom third.

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

and Vegas already has an investment group ready to break ground on a $1B-plus stadium.

Did you even read the article? They're not "ready to break ground" because they don't have the funding plan, in part because a large chunk of the public funding is in doubt.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Novacek

They're not "ready to break ground" because they don't have the funding plan, in part because a large chunk of the public funding is in doubt.

This is why I posted. Las Vegas is pushing back on stadium costs, and also just grabbed an NHL expansion team. It's an interesting opening for SA. I'm a skeptic more because deals this big tend to have momentum of their own and are hard to turn around at the last minute -- but even so, it's worth noting that someone with actual familiarity with the economics of the NFL thinks Central TX can sustain a team.

[lzppjb]

Just an example that came to mind when thinking of similarly sized metros that have pro teams:

MSA Size (2015 estimate)

25. San Antonio (2,384,075)
31. Cleveland (2,060,810)
32. Columbus (2,021,632)
33. Austin (2,000,860)

If we combine Cleveland & Columbus, they have NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS supported by 4,082,442.

If we combine Austin & San Antonio, we just have the NBA supported by 4,384,935.

The combo of Austin-SA also averages a little higher income than does the Cleveland-Columbus combo, though not by much.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Just an example that came to mind when thinking of similarly sized metros that have pro teams:

MSA Size (2015 estimate)

25. San Antonio (2,384,075)
31. Cleveland (2,060,810)
32. Columbus (2,021,632)
33. Austin (2,000,860)

If we combine Cleveland & Columbus, they have NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS supported by 4,082,442.

If we combine Austin & San Antonio, we just have the NBA supported by 4,384,935.

The combo of Austin-SA also averages a little higher income than does the Cleveland-Columbus combo, though not by much.

I'd still like to see Austin and San Antonio lumped together in a CSA.

[brando]

I thought the Raiders to central texas made a lot of sense until it seemed that the NFL would allow a team in Vegas. Game over. Everything now is just a back and forth negotiation between the raiders and Vegas. It's just typical negotiations. All the things that are missing in Vegas are also missing in San Antonio any everywhere else in central texas.

Both the MLB and MLS would require their own stadiums to be built and Austin will never approve spending money on a sports facility outside of replacing the Erwin Center that even that is not a sure thing. I don't think the city council would even get to the point of approving it to send to voters.

A new Erwin center could support (facility wise) a NBA team and a NHL team but neither will ever come to Austin. The Spurs are too close and no one cares about hockey in Austin. An MLS team in an indoor arena is not an option. The MLS teams that don't have their own stadiums use their city's outdoor football or baseball stadiums.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by We vs us

This is why I posted. Las Vegas is pushing back on stadium costs, and also just grabbed an NHL expansion team. It's an interesting opening for SA. I'm a skeptic more because deals this big tend to have momentum of their own and are hard to turn around at the last minute -- but even so, it's worth noting that someone with actual familiarity with the economics of the NFL thinks Central TX can sustain a team.

I believe that the only thing that keeps Austin off the team expansion/move shortlist (for any of the major sports leagues) is the lack of a stadium. All it would take to get a team here is a billionaire willing to fund a stadium for whichever sport. (A la the owner of the St. Louis Rams building in LA.) Beyond that, there has to be few negatives keeping these leagues out of Austin.

[brando]

Originally Posted by paul78701

All it would take to get a team here is a billionaire willing to fund a stadium for whichever sport. (A la the owner of the St. Louis Rams building in LA.) Beyond that, there has to be few negatives keeping these leagues out of Austin.

Psh, that's all it would take? ; )

Your example is the overwhelming exception to sports venues deals. L.A. is a different beast and a it's a part of a 3 billion massive redevelopment of that area. That 3 billion does not include the 2 billion pricetag of the stadium. There aren't any other stadiums that are completely funded by private interests especially when NFL stadiums cost between 1-2 billion. Maybe you can get it down to 750 million like Lucas Oil in Indy but that is the cheapest out of the last 10 years of stadiums.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by brando

The MLS teams that don't have their own stadiums use their city's outdoor football or baseball stadiums.

Many of the MLS teams have large training complexes, with many pitches to support the local soccer camps and leagues. The MLS league is very interested in junior soccer, and the advancement of soccer into a major sport in the USA. Take a look at the FC Dallas training facilities in Frisco as an example. There's 17 pitches in addition to the team's main pitch. The Houston Dynamo has their main pitch downtown, but there's 7 pitches at their training facility at the Houston Sports Park.
A MLS team moving into San Antonio or Austin will need that many pitches at their training facilities.
Where in Austin or San Antonio would you place the training facilities?

FYI, back in 2005 Frisco built the Toyota Stadium for around $80 million, the entire complex came in at around $105 million. The main pitch only has 20,500 seats.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by brando

Psh, that's all it would take? ; )

Your example is the overwhelming exception to sports venues deals. L.A. is a different beast and a it's a part of a 3 billion massive redevelopment of that area. That 3 billion does not include the 2 billion pricetag of the stadium. There aren't any other stadiums that are completely funded by private interests especially when NFL stadiums cost between 1-2 billion. Maybe you can get it down to 750 million like Lucas Oil in Indy but that is the cheapest out of the last 10 years of stadiums.

Yes. It's a tall order and unlikely to happen. I get that. My point is that the Austin market in and of itself isn't any sort of real hindrance. Getting a stadium is. However it is funded.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

Many of the MLS teams have large training complexes, with many pitches to support the local soccer camps and leagues. The MLS league is very interested in junior soccer, and the advancement of soccer into a major sport in the USA. Take a look at the FC Dallas training facilities in Frisco as an example. There's 17 pitches in addition to the team's main pitch. The Houston Dynamo has their main pitch downtown, but there's 7 pitches at their training facility at the Houston Sports Park.
A MLS team moving into San Antonio or Austin will need that many pitches at their training facilities.
Where in Austin or San Antonio would you place the training facilities?

FYI, back in 2005 Frisco built the Toyota Stadium for around $80 million, the entire complex came in at around $105 million. The main pitch only has 20,500 seats.

From BBVA Compas stadium to the sports park is almost 10 miles. If you draw a circle with that radius around downtown Austin, there's innumerable options.

Stuff along Toll 290, soon to be Toll 183, or even out by 130 if you want to go a bit further.

There's many hurdles and impediments to Austin getting a pro team.
Where to site practice fields isn't one of them.

[brando]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Yes. It's a tall order and unlikely to happen. I get that. My point is that the Austin market in and of itself isn't any sort of real hindrance. Getting a stadium is. However it is funded.

I think it is in a lot of ways but not in others. Austin is a relatively poor TV market. It would be the 3rd lowest in the NFL but both New Orleans and Buffalo carry much of the state they are in which Austin will not. If you put the stadium in-between San Antonio and Austin and can get both of the market interest than you are just adding the almost as disappointing San Antonio TV market. The risk about St. Marcos or somewhere in Hays County is that neither San Antonio or Austin sees it as their team.
There are also very few large companies that have their HQ in Austin which is another big factor for market strength in regards to professional sports teams, stadiums, partnerships, ads etc.. Dell and Wholefoods are probably the only ones. San Antonio has about 6-7. Austin has a lot of satellite offices from large companies but those companies have offices in hundreds of other cities. You would then be splitting a small pie in half with the UT sports business needs.


Here is a helpful map: https://www.geolounge.com/geography-...anies-in-2015/



I get what you are saying but building the stadium is %90 of getting and keeping the team and the actual markets are much less important however the latter does have impact on the former. Los Angeles lost a team to St. Louis, Seattle to Oklahoma City, Houston to Nashville, Charlotte to New Orleans. Houston eventually got a NFL team back because L.A. could get get a stadium plan off the ground and they had a publicly funded stadium ready to get under construction. The only realistic possibility in my mind was San Marcos funding and building a stadium which is how a lot of NFL stadiums are being built. Smaller cities that don't have property tax and bond fatigue. Austin can't reject bonds fast enough in the last couple years. HOPEFULLY, it'll see a 720 million mobility proposal in November which will require 200 million in bonds and there will be another big one coming in 2018.

San Antonio would be taken seriously as a NFL city if they had a stadium plan and financing approved like Houston did in 1999. Without stadium funding everyone is just pissing in the wind.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by brando

It would be the 3rd lowest in the NFL but both New Orleans and Buffalo carry much of the state they are in which Austin will not.

4th lowest, we're well ahead of Jacksonville (and also Vegas,though they'll pull a slight bit more from greater NV)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_media_market
https://www.tvb.org/Portals/0/media/...-dma-ranks.pdf

Originally Posted by brando

If you put the stadium in-between San Antonio and Austin and can get both of the market interest than you are just adding the almost as disappointing San Antonio TV market

_If_ you did manage to pull both media markets that would be #17.


And again, that's just where things are now. _Any_ professional consideration of Austin (and/or SA) would look at our growth rates (compared to all other cities) and recognize that by the time any team could even get started we'd be even higher on any of these lists (to the extent that these numbers matter, yes they're not the only consideration).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by brando

There are also very few large companies that have their HQ in Austin which is another big factor for market strength in regards to professional sports teams, stadiums, partnerships, ads etc.. Dell and Wholefoods are probably the only ones. San Antonio has about 6-7. Austin has a lot of satellite offices from large companies but those companies have offices in hundreds of other cities.

I would say this is almost a non-factor.

Lucas Oil (of the aforementioned Lucas Oil Stadium) is headquartered in California.

The Redskins play in Fed Ex Field (Fed Ex of course is famously HQ in Memphis).

M&T Bank (namesake of Baltimore's stadium) is in Buffalo.

Jacksonville's stadium used to be called Alltel. Alltel (formerly) was in Little Rock.

[brando]

Originally Posted by Novacek

4th lowest, we're well ahead of Jacksonville (and also Vegas,though they'll pull a slight bit more from greater NV)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_media_market
https://www.tvb.org/Portals/0/media/...-dma-ranks.pdf

_If_ you did manage to pull both media markets that would be #17.

Vegas is a whole different beast because of the massive tourist presence and anything they lack in TV, they'll makeup in corporate sponsorships.

Also, you are adding the rankings which doesn't really make sense. You should add households and then rank that total in the current list which would put you at about 23 but there is still a giant * as to how much of that market you will really attract if the two cities share the team. The twin cities and Dallas/Ft Worth but those cities are significantly closer together and share a combined culture that Austin and San Antonio don't have.

Also, The cowboys might as well be local to San Antonio with their popularity. In my opinion, it would be hard to eat into that unless at team was actually based in San Antonio and not San Marcos which seems like the best place for a stadium.

Originally Posted by Novacek

And again, that's just where things are now. _Any_ professional consideration of Austin (and/or SA) would look at our growth rates (compared to all other cities) and recognize that by the time any team could even get started we'd be even higher on any of these lists (to the extent that these numbers matter, yes they're not the only consideration).

TV markets are not correlated with populations to the extent that you are assuming and the digital age is reducing that correlation meaning that ranking is going to shift less than it would have 20 years ago. Houston is the 4th largest city in the country but Atlanta, Philadelphia, San Fran, Washington and Boston are all ahead of it.


(Concerning my post about a lack of major company HQ in Austin)

Originally Posted by Novacek

I would say this is almost a non-factor.

Lucas Oil (of the aforementioned Lucas Oil Stadium) is headquartered in California.
The Redskins play in Fed Ex Field (Fed Ex of course is famously HQ in Memphis).
M&T Bank (namesake of Baltimore's stadium) is in Buffalo.
Jacksonville's stadium used to be called Alltel. Alltel (formerly) was in Little Rock.

I didn't say anything about naming rights deals for stadiums. You're right those are not tied to local companies and more national brands that put a lot of money into marketing and brand awareness. That's not the issue. I'm talking about major company HQs that pour a lot more money into ads and general business partnerships through external city programs. It's one of the biggest factors when evaluating markets. Indy has 7-8 fortune 500 companies You can go to any NFL stadiums and see the names of all of these companies everywhere and they are the ones that lease suites and tons of club seats. Lucas Oil has 137 executive suites. You can't fill that in Austin. The hope is that San Antonio embraces the team which is again a big if unless it's based in S.A.

Washington/Baltimore have a TON of huge companies. For what it's worth, EverBank is based in Jacksonville but the city doesn't have that many fortune 500 companies it's the #1 team that is most likely to relocate which is a factor in their financial struggles along with some other issues.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by brando

Also, you are adding the rankings which doesn't really make sense. You should add households and then rank that total in the current list which would put you at about 23

No, I'm adding households.


745k (Austin) + 907k (SA) = ~1,650k

Slightly above Denver's #17 at 1576

[brando]

Originally Posted by Novacek

No, I'm adding households.


745k (Austin) + 907k (SA) = ~1,650k

Slightly above Denver's #17 at 1576

Fair but please see everything else I said about the TV markets and also everything else we were discussing.

[electricron]

Population and TV market sizes matters some, but what matters most is economic power - how much that city is washed in money. Money counts.....
Gross Domestic Product:
1 New York City 1,423,173,000,000 > 2 Football, 2 Baseball, 2 Basketball, 2 Hockey
2 Los Angeles 797,697,000,000 > 2 Baseball, 2 Basketball, 2 Hockey
3 Chicago 557,745,000,000 > Football, 2 Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
4 Dallas-Ft.Worth > 460,154,000,000 Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
5 Houston 454,944,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball
6 Washington D.C. 435,583,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
7 San Francisco-Oakland 370,478,000,000 > Football, 2 Baseball, Basketball
8 Philadelphia 358,469,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
9 Boston 353,710,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
10 Atlanta 324,881,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball
11 Seattle 300,827,000,000 > Football, Baseball,
12 Miami 299,161,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
13 Detroit 236,500,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
14 Minneapolis-St.Paul 235,733,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
15 Phoenix 215,214,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
16 San Jose 213,819,000,000 > Football, Hockey
17 San Diego 206,817,000,000 > Football, Baseball
18 Denver 187,111,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
19 Baltimore 173,516,000,000 > Football, Baseball
20 Portland 159,328,000,000 > Basketball
21 St.Louis 149,951,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Hockey
22 Charolette 143,628,000,000 > Football, Basketball
23 Pittsburgh 135,662,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Hockey
24 Riverside-San Bernardino 133,983,000,000 > No Pro Teams
25 Tampa-St.Petersburg 128,201,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Hockey
26 Indianapolis 125,864,000,000 >Football, Baskeball
27 Cleveland 124,609,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball
28 Kansas City 121,638,000,000 Football, Baseball
29 Cincinnati 121,407,000,000 > Football, Baseball
30 Columbus 117,824,000,000 > Hockey
31 Orlando 115,927,000,000 > Basketball
32 Austin 115,262,000,000 >No Pro Teams
33 Sacramento 112,703,000,000 > Basketball
34 Nashville 106,695,000,000 > Football, Hockey
35 San Antonio 104,787,000,000 > Basketball
36 Milwaukee 97,307,000,000 > Baseball
37 Bridgeport 97,225,000,000 > No Pro Teams
38 Las Vegas 94,521,000,000 > No Pro Teams
39 Norfolk-Virginia Beach 90,772,000,000 > No Pro Teams
40 Hartford 85,558,000,000 > No Pro Teams
41 New Orleans 80,278,000,000 > Football, Basketball
42 Providence 75,940,000,000 > No Pro Teams
43 Salt Lake City 75,672,000,000 > Basketball
44 Oklahoma City 72,629,000,000 > Basketball
45 Raleigh 71,574,000,000 > Hockey
46 Richmond 70,491,000,000 > No Pro Teams
47 Memphis 69,882,000,000 > Baskeball
48 Louisville 67,329,000,000 > No Pro Teams
49 Jacksonville 65,085,000,000 > Football
50 Birmingham 62,187,000 > No Pro Teams

The cities in bold type lack a major league sports team, including a MLS team.
The only cities below Austin on this list with two pro teams are Nashville and New Orleans.

I would like to point out that both Houston and DFW GDPs are almost 4 times larger than Austin or San Antonio- which is why they are washed with multiple pro sports teams. But I believe this list shows that Austin could support one major league team now. What's needed is a pro sports facility and a willing owner to attract one.

[PartyLine]

Originally Posted by electricron

Population and TV market sizes matters some, but what matters most is economic power - how much that city is washed in money. Money counts.....
Gross Domestic Product:
1 New York City 1,423,173,000,000 > 2 Football, 2 Baseball, 2 Basketball, 2 Hockey
2 Los Angeles 797,697,000,000 > 2 Baseball, 2 Basketball, 2 Hockey
3 Chicago 557,745,000,000 > Football, 2 Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
4 Dallas-Ft.Worth > 460,154,000,000 Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
5 Houston 454,944,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball
6 Washington D.C. 435,583,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
7 San Francisco-Oakland 370,478,000,000 > Football, 2 Baseball, Basketball
8 Philadelphia 358,469,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
9 Boston 353,710,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
10 Atlanta 324,881,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball
11 Seattle 300,827,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball
12 Miami 299,161,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
13 Detroit 236,500,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
14 Minneapolis-St.Paul 235,733,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
15 Phoenix 215,214,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
16 San Jose 213,819,000,000 > Football, Hockey
17 San Diego 206,817,000,000 > Football, Baseball
18 Denver 187,111,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey
19 Baltimore 173,516,000,000 > Football, Baseball
20 Portland 159,328,000,000 > Basketball
21 St.Louis 149,951,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Hockey
22 Charolette 143,628,000,000 > Football, Basketball
23 Pittsburgh 135,662,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Hockey
24 Riverside-San Bernardino 133,983,000,000 > No Pro Teams
25 Tampa-St.Petersburg 128,201,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Hockey
26 Indianapolis 125,864,000,000 >Football, Baskeball
27 Cleveland 124,609,000,000 > Football, Baseball, Basketball
28 Kansas City 121,638,000,000 Football, Baseball
29 Cincinnati 121,407,000,000 > Football, Baseball
30 Columbus 117,824,000,000 > Hockey
31 Orlando 115,927,000,000 > Basketball
32 Austin 115,262,000,000 >No Pro Teams
33 Sacramento 112,703,000,000 > Basketball
34 Nashville 106,695,000,000 > Hockey
35 San Antonio 104,787,000,000 > Basketball
36 Milwaukee 97,307,000,000 > Baseball
37 Bridgeport 97,225,000,000 > No Pro Teams
38 Las Vegas 94,521,000,000 > No Pro Teams
39 Norfolk-Virginia Beach 90,772,000,000 > No Pro Teams
40 Hartford 85,558,000,000 > No Pro Teams
41 New Orleans 80,278,000,000 > Football, Basketball
42 Providence 75,940,000,000 > No Pro Teams
43 Salt Lake City 75,672,000,000 > Basketball
44 Oklahoma City 72,629,000,000 > Basketball
45 Raleigh 71,574,000,000 > Hockey
46 Richmond 70,491,000,000 > No Pro Teams
47 Memphis 69,882,000,000 > Baskeball
48 Louisville 67,329,000,000 > No Pro Teams
49 Jacksonville 65,085,000,000 > Football
50 Birmingham 62,187,000 > No Pro Teams

The cities in bold type lack a major league sports team, including a MLS team.
The only city below Austin on this list with two pro teams is New Orleans.

I would like to point out that both Houston and DFW GDPs are almost 4 times larger than Austin or San Antonio- which is why they are washed with multiple pro sports teams. But I believe this list shows that Austin could support one major league team now. What's needed is a pro sports facility and a willing owner to attract one.

Nashville has 2 Pro Teams Hockey and NFL

[lzppjb]

LA now has football.

Seattle does not have basketball. Sonics moved to OKC years ago.