Will any other metro host multiple teams in the same sport?

[ThePhun1]

Probably not for multiple reasons but DFW could because of how spread out it is with dual city centers.

New York and LA could actually host 3 and in the NHL one already does.

[bilbao58]

Any other metro other than...?

[Steely Dan]

^ Other than the existing ones I imagine, mainly NYC & LA.

Multiple major league team metro areas:

NYC:
NFL - 2
MLB - 2
NBA - 2
NHL - 3
MLS - 2


LA:
NFL - 2
MLB - 2
NBA - 2
NHL - 2
MLS - 2


BAY AREA:
NFL - 2 (for now, the Raiders move to Vegas next year)
MLB - 2


CHICAGO:
MLB - 2



I suppose some might also argue for DC/Baltimore as they constitute a single CSA, but I see them as separate enough fan-base wise that there probably ain't a ton of overlap in their MLB & NFL allegiances.

[ThePhun1]

Washington and Baltimore are one, regardless of semantics like that. If you try to separate them, then you can't say San Francisco and San Jose are one.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Washington and Baltimore are one, regardless of semantics like that. If you try to separate them, then you can't say San Francisco and San Jose are one.

Meh.

I'd say there's more separation with the former, sports-wise.

SF and San Jose don't have have any sport overlaps. MLB & NBA are in SF, while NFL, NHL & MLS are in South Bay.

Alternatively, DC and Baltimore have teams in two sports that oppose each other: Skins/Ravens and Nats/Orioles. That makes the geographic division a bit starker even if the geographic distances are the same.

But if you wanna argue that they're one, that's fine, it doesn't really mean a whole great deal in the end, but I will likely continue to disagree with you.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Meh.

I'd say there's more separation with the former, sports-wise.

SF and San Jose don't have have any sport overlaps. MLB & NBA are in SF, while NFL, NHL & MLS are in South Bay.

Alternatively, DC and Baltimore have teams in two sports that oppose each other: Skins/Ravens and Nats/Orioles. That makes the geographic division a bit starker even if the geographic distances are the same.

But if you wanna argue that they're one, that's fine, it doesn't really mean a whole great deal in the end, but I will likely continue to disagree with you.

As someone who grew up in Nova, the idea that DC and Baltimore was the same metro always felt odd. Baltimore always was it's own thing. It will probably always will be, no matter how well the suburbs connect.
Its not the same as the bay area or la/inland empire.

DC quickly ditched the Orioles when the Nationals came and could care less when the Ravens arrived in the 90s.

[mhays]

They're not parallel at all. The SF area functions as a unit.

[ThePhun1]

For this discussion it is, distance being the key. You can be an Orioles season ticket holder in Alexandria.

[JManc]

As a Rangers' fan, I tend forget the Devils and Islanders are also 'New York' teams since they are outside of NYC and have such a strong following independent of NYC. Islanders moved to Brooklyn (along with the NJ Nets) a few years ago but I still associate them with Long Island which is still where their fan-base is concentrated.

[Razor]

The GTA could support another NHL team, and it's been bandied around before.
The biggest hurdles would be dealing with both Buffalo, and Leafs Nation territorial rights.
Could Chicago not theoretically support another NFL team?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Razor

Could Chicago not theoretically support another NFL team?

theoretically? perhaps it could.

practically? no.


da bears are the official state religion of chicagoland.

who's gonna wanna go up against that?


besides, as one of only two remaining founding franchises of the NFL, the bears hold a lot of sway within the organization, and i can't envision any scenario where a majority of team owners would vote against the bears and allow a 2nd team in chicago.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

theoretically? perhaps it could.

practically? no.


da bears are the official state religion of chicagoland.

who's gonna wanna go up against that?


besides, as one of only two remaining founding franchises of the NFL, the bears hold a lot of sway within the organization, and i can't envision any scenario where a majority of team owners would vote against the bears and allow a 2nd team in chicago.

The Packers could move to Chicago. It's closer to Milwaukee and they probably have more fans in Chicago than Green Bay anyway :-p.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

theoretically? perhaps it could.

practically? no.


da bears are the official state religion of chicagoland.

who's gonna wanna go up against that?


besides, as one of only two remaining founding franchises of the NFL, the bears hold a lot of sway within the organization, and i can't envision any scenario where a majority of team owners would vote against the bears and allow a 2nd team in chicago.

This. If Chicago were to support another franchise in one of the 4 major sports, it would probably be basketball. The Bulls have squandered most of their 90s cache' with 25 years of terrible management (due to both tight fists and thick skulls).

I could see a second NBA team, marketed correctly, doing well in Chicago.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Handro

with 25 years of terrible management (due to both tight fists and thick skulls).

and some really bad injury luck.

all signs pointed to D-rose going to the hall of fame some day, but his knees simply said "NO".




i hate thinking about it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Handro

I could see a second NBA team, marketed correctly, doing well in Chicago.

i don't see it.

with the excpetions of alpha++ status cities NYC/LA, and odd-ball legacy stuff like cubs/sox, the multi-team metros seam much more oriented to the polycentric places, where different teams carve out different sub-regions for themselves. hell, even in NYC and LA, some of the teams are divided among geographic sub-regions, like the devils in jersey, the rangers in the city, and the islanders on long island (i know they currently play in barclays, but they're moving back out to the burbs soon enough) or LA with the dogers and kings being an LA thing while the Angels and ducks are more of an OC thing.

i feel that chicago is too centralized for a 2nd team in any of the major sports. what sub-region would a 2nd team carve out for itself? all 6 of chicago's major league teams play in stadiums within 5 miles of downtown chicago. there are no other "centers" in chicagoland that could really support major league sports. the Fire tried the suburban stadium thing and failed miserably. they eventually came limping back to soldier field after 13 unlucky years lost in the suburban wilderness.

chicagoland really is the ultimate "put all of your eggs in one basket" metro area in the nation.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i don't see it.

with the excpetions of alpha++ status cities NYC/LA, and odd-ball legacy stuff like cubs/sox, the multi-team metros seam much more oriented to the polycentric places, where different teams carve out different sub-regions for themselves. hell, even in NYC and LA, some of the teams are divided among geographic sub-regions, like the devils in jersey, the rangers in the city, and the islanders on long island (i know they currently play in barclays, but they're moving back out to the burbs soon enough) or LA with the dogers and kings being an LA thing while the Angels and ducks are more of an OC thing.

i feel that chicago is too centralized for a 2nd team in any of the major sports. what sub-region would a 2nd team carve out for itself? all 6 of chicago's major league teams play in stadiums within 5 miles of downtown chicago. there are no other "centers" in chicagoland that could really support major league sports. the Fire tried the suburban stadium thing and failed miserably. they eventually came limping back to soldier field after 13 unlucky years lost in the suburban wilderness.

chicagoland really is the ultimate "put all of your eggs in one basket" metro area in the nation.

You're probably right that a second NBA has about a .001% chance of coming to Chicago, but of the four major sports I'd say it's the most likely (i.e. compared to 0% for NFL or MLB and .0001% for NHL).

I'm basing it anecdotally on conversations I've had throughout Chicagoland and the dwindling attendance (after years of league-leading attendance despite shitty play). People don't give a shit about the Bulls anymore, and this is a basketball city. With the right placement of a new stadium, some stellar marketing, and some luck in the draft they could (theoretically) become the Sox/Mets/Clippers/Jets to the Chicago Bulls.

And yea, D-Rose is one of hte worst sports stories this city has ever seen. He was something special



The only place to be newly minted as a two-franchise city in any sport in the last 50-odd years is Los Angeles when the Rams (basically a legacy team for LA, despite moving) were joined by the Los Angeles (née San Diego) Chargers. (Not counting the Nets move from Jersey to Brooklyn, that's basically just a new stadium for the same team.)

Los Angeles is a giant market, both in population and reach, yet the Chargers are laughably unpopular in the city and there are already whispers that they will need to be moved again, although San Diego absolutely despises the owners now so they sorta screwed themselves out of a move back to their home city.

If LA can't handle a second franchise in the nation's most popular sport, I don't see how any city can add another franchise.

[Crawford]

DC did support the Orioles, though. That's a plausible argument for one sports market.

The Orioles were a big market team, with among the largest payrolls, TV contracts, and annual attendance, until the Nationals arrived. Now they're basically Cincy or KC.

Obviously DC-Baltimore isn't a region analogous to, say, Chicago, or Houston, with one obvious dominant center. But there's some degree of relationship.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Crawford

DC did support the Orioles, though. That's a plausible argument for one sports market.

The Orioles were a big market team, with among the largest payrolls, TV contracts, and annual attendance, until the Nationals arrived. Now they're basically Cincy or KC.

Obviously DC-Baltimore isn't a region analogous to, say, Chicago, or Houston, with one obvious dominant center. But there's some degree of relationship.

Until the Nationals arrived. As far as I know, DC ditched the Orioles fast. I can't remember seeing any Ravens fans. Ever.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Until the Nationals arrived. As far as I know, DC ditched the Orioles fast.

Right, but my point is that if Baltimore and DC have no overlap, the arrival of the Nationals shouldn't have affected the Orioles. Instead, it devastated the Orioles, and they went from Yankees Lite to Tampa.

If, say, NY added another basketball team (let's say the NJ Hoopers, playing in the Prudential Center) would that affect the 76ers? Highly unlikely. The Celtics or Wizards? No way. Could it affect the Knicks and Nets? Possibly.

[Sun Belt]

North Carolina should probably be rewarded an MLB team at some point, it's the only major league sport that isn't present in the fast growing state.

According to ncleg.gov the current population is over 10 million, by 2035 it is projected to have a population of 12.1 million with Charlotte and the Triangle absorbing most of that growth -- [projected to grow by 34% in each metro region].

The observed growth in The Triangle suggests that it might exceed the growth of Charlotte over the next 15 years.