Perhaps a good solution would be some fast-casual type places (chipotle/five guys/fusian) or a decent sandwich place.

This chatter of what might work makes me wonder how much longer it will be until Johnny Rockets folds. I wouldn't give them very much longer.

^^A Cheddars would be perfect, but I don't think they do "downtowns".

This chatter of what might work makes me wonder how much longer it will be until Johnny Rockets folds. I wouldn't give them very much longer.

 

This is the one place I don't really understand at The Banks. In terms of "Family Friendly," Johnny Rockets seems perfect. The store looks great, the decor is nice and the music is cool, but I've only been there once. I've only been once because every other time I've tried the place is closed or closing as we walk up. Hell, even the one time we got in we strolled in at 8 o clock and were told "we close in an hour," the service was awful and for me to actually complain about service it has to be really bad by most people's standards.

 

Now that summer is in full swing, can anyone attest to Rockets being opened regularly/later in the night or at least having their window open?

If Newport on the Levee's management was smart, they would try to attract the family-focused restaurants and attractions (which would work great right next to the Aquarium and movie theatre). The Banks is going to steal all of the sports bars and trendier places from NOTL.

After paying $50 for half a family meal at Johnny Rockets, I won't go back.  They had their event menu in effect.  By "event" they mean "option-less and exorbitant."

 

Life expectancy 3-6 months.

place is a rip^

Back on topic:

Does anybody else think there needs to be a January through April/non-game attraction?  Or could we just consider those the slow months/times.  What would this attraction be? I guess I'm just feeling like a touristy/unique third option would be good.  Maybe not. Thoughts?

 

I would call the Banks energy and activity a resounding success for Reds games.  Pre and post game atmosphere is electric.  I'll be curious to see how this translates during Bengals season.

 

Have we talked much about what kind of retail might work?  I think a sporing goods store might fly.

well, I continue to believe US Bank Arena is a very dated facility in an absolutely terrible location, considering it is our primary arena.  Compared to most cities, access is very bad, and aestehitics, both inside and outside are terrible.  I think most here forsee a neew facilityat a different location some time in the future (near future hopefully). So, what to do in that space?  I think an Ohio River/ Steam Ship/ History of Cincinnati museum would be perfect for that area. Obviously the river is a very important part of our history and the steam ships were as well. Such a museum right off of the Public Landing is a perfect location and to be in walking distance from the Banks makes a lot of sense.  Perhaps a large replica of a steam boat as well as some arhetecture to replicate the river buildings of the time.  Maybe it would be a bit Disney-esque as far as the replicas but quite frankly, such a museum could use that touch and I think it would highlight our history a lot more than it is now, which is buried in a larger museum ceter.   

Back on topic:

Does anybody else think there needs to be a January through April/non-game attraction?  Or could we just consider those the slow months/times.  What would this attraction be? I guess I'm just feeling like a touristy/unique third option would be good.  Maybe not. Thoughts?

 

I would call the Banks energy and activity a resounding success for Reds games.  Pre and post game atmosphere is electric.  I'll be curious to see how this translates during Bengals season.

 

Have we talked much about what kind of retail might work?  I think a sporing goods store might fly.

 

I agree with a new arena, but one will really only make sense with a major tenant to gobble up a large chunk of the dates - an NHL or NBA team, in a perfect world. Metro Cincinnati's expanding population, not to mention the population within an hour's drive in Dayton and Lexington, should be enough to support such a franchise. Personally, I'd prefer the NHL since I think the NBA is mostly forgettable loser franchises with only about six or seven traditional winners to support the entire league. Even an MLS franchise is a possibility; it could play its home games at PBS. Seattle is wildly successful with the MLS Sounders playing in an NFL stadium.

Even an MLS franchise is a possibility; it could play its home games at PBS. Seattle is wildly successful with the MLS Sounders playing in an NFL stadium.

 

I've been thinking about that for a long time as well.  PBS sits vacant for nearly the entire year.  Meanwhile, an MLS team could put that space to use without the need for any additional infrastructure.  Always seemed like a no-brainer to me.

Back on topic:

Does anybody else think there needs to be a January through April/non-game attraction?  Or could we just consider those the slow months/times.  What would this attraction be? I guess I'm just feeling like a touristy/unique third option would be good.  Maybe not. Thoughts?

 

I would call the Banks energy and activity a resounding success for Reds games.  Pre and post game atmosphere is electric.  I'll be curious to see how this translates during Bengals season.

 

Have we talked much about what kind of retail might work?  I think a sporing goods store might fly.

 

I agree with a new arena, but one will really only make sense with a major tenant to gobble up a large chunk of the dates - an NHL or NBA team, in a perfect world. Metro Cincinnati's expanding population, not to mention the population within an hour's drive in Dayton and Lexington, should be enough to support such a franchise. Personally, I'd prefer the NHL since I think the NBA is mostly forgettable loser franchises with only about six or seven traditional winners to support the entire league. Even an MLS franchise is a possibility; it could play its home games at PBS. Seattle is wildly successful with the MLS Sounders playing in an NFL stadium.

 

But how likely is it that the stadium deal allows the city to market PBS to an MLS team? You'd think that Mike Brown would have rights against that, and MB being MB he might decide to exercise them.

 

Also, my concern about MLS/NHL teams in Cincinnati is that we're very, very close to Columbus, which has MLS and NHL teams itself. I guess the response is "but Indianapolis has an NFL team, and we have an NFL team, and Indy isn't really any further from Cincinnati than Columbus." I think there may be more of a sports fan overlap in the markets between Cincinnati and Columbus than there is between Cincinnati and Indianapolis, though. I could be wrong.

 

With that said, I would die of happiness if Cincinnati got an MLS or NHL team.

My instincts say Cincinnatians could not conjure up enough enthusiasm to support a MLS team. But maybe that's me since I wouldn't want to go to any soccer games.

Cincinnati cannot support the 2 pro teams they have now. A winning baseball team and the stands are half empty game after game. A wining football team (as of late) and stadium does not sell out. What makes anyone think a MLS team would be supported? Personally i would love to see an MLS team here, but it will never happen.

This conversation may be going a little off topic, but I think that an MLS team would be more feasible than an NHL team. NHL requires larger attendance and a state-of-the-art facility that we don't have. US Bank cannot be used for NHL. With Columbus so close and the Blue Jackets consistently doing bad, I don't think Cincinnati has a strong desire to see an NHL team come here.

 

However, Cincinnati is a hot-bed for youth soccer so I think the interest is there. I think that PBS could be utilized as an MLS stadium if you eliminate the upper deck for most MLS games similar to how Seattle does it. Columbus would be a natural Rival and probably bring out a great turnout to each game. There was actually a post on Queen City Discovery about it a couple of months ago. http://queencitydiscovery.blogspot.com/2012/04/major-league-soccer-in-cincinnati.html

^^Are you serious?  This isn't remotely accurate.  The Reds are currently drawing about 28,400 per game this year, playing to 2/3 capacity overall.  They are on pace to draw 2.3 million fans.  They finished 16th in attendance last year, drawing about 27,300 per game.  They have a serious payroll (in excess of $80 million) and are in line for an even bigger payout when their contract is renegotiated soon.  They just signed Votto to one of the biggest contracts in the history of pro sports.  The Reds are doing quite well.

 

As for the Bengals, it is a different ballgame entirely when it comes to the NFL.  The teams are profitable without needing to make a dime off of tickets given the extreme amounts of money they make from TV.  They have struggled with attendance starting last year (after a sellout streak that spanned several seasons), but don't worry, the team is still doing well.  As recently as 2010 (I couldn't be bothered to do too much research on this) the Bengals were the 5th most profitable team in the NFL in terms of income.  http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income.html

 

This shouldn't really be a surprise, either.  Factor in Dayton and you have a larger metro area population of about 3.2 million, to say nothing of the close proximity of Indy (for baseball) and Columbus, Lexington, and Louisville (for potentially both sports).    I could certainly see them supporting an MLS team, but I doubt it's something they would do. 

 

 

Cincinnati cannot support the 2 pro teams they have now. A winning baseball team and the stands are half empty game after game. A wining football team (as of late) and stadium does not sell out. What makes anyone think a MLS team would be supported? Personally i would love to see an MLS team here, but it will never happen.

 

And by the way, this is one of my biggest internet pet peeves--would it be so difficult to look up the attendance figures and see how the Reds are actually doing instead of making statements that are completely unsupportable? 

Cincinnati cannot support the 2 pro teams they have now. A winning baseball team and the stands are half empty game after game. A wining football team (as of late) and stadium does not sell out. What makes anyone think a MLS team would be supported? Personally i would love to see an MLS team here, but it will never happen.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

 

Cincinnati's 17th out of 30 in MLB, so that's not that bad. In the past few years, it's been consistently below the average marker, but not by THAT much, generally.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2011

 

Dead last (32nd) last year in the NFL. But I think the Bengals' crap attendance last year had more to do with fans feeling crapped on by the Brown family (season tickets-wise). Historically (you can scroll back), it's been around the 20-23 marker, which isn't great, but it's not awful.

 

I think "can't support two pro teams" is an overstatement, but yeah, the Bengals' attendance especially isn't great. But I do think that has more to do with the Bengals' (and the Brown family's) reputation than with a lack of enthusiasm for pro sports.

 

Sorry if this is way too off topic.

Also, when looking at the Bengals, the cheapest tickets on their website are upper level endzone seats at $65. Assuming Cincinnati's MLS team would have similar pricing to Columbus, tickets would be between $20-55. And all seats would be in the lower level.

 

They also rarely play weekday games in MLS, so most games are going to be Saturday night which typically draw the biggest crowds in sports. They would have to compete with the Reds on those days, but I think that Cincinnati could get a good following for an MLS team. The average attendance for MLS is around 18,000 fans. That seems doable for a team that plays 2-3 times a month at home and costs significantly less than NFL games.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLS_Attendance

Cincinnati cannot support the 2 pro teams they have now. A winning baseball team and the stands are half empty game after game. A wining football team (as of late) and stadium does not sell out. What makes anyone think a MLS team would be supported? Personally i would love to see an MLS team here, but it will never happen.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

 

Cincinnati's 17th out of 30 in MLB, so that's not that bad. In the past few years, it's been consistently below the average marker, but not by THAT much, generally.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2011

 

Dead last (32nd) last year in the NFL. But I think the Bengals' crap attendance last year had more to do with fans feeling crapped on by the Brown family (season tickets-wise). Historically (you can scroll back), it's been around the 20-23 marker, which isn't great, but it's not awful.

 

I think "can't support two pro teams" is an overstatement, but yeah, the Bengals' attendance especially isn't great. But I do think that has more to do with the Bengals' (and the Brown family's) reputation than with a lack of enthusiasm for pro sports.

 

Sorry if this is way too off topic.

 

Supporting an NFL team is not entirely dependent on attendance.  One reason the Bengals are so profitable, despite what attendance may be, is that they have very favorable lease terms.

 

Also worth nothing that the Reds are just on the cusp of being in the top half attendance wise.  They are about 2000 people behind the Braves at number 14.  They are far, far from the bottom (drawing about 10,000 fans per game more than the Indians). 

17th overall attendance for a first place team is horrible... especially for a city that says they are a baseball city. Had a conversation with a guy who works for the reds tell me the reds weren't profitable last year.

 

Was my statement an over statement, maybe. But needed to be to demonstrate that a city who does not have good attendance in 2 out of the 3 major sports (17th and 32nd, which is bad) could not support a MLS team. Correct me if i am wrong but I believe only 1 or 2 MLS teams turned a profit last season and one of them is the Sounders.

 

And to say that Cincinnati have a strong youth soccer following as reason to bring an MLS to hear is not a good business decision. Almost every major metropolitan area has a strong youth soccer following.

MLS requires a $30 million buy in and a plan for a soccer-specific stadium for new teams so I doubt we ever get one. Seattle and Vancouver play in bigger stadiums that were either designed with soccer in mind (Seattle) or heavily renovated to host soccer (Vancouver). I know this is off topic but if I were a billionaire, I'd buy a MLS team and put a stadium in OTR or across the river in Newport.

17th overall attendance for a first place team is horrible... especially for a city that says they are a baseball city. Had a conversation with a guy who works for the reds tell me the reds weren't profitable last year.

 

Was my statement an over statement, maybe. But needed to be to demonstrate that a city who does not have good attendance in 2 out of the 3 major sports (17th and 32nd, which is bad) could not support a MLS team. Correct me if i am wrong but I believe only 1 or 2 MLS teams turned a profit last season and one of them is the Sounders.

 

And to say that Cincinnati have a strong youth soccer following as reason to bring an MLS to hear is not a good business decision. Almost every major metropolitan area has a strong youth soccer following.

 

I'd suggest focusing a little less on where they "place" vis a vis the other MLB teams and looking at the actual numbers.  Their current pace would put them in line for a season that would be one of the top ten all-time for the Reds, and if the attendance continues the upward trajectory of the last couple of homestands, they could be looking at drawing 2.4 million plus on the season.  That's something the Reds have only done five times in their history. 

 

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/redsatte.shtml

 

 

MLS requires a $30 million buy in and a plan for a soccer-specific stadium for new teams so I doubt we ever get one.

 

Really?  If true, that changes my opinion quite a bit.  I'm only familiar with the Sounders situation, so I thought most MLS teams in NFL cities were sharing stadiums (like NBA and NHL often share arenas).  Too bad, because that's a significant cost that they could avoid if they could hammer out some sort of agreement.

MLS requires a $30 million buy in and a plan for a soccer-specific stadium for new teams so I doubt we ever get one.

 

Really?  If true, that changes my opinion quite a bit.  I'm only familiar with the Sounders situation, so I thought most MLS teams in NFL cities were sharing stadiums (like NBA and NHL often share arenas).  Too bad, because that's a significant cost that they could avoid if they could hammer out some sort of agreement.

 

My understanding has always been that Paul Brown Stadium was built with the intent of hosting big-time soccer of some sort.  A quick Google search dug up the following from a 2003 Enquirer article:

"Cincinnati can offer a world-class facility in Paul Brown Stadium, according to a U.S. soccer official, on which $710,000 was spent configuring the stadium for soccer, and a soccer-playing public among the top in the nation."

^I know that the luxury box contracts for PBS have a lot of provisions relating to soccer in them

From my understanding, NYC will be the next team to expand into MLS (not official, yet), but they are looking to expand further over time. Currently the top cities outside of NYC are Detroit and Atlanta, though MLS got burned in the Southeast in the past as teams failed to deliver, so they may be hesitant to pursue Atlanta. I think if the money and interest was there for a team in Cincinnati, MLS would seriously consider using PBS as an acceptable facility.

I think with the potential of hosting the 2022 world cup, Cincy was among 100+ cities evaluated as a host city and was eliminated in the first go around.  I am sure that has something to do with hotel space and also that in the US, they have seveal 75k+ venues to choose from. 

 

As mentioned MLS is going to the soccer specific model so a new stadium would have to be built. I also have doubts whether the hilljacks in this town would support soccer.  Maybe if you throw in a weekly HS football game of the week, there would be some buy in for a new stadium.

 

I do disagree with the earlier poster, though, that the Reds don't draw well. The half empty seats you see from time tio time is a baseball wide issue.  They are smack in the middle as far as attendance; it's a non issue. 

NYC will be getting the next MLS team. The commissioner of the league as pretty much stated this and a recent plan to buy land in Flushing has been announced. As LesterLyles stated, the league is going with a soccer-specific stadium model with Seattle and Vancouver being exceptions. DC is looking into a new facility and NE may be as well.

 

Orlando, San Antonio, Detroit, and Pittsburgh will probably see MLS before Cincinnati. That is, unless Mike Brown wants to pony up the cash for a team.

That is, unless Mike Brown wants to pony up the cash for a team.

 

That would be disastrous. No more professional sporting teams should have to be victims of being a Brown franchise.

^Mike Brown and the Bengals organization looked into purchasing a franchise back in 99 or 2000 when PBS was brand new. Columbus opposed the idea heavily.

I think a real interesting model for MLS (and this is a bit off topic) is to model it after the European leagues with several divisions that promote the best teams and demote the bottom teams. If you all of a sudden have 4 divisions of 20 teams each, you would create a TRUE national sport because essentially you'd have a presence in the top 70 markets with the top 5 metro markets i.e. NY, LA  etc likely  having 2 teams.  I think you would really create a stronger national interest in soccer with this format and obviously Cincy would get a team in such a model.  Are U.S. sports ready for the promotion/demotion structure?  Not so sure but MLS could certainly be a guinea-pig. 

Don't we have a minor league soccer team? The Kings, I think?

Don't we have a minor league soccer team? The Kings, I think?

 

Yes, though the Kings are Professional Indoor Soccer... and no one knows where they play so they have little following.  (If one were to make the case saying that Cincy wont follow an MLS team if they can't follow the Kings I would have to argue the two are apples and oranges.)

 

More to the topic though.  I would love to see an MLS team/I would love to see PBS used much more often, but we got here via US Bank Arena talk...

So I was wondering does there really need to be an "Attraction" in the place of US Bank?  Would The Banks and The City be better served by 1,000 taxpayers in new apartment/condo towers with a smaller attraction (Steam boat dry-dock/new location for Playhouse/expanded public landing/a boathouse-rowing center/a regional aquatic-diving center) integrated?  Even a branch library serving the neighborhood might be a good solution, if the neighborhood is only fed events it will have the tendency to be relatively dead after they end, and it needs to be healthy on its own.

^ Yeah, I kind of feel having two stadia on the river is enough in terms of entertainment complexes. Whatever goes in place of US Bank Arena should definitely have a heavy residential component, IMO.

^Yep.

 

I think a real interesting model for MLS (and this is a bit off topic) is to model it after the European leagues with several divisions that promote the best teams and demote the bottom teams. If you all of a sudden have 4 divisions of 20 teams each, you would create a TRUE national sport because essentially you'd have a presence in the top 70 markets with the top 5 metro markets i.e. NY, LA  etc likely  having 2 teams.  I think you would really create a stronger national interest in soccer with this format and obviously Cincy would get a team in such a model.  Are U.S. sports ready for the promotion/demotion structure?  Not so sure but MLS could certainly be a guinea-pig. 

 

 

Totally agree.  Watching two last place teams battle to avoid relegation is one of the coolest things in sports.  And promotion/relegation might give MLS the twist it needs to break out of being the 4th team sport in the US.

 

That is, unless Mike Brown wants to pony up the cash for a team.

 

That would be disastrous. No more professional sporting teams should have to be victims of being a Brown franchise.

 

I can't stand Mike Brown, but he might be a halfway decent soccer owner.  He's a terrible NFL owner because he thinks he understands football like his dad did.  I'm guessing he'd hire a GM if he owned an MLS team.

^ It's possible he would be a better MLS owner. I don't think the people in Greater Cincinnati would support an MLS team owned by Brown though.

 

Also, there is no way Soccer is more popular than Hockey in the US... Soccer has to be the 5th major sport in the US, right?

^I'm sure you're correct.  I was actually thinking of the NHL as third, because I completely forgot about the NBA, which itself is probably third.

^ Though to your credit, the NBA isn't exactly a TEAM sport anymore.... So MLS could be fourth!

 

Off topic, I know....

 

The only concern I have with using the USBA location for residential is that the area is not very well connected to the rest of downtown. I cannot imagine it would be a desireable location being next to an overpass, bridge, and parking garage. I could be wrong though. It is very close to GABP, but just not a great area besides that...

I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect a full ballpark in a small market on weekdays in early summer when it's 97 degrees with a threat of nasty storms every day even with a winning team.

Cincinnati cannot support the 2 pro teams they have now. A winning baseball team and the stands are half empty game after game. A wining football team (as of late) and stadium does not sell out. What makes anyone think a MLS team would be supported? Personally i would love to see an MLS team here, but it will never happen.

 

This is completely incorrect. Not only are the Reds averaging more than 28,300 fans a game this season, but the team is No. 1 in all of baseball in regional television ratings. Simply put: Interest in Reds baseball in Cincinnati, Dayton and the rest of the region is enormous.

 

As for the Bengals, don't take last year's lackluster crowds as an indication that this city doesn't support the franchise. Don't forget that the Bengals had a seven-year sellout streak at PBS snapped during the dismal 2010 season. Frankly, considering the nonsense and rampant losing we've had to endure, that sellout streak is nothing short of amazing. Last year, fans, finally and rightfully, were fed up and the poor attendance was a direct message to Mike Brown that the status quo was no longer acceptable here. Looking at some of the changes made, it looks like that message was at least partially received. And even during all of that, the Bengals' television ratings were still through the roof.

 

If anything, poor attendance for UC football and basketball reinforces that Cincinnati is a pro town and that pro sports get the attention (and the bulk of the dollars) here.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect a full ballpark in a small market on weekdays in early summer when it's 97 degrees with a threat of nasty storms every day even with a winning team.

 

Tell that to Cleveland who held the record for most consecutive sell outs in a row. They went 5 or 6 years selling out every game. New owner bought the team stripped it of every good player and continues to do so when a good young player is developed. This is why they now have one of the worst attendance records in the MLB. Not to mention the lowly Browns who who continue to sell out every game since the team came back yet have had only played in 1 playoff game.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect a full ballpark in a small market on weekdays in early summer when it's 97 degrees with a threat of nasty storms every day even with a winning team.

 

St Louis's market is not the much larger than Cincinnati's in the scheme of things.  They are the 3rd highest attendence in baseball averaging +42,000 a game. And their weather is pretty similar to ours.

I know not the place but. . . I would love to see the Reds avg. at least 30k a game and I think they can get there. Anyone else stay up last to until 1:30 to watch them kick Dodger butt w/o Votto and Rolen. Reds fans have to deal with several years of losing. I think the crowds will be there.

 

Now, I'm getting a bit fed up with the Browns and so-called sellouts. According to this article, some number fudging is going on to claim the Browns have sold every game. . . plenty of ticket deals, "actual people in seats was far lower. . ." etc.

 

http://www.foxsportsohio.com/07/02/12/NFL-alters-blackout-rules-may-hurt-ticke/landing_bengals.html?blockID=755250&feedID=3659

 

As for the Bengals, fans have made a concerted effort(by NOT going to games) to let the Brown family know things have go to change. I haven't gone to games in the last two years. That's the only thing they understand. I will be going to two games this season, The Manning Bowl games.

Part of UC's poor basketball attendance is that they have only recently (past 2 years or so) become competative again since the Huggins fallout and transition to Cronin. 

 

Look at Xavier Basketball... they average 10,000+ a game every season (with a much smaller undergrad/alumni base).  The interest is Definitely there.

I know not the place but. . . I would love to see the Reds avg. at least 30k a game and I think they can get there. Anyone else stay up last to until 1:30 to watch them kick Dodger butt w/o Votto and Rolen. Reds fans have to deal with several years of losing. I think the crowds will be there.

 

Now, I'm getting a bit fed up with the Browns and so-called sellouts. According to this article, some number fudging is going on to claim the Browns have sold every game. . . plenty of ticket deals, "actual people in seats was far lower. . ." etc.

 

http://www.foxsportsohio.com/07/02/12/NFL-alters-blackout-rules-may-hurt-ticke/landing_bengals.html?blockID=755250&feedID=3659

 

As for the Bengals, fans have made a concerted effort(by NOT going to games) to let the Brown family know things have go to change. I haven't gone to games in the last two years. That's the only thing they understand. I will be going to two games this season, The Manning Bowl games.

 

This is why the Browns can't fill the stands: And its pretty funny.

 

 

 

 

I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect a full ballpark in a small market on weekdays in early summer when it's 97 degrees with a threat of nasty storms every day even with a winning team.

 

St Louis's market is not the much larger than Cincinnati's in the scheme of things.  They are the 3rd highest attendence in baseball averaging +42,000 a game. And their weather is pretty similar to ours.

 

 

And Atlanta's Market is MUCH larger than ours and they are barely out pacing Cincy (in fan attendance)... point?

Please keep in mind actual attendance does not = interest, revenue, etc... attendance + tv ratings do.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect a full ballpark in a small market on weekdays in early summer when it's 97 degrees with a threat of nasty storms every day even with a winning team.

 

St Louis's market is not the much larger than Cincinnati's in the scheme of things.  They are the 3rd highest attendence in baseball averaging +42,000 a game. And their weather is pretty similar to ours.

 

And the Chicago market is astronomically larger than Cincinnati's in the scheme of things, yet the White Sox are far behind the Reds in attendance this year. And the White Sox are in first place.

 

Some other larger markets that would trade places with Cincinnati in terms of attendance: Seattle, Miami, Phoenix, Toronto, Houston, etc. ... Your point?

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

 

And again: No team in MLB has higher ratings for its local television broadcasts - not New York, not St. Louis, not San Francisco, not Detroit, not anybody. Frankly, case closed.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect a full ballpark in a small market on weekdays in early summer when it's 97 degrees with a threat of nasty storms every day even with a winning team.

 

St Louis's market is not the much larger than Cincinnati's in the scheme of things.  They are the 3rd highest attendence in baseball averaging +42,000 a game. And their weather is pretty similar to ours.

 

St. Louis has also won the World Series twice in the past 10 years, and is almost always in the playoffs. I suspect that has something to do with their attendance.