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

[maru2501]

I liked that ballpark too

agree that new sox park needs help nearby. I think it needs to be an "if you build it..." situaiton. That captain morgan whatever it is that is attached to the ballpark now is always full.

meanwhile I will be at wrigley this very day to make sure they haven't messed it up too much and rub some voodoo chicken bones on the taco bell for protection

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by maru2501

and rub some voodoo chicken bones on the taco bell for protection

i will never understand the sentimentality for that stupid ugly suburban taco bell.

kill it. kill it with fire. erase its very existence from history.



this style of suburban drive-thru/parking lot garbage development has no business being in an urban neighborhood like wrigleyville.

yes, i too have very fuzzy drunken half-memories of 3am gorditas scarfed down at this location back when i live there in my 20s, but that doesn't mean i can't recognize garbage as garbage.

it's replacement can't come soon enough.


source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/cubs-fa...pas-1508260198

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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.

If I'm going to Chicago to catch a game, it's going to be a Cubs game or no game for this exact reason.

My brother went to a destination bachelor party to Chicago [not one guy lived in Chicago] because of the Cubs and the pre/post game Wrigleyville drinking escapades.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

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.

I don't dispute that this is true to an extent, but the exaggerated tone you've used to describe what, in actuality, is an inconsequential, marginal difference in market size and per capita income is absurd. You make it seem as though Sacramento and Milwaukee are these large cosmopolitan wealth centers, while Memphis is a podunk rural town, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.

The fact is Sacramento is the 21st largest media market, Milwaukee is 27th and Memphis is 30th. Both Sacramento and Milwaukee are very blue-collar, medium sized cities heavily comprised of working class and middle class families (as is Memphis) So no, Sacramento and Milwaukee are not in a special separate category that makes them unique as they relate to Memphis - at least not by any notable measure.

It's nothing to get offended

Where exactly did I say I was offended? I'll wait.

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

I've spent a grand total of two hours in Memphis via a flight layover a few years ago. But I get it - asking someone to support their argument with facts and data that prove a valid point makes me a "homer".

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

I don't dispute that this is true to an extent, but the exaggerated tone you've used to describe what, in actuality, is an inconsequential, marginal difference in market size and per capita income is absurd.

Sacramento has nearly twice the economy of Memphis, or about the same ratio as the SF economy compared to the Detroit economy. That doesn't sound "inconsequential" or "marginal" to me.

Don't you think that Golden State is a more valuable franchise than Detroit, in part, because of relative differences in wealth?

And Sac is a very small market, so Memphis is really an outlier.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Both Sacramento and Milwaukee are significantly larger and wealthier than Memphis.

2017 Estimates:

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI MSA: 1,576,236
Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA: 1,348,260

Both, really?

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

Gee, I don't know, maybe by gaining a more well-rounded, localized real-time perspective than one might otherwise have via the Google Earth/Maps, books or other online sources?

But let me guess, you're the type who thinks someone is perfectly qualified to speak on or about the merits or deficiencies of a place they've never visited, right?

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Sacramento has nearly twice the economy of Memphis, or about the same ratio as the SF economy compared to the Detroit economy. That doesn't sound "inconsequential" or "marginal" to me.

Don't you think that Golden State is a more valuable franchise than Detroit, in part, because of relative differences in wealth?

And Sac is a very small market, so Memphis is really an outlier.

So a conversation regarding one's attempt to draw a huge distinction between Sacramento and Milwaukee vs. Memphis evolves into an analogy involving the NBA teams in Oakland and Detroit.

Reaching much?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

So a conversation regarding one's attempt to draw a huge distinction between Sacramento and Milwaukee vs. Memphis evolves into an analogy involving the NBA teams in Oakland and Detroit.

Reaching much?

They have the same ratio of relative wealth. So if Memphis has the "same" economy as Sacramento, Detroit has the "same" economy as SF.

Census data isn't "reaching", it's reality.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

But let me guess, you're the type who thinks someone is perfectly qualified to speak on or about the merits or deficiencies of a place they've never visited, right?

This is 1000% correct.

I believe in peer-reviewed data by statisticians. I don't believe visiting a city would enable one to have any insight on such data.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i will never understand the sentimentality for that stupid ugly suburban taco bell.

kill it. kill it with fire. erase its very existence from history.

There's hope.

Once there was this (you can see ATT Park next block down the street (Third St.):


http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ory-hotel.html

And now this is almost finished:


https://hoodline.com/2016/10/3rd-tow...for-demolition

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

There's hope.

for sure.

the wrigleyville taco bell in question is already slated to be demo'ed for redevelopment sometime next year i believe.

here's what will replace it:


source: https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/2/12...planet-granite


but the situation spawned a whole social media campaign to save the shitty ugly taco bell because drunken taco memories or something.

i don't get it.




and wrigleyville also had a shitty old suburban-style McD's directly across the street from the stadium that has already been torn down and replaced with a new hotel.


from this:


source: http://photopotpourri.blogspot.com/2016/03/

to this:


source: https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/wr...nt-businesses/

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the situation has spawned a whole social media campaign to save the shitty ugly taco bell because drunken taco memories or something.

i don't get it.

They tore down the original diner where Dirty Harry said, "Make my day" in the heart of the preservationist heaven that is SF so they can tear down anything.

• Video Link

[osmo]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

I don't dispute that this is true to an extent, but the exaggerated tone you've used to describe what, in actuality, is an inconsequential, marginal difference in market size and per capita income is absurd. You make it seem as though Sacramento and Milwaukee are these large cosmopolitan wealth centers, while Memphis is a podunk rural town, and that couldn't be farther from the truth.

The fact is Sacramento is the 21st largest media market, Milwaukee is 27th and Memphis is 30th. Both Sacramento and Milwaukee are very blue-collar, medium sized cities heavily comprised of working class and middle class families (as is Memphis) So no, Sacramento and Milwaukee are not in a special separate category that makes them unique as they relate to Memphis - at least not by any notable measure.



Where exactly did I say I was offended? I'll wait.



I've spent a grand total of two hours in Memphis via a flight layover a few years ago. But I get it - asking someone to support their argument with facts and data that prove a valid point makes me a "homer".

Sacremento and Milwaukee incomes and GDP are much higher versus Memphis.

Median HH Incomes of smallest NBA markets:

Memphis: $37,099
Sacramento: $64,052
Milwaukee: $58,029
OKC: $47,004
Salt Late City: $68,196

These are the reasons why we ring the alarm bells for Memphis. They don't have the options as other larger markets to spread around revenue streams. They are going to be more dependent on gate revenues versus other teams and they have a ceiling of how much they can charge relative to the modest incomes present in the market. A chronic depression in attendance that extends multiple seasons (already a 3rd year in a row of decreased attendance) could be a critical blow to the team.

Typically when the team starts bleeding money small market teams start to further slash spending, so outreach programs and whatever else take a hit which starts to compound things.

Some owners can stomach the money losses each year if they view the team as a pride factor and a toy. But these owners did not get rich by being stupid. It comes to a point where if you are burning millions per year and you have massive equity increases that you just sell. If no local guy wants to take on the project then what do you do (they all do the half-hearted campaign but then just take the money - anyone remembers Starbucks Howard and his crocodile tears in Seattle? We all knew Bennett wanted to move the team, he should have never sold to him, but money talks)

Nobody has put forward a rational reason why the Memphis Grizzlies will be in Memphis 15 years from now. I don't see it.

I also don't feel sorry for anyone from Memphis because I am sure they didn't cry for Vancouver. Where was the advocacy for Seattle as well? These cities all think it can't happen to them. Unless you are a blue-chip market or large TV market, your team is not safe (Atlanta Hawks, for example, are a joke, but since Atlanta is such a massive metro/TV market the team will likely never leave).

[mello]

Ok JAYNYC lets put this to rest. What I meant was SAC has a significantly larger metro pop than Memphis and is the 20th largest TV market in Nation due to all the central valley cities to the South and North of it that get counted in its market (Stockton, Modesto, etc.) Now Milwaukee does not have a significantly larger metro pop but it has been an established metro with what I would assume is a much more dense inner urban radius of neighborhoods than what Memphis has. Milwaukee has had two major sports teams for 50 years or so now.

National TV Market size (NOT NBA market size) according to Nielsen: Sacramento 20 , Milwaukee 35, Memphis 51....

Are we done now? I have nothing against Memphis its fine I just think a wealthy individual like Joseph Tsai would want to locate an NBA franchise in a market like San Diego with a booming downtown (destination city) and a much more diverse economy than Memphis. That is why I posted in the first place. Especially now that SD lost the NFL and only has baseball which would not compete with the NBA at all really.

[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.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

I don't dispute that this is true to an extent, but the exaggerated tone you've used to describe what, in actuality, is an inconsequential, marginal difference in market size and per capita income is absurd. You make it seem as though Sacramento and Milwaukee are these large cosmopolitan wealth centers, while Memphis is a podunk rural town, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. How is Sacramento blue collar? It's the state capital of the most populous state.

The fact is Sacramento is the 21st largest media market, Milwaukee is 27th and Memphis is 30th. Both Sacramento and Milwaukee are very blue-collar, medium sized cities heavily comprised of working class and middle class families (as is Memphis) So no, Sacramento and Milwaukee are not in a special separate category that makes them unique as they relate to Memphis - at least not by any notable measure.



Where exactly did I say I was offended? I'll wait.



I've spent a grand total of two hours in Memphis via a flight layover a few years ago. But I get it - asking someone to support their argument with facts and data that prove a valid point makes me a "homer".

It's not inconsequential, that's what we're trying to explain to you. Milwaukee supports two teams with ease and Sacramento could too. Memphis is doing well to support one.

You may not like the truth but it's the truth that indeed both are cosmopolitan compared to Memphis as a podunk rural town, which of course is an exaggeration. It's not something to take offense to which it seems you are and just accept it.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

indeed both are cosmopolitan

Wait - did you really just imply that Sacramento and Milwaukee (by any measure or comparison) are cosmopolitan cities?

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO - haven't laughed that hard at anything all year, thanks dude!

[osmo]

IMO Chargers will move back to SD in our lifetime. Chargers will forever be the scabs of LA football and will never gain a foothold in the market. It was a crime they moved in the first place.

I also don't like how the Raiders are moving, but Oakland has a unique situation on its hands. No reason the city can't support its teams, but it may have none left within its city boundries the way things are going which is quite sad.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by osmo

I also don't like how the Raiders are moving, but Oakland has a unique situation on its hands. No reason the city can't support its teams, but it may have none left within its city boundries the way things are going which is quite sad.

i know the raiders are moving to vegas in a couple years, but what's up with the A's? are they likely to leave just okaland, or the bay area altogether?

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Wait - did you really just imply that Sacramento and Milwaukee (by any measure or comparison) are cosmopolitan cities?

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO - haven't laughed that hard at anything all year, thanks dude!

Yes, Sacramento and Milwaukee are more cosmopolitan than Memphis.