WideRight

A city deserving one particular sport

Recommended Posts

If you were to name one city that does not have a pro team in the sport it most revered, what would it be?

 

Louisville without an NBA team seems wrong.

St. Louis without an MLS team seems wrong.

Birmingham without an NFL team also seems like an obvious choice. 

 

What one city and one league are a pairing that ought to exist but does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the obvious ones, cities that unfairly lost their teams to relocations (Seattle/NBA, Quebec City/NHL), the only one that really comes to mind is St. Louis with its longstanding soccer culture not getting in on MLS. Of course, MLS now appears to be a massive Ponzi scheme that will one day have more teams than the fake ABA (Krunk Wolverines United FC?), so I'm sure they're gonna get there, but they should have been there a long time ago.

 

I don't believe supporting college sports necessarily means you ought to have pro sports. The strength of college basketball in Kentucky is more an argument against a Louisville NBA team than one for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Of course, MLS now appears to be a massive Ponzi scheme

 

Hold on, there! MLS has done a great job vetting potential ownership groups. And its newest teams are doing fantastic at the gate. Atlanta United is the most valuable team, and is worth more than several NHL teams, as is LAFC.

 

If MLS's teams' values were declining, then you could call the league a Ponzi scheme, one that needs the influx of money from new ownership groups in order to survive.  But, as of now, people are begging to be part of MLS, and the league is turning most of them away.

 

The surge in MLS team values is in step with the league's skyrocketing quality of play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was gonna say San Diego without football...but we've got the Aztecs.

 

Basketball...if we can support an AHL club, it wouldn't hurt to try to bring D-League hoops to SD. An affiliation with the Lakers moreso than the Clippers would be my preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milwaukee should have MLS.  USL championship at the very least.  They have the oldest professional soccer club in the country, and multiple amateur/youth sides that go back to the 1920s.  There’s a huge soccer scene there, with no professional representation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Hold on, there! MLS has done a great job vetting potential ownership groups. And its newest teams are doing fantastic at the gate. Atlanta United is the most valuable team, and is worth more than several NHL teams, as is LAFC.

 

If MLS's teams' values were declining, then you could call the league a Ponzi scheme, one that needs the influx of money from new ownership groups in order to survive.  But, as of now, people are begging to be part of MLS, and the league is turning most of them away.

 

The surge in MLS team values is in step with the league's skyrocketing quality of play.

 

Yeah, I know that’s standard interwebs banter, but anybody who calls it a Ponzi scheme really isn’t paying attention.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, the admiral said:

I don't believe supporting college sports necessarily means you ought to have pro sports. The strength of college basketball in Kentucky is more an argument against a Louisville NBA team than one for it.

 

I remember once being told that the Kentucky Colonels basically got hosed by not getting into the NBA when the merger with the ABA occurred. Not totally sure how accurate that is though. They were one of the two finalists to get the Grizzlies when they moved from Vancouver. I think the current arena situation makes it highly unlikely that they could get an NBA team even if they wanted to in Louisville. Like, I think the university owns the arena or gets some crazy cut from every even there. Something goofy.

 

I don't think St. Louis necessarily deserves an NFL team (or even MLS), but they did get hosed with the two teams they had. They had the football Cardinals who were basically like the Sterling-owned Clippers, where the owners were cheap and didn't really care about winning. Then they get the Rams, but that almost always felt like a loan before they returned to their home of almost five decades.

 

As far as MLS, the teams that should get in are Sacramento and the Tampa Bay Rowdies because they have the best name in sports.

 

I guess Seattle should probably have the NBA. I'll be curious to see how OKC supports the Thunder now that they're not a novelty (when the Hornets played there because of Katrina and the Thunder's first season where they were terrible), and are in rebuild mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first city that comes to mind is Seattle, for the NBA, of course. For the NHL, either Quebec or Hartford, though Quebec probably deserves it more (they got screwed by the 90s relocation and the 2010s expansion process). NFL, I can't really think of any. Maybe St. Louis, but that doesn't seem like a "necessary" thing, but San Diego should get a second chance. (My ideal relocation would've been the Rams & Raiders to LA, with the Chargers staying in San Diego.) I think Charlotte or Portland should be first in line for an MLB team, but it seems like Montreal is, even though I'm not sure how that will go. I can't say I know enough about the MLS to say for sure, but it seems like both Sacramento and St. Louis are basically locks for teams 28 & 29, so I'm sure they'll get their team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @the admiral, it is a ponzy scheme. If you live around Cincinnati, you will see how FC has duped the whole city. I'm sure I'll catch hell for saying that. But ask people on the West End and in Milford how they feel about the team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sohiosportsfreak said:

I agree with @the admiral, it is a ponzy scheme. If you live around Cincinnati, you will see how FC has duped the whole city.

 

:blink:

 

Could you expand on that...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sohiosportsfreak said:

If you live around Cincinnati, you will see how FC has duped the whole city.

 

This is nonsense. FC Cincinnati is amongst the league leaders in attendance. And the Reds have publicly stated that they now for the first time have major-league competition for fans' attention and money.

 

 

Anyway, on the general question of the thread: there are at least a half a dozen cities in Canada and the northern part of the U.S. that deserve NHL teams more than f-ing Las Vegas or Phoenix where there's no such thing as ice, or anyplace in Florida or Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sohiosportsfreak said:

Ask the people of West End and Milford how they've been treated?

 

You know enough of them, I assume. What have they told you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sohiosportsfreak said:

Ask the people of West End and Milford how they've been treated?

 

I shall do no such thing, for two reasons.

 

One of these reasons is that backing up your assertions is your responsibility, not mine.

 

But the more important reason is one of irrelevance. Even if FC Cincinnati did commit some kind of bad acts in connection with those places that you mentioned, this still would not make MLS a "Ponzi scheme", as that is the name of one particular kind of financial scam, the kind of scam that depends on an indefinite exponential growth of paying participants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I shall do no such thing, for two reasons.

 

One of these reasons is that backing up your assertions is your responsibility, not mine.

 

But the more important reason is one of irrelevance. Even if FC Cincinnati did commit some kind of bad acts in connection with those places that you mentioned, this still would not make MLS a "Ponzi scheme", as that is the name of one particular kind of financial scam, the kind of scam that depends on an indefinite exponential growth of paying participants.

Well I could argue on that and have some valid points. But there really is no point in me wasting anymore time. Maybe in whatever MLS city you hail from things are all peachy. But I'm telling you, FCC has scammed the Cincinnati metro area. The only reason FCC is getting good numbers right now is because 1. They play their games on UC's campus. 3/4 of the people in attendance are college kids. 2. Xavier is no more than five miles away so their students contribute as well. 3. Most people do not get Star64 so you cannot watch the game on TV. If you wanna watch them you have to go to the game.

 

Fast forward to when the new stadium is built. It's over on the Westside of downtown, past even where Crosley Field use to be. Nevermind you the reason why Crosley was tore down was because of its location, ghetto. Same thing with FCC. You will have to travel through less than desirable places to get to the new stadium. On top of that, people who live around Taft HS where the new stadium is being built were ran out of their houses, after they were promised all kinds of grandeur for agreeing to let construction begin there. So in conclusion yes FCC is running a ponzy scheme. They put on a big show and promised a bunch of things to the area for getting the support to jump to MLS. In return they have pretty well crapped over everyone to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sohiosportsfreak said:

So in conclusion yes FCC is running a ponzy scheme.

It's Ponzi, not "ponzy."

And what you described isn't a Ponzi scheme, which has a very specific definition. What you described is basically just a bait-and-switch, promising the world and then not delivering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that’s not at all what a Ponzi scheme is. 

 

And even then, building a stadium in a location you don’t particularly love is not the same thing as “they have pretty well crapped over everyone to get there.”

 

I’m struggling to see what your actual objection is, besides not liking the precise spot they chose for the stadium.   Hardly seems worth all that vitriol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV deal is because next year MLS is going to have a league wide deal. No more local deals. So for one year that's the best you get. 

 

The stadium is not that far from uc. Locals weren't driven out by construction. If anything gentrification is that with a new stadium property values go up and people cash out. Make some money and leave. Business will come in as well. Bars and clubs in the general area will increase over time. 

 

Interesting you say mostly college kids attend. Yet there's no real drop in attendance when schools are not in session. 

 

A ponzi scheme would be what happened under C David Baker to the AFL. Using new expansion money to fund current teams. It's fine as long as new owners kept buying in. And then the great recession hit and no new owners and the thing fell apart fast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.