AARoads Forum

What if by 2027, the big 4 - Major League Baseball (MLB), National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA) and National Hockey League (NHL) decided to expand up to 38 teams each? The lucky number - and enough to fill the 30-35 largest sports markets in the USA+Canada?

MLB EXPANSION TEAMS:
Austin Colts (NL), Brooklyn Robins (AL), Buffalo Bisons (NL), Montreal Expos (NL), New Orleans Bobcats (AL), Orlando Alligators (NL), Portland Beavers (AL), and Sacramento Golden Retrievers (AL).
These cities tried to get a MLB team for years or decades. Austin has a triple-A team the Round Rock Express. Brooklyn wants the Mets and Yanks approve a 3rd baseball team in NYC, like until 1958 as the Dodgers left for LA, Buffalo had a team a century ago before disbanding by WW1, the first MLB team outside the US was the original Expos in Montreal (1969-2005) now the Washington Nationals, New Orleans renovated their superdome for the Saints NFL team, Orlando attempted to get a MLB team (as recently as the Houston Astros and Tampa Bay Rays), Portland like Orlando has no minor league baseball team (other than in nearby areas) and Sacramento either gets the A's out of Oakland or get their own.

NFL EXPANSION TEAMS (note petitions in Oakland to keep the Raiders and court cases to bring back the Chargers to San Diego is possible):
Birmingham Bolts (NC), Chicago Hound-Dogs (AC), Las Vegas Locos (AC), Los Angeles Sharks (AC), St. Louis Stallions (NC) and San Antonio Oilers (AC).
Birmingham had 4 or 5 pro football teams but never in the NFL, Chicago tries to get a 2nd NFL team (the last time was in 1950), Las Vegas is worthy for expansion, L.A. is big enough for a 2nd NFL team, St. Louis tries again for the 4th time (formerly had the Gunners, Cardinals and Rams), and San Antonio briefly had the NFL Saints after New Orleans recovers from Hurricane Katrina.
Unless the CFL approves: the Toronto Wolfpack (NC). And in Mexico, Los Coyotes del Mexico (NC).

NBA EXPANSION TEAMS:
Cincinnati-Kentucky Colonels (EC), Kansas City (Bob)Cats (WC), Las Vegas Vipers (WC), New Jersey Swamp Dragons (EC), Pittsburgh Power (EC), San Diego Dolphins (WC), Seattle SuperSonics (WC), and Virginia Beach Squires (EC).
KFC wanted to own a NBA team in Louisville, Robert Katz might create a new team in Kansas City or Omaha (they had the Kings, 1972-84), Las Vegas hosted the 2007 NBA all-star game despite not  in the league, New Jersey had the Nets before they went to Brooklyn (maybe they and the Knicks will approve), Pittsburgh natives Mark Cuban (currently owner of the Dallas Mavericks) and Lakers fan Christina Aguilera bring the NBA to the burg, San Diego's 4th attempt in basketball (formerly had the Clippers, 1976-83 and Rockets, 1967-72), Seattle's 2nd supersonics-their original left in 2008 to become the Oklahoma City Thunder, and Virginia Beach-Norfolk's first major league sports team since 1976.

NHL EXPANSION TEAMS (currently 31 with the new Vegas Golden Knights in WC):
Atlanta Thrashers (EC), Hartford or Connecticut Whale (EC), Houston Wolfpack (WC), Kansas City Scouts (WC), Quebec City (Les Nordiques du Quebec) (EC), Saskatoon or Saskatchewan Blizzard (WC), and Seattle Bullfrogs (WC) - the NHL moves the Nashville Predators to EC.
Atlanta's 3rd team after the Flames, 1972-79 went to Calgary and the Thrashers, 1999-2011, 2nd NHL team in Hartford-the Whalers, 1972-97 relocated to Carolina (the Hurricanes), Houston is the largest city in North America without the NHL, either the Scouts play in Kansas City, KS (not MO) or Topeka (KS), the return of the Nordiques, 1972-95, Saskatoon made a failed proposal for the St. Louis Blues to move there in 1982, and Seattle was part of the original Stanley Cup NHL a century ago.

I like this one, but not real likely:
Nova Scotia or Halifax Highlanders (EC). all of Canada is covered with a team in Nova Scotia.

Hopefully the US economy improves for another decade, as well the Canadian dollar do pretty well. I don't believe the NFL will expand to London nor all of Europe, NBA in Vancouver again (or in Hawaii - the LA Lakers train in Honolulu), MLB in Mexico or Puerto Rico, and NHL's 2nd team idea in Toronto area (Hamilton). I can see Aurora IL - the state's 2nd largest city build a new arena for the Chicagoland metro area, but the Bulls (NBA) and BlackHawks (NHL) is quite enough. The Aurora Aliens (NHL) - named for being near the Enrico Fermi NASA facility and National Laboratory in Aurora IL...and the Chicago Knights (NBA) - named for Chicagoland as if it was a kingdom.       

I can't see MLB expanding beyond 32 teams. There just aren't enough quality pitchers as it is.

Really I don't see ANY of the North American pro leagues expanding past 32. That number provides the best symmetry for scheduling, as the NFL shows. A 33rd team in the NFL would throw conferences and divisions out of whack and upset the schedule rotation that's been in place since the league last expanded.

As far as expanding to 32 for the other leagues, I don't have a problem with it. A 32-team MLB would solve the problem of interleague games every night. Plus you can end this wild card mess and have four true champions in the division playoffs.

First, as mentioned above, expanding beyond 32 makes things messy division and schedule-wise. Second, while I think the talent-dilution argument doesn't make statistical sense, I do think adding between six and eight teams in each league over the next ten years would certainly mean a noticeable drop in quality of play for at least the ten years following.

Third, about half of the markets you mention already borderline too small in terms of market size, plus in terms of population growth they are relatively stagnant or even shrinking: Buffalo, New Orleans, Birmingham, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Hartford.

I can see 32 teams in each league:

NHL: Hartford or Quebec
MLB: (pick two) Portland, Charlotte, or San Antonio/Austin
NBA: (pick two) Seattle, Norfolk, Las Vegas, or Kansas City

If the NBA and the NFL both ended up in Las Vegas, I could see the NHL team relocating within a few years after.

MLS is expanding to 28 teams over the next few seasons, and is expected to announce teams 25 to 28 next year. The official bids: Miami (Beckham's bid, pretty much guaranteed to be number 24); Charlotte; Cincinnati; Detroit; Indianapolis; Nashville; Phoenix; Raleigh; Sacramento; San Antonio; San Diego; St. Louis; and Tampa.

I think Cincinnati, Phoenix, Sacramento, and Tampa have the best chances of winning, based on support of their lower-division teams and strong market potential.

The Columbus Crew has announced it's moving to Austin in 2019, so scratch San Antonio.

A recent article I read about MLB mentioned how the commish wanted to see the PNW get another team.  That means PDX or bust.  Since MLS took over the baseball stadium and remodeled it instead of building a proper soccer facility, it will be interesting to see how the Rose City sorts out the stadium situation.  If I was doing the deciding, the former baseball stadium would be repurposed for that once more with additional seating meant to bring up the number to 35K-40K, then a new soccer stadium seating 40K would get built where a derelict greyhound racing track now is.  Build the soccer stadium with a mind towards the future in case pro football wants to come into town.

Rick

Quote from: ]

i]MLS is expanding to 28 teams over the next few seasons, and is expected to announce teams 25 to 28 next year. The official bids: Miami (Beckham's bid, pretty much guaranteed to be number 24); Charlotte; Cincinnati; Detroit; Indianapolis; Nashville; Phoenix; Raleigh; Sacramento; San Antonio; San Diego; St. Louis; and Tampa.

I think Cincinnati, Phoenix, Sacramento, and Tampa have the best chances of winning, based on support of their lower-division teams and strong market potential.

The Columbus Crew has announced it's moving to Austin in 2019, so scratch San Antonio.[/i]

OK then, I theorized a second MLS team in Arizona before: Mesa or Tucson, because the Phoenix metro area, like Houston, is expected to surpass the current 3rd largest city - Chicago, IL in 2026. Current US megalopolis (or enlarged metropolis) areas with 2 or more teams per sport are 1. New York City (3 NHL, 2 MLB, 2 NFL, 2 NBA and 2 MLS), 2. Los Angeles (now 2 NFL, 2 MLB, 2 NBA, 2 NHL and 2 MLS), 3. San Francisco Bay area ( 2- soon to 1 NFL, 2 MLB, 1 NBA+1 in Sacramento, and 1 NHL and 1 MLS-in San Jose), 4. Chicago (2 MLB, 1 NFL, 1 NBA, 1 NHL and 1 MLS), and 5. Washington DC- Baltimore MD (2 NFL, 2 MLB, 1 NBA, 1 NHL and 1 MLS). Columbus OH - caught between Cincinnati and Cleveland, will get a lower-level soccer team then. And Raleigh NC is between charlotte and Norfolk-Virginia Beach, which has an interest in Major League Soccer.

Quote from: Road Hog on November 06, 2017, 11:02:53 PM
The Columbus Crew has announced it's moving to Austin in 2019, so scratch San Antonio.

It's not guaranteed, as it relies on both Austin gifting the team a stadium AND the support of other MLS owners. The public pushback has been very strong, with Columbus-area businesses and other MLS teams getting involved.

Quote from: nexus73 on November 06, 2017, 11:15:48 PM
A recent article I read about MLB mentioned how the commish wanted to see the PNW get another team.  That means PDX or bust.  Since MLS took over the baseball stadium and remodeled it instead of building a proper soccer facility, it will be interesting to see how the Rose City sorts out the stadium situation.  If I was doing the deciding, the former baseball stadium would be repurposed for that once more with additional seating meant to bring up the number to 35K-40K, then a new soccer stadium seating 40K would get built where a derelict greyhound racing track now is.  Build the soccer stadium with a mind towards the future in case pro football wants to come into town.

Rick

MLS doesn't want to jump to stadiums that big that soon for a city like Portland (though the support can probably sustain 35K attendances). And the Timbers really do belong in the old Civic Stadium and nowhere else. It would be hard for them to move from their long-time home.

Quote from: Desert Man on November 06, 2017, 11:16:47 PM

OK then, I theorized a second MLS team in Arizona before: Mesa or Tucson, because the Phoenix metro area, like Houston, is expected to surpass the current 3rd largest city - Chicago, IL in 2026. And Raleigh NC is between charlotte and Norfolk-Virginia Beach, which has an interest in Major League Soccer.

MLS is not going to give Arizona two teams at once. And cities that aren't bidding now will not see MLS. Better hope for a USL expansion.

Quote from: Desert Man on November 06, 2017, 02:11:14 PM
I can see Aurora IL - the state's 2nd largest city build a new arena for the Chicagoland metro area, but the Bulls (NBA) and BlackHawks (NHL) is quite enough. The Aurora Aliens (NHL) - named for being near the Enrico Fermi NASA facility in Aurora IL...and the Chicago Knights (NBA) - named for Chicagoland as if it was a kingdom.       

Aurora is the 2nd largest city (by population), but Fermilab is a Depart of Energy facility, last I checked, not NASA. Famous for a Particle Accelerator and Atom Smashing, and also having a herd of Buffalo on the grounds of the facility

So I would rather see the Aurora Atoms or Aurora Buffalo.

Fermilab, I believe, is mostly in Batavia/Kane County

All that said, I'd sooner see a 2nd Chicagoland Hockey team at one of the existing Arenas -- either out in Rosemont/O'Hare area at the Allstate Arena, or in Hoffman Estates at the Sears Center. But I don't see the Blackhawks being in a big hurry to share the Market.

I would almost see Milwaukee, or possibly Green Bay or Madison, as a Hockey city before a 2nd Chicago team -- due to not fighting existing Primary Market teams, as the Blackhawks and Wild are both far enough away

Quote from: ilpt4u on November 07, 2017, 12:07:26 AM

Quote from: Desert Man on November 06, 2017, 02:11:14 PM
I can see Aurora IL - the state's 2nd largest city build a new arena for the Chicagoland metro area, but the Bulls (NBA) and BlackHawks (NHL) is quite enough. The Aurora Aliens (NHL) - named for being near the Enrico Fermi NASA facility in Aurora IL...and the Chicago Knights (NBA) - named for Chicagoland as if it was a kingdom.       

Aurora is the 2nd largest city (by population), but Fermilab is a Depart of Energy facility, last I checked, not NASA. Famous for a Particle Accelerator and Atom Smashing, and also having a herd of Buffalo on the grounds of the facility

So I would rather see the Aurora Atoms or Aurora Buffalo.

Fermilab, I believe, is mostly in Batavia/Kane County

All that said, I'd sooner see a 2nd Chicagoland Hockey team at one of the existing Arenas -- either out in Rosemont/O'Hare area at the Allstate Arena, or in Hoffman Estates at the Sears Center. But I don't see the Blackhawks being in a big hurry to share the Market.

I would almost see Milwaukee, or possibly Green Bay or Madison, as a Hockey city before a 2nd Chicago team -- due to not fighting existing Primary Market teams, as the Blackhawks and Wild are both far enough away

Yes, Aurora IL has a bigger chance for a NBA team than New Jersey (the NY Knicks and Brooklyn Nets may object) and a NHL team than Saskatchewan (Aurora has more people in its metropolis). The Chicagoland metro area is among the largest in the country. And Aurora is in Kane county (its seat) - only 30 some miles west of Chicago.

Quote from: nexus73 on November 06, 2017, 11:15:48 PM
A recent article I read about MLB mentioned how the commish wanted to see the PNW get another team.  That means PDX or bust.

*shrug* It takes a vote of team owners, and if they don't like the metrics, doesn't matter what anyone says up top. I think a third Texas team makes a lot of sense, but beyond that? Maybe Charlotte. Mayyyybe. I'm not convinced.

Quote from: nexus73 on November 06, 2017, 11:15:48 PM
A recent article I read about MLB mentioned how the commish wanted to see the PNW get another team.  That means PDX or bust.  ....

Or Vancouver, though I haven't heard any talk of it.

Quote from: Desert Man on November 07, 2017, 12:20:56 AM

Quote from: ilpt4u on November 07, 2017, 12:07:26 AM

Quote from: Desert Man on November 06, 2017, 02:11:14 PM
I can see Aurora IL - the state's 2nd largest city build a new arena for the Chicagoland metro area, but the Bulls (NBA) and BlackHawks (NHL) is quite enough. The Aurora Aliens (NHL) - named for being near the Enrico Fermi NASA facility in Aurora IL...and the Chicago Knights (NBA) - named for Chicagoland as if it was a kingdom.       

Aurora is the 2nd largest city (by population), but Fermilab is a Depart of Energy facility, last I checked, not NASA. Famous for a Particle Accelerator and Atom Smashing, and also having a herd of Buffalo on the grounds of the facility

So I would rather see the Aurora Atoms or Aurora Buffalo.

Fermilab, I believe, is mostly in Batavia/Kane County

All that said, I'd sooner see a 2nd Chicagoland Hockey team at one of the existing Arenas -- either out in Rosemont/O'Hare area at the Allstate Arena, or in Hoffman Estates at the Sears Center. But I don't see the Blackhawks being in a big hurry to share the Market.

I would almost see Milwaukee, or possibly Green Bay or Madison, as a Hockey city before a 2nd Chicago team -- due to not fighting existing Primary Market teams, as the Blackhawks and Wild are both far enough away

Yes, Aurora IL has a bigger chance for a NBA team than New Jersey (the NY Knicks and Brooklyn Nets may object) and a NHL team than Saskatchewan (Aurora has more people in its metropolis). The Chicagoland metro area is among the largest in the country. And Aurora is in Kane county (its seat) - only 30 some miles west of Chicago.

I-88 rivalry ;)

The only league with any possible expansion capability is the NHL.  No league will allow additional teams in existing markets.  The NHL does not have teams in several large southern cities, plus, assuming the Canadian economy does not tank as it looks like it is doing, it can return to several Canadian metros as well.

Quote from: SP Cook on November 07, 2017, 09:42:36 AM
The only league with any possible expansion capability is the NHL.  No league will allow additional teams in existing markets.  The NHL does not have teams in several large southern cities, plus, assuming the Canadian economy does not tank as it looks like it is doing, it can return to several Canadian metros as well.

The Vegas Golden Knights started play this season, and I'm suspecting that the 32nd team will join within the next few seasons.

St. Louis?   The Metro Area has 3 million people and doesn't have an NFL or NBA team anymore.  Hasn't there been rumors about the NFL possibly relocating the Chargers back to San Diego given the disaster it has been so far in Los Angeles?

Quote from: SP Cook on November 07, 2017, 09:42:36 AM
The only league with any possible expansion capability is the NHL.  No league will allow additional teams in existing markets.  The NHL does not have teams in several large southern cities, plus, assuming the Canadian economy does not tank as it looks like it is doing, it can return to several Canadian metros as well.

huh?

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy-blows-past-expectations-creates-35000-jobs-in-october/article36823828/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Quote from: Desert Man on November 06, 2017, 11:16:47 PM
the Phoenix metro area, like Houston, is expected to surpass the current 3rd largest city - Chicago, IL in 2026.

Source, please? This would mean the Houston area would have an annual growth rate of 16.5% for the next nine years (current annual growth rate is 1.6%), and the Phoenix area would have an annual growth rate of 24.6% (current annual growth rate is 1.2%).

Washington-Baltimore will likely pass Chicago by 2026, but the next closest region (Bay Area) will still be a million people behind, and the region after that (Dallas-Fort Worth) will still be two million behind. No one else will be close.

Milwaukee was talked about back in the late 1980s as a possible expansion city for the NHL. The Bradley Center was built in 1988 with the hopes of attracting an NHL franchise, either relocation or expansion. But I don't believe a viable ownership group ever materialized, and the Blackhawks of course objected to Milwaukee having a team, as that would cut into their fan base and market share. The enthusiasm for hockey certainly exists in Milwaukee and Wisconsin, as the AHL's Admirals and the Badgers hockey teams are well-followed and attended. There was even some renewal of talk about an NHL team in Milwaukee with the building of the Bucks' new arena. However it was never serious talk, and I don't see it happening in the future. Milwaukee certainly supports its two current major sports teams, the Bucks and Brewers, along with the Packers of course, but I don't think the Milwaukee market is large enough to support another team.

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 07, 2017, 10:10:38 AM
St. Louis?   The Metro Area has 3 million people and doesn't have an NFL or NBA team anymore.  Hasn't there been rumors about the NFL possibly relocating the Chargers back to San Diego given the disaster it has been so far in Los Angeles?

They may leave LA but get over the fact they are not going back to San Diego. They will take a look at San Antonio or Portland.

Quote from: Takumi on November 06, 2017, 06:23:41 PM
I can't see MLB expanding beyond 32 teams. There just aren't enough quality pitchers as it is.

Mighty Manfred the Wondercommissioner has made it clear that he wants teams in Montreal and Portland OR, and soon.  But expansion beyond 30 teams is unlikely -- not enough talent for 32.  Two of the following three teams with ballpark issues would more likely be moved:  Oakland, Tampa Bay, Arizona.

As far as the other leagues go:

NFL:  King Roger is hellbent on putting a team in London, but expansion is also highly unlikely.  The Jaguars or Chargers are more likely to move there, if any team does.  The Raiders are already headed for Lost Wages, so they're out of the question.  32 teams is ideal for the NFL, anyway.

NBA:  Expansion?!?  The quality of play in that league is so pathetic, they should contract rather than expand.  There aren't enough good players to support 24 teams right now, let alone 30.  Get rid of the small-market teams that generate zero interest to the NBA's core urban, mostly-affluent audience and the advertisers that target them.  They need great teams in NY, LA (specifically the Lakers), and Chicago, not Utah, San Antonio, and OKC, no matter how good the latter three teams have been over the years.  The NBA is a big-city league that needs its great players in those top media markets.

NHL:  They've talked about Quebec City, London ON, Portland OR, and yet another go of it in Atlanta (why bother?), but they also don't need to expand.  If anything, they could stand to drop a team, specifically the Arizona Coyotes, who are pathetic and have had arena issues ever since they moved to Phoenix from Winnipeg.   Hockey doesn't work on the west side, and there are no prospects for a new arena in the Mesa or downtown Phoenix areas since their proposed deal with ASU fell through.

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 07, 2017, 07:07:50 PM

Quote from: Takumi on November 06, 2017, 06:23:41 PM
I can't see MLB expanding beyond 32 teams. There just aren't enough quality pitchers as it is.

Mighty Manfred the Wondercommissioner has made it clear that he wants teams in Montreal and Portland OR, and soon.  But expansion beyond 30 teams is unlikely -- not enough talent for 32.  Two of the following three teams with ballpark issues would more likely be moved:  Oakland, Tampa Bay, Arizona.

As far as the other leagues go:

NFL:  King Roger is hellbent on putting a team in London, but expansion is also highly unlikely.  The Jaguars or Chargers are more likely to move there, if any team does.  The Raiders are already headed for Lost Wages, so they're out of the question.  32 teams is ideal for the NFL, anyway.

NBA:  Expansion?!?  The quality of play in that league is so pathetic, they should contract rather than expand.  There aren't enough good players to support 24 teams right now, let alone 30.  Get rid of the small-market teams that generate zero interest to the NBA's core urban, mostly-affluent audience and the advertisers that target them.  They need great teams in NY, LA (specifically the Lakers), and Chicago, not Utah, San Antonio, and OKC, no matter how good the latter three teams have been over the years.  The NBA is a big-city league that needs its great players in those top media markets.

NHL:  They've talked about Quebec City, London ON, Portland OR, and yet another go of it in Atlanta (why bother?), but they also don't need to expand.  If anything, they could stand to drop a team, specifically the Arizona Coyotes, who are pathetic and have had arena issues ever since they moved to Phoenix from Winnipeg.   Hockey doesn't work on the west side, and there are no prospects for a new arena in the Mesa or downtown Phoenix areas since their proposed deal with ASU fell through.

About the "Arizona" (I remember they were Phoenix) Coyotes - their arena proposal in Tempe is dead? Maybe it's time to get packing to London, Ontario - unless the Maple Leafs object to a regional rival, and Hamilton, Ontario - too close to the Buffalo Sabres.
There was the proposed Toronto Legacy team in the late 2000s, so I guess the London Legacy (OH MAN, good one) is still possible, but London has a minor league hockey team.

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 07, 2017, 07:07:50 PM

Quote from: Takumi on November 06, 2017, 06:23:41 PM
I can't see MLB expanding beyond 32 teams. There just aren't enough quality pitchers as it is.

Mighty Manfred the Wondercommissioner has made it clear that he wants teams in Montreal and Portland OR, and soon.  But expansion beyond 30 teams is unlikely -- not enough talent for 32.  Two of the following three teams with ballpark issues would more likely be moved:  Oakland, Tampa Bay, Arizona.

What's wrong with the D-backs' stadium?

Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2017, 12:14:04 PM

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 07, 2017, 07:07:50 PM

Quote from: Takumi on November 06, 2017, 06:23:41 PM
I can't see MLB expanding beyond 32 teams. There just aren't enough quality pitchers as it is.

Mighty Manfred the Wondercommissioner has made it clear that he wants teams in Montreal and Portland OR, and soon.  But expansion beyond 30 teams is unlikely -- not enough talent for 32.  Two of the following three teams with ballpark issues would more likely be moved:  Oakland, Tampa Bay, Arizona.

What's wrong with the D-backs' stadium?

The Diamondbacks aren't going anywhere.   The Phoenix market is way too large and the stadium is in a premium location in downtown.  Not to mention the entire Cactus League is played in the Phoenix metro area.

Regarding the comment above about moving the Coyotes, if that were to happen the league would almost certainly prefer to keep them somewhere in the West to avoid realignment headaches. Currently the split is 16 teams in the Eastern Conference (all of them in the Eastern Time Zone, too) and 15 teams in the Western (none in the Eastern Time Zone).

It's widely believed that an expansion team would go to Seattle if they could work out the arena situation, and if that were to occur the league might then allow the Florida Panthers to move to Quebec City. The league is dead-set against Southern Ontario, other than maybe considering a second team in Toronto, because of concern about what might happen to the Sabres. The Sabres draw a fair number of Canadians to their games because of the cost and difficulty of obtaining Leafs tickets. (This is why the Sabres have both anthems before every game.) A team in Hamilton or somewhere might suck away a good chunk of that attendance.

Yes, I mentioned the Phoenix metro area, which has nearly a million winter seasonal residents (the US census states 1.5 million live in Phoenix), can make the key city the 4th largest ahead of Chicago (Houston surpasses them in city population first) in a decade from now. They have the spring training Cactus League (15? teams), as well Florida's Grapefruit League (another 15 teams). I don't believe the Tampa Bay (formerly Devil) Rays want to relocate elsewhere - unless they accept Orlando's offer (by 2021 or 22?). Arizona and Florida are states where more people move into than leave. And the Oakland A's like the mild Bay Area climate and 6 world series appearances (four championship titles, 3 in a row, 1972-74) after they set down in 1968 (almost 50 years ago) - I wonder they'll end up in Sacramento in 3 or 4 years. 

And about Phoenix's ice hockey team: The Coyotes should move to Oklahoma (either OKC or Tulsa) - they have large sports arenas, since OKC has the NBA basketball Thunder. The Tulsa Shock of the WNBA before they relocated to Dallas was Tulsa's only pro sports team. Anyone up for the Tulsa or Oklahoma Coyotes?  :hmmm:

How about the Florida Panthers go to Atlanta? and the Carolina Hurricanes go to Houston? I suggest a team in Saskatoon and Seattle (Western conference) and Quebec City (Eastern conference) with the Nashville Predators switched conferences. Here's the alignment plan (to 34 teams by 2026-27):
EASTERN
ATLANTIC
Atlanta Panthers, Columbus Blue Jackets, Detroit Red Wings, Nashville Predators, Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh Penguins, Tampa Bay Lightning, Washington Capitals.
METROPOLITIAN
Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres, Les Canadiens du Montreal, Les Nordiques du Quebec, New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Ottawa Senators, Toronto Maple Leafs.
WESTERN
CENTRAL
Chicago BlackHawks, Dallas Stars, Houston Hurricanes, Minnesota Wild, Saskatchewan Blizzard, St. Louis Blues, Tulsa or Oklahoma Coyotes, Winnipeg Jets.
PACIFIC
Anaheim Ducks, Calgary Flames, Colorado Avalanche, Edmonton Oilers, Los Angeles Kings, San Jose Sharks, (Las) Vegas Golden Knights, Tacoma or Seattle Bullfrogs, Vancouver Canucks.

If Scottsdale, AZ approves a new arena - maybe Phoenix Roadrunners in Pacific, placing Colorado back in Central. And Raleigh, NC is a perfect major league sports city, despite the Hurricanes aren't really selling out games anymore. How about the Raleigh Rhinos (based on the name of the failed NHL expansion Virginia Rhinos in 1999)? 

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 08, 2017, 01:15:35 PM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on November 08, 2017, 12:14:04 PM

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 07, 2017, 07:07:50 PM

Quote from: Takumi on November 06, 2017, 06:23:41 PM
I can't see MLB expanding beyond 32 teams. There just aren't enough quality pitchers as it is.

Mighty Manfred the Wondercommissioner has made it clear that he wants teams in Montreal and Portland OR, and soon.  But expansion beyond 30 teams is unlikely -- not enough talent for 32.  Two of the following three teams with ballpark issues would more likely be moved:  Oakland, Tampa Bay, Arizona.

What's wrong with the D-backs' stadium?

The Diamondbacks aren't going anywhere.   The Phoenix market is way too large and the stadium is in a premium location in downtown.  Not to mention the entire Cactus League is played in the Phoenix metro area.

Chase Field has maintenance issues that the team wants Maricopa County to pay for, while the County wants the team to pay.  They are at an impasse, and the Diamondbacks want out.

One problem is that the County government is going broke defending lawsuits that involve a "certain" now-former Sheriff.  Just because we finally threw him out on his ear doesn't stop the lawsuits against MCSO. 

Another is that Mighty Manfred has threatened to force the team to move, most likely to Montreal, if the ballpark isn't repaired, possibly as early as next season.  Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen; it'd be held up in court for years.  The Commissioner does not have that authority.

But one thing has been made clear by Ken Kendrick and the other owners:  They want out of downtown Phoenix, and for the same reasons that the Braves wanted out of Turner Field:  Money and... ummm... "demographics."  Read:  The area is not wealthy nor White enough.

The owners want to be in or near north Scottsdale, where the money and "proper" demographics are.  This is no secret whatsoever, and has been made clear since the day Jerry Colangelo and his partners sold the team to them.  They don't want to move out of the metro, but they do want out of Phoenix.  If they can work out a deal with the Salt River Indian Community, they'll get their new ballpark.  There is no political will here to build new stadiums with taxpayers' money.  We The People won't go along anymore, and the politicians have finally figured that out.

My version of the NBA (36 teams by 2027).
EASTERN
ATLANTIC
Boston Celtics, Brooklyn Nets, New Jersey (Newark) Swamp Dragons, New York Knicks, Philadelphia 76ers, Toronto Raptors.
CENTRAL
Chicago Bulls, Cleveland Cavaliers, Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Milwaukee Bucks, Pittsburgh Power.
SOUTHEAST
Atlanta Hawks, Charlotte Hornets, Miami Heat, Orlando Magic, Virginia (Beach) Squires, Washington Wizards. 
WESTERN
PACIFIC
Golden State Warriors, Las Vegas Vipers, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Lakers, Phoenix Suns, Sacramento Kings.
NORTHWEST
Denver Nuggets, Kansas City Bob-Cats, Minnesota Timberwolves, Portland Trail Blazers, Seattle (new) Supersonics, Utah Jazz.
SOUTHWEST
Dallas Mavericks, Houston Rockets, Memphis Grizzlies, New Orleans Pelicans, Oklahoma City Thunder (formerly Northwest division), San Antonio Spurs.
NYC metro area has 3 teams, while LA has 2 in its city and Chicagoland remains with only one.

Quote from: Desert Man on November 11, 2017, 03:49:27 PM
Brooklyn Nets, New Jersey (Newark) Swamp Dragons, New York Knicks

You don't need three teams here, especially when this area is growing more slowly than other parts of the country.

Quote from: 1 on November 11, 2017, 03:54:35 PM

Quote from: Desert Man on November 11, 2017, 03:49:27 PM
Brooklyn Nets, New Jersey (Newark) Swamp Dragons, New York Knicks

You don't need three teams here, especially when this area is growing more slowly than other parts of the country.

Yeah, the NYC metro area was larger in 1958 when they had the 3 Major League Baseball teams: the Yankees (AL) and formerly the Giants (NL) and Brooklyn Dodgers (NL). In the 1980s - the New Jersey Devils became the 3rd NHL ice hockey team with the New York Rangers and Islanders. The Swamp Dragons is just a fantasy team. The perfect NBA city would be Louisville, KY - In the 1990s and 2000s, they tried to recreate the Colonels of the 1960s-70s ABA. However, a slowly growing area - would be better to place the team in Covington, KY across the Ohio River from Cincinnati.

Quote from: Desert Man on November 11, 2017, 03:58:59 PM
However, a slowly growing area - would be better to place the team in Covington, KY across the Ohio River from Cincinnati.

I've asked this a couple of times now about some of your statements - where are you getting your information on population from? Neither area is growing that fast, but the Louisville area is definitely growing faster than the Cincinnati area (about 3.5% compared to 2.5% since 2010).

Quote from: Desert Man on November 11, 2017, 03:49:27 PM
My version of the NBA (36 teams by 2027).
EASTERN
ATLANTIC
Boston Celtics, Brooklyn Nets, New Jersey (Newark) Swamp Dragons, New York Knicks, Philadelphia 76ers, Toronto Raptors.
CENTRAL
Chicago Bulls, Cleveland Cavaliers, Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Milwaukee Bucks, Pittsburgh Power.
SOUTHEAST
Atlanta Hawks, Charlotte Hornets, Miami Heat, Orlando Magic, Virginia (Beach) Squires, Washington Wizards. 
WESTERN
PACIFIC
Golden State Warriors, Las Vegas Vipers, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Lakers, Phoenix Suns, Sacramento Kings.
NORTHWEST
Denver Nuggets, Kansas City Bob-Cats, Minnesota Timberwolves, Portland Trail Blazers, Seattle (new) Supersonics, Utah Jazz.
SOUTHWEST
Dallas Mavericks, Houston Rockets, Memphis Grizzlies, New Orleans Pelicans, Oklahoma City Thunder (formerly Northwest division), San Antonio Spurs.
NYC metro area has 3 teams, while LA has 2 in its city and Chicagoland remains with only one.

IMO, LA should not have 2 teams.  SoCal should have 2 teams, but the current situation of having the Lakers and Clippers both playing in the same arena is ridiculous.  There should be some geographic diversity, in a similar manner as baseball and hockey (2 LA area teams, but one serving LA and one serving Orange County).  The Clippers belong in Orange County/Anaheim or possibly San Diego.

I have the same opinion on football, but I could see that it makes no sense to build new football stadiums, so we are stuck with 2 LA teams and 2 NY teams that will share the same stadium.  But there are ready to use arenas in Anaheim and San Diego for the Clippers.

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 09, 2017, 12:43:34 PM
Chase Field has maintenance issues that the team wants Maricopa County to pay for, while the County wants the team to pay.  They are at an impasse, and the Diamondbacks want out.

One problem is that the County government is going broke defending lawsuits that involve a "certain" now-former Sheriff.  Just because we finally threw him out on his ear doesn't stop the lawsuits against MCSO. 

Another is that Mighty Manfred has threatened to force the team to move, most likely to Montreal, if the ballpark isn't repaired, possibly as early as next season.  Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen; it'd be held up in court for years.  The Commissioner does not have that authority.

But one thing has been made clear by Ken Kendrick and the other owners:  They want out of downtown Phoenix, and for the same reasons that the Braves wanted out of Turner Field:  Money and... ummm... "demographics."  Read:  The area is not wealthy nor White enough.

The owners want to be in or near north Scottsdale, where the money and "proper" demographics are.  This is no secret whatsoever, and has been made clear since the day Jerry Colangelo and his partners sold the team to them.  They don't want to move out of the metro, but they do want out of Phoenix.  If they can work out a deal with the Salt River Indian Community, they'll get their new ballpark.  There is no political will here to build new stadiums with taxpayers' money.  We The People won't go along anymore, and the politicians have finally figured that out.

Ugh, that's maddening.  I didn't realize there was another "Atlanta" situation brewing in Phoenix.   :banghead:

In CA, 7 major cities or sports markets have major league sports: LA metro area (Los Angeles with 4 million people, large enough to support 2 teams per sport) with Anaheim in Orange County, SF Bay Area (San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose), San Diego - 2nd largest city in state with nearby Tijuana, and Sacramento-the state capital. Oakland had all 5 sports: baseball (the A's), football (the Raiders twice), basketball (the Warriors-soon in San Francisco), hockey (the Golden Seals, 1967-76) and soccer (the Buccaneers in the 1970s NASL). San Jose is larger in population than San Francisco since the mid 1980s. 

3 major cities without major league sports are Long Beach, closer to Carson's StubHub Center for Major League Soccer than downtown LA, Bakersfield (the "Dubai of America" for having a small oil-rich community) and Fresno (over 1 million in its metro area) - the two in the economic backwater San Joaquin Valley, but they have college sports (Fresno State University Bulldogs football and basketball) and minor league sports. I made a thread on if the Riverside metropolitan area - extending to San Bernardino, Victorville and Palm Springs will ever be major league sports places...but in reality they won't.

Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 07, 2017, 07:07:50 PM

NHL:  They've talked about Quebec City, London ON, Portland OR, and yet another go of it in Atlanta (why bother?), but they also don't need to expand.  If anything, they could stand to drop a team, specifically the Arizona Coyotes, who are pathetic and have had arena issues ever since they moved to Phoenix from Winnipeg.   Hockey doesn't work on the west side, and there are no prospects for a new arena in the Mesa or downtown Phoenix areas since their proposed deal with ASU fell through.

Drop a team or let's go a step further by amalgating 2 teams. It happened once in 1978 with the merger of the NHL Cleveland Barons (formely the Oakland/California Seals) with the Minnesota North Stars (ironically later, the Stars got splitted with the creation of the San Jose Sharks).  Speaking of the NHL Barons they played where the late WHA Cleveland Crusaders played briefly, the ill-fated Richfield Coliseum. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/the-sad-saga-of-the-nhl-cleveland-barons.2088005/#post-119405741

My feeling is that most leagues should not go beyond 32 teams.  If the NFL did expand, it would have to go to 36 teams with 3 divisions of 6 in each conference.  The schedule would be an 18 game schedule: 10 division games (5H 5A), 2 conference games against teams that finished in the same place in their division last year (1H, 1A),and 6 interconference games against one division (3H, 3A).  The expansion teams would be in London, St. Louis, San Diego, and San Antonio.  The divisions (I had to keep Dallas in the NFC East to avoid Jerry Jones from self destructing):

AFC East: Baltimore, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Miami, New England, NY Jets 
AFC Central: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Tennessee
AFC West: Denver, Houston, LA Chargers, Las Vegas, San Antonio, San Diego
NFC East: Carolina, Dallas, London, NY Giants, Philadelphia, Washington
NFC Central: Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Green Bay, Minnesota, Tampa Bay
NFC West: Arizona, LA Rams, New Orleans, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis

MLB: I discussed this in another thread, so here's the Readers' Digest version:  Montreal (AL; to create a Blue Jays rivalry) and Charlotte (NL; to create a Braves rivalry) are the two cities. 8 4-team divisions.   14 games against each divisional opponent (7H, 7A against each team), 6 games against other league opponents (3H, 3A against each team), 6 games against each opponent in the same geographical division in the other league (3H, 3A), and 6 games against one of the other divisions in the other league (3H, 3A).  42+72+24+24=162  The Divisions:

AL East: BOS, MON, NYY, TOR
AL North: CWS, CLE, DET, MIN
AL South: BAL, HOU, TB, TEX
AL West: KC, LAA, OAK, SEA
NL East:  NYM, PHI, PIT, WAS
NL North: CHC, COL, MIL, STL
NL South: ATL, CHA, CIN, MIA 
NL West: ARZ, LAD, SD, SF

I put the Reds in the South because they claim Charlotte as part of their broadcast territory.

NBA: 32 teams.  8 4-team divisions.  Seattle and Kansas City the expansion teams.  The divisions:

Atlantic: BOS, BKN, NYK, PHI
East: CHA, CLE, TOR, WAS
Southeast: ATL, MIA, MEM, ORL
Central: CHI, DET, IND, MIL
Gulf Coast: DAL, HOU, NO, SA
Midwest: DEN, KC, MIN, OKC,
Northwest: PHX, POR, SEA, UTA
Pacific: GS, LAC, LAL, SAC

NHL: Panthers to Quebec City, Coyotes to Seattle, Whalercanes to KC, Houston gets expansion franchise.  8 4 team divisions, reviving the old divisional names with some new names

Adams: MON, OTT, QUE, TOR
Orr: BOS, NYI, NJ, NYR
Patrick: PHI, PIT, TB, WAS
Howe: BUF, CHI, CLB, DET
Norris: MIN, NAS, STL, WPG
Hull: COL, DAL, HOU, KC
Smythe: ANA, LA, SJ, VGK
Gretzky: CAL, EDM, SEA, VAN

The talk of an NHL expansion team in Seattle has seriously picked up with their agreement to renovate Key Arena. The league more or less told the city to apply for a franchise.

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 09, 2017, 12:36:14 PM
The talk of an NHL expansion team in Seattle has seriously picked up with their agreement to renovate Key Arena. The league more or less told the city to apply for a franchise.

I assume if Seattle gets a franchise, they'll go in the Pacific and Arizona will shift to the Central barring any other teams moving.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 10, 2017, 10:54:34 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 09, 2017, 12:36:14 PM
The talk of an NHL expansion team in Seattle has seriously picked up with their agreement to renovate Key Arena. The league more or less told the city to apply for a franchise.

I assume if Seattle gets a franchise, they'll go in the Pacific and Arizona will shift to the Central barring any other teams moving.

That's what I'd assume as well. Can't split up the two Alberta teams. They tried that in the 1990s with the two Pennsylvania teams and it was quite unpopular.

If anything, it makes the idea of a Coyotes move to Houston that much more palatable and logical.

Quote from: mrsman on November 11, 2017, 07:40:26 PM

Quote from: Desert Man on November 11, 2017, 03:49:27 PM
My version of the NBA (36 teams by 2027).
EASTERN
ATLANTIC
Boston Celtics, Brooklyn Nets, New Jersey (Newark) Swamp Dragons, New York Knicks, Philadelphia 76ers, Toronto Raptors.
CENTRAL
Chicago Bulls, Cleveland Cavaliers, Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Milwaukee Bucks, Pittsburgh Power.
SOUTHEAST
Atlanta Hawks, Charlotte Hornets, Miami Heat, Orlando Magic, Virginia (Beach) Squires, Washington Wizards. 
WESTERN
PACIFIC
Golden State Warriors, Las Vegas Vipers, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Lakers, Phoenix Suns, Sacramento Kings.
NORTHWEST
Denver Nuggets, Kansas City Bob-Cats, Minnesota Timberwolves, Portland Trail Blazers, Seattle (new) Supersonics, Utah Jazz.
SOUTHWEST
Dallas Mavericks, Houston Rockets, Memphis Grizzlies, New Orleans Pelicans, Oklahoma City Thunder (formerly Northwest division), San Antonio Spurs.
NYC metro area has 3 teams, while LA has 2 in its city and Chicagoland remains with only one.

IMO, LA should not have 2 teams.  SoCal should have 2 teams, but the current situation of having the Lakers and Clippers both playing in the same arena is ridiculous.  There should be some geographic diversity, in a similar manner as baseball and hockey (2 LA area teams, but one serving LA and one serving Orange County).  The Clippers belong in Orange County/Anaheim or possibly San Diego.

I have the same opinion on football, but I could see that it makes no sense to build new football stadiums, so we are stuck with 2 LA teams and 2 NY teams that will share the same stadium.  But there are ready to use arenas in Anaheim and San Diego for the Clippers.

I think California in general should only have 3. You don't need a team in Sacramento if the bay area already has one. I agree NYC area should not have 3 teams no city should have 3 teams in one sport. I don;t think Pittsburgh could support a team. Too small of a market to support both the NHL and the NBA. Cincinnati or Louisville would be better choices. I don't think the Bobcats name should be reused so much confusion between New Orleans and Charlotte. I would call the KC team the Knights or move the Kings back there. Building them a new arena is Sacramento was a mistake when it hits the dust the Kings will be gone.

Quote from: dvferyance on December 18, 2017, 12:25:48 PM

Quote from: mrsman on November 11, 2017, 07:40:26 PM

Quote from: Desert Man on November 11, 2017, 03:49:27 PM
My version of the NBA (36 teams by 2027).
EASTERN
ATLANTIC
Boston Celtics, Brooklyn Nets, New Jersey (Newark) Swamp Dragons, New York Knicks, Philadelphia 76ers, Toronto Raptors.
CENTRAL
Chicago Bulls, Cleveland Cavaliers, Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Milwaukee Bucks, Pittsburgh Power.
SOUTHEAST
Atlanta Hawks, Charlotte Hornets, Miami Heat, Orlando Magic, Virginia (Beach) Squires, Washington Wizards. 
WESTERN
PACIFIC
Golden State Warriors, Las Vegas Vipers, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Lakers, Phoenix Suns, Sacramento Kings.
NORTHWEST
Denver Nuggets, Kansas City Bob-Cats, Minnesota Timberwolves, Portland Trail Blazers, Seattle (new) Supersonics, Utah Jazz.
SOUTHWEST
Dallas Mavericks, Houston Rockets, Memphis Grizzlies, New Orleans Pelicans, Oklahoma City Thunder (formerly Northwest division), San Antonio Spurs.
NYC metro area has 3 teams, while LA has 2 in its city and Chicagoland remains with only one.

IMO, LA should not have 2 teams.  SoCal should have 2 teams, but the current situation of having the Lakers and Clippers both playing in the same arena is ridiculous.  There should be some geographic diversity, in a similar manner as baseball and hockey (2 LA area teams, but one serving LA and one serving Orange County).  The Clippers belong in Orange County/Anaheim or possibly San Diego.

I have the same opinion on football, but I could see that it makes no sense to build new football stadiums, so we are stuck with 2 LA teams and 2 NY teams that will share the same stadium.  But there are ready to use arenas in Anaheim and San Diego for the Clippers.

I think California in general should only have 3. You don't need a team in Sacramento if the bay area already has one. I agree NYC area should not have 3 teams no city should have 3 teams in one sport. I don;t think Pittsburgh could support a team. Too small of a market to support both the NHL and the NBA. Cincinnati or Louisville would be better choices. I don't think the Bobcats name should be reused so much confusion between New Orleans and Charlotte. I would call the KC team the Knights or move the Kings back there. Building them a new arena is Sacramento was a mistake when it hits the dust the Kings will be gone.

California has ⅛ of the United States population, so with 36 teams in total, 3 in California is too few.

I really don't think the Bay Area needs two teams in each sport. Granted, one instance will be going away soon when the Raiders move to Vega$, but do we really need two baseball teams in the Bay Area?  I understand the LA area because of its size, and that LA and OC can almost be separate markets.  The Clippers should move to the Honda Center, but why move back to San Diego when there's no viable arena and you already failed there?  In baseball, Oakland is too close to SF and can't get a new ballpark built anywhere, plus there's probably 5 Giants fans for every A's fan.  And I agree Sacramento is essentially an extension of the Bay Area market; it's what Long Island or North Jersey is to NYC. 

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 19, 2017, 03:59:00 PM
but do we really need two baseball teams in the Bay Area?

Why not? Going back the last five seasons, attendance for the Giants and A's combined is comparable to the Cubs and White Sox (in fact, the Bay Area outdrew Chicago in 2013, 2014 and 2015) - and Chicago is a significantly larger market (and the combined on-field performance for the teams is about the same). And the attendance as a ratio of market size compares more than favorably to both L.A. and New York - markets that are two to three times larger. Based on your logic and the raw numbers there should then be no two-team markets, correct?

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 19, 2017, 03:59:00 PM
In baseball, Oakland is too close to SF

Distance from Yankee Stadium to Citi Field: 9.9 miles
From Guaranteed Rate Field to Wrigley Field: 12 miles
From Oakland Coliseum to AT&T Park: 16 miles
Again, based on your logic, those markets should lose a team as well, right?

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 19, 2017, 03:59:00 PM
and can’t get a new ballpark built anywhere

They had the land, the money, the sponsor, the government support, and the motivation to move to San Jose. The Giants and MLB blocked it because of the wonky market-splitting deal that was made in the '90s.

While it certainly has been a slog since then, they now have the site and financing for a stadium near Lake Merritt. Once they cut through the red tape they hope to open by 2023.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 19, 2017, 03:59:00 PM
And I agree Sacramento is essentially an extension of the Bay Area market; it’s what Long Island or North Jersey is to NYC. 

Not even close. Sacramento is 80 miles from Oakland, nearly half of which is rural farmland or foothills, and a good portion of the rest is free-standing exurbs or satellite cities. Sacramento is its own television market.

Your analogy (NYC to Long Island or North Jersey) is comparable to L.A. to Orange County or the Inland Empire, but it is in no way comparable to the Bay Area/Sacramento.

Quote from: dvferyance on December 18, 2017, 12:25:48 PM
I think California in general should only have 3.

You have been repeatedly shown in multiple threads that your argument fails in the face of population, market size, and geography. I'll present this again: if the four major markets of California were placed somewhere else in the country, they have a comparable number of teams of those markets, but many times the population.

Consider: the roughly straight-line distance that includes Sacramento, the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego is about 500 miles and currently has 16 teams (soon to be 15).
A similar corridor including Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago is about 450 miles, and includes 15 teams. Yet, Los Angeles is more than twice the size of Chicagoland, the Bay Area is 40% larger than Metro Detroit, and Cleveland/San Diego and Pittsburgh/Sacramento are comparable (and San Diego and Sacramento are growing, while Cleveland and Pittsburgh are stagnant).
So I assume you support losing a team or two from that region, correct? Otherwise your argument fails in the face of logic and statistics.

Why have states then if so much goes to California? The difference is PA,OH,MI and IL are all separate states while CA is just one. I think the number of teams should be distributed evenly throughout the states instead of having oversaturation in a couple. CA is just one of 50 states. Of course I would expect that only a Californian would disagree that California is just oversports. I also think the NYC area should not have 3 NHL teams. So it's not that I am just biased against CA. You can say all you want Sacramento is not part of the bay area becasue it;s like 70 miles away. But then you would also have to make the case San Bernidinio is not part of the LA metro area becasue it's also like 70 miles from downtown LA. And so what if it a separate TV market. Toledo OH has a separate TV market but it's way too close to Detroit to ever have major league sports.

Quote from: dvferyance on December 19, 2017, 07:20:12 PM
Why have states then if so much goes to California? The difference is PA,OH,MI and IL are all separate states while CA is just one.

But that's exactly the point. You're so concerned about somewhat arbitrary state boundaries that you're losing sight of the actual reasons sports teams are placed where they are - which has nothing to do with state sizes or boundaries and everything to do with media market and/or metro area size.

If PA/OH/MI/IL/etc were one single state and CA was two or three or four separate states, it wouldn't change a single thing about where teams should or shouldn't be placed.

Quote from: dvferyance on December 19, 2017, 07:20:12 PM
I think the number of teams should be distributed evenly throughout the states instead of having oversaturation in a couple.

Then you'd need to have a lot more teams in, say, the upper Great Plains or Rocky Mountains states. Do you think that Sioux Falls, or Billings, or Cheyenne can support a major league franchise?

Quote from: dvferyance on December 19, 2017, 07:20:12 PM
You can say all you want Sacramento is not part of the bay area becasue it;s like 70 miles away. But then you would also have to make the case San Bernidinio is not part of the LA metro area becasue it's also like 70 miles from downtown LA.

No I don't have to make that case, because a) there's continuous urban development between L.A. and San Bernardino, b) commuting patterns tie those two regions together (which is why they're in the same CSA), and c) L.A. and San Bernardino are in the same media market. None of those are true between Sacramento and the Bay Area. It's not just about mileage. And it's not me saying that, it's Nielsen, and the United States OMB and Census Bureau, using their mountains of actual data and statistics.

Quote from: dvferyance on December 19, 2017, 07:20:12 PM
And so what if it a separate TV market. Toledo OH has a separate TV market but it's way too close to Detroit to ever have major league sports.

Again, it's not just about distance.
Toledo is the #78 Nielsen market and the #75 CSA (2016 est. population 645,857). It's just too small to support a major league team, regardless of how close or far it is from Detroit.
Sacramento is the #20 Nielsen market and the #22 CSA (2016 est. population 2,567,451). That makes more than big enough to support major league sports.

Quote from: dvferyance on December 19, 2017, 07:20:12 PM
Of course I would expect that only a Californian would disagree that California is just oversports.

Quote from: 1 on December 18, 2017, 12:28:30 PM
California has ⅛ of the United States population, so with 36 teams in total, 3 in California is too few.

Not from California.

This is not about being pro or anti-California or any state. This is simply about numbers, and economics.

Quote from: dvferyance on December 19, 2017, 07:20:12 PM
Why have states then if so much goes to California? The difference is PA,OH,MI and IL are all separate states while CA is just one. I think the number of teams should be distributed evenly throughout the states instead of having oversaturation in a couple. CA is just one of 50 states. Of course I would expect that only a Californian would disagree that California is just oversports. I also think the NYC area should not have 3 NHL teams. So it's not that I am just biased against CA. You can say all you want Sacramento is not part of the bay area becasue it;s like 70 miles away. But then you would also have to make the case San Bernidinio is not part of the LA metro area becasue it's also like 70 miles from downtown LA. And so what if it a separate TV market. Toledo OH has a separate TV market but it's way too close to Detroit to ever have major league sports.

Let the free market work. Teams will be located wherever they are financially successful. They will move when they are not.

Would a market for Fresno and Visalia work? It would probably expand to Bakersfield, Merced, Salinas, and/or Santa Maria.

Quote from: dvferyance on December 19, 2017, 07:20:12 PM
Why have states then if so much goes to California? The difference is PA,OH,MI and IL are all separate states while CA is just one. I think the number of teams should be distributed evenly throughout the states instead of having oversaturation in a couple. CA is just one of 50 states. Of course I would expect that only a Californian would disagree that California is just oversports. I also think the NYC area should not have 3 NHL teams. So it's not that I am just biased against CA. You can say all you want Sacramento is not part of the bay area becasue it;s like 70 miles away. But then you would also have to make the case San Bernidinio is not part of the LA metro area becasue it's also like 70 miles from downtown LA. And so what if it a separate TV market. Toledo OH has a separate TV market but it's way too close to Detroit to ever have major league sports.

You are in desperate need of a class involving supply-and-demand.

By this notion, we should eliminate all the airports serving NYC and California, and put those airports and all their flights in Montana and North Dakota.

Quote from: 1 on December 20, 2017, 01:17:20 PM
Would a market for Fresno and Visalia work? It would probably expand to Bakersfield, Merced, Salinas, and/or Santa Maria.

I doubt it. If you take Fresno/Merced/Visalia/Hanford together, you get about 2.1 million people, but that's stretched over 100+ miles. Plus, much of that region, while growing, is not terribly affluent, so I don't know what you'd get in corporate support.

Salinas is closer to San Francisco than Fresno by about 50 miles; Bakersfield is a comparable distance to either Fresno or downtown L.A. (traffic notwithstanding), so I don't know how much pull you'd get from those regions.

In actual news, Nashville has been confirmed (http://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/nashvillesc/2017/12/20/its-official-nashville-wins-mls-expansion-club/969886001/) as the 24th Major League Soccer franchise, to begin play in 2020. A 27,500-seat soccer stadium will be built on the Nashville Fairgrounds site southeast of downtown.

MLS is rumored to announce the remaining four expansion franchises before the beginning of the next season (in March). Among the bidders: Miami, Cincinnati, Detroit, Sacramento, Phoenix, St. Louis, San Diego, Raleigh, Charlotte, Indianapolis, and San Antonio. Los Angeles's second team will begin play in March (with a new stadium opening in April).

My secret fantasy is DFW getting a National League baseball team so it can join the other big markets in having one in each league. Only problem is all the other NL teams are in markets that appear untapped, no matter how much the Miami Marlins owner ju dour poor-mouths. (Mark Cuban tried to buy the Pirates and got shot down.) So it would have to be via expansion, and even then the Texas Rangers would almost certainly have veto power.

Quote from: Road Hog on December 29, 2017, 09:38:43 PM
My secret fantasy is DFW getting a National League baseball team so it can join the other big markets in having one in each league. Only problem is all the other NL teams are in markets that appear untapped, no matter how much the Miami Marlins owner ju dour poor-mouths. (Mark Cuban tried to buy the Pirates and got shot down.) So it would have to be via expansion, and even then the Texas Rangers would almost certainly have veto power.

What if the Texas Rangers moved from the American League to the National League? The Astros moved from the National to the American League.

Dallas-Fort Worth (the Metroplex) may be 6th or 7th largest metropolis in the nation, more people than Houston, itself the 4th-soon 3rd US largest city, so it's possible for Dallas to have a NL team, apart from Arlington in Tarrant county 25 miles to the west. I believe Phoenix, AZ as the 5th US largest city can be an American League city, but the NL's Arizona D-backs wouldn't like the competition. Reminds me of the 1950s when Boston, Philadelphia and St. Louis when the cities were larger had 2 major league baseball teams: today, the Boston Red Sox (AL), Philadelphia Phillies (NL) and St. Louis Cardinals (NL) are the only ones. And NYC's 3 teams in 1957, similar to Southern CA's 3 teams: Los Angeles (former Brooklyn) Dodgers, Los Angeles Angels in Anaheim and San Diego Padres - a stone's throw away from Tijuana, Mexico. The MLB expansion in the 2020s will grant a 2nd team for Canada (Montreal-Les Expos Millennials, most likely NL) and maybe Mexico (Monterrey-Los Aguilas, the AL), but one for Dallas (the Dollars in NL) and spring training center (15 MLB teams) Phoenix (the Firebirds in AL) is still possible.

The chances of a additional team in any of the four major spectator sports in the same market as an existing team is virtually zero. 

Quote from: Desert Man on December 31, 2017, 01:40:23 PM
I believe Phoenix, AZ as the 5th US largest city can be an American League city, but the NL's Arizona D-backs wouldn't like the competition.

There is a several-orders-of-magnitude less than zero chance of an AL team in Phoenix, unless the D'backs move there like the Astros did.  It has nothing to do with Phoenix being the 5th largest city in the US.  That's irrelevant.  What matters is the size of the metro -- about 4.5 million people in Maricopa and northern Pinal Counties -- which makes it about 14th largest.  It's TV market #12 now, but that includes the entire northern 2/3 of the state, not just central Arizona.

Phoenix can barely support one team in each major sport as it is.  Just like Boston, Philly, and St. Louis in the early 1950s:  The 2nd baseball team (Braves, A's, and Browns) had to leave or go under.  Those markets were not big enough to support two teams, and they were far more important markets then than Phoenix is now.

Florida could have 3 MLB teams, also a state saturated in 15 spring training facilities or sites. Miami can have an AL team (how about the Florida Alligators?) vs. the Miami Marlins of the NL or league rival Tampa Bay Rays? This is feasible, Miami with nearby Hialeah, Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach is among the nation's top 10 metro areas in size.

Quote from: SP Cook on January 01, 2018, 01:07:34 PM
The chances of a additional team in any of the four major spectator sports in the same market as an existing team is virtually zero.

The only chance, if any, is putting an NBA team in Newark to replace the Nets, or a second NHL team in Toronto.

Quote from: Desert Man on January 01, 2018, 07:34:33 PM
Florida could have 3 MLB teams, also a state saturated in 15 spring training facilities or sites. Miami can have an AL team (how about the Florida Alligators?) vs. the Miami Marlins of the NL or league rival Tampa Bay Rays? This is feasible, Miami with nearby Hialeah, Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach is among the nation's top 10 metro areas in size.

Why in the name of sanity would MLB add a 3rd franchise in Florida?  One is in financial ruin, and the other plays in a total s***hole of a stadium.  Most of the fans that attend games are transplants who root for the other team that they rooted for when they lived up north.  The only thing you're  doing by adding a 3rd team is making a shorter drive for fans of the other team.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 01, 2018, 10:41:58 PM

Quote from: SP Cook on January 01, 2018, 01:07:34 PM
The chances of a additional team in any of the four major spectator sports in the same market as an existing team is virtually zero.

The only chance, if any, is putting an NBA team in Newark to replace the Nets, or a second NHL team in Toronto.

Quote from: Desert Man on January 01, 2018, 07:34:33 PM
Florida could have 3 MLB teams, also a state saturated in 15 spring training facilities or sites. Miami can have an AL team (how about the Florida Alligators?) vs. the Miami Marlins of the NL or league rival Tampa Bay Rays? This is feasible, Miami with nearby Hialeah, Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach is among the nation's top 10 metro areas in size.

Newark and New York are the same area.  It's basically like saying since the Redskins moved to Landover, MD, DC needs to find another team to put in RFK stadium.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2018, 10:52:25 PM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 01, 2018, 10:41:58 PM

The only chance, if any, is putting an NBA team in Newark to replace the Nets, or a second NHL team in Toronto.

Newark and New York are the same area.  It's basically like saying since the Redskins moved to Landover, MD, DC needs to find another team to put in RFK stadium.

A lot of Rangers (and Islanders) fans in NJ go to Devils games because it's more convenient and cheaper. Some even convert. So with two NBA teams in NY, a third team in NJ could draw substantial crowds.

With the possibility of me moving to Charlotte in near future, I like to think mlb moving there to fill the gap between dc and Atlanta is possible. Also, with hurricanes failing in Raleigh, I thought the team would do better if moved to bigger more popular Charlotte but I don't think nhl is even interested in that.  Also many people in Charlotte say the city is not ready to handle mlb or nhl as it's tough enough to compete for entertainment dollars between nfl, nba, nascar, and minor leagues. Also population explosion is due to northerners like myself would be, moving south and would bring their team affiliations with them rather than support the new local team esp if the team is garbage standing wise. I mean, if I lived there I'd probably support Charlotte mlb and nhl team but my fandom for the Mets, islanders, and jets will always supersede that team.

I've always considered a team in the Carolinas and Montreal (Les Expos nouveau) to be the next 2 MLB franchises.  If a team does end up in The Triad, it could be a major league version of the Durham Bulls.  Granted it would look strange to have Durham be the name of a major league city, but if Green Bay can be, why not? As for Montreal, if they can get a ballpark built, people will come, especially if the franchise is in the same division as the Blue Jays, Red Sox, and Yankees.   Those teams would sell out the ballpark with fans that would come from eastern Ontario, far upstate NY, and northern Vermont who live far from their favorite team's ballpark.  Meanwhile, a Durham team in the NL would create a new territorial rivalry with the Braves.

The Triad refers to the Greensboro—High Point—Winston-Salem area, FWIW. Durham isn't part of the Triad.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 02, 2018, 08:29:52 PM
The Triad refers to the Greensboro—High Point—Winston-Salem area, FWIW. Durham isn't part of the Triad.

Isn't Durham part of the research triangle with Raleigh and chapel hill?  What region is considered the piedmont?

Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill are the Triangle. About an hour to the west you find the Triad (sometimes called the Piedmont Triad), which refers to Greensboro, High Point, and Winston-Salem.

Quote from: Desert Man on December 31, 2017, 01:40:23 PM
Dallas-Fort Worth (the Metroplex) may be 6th or 7th largest metropolis in the nation, more people than Houston, itself the 4th-soon 3rd US largest city, so it's possible for Dallas to have a NL team, apart from Arlington in Tarrant county 25 miles to the west. I believe Phoenix, AZ as the 5th US largest city can be an American League city, but the NL's Arizona D-backs wouldn't like the competition. Reminds me of the 1950s when Boston, Philadelphia and St. Louis when the cities were larger had 2 major league baseball teams: today, the Boston Red Sox (AL), Philadelphia Phillies (NL) and St. Louis Cardinals (NL) are the only ones. And NYC's 3 teams in 1957, similar to Southern CA's 3 teams: Los Angeles (former Brooklyn) Dodgers, Los Angeles Angels in Anaheim and San Diego Padres - a stone's throw away from Tijuana, Mexico. The MLB expansion in the 2020s will grant a 2nd team for Canada (Montreal-Les Expos Millennials, most likely NL) and maybe Mexico (Monterrey-Los Aguilas, the AL), but one for Dallas (the Dollars in NL) and spring training center (15 MLB teams) Phoenix (the Firebirds in AL) is still possible.

Baseball is done in Montreal for good. There was no support for it. Just forget baseball in Canada.

I beg to differ with Montreal.  The reason they lost the Expos is they played in an absolute dump of a ballpark, and couldn't get a new ballpark built.  I've been to the Vet, and Stade Olympique made the Vet seem like Fenway or Wrigley.  I would say only The Trop is as bad, and if the Rays can't get a new  ballpark built, they will suffer the same fate.  A stadium with improved turf and a retractable roof THAT WORKS would draw fans to the ballpark.  And with Montreal being less than an hour from far upstate NY and northern VT, if you put Les Expos Nouveau in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees, you could draw Red Sox and Yankees fans 9 or 10 times a year that would prefer to make the short drive to see their team play rather than travelling the 5-6 hours to Boston or NYC.  I watched the 2 exhibition games there a couple of years ago between the Jays and Red Sox, and that place was filled to the rafters.  There is a support site for the movement:

http://www.montrealbaseballproject.com/en/   

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
I beg to differ with Montreal.  The reason they lost the Expos is they played in an absolute dump of a ballpark, and couldn't get a new ballpark built.  I've been to the Vet, and Stade Olympique made the Vet seem like Fenway or Wrigley.  I would say only The Trop is as bad, and if the Rays can't get a new  ballpark built, they will suffer the same fate.  A stadium with improved turf and a retractable roof THAT WORKS would draw fans to the ballpark.  And with Montreal being less than an hour from far upstate NY and northern VT, if you put Les Expos Nouveau in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees, you could draw Red Sox and Yankees fans 9 or 10 times a year that would prefer to make the short drive to see their team play rather than travelling the 5-6 hours to Boston or NYC.  I watched the 2 exhibition games there a couple of years ago between the Jays and Red Sox, and that place was filled to the rafters.  There is a support site for the movement:

http://www.montrealbaseballproject.com/en/   

Then Canada should just get it's own baseball league then if Montreal really is this big baseball town that you claim it is. They no longer allow us to be a part of the CFL it should work both ways. They coulnd't get a ballpark built becasue there was no support for one anyways. So what if there is a website. Anyone can launch a website to promote anything they want. Doesn't mean there is a realistic chance of it happening. The Rays stadium isn't even 30 years old. Why do we keep replacing stadiums before they have served their useful life? I don't get it. The Georgia Dome and the RCA Dome all could have lasted at least another 5 more years.

Quote from: dvferyance on January 15, 2018, 11:38:45 AM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
I beg to differ with Montreal.  The reason they lost the Expos is they played in an absolute dump of a ballpark, and couldn't get a new ballpark built.  I've been to the Vet, and Stade Olympique made the Vet seem like Fenway or Wrigley.  I would say only The Trop is as bad, and if the Rays can't get a new  ballpark built, they will suffer the same fate.  A stadium with improved turf and a retractable roof THAT WORKS would draw fans to the ballpark.  And with Montreal being less than an hour from far upstate NY and northern VT, if you put Les Expos Nouveau in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees, you could draw Red Sox and Yankees fans 9 or 10 times a year that would prefer to make the short drive to see their team play rather than travelling the 5-6 hours to Boston or NYC.  I watched the 2 exhibition games there a couple of years ago between the Jays and Red Sox, and that place was filled to the rafters.  There is a support site for the movement:

http://www.montrealbaseballproject.com/en/   

Then Canada should just get it's own baseball league then if Montreal really is this big baseball town that you claim it is. They no longer allow us to be a part of the CFL it should work both ways. They coulnd't get a ballpark built becasue there was no support for one anyways. The Rays stadium isn't even 30 years old. Why do we keep replacing stadiums before they have served their useful life? I don't get it. The Georgia Dome and the RCA Dome all could have lasted at least another 5 more years.

For Canada to have its own baseball league, several other cities in Canada would need their own teams, not just Montreal.

Quote from: 1 on January 15, 2018, 11:40:21 AM

Quote from: dvferyance on January 15, 2018, 11:38:45 AM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
I beg to differ with Montreal.  The reason they lost the Expos is they played in an absolute dump of a ballpark, and couldn't get a new ballpark built.  I've been to the Vet, and Stade Olympique made the Vet seem like Fenway or Wrigley.  I would say only The Trop is as bad, and if the Rays can't get a new  ballpark built, they will suffer the same fate.  A stadium with improved turf and a retractable roof THAT WORKS would draw fans to the ballpark.  And with Montreal being less than an hour from far upstate NY and northern VT, if you put Les Expos Nouveau in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees, you could draw Red Sox and Yankees fans 9 or 10 times a year that would prefer to make the short drive to see their team play rather than travelling the 5-6 hours to Boston or NYC.  I watched the 2 exhibition games there a couple of years ago between the Jays and Red Sox, and that place was filled to the rafters.  There is a support site for the movement:

http://www.montrealbaseballproject.com/en/   

Then Canada should just get it's own baseball league then if Montreal really is this big baseball town that you claim it is. They no longer allow us to be a part of the CFL it should work both ways. They coulnd't get a ballpark built becasue there was no support for one anyways. The Rays stadium isn't even 30 years old. Why do we keep replacing stadiums before they have served their useful life? I don't get it. The Georgia Dome and the RCA Dome all could have lasted at least another 5 more years.

For Canada to have its own baseball league, several other cities in Canada would need their own teams, not just Montreal.

Australia can do it and they have even less people than Canada.

Quote from: 1 on January 15, 2018, 11:40:21 AM

Quote from: dvferyance on January 15, 2018, 11:38:45 AM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
I beg to differ with Montreal.  The reason they lost the Expos is they played in an absolute dump of a ballpark, and couldn't get a new ballpark built.  I've been to the Vet, and Stade Olympique made the Vet seem like Fenway or Wrigley.  I would say only The Trop is as bad, and if the Rays can't get a new  ballpark built, they will suffer the same fate.  A stadium with improved turf and a retractable roof THAT WORKS would draw fans to the ballpark.  And with Montreal being less than an hour from far upstate NY and northern VT, if you put Les Expos Nouveau in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees, you could draw Red Sox and Yankees fans 9 or 10 times a year that would prefer to make the short drive to see their team play rather than travelling the 5-6 hours to Boston or NYC.  I watched the 2 exhibition games there a couple of years ago between the Jays and Red Sox, and that place was filled to the rafters.  There is a support site for the movement:

http://www.montrealbaseballproject.com/en/   

Then Canada should just get it's own baseball league then if Montreal really is this big baseball town that you claim it is. They no longer allow us to be a part of the CFL it should work both ways. They coulnd't get a ballpark built becasue there was no support for one anyways. The Rays stadium isn't even 30 years old. Why do we keep replacing stadiums before they have served their useful life? I don't get it. The Georgia Dome and the RCA Dome all could have lasted at least another 5 more years.

For Canada to have its own baseball league, several other cities in Canada would need their own teams, not just Montreal.

Didn't work out in other western Canadian cities. Used to be AAA teams in Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary that all moved south across the border.  Even Ottawa had an International League team (the Lynx) until 2007 that moved to LVO, and might still be there if Les Expos didn't move.  The interest for baseball is there in Montreal; it's just a matter of getting funding to help build the ballpark.

Tropicana Field is the indoor version of the cookie cutter multi-purpose stadiums built in the late 60's and early 70's (and no, Mr. Trump did not paraphrase me when I called it a s***hole.)  It's The Metrodome with no storied history.  Not very fan friendly, and no other ballpark has the ridiculous ground rules with the catwalks (it's like playing baseball in your backyard).    If you really want to talk about a stadium that was abandoned before its time, try Turner Field.  Not even 20 years old.  Seems like the Braves were playing at The Launching Pad just yesterday.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 16, 2018, 10:07:23 AM

Quote from: 1 on January 15, 2018, 11:40:21 AM

Quote from: dvferyance on January 15, 2018, 11:38:45 AM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
I beg to differ with Montreal.  The reason they lost the Expos is they played in an absolute dump of a ballpark, and couldn't get a new ballpark built.  I've been to the Vet, and Stade Olympique made the Vet seem like Fenway or Wrigley.  I would say only The Trop is as bad, and if the Rays can't get a new  ballpark built, they will suffer the same fate.  A stadium with improved turf and a retractable roof THAT WORKS would draw fans to the ballpark.  And with Montreal being less than an hour from far upstate NY and northern VT, if you put Les Expos Nouveau in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees, you could draw Red Sox and Yankees fans 9 or 10 times a year that would prefer to make the short drive to see their team play rather than travelling the 5-6 hours to Boston or NYC.  I watched the 2 exhibition games there a couple of years ago between the Jays and Red Sox, and that place was filled to the rafters.  There is a support site for the movement:

http://www.montrealbaseballproject.com/en/   

Then Canada should just get it's own baseball league then if Montreal really is this big baseball town that you claim it is. They no longer allow us to be a part of the CFL it should work both ways. They coulnd't get a ballpark built becasue there was no support for one anyways. The Rays stadium isn't even 30 years old. Why do we keep replacing stadiums before they have served their useful life? I don't get it. The Georgia Dome and the RCA Dome all could have lasted at least another 5 more years.

For Canada to have its own baseball league, several other cities in Canada would need their own teams, not just Montreal.

Didn't work out in other western Canadian cities. Used to be AAA teams in Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary that all moved south across the border.  Even Ottawa had an International League team (the Lynx) until 2007 that moved to LVO, and might still be there if Les Expos didn't move.  The interest for baseball is there in Montreal; it's just a matter of getting funding to help build the ballpark.

Tropicana Field is the indoor version of the cookie cutter multi-purpose stadiums built in the late 60's and early 70's (and no, Mr. Trump did not paraphrase me when I called it a s***hole.)  It's The Metrodome with no storied history.  Not very fan friendly, and no other ballpark has the ridiculous ground rules with the catwalks (it's like playing baseball in your backyard).    If you really want to talk about a stadium that was abandoned before its time, try Turner Field.  Not even 20 years old.  Seems like the Braves were playing at The Launching Pad just yesterday.

Tropicana Field was built in 1990.

Quote from: dvferyance on January 16, 2018, 04:03:09 PM
Tropicana Field was built in 1990.

I'm aware of that.  I was just making the comparison to the ballparks built in that era: multi-purpose (granted in the case of the Trop it ended up being for hockey and basketball, the latter including the greatest game in college basketball history on March 29, 1999 :D), and cookie cutter with no character.

Quote from: dvferyance on January 15, 2018, 11:38:45 AM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
I beg to differ with Montreal.  The reason they lost the Expos is they played in an absolute dump of a ballpark, and couldn't get a new ballpark built.  I've been to the Vet, and Stade Olympique made the Vet seem like Fenway or Wrigley.  I would say only The Trop is as bad, and if the Rays can't get a new  ballpark built, they will suffer the same fate.  A stadium with improved turf and a retractable roof THAT WORKS would draw fans to the ballpark.  And with Montreal being less than an hour from far upstate NY and northern VT, if you put Les Expos Nouveau in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees, you could draw Red Sox and Yankees fans 9 or 10 times a year that would prefer to make the short drive to see their team play rather than travelling the 5-6 hours to Boston or NYC.  I watched the 2 exhibition games there a couple of years ago between the Jays and Red Sox, and that place was filled to the rafters.  There is a support site for the movement:

http://www.montrealbaseballproject.com/en/   

Then Canada should just get it's own baseball league then if Montreal really is this big baseball town that you claim it is. They no longer allow us to be a part of the CFL it should work both ways. They coulnd't get a ballpark built becasue there was no support for one anyways. So what if there is a website. Anyone can launch a website to promote anything they want. Doesn't mean there is a realistic chance of it happening. The Rays stadium isn't even 30 years old. Why do we keep replacing stadiums before they have served their useful life? I don't get it. The Georgia Dome and the RCA Dome all could have lasted at least another 5 more years.

The Rays stadium is a complete joke for a baseball stadium and was when it was brand new. Olympic Stadium wasn't 30 years old yet either when the Expos left.

Quote from: Flint1979 on January 16, 2018, 06:51:27 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on January 15, 2018, 11:38:45 AM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
I beg to differ with Montreal.  The reason they lost the Expos is they played in an absolute dump of a ballpark, and couldn't get a new ballpark built.  I've been to the Vet, and Stade Olympique made the Vet seem like Fenway or Wrigley.  I would say only The Trop is as bad, and if the Rays can't get a new  ballpark built, they will suffer the same fate.  A stadium with improved turf and a retractable roof THAT WORKS would draw fans to the ballpark.  And with Montreal being less than an hour from far upstate NY and northern VT, if you put Les Expos Nouveau in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees, you could draw Red Sox and Yankees fans 9 or 10 times a year that would prefer to make the short drive to see their team play rather than travelling the 5-6 hours to Boston or NYC.  I watched the 2 exhibition games there a couple of years ago between the Jays and Red Sox, and that place was filled to the rafters.  There is a support site for the movement:

http://www.montrealbaseballproject.com/en/   

Then Canada should just get it's own baseball league then if Montreal really is this big baseball town that you claim it is. They no longer allow us to be a part of the CFL it should work both ways. They coulnd't get a ballpark built becasue there was no support for one anyways. So what if there is a website. Anyone can launch a website to promote anything they want. Doesn't mean there is a realistic chance of it happening. The Rays stadium isn't even 30 years old. Why do we keep replacing stadiums before they have served their useful life? I don't get it. The Georgia Dome and the RCA Dome all could have lasted at least another 5 more years.

The Rays stadium is a complete joke for a baseball stadium and was when it was brand new. Olympic Stadium wasn't 30 years old yet either when the Expos left.

Is it a joke just becasue it has a stationary roof and has turf? I do like retractable stadiums for baseball however I think they are a waste of money for football.

Quote from: dvferyance on January 16, 2018, 09:53:43 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on January 16, 2018, 06:51:27 PM

Quote from: dvferyance on January 15, 2018, 11:38:45 AM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 03, 2018, 10:56:20 PM
I beg to differ with Montreal.  The reason they lost the Expos is they played in an absolute dump of a ballpark, and couldn't get a new ballpark built.  I've been to the Vet, and Stade Olympique made the Vet seem like Fenway or Wrigley.  I would say only The Trop is as bad, and if the Rays can't get a new  ballpark built, they will suffer the same fate.  A stadium with improved turf and a retractable roof THAT WORKS would draw fans to the ballpark.  And with Montreal being less than an hour from far upstate NY and northern VT, if you put Les Expos Nouveau in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees, you could draw Red Sox and Yankees fans 9 or 10 times a year that would prefer to make the short drive to see their team play rather than travelling the 5-6 hours to Boston or NYC.  I watched the 2 exhibition games there a couple of years ago between the Jays and Red Sox, and that place was filled to the rafters.  There is a support site for the movement:

http://www.montrealbaseballproject.com/en/   

Then Canada should just get it's own baseball league then if Montreal really is this big baseball town that you claim it is. They no longer allow us to be a part of the CFL it should work both ways. They coulnd't get a ballpark built becasue there was no support for one anyways. So what if there is a website. Anyone can launch a website to promote anything they want. Doesn't mean there is a realistic chance of it happening. The Rays stadium isn't even 30 years old. Why do we keep replacing stadiums before they have served their useful life? I don't get it. The Georgia Dome and the RCA Dome all could have lasted at least another 5 more years.

The Rays stadium is a complete joke for a baseball stadium and was when it was brand new. Olympic Stadium wasn't 30 years old yet either when the Expos left.

Is it a joke just becasue it has a stationary roof and has turf? I do like retractable stadiums for baseball however I think they are a waste of money for football.

That's most of it I don't like dome stadiums . It's basically a cookie cutter Stadium though. I'm not a fan of Rogers Centre in Toronto either. Another ballpark that is open-air and has a grass field that needs to be replaced is Oakland. Other than that I think most of the ballparks are fine.

Quote from: dvferyance on January 16, 2018, 09:53:43 PM
I do like retractable stadiums for baseball however I think they are a waste of money for football.

Agreed.
The NFL stadiums with retractable roofs are almost never open-air for games.  Even in freakin' Arizona.
"Uh were gonna keep it closed so it's louder."
Oh okay.  Good thing you spent 80 million bucks (or whatever) on this elaborate mechanism you're not fucking using because you think you might get an extra 5 yard penalty in your favor.  Money well spent. :pan:

With baseball, a team is hosting 81 games a year.  They are going to encounter a wider variety of weather conditions over a 6 month regular season.  It provides fans with certainty that they will get to see the game they bought tickets for while at the same time give them the open air experience baseball was meant for if it's nice out.
Which isn't to say every team 'needs' a baseball stadium with a retractable roof.  It's merely a way better value for baseball teams than it is for football teams.

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 17, 2018, 10:41:08 AM

Agreed.
The NFL stadiums with retractable roofs are almost never open-air for games.  Even in freakin' Arizona.
"Uh were gonna keep it closed so it's louder."
Oh okay.  Good thing you spent 80 million bucks (or whatever) on this elaborate mechanism you're not fucking using because you think you might get an extra 5 yard penalty in your favor.  Money well spent. :pan:

With baseball, a team is hosting 81 games a year.  They are going to encounter a wider variety of weather conditions over a 6 month regular season.  It provides fans with certainty that they will get to see the game they bought tickets for while at the same time give them the open air experience baseball was meant for if it's nice out.
Which isn't to say every team 'needs' a baseball stadium with a retractable roof.  It's merely a way better value for baseball teams than it is for football teams.

Excellent post.  The other issue, as we have seen in St. Petersburg and elsewhere, is that baseball simply lends itself to outdoor play when possible, and many fans do not enjoy games in a permanent indoor facility when the weather is good.

Quote from: SP Cook on January 17, 2018, 11:39:02 AM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 17, 2018, 10:41:08 AM

Agreed.
The NFL stadiums with retractable roofs are almost never open-air for games.  Even in freakin' Arizona.
"Uh were gonna keep it closed so it's louder."
Oh okay.  Good thing you spent 80 million bucks (or whatever) on this elaborate mechanism you're not fucking using because you think you might get an extra 5 yard penalty in your favor.  Money well spent. :pan:

With baseball, a team is hosting 81 games a year.  They are going to encounter a wider variety of weather conditions over a 6 month regular season.  It provides fans with certainty that they will get to see the game they bought tickets for while at the same time give them the open air experience baseball was meant for if it's nice out.
Which isn't to say every team 'needs' a baseball stadium with a retractable roof.  It's merely a way better value for baseball teams than it is for football teams.

Excellent post.  The other issue, as we have seen in St. Petersburg and elsewhere, is that baseball simply lends itself to outdoor play when possible, and many fans do not enjoy games in a permanent indoor facility when the weather is good.

I can understand why but in the northern US a baseball stadium with a retractable roof is nice due to April games in the freezing cold. I'd rather go watch a Brewers game in Milwaukee for that reason.

Elliotte Friedman reports a group from Seattle submitted an NHL expansion application plus the $10 million application fee today. Arena renovation deal is in place too.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2018, 09:12:21 PM
Elliotte Friedman reports a group from Seattle submitted an NHL expansion application plus the $10 million application fee today. Arena renovation deal is in place too.

The arena renovation still has to go through a few of the Seattle processes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process). I highly doubt it will get done in 2020 like they claim.

Quote from: Bruce on February 14, 2018, 09:23:54 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 13, 2018, 09:12:21 PM
Elliotte Friedman reports a group from Seattle submitted an NHL expansion application plus the $10 million application fee today. Arena renovation deal is in place too.

The arena renovation still has to go through a few of the Seattle processes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process). I highly doubt it will get done in 2020 like they claim.

They will get the NBA back, the Supersonics 2.0 could lift off in the new sports arena, along with the Totems NHL upgrade if this was approved by the NHL. I predict Vegas gets the 32nd NBA team, just like they have the 31st NHL team (Golden Knights) in the newly-opened T-Mobile Arena.

Huge movement to bring MLB to Portland. Ok, I know this is an exxageration but with the community really wants it and there is local media attention on it.

LG-TP260

Oops I forgot one of the countless links: https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2018/04/major_league_baseball_backers.amp

NBA ALIGNMENT if the Seattle Supersonics 2.0 and the Vegas (Silver Knights?) came to existence. I predict Virginia Beach Squires 2.0 and New Jersey Swamp Dragons will be in the eastern conference, so it evens the number with the western conference: 17 each. And they are back to 2 divisions each, since my fantasy version has a few adjustments.

EASTERN
ATLANTIC: Boston, Brooklyn, Cleveland, New Jersey (new), New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, Virginia (new), Washington.
MID-AMERICA: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Detroit, Indiana, Miami, Milwaukee, Orlando.

WESTERN
PACIFIC: Golden State, LA Clippers, LA Lakers, Las Vegas (new), Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, Seattle (new), Utah.
CENTRAL: Dallas, Denver, Houston, Memphis, Minnesota, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, San Antonio.

Quote from: ilpt4u on November 07, 2017, 12:07:26 AM
All that said, I'd sooner see a 2nd Chicagoland Hockey team at one of the existing Arenas -- either out in Rosemont/O'Hare area at the Allstate Arena, or in Hoffman Estates at the Sears Center. But I don't see the Blackhawks being in a big hurry to share the Market.

Allstate Arena already has a hockey team: The Chicago Wolves.

The Sears Centre was home to an ECHL team, the Chicago Express, but they folded due to poor attendance.  Unsurprising, given the arena's proximity to Rosemont.

I don't think the NBA expands beyond 32 teams.  32 is a nice round number that you can either go with 8 4-team divisions or 4 8-team divisions.  Pretty much a foregone conclusion that Seattle gets one of them, and Vega$ probably gets the other, unless they decide to put a team in Newark instead. I just don't see how a team in Virginia would work, given it's proximity to both DC and Charlotte.   Here are two potential realignment scenarios:

Eastern Conference:

Atlantic: BOS, BKN, NYK, PHI                                               
East: CLE, DET, TOR, WAS
Southeast: ATL, CHA, MIA, ORL
Central: CHI, IND, MIL, MIN

Western Conference

Northwest: DEN, POR, SEA, UTA
Southwest: DAL, LV, OKC, PHX
Gulf Coast: MEM, HOU, NO, SA
Pacific: GS, LAC, LAL, SAC

If NJ replaces LV, NJ goes Atlantic, PHI goes Eastern, DET goes central, MIN goes Northwest, and Utah goes Southwest

With 4 8-team divisions

Eastern: BOS, BKN, CHA, MIA, NYK, ORL, PHI, WAS
Central: ATL, CHI, CLE, DET, IND, MEM, MIL, TOR
Midwest: DAL, DEN, HOU, MIN, NO, OKC, SA, UTA
Pacific: GS, LAC, LAL, LV, PHX, POR, SAC, SEA

If NJ replaces LV, NJ goes Eastern, CHA goes gentral, MEM goes Midwest, and UTA goes Pacific. 

Quote from: Desert Man on May 01, 2018, 11:15:50 PM
NBA ALIGNMENT if the Seattle Supersonics 2.0 and the Vegas (Silver Knights?) came to existence. I predict Virginia Beach Squires 2.0 and New Jersey Swamp Dragons will be in the eastern conference, so it evens the number with the western conference: 17 each. And they are back to 2 divisions each, since my fantasy version has a few adjustments.

EASTERN
ATLANTIC: Boston, Brooklyn, Cleveland, New Jersey (new), New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, Virginia (new), Washington.
MID-AMERICA: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Detroit, Indiana, Miami, Milwaukee, Orlando.

WESTERN
PACIFIC: Golden State, LA Clippers, LA Lakers, Las Vegas (new), Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, Seattle (new), Utah.
CENTRAL: Dallas, Denver, Houston, Memphis, Minnesota, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, San Antonio.

Vegas is not getting an NBA team since they already have an NHL team. Aside from Seattle the other city in the west likely to get a team would be KC. Why NJ in the east? There is already the Knicks and the Nets close by.

Quote from: Takumi on November 06, 2017, 06:23:41 PM
I can’t see MLB expanding beyond 32 teams. There just aren’t enough quality pitchers as it is.

It was 16 for decades and with population growth and integration there are many more players available.  It's just not as popular a sport as it used to be.

MLB to Austin!

-One of the best drawing cities in AAA (Round Rock)
-Austin is the 31st biggest MSA in the US, and grew by 23% in the last 7 years, so moving up fast
-Austin has no major league team, untapped market, unless you count professional college football
-Austin won't get an NFL team (two in Texas, if anyone got the 3rd it would be SA), NBA team (3 in Texas already), maybe an NHL but we're south so makes no sense.  MLB is the best option.

Not just any city can support both an NHL and NBA team regardless of population. Atlanta is a prime example of this. The only cities that can support both an NBA and NHL team are the biggest markets in the country. Vegas wouldn't be able to support the NBA.

Sometimes it isn't just about population when it comes to supporting a team. Atlanta is a top 10 market but failed twice with the NHL simply because the fan base isn't there to support hockey. Detroit and Phoenix are slightly smaller markets yet are able to support all 4 sports because the fan base is established, although it's debatable how well Phoenix supports its NHL team.

Quote from: tchafe1978 on June 21, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Sometimes it isn't just about population when it comes to supporting a team. Atlanta is a top 10 market but failed twice with the NHL simply because the fan base isn't there to support hockey. Detroit and Phoenix are slightly smaller markets yet are able to support all 4 sports because the fan base is established, although it's debatable how well Phoenix supports its NHL team.

True, I don't agree when people make the argument about "they have 3 teams they can't support a 4th" because they are different sports. 

FWIW, St. Louis failed twice with the NFL (Cardinals and Rams), and is now resenting the two owners who moved their respective teams west (Bill Bidwill and Stan Kroenke). Furthermore, the baseball Cardinals remain the top draw, which the football Cardinals could never hope to achieve in their 28 years there.

Quote from: Henry on June 26, 2018, 09:33:21 AM
FWIW, St. Louis failed twice with the NFL (Cardinals and Rams), and is now resenting the two owners who moved their respective teams west (Bill Bidwill and Stan Kroenke). Furthermore, the baseball Cardinals remain the top draw, which the football Cardinals could never hope to achieve in their 28 years there.

And St. Louis was once the home of a 2nd baseball team, the St. Louis Browns who moved to Baltimore and became the Orioles in 1953. The only club who moved eastward while the A's, Dodgers and Giants moved westward and the Braves southward.

If and when the St. Louis Blues will win the Stanley Cup, I wonder which street will be use for the parade? ;)

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on June 26, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
The only club who moved eastward while the A's, Dodgers and Giants moved westward and the Braves southward.

I don't think it was too long after that when the Seattle Pilots moved eastward to become the Milwaukee Brewers.

Quote from: tchafe1978 on June 21, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Sometimes it isn't just about population when it comes to supporting a team. Atlanta is a top 10 market but failed twice with the NHL simply because the fan base isn't there to support hockey. Detroit and Phoenix are slightly smaller markets yet are able to support all 4 sports because the fan base is established, although it's debatable how well Phoenix supports its NHL team.

Well the Coyotes are consistently at the bottom of attendance for the NHL. The Suns and Diamondbacks are middle of the pack teams in attendance in their leagues. Detroit though is a very established sports city, the Pistons are the newest team and they came to the area in the late 50's. The Lions weren't originally in Detroit but are established there and the Tigers and Red Wings are pretty much charter teams to their leagues.

Quote from: texaskdog on June 21, 2018, 09:42:34 AM

Quote from: tchafe1978 on June 21, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Sometimes it isn't just about population when it comes to supporting a team. Atlanta is a top 10 market but failed twice with the NHL simply because the fan base isn't there to support hockey. Detroit and Phoenix are slightly smaller markets yet are able to support all 4 sports because the fan base is established, although it's debatable how well Phoenix supports its NHL team.

True, I don't agree when people make the argument about "they have 3 teams they can't support a 4th" because they are different sports.

Well the NBA and NHL seasons are at the same time. Most of the population isn't going to go to both sports when you have two leagues competing against each other for fan draw regardless if they are different sports or not. It's competition and some markets can't support having both the NBA and NHL in their market.

Quote from: abefroman329 on June 26, 2018, 10:09:39 AM

I don't think it was too long after that when the Seattle Pilots moved eastward to become the Milwaukee Brewers.

The Pilots moved in 1970, after existing for only one year.   Most of the baseball expansions were driven by self-interest (AKA greed) on the part of the owners.  The 1969 expansion (Seattle, Montreal, San Diego, and Kansas City) passed over many better markets, because the existing owners saw themselves relocating there. 

The 1969 expansion was rushed.  Kansas City was threatening political revenge or lawsuits over losing the A's following the 1967 season.  It insisted on a new team ASAP.  The original plan was to expand for 1973.   This rush caused problems.

Montreal had no adequate stadium, but planned to have one by 1973.  Then it got the 76 Olympics, which morphed the project into the architectural malpractice that is the Big Owe.  Had they waited to 1973, baseball would have either seen that Montreal was going ahead with the Olympics boondoggle and moved on to Plan B (Dallas), or not and had an adequate stadium  for day one, which would have saved the Expos. 

San Diego was woefully underfunded and as the saying goes "surrounded by uninhabitable desert to the east, the ocean to the west, Mexico to the south and the Dodgers to the north".  By 1974 it was on its way to Washington, only to be saved by Ray Kroc (McDonald's).  It remains a marginal franchise to this day.

Kansas City, always among the smallest sports markets, was forced to play four years in the A's rotting stadium. 

And Seattle.  Seattle had plans for what became the Kingdom, to be finished by 1973 (subsuquent NIMBYism and BANANAism tied it up until 1976).  Which was fine, but KC forced MLB's hand and the Pilots launched in tiny rotten Sick's Stadium (you cannot make a name like that up, apparently named for some guy named Sick).  Which held only 18K and was expanded with plywood and glue bleachers over the 1969 season, which only made things worse as it overburdened the plumbing and concessions.  The team could not draw flies and went bankrupt.  If it missed payroll, all players would be free agents in that era when the Reserve Clause still protected fans. 

In comes Bud (Light - Kennesaw Molehill) Selig.  A rich Milwaukee car dealer who was still smarting over the Braves' moving to Atlanta.  He had the cash to cover the payroll and thus made baseball an offer it could not refuse, forcing it to make a counter-intuitive move away from the (then) booming Seattle back to the Rust Belt.  Where the Brewers likewise ply away in a too small market.

Quote from: Henry on June 26, 2018, 09:33:21 AM
FWIW, St. Louis failed twice with the NFL (Cardinals and Rams), and is now resenting the two owners who moved their respective teams west (Bill Bidwill and Stan Kroenke). Furthermore, the baseball Cardinals remain the top draw, which the football Cardinals could never hope to achieve in their 28 years there.

It's just that rare baseball town that is not much of a football town.

Quote from: Flint1979 on June 26, 2018, 01:08:35 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 21, 2018, 09:42:34 AM

Quote from: tchafe1978 on June 21, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Sometimes it isn't just about population when it comes to supporting a team. Atlanta is a top 10 market but failed twice with the NHL simply because the fan base isn't there to support hockey. Detroit and Phoenix are slightly smaller markets yet are able to support all 4 sports because the fan base is established, although it's debatable how well Phoenix supports its NHL team.

True, I don't agree when people make the argument about "they have 3 teams they can't support a 4th" because they are different sports.

Well the NBA and NHL seasons are at the same time. Most of the population isn't going to go to both sports when you have two leagues competing against each other for fan draw regardless if they are different sports or not. It's competition and some markets can't support having both the NBA and NHL in their market.

I don't know many hockey/basketball fans do you? 

Quote from: texaskdog on June 26, 2018, 09:10:10 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on June 26, 2018, 01:08:35 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 21, 2018, 09:42:34 AM

Quote from: tchafe1978 on June 21, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Sometimes it isn't just about population when it comes to supporting a team. Atlanta is a top 10 market but failed twice with the NHL simply because the fan base isn't there to support hockey. Detroit and Phoenix are slightly smaller markets yet are able to support all 4 sports because the fan base is established, although it's debatable how well Phoenix supports its NHL team.

True, I don't agree when people make the argument about "they have 3 teams they can't support a 4th" because they are different sports.

Well the NBA and NHL seasons are at the same time. Most of the population isn't going to go to both sports when you have two leagues competing against each other for fan draw regardless if they are different sports or not. It's competition and some markets can't support having both the NBA and NHL in their market.

I don't know many hockey/basketball fans do you?

It really seems like people pick one or the other. I'm generally more of a hockey fan than a basketball fan but I'll watch basketball.

Quote from: Flint1979 on June 26, 2018, 09:53:12 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 26, 2018, 09:10:10 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on June 26, 2018, 01:08:35 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 21, 2018, 09:42:34 AM

Quote from: tchafe1978 on June 21, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Sometimes it isn't just about population when it comes to supporting a team. Atlanta is a top 10 market but failed twice with the NHL simply because the fan base isn't there to support hockey. Detroit and Phoenix are slightly smaller markets yet are able to support all 4 sports because the fan base is established, although it's debatable how well Phoenix supports its NHL team.

True, I don't agree when people make the argument about "they have 3 teams they can't support a 4th" because they are different sports.

Well the NBA and NHL seasons are at the same time. Most of the population isn't going to go to both sports when you have two leagues competing against each other for fan draw regardless if they are different sports or not. It's competition and some markets can't support having both the NBA and NHL in their market.

I don't know many hockey/basketball fans do you?

It really seems like people pick one or the other. I'm generally more of a hockey fan than a basketball fan but I'll watch basketball.

I know plenty of people, family members and friends who are both hockey and basketball fans. It's fine if you're not, but that doesn't mean others aren't. In Milwaukee, we have an NBA team, but no NHL team, so many people who are fans of both sports follow the Bucks but will also follow the Blackhawks since they are the closest NHL team. If you like a sport enough you'll find a team to follow. Many people have been pushing for years for Milwaukee to get an NHL team, either expansion or another team moving. In fact, the Bradley Center was originally built to attract an NHL team. Milwaukee is definitely a city with a strong hockey following, but whether the market is large enough to support an NHL team is debatable. So on one hand you have Atlanta, a top 10 market, that you would think would be big enough to support NHL along with NBA, but just doesn't have the fan base for hockey. And on the other hand you have Milwaukee that probably has the fan base but isn't a big enough market to support both NBA and NHL.

Quote from: texaskdog on June 26, 2018, 09:10:10 PM

Quote from: Flint1979 on June 26, 2018, 01:08:35 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on June 21, 2018, 09:42:34 AM

Quote from: tchafe1978 on June 21, 2018, 09:26:46 AM
Sometimes it isn't just about population when it comes to supporting a team. Atlanta is a top 10 market but failed twice with the NHL simply because the fan base isn't there to support hockey. Detroit and Phoenix are slightly smaller markets yet are able to support all 4 sports because the fan base is established, although it's debatable how well Phoenix supports its NHL team.

True, I don't agree when people make the argument about "they have 3 teams they can't support a 4th" because they are different sports.

Well the NBA and NHL seasons are at the same time. Most of the population isn't going to go to both sports when you have two leagues competing against each other for fan draw regardless if they are different sports or not. It's competition and some markets can't support having both the NBA and NHL in their market.

I don't know many hockey/basketball fans do you?

Sure, my dad and my brother are fans of hockey and basketball.

Of the two, I definitely prefer hockey.  My interest in basketball is almost nil.

IMHO, the NBA and NHL are aimed at very different people. 

The NHL is, by far, the most live-gate dependent of the "big 4" sports.  In the new places it has expanded to, it aims at newcomers, not only because many are from northern hockey friendly places, but also because these people, having no dog in the fight, feel excluded by the pervasive college sports centric cultures of places like Columbus, Tobacco Road, or Dallas, etc. 

The NBA is aimed at children (get the kids to come and at least either mom or dad have to bring them) and at 20 something, or even 30 something, failure-to-launch chronological adult males.   The simplistic morality plays and endless discussions about who is "the man" and who "represents" and who tweeted what about whom is more akin to pro wrestling than any sport.

I live in Michigan of course and have the Pistons and Red Wings to compare things to. I don't think they co-exist together very well. When the new Little Caesars Arena was built you had fans of the Red Wings having a problem with the Pistons playing in the same building and having banners in the rafters along with the Red Wings banners. I personally don't have a problem with either and am delighted that they share the same building now. Even though I live closer to where the Palace is at vs. downtown Detroit I'm happy the Pistons moved back to Detroit but as far as the fans go it seems like people either pick one or the other. I don't know too many people that are diehard Pistons fans, of course they have diehards but I'm more tempted to run into a diehard Red Wings fan before I run into a diehard Pistons fan. And Detroit draws well when the teams are doing well other than the Lions if the team is doing bad the fans won't show up.

Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2018, 03:48:48 PM
IMHO, the NBA and NHL are aimed at very different people. 

The NHL is, by far, the most live-gate dependent of the "big 4" sports.  In the new places it has expanded to, it aims at newcomers, not only because many are from northern hockey friendly places, but also because these people, having no dog in the fight, feel excluded by the pervasive college sports centric cultures of places like Columbus, Tobacco Road, or Dallas, etc. 

The NBA is aimed at children (get the kids to come and at least either mom or dad have to bring them) and at 20 something, or even 30 something, failure-to-launch chronological adult males.   The simplistic morality plays and endless discussions about who is "the man" and who "represents" and who tweeted what about whom is more akin to pro wrestling than any sport.

And the NHL has many more fans of local teams in rural areas and areas that aren't near a team, compared to the NBA fanbases. Outside of the 6 or so major teams (Lakers, Celtics, Warriors, Spurs, Heat, and one or two others depending on who's good at the time), you go 30-40 miles outside of a home NBA city, most people are rooting for whoever's popular at the time.

Quote from: Sctvhound on June 27, 2018, 11:05:48 PM


And the NHL has many more fans of local teams in rural areas and areas that aren't near a team, compared to the NBA fanbases. Outside of the 6 or so major teams (Lakers, Celtics, Warriors, Spurs, Heat, and one or two others depending on who's good at the time), you go 30-40 miles outside of a home NBA city, most people are rooting for whoever's popular at the time.

Totally.  In most of the country, most people follow the nearest team as "us".  Even 100s of miles from the city.  Especially after the team has been established for a generation or so.  Except for the NBA.  You get away from the metro area and almost nobody in the hinterland considers the nearest team "us".  Most people outside urban areas do not follow that sport at all, and, those that do, because of the pro wrestling nature of it, just latch on to whoever is good currently or which of the faux storylines suits them.

Detroit might be called Hockeytown but it's really historically a baseball town. The Tigers are one of the charter teams of the American League and were there well ahead of the Red Wings, Lions and Pistons. The Hockeytown moniker really didn't come around until the 1990's when the Red Wings were in the early years of their 25 straight playoff appearances and hadn't won a Stanley Cup between 1955 and 1997 then won in back to back years and again in 2002 and 2008. It was really when Mike Ilitch bought the Red Wings in the early 80's and drafted Steve Yzerman that the Wings started rebuilding after years of being known as the Dead Wings. The Tigers though back in the war years were the #1 ticket in Detroit it was the thing to do in Detroit and if you played for the Tigers you were a star in Detroit. The NFL being around and taking over the popularity of MLB the Lions are popular but I still think this is a Tigers town. The Tigers are the oldest team in the city and have a very large following. The Pistons aren't one of those teams that you can get 50 miles away from Detroit and find people rooting for other teams. I've seen some people in Saginaw rooting for the Warriors simply because Draymond Green is from Saginaw and I don't buy that. LaMarr Woodley is from Saginaw too and there were some Steelers fans here because of that, in fact I know one of LaMarr's aunts, his grandma and his sister.