NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:15 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:54 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
So we focus mostly on college sports realignment on this site. But we also have each pro sports covered as teams consider moving.

I thought it would be a fun thread to get people's insights on pro sports realignment.

The thread is simple: just list a few sports, cities, teams that you think make the most logical sense for a move.

Note that this shouldn't be a dream wishes thread. Things like the New York Knicks moving to Albuquerque are not logical.

Criteria should primarily be:
1) current team having financial struggles in existing city (due to small market)
2) Let's not play the greed game where leagues like the NBA want smaller, weaker markets offering new arenas fully paid for by taxpayers so that the league can get rich even if it means a team going to a city they will not be successful in.
3) Cities without a team with the facilities or ability to build a facility that would be a win-win for a team/league.



Here are a few examples:


NBA:


Nets to Brooklyn:
It's already set to happen for 2012-2013. And it makes sense. Jersey was fine, but in Brooklyn (one of the largest US cities if it were on it's own), the Nets have a chance to grab more of the NY market from the Knicks.


LA Clippers to Anaheim:
There has been talk of the Sacramento Kings moving to Anaheim, and the city is an option for the NBA owned Hornets as well. But LA already has two teams...in the same arena. A Clippers move to Anaheim would likely retain their LA fanbase (much smaller than Lakers) but also add the large Orange County fanbase. Might even get back the entire San Diego market in the process. Best of all, they would keep their LA Clippers name.


Sacramento Kings to Las Vegas:
The Kings have had little success getting a new arena in Sacramento. And they appear to be the top option for Anaheim. But when you have a city like Las Vegas which is close to funding news facilities (football, baseball, as well as a basketball/hockey arena) and the Kings owners make their primary living in Las Vegas (Maloof brothers), then why goto Anaheim where you'll need to pay BOTH the Lakers and Clippers a fee to be in the market when you can goto Las Vegas on the cheap? And you won't need to rely on just Las Vegas (one of the fastest growing cities) population for attendance. You have so much tourism to the city, that with the right marketing, you can turn a Kings game into something people do when they visit Las Vegas. From a marketing side, you get to keep the name "Kings" and just tweak the logo to be the king of diamonds.


NBA Owners Hornets to Seattle:
The Sonics leaving Seattle should never have happened. it was a case of the league wanting the city/state to pay 100% for a new arena. When they wouldn't, the new owner moved the team to a small market of Oklahoma City (where the owner is from). The Hornets will be moved, that we know. And Seattle deserves a team again. They do need a new arena though. You have Steve Ballmer interested still in ownership, as well as former Seattle great Sean Payton. Best option: a Ballmer owned franchise with Payton as a co-owner. A new arena where the current Key Center is would be ideal. If not, perhaps south of the city in the same area as the baseball and football stadiums. But Ballmer would need to pay for much of the new arena and the city would need to spend some money. Perhaps losing the Sonics will change their stance.

Someone to Kansas City:
It's less likely a basketball option. But they have an arena. The problem is that when the sonics moved, KC is likely where they should have gone. Can you have the NBA in New Orleans, Memphis, Oklahoma City and Kansas city...but not in Seattle or Las Vegas?


NFL:

49ers Stay in SF:
Why move to Santa Clara? You already have the Oakland Raiders servicing Oakland and south into San Jose. San Francisco is about to lose another team. Sure, the Warriors are across the bay in Oakland now. And you have the Giants. But it's sad to see that the city wasn't able to just tear down and rebuild a new stadium at Candlestick. Playing a season at the Giants ballpark wouldn't have been the end of the world. Instead, they are leaving SF.


Chargers to Los Angeles
The Chargers want a new stadium in San Diego, but the city has balked in the past. Originally, there was talk about (2) stadiums in LA: one in LA and one in Orange county/Long beach. Now that it appears that 1 stadium is the goal, the Chargers are at bat. There are already many Chargers fans in LA since the Raiders and Rams left. And with a move to nearby LA, you likely retain much of the current SD fanbase. The Chargers in LA would still be the local SD NFL game every week, so the transition would be somewhat seemless on both sides.


Jacksonville Jaguars to Los Angeles:
Jacksonville never should have gotten a team in the first place. St. Louis was one of the expansion options that year (with Charlotte, Memphis and Jacksonville). Instead, St. Louis wooed the Rams from the #2 market, LA, when they failed to get an expansion team.

The league seemed excited about adding another Florida franchise int he football rich state. But it never worked. Jacksonville is one of the US cities where you are within the city borders...and you live on a farm. The demographics just aren't there. They have stadium issues, population issues, TV blackout issues. Enter LA. You've got everything lined up for a new stadium. You have the market. Jacksonville makes more sense than the Vikings. Minnesota deserve a team, despite the roof issues. It would be sad to see the Vikings leave Minnesota to LA while Jacksonville still has a team.


Buffalo Bills to Toronto:
It will always be tough times in Buffalo due to the market. Owner Ralph Wilson has said he's never move the team in his lifetime, nor sell it. He saw the venom aimed at Art Modell for leaving Cleveland and has commented on it. But when the time comes when Wilson no longer owns the team, Toronto makes sense. It's close enough to Buffalo that you will retain some of the upstate NY fanbase. But Toronto is a large enough city to become a 4 sport town (Jays, Raptors, Leafs). They could actually make an interesting move. The Bills could be sold and moved there, and they could just add the new name "Argonauts" to the franchise. It would appear like the Argonauts were just "upgrading" from the CFL to the NFL from a marketing sense.



Vikings to LA:
I don't think Minnesota should lose their team. But if the Vikings were to leave, LA would be the only city worth leaving to.



Someone to Las Vegas:
Jacksonville and Minnesota seem to be the two franchises considering moving. If they both moved, and Los Angeles got one, then Vegas is an option. They have announced recently that they could be funding new stadiums/arenas for football, baseball and basketball (retractable roof for mlb/nfl). With only 8 home games a year, a Vegas NFL team would really be able to sell as an event to take in when visiting the city.




NHL:

You've got 4 teams that rank at the bottom for revenue, some have subpar facilities, all have small fanbases. We have markets in Canada that all make sense. Remember, the US and CA dollars are almost equal now. So there isn't the same salary problem that existed int he past. Sure, taxes are higher, but the gap has closed.

And then we have markets looking for teams:

Someone to Hamilton, Ontario:
Hamilton makes sense. It would be similar to the Devils in NJ: part of the NY market but getting it's own team. Hamilton is close enough to Toronto, but it's a hockey country and Hamilton wants a team.

Someone to Winnepeg:
It's a smaller market than many. But it's Canada. Winnepeg might not be Toronto, but they will support the team, something that can't be said for all the teams mentioned above.

Someone to Quebec:
Fans from the city recently had a demonstration where they traveled to an Islanders game to prove their fandom. Quebec only lost the Nordiques because of the 90's NHL boom in the US following Gretzky leaving for Los Angeles. Hockey in many US markets, especially the south, just isn't there like it was once. Meanwhile, Hockey is still Canada's sport. And Quebec would do more with a team now than most cities.


Someone to Seattle:
Seattle once had a team. Now they don't. No basketball either. And while the NBA prefers "NBA Only" arenas, it's a lot to ask in this economy. But what if Seattle funded a state of the art arena to bring back the NBA...but also the NHL? With two sports, it means events every night. With only basketball, that just isn't the game. The NBA would need to learn to be flexible though. But it's worth exploring.

Someone to Kansas City:
They have an arena, have spoken with the Islanders. Since the NBA is unlikely, NHL is the only option. Not exactly a hockey town, but could be better than some of the southern markets.



MLB:

Athletics to San Jose:
Oakland had it's day. But with so much of the MLB demo now in silicon valley, a move past Freemont, all the way to San Jose makes sense now. The two parties have had discussions already and a proposed stadium has been revealed.

Tampa Rays to Portland:
The Rays have wanted a new stadium deal for some time. If it doesn't happen, they will consider relocation. Portland is an option as the city has expressed interest in MLB. Just requires a stadium at this point.

Tampa Rays to Las Vegas:
Vegas remains an option for an MLB team now with a proposed new retractable roof stadium.

Tampa Rays to San Antonio:
This is a scenario, like the other 2 for the Rays, that has been explored. But a 3rd baseball team in Texas, when the Rangers aren't raking in a ton of money?

Tampa Rays to Orlando:
See next option...


Brewers to Orlando:
Listing this because there were rumored discussions. Again, if Orlando were to get a baseball team, wouldn't it make more sense for the Rays to move there? Even better, MLB should push for the Marlins to take the name "Miami Marlins" and free up "Florida" for an Orlando/Tampa franchise: 4/5 of the games in say Orlando, 1/5 in Tampa.


Resources:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/32/nba ... _Rank.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/spo ... venue.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/31/nhl ... venue.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/22/yankee ... -land.html







So those are just a few options.


What makes sense to you?

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:44 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:50 pm
Posts: 268
1) I don't see any pro teams moving to Vegas - the gambling issue is just too hard to overcome.
Plus, Vegas has a crappy economy right now - not the money there now.

2) Winnepeg and Quebec couldn't support teams when they had them. What gives you the idea they could now?

3) Kansas City couldn't support the NBA before, not enough support to warrant a move now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:08 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
NBA -
I like your Clippers to Anaheim move. I assume they could play at "the Pond".
Seattle was a fine NBA market. If an owner can be found (Microsoft - Ballmer, to go with Paul Allen - does he still own the Portland Trailblazers ?), that'd be great.
The Kings wre once the KC-Omaha Kings.... that was back when the NBA was in big financial trouble in the 1970s. But KC is a smaller market, and I really think hockey would do better in KC.

NFL -
Jacksonville did well during the Tom Coughlin - novelty phase. Not too well anymore. They could justify a move based on lack of fan support.
Move them to LA and NFC West. Move St. Louis Rams to the AFC south - rivalry with Indy, Tennessee, Houston would be great !

NHL -
Yeah I could see some movement. Bettman tried to "plant" teams in major US markets to set up better national TV contract. Some places it took, others not so well.
What are the 4 U.S. teams you indicated were ripe to move ?
I don't recall Seattle EVER having a team.
New York doesn't need 3 teams.
I agree Quebec and Winnepeg both supported teams well, despite being very small markets. Not sure they would buy up lots of corporate boxes though.
Winnepeg is really tiny and isolated, but they would come out in big numbers to watch hockey if it was at least mediocre.
Hamilton would have no trouble filling a building. That area of Ontario is loaded withe fans.
Basille just needs somone ot want to move there, and get NHL approval. I think the Leafs and Sabres in particular are fighting this encroachment on their territory.

MLB -
It just seems grossly unfail to have a division with 6 and a division with 4.
I would push more for realignment, rather than moving teams. I agree Tampa's Suncoast Dome is dingy. But if they draw, you waould certainly appreciate AC down there.
Perhaps in Orlando they could draw from the entire I-4 corridor + tourists visiting Disney / Universal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:37 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
dbackjon wrote:
1) I don't see any pro teams moving to Vegas - the gambling issue is just too hard to overcome.
Plus, Vegas has a crappy economy right now - not the money there now.



These points are less relevant when you factor in that Las Vegas is the one being proactive. It's not a case of a team contacting them about interest, seeing if LV is interested in them moving there. This is about the city proactively building new facilities to attract professional teams. the economy might be what it is, but if they build the damn thing, it would disprove the aspects of the state of the economy in their eyes. If the economy is the problem you say it is, then ultimately, they will reject the opportunity to build all these new facilities.

The gambling issue is not the point it was in the past. We know that as we have had multiple leagues have contact with the city about relocation (NBA and MLB). And the NBA already had an all-star game there.

But again, the biggest factor is that it's Las Vegas who is proposing the building of all the new complexes: an arena for basketball, a stadium for NFL, MLB.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/fe ... na-projec/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/fe ... gas-scion/

And again, one of the fastest growing DMAs. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, might seem like a better option, but it's the fastest dying city (older demographic).



2) Winnepeg and Quebec couldn't support teams when they had them. What gives you the idea they could now?


See my post above for those reasons. Beyond those, there's a reason why the 3 Canadian cities are so often mentioned as top relocation destinations. You're incorrect in your assessment that those cities "could not support teams when they had them". Those cities supported their teams. But the lure of the US dollars were what made them leave, that and the benefits as a US business vs a Canadian business.

And more importantly, as mentioned above, it was a different time when the US dollar had such a high value. EVERY Canadian team at that time was struggling due to the exchange rate on top of the CA taxation. That includes Vancouver, a year removed from the NHL finals. Montreal and Toronto were strong in comparison, but were still struggling as well when compared to the US. Plenty of US teams considered (or did) move for the mighty dollar. But the Canadian teams all had the extra problem of a weaker CA dollar and higher taxes. There have been proposed (passed?) tax exception bills as well to remedy the tax benefits of playing for a US team vs a CA team.

Fast forward a decade and the sport is pretty dead in the US. The moves to Phoenix, and expansion to Nashville and Atlanta have been catastrophic.


3) Kansas City couldn't support the NBA before, not enough support to warrant a move now.


Agree. Less on support, but more on relevancy of a move. Can only pull the "support" issues when it's relevant to an existing time frame. And even then it's not always correct. In other words, had KC had a team more recently than 25 years ago, it would be one thing. But we're also talking about the NBA. Would one say Seattle couldn't support the NBA because they lost a team? For some logic, some would. But they would be incorrect as the more rationale interpretation would be that Seattle refused to be held hostage by the NBA to build a new arena.

As for KC, look at some of the markets they are in: Oklahoma City? Memphis? San Antonio? I dont' think there is a team that would benefit in KC over their current home. But certainly for NHL, KC would be an improvement for say, the Islanders...since it doesn't appear they will get an invite to the new Brooklyn arena, and with the Wilpons broke, there won't be the Queens arena built near Citifield either.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:37 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
I think contraction is more likely in the NBA and NHL (especially the NBA).

Vegas isn't getting a sports franchise, not now, the economy there sucks and they always have lousy fans when they do have a team. They can stick with Minor League Baseball or the UFL.

The A's to San Jose is going to happen. Wolfe already owns the SJ Earthquake so he's a South Bay guy. The land is already bought up right next to the HP Pavillion and the plans are drawn. All we need now is the ok from Selig (who is an old friend of Wolfe's from college). I would be surprised if the A's weren't here by 2015 (but I'm still a Giants fan first baby! World Champs!)

The Raiders would do well to move also. The Coliseum is a real piece of ****. Easily one of the worst in the league. I like the idea of them moving back to LA but Davis has seen how crappy the fans are in LA so that may not happen.

BTW Oakland most definitely does NOT serve the South Bay. I assure you the South Bay is heavily in favor of the Giants and 49ers, the East Bay is 50/50 between SF/Oakland. That's why the Niners are moving south to Santa Clara. The Niners and Raiders would be smart to have a joint stadium in Santa Clara like the Giants and Jets do. It's a little weird that SF and Oakland would be playing in Santa Clara, but they'd get over it. And the BART system would be expanded too which is good for the local population. Otherwise, the Raiders will leave again soon enough.

If they are indeed going to expand the baseball playoffs (and it's Selig, he will), then I would also expand the league by 2 teams and follow the NFL model of 8 divisions of 4 (so 5 or 6 playoff teams). I really don't like the idea of more playoff teams (I still don't like the DH) but if it's going to happen then we should add two teams and balance out the leagues. I would put a team in Portland for sure, I don't know about the second team, for some reason I feel like Lincoln should have a team since they host the College World Series but they're probably too small. Then you either have the current 5-6-5 model in both leagues or a 4-4-4-4 model.

Oh and you mentioned the City losing the Warriors, but I think they're probably on their way back, especially with the Niners heading south. Oakland could lose all three of it's pro teams in the next 5-10 years. Oakland is already in bad shape, imagine what that will do to their local economy...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:43 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
tute79 wrote:
NBA -
I like your Clippers to Anaheim move. I assume they could play at "the Pond".
Seattle was a fine NBA market. If an owner can be found (Microsoft - Ballmer, to go with Paul Allen - does he still own the Portland Trailblazers ?), that'd be great.
The Kings wre once the KC-Omaha Kings.... that was back when the NBA was in big financial trouble in the 1970s. But KC is a smaller market, and I really think hockey would do better in KC.

NFL -
Jacksonville did well during the Tom Coughlin - novelty phase. Not too well anymore. They could justify a move based on lack of fan support.
Move them to LA and NFC West. Move St. Louis Rams to the AFC south - rivalry with Indy, Tennessee, Houston would be great !

NHL -
Yeah I could see some movement. Bettman tried to "plant" teams in major US markets to set up better national TV contract. Some places it took, others not so well.
What are the 4 U.S. teams you indicated were ripe to move ?
I don't recall Seattle EVER having a team.
New York doesn't need 3 teams.
I agree Quebec and Winnepeg both supported teams well, despite being very small markets. Not sure they would buy up lots of corporate boxes though.
Winnepeg is really tiny and isolated, but they would come out in big numbers to watch hockey if it was at least mediocre.
Hamilton would have no trouble filling a building. That area of Ontario is loaded withe fans.
Basille just needs somone ot want to move there, and get NHL approval. I think the Leafs and Sabres in particular are fighting this encroachment on their territory.

MLB -
It just seems grossly unfail to have a division with 6 and a division with 4.
I would push more for realignment, rather than moving teams. I agree Tampa's Suncoast Dome is dingy. But if they draw, you waould certainly appreciate AC down there.
Perhaps in Orlando they could draw from the entire I-4 corridor + tourists visiting Disney / Universal.



Seattle had the WHL Totems which were not part of the NHL expansion. They has been awarded an NHL expansion franchise in 1975, but failed to meet all the deadlines in getting the funding. So the NHL Seattle expansion team never came to be.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:31 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
SAC to Vegas:SAC to Vegas makes 100% sense. My guess is that Stern basically is telling the Maloofs it won't happen if they are seriously looking at Anaheim, instead.


JAC/MIN to LA:
Apparently, there's an LA stadium in the works, so either Jacksonville or Minnesota is basically a lock to end up there. It's hard to imagine the Vikings leaving, but with the Metrodome situation, the need for a new stadium, and no progress towards it, it could be looming.

Jacksonville was probably the biggest mistake in the history of the NFL. That should have been Baltimore's team to begin with. They are LA-bound.

Athletics to San Jose:
The Giants are fighting any potential A's to SJ move. That could be a tough move to make.

Tampa to Portland
This would probably be a fight from Seattle for a number of reasons. Putting the two teams in the same division would not be a good idea. Like the Mets/Yankees, Dodgers/Angels, Giants/As, Portland would need to go to the NL West.

And the NL already has 16 teams. So you'd have to swap either Arizona or Colorado, and both have fought MLB's requests to put them in AL multiple times in the past.

Tampa Rays to San Antonio:
MLB missed a golden opportunity with the Rangers situation. What they should have done was used the Rangers bankruptcy to get a team in San Antonio when no Texas owner was around to fight it.

It made perfect sense, because it would help everyone in the AL: The AL East would go from 5 teams to 4. And from three powers to two. It would give Texas 9 more games in their time zone. Boston and the Yankees would now have nine more road games outside their division each, which helps ticket sales in six cities every year.

Likewise, the current Mets situation would be a golden opportunity to add a team in New Jersey if ever it was going to happen.

Orlando
Orlando would not be good because the Florida teams draw very poorly. Between the weather and the fact that most people would rather pay spring training prices to watch games in Feb and March when the weather is nicer than regular season games in more extreme weather.

If anything, MLB needed to do this:
Move Oakland to San Antonio during the Texas bankruptcy.
Award expansion teams to Portland and Memphis
Arizona and Colorado go to the AL West

AL East: BAL, BOS, NYY, TOR
AL Central: CLE, DET, CHI, MIN
AL South: KC, TEX, San Antonio, TB
AL West: LAA, SEA, ARZ, COL
NL East: NYM, PHI, WAS, PIT
NL Central: STL, CHI, MIL, CIN
NL South: ATL, FLA, HOU, Memphis
NL West: SD, LAD, SF, Portland

NHL
The NHL's issues are complex, complicated, and widely discussed on the HFboards' business forum. Check it out, some good stuff there.

Hamilton
Hamilton is not happening. For three major reasons.
#1 - The potential Hamilton owner (Blackberry mogul Jim Balsillie) is a scourge to the NHL. He's tried to hijack three franchises and move them to Hamilton via back-door shenanigans. Each time, getting worse and worse:
Pittsburgh - kicking the tires before the NHL said there's a seven-year no-relocate clause attached to all team sales.
Nashville - selling season tickets in Hamilton while trying to buy the team.
Phoenix - conspiring with the Coyotes owner to a bankruptcy which violates NHL bylaws so he could buy them and move them to Hamilton without league approval.

The NHL now has a "Over our dead body" stance with JB.

#2 - Buffalo. The Sabres would take a massive hit from a Hamilton team. The Sabres owner projected a 15-25% of their tickets come from the Canadian side of the border. All these people and their children would basically become Hamilton fans. So any "health issues" for a franchise being solved by moving a team to Hamilton would be a zero-sum game, because the Sabres would then become a poor, needy market.

#3 - MLSE. The ownership conglomerate of the Toronto Maple Leafs will fight to the death to keep a team from going to Hamilton. They have claimed they have veto rights to Hamilton. And when the NHL said "No, you don't" the Leafs said "Well, if you need us to prove it in court, we'll take you on as well." They are the giant elephant in the room when it comes to Hamilton.

Seattle
Minor point, but Seattle has never had an NHL team that actually played. But they did almost get one. Seattle might be one of the rare situations where a local team has no disagreement with a team entering their market. Vancouver has a stable fan base. They won't lose many fans because of the Canada-US thing. Given they have arguably the worst travel in the league, they'd welcome Seattle replacing Minnesota in their division if it was a eastern team (Atlanta?) moving there.

Phoenix to Seattle, with Colorado swapping divisions makes some sense as well.

Quebec and Winnipeg
No brainers. These should be candidates #1 and #2a or #2b in any relocation discussion. ALSO, Gary Bettman has a deep history of awarding teams to markets which either (a) lost NHL franchises or (b) were teased with getting one (Hamilton notwithstanding)

The HF Canada contingient hates on Bettman for "allowing" Winnipeg and Quebec to move and ushering in Southern Expansion, but (a) Bettman was hired to carry out the NHL's southern expansion goals after the previous guy started it (b) he rubber stamped the moves after no local ownership group was capable of retaining the teams and the local municipalities would not build arenas, and (c) the FOUR teams Bettman added were either cities that lost NHL teames once: Minnesota (North Stars) and Atlanta (Flames), or had a team about to move there, only to have it fall through: Columbus (Whalers) and Nashville (Devils).

The one city you are missing for the NHL is Houston.
Teased with the Oilers, Houston makes the NHL better in a variety of ways:

#1 - Houston is one of the largest markets without an NHL team, which helps TV negotiations.

#2 - Dallas gets a rival. They have one of the lowest number of games in their own time zone based on being in a division with LA, SJ, ANA and PHX. A Dallas-Houston rivalry would help both teams draw well, and by extension, Austin (Texas Stars) and San Antonio (becomes Houston affiliate) would basically create battle-lines across the state among hockey fans in both the NHL and AHL. It would really lead to an increased interest in a very large state.

#3 - Depending on whom moves there, it would make travel better for everyone.


The NHL's ultimate scenario for improving their league based on team locations would be:

PHX to Houston (NHL says "Southern expansion didn't fail" and goes to HOU. Gives up Jets name/history as part of the deal)
FLA or ATL to Quebec
Winnipeg and Seattle as expansion teams

Northeast: MON, OTT, QUE, BOS
Great Lakes: TOR, BUF, DET, PIT
Atlantic: NYI, NYR, NJ, PHI
South: TB, CAR, WAS, ATL or FLA

Central: MIN, WIN, CHI, STL
Southwest: DAL, HOU, NASH, CBJ
Pacific: LA, ANA, SJ, COL
Northwest: VAN, SEA, EDM, CAL

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:55 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:11 pm
Posts: 55
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex
Quinn wrote:
Brewers to Orlando:
Listing this because there were rumored discussions. Again, if Orlando were to get a baseball team, wouldn't it make more sense for the Rays to move there? Even better, MLB should push for the Marlins to take the name "Miami Marlins" and free up "Florida" for an Orlando/Tampa franchise: 4/5 of the games in say Orlando, 1/5 in Tampa.



The Marlins actually had a deal with Miami when to build the new stadium. When the new stadium opens in 2012, the team will be named the Miami Marlins.



http://www.miamitodaynews.com/news/070524/story7.shtml


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:47 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 709
Location: Louisville, KY
In the mid-1990s NHL's Edmonton Oilers was nearly bought by the ownership of the Houston Rockets-and the NFL Oilers didn't move away until 1998.

Louisville is still pushing hard for an NBA team to fill Freedom Hall (yep, Freedom Hall-not the brand new KFC Yum! Center), but without the possibility of naming rights to the arena and as much as $80 million in renovations to be made, I just don't see this happening. UofL's Rick Pitino-along with many others in the Louisville fanbase-is also against having an NBA team in town.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 10:20 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:47 pm
Posts: 218
Location: Milwaukee, WI
A few I'd like to propose:

1) Anyone to Norfolk, VA

Aside from Las Vegas (talked about a lot already) and Austin, TX (likely served by San Antonio), Norfolk is probably the largest metro area not currently served by a pro sports team. Richmond is close by as well which could make for a nice-sized "market" area. Not sure what, if any facilities they have or would be willing to build though.

2) MLB to Charlotte

The only one of the four major sports not yet in North Carolina. If they made the Durham Bulls their AAA team, could probably count the entire state as their market area. Moving the Rays there would make it easy (Bulls are already their AAA team). Or maybe the Royals could move there instead (Royals to the AL East, Toronto to the AL Central).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:56 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:51 am
Posts: 102
The Royals are not moving anytime soon. They just reupped with the KC Sports Commission (along with the Chiefs) after the renovations to Kaufmann and Arrowhead stadiums.

As for the 16 team NL thing...the Milwaukee Brewers could always switch back to the AL. That has been a long standing opportunity if needed. But I do not see MLB or NHL Expanding. There is too thin a talent level already and adding two clubs to each would make things worst. NBA and NHL Contraction are on the forefront though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:16 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
dafoeberezin3494 wrote:
A few I'd like to propose:

1) Anyone to Norfolk, VA

Aside from Las Vegas (talked about a lot already) and Austin, TX (likely served by San Antonio), Norfolk is probably the largest metro area not currently served by a pro sports team. Richmond is close by as well which could make for a nice-sized "market" area. Not sure what, if any facilities they have or would be willing to build though.

2) MLB to Charlotte

The only one of the four major sports not yet in North Carolina. If they made the Durham Bulls their AAA team, could probably count the entire state as their market area. Moving the Rays there would make it easy (Bulls are already their AAA team). Or maybe the Royals could move there instead (Royals to the AL East, Toronto to the AL Central).


I do like the idea of adding a team in the Southeast and VA and NC would be top candidates. Come to think of it the Richmond Squirrels are the Giants' AA team, will they be losing that territory too?


mizzoufan1 wrote:
As for the 16 team NL thing...the Milwaukee Brewers could always switch back to the AL. That has been a long standing opportunity if needed. But I do not see MLB or NHL Expanding. There is too thin a talent level already and adding two clubs to each would make things worst. NBA and NHL Contraction are on the forefront though.


Problem with having 15-15 is scheduling. Unlike other sports, MLB only plays interleague games at a specific time of the year. Thus there are 8 NL series and 7 AL series at a time. 15-15 would mean a team in each league is idle for a few days, which does not happen in baseball. That or year round interleague play (which will never be accepted by baseball purists). It's either 14-14, 14-16, or 16-16. Do two more teams dilute the pool? Maybe, but Selig loves expansion and always has, good or bad.

BTW, Yahoo! had an article on the Kings moving. Seemed oddly coincidental.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:17 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
dp

_________________
Image


Last edited by Fresno St. Alum on Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:25 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
You are missing a/the key team in NFL movement San Diego and Qualcom are done after this year. So is the Metrodome and Minnesota. Wilf said he'd pay for 1/3 of a new outdoor Minn stadium, so far it's not happening. Jacksonville owners said he has no plans to leave Jacksonville. Bills owner says they're staying in Buffalo and would only sell his team to someone who'll keep them in Buffalo. I also heard some chatter about the Rams wanting out of St.Louis.

Is the NFL smart enough to move the Vikings to the West and St.Louis to the North if the Vikes move to LA? I hope Minn stays in Minn. If they do go to LA they need to be in the West. Atlanta and Carolina being in the west was just retarded. Dallas shouldn't even be in the east but for some reason they got to keep all their rivals while others had to move. I bet Dallas would like to be in the West now.

NBA
They were talking about the Sac Kings moving to Anaheim today. Umm dumb move the Lakers own that area, maybe they could create a fan base if they went to SD. I don't give a f*ck about the NBA, just telling you what I heard on the bay area news when I was in Santa Clara yesterday.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:11 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
mizzoufan1 wrote:
The Royals are not moving anytime soon. They just reupped with the KC Sports Commission (along with the Chiefs) after the renovations to Kaufmann and Arrowhead stadiums.

As for the 16 team NL thing...the Milwaukee Brewers could always switch back to the AL. That has been a long standing opportunity if needed. But I do not see MLB or NHL Expanding. There is too thin a talent level already and adding two clubs to each would make things worst. NBA and NHL Contraction are on the forefront though.



The MLB alignment will always be 16/14 unless there is a change in the number of teams. MLB WANTS 16/14. Without it, it means having interleague games the entire season. If it's 15 and 15, it would mean 1 team in each league would have a 3 day period with no games while waiting for another team to have a free schedule.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group