Harry Dunne said:

---

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.

---

Umm...I think you're making his point for him. Please point to any of our football team's great achievements in the past several decades?

I don't think you understand his point.

His point is that this list of things needs to happen in order for fans to show up in DFW. Not only that, but he thinks that these things will suddenly turn a fan base that can't properly support one team into one that can support two.

No, our football team has not had any great achievements. But our fans still supported the team and showed up to games...and that was a big part of getting a great stadium built and getting invited into the best league. We didn't cry about stadium location or the heat or our teams not being good enough. We kept supporting them and great things happened.

Harry Dunne said:

---

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.

---

Over the past 20 years how many conference titles has all that great attendance led to?
How Many National titles?

That's what I thought.

It makes me laugh how many people think that high attendance for a mediocre product somehow shows strength.

Attendance figures are nothing to brag about. High attendance for an average product typically means that the Teams management can take you for granted.

One of the reasons that the Cubs went 100 years between titles was that they made money hand over fist without ever having real pressure to win.
They had high attendance and great fan support........ and the Cubs management took them for granted. Whether the Cubs won or lost that team was going to be one of the most valuable MLB franchises.

The Rangers suffer from something kinda similar. Their fanbase tends to be suburban, family oriented and forgiving.
Rangers management has never really had the intense pressure to win that teams in the Northeast face.

Fans of teams from Middle America always complain about Los Angeles or Miami teams winning titles because of their fair weather fanbases.....and I would argue that those teams win precisely because those cities will not support a losing franchise.
If you don't put a winner on the field the GM, manager and everyone else is at risk of being fired because the team will lose money.

Dallas is sort of the same way. The DFW market will support a winner, and the Rangers have never been winners (except for the 2 seasons they won playoff series). This is why I don't care about your attendance stats.

The Dallas Metro area has the population and corporate base (RIGHT NOW) to support a second major league team. Once DFW hits 8 million plus......anything could happen.

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.

---

Jerry didn't do SA any favors

Kellso said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

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.

---

Over the past 20 years how many conference titles has all that great attendance led to?
How Many National titles?

That's what I thought.

It makes me laugh how many people think that high attendance for a mediocre product somehow shows strength.

Attendance figures are nothing to brag about. High attendance for an average product typically means that the Teams management can take you for granted.

One of the reasons that the Cubs went 100 years between titles was that they made money hand over fist without ever having real pressure to win.
They had high attendance and great fan support........ and the Cubs management took them for granted. Whether the Cubs won or lost that team was going to be one of the most valuable MLB franchises.

The Rangers suffer from something kinda similar. Their fanbase tends to be suburban, family oriented and forgiving.
Rangers management has never really had the intense pressure to win that teams in the Northeast face.

Fans of teams from Middle America always complain about Los Angeles or Miami teams winning titles because of their fair weather fanbases.....and I would argue that those teams win precisely because those cities will not support a losing franchise.
If you don't put a winner on the field the GM, manager and everyone else is at risk of being fired because the team will lose money.

Dallas is sort of the same way. The DFW market will support a winner, and the Rangers have never been winners (except for the 2 seasons they won playoff series). This is why I don't care about your attendance stats.

The Dallas Metro area has the population and corporate base (RIGHT NOW) to support a second major league team. Once DFW hits 8 million plus......anything could happen.

---

In baseball towns Odor would get booed every time he strikes out. Zero pressure for the 'built for fun'

Kellso said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

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.

---

Over the past 20 years how many conference titles has all that great attendance led to?
How Many National titles?

That's what I thought.

It makes me laugh how many people think that high attendance for a mediocre product somehow shows strength.

Attendance figures are nothing to brag about. High attendance for an average product typically means that the Teams management can take you for granted.

One of the reasons that the Cubs went 100 years between titles was that they made money hand over fist without ever having real pressure to win.
They had high attendance and great fan support........ and the Cubs management took them for granted. Whether the Cubs won or lost that team was going to be one of the most valuable MLB franchises.

The Rangers suffer from something kinda similar. Their fanbase tends to be suburban, family oriented and forgiving.
Rangers management has never really had the intense pressure to win that teams in the Northeast face.

Fans of teams from Middle America always complain about Los Angeles or Miami teams winning titles because of their fair weather fanbases.....and I would argue that those teams win precisely because those cities will not support a losing franchise.
If you don't put a winner on the field the GM, manager and everyone else is at risk of being fired because the team will lose money.

Dallas is sort of the same way. The DFW market will support a winner, and the Rangers have never been winners (except for the 2 seasons they won playoff series). This is why I don't care about your attendance stats.

The Dallas Metro area has the population and corporate base (RIGHT NOW) to support a second major league team. Once DFW hits 8 million plus......anything could happen.

---

You're still missing the point. A&M had the most athletic revenue in the country. The entire goal is revenue. You spend money to win so you can make more money.

If you can make top in the country money without winning titles then you have potential for expansion, which is exactly what happened (Kyle, SEC). If we ever do win titles, watch out.

You mentioned the Cubs and your example is factual, but that's why Chicago can support two teams and why the Cubs were and always will be always a much more valuable franchise than the Rangers, even when the Rangers were winning pennants while the Cubs were losing 100 games and why A&M will always be a more valuable program than Baylor or TCU even when the others are winning more than we are.

If you don't even draw top crowds when you're winning (Rangers) or you need to win big to have crowds then talk of expansion is silly.

The Rangers drew top crowds when they were at their best.

They got as high as 3.4 million in 2012, just a little bit behind the Yankees for top in the AL.

But certainly, there not one of those few franchises that have a special cultural place and the people will always show up.

It'll take a longer period of sustained success for someone like the Rangers to develop a more dependable elite fan base.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Rangers drew top crowds when they were at their best.

They got as high as 3.4 million in 2012, just a little bit behind the Yankees for top in the AL.

But certainly, there not one of those few franchises that have a special cultural place and the people will always show up.

It'll take a longer period of sustained success for someone like the Rangers to develop a more dependable elite fan base.

---

But it's not true that they draw when they are good. They drew in 2012 when they were nearly the best in the game, but they are good right now and still 16th in attendance. In 2015 and 2016 they were 16th and 10th despite having back to back division winners. If having a World Series team is the requirement to draw top crowds then you might as well sell the team to Mexico City.

We can argue all day long about whether the blind Aggie loyalty type fan base is "better" or not but loyal support means more revenue and profitability is the goal.

Lot's of tangents on this thread, but getting back to the point:

• The OP was about 2 MLB teams in DFW
• DFW is like you said, not one of the rare places where people show up regardless of the product
• It would be difficult to overcome the resistance by any current MLB team blocking expansion/relocation into a current MLB market (but not impossible, see Nats/Orioles).
• Manfred has talked about expansion markets and DFW has not received a single mention. To be fair, no other market with an existing team has either.
• DFW ain't getting a 2nd team anytime soon.

I'm far from a Dallas hater. I like to talk a little trash in good fun but I'd love another team in Texas. Any points that I have made about Dallas could also be made about Houston. Neither has the type of baseball culture to support even its own team properly unless they are winning games and Dallas has had the disadvantage of playing games outdoors in balls hot weather.

FWIW, Not that Jerry would ever let it happen, but I think Dallas could probably support another NFL team. But not baseball.

I'm on the record saying there won't be another team in DFW.

They were terrible in 2014 and they were terrible last year and not expected to be good this year. I suspect if they're in a playoff race, attendance may go up some.

They'll show up for a winner. Like I said, they need a sustained stretch and can't mix in duds if they're going to become so part of the culture if the attendance is to survive bad years.

I think the days of "two team" towns are over.

It worked back in the day when the majority of team income was the gate. Then, in large cities, the Bronx could support the Yankees and Brooklyn the Dodgers because both sections of town were huge.

In the last 10-15 years, most money now comes from radio/TV rights - so one team can "own" an entire metro area. And of course, teams now can "veto" someone muscling in on their turf and devaluing their rights.

The last time a team was founded or moved into a market creating a two team town was the A's moving to Oakland in 1968, over 50 years ago. It'll never happen again.

wbt5845 said:

---

The last time a team was founded or moved into a market creating a two team town was the A's moving to Oakland in 1968, over 50 years ago. It'll never happen again.

---

I'm pretty sure the last expansion/movement in MLB put a second team in an existing market. Nationals and Orioles play 38 miles apart.

I still don't think it will happen again anytime soon, but to say never is pretty strong when it happened relatively recently.

Harry Dunne said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

The last time a team was founded or moved into a market creating a two team town was the A's moving to Oakland in 1968, over 50 years ago. It'll never happen again.

---

I'm pretty sure the last expansion/movement in MLB put a second team in an existing market. Nationals and Orioles play 38 miles apart.

I still don't think it will happen again anytime soon, but to say never is pretty strong when it happened relatively recently.

---

Good point - I always forget DC and Baltimore are the same market.

It has not worked out well. IIRC the Orioles owner got a big payday to allow it to happen but the teams have spent the last 10 years suing each other over TV rights. Which is why I think you're right that it won't happen again anytime soon unless there are some unique circumstances.

I think Montreal and Mexico City or Monterey are the favorites for the next round.

Harry Dunne said:

---

It has not worked out well. IIRC the Orioles owner got a big payday to allow it to happen but the teams have spent the last 10 years suing each other over TV rights. Which is why I think you're right that it won't happen again anytime soon unless there are some unique circumstances.

I think Montreal and Mexico City or Monterey are the favorites for the next round.

---

Montreal, yes. Mexico.. no.. unless massive politics are involved. Nashville, Charlotte, Portland, and Vegas each have a 10x better case than Mexico. All Mexico has is a dream for growing the game beyond American soil. But no American born player is going to want to live and play in Mexico.

Surely no one wants to move to Portland

Under no situation do I see Mexico getting a team. I highly doubt the players union would agree to living in that **** hole


Nashville is my guess followed by Vegas

All of you saying no to Mexico go read Manfred's comments every time he has asked about possibilities.

Also Latin players are a majority at this point and I'm sure many of them would love to play in Mexico. Besides I'm pretty sure "players wanting to live there" is not even the slightest consideration. It's about money and Mexico opens up a lot more TV sets and consumers than any American city.

I mean think about it if Mexico makes sense financially do you really think they are not going to put a team there because some Robbie Grossman type doesn't want to play there? Vlad Junior would love to go down there and never have to learn English.

Also, don't think you know a place just because you watched Sicario. If you think Mexico City is a dump then you have never been to the Dominican Republic.

It's not going to happen.

Mr.Bond said:

---

It's not going to happen.

---

we'll see. I wouldn't think so either unless the commissioner talked about it in every single interview.

I love though how you consider yourself to be a higher authority than Rob Manfred on the subject.

You realize the commissioner isn't a dictator right? I'm telling you right now I'll bet just about anything that Mexico is not in line for expansion, period. Regardless of what Manfred says

Do you have anything to base that on or am I supposed to just believe it just because you are telling me?

I'm telling you it's not happening......

Harry Dunne said:

---

Kellso said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

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.

---

Over the past 20 years how many conference titles has all that great attendance led to?
How Many National titles?

That's what I thought.

It makes me laugh how many people think that high attendance for a mediocre product somehow shows strength.

Attendance figures are nothing to brag about. High attendance for an average product typically means that the Teams management can take you for granted.

One of the reasons that the Cubs went 100 years between titles was that they made money hand over fist without ever having real pressure to win.
They had high attendance and great fan support........ and the Cubs management took them for granted. Whether the Cubs won or lost that team was going to be one of the most valuable MLB franchises.

The Rangers suffer from something kinda similar. Their fanbase tends to be suburban, family oriented and forgiving.
Rangers management has never really had the intense pressure to win that teams in the Northeast face.

Fans of teams from Middle America always complain about Los Angeles or Miami teams winning titles because of their fair weather fanbases.....and I would argue that those teams win precisely because those cities will not support a losing franchise.
If you don't put a winner on the field the GM, manager and everyone else is at risk of being fired because the team will lose money.

Dallas is sort of the same way. The DFW market will support a winner, and the Rangers have never been winners (except for the 2 seasons they won playoff series). This is why I don't care about your attendance stats.

The Dallas Metro area has the population and corporate base (RIGHT NOW) to support a second major league team. Once DFW hits 8 million plus......anything could happen.

---

You're still missing the point. A&M had the most athletic revenue in the country. The entire goal is revenue. You spend money to win so you can make more money.

If you can make top in the country money without winning titles then you have potential for expansion, which is exactly what happened (Kyle, SEC). If we ever do win titles, watch out.

You mentioned the Cubs and your example is factual, but that's why Chicago can support two teams and why the Cubs were and always will be always a much more valuable franchise than the Rangers, even when the Rangers were winning pennants while the Cubs were losing 100 games and why A&M will always be a more valuable program than Baylor or TCU even when the others are winning more than we are.

If you don't even draw top crowds when you're winning (Rangers) or you need to win big to have crowds then talk of expansion is silly.

---

We are just going to have to agree to disagree about revenue and attendance. Some fans like yourself value revenue and attendance stats.....other fanbases value entertainment and winning titles.

I would argue that all of that revenue and attendance hasn't done a whole lot for the A&M football program the past 20 years (In terms of scoreboard)....but to each his own.

If TCU or Baylor where to win the next 3 National titles they would be considered a higher value program than A&M.

Miami and USC are much bigger names in college football than Texas A&M.
Im positive that A&M attendance and revenue figures are better than either of those two private schools....but each of those schools has a long track record of winning championships and huge games on National TV.....something the A&M football program does not.

But back to DFW and two teams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

The 2019 Estimates for the Dallas metro area are a population of 7.9 million.

The top 5 Metro areas are also the ones that are big enough to support multiple teams in the same sport (NYC, LA, Chicago, DC and the Bay Area)

There are enough people and huge corporations in the Metroplex that you could easily put a second baseball team in Downtown Dallas.


Its my opinion that the DFW area would be a better fit for a team than one of the small market cities being mentioned like Portland, Austin, New Orleans, Nashville....etc

Those cities aren't the headquarters of American Airlines, Exxon Mobil, Southwest Airlines, AT&T...etc.
DFW has a tremendous corporate base, and nearly 8 million people.

That corporate base is what buys luxury suites and club seats, and it is something that small market teams struggle with.

Bringing up the Rangers lack of attendance means little to me because this team rarely wins, and they play in the hottest weather in the Major Leagues. Any other city that is remotely as hot as Dallas in the summer plays indoors.

I've said this for years, but I will repeat my assertion: The Rangers will win a World Series within 5 years of moving indoors. I will laugh at all the morons that stated playing in extreme heat had no effect on the Rangers futility.

A&M's goal is not to make money. A&M is not trying to win to make more money. A&M is trying to win for the sake of winning...


Comparing professional athletics to college athletics is a problematic analogy and going to further derail the thread.

Professional sports have business owners who invest their own money in the club with a business purpose and the intent to obtain financial benefits. Sure, some don't care so much, they're in it for fun, but you get the point.

College athletic programs don't have owners, they don't have shareholders, they don't have folks who are going to get a check at the end of the year based on whether the department turned a profit.

Revenue matters in college athletics insofar as it allows you to spend more money which hopefully makes your teams more competitive. Revenue matters in professional sports insofar as it allows you to spend more money which hopefully makes your team more competitive and to turn a profit.

They're just inherently different.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

College athletic programs don't have owners, they don't have shareholders, they don't have folks who are going to get a check at the end of the year based on whether the department turned a profit.

Revenue matters in college athletics insofar as it allows you to spend more money which hopefully makes your teams more competitive. Revenue matters in professional sports insofar as it allows you to spend more money which hopefully makes your team more competitive and to turn a profit.

They're just inherently different.

---

That's absolutely incorrect. A lot of people are paid and/or keep their jobs based on the profitability of the athletic department, including but not limited to the AD. I am basing this on my experience working both within and on a periphery level in both college and professional sports.

College and pro athletics aren't as different as you think in that aspect. They are both businesses with the primary goal of making money. Winning is a part of that formula, but it's not winning for the sake of winning. It's winning as part of the formula of generating revenue. I'm talking about football and basketball here. The sports that don't make money are really just there to continue the appearance of amateurism, but that's a different topic that would really, as you say, derail this conversation even more.

Kellso said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

Kellso said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

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.

---

Over the past 20 years how many conference titles has all that great attendance led to?
How Many National titles?

That's what I thought.

It makes me laugh how many people think that high attendance for a mediocre product somehow shows strength.

Attendance figures are nothing to brag about. High attendance for an average product typically means that the Teams management can take you for granted.

One of the reasons that the Cubs went 100 years between titles was that they made money hand over fist without ever having real pressure to win.
They had high attendance and great fan support........ and the Cubs management took them for granted. Whether the Cubs won or lost that team was going to be one of the most valuable MLB franchises.

The Rangers suffer from something kinda similar. Their fanbase tends to be suburban, family oriented and forgiving.
Rangers management has never really had the intense pressure to win that teams in the Northeast face.

Fans of teams from Middle America always complain about Los Angeles or Miami teams winning titles because of their fair weather fanbases.....and I would argue that those teams win precisely because those cities will not support a losing franchise.
If you don't put a winner on the field the GM, manager and everyone else is at risk of being fired because the team will lose money.

Dallas is sort of the same way. The DFW market will support a winner, and the Rangers have never been winners (except for the 2 seasons they won playoff series). This is why I don't care about your attendance stats.

The Dallas Metro area has the population and corporate base (RIGHT NOW) to support a second major league team. Once DFW hits 8 million plus......anything could happen.

---

You're still missing the point. A&M had the most athletic revenue in the country. The entire goal is revenue. You spend money to win so you can make more money.

If you can make top in the country money without winning titles then you have potential for expansion, which is exactly what happened (Kyle, SEC). If we ever do win titles, watch out.

You mentioned the Cubs and your example is factual, but that's why Chicago can support two teams and why the Cubs were and always will be always a much more valuable franchise than the Rangers, even when the Rangers were winning pennants while the Cubs were losing 100 games and why A&M will always be a more valuable program than Baylor or TCU even when the others are winning more than we are.

If you don't even draw top crowds when you're winning (Rangers) or you need to win big to have crowds then talk of expansion is silly.

---

We are just going to have to agree to disagree about revenue and attendance. Some fans like yourself value revenue and attendance stats.....other fanbases value entertainment and winning titles.

I would argue that all of that revenue and attendance hasn't done a whole lot for the A&M football program the past 20 years (In terms of scoreboard)....but to each his own.

If TCU or Baylor where to win the next 3 National titles they would be considered a higher value program than A&M.

I've said this for years, but I will repeat my assertion: The Rangers will win a World Series within 5 years of moving indoors. I will laugh at all the morons that stated playing in extreme heat had no effect on the Rangers futility.

---

• First of all I don't value revenue and attendance over winning, but I am a fan and not part of the organization. I don't give a damn what the Astros bottom line is - I want to win the WS! But MLB teams absolutely value revenue first. Not that they don't value winning, but the Astros certainly aren't winning at all costs. They are first and foremost worried about turning a profit.

• How much good did being in or near the top 10 for the better part of a decade do TCU long-term? Shorter time period but same story for Baylor? When the winning fades, as it has for both, they are back to being also-rans. Maybe if they won the next 3 NCs in a row the tides would turn, but that's a totally unrealistic scenario. There is nothing within reason that Baylor or TCU can do to become a higher value program than A&M. That's because there is nothing they can do to consistently put 100K in the stands and sell the merchandise and have the donations and support that A&M does. They had "scoreboard" on us for a while. Didn't change a thing long term.

• No doubt having a roof will help the Rangers get fans in the seats. I saw the Astros go from worst to first quickly so I won't say it's impossible, but if they do win the WS it won't have a damn thing to do with the roof. Ask Tampa.

Quote:

---

That's absolutely incorrect. A lot of people are paid and/or keep their jobs based on the profitability of the athletic department, including but not limited to the AD. I am basing this on my experience working both within and on a periphery level in both college and professional sports.

College and pro athletics aren't as different as you think in that aspect. They are both businesses with the primary goal of making money. Winning is a part of that formula, but it's not winning for the sake of winning. It's winning as part of the formula of generating revenue. I'm talking about football and basketball here. The sports that don't make money are really just there to continue the appearance of amateurism, but that's a different topic that would really, as you say, derail this conversation even more.

---

Just to start, my father is a retired division 1 head coach. He was actually once a finalist for a head coaching job at A&M; it worked out for both.

I'm not saying revenue is not important. And, certainly, fundraising positions are paid/kept on the basis of raising revenue. But revenues in college athletic departments are raised to be spent---by the athletic department and within the athletic department. That's the fundamental difference.

And no, non-football/basketball are not just there to maintain a veil of amateurism. And no, an athletic department's end-goal is not to "turn a profit."

If that was true, $40 million wouldn't have just been dropped on a track and field stadium a year after $30 million was dropped on a softball stadium.

Very cool about your dad...

However I worked in D1 athletic administration and totally disagree. I won't write a long post about it and further derail the thread. A&M was a bad example by me in this regard, as it is one of if not the wealthiest. The goal of most athletic departments below the upper tier of P5 is to make money (and simply to survive in most cases). If you disagree, talk to anyone with any experience in administration at low P5 or lower. Winning at football and basketball do matter because they generally go hand in hand with that. Winning at non-revenue sports is an afterthought.

If you want to get more into it start another thread. If not, I'll just drop it and we can return to making the Dallas Devil Rays happen.

Just as a pipe dream - it would be cool to have the Rangers in their new fancy stadium as Fort Worth / Arlington's team and a NL team playing in downtown Dallas.

Harry Dunne said:

---

Kellso said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

Kellso said:

---

Harry Dunne said:

---

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.

---

Over the past 20 years how many conference titles has all that great attendance led to?
How Many National titles?

That's what I thought.

It makes me laugh how many people think that high attendance for a mediocre product somehow shows strength.

Attendance figures are nothing to brag about. High attendance for an average product typically means that the Teams management can take you for granted.

One of the reasons that the Cubs went 100 years between titles was that they made money hand over fist without ever having real pressure to win.
They had high attendance and great fan support........ and the Cubs management took them for granted. Whether the Cubs won or lost that team was going to be one of the most valuable MLB franchises.

The Rangers suffer from something kinda similar. Their fanbase tends to be suburban, family oriented and forgiving.
Rangers management has never really had the intense pressure to win that teams in the Northeast face.

Fans of teams from Middle America always complain about Los Angeles or Miami teams winning titles because of their fair weather fanbases.....and I would argue that those teams win precisely because those cities will not support a losing franchise.
If you don't put a winner on the field the GM, manager and everyone else is at risk of being fired because the team will lose money.

Dallas is sort of the same way. The DFW market will support a winner, and the Rangers have never been winners (except for the 2 seasons they won playoff series). This is why I don't care about your attendance stats.

The Dallas Metro area has the population and corporate base (RIGHT NOW) to support a second major league team. Once DFW hits 8 million plus......anything could happen.

---

You're still missing the point. A&M had the most athletic revenue in the country. The entire goal is revenue. You spend money to win so you can make more money.

If you can make top in the country money without winning titles then you have potential for expansion, which is exactly what happened (Kyle, SEC). If we ever do win titles, watch out.

You mentioned the Cubs and your example is factual, but that's why Chicago can support two teams and why the Cubs were and always will be always a much more valuable franchise than the Rangers, even when the Rangers were winning pennants while the Cubs were losing 100 games and why A&M will always be a more valuable program than Baylor or TCU even when the others are winning more than we are.

If you don't even draw top crowds when you're winning (Rangers) or you need to win big to have crowds then talk of expansion is silly.

---

We are just going to have to agree to disagree about revenue and attendance. Some fans like yourself value revenue and attendance stats.....other fanbases value entertainment and winning titles.

I would argue that all of that revenue and attendance hasn't done a whole lot for the A&M football program the past 20 years (In terms of scoreboard)....but to each his own.

If TCU or Baylor where to win the next 3 National titles they would be considered a higher value program than A&M.

I've said this for years, but I will repeat my assertion: The Rangers will win a World Series within 5 years of moving indoors. I will laugh at all the morons that stated playing in extreme heat had no effect on the Rangers futility.

---

• First of all I don't value revenue and attendance over winning, but I am a fan and not part of the organization. I don't give a damn what the Astros bottom line is - I want to win the WS! But MLB teams absolutely value revenue first. Not that they don't value winning, but the Astros certainly aren't winning at all costs. They are first and foremost worried about turning a profit.

• How much good did being in or near the top 10 for the better part of a decade do TCU long-term? Shorter time period but same story for Baylor? When the winning fades, as it has for both, they are back to being also-rans. Maybe if they won the next 3 NCs in a row the tides would turn, but that's a totally unrealistic scenario. There is nothing within reason that Baylor or TCU can do to become a higher value program than A&M. That's because there is nothing they can do to consistently put 100K in the stands and sell the merchandise and have the donations and support that A&M does. They had "scoreboard" on us for a while. Didn't change a thing long term.

• No doubt having a roof will help the Rangers get fans in the seats. I saw the Astros go from worst to first quickly so I won't say it's impossible, but if they do win the WS it won't have a damn thing to do with the roof. Ask Tampa.

---

Money is used to accomplish something....right?

You are bragging about money and attendance with very little on the scoreboard to back it up. Bragging about 100k in the stands doesn't mean a whole lot to me if 1998 was the last time the A&M football program finished in first place.

TCU football has accomplished more than A&M the past 20 years. They've done that with less money, less fans and a much smaller stadium. TCU has an easier chance of making the playoffs because they play in a weaker conference.
If TCU won the National Title or went on a Miami sort of run of dominance they would easily become a more high profile football program than Texas A&M despite having less money and a smaller fanbase.

You obviously value money and attendance statistics over the actual scoreboard. This is called rationalization. That stuff does not fly in Los Angeles, New York or Miami.

Fans of these locales could give a rats ass about how big their stadium is, or how much revenue their team brought in if all it meant was consistent 3rd and 4th place finishes.

If these teams are under performing they are NOT going to be loyal fans. They are going to make their displeasure heard with their wallets and lack of attendance.
If USC and Miami have below average teams then their attendance will suffer greatly. They will not be selling out a gigantic stadium to watch a 9-4 football team.

I would argue that its this intense pressure to win that contributes to these cities having so many title contending teams.

I agree with most of this. You're not really contradicting anything I have said - I think you're just misunderstanding my point.

The OP was about expansion in DFW. I made the (now in retrospect not good) analogy of A&M being able to "expand" stadium, conference, etc. because of a fan base that supported the team nearly regardless of performance. I argued that this is why DFW and most regions can't support more than one team.

I'm not bragging about money, I'm just using it to make a point. As a fan, I'd much rather have TCU's and Baylor's results over the time period in which they were better than we were. I'm just making the point that despite those results, they haven't "built" a fan base that can support a team financially the way Aggies support A&M. No doubt it has been more fun to be a TCU fan during the Patterson era, but they still can't sell out a 45K seat stadium and I disagree that a championship @ TCU would turn into a more valuable program than A&M. Miami did not, in spite of all of their success. Multiple national championships and A&M football is still a more valuable commodity, better job, etc.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/497683-tcu-sells-out-for-air-force-are-tcus-attendance-woes-over

Quote:

---

One of major criticisms regarding TCU during the last several years has been that TCU, in spite of its great success of the football field and its location in a top-10 market, has failed to attract a large home crowd.

In 2005, in spite of its top-10 finish and 11-1 season, TCU only averaged 31,254 at home. Again, in 2008, TCU finished at No. 7 in the polls and averaged just 30,389. From 2005 to 2008, TCU averaged just 30,897 fans per home game.

---

I agree with you 100% about tougher fan bases demanding results. Unfortunately I think that's why A&M has not won more over the years and why teams with more intense pressure from their fan bases/alumni do win more and are quicker to make changes when things aren't going well. I read a great article by an international MLS coach last year about how American soccer will never be any good because a "star" can have a bad season and still go to the grocery store without being noticed or even recognized where in the NFL a guy like Matt Schaub will have "for sale" signs put in his yard and get heckled in public. I'm not endorsing treating athletes like that, but it was an interesting insight and I do think there is a lot of truth to it.

Anyway good post and I think the only thing I disagree about is the TCU point. I don't think a national championship would change them much in the long run. It would help, but like I said look at how many championships Miami won and sure they had their day in the sun and are still a high-profile program, but it's nowhere near as valuable of a brand as A&M. Yes I probably am rationalizing some. I'm making myself feel good about what we do have because we don't have results. At the same time that doesn't make my point wrong.