Proof that Old Farts in Arizona and Florida Can't Support this many Professional Sports
>> Friday
It's an older article, but an interesting read. I don't claim to know how they came up with these figures, but going with my own gut instincts it seems pretty legit. We've all brought up examples of Tampa and Phoenix before. The article shows economically which U.S. markets are most capable of supporting new expansion or relocated teams, and which markets are overextended.
It also lists what the writers think would be the best league to move into that city.
My only qualms with their study is in four of their ten most over-extended markets, teams are marketed to and draw from a more regional or statewide fan base (Twin Cities, Milwaukee, Denver, Phoenix). An additional one (St. Louis) draws from a much broader area than just the city, and includes some other cities, with Cardinals fans in Iowa, Louisville, Memphis and Peoria, IL.
I disagree with some oftheir "best markets." The worst in my mind was their assertion that Northern New Jersey is ripe for more teams. The Nets moving seem to contradict that finding.
I also disagree that the NHL is the ideal sport to place a team to place in Hartford. As much as I used to like the Hartford Whalers (I did. Shut up.), they failed once before and would need an entirely new arena if they wanted to compete. I know you're not surprised by my conclusion but even if I wasn't a fan I would say that MLS is the best fit for Hartford. 40,000-seat capacity Rentschler Field was recently constructed for the UConn football team in East Hartford, cost $91.2 million of taxpayer money and at present, only has one primary tenant, who uses the stadium for 5-6 dates a year. Rivalries with New York and New England would be quickly established, as they are within a three-hour drive of each other. The stadium has served as host to two US National team matches, both of which were well-received.
What do the Wisconsin residents on this blog think about the Milwaukee market being overextended? These calculations for Milwaukee did not include the Packers, Admirals, Wave, UWM, Marquette, or UW-Madison Basketball, Football, and Hockey. I'm not rubbing it in, I'm just curious if you think the market is oversaturated.
Posts
2 comments:
Did you just call the state of Iowa a city?
Anyway, I don't know if your "statewide fanbase" argument is very good. Atlanta, Boston, and Chicago are three good examples of nominally metropolitan markets with wide regional appeal. Just because a team doesn't have a state attatched to its nickname doesn't mean that only the city itself and its immediate suburbs support the team.
I think the opposite is true as well. In the nether regions of Minnesota (i.e. anywhere outside Minneapolis and St. Paul), do you think the "Minnesota" teams are all that popular? You can't get TV reception from an ice shanty, silly. Nor can you read Rockies box scores from the top of Pike's Peak.
See? These awful regional stereotypes completely prove my point.
That's not the issue. What I was saying was that for example, Denver teams. You would have to include the income and population of Denver, Colorado Springs, and Boulder. Look at it this way. In Wisconsin, the Packers don't just draw from Green Bay. They draw from Milwaukee, Madison, Sheboygan, Oshkosh, etc. While it may not be monumental, it's something to take into account. The results may come out the same. I was merely noting their omission among the teams on the list.
Post a Comment