Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX
I just wanted to point out that the cities mentioned are not larger cities based on urbanized area or the offical metro rankings, not a secondary list that combines both CSA and MSA.
Back on the subject of CSA's. This population classification consits of more than one metro area, and this is why I say its not an equal comparrison versus a single MSA.
I am quite aware that the TV market size is the first thing the NFL looks at, and the other things you mentioned, which in fact would favor San Antonio and, put it at the top of the list of possible relocation or expansion cities. San Antonio has the largest corporate base of the cities mentioned, healthy socio-economics and, is, definitely football crazy. However, TV market size isnt really a measurement of a city's size. The Indianpolis TV market is larger than San Diego's and, San Diego is just one rank above, Nashville. Which metro is bigger out of those cities?
Having a larger TV market helps more on a marketable standpont and should not be the only indicator if a region can support a team. A large Population base in close proximity to NFL venue is equally if not more important than a television set tuning in 100 miles out. Nonetheless all important factors in attracting a NFL franchise.
A future NFL city should be based on how heathly the economy is, future growth, and the regional population even if it crosses into another metro's boundaries. Austin-San Marcos should definitely be a part of San Antonio's equation. As well as all South Texas, the Rio Grande Valley, Corpus Christi, and Laredo.
A San Antonio NFL team versus the Dallas Cowboys or Pittsburgh Steelers would certanly sell out over and over.
The success of the San Antonio Spurs has made the name 'San Antonio' somewhat of a household name when it comes to pro sports.
|
I am not sure who is confused; me or you.
I am and have been saying that San Antonio is the most viable American Market for an NFL team (outside of LA).
Maybe the 3rd time will be a charm:
Quote:
|
Population was only used to produce a list of possible (not probable) NFL candidate cities.
|
I was not ranking "viability" by population. It was just a rough candidate list.
It is true that CSA and MSA are different classifications, but they can be used as a comparison; if you understand them.
For example, you can't use the San Fransisco-Oakland MSA in comparison to the Washington-Baltimore CSA. You would compare the San Jose-San Fransisco-Oakland CSA to the Washington-Baltimore CSA.
The whole point behind CSA's is to classify areas that have multiple cores.
Combined Statistical Areas defined:
Quote:
|
A Combined Statistical Area is an aggregate of adjacent Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) (either Metropolitan Statistical Areas or Micropolitan Statistical Areas) that are linked by commuting ties.
|
"Commuting ties" is the key phrase. If a large enough percentage of the populations cross-commutes to the point that it is classified as a CSA, then I would say you can group the Market size.
Getting an NFL team would be great for the area. I am not sure if it will happen anytime soon, but I believe that San Antonio would have no issues supporting a franchise.
From a personal perspective, I would like to see San Antonio rally behind a possible MLS Franchise and/or MLB Franchise because they would also be great for the city...and they are more attainable.
And go support the Road Runners, that program has risen quickly. In the years to come it could/should be a perennial contender in CUSA. They have been averaging just under 30,000/game this year (29,744). In a couple of years I could see the average rise to 35,000-40,000/game. The dome is not perfect for UTSA, but it is a great home (being so far from campus hurts student attendance, however accessibility can boost other general public attendance). The dome lease also allows UTSA to use there Athletic Budget to improve other needed Student Athlete facilities without having to finance a 30,000 seat football stadium.