Somebody mentioned NOLA; don't bet on it; where would you build it?
Peace for Ukraine!
Put the whole thing on stilts...monarch said:
Somebody mentioned NOLA; don't bet on it; where would you build it?
Buck Compton said:Put the whole thing on stilts...monarch said:
Somebody mentioned NOLA; don't bet on it; where would you build it?
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.
mazag08 said:Buck Compton said:Put the whole thing on stilts...monarch said:
Somebody mentioned NOLA; don't bet on it; where would you build it?
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.
You could easily find 6 more teams.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?
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.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.
monarch said:
Somebody mentioned NOLA; don't bet on it; where would you build it?
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.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.
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
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.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.
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.powerbelly said:
I would buy season tickets if they put it near downtown dallas.
San Antonio is a **** hole though.Canyon99 said:
San Antonio would be a much better Texas location for expansion.
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.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.
Unfortunately it's not true that the Rangers don't ever win. You might have forgotten that they won pennants in 2010 and 2011.Kellso said: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.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.
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.
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.
Harry Dunne said:Unfortunately it's not true that the Rangers don't ever win. You might have forgotten that they won pennants in 2010 and 2011.Kellso said: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.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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.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.