Jump to content

Major League Sports Expansions / Relocations

aderwent
in Sports Talk

Featured Replies

Posted

Thought I'd start an all-encompassing thread for talk about the four major league sports expansion talks. For some reason this has been on my mind today.

 

Currently there are 32 NFL teams, 31 NHL teams, and 30 MLB and NBA teams. I figure in the next five to ten years each league will be at 32 teams. How I think that would play out partially:

 

NHL:

 

Seattle gets a team, giving the NHL seven teams west of the Rockies (three in Canada).

 

NBA:

 

Seattle gets a team, but has to "steal" one from another western city as there are already seven teams west of the Rockies in the NBA. Most likely move: Sacramento.

 

Baltimore or St Louis get a team.

 

Nashville, Cincinnati or Columbus get a team. Markets of this size usually have two professional teams.

 

Columbus is probably too saturated if you include OSU as a professional team. They are more popular and worth more than some NFL teams. They also pull very well in basketball when top 20. Along with the increasing popularity of the Blue Jackets (same season as NBA), I don't know how well an NBA team could build a following here. Although technically we have only one major four team.

 

Nashville also has a popular NHL team, but lacks an OSU. However they're also home to the Titans of the NFL.

 

Cincinnati already houses two professional teams as well, but lacks a winter team. They could be like Pittsburgh with three major four teams, but NBA instead of NHL being the third. They're also in a large college basketball market, with UC and Xavier and IU, UK and Louisville markets adjacent. Could NBA compete with that; could the two coexist?

 

MLB:

 

Nashville, Charlotte or Raleigh-Durham get a team.

 

Texas gets a third team. Any of the four major cities, but probably Austin or San Antonio.

 

The west is saturated as is with seven teams west of the Rockies. So Portland would have to steal another team. The south doesn't have enough teams. I don't see how any new MLB team would be located north of North Carolina/Tennessee.

  • Author

Just saw a segment on Pardon the Interruption talking about Gilbert selling the Cavs before Lebron leaves. Who's in the market for an NBA team, and would they be looking to move?

These leagues should shrink.  With 32 teams, each team will only win a championship, on average, three times per century, which means some will win one or zero in 100 years. 

  • Author

These leagues should shrink.  With 32 teams, each team will only win a championship, on average, three times per century, which means some will win one or zero in 100 years.

 

I agree, but business guys don't. There's still money to be made by teams who don't win championships; even for 100 years. The Cubs didn't even play in a World Series for over 70 years before winning again. Yet they were plenty profitable.

 

I want fewer teams though. Fewer teams mean better teams and better games. I'd like to see NCAA shrink D1 (FBS) football to 32 teams. I think it'd be a ton more exciting. Although a lot of history would be lost, and for most that's the end of the conversation.

Just saw a segment on Pardon the Interruption talking about Gilbert selling the Cavs before Lebron leaves. Who's in the market for an NBA team, and would they be looking to move?

 

Cavs just extended lease at Quicken through 2034.

Thought I'd start an all-encompassing thread for talk about the four major league sports expansion talks. For some reason this has been on my mind today.

 

Currently there are 32 NFL teams, 31 NHL teams, and 30 MLB and NBA teams. I figure in the next five to ten years each league will be at 32 teams. How I think that would play out partially:

 

NHL:

 

Seattle gets a team, giving the NHL seven teams west of the Rockies (three in Canada).

 

This is approaching a done deal. Tuesday ESPN reported that "Gary Bettman authorized an ownership group to conduct a season-ticket drive in Seattle, invited the city to apply for expansion and set the fee at $650 million... The goal is for a new franchise to begin play in 2020-21." Quebec City and Houston are figured to be the next in line if Seattle doesn't work out.

 

 

NBA:

 

Seattle gets a team, but has to "steal" one from another western city as there are already seven teams west of the Rockies in the NBA. Most likely move: Sacramento.

 

Baltimore or St Louis get a team.

 

Nashville, Cincinnati or Columbus get a team. Markets of this size usually have two professional teams.

 

Columbus is probably too saturated if you include OSU as a professional team. They are more popular and worth more than some NFL teams. They also pull very well in basketball when top 20. Along with the increasing popularity of the Blue Jackets (same season as NBA), I don't know how well an NBA team could build a following here. Although technically we have only one major four team.

 

Nashville also has a popular NHL team, but lacks an OSU. However they're also home to the Titans of the NFL.

 

Cincinnati already houses two professional teams as well, but lacks a winter team. They could be like Pittsburgh with three major four teams, but NBA instead of NHL being the third. They're also in a large college basketball market, with UC and Xavier and IU, UK and Louisville markets adjacent. Could NBA compete with that; could the two coexist?

 

Sacramento and Milwaukee have recently built new arenas, so they won't be moving anywhere soon.

 

The NBA has found they do really well in two types of cities:

1. Huge metro areas (NY, LA, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, etc.)

2. Small (around 1-2 million) metro areas with no other pro teams (Portland, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Orlando, Sacramento, Memphis, Oklahoma City)

Interestingly, the MLS has found that cities in the second category are very successful for them. Midsized metros that already another pro team are currently unattractive to the NBA.

 

By this metric, all of the cities you mentioned, other than Seattle, are not attractive to the NBA. Baltimore, St. Louis, Nashville, and Cincinnati all have two major teams. Columbus has one and OSU football almost counts as a second. In a few years MLS could potentially be in Nashville, maybe Columbus, and maybe Cincinnati. I wish Columbus could get another team, but geography really hurts them.

 

In the previous rounds of expansion / relocation the top cities have been: Louisville, Hampton Roads, Seattle, and Vancouver. My rankings would be:

1. Hampton Roads - Largest MSA (1.7 million) without a pro team; no nearby college teams; Virginia would probably build them a free arena

2. Seattle - never should have left in the first place; very wealthy and rapidly growing metro; might get a free arena if the Seattle NHL expansion goes through

3. Louisville - 4th largest MSA (1.0 million) without a pro team; YUM arena already exists; UofL and UK are two of the only fanbases that are strong enough to scare the NBA

4. Vancouver - very wealthy and rapidy growing metro, but still only around 2 million; would never be more popular than the Canucks; team didn't work the first time; being in Canada is tough because salaries are in USD

 

 

MLB:

 

Nashville, Charlotte or Raleigh-Durham get a team.

 

Texas gets a third team. Any of the four major cities, but probably Austin or San Antonio.

 

The west is saturated as is with seven teams west of the Rockies. So Portland would have to steal another team. The south doesn't have enough teams. I don't see how any new MLB team would be located north of North Carolina/Tennessee.

 

I agree Charlotte/Raleigh and Austin/San Antonio make sense. I've also been seeing a lot of talk about Montreal recently, but I don't know what to think about that.

Just curious why there can t be more than 7 teams West of the Rockies in all your scenarios?

Charlotte, Raleigh, Nashville are not baseball areas and I think would be a poor business decision.  Think Tampa bay type attendance. I think Portland would do well, they tend to get behind their teams really well

I'd like to see NCAA shrink D1 (FBS) football to 32 teams. I think it'd be a ton more exciting. Although a lot of history would be lost, and for most that's the end of the conversation.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with letting every D1 team compete. Limiting the number of competitive schools makes college football boring, essentially arbitrarily relegating most every school to football irrelevance. There's no need to do so.

You don't have to stop anyone from competing, just split D1 into three to five competitive divisions. There could even be a promotion and relegation system. It'd certainly give us less lopsided football, but the smaller schools might not actually want it because they'd probably get less revenue.

You don't have to stop anyone from competing, just split D1 into three to five competitive divisions. There could even be a promotion and relegation system. It'd certainly give us less lopsided football, but the smaller schools might not actually want it because they'd probably get less revenue.

 

We already have historic conferences though that are technically supposed to be competitive (I'm looking at you, Indiana).

 

What you're proposing, while interesting, creates more barriers and limitations on competition. 

You don't have to stop anyone from competing, just split D1 into three to five competitive divisions. There could even be a promotion and relegation system. It'd certainly give us less lopsided football, but the smaller schools might not actually want it because they'd probably get less revenue.

 

Promotion/Relegation would be horrific for FBS teams. These are universities and their budgets are partly based on certain revenue expectations from their sports..cough..football programs. If a big football school got demoted it wouldn't just hurt an owner like in the Premier League it could hurt research funding at that university.

 

I don't get what's wrong with FBS. Sure the MAC can lose some lopsided games but some classics like App St/Michigan are always in the offing.

 

 

You don't have to stop anyone from competing, just split D1 into three to five competitive divisions. There could even be a promotion and relegation system. It'd certainly give us less lopsided football, but the smaller schools might not actually want it because they'd probably get less revenue.

 

D1 is already split into 5 competitive divisions (and 5 non-competitive ones). The P5 conferences want to split from the G5 and the entire NCAA, but they are afraid it would invite legal action. NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984) found the NCAA guilty of violating federal anti-trust acts. Many see excluding smaller schools as a similar issue. The G5 is guaranteed a team in the NY6 bowl games to prevent a lawsuit.

 

Even if it were legal to exclude the smaller schools, it still wouldn't be politically feasible. There are too many governors, members of congress, and other politically important people that went to smaller schools to be able to shut them out. A few examples:

*The Big 12 included Baylor because Bob Bullock, a Baylor grad and Texas's Lt. Governor at the time, lobbied for their inclusion.

*The ACC invited Virginia Tech over Syracuse in 2005 because Governor Mark Warner pressured UVA to use their influence to get Tech in.

*Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are struggling to leave the Big 12, because their legislatures are requiring them to bring their "little brothers" with them if they change conferences (Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State). Texas A&M was able to join the SEC because at the time Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State were finalizing a deal to join the PAC-12.

 

D1 will narrow to ~32 teams only if there is a structural change to the business of college football. TV ratings and attendance are declining. Player expenses are increasing and the threat looms of massively increased insurance costs because of CTE. Most schools struggle to break even as it is, and might consider dropping to D2  if these trends continue. The college bubble bursting could also have a seismic impact.

Thought I'd start an all-encompassing thread for talk about the four major league sports expansion talks. For some reason this has been on my mind today.

 

Currently there are 32 NFL teams, 31 NHL teams, and 30 MLB and NBA teams. I figure in the next five to ten years each league will be at 32 teams. How I think that would play out partially:

 

NHL:

 

Seattle gets a team, giving the NHL seven teams west of the Rockies (three in Canada).

 

This is approaching a done deal. Tuesday ESPN reported that "Gary Bettman authorized an ownership group to conduct a season-ticket drive in Seattle, invited the city to apply for expansion and set the fee at $650 million... The goal is for a new franchise to begin play in 2020-21." Quebec City and Houston are figured to be the next in line if Seattle doesn't work out.

 

 

NBA:

 

Seattle gets a team, but has to "steal" one from another western city as there are already seven teams west of the Rockies in the NBA. Most likely move: Sacramento.

 

Baltimore or St Louis get a team.

 

Nashville, Cincinnati or Columbus get a team. Markets of this size usually have two professional teams.

 

Columbus is probably too saturated if you include OSU as a professional team. They are more popular and worth more than some NFL teams. They also pull very well in basketball when top 20. Along with the increasing popularity of the Blue Jackets (same season as NBA), I don't know how well an NBA team could build a following here. Although technically we have only one major four team.

 

Nashville also has a popular NHL team, but lacks an OSU. However they're also home to the Titans of the NFL.

 

Cincinnati already houses two professional teams as well, but lacks a winter team. They could be like Pittsburgh with three major four teams, but NBA instead of NHL being the third. They're also in a large college basketball market, with UC and Xavier and IU, UK and Louisville markets adjacent. Could NBA compete with that; could the two coexist?

 

Sacramento and Milwaukee have recently built new arenas, so they won't be moving anywhere soon.

 

The NBA has found they do really well in two types of cities:

1. Huge metro areas (NY, LA, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, etc.)

2. Small (around 1-2 million) metro areas with no other pro teams (Portland, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Orlando, Sacramento, Memphis, Oklahoma City)

Interestingly, the MLS has found that cities in the second category are very successful for them. Midsized metros that already another pro team are currently unattractive to the NBA.

 

By this metric, all of the cities you mentioned, other than Seattle, are not attractive to the NBA. Baltimore, St. Louis, Nashville, and Cincinnati all have two major teams. Columbus has one and OSU football almost counts as a second. In a few years MLS could potentially be in Nashville, maybe Columbus, and maybe Cincinnati. I wish Columbus could get another team, but geography really hurts them.

 

In the previous rounds of expansion / relocation the top cities have been: Louisville, Hampton Roads, Seattle, and Vancouver. My rankings would be:

1. Hampton Roads - Largest MSA (1.7 million) without a pro team; no nearby college teams; Virginia would probably build them a free arena

2. Seattle - never should have left in the first place; very wealthy and rapidly growing metro; might get a free arena if the Seattle NHL expansion goes through

3. Louisville - 4th largest MSA (1.0 million) without a pro team; YUM arena already exists; UofL and UK are two of the only fanbases that are strong enough to scare the NBA

4. Vancouver - very wealthy and rapidy growing metro, but still only around 2 million; would never be more popular than the Canucks; team didn't work the first time; being in Canada is tough because salaries are in USD

 

 

MLB:

 

Nashville, Charlotte or Raleigh-Durham get a team.

 

Texas gets a third team. Any of the four major cities, but probably Austin or San Antonio.

 

The west is saturated as is with seven teams west of the Rockies. So Portland would have to steal another team. The south doesn't have enough teams. I don't see how any new MLB team would be located north of North Carolina/Tennessee.

 

I agree Charlotte/Raleigh and Austin/San Antonio make sense. I've also been seeing a lot of talk about Montreal recently, but I don't know what to think about that.

 

Television Market size is the most important metric when it comes to pro sports. Too many of you goofballs get too wrapped up in MSA size, which is not a much better metric than the city size. Another factor is how close one city is to another major city. For example, Columbus would have a hard time getting a MLB team because it’s too close to Cleveland and Cincinnati.

You don't have to stop anyone from competing, just split D1 into three to five competitive divisions. There could even be a promotion and relegation system. It'd certainly give us less lopsided football, but the smaller schools might not actually want it because they'd probably get less revenue.

 

D1 is already split into 5 competitive divisions (and 5 non-competitive ones). The P5 conferences want to split from the G5 and the entire NCAA, but they are afraid it would invite legal action. NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984) found the NCAA guilty of violating federal anti-trust acts. Many see excluding smaller schools as a similar issue. The G5 is guaranteed a team in the NY6 bowl games to prevent a lawsuit.

 

I still don't think there's any plausible argument for further separating teams like Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana or Illinois from Boise, Toledo, Northern Illinois or the San Diego States of the world. There's no justification.

 

 

In terms of an NBA team in Columbus, the only way I see that being a possibility is if the Cavs were no longer in Cleveland.

 

Even if the Cavs were no longer in Cleveland, I think the Blue Jackets would do everything possible to keep an NBA team as far away from here as possible. I think an NBA team would do better in Columbus than the CBJ, which pains me to say, and the CBJ know that.

 

If an NBA team did, by some miracle, end up in Columbus, it would probably end up killing off the CBJ. I don't see any way the Columbus market could support the CBJ, OSU basketball, and an NBA team, all at the same time.

 

 

 

 

Television Market size is the most important metric when it comes to pro sports. Too many of you goofballs get too wrapped up in MSA size, which is not a much better metric than the city size. Another factor is how close one city is to another major city. For example, Columbus would have a hard time getting a MLB team because it’s too close to Cleveland and Cincinnati.

 

There have been arguments made for one team to represent the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming since basketball is popular in those states. It would be a team almost exclusively dependent on TV and apparel. Yet nobody is willing to do it because they're afraid of not getting enough butt money from the individual cities being too small. As you state, requiting butt money may be an outdated notion. Of course, there's also less personal glamor in owing a team that only gets 3-5,000 people per game and is located in Casper.

In terms of an NBA team in Columbus, the only way I see that being a possibility is if the Cavs were no longer in Cleveland.

 

Even if the Cavs were no longer in Cleveland, I think the Blue Jackets would do everything possible to keep an NBA team as far away from here as possible. I think an NBA team would do better in Columbus than the CBJ, which pains me to say, and the CBJ know that.

 

If an NBA team did, by some miracle, end up in Columbus, it would probably end up killing off the CBJ. I don't see any way the Columbus market could support the CBJ, OSU basketball, and an NBA team, all at the same time.

 

 

 

Columbus doesn't really care about OSU basketball until Feb 10th and only if they are very good. It's always a fun time when the whole city has that one week where they're like "Oh they're good?"

 

 

Television Market size is the most important metric when it comes to pro sports. Too many of you goofballs get too wrapped up in MSA size, which is not a much better metric than the city size. Another factor is how close one city is to another major city. For example, Columbus would have a hard time getting a MLB team because it’s too close to Cleveland and Cincinnati.

 

There have been arguments made for one team to represent the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming since basketball is popular in those states. It would be a team almost exclusively dependent on TV and apparel. Yet nobody is willing to do it because they're afraid of not getting enough butt money from the individual cities being too small. As you state, requiting butt money may be an outdated notion. Of course, there's also less personal glamor in owing a team that only gets 3-5,000 people per game and is located in Casper.

 

Also, good luck getting NBA players to want to live in Casper.

In terms of an NBA team in Columbus, the only way I see that being a possibility is if the Cavs were no longer in Cleveland.

 

Even if the Cavs were no longer in Cleveland, I think the Blue Jackets would do everything possible to keep an NBA team as far away from here as possible. I think an NBA team would do better in Columbus than the CBJ, which pains me to say, and the CBJ know that.

 

If an NBA team did, by some miracle, end up in Columbus, it would probably end up killing off the CBJ. I don't see any way the Columbus market could support the CBJ, OSU basketball, and an NBA team, all at the same time.

 

 

 

Columbus doesn't really care about OSU basketball until Feb 10th and only if they are very good. It's always a fun time when the whole city has that one week where they're like "Oh they're good?"

 

That doesn't change the fact that Columbus market cannot support an NHL team, OSU basketball, and an NBA team, all the same time. It becomes even more unlikely when you factor in OSU football, the Clippers, and the Crew if (God willing) they are able to stick around. There is only so much corporate money that can be thrown around and there is only so much money individuals have to spend on tickets and merchandise.

 

For a city the size of Columbus to have an NBA team, an NHL team, an MLS team, a top tier college basketball team, a top tier college football team that is more popular than half of the NFL, and a top tier AAA baseball team, it would be absolutely unheard of. Just go look at the list of cities that have both NHL and NBA teams. They are significantly larger than Columbus, and many of them have a team in one league or the other that is near the bottom of its league in attendance.

 

Now, maybe things could change HQ2 ends up in Columbus, and on top of that Columbus sees the population growth that has already been projected. That is a big 'if' though, and even then it would be stretch.

 

Also, to say "X city only cares about X team when they are good" is simply stating the obvious. There are very few exceptions where a team can be consistently bad for multiple years and not see a significant dip in attendance. Ohio State has been pretty bad for a couple years. Before that, they were averaging between 15k and 18k each season for a solid 10 years. That is on par with many NBA teams.

Good grief, I just heard a rap song released by the XFL to hype the league. Awful. I think Vince McMahon is senile and clueless about anything beyond his wrestling empire.

 

His football league is going to be even lamer than Jimmy Johnson's televangelist hairstyle.

  • 4 weeks later...

Seattle applies, puts down $10 million for NHL franchise

 

Seattle has officially applied to be the NHL's 32nd team.

 

The paperwork -- plus a $10 million down payment -- arrived Tuesday, nearly two months after commissioner Gary Bettman authorized an ownership group, the Oak View Group, to conduct a season-ticket drive in Seattle and invited the city to apply for expansion.  The league set the expansion fee at $650 million, a steep increase from the $500 million the Vegas Golden Knights paid to enter the league this season.

 

The goal is for the new franchise to enter the NHL for the 2020-21 season. ... The ticket drive should begin in the next few weeks and will determine whether the league accepts Seattle's bid.

 

The NHL has long coveted Seattle, but the city never had a singular ownership group or arena, which hindered its chances -- until now.  In December, the Seattle City Council approved a memorandum of understanding for the privately financed Oak View Group to move forward with a $600 million remodeling of Key Arena, paving the way for potential NBA and NHL franchises.

 

MORE:  http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/22425683/seattle-makes-official-application-nhl-franchise

I can't see an NHL or NBA team being down with a renovated Key arena in Seattle.  It's so old there is only so much that turd can be polished! 

The NHL ignoring Quebec City is when I got turned off by the league. Seattle? Las Vegas? Meh. Ignoring Quebec is about as bad an idea as putting an NBA team in Vancouver. 

 

I can't see an NHL or NBA team being down with a renovated Key arena in Seattle.  It's so old there is only so much that turd can be polished! 

 

The NHL is down with this idea. The NBA won't open a new franchise in a revamped old arena.  Considering how successful the Thunder have been along with rising national TV ratings the league survives just fine without Seattle. The only way the Sonics come back is by moving an existing franchise which doesn't seem likely in the near future.

 

 

OKC plays in a renovated older arena.

 

The NBA would be perfectly fine with Seattle playing in a renovated Key Arena. It's going to be a brand new building on the inside. What sucks for the NBA is that they'll probably have to expand as there aren't many relocation prospects out there. Milwaukee is building a new arena and Utah just signed some sort of trust agreements that should keep the Jazz in Salt Lake for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't be surprised to see new teams in Seattle and Las Vegas in the not too distant future.

I think the most likely relocation candidate is New Orleans. The league tried to move the team to OKC about a decade ago, but Katrina made the optics look too bad, so the Seattle relocation was drawn up. The league had to buy out the team in 2010, and struggled to find an buyer. The New Orleans Pelicans arena lease ends in 2024.

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/sports/pelicans/article_448da1e4-069f-11e7-b622-1b9407a8cff3.html

 

The Clippers are trying to build a new arena in Inglewood before their Staples Center lease ends in 2024. The process sounds like it's going as smoothly as possible for Southern California, but there are still some legal hurdles. If somehow this falls through, I could see Ballmer using it as a pretense for reneging on his "never moving the team to Seattle" talk.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/clippers/la-sp-clippers-arena-inglewood-20180220-story.html

 

 

Las Vegas has gone from a large market with no teams to a large market with two teams in as many years. I think fears of over-saturation will keep the NBA (and MLB) from considering Vegas for a while.

 

This list matches what I've seen elsewhere, and has been cited a lot by other publications. I think Mexico City at number 2 is overly optimistic, but the NBA has been talking about it a lot lately and Adam Silver seems to like being known for being innovative, so I don't know.

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/2/15/14608762/nba-expansion-what-cities-are-next

^ the thing about Vegas which will be the challenge is not the population but the fact that outside of the gaming companies there are not many other large corporate sponsorship interests that would be based in Vegas. THis is the same issue San Antonio has faced in efforts to attract an NFL or other major league team.

OKC plays in a renovated older arena.

 

The NBA would be perfectly fine with Seattle playing in a renovated Key Arena. It's going to be a brand new building on the inside. What sucks for the NBA is that they'll probably have to expand as there aren't many relocation prospects out there. Milwaukee is building a new arena and Utah just signed some sort of trust agreements that should keep the Jazz in Salt Lake for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't be surprised to see new teams in Seattle and Las Vegas in the not too distant future.

 

The "old" OKC Ford Center was opened in 2002. The old Seattle Arena was opened in 1962. Not nearly the same comparison.

 

I'm sure the NBA would like a Seattle team. But can it live without one for a long time? It's already being proven. The Sonics doomsayers' predictions haven't materialized. OKC is just fine.

 

The NBA never really talks about for another round of expansion considering the last round led to an unintended reshuffling of the deck. Is a 32 team league a nice goal for symmetry? Sure. Does it need to dilute the product any further? Probably not.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.