HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2013, 5:37 PM
cole world11 cole world11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SAT
Posts: 92
i'm not holding my breath or anything but just the possibility of getting NFL gives me the chills. how epic that would be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2013, 4:40 PM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northwest SA
Posts: 307
That would be awesome! However, I believe LA, Mexico City or London would get a team before we would. The NFL will most likely think twice about putting another team in a "smaller" market (when larger ones may be available).

Furthermore, I'm not sure the owners would approve it (i.e., Jerry Jones and Bob McNair may push for a vote against a team in SA...right now). And that is not to mention voter approval of funds for a new stadium (in the neighborhood of $500MM-$600MM).

It's not impossible...and I'd like to see it happen...but, I too, am not holding my breath...for now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2013, 6:31 PM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
That would be awesome! However, I believe LA, Mexico City or London would get a team before we would. The NFL will most likely think twice about putting another team in a "smaller" market (when larger ones may be available).

Furthermore, I'm not sure the owners would approve it (i.e., Jerry Jones and Bob McNair may push for a vote against a team in SA...right now). And that is not to mention voter approval of funds for a new stadium (in the neighborhood of $500MM-$600MM).

It's not impossible...and I'd like to see it happen...but, I too, am not holding my breath...for now.
London will never have an NFL, at least not in our life times.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2013, 9:34 PM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northwest SA
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
London will never have an NFL, at least not in our life times.
I believe the saying goes: "Never say 'never!'"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2013, 4:46 PM
STLtoSA's Avatar
STLtoSA STLtoSA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by iluvsat View Post
that would be awesome! However, i believe la, mexico city or london would get a team before we would. The nfl will most likely think twice about putting another team in a "smaller" market (when larger ones may be available).

Furthermore, i'm not sure the owners would approve it (i.e., jerry jones and bob mcnair may push for a vote against a team in sa...right now). And that is not to mention voter approval of funds for a new stadium (in the neighborhood of $500mm-$600mm).

It's not impossible...and i'd like to see it happen...but, i too, am not holding my breath...for now.
I have been wrong before, but if one of those cities you list gets a team it will be an expansion team. The league does not gain much from moving teams unless they are in horrible markets (example Jacksonville).

There is too much money in expansion and those are probably the only 3 cities that could afford a new franchise in today's NFL. Now if one of those cities gets an expansion team I could see another one getting a relocation, but it would happen in that order.

There are 3 teams that are in trouble right now; Jacksonville, San Diego, and Oakland. If at least one of these teams does not move in the next 5 years I would be surprised.


Metro's Over 1.5 million:
Los Angeles - 18.24 million (CSA) No brainer
Portland - 2.99 million (CSA) not an NFL town. Plus two College teams
Orlando - 2.92 million (CSA) Too close to Tampa? Money?
Sacramento - 2.46 million (CSA) Possible. Stadium? Cali is broke!
Salt Lake City - 2.35 (CSA) Too many college teams, not enough Alcohol sales!
Columbus - 2.35 million (CSA) They have OSU. 3 NFL teams in Ohio, nope
Las Vegas - 2.25 million (CSA) the NFL wont be the pioneer
San Antonio - 2.23 million (MSA)
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill - 2.00 (CSA) NC has a team and NCAA is king on tobacco row
Austin - 1.83 million (MSA) Not gonna happen
Virginia Beach - 1.80 (CSA) Metro is too fragmented
Greensboro-Winston Salem - 1.61 (CSA) NC has a team
Providence - 1.60 million (MSA) Never

Outside of Los Angeles, San Antonio is the only city in the US that could and would support an NFL franchise on a high level. I always discredited the notion of San Antonio supporting an NFL franchise, but over the last couple of years my perception has changed. Getting an NFL Franchise would be huge for the city and the area. Of course, only as long as a stadium deal wouldn't handcuff local government.

With all of that said, I like what UTSA has going. If the NFL came to SA it would hurt UTSA's growth (of course if the possibility is there ... too bad UTSA). If the NFL doesn't come I see UTSA growing into a solid football program pretty fast; on the level of a UCF or South Florida within the next 5 years.

If the NFL comes, I am not sure if another stadium could be built downtown, but I would think that would be where you would want a new at least partially publicly funded stadium to be.

Last edited by STLtoSA; Nov 1, 2013 at 5:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2013, 6:24 PM
Paul in S.A TX's Avatar
Paul in S.A TX Paul in S.A TX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Far West Bexar County
Posts: 3,525
CSA and MSA metros should not be ranked together in my opinion not a fair comparison. S.A. Has a bigger population base than many listed and with San Marcos and Austin that strengthens the regions viability of supporting an nfl team. The question isn't whether San Antonio can support a team, its more of a political thing and it probably will never happen.
__________________
2014 San Antonio Pop.1.44 million
metro 2,429,000/REGION 4.6 million

SAN ANTONIO GDP $133 BILLION.
Birthplace of the U.S. Airforce WiFi Technology & Fajitas.

Last edited by Paul in S.A TX; Nov 1, 2013 at 6:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2013, 4:20 PM
STLtoSA's Avatar
STLtoSA STLtoSA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX View Post
CSA and MSA metros should not be ranked together in my opinion not a fair comparison. S.A. Has a bigger population base than many listed and with San Marcos and Austin that strengthens the regions viability of supporting an nfl team. The question isn't whether San Antonio can support a team, its more of a political thing and it probably will never happen.
I don't agree with your assessment of CSA vs MSA, especially in this comparison. Raliegh-Durham-Chapel Hill, Virginia Beach-Norfolk, and Greensboro-Winston Salem are the only 3 listed that do not have an established core.

All of the Metros on the list that I presented are bigger than San Antonio. I only listed MSA numbers if a CSA does not exist. If San Antonio was part of a CSA, I would have used that figure, but it is not. So in my opinion they are viable comparisons because using CSA where it exists is a better reflection of the market in question.

As for the San Antonio and Austin coming together in support of an NFL team, don't hold your breath. If San Antonio gets a team it will be because of San Antonio, not a combination of the two cities. For MLB I believe that the San Antonio/Austin thing holds a little more weight, but not for football...not in this state.

I agree that it most likely will not happen and that politics will be the major factor, but outside of Los Angeles, I see San Antonio as the best US Market without an NFL franchise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2013, 8:11 PM
Paul in S.A TX's Avatar
Paul in S.A TX Paul in S.A TX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Far West Bexar County
Posts: 3,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLtoSA View Post
I have been wrong before, but if one of those cities you list gets a team it will be an expansion team. The league does not gain much from moving teams unless they are in horrible markets (example Jacksonville).

There is too much money in expansion and those are probably the only 3 cities that could afford a new franchise in today's NFL. Now if one of those cities gets an expansion team I could see another one getting a relocation, but it would happen in that order.

There are 3 teams that are in trouble right now; Jacksonville, San Diego, and Oakland. If at least one of these teams does not move in the next 5 years I would be surprised.


Metro's Over 1.5 million:
Los Angeles - 18.24 million (CSA) No brainer
Portland - 2.99 million (CSA) not an NFL town. Plus two College teams
Orlando - 2.92 million (CSA) Too close to Tampa? Money?
Sacramento - 2.46 million (CSA) Possible. Stadium? Cali is broke!
Salt Lake City - 2.35 (CSA) Too many college teams, not enough Alcohol sales!
Columbus - 2.35 million (CSA) They have OSU. 3 NFL teams in Ohio, nope
Las Vegas - 2.25 million (CSA) the NFL wont be the pioneer
San Antonio - 2.23 million (MSA)
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill - 2.00 (CSA) NC has a team and NCAA is king on tobacco row
Austin - 1.83 million (MSA) Not gonna happen
Virginia Beach - 1.80 (CSA) Metro is too fragmented
Greensboro-Winston Salem - 1.61 (CSA) NC has a team
Providence - 1.60 million (MSA) Never

Outside of Los Angeles, San Antonio is the only city in the US that could and would support an NFL franchise on a high level. I always discredited the notion of San Antonio supporting an NFL franchise, but over the last couple of years my perception has changed. Getting an NFL Franchise would be huge for the city and the area. Of course, only as long as a stadium deal wouldn't handcuff local government.

With all of that said, I like what UTSA has going. If the NFL came to SA it would hurt UTSA's growth (of course if the possibility is there ... too bad UTSA). If the NFL doesn't come I see UTSA growing into a solid football program pretty fast; on the level of a UCF or South Florida within the next 5 years.

If the NFL comes, I am not sure if another stadium could be built downtown, but I would think that would be where you would want a new at least partially publicly funded stadium to be.
Urbanized area San Antonio is bigger than most on the list, same size as Portland, larger than Columbus,Ohio, Orlando, Salt Lake, Sacramento. I know the Nfl looks at regional population base and san Marcos,Kyle,Austin, are not technically a part of S.A., but it could easily be looked as if they were a CSA. Over 4 million people in 5 adjacent counties along I35. You can't claim a population this size for any of those regions listed.
__________________
2014 San Antonio Pop.1.44 million
metro 2,429,000/REGION 4.6 million

SAN ANTONIO GDP $133 BILLION.
Birthplace of the U.S. Airforce WiFi Technology & Fajitas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2013, 10:38 PM
Daren's Avatar
Daren Daren is offline
REI
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gliese 581 C
Posts: 65
I think our biggest problem is our media market. We are still very tiny.
I believe our city "leaders" should be more focused on our media market rather than street car.
How? I have no idea.

By the way, I live in S.A. and I will be driving up to Austin to see the F1 Race!

Last edited by Daren; Nov 4, 2013 at 11:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Nov 5, 2013, 5:20 AM
miaht82's Avatar
miaht82 miaht82 is offline
COGSADCAJA, Treasurer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Triangle
Posts: 1,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX View Post
Urbanized area San Antonio is bigger than most on the list, same size as Portland, larger than Columbus,Ohio, Orlando, Salt Lake, Sacramento. I know the Nfl looks at regional population base and san Marcos,Kyle,Austin, are not technically a part of S.A., but it could easily be looked as if they were a CSA. Over 4 million people in 5 adjacent counties along I35. You can't claim a population this size for any of those regions listed.
The "regional" population between the Triad (Greensboro-WS), and Triangle (Raleigh-Durham) is just under 4 million. It is 55 miles from Durham or Chapel Hill to Greensboro, which is about what it is from Schertz to Buda. Raleigh-Durham is also 24th (or 27th, depending where you look) in media market share; SA by comparison is 36th and 37th on those same lists.

I am not arguing against SA, quite the opposite, I agree with STLtoSA in that the NCAA is king around here, and I may be a bit bias, but I just don't get that same energy or vibe as I do in SA, and it may be due to the fact that there is no real "core" here as SA has (although there is a 23-story residential tower going up in DT Raleigh, but thats another topic). SA may not be tops in media market share, but it does pop up 8th on "Hispanic or Latino TV Homes", whatever that's worth to the NFL (growing city, growing demographic?), which outside of LA, makes it second on the list as next best possible location. And not for that reason alone, but for the fact that it is a healthy city in a football, beer drinking state, with some numbers to justify, just to name a few.
__________________
The Raleigh Connoisseur
It is the city trying to escape the consequences of being a city
while still remaining a city. It is urban society trying to eat its
cake and keep it, too.
- Harlan Douglass, The Suburban Trend, 1925
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 6:27 AM
STLtoSA's Avatar
STLtoSA STLtoSA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX View Post
Urbanized area San Antonio is bigger than most on the list, same size as Portland, larger than Columbus,Ohio, Orlando, Salt Lake, Sacramento. I know the Nfl looks at regional population base and san Marcos,Kyle,Austin, are not technically a part of S.A., but it could easily be looked as if they were a CSA. Over 4 million people in 5 adjacent counties along I35. You can't claim a population this size for any of those regions listed.
Just off of the top of my head I would say that LA, Portland, Columbus, and Providence (maybe even Salt Lake City) have a larger Urbanized area than San Antonio. City Population does not equal Urbanized area.

In addition, Urbanized area does not even factor into the equation for an NFL franchise (at least I don't understand how). As it has been pointed out; Socio-economics, Market size, Corporate presence, and shear fandom are the main components.

I think that you miss the point of my initial post...I was arguing that San Antonio outside of LA is the best choice. The list was to show other Metros that do not have a franchise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 12:22 PM
UrbanTrance's Avatar
UrbanTrance UrbanTrance is offline
Paradise
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 509
^^ According to this list(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...10_Urban_Areas), SA has a larger UA than all of those cities except LA and Portland. But it's much more than just population for an NFL team to relocate. If that was the case, LA would have had one in a second.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2013, 4:55 AM
STLtoSA's Avatar
STLtoSA STLtoSA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alice93 View Post
^^ According to this list(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...10_Urban_Areas), SA has a larger UA than all of those cities except LA and Portland.
Well I am not a big fan of UA and when I see someone use the term Urbanized Area I think of something completely different than that of the Census Bureau's definition.

Anyways, my response wasn't necessary because it appears that Paul' was referring to UA; and to that he was correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alice93 View Post
But it's much more than just population for an NFL team to relocate. If that was the case, LA would have had one in a second.
Agreed, which is why I posted this:
In addition, Urbanized area does not even factor into the equation for an NFL franchise (at least I don't understand how). As it has been pointed out; Socio-economics, Market size, Corporate presence, and shear fandom are the main components.

Population was only used to produce a list of possible (not probable) NFL candidate cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2013, 3:26 AM
maxus's Avatar
maxus maxus is offline
SA 24th largest city
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: san antonio
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX View Post
Urbanized area San Antonio is bigger than most on the list, same size as Portland, larger than Columbus,Ohio, Orlando, Salt Lake, Sacramento. I know the Nfl looks at regional population base and san Marcos,Kyle,Austin, are not technically a part of S.A., but it could easily be looked as if they were a CSA. Over 4 million people in 5 adjacent counties along I35. You can't claim a population this size for any of those regions listed.
sorry p. you're all confused again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2013, 4:16 AM
Paul in S.A TX's Avatar
Paul in S.A TX Paul in S.A TX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Far West Bexar County
Posts: 3,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLtoSA View Post
Well I am not a big fan of UA and when I see someone use the term Urbanized Area I think of something completely different than that of the Census Bureau's definition.

Anyways, my response wasn't necessary because it appears that Paul' was referring to UA; and to that he was correct.



Agreed, which is why I posted this:
In addition, Urbanized area does not even factor into the equation for an NFL franchise (at least I don't understand how). As it has been pointed out; Socio-economics, Market size, Corporate presence, and shear fandom are the main components.

Population was only used to produce a list of possible (not probable) NFL candidate cities.

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.
__________________
2014 San Antonio Pop.1.44 million
metro 2,429,000/REGION 4.6 million

SAN ANTONIO GDP $133 BILLION.
Birthplace of the U.S. Airforce WiFi Technology & Fajitas.

Last edited by Paul in S.A TX; Nov 9, 2013 at 4:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2013, 9:01 PM
STLtoSA's Avatar
STLtoSA STLtoSA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 6:01 AM
Paul in S.A TX's Avatar
Paul in S.A TX Paul in S.A TX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Far West Bexar County
Posts: 3,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLtoSA View Post
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:

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:


"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.


I understand what you are saying in regards to what constitutes a CSA, and how it is determined by the percentage of commuting patterns but that is based on employment figures, and it is not the same percentage that will travel for leisure activities such as a prime time sporting event such as the NFL. So looking at the raw population within a radius is the main factor, and not metro boundaries or other classifications such as TV market size.

When you mention the metros such as Raleigh Durham, Winston-Salem, Greensboro the triad, combined would have a similar population to the S.A.-Austin corridor and, that may very well be true but, that is too many cores to be looked at in the same light as the more unified Austin-SA corridor.

Regardless of all this, politics, will be the deciding factor if South/Central Texas will ever see NFL. By 2025 there will be over 5 million people in the 6 corridor counties
(Interstate 35) of the S.A/Austin corridor and, probably still no NFL.
__________________
2014 San Antonio Pop.1.44 million
metro 2,429,000/REGION 4.6 million

SAN ANTONIO GDP $133 BILLION.
Birthplace of the U.S. Airforce WiFi Technology & Fajitas.

Last edited by Paul in S.A TX; Nov 15, 2013 at 6:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2013, 8:22 PM
STLtoSA's Avatar
STLtoSA STLtoSA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX View Post
When you mention the metros such as Raleigh Durham, Winston-Salem, Greensboro the triad, combined would have a similar population to the S.A.-Austin corridor and, that may very well be true but, that is too many cores to be looked at in the same light as the more unified Austin-SA corridor.
I never grouped those together that was miaht82.

I do not believe that the Raliegh/Durham Metro and the Greensboro/Winston-Salem Metro should be combined into one area.

However, if one wants to lump Austin and San Antonio together then you might as well lump the NC cities together too. The similarities between the two regions are scary.

Distance:
Greensboro to Raleigh - 82 miles
San Antonio to Austin - 81 miles

Lewisville (far west) to Clayton (far east) - 130 miles
Castroville to Serenada - 132 miles

Population (2012 Estimates):
SA/Austin Area - 4,068,000
Raleigh/Greensboro Area - 3,610,051

The main difference is that the NC area is more fragmented with at least 4 cores where the SA/Austin area has two distinct cores.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2013, 5:50 AM
miaht82's Avatar
miaht82 miaht82 is offline
COGSADCAJA, Treasurer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Triangle
Posts: 1,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLtoSA View Post
I never grouped those together that was miaht82.

I do not believe that the Raliegh/Durham Metro and the Greensboro/Winston-Salem Metro should be combined into one area.

However, if one wants to lump Austin and San Antonio together then you might as well lump the NC cities together too. The similarities between the two regions are scary.

Distance:
Greensboro to Raleigh - 82 miles
San Antonio to Austin - 81 miles

Lewisville (far west) to Clayton (far east) - 130 miles
Castroville to Serenada - 132 miles

Population (2012 Estimates):
SA/Austin Area - 4,068,000
Raleigh/Greensboro Area - 3,610,051

The main difference is that the NC area is more fragmented with at least 4 cores where the SA/Austin area has two distinct cores.
...and I only lumped them together to speak to the point of "regional" pull, which area and population-wise (like you pointed out) is a similar comparison. However, I also said that the two didn't compare due to the fact that alot of the population is spread out here (I live in Cary).
__________________
The Raleigh Connoisseur
It is the city trying to escape the consequences of being a city
while still remaining a city. It is urban society trying to eat its
cake and keep it, too.
- Harlan Douglass, The Suburban Trend, 1925
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2013, 11:16 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 2,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daren View Post
I think our biggest problem is our media market. We are still very tiny.
I believe our city "leaders" should be more focused on our media market rather than street car.
How? I have no idea.

By the way, I live in S.A. and I will be driving up to Austin to see the F1 Race!
That's a point to consider...you will be driving up to Austin for ONE race.

Let's really examine this "regional" notion...how many Austinites will actually drive to SA for multiple NFL games every year is the real question to ponder (especially considering the traffic issues in Austin and the corridor)? I believe: not many. At least not enough to count on to fill a portion of a stadium.

Should an Austinite have an affiliation with an NFL franchise, it's more likely Dallas or Houston. Citizens of Austin will not get "excited" about an NFL franchise in SA (and absolutely visa versa). It's too new. Is UTSA building a 100,000-seat stadium for its now-FBS football team? No. One must build its fan base. Even in a metro of 2.2 million people (let alone a "region" of 4.1 million). Thus, any argument trying to use the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos MSA as an additional reason to place an NFL franchise in SA is misguided and weak.

The NFL is too smart and they know this fact. In actuality, the NFL focuses on TV markets, not "potential CSA size." And at last check, the SA market does not include Austin and visa versa in their respective TV markets (to which Daren has alluded). Dallas-Ft. Worth, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach (as examples) are all individual TV markets. It really does not matter how "close" two cities are...it's whether or not they are considered one or two individual markets.

Furthermore, and most importantly, if SA cannot stand on its own, it should not be granted a franchise (another point to which the NFL is familiar...see: Jacksonville, Tampa). Look at two of the most storied NFL franchises: Miami and Oakland...they are both currently hurting financially in "regions" that put AUS-SAT to shame in terms of population. Carolina is having a good year (on the field), yet its franchise is still not in the most positive of financial positions.

The citizens of SA will be solely responsible for the success or failure of an NFL franchise in San Antonio. It is not the responsibility of Austin to help or sustain a franchise in another city...especially since it will not reap any benefits (should they be available).
__________________
Austin (City): 931,830 +17.90% - '10-'15 | Austin MSA (5 counties): 2,056,405 +19.82% - '10-'16
San Antonio (City): 1,469,845 +10.73% - '10-'15 | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,429,609 +13.40% - '10-'16
AUS-SAT "CSA" (13 counties): 4,486,014 +16.25% - '10-'16 | *SRC: US Census*

Last edited by GoldenBoot; Nov 20, 2013 at 11:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:13 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.