States with Major League Pro Sports Teams

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

13 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

If you count MLS as 'major league', Kansas is taken via Sporting KC playing across the border.

 

Odds are, HI, AK, ID, MT, ND, SD, IA, WV, DE, CT, RI, VT, NH, and ME aren't going to ever have teams. For all the talk of Hartford getting their Whalers back, the NHL seems deadset on trying to expand outward form the north/northeast, and dropping another team between Boston/NYR/NYI/NJ isn't likely.

 

Rhode Island and Connecticut were off-the-wall ideas when the Patriots were considering where to build what would become GIllette Stadium.  The three New England states of VT, NH, ME probably will never see a pro team. Population is not increasing in those areas near as fast as it is in some underserved areas of the contry.

 

Delaware might only attract a team if a Philadelphia team in the distant future is looking to move out of Philadelphia and were to get a sweetheart deal. But, with modern stadium design angling toward 'near the city center' (though Atlanta is bucking that trend), it's probably not going to happen.

 

Virginia falls in the same category. The Hampton Roads/Tidewater area probably could support a major team. But, in all likelihood, the best bet is if one of the "DC" teams ever moves south of the border. But, as long as the Tidewater/Chesapeake/Norfolk/etc area remains 'major league teamless', they're always a distant possibility.

 

The northern prairie states go without saying. Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and west to Idaho just don't have one big city that could host such a team. And those shale production in northern North Dakota is seeing an uptick, it's in an area of the state devoid of people to begin with and will probably never see that region ever grow enough, even a hundred years from now. Though, global warming might see it as the tropical resort destination by then, so who knows.

 

Kansas is pegged by MLS, but get the same general thought as Virginia. A KC team just has to move across the state line, for a new stadium, and it's done. Though, the Royals and Chiefs have a 'great' complex east of the city that will probably house their future stadiums if and when they ever build new ones and not just renovate.

 

Arkansas could support a team at some point if there's more growth. Sort of a Oklahoma City type situation where one team becomes the end-all/be-all of the state. But, with two competing metro areas, the capital and the booming region to the NW, their money is spread out. And with Memphis just east of there, it's doubtful NBA (the likeliest of leagues given startup costs and demographics) probably wouldn't step in.

 

Thirty years ago, most probably never thought of North Carolina as a major league host state. They had some times in big minor leagues and offshoot ventures like the WFL (Charlotte Stars), but it took the continual influx of people moving in to see it as a 'eh, it's not Florida, but it's warm a lot of the year' moving south. Between banking and insurance growth in the area, now there's two cities with major league teams in three of the major leagues.

 

South Carolina COULD do it, hell, they temporarily hosted the Panthers in Clemson, but they need to keep seeing their state, especially around Columbia, growing as a destination for northerners looking for better work, cheaper housing, and better weather. Maybe 20 years from now, they could. Plus, there's bound to be some eventual malaise from Georgians tired of the traffic nightmare known as Atlanta seeing a better, quieter, lazier  time away from the giant metropolis in an area like the stretch between Augusta and Columbia.

 

Alabama's best bet is Birmingham, but has seen alternative league after alternative league give it a shot and then fold. As with their neighbor, college football is king, so a football team would have the same issues as an NFL team in Columbus. Could they support an NFL team? Sure. Would they build a stadium? Probably not. Their best bet is basketball. Hockey's not really a southern sport and unlike the Florida teams, would fare as about as well as the Flames and Thrashers to the east.

 

Mississippi is in the same boat. No major cities. The economies aren't seeing the increases that states like Georgia or Texas have in the south. And there really isn't one major city capable of supporting a major league team. Jackson, Tupelo, and Biloxi aren't going to cut it. A possiblity is a Memphis team playing just south of the border.  There was talk long ago about the Saints moving to Biloxi and being a 'Gulf Coast' team without a real identifier of who they represent, akin to New England or "Golden State". But, LA ponied up the dough to keep them in the Superdome. And their best shot to flee was after Katrina and they stuck it out. And probably will never leave New Orleans or its suburbs ever at this point. Plus, New Orleans benefit the same way Las Vegas does, it's a tourist/destination city. Fans will travel to New Orleans when their team plays there because they can make it more than just the game.

 

And my thought for New Mexico is simply the same situation with Arizona, just on a slower boil. One major city really (Alubuquerque), one smaller city to the south-ish (Las Cruces), and a population expanding due to transplants not wanting to burn alive in Phoenix and businesses finding in New Mexico the same benefits they first found in Arizona. And with the higher elevations, the climate is better (and for northerners, there's still snow from time to time). And dust storms.

 

Apparently, Alabama (or maybe just certain areas) is a sort of a hot pocket for hockey in the south. My childhood next door neighbor got a hockey scholarship to the U of A-Huntsville, and then ended up playing for a few semi pro teams down there, notable the Huntsville Channel Cats. He told me the people loved it. 

[Sykotyk]

4 hours ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

 

Apparently, Alabama (or maybe just certain areas) is a sort of a hot pocket for hockey in the south. My childhood next door neighbor got a hockey scholarship to the U of A-Huntsville, and then ended up playing for a few semi pro teams down there, notable the Huntsville Channel Cats. He told me the people loved it. 

Yeah, UAH is a bit of an outlier. Unless something's changed, they're still the farthest southern NCAA team, correct? Could it be the NASA facility and military base nearby bringing in outsiders has helped with a sport not traditionally southern?

 

Minor leagues work simply because it's a night out for people primarily when baseball isn't an option.  But, to turn that support into a major league team sustaining support, is unlikely.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

1 minute ago, Sykotyk said:

Yeah, UAH is a bit of an outlier. Unless something's changed, they're still the farthest southern NCAA team, correct? Could it be the NASA facility and military base nearby bringing in outsiders has helped with a sport not traditionally southern?

 

Minor leagues work simply because it's a night out for people primarily when baseball isn't an option.  But, to turn that support into a major league team sustaining support, is unlikely.

 

Agreed. 

[B-Rich]

On 1/29/2017 at 7:58 PM, Sykotyk said:

If you count MLS as 'major league', Kansas is taken via Sporting KC playing across the border.

 

On 1/29/2017 at 10:45 AM, Gothamite said:

... it's arguable as to whether the NBA really qualified as a major league in 1949.   I'd say they were a lot less important politically, economically, and culturally at the time than, say, MLS is today. 

 

On 1/29/2017 at 2:37 PM, Gothamite said:

...the NFL wasn't a culturally or economically significant league in those days, either.  

 

All three of which raise a good point. At what point do you consider something a major league? (at least for purposes of this exercise.)

 

Baseball is easy enough, as it always has had established minor leagues delineated as such.  Football, basketball, and hockey have all also had "minor" or developmental leagues (D-league, WLAF/NFL Europe, AHL, etc.) but also had "competitor" leagues (in my lifetime and beforehand) which have merged either completely with the older league or had some teams merged into them (AAFC, AFL, ABA and WHA).

 

But what about about the WFL and USFL? Do we discount them as not being major league? And what about soccer-- if we accept MLS, do we also accept the original NASL?

 

I'd certainly draw the line at ANY type of Arena Football.  NONE of those leagues, not event the namesake league, can or should be considered a major league.  But I think I'd be inclined to include the MLS today-- which means, to be fair, I think I'd need to include the original NASL from the 70s (that league of my childhood/teen years was around for about 15 years and had a nat'l TV contract with ABC for quite some time).   But I'd exclude the WFL and USFL, due to their short lifespans (1 1/2 and 3 years respectively).

 

Gothamite's post also has to be considered--  at what point does a league become nationally significant, culturally or economically?  MLB baseball has pretty much always been there since the previous turn of the century.  The NFL? Was it after the the settling down of franchises in the early 50s, or with the 1958 championship after which the marriage of pro football and television really took off?  The NBA? That's a toughie-- they were obviously a "major league", but so far down culturally and economically in the late 70s that the NBA Finals were shown on tape delay after evening news sometimes.  The NHL-- doubling up of the original six in 1967, or later expansion and coverage (early 90s/ ESPN)?   And finally, NASL/MLS?  I remember the NASL as being a pretty big deal in the late 70s-- as big as if not slightly bigger than hockey at that time (at least in my southern neck of the woods).  Four NASL team names were resurrected for the MLS-- that's quite a legacy -- and I think the MLS itself has really taken root and has a national following, significant enough to be considered a true major league.

 

So, for purposes of this exercise, I'd limit it to:

 

• The 5 major leagues (NFL, MLB, MLS, NBA, NHL) that currently exist;
• The 4 leagues which had teams absorbed or merged into one of the five existing leagues, or can be considered a ground-laying/predecessor league (AFL, ABA, WHA, NASL).
• Common cut-off year of 1953-- just before three team relocation in MLB, finalizing of NFL teams post-Yanks/Texans/Colts situation; NBA (as NBA) 4 years underway; NHL original 6 well in place, TV starting to come into play).
• Have to REGULARLY play in OR be headquartered in specific state.

 

And with that, here's my last updated map of current and former States:

 

Brown/former includes Nebraska (NBA Kansas City-Omaha Kings), Alabama (WHA Birmingham Bulls), Kentucky (ABA Kentucky Colonels), Virginia (ABA Virginia Squires), Connecticut (NHL Hartford Whalers and NASL Connecticut Bicentennials), and Hawaii (NASL Team Hawaii). Not making the 1953 cut are Iowa (Waterloo Hawks) and Rhode Island (Providence Steamroller/Steam Rollers).

 

[Gothamite]

23 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

All three of which raise a good point. At what point do you consider something a major league? (at least for purposes of this exercise.)

 

Baseball is easy enough, as it always has had established minor leagues delineated as such.  Football, basketball, and hockey have all also had "minor" or developmental leagues (D-league, WLAF/NFL Europe, AHL, etc.) but also had "competitor" leagues (in my lifetime and beforehand) which have merged either completely with the older league or had some teams merged into them (AAFC, AFL, ABA and WHA).

 

But what about about the WFL and USFL? Do we discount them as not being major league? And what about soccer-- if we accept MLS, do we also accept the original NASL?

 

I wouldn't count the WFL and USFL for the very reason that they never represented the highest level of their sport in this country.    I'm wavering on the NASL because I'm not sure that professional soccer had the cultural currency at the time, but I would include MLS today because of the growth of the sport in the intervening years.

[Sykotyk]

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

I wouldn't count the WFL and USFL for the very reason that they never represented the highest level of their sport in this country.    I'm wavering on the NASL because I'm not sure that professional soccer had the cultural currency at the time, but I would include MLS today because of the growth of the sport in the intervening years.

To me, you can't really talk about USFL or WFL being 'major league' simply because they didn't survive. AAFC and AFL both reached a point where the NFL, for better or worse, felt the need to undo their competition by bringing in their teams before they could get overtaken. NBA/ABA, NHL/WHA both had that. And, if you really want to talk about it, MLB had a similar situation, though different response, between the NL and AL. There's a reason even today people call the NL the "senior circuit". There were other 'major leagues', such as the FL, PL, or the NA.

 

The argument for the BAA and what not at the early years of basketball could be just based on which teams survived from it. Did most make it into the NBA in those years?

 

The NFL counts all the little 'runts' in the 20s and 30s simply because the NFL recognized them then and still exists to keep recognizing them today.

 

But, if the Staten Island Stapletons existed today, they would be semi-pro weekend warriors at best and nowhere near what we'd call "major league". Part of it was the manner the NFL started compared to the "major league" baseball leagues. The NFL was just an association to avoid teams poaching their players on a weekly/per-game basis. They didn't really care about the schedule, who teams played, etc. Even the 'champions' the NFL recognize were a lot more loosely organized given you could just keep playing a weak team until you got enough wins to boost your percentage into first place (1925 comes to mind).

 

But, the first two AFLs in the 20s and 30s.... not so much. But, AAFC would be considered 'major' considering three teams, two that still exist, made the jump to the NFL. The AFL in the 70s had the same situation. USFL/WFL may have seen some markets eventually filled with NFL teams, but they weren't the USFL/WFL teams.

[FrankCostanza]

On ‎2017‎-‎01‎-‎30 at 4:46 PM, B-Rich said:

 

 

 

All three of which raise a good point. At what point do you consider something a major league? (at least for purposes of this exercise.)

 

Brown/former includes Nebraska (NBA Kansas City-Omaha Kings), Alabama (WHA Birmingham Bulls), Kentucky (ABA Kentucky Colonels), Virginia (ABA Virginia Squires), Connecticut (NHL Hartford Whalers and NASL Connecticut Bicentennials), and Hawaii (NASL Team Hawaii). Not making the 1953 cut are Iowa (Waterloo Hawks) and Rhode Island (Providence Steamroller/Steam Rollers).

 

 

If you want to take it way back and include everything there were Major League teams in both Iowa and Delaware.  Many don't count the National Association and Union Association as Major Leagues but if you want to be liberal and include them both states would be included.  Iowa had the Keokuk Westerns (1875, NA) and Delaware had the Wilmington Quicksteps (1884, UA).  Both would play only partial seasons.

 

Worth noting, the Bruins almost moved to New Hampshire in the early 1980s (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/25/sports/plan-withdrawn-to-move-bruins-to-new-hampshire.html).