Somebody mentioned NOLA; don't bet on it; where would you build it?

Buck Compton said:

---

monarch said:

---

Somebody mentioned NOLA; don't bet on it; where would you build it?

---

Put the whole thing on stilts...

Also, whoever came up with that expansion realignment list is crazy. You have to stay within the traditional NL and AL lines for the most part and preserve rivalries. No one is going to go for that.

---

Manfred has said if two teams are added it would go to 8 divisions of 4 teams. So you tell me.. how do you do that without moving or breaking up some rivalries? I mostly kept teams to their historic placement and regional rivalries. Pittsburgh gets moved to a more regional division. Tampa gets moved to a regional division (I'm sure they're going to be so pissed to not get to fly to the northeast half the year). The only tough ones were KC and Colorado, but both of them are outliers regionally in their current divisions.. and there's nobody else close to Texas that would make sense without breaking someone up somewhere else.

I'm curious to hear how it could be done better.

mazag08 said:

---

Buck Compton said:

---

monarch said:

---

Somebody mentioned NOLA; don't bet on it; where would you build it?

---

Put the whole thing on stilts...

Also, whoever came up with that expansion realignment list is crazy. You have to stay within the traditional NL and AL lines for the most part and preserve rivalries. No one is going to go for that.

---

Manfred has said if two teams are added it would go to 8 divisions of 4 teams. So you tell me.. how do you do that without moving or breaking up some rivalries? I mostly kept teams to their historic placement and regional rivalries. Pittsburgh gets moved to a more regional division. Tampa gets moved to a regional division (I'm sure they're going to be so pissed to not get to fly to the northeast half the year). The only tough ones were KC and Colorado, but both of them are outliers regionally in their current divisions.. and there's nobody else close to Texas that would make sense without breaking someone up somewhere else.

I'm curious to hear how it could be done better.

---

I think that's a pretty good mock up. My only 2 changes would be keeping an AL club in Florida (lots of northeastern transplants that like to watch the Red Sox and Yanks - lots of money), and having an expansion club in Montreal. That was actually a pretty good baseball market and fan base that got screwed by poor ownership.

The only reason I picked Nashville and not Montreal is because of how organized they are already and the lack of southeastern representation in MLB.

It's so hard to reorganize after expansion because multiple teams have to change. Manfred said he would like a more regional approach which is why I stuck the Florida teams together, but I see your point on transplants.

If it were up to me, I'd beg Oakland to move to Montreal and add two teams on the east coast.. probably Nashville AND Charlotte. Both cities represent huge gaps that could fill plenty of population with a team to root for without sacrificing other clubs fandom. You can't tell me people in North Carolina wouldn't love to have their own team vs splitting their allegiance between Atlanta and Washington. And Nashville is probably tired of splitting between Cinci and Atlanta as well.

All fair points

Baseball doesn't need an expansion, but it will most likely happen

Mazag's divisions are good. There are only a few rivalries that matter enough to force them together

NYY-Red Sox
Cubs-STL-Reds
Dodgers-Giants

Are there any others are really that important? Maybe some of the AL Central teams? Mets-? Some of the geographic ones are nice, and can quickly get heated, those are the ones that would be kept in tact largely.

None of the other rivalries have enough history behind them, I also think it wouldn't matter much to keep them in the same division, only in the same league.

We've heard clamoring for a balanced schedule the last 10 years or so, really since reorging to 3 divisions. In the 80s people were already pointing out that 18 games vs division opponents and 12 against non-division was too unbalanced. Moving to 3 division split things up even more unevenly. I think any division realignment will include a move to more balanced scheduling, at least within each league.

If sports ran more like normal business with the main expansion criteria being profitable locations, and not only propping up the value of current franchises, how man teams would fans support?

Agnzona said:

---

If sports ran more like normal business with the main expansion criteria being profitable locations, and not only propping up the value of current franchises, how man teams would fans support?

---

You could easily find 6 more teams.

Montreal, Portland, Nashville, Charlotte, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Vancouver, and potentially even OKC.

Hell, I think Sacramento could make more money than 3-4 current teams.

The Rays drew less than 6,000 people in attendance for their game tonight vs Toronto. Surely you have to think any of the cities listed would do infinitely better than that

monarch said:

---

Makes good sense to me MAZAG; therefore it won't happen.

As for SAT or AUS or something in between the two, SAT by itself won't get a team. The financial demographic is such that the NFL won't put a team in that city primarily because the amount of corp HQ's located there (yeah, I know Alamo dome isn't big enough or suitable for an NFL team but the real reason is the $$$). The AUS financial demographic is more favourable but if you were to build a new stadium in AUS where would you put it? Cant put it in RR as your main way to get there is I35 and that would be a nightmare.

Bottom line, don't think we'll see a team in that general area any time soon.

---

OK so this is far fetched and I've done almost no research if it would actually work, but here's how I would do it.

Expansion team to Austin area, but build it down south near the Circuit of the Americas. Already have ample parking lots, etc. Its in the middle of nowhere, so the city "funds" the stadium construction by gifting the team a bunch of eminent domained land to develop and collect rents from. Turn it into a new urban-living suburb, Austin is spreading south anyways. Grab the land now while its cheap.

Simultaneously, extend the light rail line southeast through the airport and have a terminus at the ball park. That connects the northern suburbs up to this new park with a transit option that beats driving through I-35 traffic. It's another 10-15 miles of rail to get all the way down there, but the network would be improved by adding those two major hubs (airport and sports complex).

Also, given its on the south side of town, makes it easier for people from San Antonio to drive up if they want to go to a game. Still a long drive (~75-90 minutes), but might snag some fans that way. If they built the stadium in north Austin, there's no way anyone from San Antonio would even consider making that drive.

monarch said:

---

Somebody mentioned NOLA; don't bet on it; where would you build it?

---

I was born in NOLA and have to say it would be an amazing baseball town. Part of the reason LSU baseball has such a big following is that the state doesn't have an MLB team, and nobody in New Orleans wants to associate with the city of Atlanta so the Braves are out of the question. That leaves people with Geaux Tiguh baseball.

I think they could probably kick out the AAA team (used to be the Zephyrs but I guess now they're called the Baby Cakes, wtf?) and use the land in Metairie to build a stadium. Only issue is the team would probably want it to be walking distance from the French Quarter like the Superdome in which case they're SOL.

The triple A team is leaving new Orleans for Wichita because no one shows up to the games......

Why go to a AAA game when you can drive the hour to watch LSU play a big SEC series in Baton Rouge? An MLB team would change that equation

PWestAg18 said:

---

monarch said:

---

Somebody mentioned NOLA; don't bet on it; where would you build it?

---

I was born in NOLA and have to say it would be an amazing baseball town. Part of the reason LSU baseball has such a big following is that the state doesn't have an MLB team, and nobody in New Orleans wants to associate with the city of Atlanta so the Braves are out of the question. That leaves people with Geaux Tiguh baseball.

I think they could probably kick out the AAA team (used to be the Zephyrs but I guess now they're called the Baby Cakes, wtf?) and use the land in Metairie to build a stadium. Only issue is the team would probably want it to be walking distance from the French Quarter like the Superdome in which case they're SOL.

---

The weather in NOLA would be tough for baseball in the summer. I don't know if there is money to build an indoor stadium there. That being said, there are a lot of good baseball fans there, and there are a WHOLE lot of Astros fans in South Louisiana.

A retractable roof or dome would definitely be a requirement.

I'm sure Bregman being a starter made a lot of coonasses start rooting for the Astros

I know a ton of natives in the area as well...... None of them really give a rats ass about pro baseball and have much of any desire for a pro team.

I've definitely met people who feel that way. My personal experience says people would be more for it than against it though. Albeit that's obviously anecdotal.

PWestAg18 said:

---

A retractable roof or dome would definitely be a requirement.

I'm sure Bregman being a starter made a lot of coonasses start rooting for the Astros

---

A tripling of the metro population would also be a requirement.

Fair enough

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

PWestAg18 said:

---

A retractable roof or dome would definitely be a requirement.

I'm sure Bregman being a starter made a lot of coonasses start rooting for the Astros

---

A tripling of the metro population would also be a requirement.

---

Agreed. There are far fewer people in the NOLA metro area than most people would assume. Metro areas of San Antonio and Austin each have far greater populations.

I think the only way NOLA could support a baseball team is if they had a long history with it. An expansion team would have many years of empty seats before they could really establish a fan base. For example, the Pelicans have really weak support, and they've had a superstar player for the last five years.

powerbelly said:

---

I would buy season tickets if they put it near downtown dallas.

---

This has been a dream of mine for years. I would love the Metroplex to get a 2nd baseball team and place it in Downtown Dallas off of one of the rail lines.

I would go to so many more games if I could take public transportation to a baseball game.

I think a second team in DFW would be more financially viable than teams in San Antonio, Austin, Nashville, new Orleans...etc

The thought of taking a train from Carrolton or Plano to a downtown ballpark would be incredible. No hour long drive to the ballpark in rush hour traffic sounds great.

Canyon99 said:

---

San Antonio would be a much better Texas location for expansion.

---

San Antonio is a **** hole though.

Harry Dunne said:

---

There's no chance of adding a second team in a region that doesn't support it's current team well enough to finish in the top half of attendance. Manfred wants more eyeballs on TVs and butts in seats. Diluting an already weak fan base isn't going to accomplish either.

---

That is because the Rangers don't ever win and the location is horrendous. Their attendance would be so much better if the Ballpark was located in Downtown Ft Worth or Dallas.

DFW is like the 6th or 7th largest Metro area with something around 7.5 million people. You start getting to 8 or 8.5 million residents in a metro area and you can easily have the eyeballs and corporate base to support two baseball teams.

Kellso said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

There's no chance of adding a second team in a region that doesn't support it's current team well enough to finish in the top half of attendance. Manfred wants more eyeballs on TVs and butts in seats. Diluting an already weak fan base isn't going to accomplish either.

---

That is because the Rangers don't ever win and the location is horrendus. Their attendance would be so much better if the Ballpark was located in Downtown Ft Worth or Dallas.

DFW is like the 6th or 7th largest Metro area with something around 7.5 million people. You start getting to 8 or 8.5 million residents in a metroa area and you can easily have the eyeballs and corporate base to support two baseball teams.

---

Unfortunately it's not true that the Rangers don't ever win. You might have forgotten that they won pennants in 2010 and 2011.

• In 2010 they still finished in the bottom half of the league in average attendance (63% avg capacity)
• In 2011 they only moved up to 11th (74%). After winning 2 AL pennants
• In 2015 while winning the AL West they finished 20th (again just 63%)

The truth is that the attendance is very consistent whether the team is good or bad. They have never finished in the top 10 but aside from a very dark 2008 (27th at under 50%), they usually finish around the middle of the pack.

Some fan bases support their teams even when they don't win (Giants, Cardinals, Angels and others). I agree that the stadium location could be better and would improve attendance. IDK about Ft. Worth, but a downtown Dallas ballpark would definitely help out and would have been a good move. But good or not, if you can't finish in the top half of the league in attendance you don't have the fan base for two teams regardless of where the stadiums are placed.

As much as I'm not happy with the new stadium, I do think it will help with this issue. The ballpark was built just before retractable roofs became an affordable option for stadiums. Miller Park, Minute Maid, and Safeco were all built roughly 6-7 years later. People struggle to go to games when it's 105 degrees sitting in their seats and damn near 120 at field level.

PWestAg18 said:

---

As much as I'm not happy with the new stadium, I do think it will help with this issue. The ballpark was built just before retractable roofs became an affordable option for stadiums. Miller Park, Minute Maid, and Safeco were all built roughly 6-7 years later. People struggle to go to games when it's 105 degrees sitting in their seats and damn near 120 at field level.

---

I remember reading that they could have built the ballpark to have the ability to convert to a roof later and opted not too.

Harry Dunne said:

---

Kellso said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

There's no chance of adding a second team in a region that doesn't support it's current team well enough to finish in the top half of attendance. Manfred wants more eyeballs on TVs and butts in seats. Diluting an already weak fan base isn't going to accomplish either.

---

That is because the Rangers don't ever win and the location is horrendus. Their attendance would be so much better if the Ballpark was located in Downtown Ft Worth or Dallas.

DFW is like the 6th or 7th largest Metro area with something around 7.5 million people. You start getting to 8 or 8.5 million residents in a metroa area and you can easily have the eyeballs and corporate base to support two baseball teams.

---

Unfortunately it's not true that the Rangers don't ever win. You might have forgotten that they won pennants in 2010 and 2011.

• In 2010 they still finished in the bottom half of the league in average attendance (63% avg capacity)
• In 2011 they only moved up to 11th (74%). After winning 2 AL pennants
• In 2015 while winning the AL West they finished 20th (again just 63%)

The truth is that the attendance is very consistent whether the team is good or bad. They have never finished in the top 10 but aside from a very dark 2008 (27th at under 50%), they usually finish around the middle of the pack.

Some fan bases support their teams even when they don't win (Giants, Cardinals, Angels and others). I agree that the stadium location could be better and would improve attendance. IDK about Ft. Worth, but a downtown Dallas ballpark would definitely help out and would have been a good move. But good or not, if you can't finish in the top half of the league in attendance you don't have the fan base for two teams regardless of where the stadiums are placed.

---

Do you realize you just made my point for me??

The Rangers have been around for something like 48 years, and you are pointing out the only two seasons they have ever won in the post season. That is a pathetic track record of winning.

Some of you seem to make the mistaken assumption that markets that support losing franchises with high attendance is somehow a good thing.
It is not.

The reason "Fair Weather" markets like Los Angeles, Miami, the Bay Area have lots of titles under their belts is the immense pressure to win in these markets. If you do not win in these locales no one will show up and the team will not make any money.


I will repeat myself. The Rangers attendance suffers because the team rarely wins, the location of their stadium is not ideal, and the Rangers play in the hottest weather in the major leagues.
The new stadium will solve the heat, but there is still no public transportation to get to the games.

I could care less about attendance figures for a team that rarely wins.


The DFW metroplex has 7.5 million people which is currently about twice as big as the Minneapolis/St Paul metro area.
You start getting to a population of 8 million plus, and the Dallas market would have the corporate base and the population to support a second team.

I think a second team would do much better in the metroplex than a city with a metro population of less than 2.5 million.

Why are you using percentage of capacity to rank attendance?

And even on percentages, on a quick look, they were 7th in 2012.

So they have indeed been in the top 10, even with that metric.

Kellso said:

---

Some of you seem to make the mistaken assumption that markets that support losing franchises with high attendance is somehow a good thing.
It is not.

The reason "Fair Weather" markets like Los Angeles, Miami, the Bay Area have lots of titles under their belts is the immense pressure to win in these markets. If you do not win in these locales no one will show up and the team will not make any money.

---

This post makes me think of the Toronto Maple Leafs (yeah, yeah, no one cares about ice soccer). They constantly under-perform in the biggest hockey market on the planet. A second NHL franchise would perhaps light a fire in them to try to be competitive just to keep the gate revenue up (it stays high just because hockey is popular in Toronto).

Kellso said:

---

Some of you seem to make the mistaken assumption that markets that support losing franchises with high attendance is somehow a good thing.
It is not.

The reason "Fair Weather" markets like Los Angeles, Miami, the Bay Area have lots of titles under their belts is the immense pressure to win in these markets. If you do not win in these locales no one will show up and the team will not make any money.


I will repeat myself. The Rangers attendance suffers because the team rarely wins, the location of their stadium is not ideal, and the Rangers play in the hottest weather in the major leagues.
The new stadium will solve the heat, but there is still no public transportation to get to the games.

I could care less about attendance figures for a team that rarely wins.

---

That's some rich logic for an Aggie. Unwavering support for our football team (along with immense pressure to win) is what made the Kyle Field expansion happen and was a big part of the SEC invitation. If Aggie fans were like Rangers fans, we'd still be in the Big XII.

No one is arguing that attendance suffers because of losing. or that location is not poor, or that the lack of a roof hurts. Those things are all obvious and true. The only point I'm making is that adding another team to the same fan base isn't going to happen because of it. There is literally zero chance for it to happen because it doesn't make any sense.

To be fair it doesn't make any sense in Houston or most other MLB cities either...but this thread is about DFW.