Sports in Austin

[wwmiv]

Here are all of the examples I used prior, all at the same zoom level. Core Counties are any county which overlaps with a part of the contiguous urban area, and Outlying Counties are those from whom 25% of their residents commute into the set of Core Counties for employment. Metropolitan Statistical Areas are those anchored by UAs of 50k or more, and Micropolitan Statistical Areas are those anchored by UAs of 25k and up to 50k.

As an aside, the OMB and Census Bureau also keep a simultaneous classification for New England cities and townships that is based on that unit of geography rather than the county level, called NECTAs (a New England City and Township Area).

Austin and San Antonio (two MSAs with burgeoning commuter catchment overlaps as well as rapidly infilling UAs):




DFW (a single MSA with two Divisions):



Philadelphia (Delaware Valley) (a single MSA with 4 Divisions):



D.C.-Baltimore (a CSA with two major MSAs, one of which has 2 Divisions):



Minneapolis-St.Paul (a single MSA without any Divisions):



And these I think are the three best comparisons: linearly built CSAs which are anchored by a large MSA composed of multiple Divisions (or just the latter).

The Bay Area (a CSA, with two major MSAs, one of which has 3 Divisions):



Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia (a CSA, with one major MSA with 2 Divisions, with one of those Divisions being multipolar itself):



Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach (a single MSA with 3 Divisions):









And just to head off incredibly bad comparisons, let me take the case of New Orleans and Baton Rouge. In the past, this example has usually been the counterweight as if to show that it isn't possible for two cities so far apart to merge. It seems to me that this example is chosen due to regional proximity, the same distance between the two cores as in the case of A-SA, linearly built rather than radially, and historically similar economies (state bureaucracy, government, music, entertainment, military, education, and oil).

However, that's where the analogy falls apart. Baton Rouge and New Orleans do not have impressive growth. They are geographically more isolated from one another by necessity due to swamp and lake terrain that is undevelopable that lies between them. They anchor, respectively, MSAs about half the size of Austin or less. And furthermore, their economies are in freefall because they have thus far been unable to leverage themselves into the tech game, as have both Austin and San Antonio, and had become over-reliant on oil (a fate San Antonio thankfully avoided).

So, all of that being said, there is no way that the land between them will fill up in the way that is possible between Austin and San Antonio, not only because you couldn't put the people there if there happened to be people who wanted to come, but because there aren't any people to put there in the first place because nobody wants to come (and plenty are leaving).

[austlar1]

Nice maps. I think the Bay Area/ Austin-San Antonio comparison is a somewhat wild stretch. There is a huge synergy between the economies of San Francisco and Silicon Valley that does not exist between the economic drivers of Austin and San Antonio. The East Bay centered around Oakland is pretty much oriented to San Francisco, and the East Bay south of Hayward trends towards the Silicon Valley. The SF peninsula south of SF is similar in that north of Palo Alto the thrust is towards SF and south of Palo Alto you have the Silicon Valley. I guess that is not unlike the San Marcos/New Braunfels split,but the difference in population, gdp, and types of industry are significant. Maybe one day. I read the Forbes article. It makes good points (but it is written by Joel Kotkin, the notorious booster of all things suburban), and I am impressed. Guess maybe it is because I am older that I do not have expectations of seeing a merging of economies or identities in the Austin-San Antonio region in my lifetime.

Regarding DFW, the mid-cities area is home to over a million folks just in the Tarrant and Dallas County communities located between Fort Worth and Dallas. That does not even take in the other 1.8 million or so residing to the north in Collin and Denton counties. The immediate mid cities area is home to an enormous number of jobs. It may be the second biggest jobs magnet in the entire region. As a result, there is a great deal of commuting to and from the area from all over the metroplex on an extensive freeway system and a nascent commuter rail system. The airport is located there. Major league football and baseball are located there. People living elsewhere in the DFW tend to identify somewhat with the mid-cities area in a way that makes residents of both the Fort Worth metro/division and Dallas metro/division think of themselves as residents of the "Metroplex". I remember when the term was first used as a marketing tool by local chambers of commerce in the early 1960s. Residents used to chuckle about it and use the term derisively. Now way too many (IMHO, I think the term is boosterish and provincial) are pleased as punch to tell folks they are from the Metroplex, and then they act kind of surprised when their listener asks them where exactly that might be.

[We vs us]

Between all of these, DC/Baltimore is the best match.

EDIT: the DC/Baltimore of 20 years ago is the best match. Austin/SA is still in its infancy as a truly functional MSA (IMHO).

[clubtokyo]

I think the Metro will look more like Miami map in the future.

[drummer]

I think it will definitely be a linear metro area as it develops, but I'm curious about the potential growth along 130 especially if Seguin and Lockhart were to grow significantly the way that New Braunfels and San Marcos have grown and are continuing to grow. I also wonder how it would change if 281 were to become a freeway from, say, San Antonio to 190 - especially if I-14 were to ever happen as proposed. Surely there would be explosive growth in Blanco and Burnet Counties as a result of 281 expanding to a freeway.


And...because this is a sports thread, obviously more people = more chance of pro sports and such.

(see I brought it back)

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by drummer

And...because this is a sports thread, obviously more people = more chance of pro sports and such.

(see I brought it back)

Hey hey! I touched on how this would affect a sports team locating here throughout my posts.

[clubtokyo]

Why can't Austin just do a 1 cent sales tax (temporary for funds) to build a universal arena? Its quite odd that a city the size of Austin does not have a world class arena for concerts or sports of some sort. Even Tulsa has a nice tax funded arena.

[brando]

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

Why can't Austin just do a 1 cent sales tax (temporary for funds) to build a universal arena? Its quite odd that a city the size of Austin does not have a world class arena for concerts or sports of some sort. Even Tulsa has a nice tax funded arena.

The people are already dealing with rising rental costs and property taxes to pay for more important priorities. A sales tax bump would increase the cost of living on top of all of that. Sales Tax increases are typically only approved when cities are trying to keep teams. Green Bay barely passed an increased sales tax for Lambau renovations to keep all 8 home games in green bay instead of splitting with Mil. That would never pass a bond.

Travis County released a study for a modern arena that has the features to host A list concerts but not a NBA or NHL team which is fine. It would be at the Travis County Expo grounds and be accompanied by a Expo Center. It's really the perfect solution. The land doesn't need to be purchased, it has plenty of parking and room for outdoor events. It also has undeveloped land that is being reserved for hotels, restaurants etc. It seems like it's way out of the city but development is spreading that way and it'll be even faster once the 183 expressway is finished.

I think it's very likely that they want to raise the hotel tax to fund that arena but the city wants to raise it for the convention center. It would be nice if they could agree to each raise it %1 to try and cover both projects.

Originally Posted by drummer

I think it will definitely be a linear metro area as it develops, but I'm curious about the potential growth along 130 especially if Seguin and Lockhart were to grow significantly the way that New Braunfels and San Marcos have grown and are continuing to grow. I also wonder how it would change if 281 were to become a freeway from, say, San Antonio to 190 - especially if I-14 were to ever happen as proposed. Surely there would be explosive growth in Blanco and Burnet Counties as a result of 281 expanding to a freeway. And...because this is a sports thread, obviously more people = more chance of pro sports and such.
(see I brought it back)

We've covered the whole pro sports thing. The only possibility is the MLS if a new stadium could be built but that seems unlikely given we might have to build a new arena. NBA is a no go bc of the Spurs. No one is trying to get a NHL team. It's a dying sport and there doesn't seem to be interest in Austin. It's hard to imagine Austin could support a MLB team and that is not a league that is interested in expanding. All the MLB teams are also very happy where they are and I don't see any of them looking to move. They have the best group of stadiums in sports. I still think that the best shot is the NFL in 2030 when more teams will start to look for other cities. People think McNair and Jones will stop that but they won't. They have power but they can't stop it if Austin or a city outside Austin can build a new stadium. The NFL will not turn that down plus Jones is on record saying he would not stop a team in central texas. Other owners would be sympathetic to other teams that don't already make a fuck ton of money but Houston and Dallas are at the top.

You are absolutely right about the development. The 290 East toll road (Manor Expressway) has brought a ton of homes to the area and the new 183 expressway parallel to 130 will do the same to that area. They are even widening 130 because of increased usage so people are getting familiar with that area. Development could speed up even more in 2020 when they start to rip up I-35. I think that's why the Long Park area where the expo center is could turn into a entertainment district like northwest San Antonio is.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

Why can't Austin just do a 1 cent sales tax (temporary for funds) to build a universal arena? Its quite odd that a city the size of Austin does not have a world class arena for concerts or sports of some sort. Even Tulsa has a nice tax funded arena.

Because Austin already has a 8.25% sales tax, which is the highest the state will allow.

(6.25% state, 1% city, 1% CapMetro).

[smith_atx]

We've covered the whole pro sports thing. The only possibility is the MLS if a new stadium could be built but that seems unlikely given we might have to build a new arena. NBA is a no go bc of the Spurs. No one is trying to get a NHL team. It's a dying sport and there doesn't seem to be interest in Austin. It's hard to imagine Austin could support a MLB team and that is not a league that is interested in expanding. All the MLB teams are also very happy where they are and I don't see any of them looking to move. They have the best group of stadiums in sports. I still think that the best shot is the NFL in 2030 when more teams will start to look for other cities. People think McNair and Jones will stop that but they won't. They have power but they can't stop it if Austin or a city outside Austin can build a new stadium. The NFL will not turn that down plus Jones is on record saying he would not stop a team in central texas. Other owners would be sympathetic to other teams that don't already make a fuck ton of money but Houston and Dallas are at the top.

FYI, this is simply not true. NHL is literally expanding this year into Las Vegas. Also, ask Nashville how good an idea it was to get an NHL team.

[brando]

Originally Posted by smithlua

FYI, this is simply not true. NHL is literally expanding this year into Las Vegas. Also, ask Nashville how good an idea it was to get an NHL team.

You're right. After 15 years the NFL added the Vegas team. Maybe this means they are on the rise again? I'm not sure what you mean about Nashville. I know they had some kind of ownership problems. I'm not sure how it relates to Austin but I don't know much about hockey.


The austin business journal has an article about a sales tax change supported by Cedar Park that could help build sports facilities. Could someone paraphrase? I think this is something that could help a city like San Marcos build a pro football stadium. Their tourist department expressed intrigue during the Raiders/ San Antonio flirting.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...end-taxes.html

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by smithlua

FYI, this is simply not true. NHL is literally expanding this year into Las Vegas. Also, ask Nashville how good an idea it was to get an NHL team.

Also, Austin is fast closing in on Vegas in size. Plus, San Antonio is right down the road. There are more than enough fans in the area to support any type of major league team. There are multiple cities which are smaller than Austin which support major sports franchises. I really, really don't understand why some people keep saying that Austin couldn't support such a thing. I believe that it's mostly a matter of someone with money and pull wanting to get it done.

The NHL needs to add one more team. It would probably work fine here. There are plenty of transplants from hockey towns.

MLB could also work and is definitely looking to expand by two teams. The only question is the time line. It seems that MLB won't expand until a couple teams with wonky stadium situations get settled. Oakland, which likely won't leave that city. And Tampa, which very well could leave that city.

The NFL would work, but any expansion or team moves aren't likely anytime soon after the most recent toss ups.

The NBA would also work. Having the Spurs so close might be a little hindrance, but I would never say never.

[drummer]

I doubt NBA will happen because of the Spurs, as others have said. Also, I'm a pretty big Spurs fan and I'd have a difficult time switching (probably won't), and I think that's true for a lot of folks in Austin who follow basketball (sorry - no facts to back that statement up).

I could see MLS, NHL, and NFL, but even these would probably be regional teams (with SA)...so whether in Austin, San Antonio, or even centrally located in San Marcos, etc., any further expansions would likely be regional teams for Central Texas.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by drummer

I doubt NBA will happen because of the Spurs, as others have said. Also, I'm a pretty big Spurs fan and I'd have a difficult time switching (probably won't), and I think that's true for a lot of folks in Austin who follow basketball (sorry - no facts to back that statement up).

I could see MLS, NHL, and NFL, but even these would probably be regional teams (with SA)...so whether in Austin, San Antonio, or even centrally located in San Marcos, etc., any further expansions would likely be regional teams for Central Texas.

You are 100% correct. Spurs fans will not switch because we are extremely loyal to our Spurs family.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

you are 100% correct. Spurs fans will not switch because we are extremely loyal to our spurs family.

go spurs go!!

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by drummer

go spurs go!!

I fixed that for you.

[N90]

When ATX becomes a big enough metro AND media market it will be suited to supporting any and every pro league. That includes NBA and NFL.

Those for-profit leagues ain't turning down a metro of 5 million and media market of 2 million households even if the Spurs play 90 minutes away. ATX metro and media market should be approaching around this size in 30-33 years from now imo.

TX is criminally underserved in pro teams compared to other states like CA, NY, or FL. Even PA only has 2 less pro teams than TX despite being less than half of TX's population. Even IL as a proportion of its population does better. Even states like Missouri, Colorado, and Massachusetts do better as a proportion of population. That needs to be corrected at some point imo.

TX = 3 NBA, 2 NFL, 2 MLB, 2 MLS, 1 NHL = 10

PA = 2 NHL, 2 MLB, 2 NFL, 1 NBA, 1 MLS = 8

FL = 3 NFL, 2 NBA, 2 MLB, 2 NHL, 2 MLS = 11 (MIA granted MLS expansion)

CA = 5 MLB, 4 NBA, 3 MLS, 3 NHL, 3 NFL = 18 (I didn't include Raiders since they're leaving but also didn't include the 1 or 2 potential MLS expansions to San Diego and Sacramento coming soon because they ain't official yet)

NY = 3 NFL, 3 NHL, 2 NBA, 2 MLB, 2 MLS = 12

IL = 2 MLB, 1 NBA, 1 NFL, 1 MLS, 1 NHL = 6 (for a state with only 13 million people, same population as PA, and less than half of TX's size but has more than 60% of the teams TX has)

TX and its cities obviously gets hosed compared to the other states imo. HOU should have NHL, SA should be a 3 team market and have at least an MLS and NFL, and ATX should also have 2 pro teams to up to this point too. But they don't....

[oberthewhat]

to say no one wants NHL is crazy. its one of the fastest growing youth sports around. Austin's local hockey community is working on yet another expansion. Hockey is alive and well. Ratings in most sports have gone down significantly simply because people are ditching cables companies and watching sports feeds illegally. Texas needs another professional hockey team. Dallas has seen a lot of success. Between SA Rampage and Texas Stars, Austin would be able to sustain an actual NHL level team. Give us something unusual to root for in central Texas.

That being said. Another main reason to build an arena for a hockey team is for a NBA team to share the same facilities. Spurs are too close and too big of a franchise.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by N90

When ATX becomes a big enough metro AND media market it will be suited to supporting any and every pro league. That includes NBA and NFL.

Those for-profit leagues ain't turning down a metro of 5 million and media market of 2 million households even if the Spurs play 90 minutes away. ATX metro and media market should be approaching around this size in 30-33 years from now imo.

Austin is #39 at 771k households, according to Neilson. This is wider than the MSA (and includes much of the hill country).

It is important to note that media market household sizes is not the only factor, though probably one of the most important.

How deeply the local city's fanbase will support a team can allow a smaller media market city to host a team (such as the Spurs, Jazz, or Grizzlies), because they go to games religiously. Fandom is important (*cough* Packers *cough*)

Also important, though, as neighboring media markets which lack sports teams of their own. I.E. satellite cities. Those cities typically support the team and their media markets cater to those sports teams' games. For instance, all of the Carolinas (North and South) media markets play the Panthers games on repeat, not just Charlotte, and everyone goes to the games. I lived in Columbia and just moved back and went to three while living there and constantly watched the games at bars, because that's all they played.

That's another reason why the Spurs and Grizzlies are able to feel comfortable from a media market perspective, as they aren't just getting into their respective host cities' market 938k (#31) and 634k (#51) households, but also Austin's 771k (#39), Waco-Temple-Bryan's 358k (#87), Little Rock's, etc.

Some teams actually even consider this in their naming, marketing strategies, and/or were driving forces behind their cities actually getting the teams in the first place (Carolina Panthers, New England Patriots, Memphis Grizzlies, Utah Jazz, OKC Thunder, Tennessee Titans, Houston Texans, and let us not forget that Austin was a huge part of San Antonio's pitch to get a football team).

Also important to consider is that sometimes these satellite cities are included in the MSA and not the main media market (West Palm Beach), sometimes the reverse (much of the Philly media market, for instance, is satellite cities that aren't a part of the metro stat. area), and that sometimes they're in both or neither. The particular combination, sizes of each component, and depth of support from each component are all relevant factors a sports team will consider, with more geographically proximate components weighted most heavily, of course. And I very much do agree that local business communities, Fortune 500/1000, local billionaires, and the degree to which the city plays host to local major university sports teams are heavily important factors as well. Highly educated populations are also less likely to support publicly funded stadiums, because they're more likely to see the negative than the positives with respect to public finance. I personally also think state capitals are less likely to get sports teams, since the local news media is driven by political, rather than sports, coverage, as are tourist towns, given that the economy is disproportionately driven by non-locals and it depresses the economic potential via a higher share of the economy being tourism driven lower wage service and hospitality industry.

Austin suffers from all of the above. We're the state capitol, a university town with a great football team, and an outgrown satellite city to three different major cities with their histories of pro-sports, and an economy that relies on tourism and hospitality without a decent Fortune 500 presence. However, that being said, we're still the largest anchor city, metro area, urban area, and media market (when considered holistically) to lack a pro sports team.

----------

Media Markets and Sports Teams:

NYC #1 - 7.348 million households

MLB: 2 (Yankees and Mets)
NFL: 2 (Giants and Jets)
NBA: 2 (Nicks and Nets)
MLS: 2 (NYC FC and Red Bulls)
NHL: 3 (Devils, Rangers, and Islanders)

LA #2 - 5.477

MLB: 2 (Dodgers and Angels)
NFL: 2 (Rams and Chargers)
NBA: 2 (Clippers and Lakers)
MLS: 2 (Galaxy, + LA FC in '18)
NHL: 2 (Kings and Ducks)

Chicago #3 - 3.463

MLB: 2 (Cubs and White Sox)
NFL: 1 (Bears)
NBA: 1 (Bulls)
MLS: 1 (Fire)
NHL: 1 (Blackhawks)

Philadelphia #4 - 2.943

MLB: 1 (Phillies)
NFL: 1 (Eagles)
NBA: 1 (76ers)
MLS: 1 (Union)
NHL: 1 (Flyers)

DFW #5 - 2.714

MLB: 1 (Rangers)
NFL: 1 (Cowboys)
NBA: 1 (Mavericks)
MLS: 1 (Dallas FC)
NHL: 1 (Stars)

Bay Area #6 - 2.488

MLB: 2 (Giants and Athletics)
NFL: 2 (Raiders and 49ers)
NBA: 2 (GSW)
MLS: 1 (Earthquakes)
NHL: 1 (Sharks)

D.C. #7 - 2.477

MLB: 1 (Nationals)
NFL: 1 (Redskins)
NBA: 1 (Wiz)
MLS: 1 (DC United)
NHL: 1 (Caps)

Houston #8 - 2.451

MLB: 1 (Astros)
NFL: 1 (Texans)
NBA: 1 (Rockets)
MLS: 1 (Dynamo)

Boston #9 - 2.424

MLB: 1 (Red Sox)
NFL: 1 (Patriots)
NBA: 1 (Celtics)
MLS: 1 (Revolution)
NHL: 1 (Bruins)

Atlanta #10 - 2.413

MLB: 1 (Braves)
NFL: 1 (Falcons)
NBA: 1 (Hawks)
MLS: 1 (Atl United)

Tampa #11 - 1.909

MLB: 1 (Rays)
NFL: 1 (Buccaneers)
NHL: 1 (Lightning)

Phoenix #12 - 1.890

MLB: 1 (Diamondbacks)
NFL: 1 (Cardinals)
NBA: 1 (Suns)
NHL: 1 (Coyotes)

Detroit #13 - 1.853

MLB: 1 (Tigers)
NFL: 1 (Lions)
NBA: 1 (Pistons)
NHL: 1 (Red Wings)

Seattle #14 - 1.809

MLB: 1 (Mariners)
NFL: 1 (Seahawks)
MLS: 1 (Sounders)

Twin Cities #15 - 1.743

MLB: 1 (Twins)
NFL: 1 (Vikings)
NBA: 1 (Timberwolves)
MLS: 1 (MN United)
NHL: 1 (Wild)

Miami #16 - 1.696

MLB: 1 (Marlins)
NFL: 1 (Dolphins)
NBA: 1 (Heat)
NHL: 1 (Panthers)
MLS: 1 (+ Beckham's team in TBD)

Denver #17 - 1.630

MLB: 1 (Rockies)
NFL: 1 (Broncos)
NBA: 1 (Nuggets)
MLS: 1 (Rapids)
NHL: 1 (Avalanche)

Orlando #18 - 1.520

NBA: 1 (Magic)
MLS: 1 (Orlando SC)

Cleveland #19 - 1.499

MLB: 1 (Indians)
NBA: 1 (Cavaliers)

Sacramento #20 - 1.380

NBA: 1 (Kings)

St. Louis #21 - 1.216

MLB: 1 (Cardinals)
NHL: 1 (Blues)

Charlotte #22 - 1.190

NFL: 1 (Panthers)
NBA: 1 (Hornets)

Pittsburgh #23 - 1.160

MLB: 1 (Pirates)
NFL: 1 (Steelers)
NHL: 1 (Penguins)

Research Triangle #24 - 1.154

NHL: 1 (Hurricanes)

Portland #25 - 1.144

NBA: 1 (Trail Blazers)
MLS: 1 (Timbers)

Baltimore #26 - 1.119

MLB: 1 (Orioles)
NFL: 1 (Ravens)

Indianapolis #27 - 1.086

NFL: 1 (Colts)
NBA: 1 (Pacers)

San Diego #28 - 1.066

MLB: 1 (Padres)

Nashville #29 - 1.012

NFL: 1 (Titans)
NHL: 1 (Predators)

Hartford/New Haven #30 - .964

San Antonio #31 - .939

NBA: 1 (Spurs)

Columbus #32 - .921

MLS: 1 (Crew)
NHL: 1 (Blue Jackets)

Kansas City #33 - .919

MLB: 1 (Royals)
NFL: 1 (Chiefs)

SLC #34 - .917

NBA: 1 (Jazz)
MLS: 1 (Real Salt Lake)

Milwaukee #35 - .896

MLB: 1 (Brewers)
NFL: ~1 (Packers)
NBA: 1 (Bucks)

Cincy #36 - .864

MLB: 1 (Reds)
NFL: 1 (Bengals)

Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville #37 - .846
West Palm Beach #38 - .825
Austin #39 - .771

Vegas #40 - .758

NHL: 1 (Golden Knights)

OKC #41 - .722

NBA: 1 (Thunder)

Norfolk, etc. #42 - .717
Harrisburg/Lancaster/Lebanon/York #43 - .715
Grand Rapids #44 - .710
Birmingham #45 - .696
Piedmont Triad #46 - .690

Jacksonville #47 - .689

NFL: 1 (Jaguars)

Albuquerque #48 - .678
Louisville #49 - .662

New Orleans #50 - .642

NFL: 1 (Saints)
NBA: 1 (Pelicans)

Memphis #51 - .634

NBA: 1 (Grizzlies)

Providence #52 - .616

Buffalo #53 - .597

NFL: 1 (Bills)
NHL: 1 (Sabres)

Obviously there are also a number of Canadian teams:

Toronto (~size of DFW in # of households):

MLB: 1 (Blue Jays)
NBA: 1 (Raptors)
MLS: 1 (FC)
NHL: 1 (Maple Leafs)

As to the others, Montreal and Vancouver each have an MLS and NHL team apiece, and Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, and Ottawa each have an NHL team. These last on the list are all Austin-sized households markets, whereas the former are at least double that in households though I can't find anything definitive online.

MLS is currently expanding, as well all know, and the cities that are remaining on the list for the four new teams are Charlotte, Cincy, Detroit, Nashville, Raleigh, Sacramento, San Antonio, St. Louis, and Tampa. All of these are larger markets (except for Tampa and Detroit not significantly so) and already have pro-sports teams.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Austin is #39 at 771k households, according to Neilson. This is wider than the MSA (and includes much of the hill country).

Do you know how often those get updated? Do they correct based on yearly census estimates, or do they wait for the actual decennial census?