HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 9:14 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
You literally just made my point (Clippers were good, selling out every game, etc. - yet Lakers still the hottest ticket and most relevant overall team in town). Thanks!
Lol, just because the Lakers are so popular doesnt make the Clippers irrelevant. You think the Grizzlies or Pelicans have more fans that the Clippers? Of course not, just based on sheer size of the metro.

Another example is the Dodgers and Angels... Dodgers are like the Lakers, massive following, lead the league in attendance every year, massive road draw... Doesnt lessen the Angels however.. They are always in the top 5 or 6 in attendance, have a solid following and are usually a good team.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 9:15 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Return of MLB to Montreal with the re-location of the Tampa Bay Rays. White Sox to Vancouver.
That would be great honestly. Would love to see more teams in Canada.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 9:17 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannedairspray View Post
NYC, for example, has nearly ten times the population of Pittsburgh. All things being equal, you'd think, then, that it could support ten teams. And that's not even looking at the more important number, GDP.
Two teams (per league) even for big cities like LA, NYC and Chicago is enough. Anything more than that and they get just lost in the shuffle. We aren't like London with their zillion football clubs and their identity is more on a local/ neighborhood level than city wide.

Last edited by JManc; Apr 9, 2018 at 9:35 PM. Reason: Grammer..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 9:20 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
I get that a team's location is primarily based on the amount of revenue that can be generated in said city, and it follows that teams based in mega media markets are likely to thrive.

But I still wonder whether the NBA, MLB and (now) NFL are really better off by having TWO teams in both NYC and L.A.? Seems as though having the Clippers in, say, Seattle or San Diego (where they one were) would make more sense; having the Nets in, say, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincinnati or St. Louis would make more sense, etc. Seems like the Portland or Sacramento "Angels" or Indianapolis or Charlotte "Mets" would also make more sense. Same would follow for their respective teams in the NFL.

Two teams in each league in both cities seems unnecessary, IMO.
Dont agree at all. Theres a reason why the Chargers doubled in value in one year even though they are the least talked about team in the LA sports landscape and might be the 5th or 6th most popular NFL team in LA.

The New York and LA markets are massive. Both are bigger than at least 46 states each. Not to even mention the natural rivalries that exist in each city between teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 9:21 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Anything more than two teams (per league) even for big cities like LA, NYC and Chicago is enough. Anything more than that and they get just lost in the shuffle. We aren't like London with their zillion football clubs and their identity is more on a local/ neighborhood level than city wide.
I agree with this. Two is the most any metro should have or else you get a situation like the Islanders and Devils who are always last in attendance and are irrelevant
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 9:38 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
I get that a team's location is primarily based on the amount of revenue that can be generated in said city, and it follows that teams based in mega media markets are likely to thrive.

But I still wonder whether the NBA, MLB and (now) NFL are really better off by having TWO teams in both NYC and L.A.? Seems as though having the Clippers in, say, Seattle or San Diego (where they one were) would make more sense; having the Nets in, say, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincinnati or St. Louis would make more sense, etc. Seems like the Portland or Sacramento "Angels" or Indianapolis or Charlotte "Mets" would also make more sense. Same would follow for their respective teams in the NFL.

Two teams in each league in both cities seems unnecessary, IMO.
You go where you make the most money, heck, you could fit a third team in LA or New York and be better than being the only team in Buffalo or even Denver.

The thing to understand is that while many people who go to pro sporting events are fans, many are just families and professionals looking to going to an event like the circus or a concert. Meanwhile, companies buy crazy amounts of tickets that come at a discount for employees looking for live entertainment. Corporations are the ones buying most of the suites, club seats and expensive seats close to the action.

Over the years, Knicks tickets have been impossible to get at times, so someone in New York who just wanted to take their family to an NBA game without paying outrageous prices if they could even find tickets could take them to a Nets game without having to go all the way to Philadelphia for a game. Same for Lakers/Clippers.

There's also a bias for being in a section of a town or area. The Angels more or less own Orange County, even as they gave them the shaft by trying to call themselves "Los Angeles." Correct me if I'm wrong New Yorkers but people in Queens and Brooklyn tend to root for the Mets more than the Yankees while the Yankees dominate everything else.

People in these big markets also get each league, as New York, Chicago, LA and the Bay Area for long had/have teams in both sides of the NFL and MLB, meaning they could see players and teams from each league every few, if not every season without leaving the metro area.

Finally, there's the media factor. There's plenty of room for crossover, as Mets fans will often watch a World Series with the Yankees. Raiders fans will watch a Super Bowl involving the 49ers. And just because you're a fan for one doesn't mean you can't be a fan for both. This, of course means that there are more sports fans in general in a place like New York, LA or Chicago. Instead of just going to a Yankees game or Mets game, you can go to both.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 9:38 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
I agree with this. Two is the most any metro should have or else you get a situation like the Islanders and Devils who are always last in attendance and are irrelevant
And the poor Clippers during the 90's. Like clock work...Jay Leno while still on the Tonight Show, would take a shot at OJ and the Clippers. Everynight. lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 9:59 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Two teams (per league) even for big cities like LA, NYC and Chicago is enough. Anything more than that and they get just lost in the shuffle. We aren't like London with their zillion football clubs and their identity is more on a local/ neighborhood level than city wide.
Are you saying another baseball or basketball team couldn't set up shop in, say, New Jersey and not do really well?

The one that's in over its head is the Bay Area, it simply can't support two franchises in both sports like it used to. It's not decidedly richer or bigger than metros like Houston, Dallas and Washington/Baltimore. And the Bay Area tends to skew toward the San Francisco and San Jose area, so I suppose there's no room for Oakland anymore, even after decades of tradition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 10:11 PM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,716
The Spurs wI'll never move. Deep history in that city that goes back decades; the team is interwoven in local history. Austin is all hype as a largely college town with transits. It will end up like Arizona where lots of transplants that still root for their hometown teams. Austin will get MLS as that is a younger demographic sport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 10:12 PM
JAYNYC JAYNYC is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 914
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
Are you saying another baseball or basketball team couldn't set up shop in, say, New Jersey and not do really well?

The one that's in over its head is the Bay Area, it simply can't support two franchises in both sports like it used to. It's not decidedly richer or bigger than metros like Houston, Dallas and Washington/Baltimore. And the Bay Area tends to skew toward the San Francisco and San Jose area, so I suppose there's no room for Oakland anymore, even after decades of tradition.
I agree; if anything, I could see a large metro rich in football history & culture like Dallas / Ft. Worth making a case for two NFL teams before the Bay Area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 10:28 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is online now
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
I agree; if anything, I could see a large metro rich in football history & culture like Dallas / Ft. Worth making a case for two NFL teams before the Bay Area.
This will never happen. Ever.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 10:32 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is online now
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
Uh, CLIPPERS?? By far the least cared about pro sports team in any city, hands down. Even in the Clippers' best years - which coincided with the Lakers' worst years - the Lakers were still the hottest ticket in town.
Well of course. I'm a Clipper fan but a team with as rich as a history as the Lakers, who wouldn't want to see them? The Clippers have a very large fan base here in the LA area. A lot of NBA teams would benefit for having a large fan base such as the Clippers. Regardless if they win or not.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 10:37 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
They should be the Crawfish.
Or New Orleans Rapids? or N.O. Flood?

Before somebody says: "Oh, hell no!" there is precedent for naming teams after natural disasters like San Jose Earthquakes, Carolina Hurricanes, Miami Hurricanes and so on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 10:37 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonJXN View Post
This will never happen. Ever.
Only because Dallas is way too entrenched as a Cowboys city. Only if the Packers could somehow move there or the Saints. But the Saints would do far better in Houston as a second team if they had to quickly abandon New Orleans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 11:20 PM
JAYNYC JAYNYC is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 914
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonJXN View Post
This will never happen. Ever.
I never said it will. I said I could see Dallas / Ft. Worth making a case for supporting two NFL teams because of the area's rich football heritage before I could see the Bay Area making the same case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 11:26 PM
Nomad9's Avatar
Nomad9 Nomad9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
1. The word "Austin" is almost synonymous with "momentum", so by all means, yes there would.

2. The Spurs *were too popular and too good. In light of the Kawhi Leonard uncertainty, there is more than enough reason to believe that those circumstances have peaked and are now trending in the opposite direction.

3. Google "Washington Wizards Wikipedia", and refer to "Baltimore Bullets". There is precedent, as those two cities also eventually became one CSA (with the faster-growing, more prominent city retaining the team).
This would be like the Packers moving to Milwaukee. Not going to happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 11:29 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is online now
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
I never said it will. I said I could see Dallas / Ft. Worth making a case for supporting two NFL teams because of the area's rich football heritage before I could see the Bay Area making the same case.
I don't see any other football team other than the Cowboys at all in Dallas. I remember when they made a stink about the Texans.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2018, 11:56 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
I never said it will. I said I could see Dallas / Ft. Worth making a case for supporting two NFL teams because of the area's rich football heritage before I could see the Bay Area making the same case.
What? The Bay Area would still have two teams long term if the Raiders weren't too prideful to move in with the Niners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2018, 12:42 AM
cannedairspray cannedairspray is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Two teams (per league) even for big cities like LA, NYC and Chicago is enough. Anything more than that and they get just lost in the shuffle. We aren't like London with their zillion football clubs and their identity is more on a local/ neighborhood level than city wide.
I agree, just saying from a financial standpoint, it's understandable that a third team in NYC can be more profitable than one in a mid tier city. More boring as fans, though, you're right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong New Yorkers but people in Queens and Brooklyn tend to root for the Mets more than the Yankees while the Yankees dominate everything else.
Yes, and the rule of thumb is generally it goes "Mets, Jets, Nets, and Islanders". There's of course millions of exceptions, but the plurality of New York sports fans are in either that camp or the more traditional Yankees/Knicks/Giants/Rangers core. That doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2018, 1:05 AM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Move all teams away from Milwaukee. 100 sports seasons and only 1 title almost 50 years ago. They got to draft Kareem, so they lucked out. 1 World Series appearance. 1 more Finals appearance and only two more times even getting to close to playing for it all in either sport. Tough luck in the 80's though.

And Green Bay is not Milwaukee.
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 > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:50 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.