Next Move Or Expansion

[BBTV]

The Tampa Bay Rays are kind of an interesting case. On one hand, yes they need to move. They're one of the best teams in MLB and they can't sell out their stadium. Something's wrong there. On the other hand Tropicana Field is an absolute dive. Honestly, I can see otherwise willing fans being turned off by that stadium. So I can't bring myself to condemn the Rays in the Tampa Bay area until they have a stadium that's worth going to.

Of course if that happens they'll either be financially committed to staying in the market, or will be on an iron-clad lease that won't let them move for 25 years.

[NorthStar74]

They're going to change their name to the Miami Marlins, yes. Once they're in an expensively taxpayer-funded stadium, no, they're not moving.

Thank you for that info... btw when will that new Marlins ballpark open?? Will that be when we will see the Miami Marlins come into play?

[HedleyLamarr]

They're going to change their name to the Miami Marlins, yes. Once they're in an expensively taxpayer-funded stadium, no, they're not moving.

Thank you for that info... btw when will that new Marlins ballpark open?? Will that be when we will see the Miami Marlins come into play?

2012, I believe.

[BaltimoreFan]

I was being sarcastic Jigga. Seriously though, if getting the Supersonics back would mean that we would have to steal the Kings from Sacramento, the Clippers from Los Angeles, and even the Hornets from New Orleans, then I think I'll pass til the next round of NBA expansion.

Really? You'd rather have an expansion team that takes 5 or 10 years to get good than take the Hornets with CP3, one of the best players in the league.

I think it's better that way (what Drakonius26 said) because seeing a team leave a city for another, saying how wrong it is, heartbroken the people are and all that whacked out :censored:, then graciously accepting another team's city makes one look like a douchebag Baltimore Colts fan.

LOL, what was Baltimore supposed to do? We waited until the next round of expansion. The NFL screwed us by picking lesser markets in Charlotte and Jacksonville. If we didn't take the Browns, we'd probably still be without a team.

I do agree the team history thing is stupid. Baltimore fans would have never accepted the Browns name or history regardless of the NFL's deal with the city of Cleveland. The city will always remember the history they experienced. Baltimore has a Johnny Unitas statue in front of M&T bank stadium and his number has essentially been retired (its not official, but I'm pretty sure no one's ever worn it). Likewise, nobody here cares about the Browns past. There would never be a celebration here for Cleveland's moments and players. It really doesn't matter what the NFL considers official history.

I do wish teams would change their names when they move. The names usually have a significance to the area in which they play. I don't care if they keep the name and refuse to let another team use it (i.e. Tennessee Titans with Oilers). It would just been nice if teams would respect the fans of the past city and try to create a new brand to represent the new city.

With that said, I do wish the old Baltimore Colts fans would just let it go. We got a new team and its been very successful. The Ravens are by far the biggest news in town come football season. No need to whine, cry, and bring up the past every time the Colts come to town. We did do a much better job in 2009.

My beef is with stupid Baltimore Colts fans who were so sad a team left, yet have no problem cheering for the Ravens, who left another city to go to another, just like the Colts. Those people are hypocritcal and ridiculous.

Again, what are they supposed to do? The Ravens are here to stay, an expansion team will never be a possibility. Do you want them to not root for their hometown team? Most of their problem is that the team is still called the Colts and that the franchise still recognizes the history that took place in Baltimore. They would be hypocrites if they rooting for the Baltimore Browns and wore Jim Brown jerseys to the game. I'm telling you right now NO ONE in Baltimore would EVER accept the Browns name or history, regardless of the NFL's legal compromise. I think your hate for them is a little ridiculous. Its sounds like you'd only be happy if they stopped watching football or became Redskins fans (which again, would never happen).

[IceCap]

I was being sarcastic Jigga. Seriously though, if getting the Supersonics back would mean that we would have to steal the Kings from Sacramento, the Clippers from Los Angeles, and even the Hornets from New Orleans, then I think I'll pass til the next round of NBA expansion.

Really? You'd rather have an expansion team that takes 5 or 10 years to get good than take the Hornets with CP3, one of the best players in the league.

I think it's better that way (what Drakonius26 said) because seeing a team leave a city for another, saying how wrong it is, heartbroken the people are and all that whacked out :censored:, then graciously accepting another team's city makes one look like a douchebag Baltimore Colts fan.

LOL, what was Baltimore supposed to do? We waited until the next round of expansion. The NFL screwed us by picking lesser markets in Charlotte and Jacksonville. If we didn't take the Browns, we'd probably still be without a team.

I do agree the team history thing is stupid. Baltimore fans would have never accepted the Browns name or history regardless of the NFL's deal with the city of Cleveland. The city will always remember the history they experienced. Baltimore has a Johnny Unitas statue in front of M&T bank stadium and his number has essentially been retired (its not official, but I'm pretty sure no one's ever worn it). Likewise, nobody here cares about the Browns past. There would never be a celebration here for Cleveland's moments and players. It really doesn't matter what the NFL considers official history.

I do wish teams would change their names when they move. The names usually have a significance to the area in which they play. I don't care if they keep the name and refuse to let another team use it (i.e. Tennessee Titans with Oilers). It would just been nice if teams would respect the fans of the past city and try to create a new brand to represent the new city.

With that said, I do wish the old Baltimore Colts fans would just let it go. We got a new team and its been very successful. The Ravens are by far the biggest news in town come football season. No need to whine, cry, and bring up the past every time the Colts come to town. We did do a much better job in 2009.

My beef is with stupid Baltimore Colts fans who were so sad a team left, yet have no problem cheering for the Ravens, who left another city to go to another, just like the Colts. Those people are hypocritcal and ridiculous.

Again, what are they supposed to do? The Ravens are here to stay, an expansion team will never be a possibility. Do you want them to not root for their hometown team? Most of their problem is that the team is still called the Colts and that the franchise still recognizes the history that took place in Baltimore. They would be hypocrites if they rooting for the Baltimore Browns and wore Jim Brown jerseys to the game. I'm telling you right now NO ONE in Baltimore would EVER accept the Browns name or history, regardless of the NFL's legal compromise. I think your hate for them is a little ridiculous. Its sounds like you'd only be happy if they stopped watching football or became Redskins fans (which again, would never happen).

I think he's saying that they (Baltimore NFL fans) can both get over the Colts leaving and support the Ravens.

As for the Browns lineage, I don't want the Ravens to change their name to the Baltimore Browns, but I personally consider the historical Browns history and legacy to belong to the Ravens, not the nu-Browns.

[BaltimoreFan]

I was being sarcastic Jigga. Seriously though, if getting the Supersonics back would mean that we would have to steal the Kings from Sacramento, the Clippers from Los Angeles, and even the Hornets from New Orleans, then I think I'll pass til the next round of NBA expansion.

Really? You'd rather have an expansion team that takes 5 or 10 years to get good than take the Hornets with CP3, one of the best players in the league.

I think it's better that way (what Drakonius26 said) because seeing a team leave a city for another, saying how wrong it is, heartbroken the people are and all that whacked out :censored:, then graciously accepting another team's city makes one look like a douchebag Baltimore Colts fan.

LOL, what was Baltimore supposed to do? We waited until the next round of expansion. The NFL screwed us by picking lesser markets in Charlotte and Jacksonville. If we didn't take the Browns, we'd probably still be without a team.

I do agree the team history thing is stupid. Baltimore fans would have never accepted the Browns name or history regardless of the NFL's deal with the city of Cleveland. The city will always remember the history they experienced. Baltimore has a Johnny Unitas statue in front of M&T bank stadium and his number has essentially been retired (its not official, but I'm pretty sure no one's ever worn it). Likewise, nobody here cares about the Browns past. There would never be a celebration here for Cleveland's moments and players. It really doesn't matter what the NFL considers official history.

I do wish teams would change their names when they move. The names usually have a significance to the area in which they play. I don't care if they keep the name and refuse to let another team use it (i.e. Tennessee Titans with Oilers). It would just been nice if teams would respect the fans of the past city and try to create a new brand to represent the new city.

With that said, I do wish the old Baltimore Colts fans would just let it go. We got a new team and its been very successful. The Ravens are by far the biggest news in town come football season. No need to whine, cry, and bring up the past every time the Colts come to town. We did do a much better job in 2009.

My beef is with stupid Baltimore Colts fans who were so sad a team left, yet have no problem cheering for the Ravens, who left another city to go to another, just like the Colts. Those people are hypocritcal and ridiculous.

Again, what are they supposed to do? The Ravens are here to stay, an expansion team will never be a possibility. Do you want them to not root for their hometown team? Most of their problem is that the team is still called the Colts and that the franchise still recognizes the history that took place in Baltimore. They would be hypocrites if they rooting for the Baltimore Browns and wore Jim Brown jerseys to the game. I'm telling you right now NO ONE in Baltimore would EVER accept the Browns name or history, regardless of the NFL's legal compromise. I think your hate for them is a little ridiculous. Its sounds like you'd only be happy if they stopped watching football or became Redskins fans (which again, would never happen).

I think he's saying that they (Baltimore NFL fans) can both get over the Colts leaving and support the Ravens.

As for the Browns lineage, I don't want the Ravens to change their name to the Baltimore Browns, but I personally consider the historical Browns history and legacy to belong to the Ravens, not the nu-Browns.

That's fine, as I've said earlier I think history trading is stupid. The Browns history would never be celebrated nor recoginized in Baltimore. It doesn't matter what the history books say. We didn't experience the history therefore there is no reason to care about it.

[NorthStar74]

They're going to change their name to the Miami Marlins, yes. Once they're in an expensively taxpayer-funded stadium, no, they're not moving.

Thank you for that info... btw when will that new Marlins ballpark open?? Will that be when we will see the Miami Marlins come into play?

2012, I believe.

Ohh thanks for the tip on what year.. I was thinking it might have been 2013 but ahh..

[NoHoJoe]

Citing that sharing a stadium is not in their best interest, the New York Jets move to Queens into a $2.7 Billion Stadium right near CitiField.

That area may be a bit too tight to fit an 85,000 retractable dome stadium (designed like a TIMEX IRONMAN Watch that almost resembles Shea Stadium). Maybe near Aqueduct, inside Flushing Meadows Park or the MTA Rail Yards near Flushing Meadows. Did I hear NYC 2020 Summer Olympics?

Also...

Brewers move back to AL Central. MLB expands to 32 teams-Montreal for NL, Portland, Nashville or Charlotte for the AL, restructures the AL and NL into 4 Four team divisions (East, Central, Midwest, West) as per geographic parity as closely possible. THe play off will have ranking seeds like NBA and NHL (1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, and so third). First round will either be a round robin elimination or best 2 out of 3, depending of geographic parity. The second round will be a best 3 out of 5. LCS and WS will remain best 4 out of 7.

[-Akronite-]

IMO, a franchise, especially one as historic at the Browns, has ties that are deeper in the city and its fans than to the current players/staff. I think it's stupid to send a team from one city to another under the same moniker in these types of circumstances. Leaving the history, records, and names behind is a must in a situation like CLE-BAL since Cleveland was promised the next expansion team.

But I will agree that it is dumb to pretend the expansion team is the same team. The Browns never returned, they started anew. The Ravens aren't the Browns either though, they just had a few seasons worth of players from the old Browns. So they certainly don't deserve records more than the people with real ties to the team, the fans.

[IceCap]

IMO, a franchise, especially one as historic at the Browns, has ties that are deeper in the city and its fans than to the current players/staff. I think it's stupid to send a team from one city to another under the same moniker in these types of circumstances. Leaving the history, records, and names behind is a must in a situation like CLE-BAL since Cleveland was promised the next expansion team.

But I will agree that it is dumb to pretend the expansion team is the same team. The Browns never returned, they started anew. The Ravens aren't the Browns either though, they just had a few seasons worth of players from the old Browns. So they certainly don't deserve records more than the people with real ties to the team, the fans.

Please. A sports team is a business entity first and foremost. They are a private enterprise, not some pseudo-communal entity "the fans" own (except for the Packers). The Browns don't have this deep meaningful connection that you just don't see in other cities. That kind of mystical Cleveland bs got tired months ago.

The Browns, as an organization, picked up, moved to Baltimore, and became the Ravens. Cleveland got a new expansion team masquerading as the Browns of old. The original Browns, as a private entity, should have had the right to take their identity and history with them. The owned that, not "the fans."

As for Baltimore Fan, he's being the most reasonable here regarding the other side of this argument. All I have to say about what he posted is that if the Browns had kept their name, colours, and history I think Baltimore would have accepted them. Indy fans accepted the Colts. Phoenix fans accepted the Cardinals. I think the Baltimore Browns would have been accepted in due time (probably around the time they won the Super Bowl ).

The Tampa Bay Rays are kind of an interesting case. On one hand, yes they need to move. They're one of the best teams in MLB and they can't sell out their stadium. Something's wrong there. On the other hand Tropicana Field is an absolute dive. Honestly, I can see otherwise willing fans being turned off by that stadium. So I can't bring myself to condemn the Rays in the Tampa Bay area until they have a stadium that's worth going to.

Of course if that happens they'll either be financially committed to staying in the market, or will be on an iron-clad lease that won't let them move for 25 years.

Indeed. Which is what makes the situation there so probable. On one hand the current crappy stadium MAY be the problem. On the other hand if a new stadium is built and the market is a bust, well they're stuck there. So kind of a no-win situation there. Ultimately I have to agree with the consensus and say move 'em.

[-Akronite-]

I didn't suggest Cleveland is the only city with a real connection to a team. And I'm sure an owner (who hasn't been with the team as long as that city has) who was willing to skip town with a historic team had all the right in the world to take his business properties like old sports records. Look, he can keep financial records if he's so worried about his business, but what is Jim Brown's record moving to Baltimore going to do to his business in Baltimore?

If you feel that he has a right to take a part of a city's history and move it away, I find it odd. What part of the Browns identity did he need in Baltimore? Nothing, he just needed to take a team and take to a place with more resources so he could win games. In a harsh business-sensed world, he did what he needed to do. But taking the Browns identity would've done nothing for him, so what's the problem with leaving it where it belongs?

I mean, are you a sports fan? Do you not care about your teams? Would you follow a team to another city? I'm just not sure what perspective you would come from that would support ripping a part of a city's identity away from it.

[BaltimoreFan]

I didn't suggest Cleveland is the only city with a real connection to a team. And I'm sure an owner (who hasn't been with the team as long as that city has) who was willing to skip town with a historic team had all the right in the world to take his business properties like old sports records. Look, he can keep financial records if he's so worried about his business, but what is Jim Brown's record moving to Baltimore going to do to his business in Baltimore?

If you feel that he has a right to take a part of a city's history and move it away, I find it odd. What part of the Browns identity did he need in Baltimore? Nothing, he just needed to take a team and take to a place with more resources so he could win games. In a harsh business-sensed world, he did what he needed to do. But taking the Browns identity would've done nothing for him, so what's the problem with leaving it where it belongs?

I mean, are you a sports fan? Do you not care about your teams? Would you follow a team to another city? I'm just not sure what perspective you would come from that would support ripping a part of a city's identity away from it.

I get what you are saying. This is something that some fans who haven't experienced a team leaving can't always understand. The city cares deeply about the records, history, etc. of the team when it played there. But I don't see why the legal history matters. The NFL could say what ever it wants, the fans in the city will recognize what they have experienced. Baltimore still cares very much about the Baltimore Colts history. There's a Johnny Unitas statue outside of the stadium and a bunch of former players are recognized in the ring of honor. We could care less what the NFL's history books say.

With that said, I do think it is stupid and sort of unprofessional for NFL and any other league to alter the team history. The Cleveland/Baltimore history just looks ridiculous on paper. It almost makes you forget the history of what really happened. I know they did it to appease fans in Cleveland, but I don't understand why. As I've said before Baltimore fans would never recognize the Browns history, and Cleveland fans would. Why does it have to written down for it to be official?

[IceCap]

I didn't suggest Cleveland is the only city with a real connection to a team. And I'm sure an owner (who hasn't been with the team as long as that city has) who was willing to skip town with a historic team had all the right in the world to take his business properties like old sports records. Look, he can keep financial records if he's so worried about his business, but what is Jim Brown's record moving to Baltimore going to do to his business in Baltimore?

Simple. The legal entity, the private enterprise that Jim Brown played for picked up stakes and moved to Baltimore. They have the right to take the history with them.

If you feel that he has a right to take a part of a city's history and move it away, I find it odd. What part of the Browns identity did he need in Baltimore? Nothing, he just needed to take a team and take to a place with more resources so he could win games. In a harsh business-sensed world, he did what he needed to do. But taking the Browns identity would've done nothing for him, so what's the problem with leaving it where it belongs?

The history doesn't belong to the city of Cleveland. It doesn't belong "to the fans." It belongs to the team, a private entity. The fans are just along for the ride. If the ride stops because business is more profitable somewhere else, tough :censored:. They're allowed to move, and they're allowed to take their historical records with them. It's their company. To pretend that the current Ravens AREN'T the Browns who "suspended" operations after the 1995 season is just silly. Of course they're the old Browns.

I mean, are you a sports fan? Do you not care about your teams? Would you follow a team to another city? I'm just not sure what perspective you would come from that would support ripping a part of a city's identity away from it.

I love this reaction. Lets look at the teams I'm a fan of. The Toronto Maple Leafs. The second most historically significant team in the NHL with a fan/media/merchandising empire that spans the most populous portion of Canada. They're not going anywhere. The Toronto Blue Jays. Owned by one of Canada's largest media companies, based in Toronto. Not going anywhere. San Diego Chargers. I'm a fan of the team for reasons not connected to the city of San Diego. I would feel bad for the fans of San Diego if they moved, but it would have no baring on my support for the team. The Hamilton Tiger-Cats looked to bolt, but really as long as they're in southern Ontario it's all good. It looks like they've patched things up with the city of Hamilton anyway, so all's well on that front. The only team of mine that is in risk of moving from my "home market" is the Toronto Raptors, and 1) they still draw decent to pretty good attendance wise and 2) I'm not that much of a fan of the NBA anyway. If they moved it really wouldn't be any skin of my back. I would probably just switch my allegiance to the Suns and call it a day. So this "HOW WOULD YOU FELL?" thing doesn't really work on me.

Of course I'm a sports fan. The difference between you and me is that you seem under the delusional belief that a team's success and history belongs to the city and fans. It does not. It belongs to the legal, private entity that is the team. Of course this whole "IT BELONGS TO US" mentality exists everywhere, but it seems Clevelanders are the most vocal/adamant about it. If you really want to "own" part of the history and legacy of the hometown team move to Green Bay and buy stock in the Packers.

[DustDevil61]

I've already covered my position on the Browns situation, so I won't say any more on it.

However, as Broncos games have top televising priority here in Utah, there didn't seem to be too many people at that stadium in Jacksonville, even before the storm. Did anybody else notice that? Looks like everybody stayed home to watch the game when they realized that it would be "sold out."

The delay wasn't for lightning; it was to give all the fans extra time to get to the stadium.

[DustDevil61]

Well, scratch the Islanders off the list, until 2015.

[JMROWE]

NHL.

Coyotes - Winnipeg

Thrashers - Hamilton

Panthers - Kansas City

Expansion - Quebec City

Expansion - Portland

NFL.

Jaguars - Los Angeles

NBA.

Clippers - Las Vegas

[jrh31584]

Apologies for the massive bump, but I think it preferable to further cluttering the board.

I have been looking at which markets are over- or under-represented by professional sports just based on population, and I've had some issues regarding which markets should be split up or combined. For example, going by the Census Bureau's definition of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, San Francisco and Oakland are one area, with San Jose in a separate MSA, while the Inland Empire (at over 4 million, would be the largest metro area with a pro sports franchise) is considered separate from Los Angeles/Orange County; Boulder, Colorado is considered separate from Denver, and Raleigh and Durham are counted separately. If one goes by Combined Statistical Areas, Daytona Beach would be considered part of the Orlando metropolitan area and Providence part of Boston. Determining what to combine or split seems a bit arbitrary and I'm not sure what to use as a criterion for what defines a market; I don't want to be seen as "biased" for or against a specific region. What does everyone think?

[winters in buffalo]

Apologies for the massive bump, but I think it preferable to further cluttering the board.

I have been looking at which markets are over- or under-represented by professional sports just based on population, and I've had some issues regarding which markets should be split up or combined. For example, going by the Census Bureau's definition of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, San Francisco and Oakland are one area, with San Jose in a separate MSA, while the Inland Empire (at over 4 million, would be the largest metro area with a pro sports franchise) is considered separate from Los Angeles/Orange County; Boulder, Colorado is considered separate from Denver, and Raleigh and Durham are counted separately. If one goes by Combined Statistical Areas, Daytona Beach would be considered part of the Orlando metropolitan area and Providence part of Boston. Determining what to combine or split seems a bit arbitrary and I'm not sure what to use as a criterion for what defines a market; I don't want to be seen as "biased" for or against a specific region. What does everyone think?

In most cases, you're probably better off going with the CSA and DMA, which should closely align. Several major media markets have multiple MSAs, but it would be foolish to treat them separately for media-driven businesses like sports franchises.

[dfwabel]

Apologies for the massive bump, but I think it preferable to further cluttering the board.

I have been looking at which markets are over- or under-represented by professional sports just based on population, and I've had some issues regarding which markets should be split up or combined. For example, going by the Census Bureau's definition of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, San Francisco and Oakland are one area, with San Jose in a separate MSA, while the Inland Empire (at over 4 million, would be the largest metro area with a pro sports franchise) is considered separate from Los Angeles/Orange County; Boulder, Colorado is considered separate from Denver, and Raleigh and Durham are counted separately. If one goes by Combined Statistical Areas, Daytona Beach would be considered part of the Orlando metropolitan area and Providence part of Boston. Determining what to combine or split seems a bit arbitrary and I'm not sure what to use as a criterion for what defines a market; I don't want to be seen as "biased" for or against a specific region. What does everyone think?

Never use population for "worthiness". Nearly one year ago, I presented the articles from Portilfio.comtalked about cities and their ability to get a franchise based on total personal income against "available personal income". There are threads about it here for the last 12 months.

There are other factors aside from media size which impacts where a team could consider new markets. In the NBA, teams are under marketing restrictions to the radius in which they can broadcast games (~150 miles) and advertise in print or other traditional advertising (~75 miles). It does not include new media and how one can monitorize such opportunities.

[DustDevil61]

It's looking more like the Kings at this point (older story, I know), unless Kevin Johnson has some magic up his sleeve. That and the facts that no team is likely to move during an NFL lockout, and that Bettman and the BoG insists keeping a failing product where it is.