New team, same state?

[Chevy114]

After hearing someone say new york housed three teams in the past and now have two, I was wondering. If they had to put another major league baseball team in your state, where would it be? Some states have the population numbers, land size, or enough distaste toward the current team; that they could have another team. So lets forget contraction and go to town!

I would say in Florida that Jacksonville might be able to keep a major league team. They have an nfl team and seem to have a semi loyal fan base, with miami and tampa competing with them. Granted it would probably be a small market team, but sometimes those are the most fun to watch.

Also with Jacksonville being at lest 3 and half hours away from Tampa, its hard to get them to come rays games. They might be able to capture some semi big cities like Tallahassee, st. agustine, and daytona, which are all within 2 hours or less of Jacksonville.

[Lafferty Daniel]

Jacksonville is Braves territory.

[Chevy114]

Jacksonville is Braves territory.

WikiAnswers says that its 346 miles or about 5 hours apart, a little far to be a fan if you have home team.

[Lafferty Daniel]

There are a lot of Twins fans in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Eastern Montana. All of those places are much farther than 5 hours.

Jacksonville is also too small of a market. I think Raleigh/Fayetteville would be a better market for MLB.

[TnNYYfan]

The Braves are basically like "the" team of the south. I live in Knoxville and most people follow the Braves or Cubs (thanks to WGN).

[Danielh41]

There was some talk of the Marlins moving to San Antonio, but that is pretty much dead now.

But if someone were to add a team to Texas, San Antonio would be the natural choice, although Austin might come in a close second. The triple-A Round Rock Express is doing very well in the Austin area.

[Yoda]

I think Illinois is all tapped out between the Cubs, Sox and the Cards in the south.

I don't think Rockford or Naperville (which now has a bigger population than Rockford) are big enough to house a team.

Though it'd be nice if they raze Wrigley to the ground and be forced to build it in the Western burbs.

[PeteU]

Jacksonville is a little bit of a smaller market, but it is growing rapidly. I'd say within 20 years it might be considerable as a major league market. There's been a lot of movement to Jacksonville in the past 10-20 years.

And while it technically is considered within Braves territory, it is far enough away that should it be considered for a team down the road, the Braves argument for rights to the area would be questionable at best.

Jacksonville is actually best suited for the NFL now due to the revenue sharing arrangement in that league, which allows small market teams (Jacksonville, Green Bay, Nashville, Buffalo, New Orleans) to complete on the same level as large market teams (New York, Chicago, Los Ang--oh wait, never mind that one. :) ) Major League Baseball doesn't have those protections so a MLB team in Jax right now would probably be at a disadvantage.

But like I said, should the city continue to grow over the next two decades, it may very well become a prime MLB market.

And one thing Jacksonville does have is a terrific minor league ballpark:

http://www.surfacetoairmedia.com/wedding/site/images/bbgrounds.jpg

(And it's in one the most underrated cities in the country. I like that city a lot.)

I don't think it was built to be expandable to major league specs like Pilot Field in Buffalo was, but nonetheless, if you are in the Northeast Florida area, you must check it out.

[Yoda]

That looks like a fine ballyard.

[MarcianoNY]

Lets be real for a minute here: Why the heck would the MLB consider another Florida team when the Marlins and the Rays routinely occupy two of the bottom 3 brackets in attendance, even in the Marlins' two championship seasons? They would have to be high.

[six4three]

Lets be real for a minute here: Why the heck would the MLB consider another Florida team when the Marlins and the Rays routinely occupy two of the bottom 3 brackets in attendance, even in the Marlins' two championship seasons? They would have to be high.

True enough. Florida has so far been a disaster (Jacksonville hasn't been any great shakes in the NFL, to be fair).

As far as my city, if MLB was to add another team, it'd have to be in Brooklyn. :D

[PeteU]

Lets be real for a minute here: Why the heck would the MLB consider another Florida team when the Marlins and the Rays routinely occupy two of the bottom 3 brackets in attendance, even in the Marlins' two championship seasons? They would have to be high.

True for now. Twenty years down the road, with both the Marlins and Rays being more established and in new ballparks, things might be different. Florida teams typically take a while to "take", but they eventually will.

(As for Jacksonville and the Jaguars, Jacksonville actually has been pretty supportive of the Jaguars for a city of its size. The reason for the blackouts has been the fact they built the stadium much larger than the market for GA-FL and Super Bowl purposes.)

[six4three]

We'll see. If two championships doesn't cause a team to "take," then I don't know what will. And I thought baseball in Miami was an obvious choice. Instead, we're treated to a tired litany of excuses about why Florida doesn't support big league ball.

As to the NFL, Jacksonville can't even fill the stadium when they block off huge groups of seats. They don't even have to fill the seats with bodies on game day, merely allocate the tickets. If local companies can't buy the surplus tickets, then the city isn't supporting the team.

[the_Bored]

I've always thought that Buffalo needed a team.

[MarcianoNY]

I agree 100%. If a city doesn't support a team, they don't deserve a franchise. Maybe if people would've shown up during those world series runs, the owners wouldn't have been so inclined to dump the team down the toilet the next year. If anything, Florida should lose a team and prove that they can support one franchise before anything else is considered. Being a New Yorker and Yankee fan, I realize this might come off as a bit chauvinistic but its the truth. Especially, I think "rapid-growth" areas, though tempting, are dangerous for baseball. I'm probably talking out of my you-know-what but I think because MLB has been around much longer than the NBA or NFL, it's much more difficult to build a fan base. In Florida there are a lot of longtime Yankee fans. In Arizona, at least in Phoenix, there are a lot of ex-New Yorkers, LA fans, etc. They're never gonna switch to an expansion team. I realize that Arizona has done much better than Florida, but last year my brother at ASU was able to get NLCS tickets on the street for $5, and they still didn't come close to filling the park.

[MarcianoNY]

Unfortunately, Buffalo's population has been falling precipitously for years. They can support an NFL team because of two things: revenue sharing and a dedicated fanbase. The Bills have been there from the ground floor, so to speak. A new MLB team would have a tough time poaching Yankee fans, and that goes for anywhere in the Yankees media network.

[Williamsburg2599]

For Massachusetts, I would have to say either the Springfield or Worcester, but I doubt either would work.

[TnNYYfan]

Unfortunately, Buffalo's population has been falling precipitously for years. They can support an NFL team because of two things: revenue sharing and a dedicated fanbase. The Bills have been there from the ground floor, so to speak. A new MLB team would have a tough time poaching Yankee fans, and that goes for anywhere in the Yankees media network.

I would assume there are a lot of Jays fans as well.

[MarcianoNY]

I would assume there are a lot of Jays fans as well.

There's definitely a smattering of Blue Jay fans, but I lived in Buffalo for a little bit and most people identify themselves firmly as Western New York, not "Canada-South" or anything like that. You get into that whole rivalry thing with the hockey teams and nobody wants to be Canadian. Also, being within the Yankees radio/tv network trumps pretty much everything.

[PeteU]

We'll see. If two championships doesn't cause a team to "take," then I don't know what will. And I thought baseball in Miami was an obvious choice. Instead, we're treated to a tired litany of excuses about why Florida doesn't support big league ball.



Attendance truly became a problem for the Marlins only after the fire sale, which came almost immediately after the 1997 series. That was soon followed by rumors of contraction (as far fetched as it might have been, it was still a big story), which was followed by rumors of relocation, which was followed by the selling of the team to Jeff Loria, who had previously decimated the Expos. The 2003 championship provided something of a bump in attendance, but there were still ever-present concerns as to the long term status of the team in South Florida. Followed by another sell-off of major players.

Bottom line is that the Marlins have barely had time to consider themselves a "stable" franchise. Even when the team is doing well, there's always been something of a black cloud hanging over the team. There are numerous factors as to why attendance has struggled, but I say far and away the percieved lack of stability and questions about the future of the franchise has been the major factor. Hopefully, a new ballpark and a nice long term contract for Hanley Ramirez will go a long way in changing that perception.

As for Jacksonville, the majority of Jaguars games were sold out last year, and those that were not missed the blackout cut-off only by a couple thousand at most. Ideally, the Jaguars should have a stadium of 61,000-62,000 for a market of their size. For whatever reason, Jaguars ownership gives the stadium a capacity of 68,000--maybe they didn't want too many tarps or whatever.

[six4three]

The 2003 championship provided something of a bump in attendance

Meaning attendance went from "flat-out pathetic" to "just plain awful":

2001: 1,261,226 (15,765 per game average), 29th in the majors
2002: 813,118 (10,038 per game average), 29th
2003: 1,303,215 (16,290 per game average), 28th
2004: 1,723,105 (22,091 per game average), 26th (there's your high-water mark - they beat four other teams at the box office!)
2005: 1,823,388 (22,792 per game average), 28th
2006: 1,165,120 (14,384 per game average), last in the majors
2007: 1,370,511 (16,919 per game average), last in the majors

So yes, they did have a bit of a bump. But the Marlins still stayed at the very bottom of the list, even when they were winning it all.

Yeah, Jeff Loria was a jerk in Montreal. Sure, the contraction talk hurt. But come on. There's just no valid excuse for these numbers.

I really want them to turn it around. But the history's not good.

[PeteU]

So yes, they did have a bit of a bump. But the Marlins still stayed at the very bottom of the list, even when they were winning it all.

Yeah, Jeff Loria was a jerk in Montreal. Sure, the contraction talk hurt. But come on. There's just no valid excuse for these numbers.



When the prior history of the team is that the best players are all on short-term loan, and you don't have much of a chance to form a long-term loyalty with your favorite players, I think that's a pretty good excuse as to those numbers.

Either a longterm lack of stabilty or a longterm lack of performance will inhibit an otherwise healthy market. A great case in point would be my American League team, the Baltimore Orioles, who once had sellouts on a daily basis and now are routinely drawing in the teens. Now, it's a different situation than the Marlins, but you can't just write off a market by claiming low attendance means a shortage of good baseball fans in the market. There will be peaks and valleys depending on external factors. Marlins fans have just unfortunately been thrown a rather long curve ball.

A key test for Marlins ownership will be if they can sign Hanley Ramirez and some of their other young talent (Willingham, Uggla, etc.) to long term deals. The excuse from the Marlins front ownership previously has been that the Marlins aren't stable enough for such long term deals. However, now with a new stadium with a long term lease on the horizon, there's nothing in the way to stop that from happening.

Now, I don't predict Marlins attendance to automatically go to a situation where sellouts are occurring on a daily basis, but I don't think there's anything that will stop them from at least drawing the league average once the new stadium opens and once ownership is more liberal with its pursestrings.

[Yoda]

Meaning attendance went from "flat-out pathetic" to "just plain awful":

2001: 1,261,226 (15,765 per game average), 29th in the majors
2002: 813,118 (10,038 per game average), 29th
2003: 1,303,215 (16,290 per game average), 28th
2004: 1,723,105 (22,091 per game average), 26th (there's your high-water mark - they beat four other teams at the box office!)
2005: 1,823,388 (22,792 per game average), 28th
2006: 1,165,120 (14,384 per game average), last in the majors
2007: 1,370,511 (16,919 per game average), last in the majors

So yes, they did have a bit of a bump. But the Marlins still stayed at the very bottom of the list, even when they were winning it all.

Yeah, Jeff Loria was a jerk in Montreal. Sure, the contraction talk hurt. But come on. There's just no valid excuse for these numbers.

I really want them to turn it around. But the history's not good.


So what are you advocating? Moving the team? Contracting?

[Williamsburg2599]

So what are you advocating? Moving the team? Contracting?

I believe he's advocating two teams is more than enough for Florida.

[BlueCrew08]

the only city in Arizona that would be large enough would be Tucson, they do have a Triple A team there. But MLB would probably consider Portland, Charlotte, San Antonio, even Las Vegas before thinking of Tucson.

If they did put a team in Tuscon I would propose that the Diamondbacks change their name to the Phoenix Diamondbacks and let Tuscon use "Arizona" because using Tuscon in the name would make the name still sound minor league.

[six4three]

When the prior history of the team is that the best players are all on short-term loan, and you don't have much of a chance to form a long-term loyalty with your favorite players, I think that's a pretty good excuse as to those numbers.


So attendance is pathetic because the team is bad, but when the team wins a world championship attendance is pathetic because they don't win it in the right way? That just doesn't make any sense.

If the fans were really attached to those favorite players, they wouldn't have been avoiding the ballpark so avidly from 2001-2003.

[marlins739]

Keep in mind that the Marlins really sucked up until mid-May of 2003, when they fired Jeff Torborg, hired Jack McKeon, and called up Dontrelle, and later, Cabrera. And no matter how the team's playing, it will always be rainy, muggy, and hot at the Dolph

[MarcianoNY]

What about Indianapolis? Thats a pretty big city not to have a major league team.

[Sean O]

Keep in mind that the Marlins really sucked up until mid-May of 2003, when they fired Jeff Torborg, hired Jack McKeon, and called up Dontrelle, and later, Cabrera. And no matter how the team's playing, it will always be rainy, muggy, and hot at the Dolph

Last night it was 30 degrees and raining at Fenway, and I didn't see any of the 39,000 people leaving. There comes a time that these excuses no longer work.

[MarcianoNY]

And no matter how the team's playing, it will always be rainy, muggy, and hot at the Dolph

Jeezz... If its so muggy and terrible in Florida then why don't people retire to North Dakota? Out of curiousity, I would be interested in seeing attendance numbers of home playoff games for the Marlins in 1997 and 2003. I wonder if they even sold out those games.

[Yoda]

What about Indianapolis? Thats a pretty big city not to have a major league team.

They have an affiliate of the Pirates there.

[aqib]

As for Jacksonville, the majority of Jaguars games were sold out last year, and those that were not missed the blackout cut-off only by a couple thousand at most. Ideally, the Jaguars should have a stadium of 61,000-62,000 for a market of their size. For whatever reason, Jaguars ownership gives the stadium a capacity of 68,000--maybe they didn't want too many tarps or whatever.

Or maybe a market that size shouldn't have an NFL team. Now keep in mind Jacksonville is larger than many NFL cities and with the reduced capacity it still has only the 19th largest stadium and still can't sell out. If you can't do better that 61-62K you don't deserve a team. Especially one that has been as successful on the field as the Jaguars have. The team has had two coaches, had winning seasons 8 times in 13 years, 6 playoff births, 2 division titles, but their problem is that the stadium is too big.

Maybe Floridians aren't good sports fans? How many different markets have to flop in different sports before we realize that Florida isn't a good sports state. Or are you going to come up with more excuses?

[RuthMayBond]

Jeezz... If its so muggy and terrible in Florida then why don't people retire to North Dakota? Out of curiousity, I would be interested in seeing attendance numbers of home playoff games for the Marlins in 1997 and 2003. I wonder if they even sold out those games.

Gotta love the first one :rofl: They had 21 regular season games with more attendance than it :rofl:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/FLO/FLO199710010.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/FLO/FLO199710120.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/FLO/FLO200310030.shtml

[mojorisin71]

All the prime markets in California are taken. Fresno is the largest city without a pro team, but really, who wants to go to Fresno in 110-degree heat in the summer? It's also a 4-hour drive from both Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Their AAA park is nice, even if the Giants' top prospects play there.

[mojorisin71]

Maybe Floridians aren't good sports fans? How many different markets have to flop in different sports before we realize that Florida isn't a good sports state. Or are you going to come up with more excuses?

I always thought the Dolphins and Hurricanes have had a huge following.

[RoastedPeanut]

East Rutherford.. Imagine if the Cliff Hawks were a concept of the MLB..

[Reds41]

I always thought the Dolphins and Hurricanes have had a huge following.

The Buccaneers and to some degree, the Lightning have huge followings in the Tampa Bay area.

[Manhattan]

The Buccaneers and to some degree, the Lightning have huge followings in the Tampa Bay area.
What about Orlando? I need to know if there will be a major league baseball team in Orlando,FL.?

[MNAFETSC]

They have an affiliate of the Pirates there.

I don't see that as a major hurdle. Pretty much every realistic candidate for a team has a AAA team already. I may be bias but I think Hampton Roads would be a good place. It far enough from DC/Balt and Atlanta not to take away any regular fans. It's only serious sports competition would be ODU football and basketball.

[Captain Cold Nose]

So attendance is pathetic because the team is bad, but when the team wins a world championship attendance is pathetic because they don't win it in the right way? That just doesn't make any sense.

If the fans were really attached to those favorite players, they wouldn't have been avoiding the ballpark so avidly from 2001-2003.

The fans aren't going to support a team where the ownership doesn't care about anything but a short term payout. They find it hard to root for "an investment".

If the ownership is stable, and has some sort of community focus, the fans will come out in Florida. Call it resentment, but it's there. The Panthers hockey teams draws pretty well in a place where hockey arguably shouldn't even be in the first place. That's why spring training games are such draws, and not just because Mr and Mrs and Timmy and Tammy are vacationing there.

[PeteU]

What about Orlando? I need to know if there will be a major league baseball team in Orlando,FL.?

Probably not, unless it is the Tampa Bay Rays that are the team that's moving. It's too close to the Tampa Bay area (1-1.5 hours) for two teams to be in the same area.

Besides, cities that are primariliy tourist cities aren't typically the best for sports teams. Everyone thinks that tourists will go to the ballpark on their spare time, but to be honest most of them are too preoccupied by the tourist traps they came for to think about something that they likely have in their home metropolitian area.

[aqib]

I always thought the Dolphins and Hurricanes have had a huge following.

Not huge. The phins had a lot of empty seats this year. I remember when I lived down there they had to extend the blackout deadline for a playoff game, and this is when there were no Panthers, Marlins, or Heat and the Dolphins were the reigning AFC Champs. They didn't even sell out the last game at the Orange Bowl. The Canes are up and down as well, we'll see what happens when they move to Dolphin Stadium this year but my guess is attendence will go down

[PeteU]

Or maybe a market that size shouldn't have an NFL team. Now keep in mind Jacksonville is larger than many NFL cities and with the reduced capacity it still has only the 19th largest stadium and still can't sell out. If you can't do better that 61-62K you don't deserve a team. Especially one that has been as successful on the field as the Jaguars have. The team has had two coaches, had winning seasons 8 times in 13 years, 6 playoff births, 2 division titles, but their problem is that the stadium is too big.

Maybe Floridians aren't good sports fans? How many different markets have to flop in different sports before we realize that Florida isn't a good sports state. Or are you going to come up with more excuses?

The City of Jacksonville is a large city in terms of square miles but the metropolitian area is still pretty small compared to other media markets (although rapidly growing). The reason for this is that Jacksonville and Duval County are one in the same, making it the largest city landwise in the United States, but far from the largest in terms of actual population.

You say a stadium of 61,000-62,000 is too small for the NFL, but you conveniently forget New Soldier Field, located in the third largest market in the country. Its capacity? 61,500.

The NFL views Jacksonville as a long term investment. It gave a team to it as a smaller market knowing it was rapidly growing and that eventually it would be a much larger market. Now, Flagler County just south of Jacksonville is one of the most rapidly growing counties in the United States (if not the most rapidly growing counties). They are building an entirely new town named Nocatee on the outskirts of Jacksonville which will have 30,000 new people just at its inception. (All of this is actually quite depressing from a personal standpoint because the Northeast Florida area is so beautiful and you hate to see so much new growth and sprawl come in, but the point remains that it is a very attractive and hot spot to live and it is bringing in a lot of new residents every year because of that.) I think the NFL knew that there would be some growing pains issues in Jacksonville but that down the road you would be looking at a much larger market for which a fan base to exist.

[Chevy114]

The way I look at baseball in Flroida is you have to give them 20 years. Thats enough time for young people to leech on to the team, grow up, and raise their kids as fans. It's even harder in Florida since you have so many trasnplanted new yorkers trying to tell everyone the rays sucks don't cheer for them.

Also its unfair to compare the marlins to other teams, since they are not only new but play in a crappy shared stadium too. Fans usually seem to convert if things are better on the other side, but having a crappy stadium with really hot weather isn't going to win other teams fans over.

Does Jacksonville deserve a team based on the other two teams in Florida, no not yet. But by the time the rays hit my 20 year prediction so should the jags and that will be a better beromiter.

[stlfan]

What about Indianapolis? Thats a pretty big city not to have a major league team.

Indianapolis might be a good idea. I know there is no other team in the state. The problem is that most people there are either Cardinals fans or maybe Cubs fans. I don't know because I am not from the area. But I do know that Cardinals territory stretches at least to half way across the state of Indiana. The eastern half of the state might be either Indians fans or Reds fans.

[Shadly]

The problem with this is that baseball allegiance doesn't adhere to state lines to much. They were talking about putting in a team in North Jersey when the Marlins were contemplating a move. If you look at where everyone's loyalties fall in the region, there isn't much room for Major League Baseball in New Jersey. Someone mentioned the fact that there are minor league affiliates in certain towns that would negate any major league team that moved there. I don't think that is much of an issue, as you'd probably side with a major league team in your backyard than a team that just keeps there rookies and wounded there. The only places I could see as being suitable for expansion right now would be places like Memphis, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, maybe Portland, New Orleans (that would be an interesting rivalry with Houston if they were in the same division). The most ripe region for expansion would have to be Canada. Oh Canada! But this is even tricky, as you would have to usurp the Canadian Baseball League.

[whoisonit]

I would like to see a team in southern Connecticut or northern New Jersey. The tri-state area could easily support another franchise.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Indianapolis might be a good idea. I know there is no other team in the state. The problem is that most people there are either Cardinals fans or maybe Cubs fans. I don't know because I am not from the area. But I do know that Cardinals territory stretches at least to half way across the state of Indiana. The eastern half of the state might be either Indians fans or Reds fans.

The Indians has their AAA team in Indianapolis for quite a while. And Cincinnati is pretty close. The flagship station, 700 WLW, comes in very clearly throughout the state, it sure sounded clean in Evansville. As does KMOX of St. Louis. It is indeed a fairly divided state.

[stlfan]

The Indians has their AAA team in Indianapolis for quite a while. And Cincinnati is pretty close. The flagship station, 700 WLW, comes in very clearly throughout the state, it sure sounded clean in Evansville. As does KMOX of St. Louis. It is indeed a fairly divided state.

KMOX doesn't matter anymore. The Cardinals switched to KTRS in 2006 when the team bought the radio station. But the team still has an extensive network of affiliate stations throughout the midwest and parts of the south that broadcast games. KTRS doesn't have as far carrying of a signal that KMOX has.

[PeteU]

The way I look at baseball in Flroida is you have to give them 20 years. Thats enough time for young people to leech on to the team, grow up, and raise their kids as fans. It's even harder in Florida since you have so many trasnplanted new yorkers trying to tell everyone the rays sucks don't cheer for them.

Also its unfair to compare the marlins to other teams, since they are not only new but play in a crappy shared stadium too. Fans usually seem to convert if things are better on the other side, but having a crappy stadium with really hot weather isn't going to win other teams fans over.

Does Jacksonville deserve a team based on the other two teams in Florida, no not yet. But by the time the rays hit my 20 year prediction so should the jags and that will be a better beromiter.

An accurate assessment. Let's not forget the Tampa Bay Bucanneers, now a stable and well-supported franchise but once the joke of the NFL.

Florida is an interesting state because it is a growing state and in flux. Loyalties will come around, but they will take time to grow. It's not New York where people have lived in the same area for generation after generation.

[Chevy114]

An accurate assessment. Let's not forget the Tampa Bay Bucanneers, now a stable and well-supported franchise but once the joke of the NFL.

Florida is an interesting state because it is a growing state and in flux. Loyalties will come around, but they will take time to grow. It's not New York where people have lived in the same area for generation after generation.

Again similar to the marlins, the bucs had a cheap owner who wouldn't spend the money in the right places for years. He wouldn't get the key free agents we needed and that really made people so mad that they wouldn't go to bucs games. Espically when he tried to black out home games because there weren't sell outs.

Florida is definately a growing state and slowly getting better attendence, but thats a great example of if the city trusts that the owners will do everything they can to put a winner on the field and wont move the team the fans respond with going to games.

[six4three]

Um, New York has one of the largest percentages of foreign-born citizens in the country.

Add in the vast numbers of people who move to Gotham from within the United States, and you're talking about a very mobile market. Not the rooted generations of which you speak. Maybe in the suburbs, but the city itself is the heart of the fan base.

[PeteU]

Um, New York has one of the largest percentages of foreign-born citizens in the country.

Add in the vast numbers of people who move to Gotham from within the United States, and you're talking about a very mobile market. Not the rooted generations of which you speak. Maybe in the suburbs, but the city itself is the heart of the fan base.

I'm not saying they've been living in the same homes all their lives. You've had significant suburban migration. But a lot of people in the New York area have lived in the same area for years.

On the other hand, New York is not retirement central, if you know what I mean.

[Toy Boat]

There's definitely a smattering of Blue Jay fans, but I lived in Buffalo for a little bit and most people identify themselves firmly as Western New York, not "Canada-South" or anything like that. You get into that whole rivalry thing with the hockey teams and nobody wants to be Canadian. Also, being within the Yankees radio/tv network trumps pretty much everything.

Are the Yankees the only team shown in Buffalo? That would seem strange as Toronto is much closer. Also, I wonder how the league would justify one NY team being shown there and not the other.

[Reds41]

Probably not, unless it is the Tampa Bay Rays that are the team that's moving. It's too close to the Tampa Bay area (1-1.5 hours) for two teams to be in the same area.

Besides, cities that are primarily tourist cities aren't typically the best for sports teams. Everyone thinks that tourists will go to the ballpark on their spare time, but to be honest most of them are too preoccupied by the tourist traps they came for to think about something that they likely have in their home metropolitan area.

+100

People that go on vacation find touristy things to do. They can go to the ballgame at home.

They might go to a game, but you want a stable fan base, not a transient one.

[Reds41]

Indianapolis might be a good idea. I know there is no other team in the state. The problem is that most people there are either Cardinals fans or maybe Cubs fans. I don't know because I am not from the area. But I do know that Cardinals territory stretches at least to half way across the state of Indiana. The eastern half of the state might be either Indians fans or Reds fans.

Between the Reds, Cubs, White Sox, Cardinals and Tigers, Indianapolis is pretty well soaked up.

[PeteU]

+100

People that go on vacation find touristy things to do. They can go to the ballgame at home.

They might go to a game, but you want a stable fan base, not a transient one.

Hence, no major league sports team in Las Vegas....

[MarcianoNY]

Between the Reds, Cubs, White Sox, Cardinals and Tigers, Indianapolis is pretty well soaked up.

Yeah but you have to wonder whether they wouldn't want their own team. We get all the White Sox and Cubs games here in Milwaukee, but that doesn't mean people like those teams. On the contrary, most Wisconsinites hate all things Illinois and Minnesota. I think if someone wanted to start an Indianapolis franchise, they could exploit that neighboring state rivalry thing to good effect.

[stlfan]

Yeah but you have to wonder whether they wouldn't want their own team. We get all the White Sox and Cubs games here in Milwaukee, but that doesn't mean people like those teams. On the contrary, most Wisconsinites hate all things Illinois and Minnesota. I think if someone wanted to start an Indianapolis franchise, they could exploit that neighboring state rivalry thing to good effect.

I think Indy would make a great rivalry for the NL Central. Problem is the NL Central is overloaded as it is. It's the only MLB division with 6 teams, while in the AL West you only have 4. I think this is the reason why people see the NL Central as a joke, because the division is harder to win since you have more competition.

[aqib]

The City of Jacksonville is a large city in terms of square miles but the metropolitian area is still pretty small compared to other media markets (although rapidly growing). The reason for this is that Jacksonville and Duval County are one in the same, making it the largest city landwise in the United States, but far from the largest in terms of actual population.

You say a stadium of 61,000-62,000 is too small for the NFL, but you conveniently forget New Soldier Field, located in the third largest market in the country. Its capacity? 61,500.

The NFL views Jacksonville as a long term investment. It gave a team to it as a smaller market knowing it was rapidly growing and that eventually it would be a much larger market. Now, Flagler County just south of Jacksonville is one of the most rapidly growing counties in the United States (if not the most rapidly growing counties). They are building an entirely new town named Nocatee on the outskirts of Jacksonville which will have 30,000 new people just at its inception. (All of this is actually quite depressing from a personal standpoint because the Northeast Florida area is so beautiful and you hate to see so much new growth and sprawl come in, but the point remains that it is a very attractive and hot spot to live and it is bringing in a lot of new residents every year because of that.) I think the NFL knew that there would be some growing pains issues in Jacksonville but that down the road you would be looking at a much larger market for which a fan base to exist.

13 freaking years with 8 winning seasons and a host of playoff births is enough time to build a fan base. Population wise its a bigger city than many other cities that are doing a better job supporting their teams. Come to Cleveland, one of the worst economies in the country, population losses, always close to the top of the poorest cities in the country list, 3 winning seasons in the last 18 years, three seasons without a team, and we sell out every game in a 73,000 seat stadium. Never mind the fact we have 3 major league sports teams to support. Detroit worst economy in the country supports 4 major league franchises.

Yes you are right I forgot Soldier Field, but it is that size because of space contraints not the market not being able to support a team. You could put a second team in Chicago and it will sell out. 1.3 million people in the freaking metropolitan area and you can't get 70,000 people 8 times a year for a freaking playoff team. Its rapidly getting to the point that the NFL admit its mistake and send them to LA or San Antonio or any city that actually deserves a team

[PeteU]

13 freaking years with 8 winning seasons and a host of playoff births is enough time to build a fan base. Population wise its a bigger city than many other cities that are doing a better job supporting their teams. Come to Cleveland, one of the worst economies in the country, population losses, always close to the top of the poorest cities in the country list, 3 winning seasons in the last 18 years, three seasons without a team, and we sell out every game in a 73,000 seat stadium. Never mind the fact we have 3 major league sports teams to support. Detroit worst economy in the country supports 4 major league franchises.

Yes you are right I forgot Soldier Field, but it is that size because of space contraints not the market not being able to support a team. You could put a second team in Chicago and it will sell out. 1.3 million people in the freaking metropolitan area and you can't get 70,000 people 8 times a year for a freaking playoff team. Its rapidly getting to the point that the NFL admit its mistake and send them to LA or San Antonio or any city that actually deserves a team

You're not listening to me. Don't look at the size of the core city, look at the size of the market. And if you look at the size of the market, Jacksonville is the 2nd smallest market in the NFL, and probably the smallest if you want to consider Milwaukee as part of Green Bay's market. But as I say, for a market of its size, I think Jacksonville is doing just fine, and will continue to grow its fan base as the market grows. Again, you are talking about a long term investment for the NFL.

And I'm not disagreeing with you that Chicago could probably have a second NFL team and sell out the stadium. My point is that the second smallest market in the NFL has a larger stadium to fill than the second largest market, so all things considered, even if the Jaguars fall 1,000-3,000 short of a sellout, it still is a decent showing considering market size.

Let me further break down the numbers for you to illustrate the point. Jacksonville is currently a market of approximately 1.3 million people. The current capacity for Jaguars games is 68,000. That means in order to have a sellout, roughly 5.2% of people in the metro area have to come out to the game. So that means on any given Sunday, one out of every 20 residents of the Greater Jacksonville Metropolitian area must be in the stadium for it to be a sellout.

Now, Chicago is a metro area of approximately 9.5 million. Its stadium seats 61,500. That means in order for Chicago to get a sellout, all it need is about 0.6% of its markets residents to come out to the game. Or one out of every 167 people.

(FYI, For your home market of Cleveland, with a population of 2.9 million and a 73,200 seat stadium to fill, the numbers work out to about 2.5%)

Now, given people's financial and time limitations (and remember it costs a lot more for a NFL ticket than a MLB ticket), that 68,000 people do come out to Jaguars games on a regular basis, and if not that, only a couple of thousand less than that amount, all in all that's not too bad.

And I have to admit I got a good laugh out of the last sentence of your post. Oh, the irony....

[MarcianoNY]

umm... Milwaukee is DEFINITELY a part of Green Bay's market, lol.

[MNAFETSC]

umm... Milwaukee is DEFINITELY a part of Green Bay's market, lol.

If I recall correctly I think at least one (maybe two) home game's tickets are sold exclusively in Milwaukee.

[aqib]

You're not listening to me. Don't look at the size of the core city, look at the size of the market. And if you look at the size of the market, Jacksonville is the 2nd smallest market in the NFL, and probably the smallest if you want to consider Milwaukee as part of Green Bay's market. But as I say, for a market of its size, I think Jacksonville is doing just fine, and will continue to grow its fan base as the market grows. Again, you are talking about a long term investment for the NFL.

And I'm not disagreeing with you that Chicago could probably have a second NFL team and sell out the stadium. My point is that the second smallest market in the NFL has a larger stadium to fill than the second largest market, so all things considered, even if the Jaguars fall 1,000-3,000 short of a sellout, it still is a decent showing considering market size.

Let me further break down the numbers for you to illustrate the point. Jacksonville is currently a market of approximately 1.3 million people. The current capacity for Jaguars games is 68,000. That means in order to have a sellout, roughly 5.2% of people in the metro area have to come out to the game. So that means on any given Sunday, one out of every 20 residents of the Greater Jacksonville Metropolitian area must be in the stadium for it to be a sellout.

Now, Chicago is a metro area of approximately 9.5 million. Its stadium seats 61,500. That means in order for Chicago to get a sellout, all it need is about 0.6% of its markets residents to come out to the game. Or one out of every 167 people.

(FYI, For your home market of Cleveland, with a population of 2.9 million and a 73,200 seat stadium to fill, the numbers work out to about 2.5%)

Now, given people's financial and time limitations (and remember it costs a lot more for a NFL ticket than a MLB ticket), that 68,000 people do come out to Jaguars games on a regular basis, and if not that, only a couple of thousand less than that amount, all in all that's not too bad.

And I have to admit I got a good laugh out of the last sentence of your post. Oh, the irony....

No I am listening to you. And I was looking up metro areas when citing my numbers. BTW to get to 2.9 million for the Cleveland Metro area you have to go pretty much to the PA border. Its more like 2 million if you consider the real metropolitan area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropolitan_areas

Now that being said keep in mind we are also supporting an MLB franchise and an NBA franchise all despite being one of the hardest hit regions economically this decade. You have 1 major league team in that market and no college football.

As for it being a long term investment for the NFL since when does the NFL make long-term investments. You think the NFL will really wait around for the market to get their in 10 years? How many times has the NFL left a market only to return a few years later (St. Louis, Cleveland, Houston). YOu better hope it grows fast because 60K people for a playoff team isn't going to satisfy the NFL for long. Keep in mind the reason Jacksonville got the team to begin with is St Louis and Baltimore had their bids fall apart at the last second.

[six4three]

If I recall correctly I think at least one (maybe two) home game's tickets are sold exclusively in Milwaukee.

Home game tickets aren't exactly sold, what with the 30-year waiting list and all.

Milwaukee fans who had season tickets to watch the Packers in their two regular season games when they played in Milwaukee (from 1933-1994) now have season tickets to the corresponding two games at Lambeau.

[PeteU]

No I am listening to you. And I was looking up metro areas when citing my numbers. BTW to get to 2.9 million for the Cleveland Metro area you have to go pretty much to the PA border. Its more like 2 million if you consider the real metropolitan area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropolitan_areas

Now that being said keep in mind we are also supporting an MLB franchise and an NBA franchise all despite being one of the hardest hit regions economically this decade. You have 1 major league team in that market and no college football.

As for it being a long term investment for the NFL since when does the NFL make long-term investments. You think the NFL will really wait around for the market to get their in 10 years? How many times has the NFL left a market only to return a few years later (St. Louis, Cleveland, Houston). YOu better hope it grows fast because 60K people for a playoff team isn't going to satisfy the NFL for long. Keep in mind the reason Jacksonville got the team to begin with is St Louis and Baltimore had their bids fall apart at the last second.

Well, if you were listening about metro areas, then you would of course know that Jacksonville has the smallest metro area of all the 32 teams in the NFL (second smallest if you count Green Bay without Milwaukee). So your point that Jacksonville "[p]opulation wise [is] a bigger city than many other cities that are doing a better job supporting their teams" doesn't carry any real water.

As for the notion that Jacksonville has "1 major league team in that market and no college football", you do know that Gainesville is just a short drive down US 301 from Jacksonville, right? Not to mention the Seminoles, which are only a couple of hours away, and who also have countless fans in the region. College football is big business in Northeast Florida. I'm not sure I get your point as to all of it, but the statement itself isn't very accurate.

Finally, it is pretty clear that the NFL did want to invest in Jacksonville when they awarded the expansion team in 1993. I know this because I was living in the Baltimore area in 1993 and I know people were upset because Baltimore always had a rock-solid bid for the expansion team, whereas Jacksonville had some stadium funding issues and actually suspended its bid for a brief time over the issue. However, the NFL still saw it fit to award franchises to two new growing cities, Charlotte and Jacksonville, over two cities which had previously had NFL teams before (St. Louis and Baltimore). (Of course, in the long run of things Baltimore was probably best suited not winning the expansion derby, as the team they did end up with won the Super Bowl in 2001. So all was well that ended well for Baltimore.) Neither the St. Louis bid nor the Baltimore bid fell apart at the last moment in 1993. The NFL clearly wanted to tap into growing and unexplored markets, and Jacksonville fit the bill.

[MNAFETSC]

Home game tickets aren't exactly sold, what with the 30-year waiting list and all.

Milwaukee fans who had season tickets to watch the Packers in their two regular season games when they played in Milwaukee (from 1933-1994) now have season tickets to the corresponding two games at Lambeau.

I knew it was something like that. I know about the 30 year wait for season tickets but the Packers don't sell any indivdual game tickets? I know the Skins do it that way, one of the reasons I'm not much of a fan anymore- price out those who can't afford season tickets and force them to buy way above face value on stubhub.

[stlfan]

However, the NFL still saw it fit to award franchises to two new growing cities, Charlotte and Jacksonville, over two cities which had previously had NFL teams before (St. Louis and Baltimore). (Of course, in the long run of things Baltimore was probably best suited not winning the expansion derby, as the team they did end up with won the Super Bowl in 2001. So all was well that ended well for Baltimore.) Neither the St. Louis bid nor the Baltimore bid fell apart at the last moment in 1993. The NFL clearly wanted to tap into growing and unexplored markets, and Jacksonville fit the bill.

Not to mention St. Louis won the Superbowl for the 1999 season. I feel the same way. Had we not been hosed in the expansion bid, our city wouldn't have celebrated a Superbowl victory.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Yeah I'm from Indiana. I'm more towards northwest by Lafayette. Actually, I'm almost exactly halfway between Chicago and Indianapolis. Around here, someone is a Cubs/White Sox/Cardinals fan already. Then you got Reds/Tigers and possibly Indians in other areas of Indiana. It would be nice to have one in Indianapolis, but I doubt it'll work. Maybe down the road in the future maybe(I would like to see it someday). If we have one in Indianapolis, then it needs to be in the AL Central and KC or Twins goes to AL West or completely redo the divisions altogether. Also I don't know where you would build the stadium at around Indianapolis suburbs exactly as well by the interstates.

[MNAFETSC]

Yeah I'm from Indiana. I'm more towards northwest by Lafayette. Actually, I'm almost exactly halfway between Chicago and Indianapolis. Around here, someone is a Cubs/White Sox/Cardinals fan already. Then you got Reds/Tigers and possibly Indians in other areas of Indiana. It would be nice to have one in Indianapolis, but I doubt it'll work. Maybe down the road in the future maybe(I would like to see it someday). If we have one in Indianapolis, then it needs to be in the AL Central and KC or Twins goes to AL West or completely redo the divisions altogether. Also I don't know where you would build the stadium at around Indianapolis suburbs exactly as well by the interstates.

I doubt the actual city of Indy would be enthusiastic about funding a new stadium right after the new colts stadium.

[Yankees2k6]

I doubt the actual city of Indy would be enthusiastic about funding a new stadium right after the new colts stadium.

They could just put the baseball team at colts stadium

[MNAFETSC]

They could just put the baseball team at colts stadium

True but can football stadiums that were constructed without baseball in mind be configured that way?

[The Splendid Splinter]

True but can football stadiums that were constructed without baseball in mind be configured that way?

You probably could within the stadium, but it would be a horrible MLB stadium and probably cheaper to just bulldoze it/build a new one. It would be like Rays or Twins stadium, but probably worse. Also it would be a dome. It would be cool to put a MLB stadium where RCA Dome was though. Right in downtown around everything and easy to get to. The thing is... I don't know what the land where RCA Dome is going to be after the new stadium is opened. Is it going to become a parking lot or something else? Does anybody know what the plans are for the lot that the RCA Dome is on?

Also if it somehow magically happens, what would be the name/mascot? Indiana Farmers? hahaha Our mascot name could be Jimmy Crack Corn. But it's just a dream right now. I don't think Indianapolis will have a MLB team anytime soon. There's other cities that would be better off having a MLB before Indianapolis.

[MNAFETSC]

The thing is... I don't know what the land where RCA Dome is going to be after the new stadium is opened. Is it going to become a parking lot or something else? Does anybody know what the plans are for the lot that the RCA Dome is on?



If I remember correctly my dad (lives in Indy) said its going to converted into a convention center.

One place that is never talked about really but I think would make a great place is Puerto Rico.

[aqib]

Well, if you were listening about metro areas, then you would of course know that Jacksonville has the smallest metro area of all the 32 teams in the NFL (second smallest if you count Green Bay without Milwaukee). So your point that Jacksonville "[p]opulation wise [is] a bigger city than many other cities that are doing a better job supporting their teams" doesn't carry any real water.

As for the notion that Jacksonville has "1 major league team in that market and no college football", you do know that Gainesville is just a short drive down US 301 from Jacksonville, right? Not to mention the Seminoles, which are only a couple of hours away, and who also have countless fans in the region. College football is big business in Northeast Florida. I'm not sure I get your point as to all of it, but the statement itself isn't very accurate.

Finally, it is pretty clear that the NFL did want to invest in Jacksonville when they awarded the expansion team in 1993. I know this because I was living in the Baltimore area in 1993 and I know people were upset because Baltimore always had a rock-solid bid for the expansion team, whereas Jacksonville had some stadium funding issues and actually suspended its bid for a brief time over the issue. However, the NFL still saw it fit to award franchises to two new growing cities, Charlotte and Jacksonville, over two cities which had previously had NFL teams before (St. Louis and Baltimore). (Of course, in the long run of things Baltimore was probably best suited not winning the expansion derby, as the team they did end up with won the Super Bowl in 2001. So all was well that ended well for Baltimore.) Neither the St. Louis bid nor the Baltimore bid fell apart at the last moment in 1993. The NFL clearly wanted to tap into growing and unexplored markets, and Jacksonville fit the bill.

Other than Green Bay (if you don't count Milwaukee), Jacksonville is the only franchise in the NFL that doesn't have any other major league franchises in its city if you are going to count UF and FSU in the Jacksonville sports market than I could count Ohio State, Michigan, and half the MAC Conference.

The fact remains that the lack of attendence given the lack of competition and the onfield success of the team since its attendence puts it on the top of the list of teams to move.

As for the Baltimore expansion bid falling apart read Glory For Sale by Baltimore writer Jon Morgan. It documents the whole expansion process.

[PeteU]

The fact remains that the lack of attendence given the lack of competition and the onfield success of the team since its attendence puts it on the top of the list of teams to move.



Hardly. Newer stadium with lots of modern amenities (that even had some additional recent upgrades in the past few years), owner invested in the local community, growing market....there are a lot more teams that could much more realistically move than the Jaguars. Saints, Vikings, Raiders and Chargers (and even possibly the Bills or 49ers, as strange as that might seem) are teams that immediately pop to mind.

The attendance issues are there, but as I mention, for a market its size, it really hasn't been that bad. Should the Jacksonville market continue to grow in the fashion that it has been, I would probably expect to see less and less attendance issues in the future.

I have read Glory for Sale, but again, Baltimore's bid never actually fell apart. Whether there was some horsetrading behind the doors may be a different matter, but Baltimore always had a solid bid for an expansion team.

[BeatEmBucs]

I have read Glory for Sale, but again, Baltimore's bid never actually fell apart. Whether there was some horsetrading behind the doors may be a different matter, but Baltimore always had a solid bid for an expansion team.

Exactly. But I find it kinda humorous an Oriole fan would defend the existence of the Jacksonville Jaguars. The NFL flat out screwed Baltimore in the 1993 expansion, so Baltimore fought back by coercing Mr.Modell to move one of the most storied franchises in the NFL to Baltimore. I kinda look at it as a "2 wrongs" approach, the NFL was wrong for letting the Colts leave in the middle of the night in March of 1984, and wrong for not putting an expansion team in Baltimore in 1993, but since the NFL "made their bed" with those 2 atrocities, they had no choice in the Browns leaving, of course the Browns got to keep their name and records, Baltimore got no such benefit. The Indianapolis franchise should've been forced to change their name like the "old browns" did. I find it sick that in the official NFL record books, Peyton Manning is "breaking" Johnny Unitas' records. The Indianapolis records should be seperate from Baltimore's records (same goes for the Expos/Nationals records in MLB)
IMO Jacksonville is a smaller-scale Baltimore and is as worthy of an NFL team as Memphis is of an NBA team. John Steadman wrote a pretty good book "From Colts to Ravens" that details the Baltimore side of the '93 Expansion Screwjob, as well as the deal to get the NFL back in Baltimore, as well as some other Colts/Ravens stories as well.

[PeteU]

Exactly. But I find it kinda humorous an Oriole fan would defend the existence of the Jacksonville Jaguars. The NFL flat out screwed Baltimore in the 1993 expansion, so Baltimore fought back by coercing Mr.Modell to move one of the most storied franchises in the NFL to Baltimore. I kinda look at it as a "2 wrongs" approach, the NFL was wrong for letting the Colts leave in the middle of the night in March of 1984, and wrong for not putting an expansion team in Baltimore in 1993, but since the NFL "made their bed" with those 2 atrocities, they had no choice in the Browns leaving, of course the Browns got to keep their name and records, Baltimore got no such benefit. The Indianapolis franchise should've been forced to change their name like the "old browns" did. I find it sick that in the official NFL record books, Peyton Manning is "breaking" Johnny Unitas' records. The Indianapolis records should be seperate from Baltimore's records (same goes for the Expos/Nationals records in MLB)
IMO Jacksonville is a smaller-scale Baltimore and is as worthy of an NFL team as Memphis is of an NBA team. John Steadman wrote a pretty good book "From Colts to Ravens" that details the Baltimore side of the '93 Expansion Screwjob, as well as the deal to get the NFL back in Baltimore, as well as some other Colts/Ravens stories as well.

There's no doubt that Baltimore got the short end of the stick in the 1993 derby. But I think it was pretty clear that the NFL wanted to make its presence known in new, growing markets in the Sunbelt, and as good as Baltimore's package was, it just couldn't offer that. So instead, it was forced to go the back alley route.

But like I said, but-for Baltimore being passed over in the 1993 derby, the Ravens would not have come to town and there would have been no Superbowl 35 victory in 2001. (Besides, Ravens is a much cooler name than Bombers, which is what the Baltimore expansion team would have been.) Having to get the team from Cleveland stunk, but I know that even if Modell would have wanted to keep the Browns name and history, Baltimore fans would not have stood for it knowing the Colts fiasco. And just as alls well that ended well for Baltimore, alls well that ended well for Cleveland in the end--new stadium, same name and history, and no Modell.

So why is the Baltimore fan standing up for Jacksonville? First and foremost, it's a great city with a lot of pride about the city. It's a city that is constantly improving itself aand bettering itself. And it's pretty interesting watching it gradually grow from a smaller city to a larger one--like I said, in 20-30 years you may very well see Major League Baseball or another major league sport in town.

But more importantly, I think it's important to put into context the current size of the market before people try to dismiss it. For a smaller market, they do pretty well all things considered. And I only see things getting better for them.

[aqib]

that ended well for Baltimore, alls well that ended well for Cleveland in the end--new stadium, same name and history, and no Modell.



Yeah it ended up so well for us. Lets see we had no football for three years, got the shortest amount of time to put together a team in the modern history of the NFL, and the team had the following records 2-14, 3-13, 7-9, 9-7, 5-11, 4-12, 6-10, 4-12, 10-6. Meanwhile the team that left us has a Super Bowl. So it all ending for us has about as much validity as your arguments about strong fan support for the Marlins and Jags.

[Yankees2k6]

You probably could within the stadium, but it would be a horrible MLB stadium and probably cheaper to just bulldoze it/build a new one. It would be like Rays or Twins stadium, but probably worse. Also it would be a dome. It would be cool to put a MLB stadium where RCA Dome was though. Right in downtown around everything and easy to get to. The thing is... I don't know what the land where RCA Dome is going to be after the new stadium is opened. Is it going to become a parking lot or something else? Does anybody know what the plans are for the lot that the RCA Dome is on?

Also if it somehow magically happens, what would be the name/mascot? Indiana Farmers? hahaha Our mascot name could be Jimmy Crack Corn. But it's just a dream right now. I don't think Indianapolis will have a MLB team anytime soon. There's other cities that would be better off having a MLB before Indianapolis.

Lucas Oil Field is actually a conventional stadiums

[PeteU]

Yeah it ended up so well for us. Lets see we had no football for three years, got the shortest amount of time to put together a team in the modern history of the NFL, and the team had the following records 2-14, 3-13, 7-9, 9-7, 5-11, 4-12, 6-10, 4-12, 10-6. Meanwhile the team that left us has a Super Bowl. So it all ending for us has about as much validity as your arguments about strong fan support for the Marlins and Jags.

Three years is nothing. Especially considering that by February 1996, you already were awarded the expansion Browns to begin play in 1999. So really you are talking about four months without a franchise.

Browns fans were able to put together a great campaign and won the rights to the Browns name and team history, an unprecedented deal. That speaks great volumes towards the dedication of Cleveland football fans. And that was the right thing to do by the NFL--the Browns name and history belonged in Cleveland.

Plus, you got a brand new, modern stadium (one that even avoids having a corporate name slapped on it), and you were free from the ownership of the man who moved the original Browns franchise, so you didn't have that cloud over your head.

Listen, I'm sorry that the Browns haven't had much success since 1999, but your city rallied around and got a team back within a matter of months, one that uniquely had the old team's name and history attached to it. Trust me, Baltimore football fans (who had to wait 12 years for another team and who are still suffered with the indignity of seeing Johnny Unitas in the Indianpolis Colts section of the Football Hall of Fame) would have loved for a deal like that. I'd say that all in all it was a pretty good result for Cleveland football fans.

[metsfan123]

Lets be real for a minute here: Why the heck would the MLB consider another Florida team when the Marlins and the Rays routinely occupy two of the bottom 3 brackets in attendance, even in the Marlins' two championship seasons? They would have to be high.

I dunno man, NY has jets, giants, buffalos, and they are not that far from where the patriots play compared to buffalo/nyc. I think if the finances are there attendance wise and sponsor wise, go for it. We need more kids having athletic role models to go out and fight the flab. I think some of the gulf states may be too poor for a MLB team, save one or 2 cities, like little rock, new orleans, maybe even jackson... All depends on what MLB decides to do. All i know is i want more teams, make things more interesting, and allow for more people to be pro ball players.

- Andy

[Yoda]

I'm pretty sure it'd more interesting if there are less teams.


Eliminating a few teams would mean more quality players to go around.

[metsfan123]

I'm pretty sure it'd more interesting if there are less teams.


Eliminating a few teams would mean more quality players to go around.

And increase ticket prices, unavailability of tv coverage for displaced fans bla bla bla. I want at least 4 more teams per leauge, maybe make a 4th division, east, central, mountain, pacific... to fit them... I think baseball and going to games should be more accessible not less. More stadiums also means more venues for things like concerts, which bring in serious moolah to wherever they are located. Plus, the fewer housing developments the better, at least ballparks are not using electricity when they are not being used, unlike a house.

- Andy

[Astros4Life]

some possibilities in Texas would be San Antonio, Austin, in a few years elpaso maybe, ft. worth is a good size city but i dont see a team there as the rangers play in arlington...right now a team would do well in either san antonio or austin

[MarcianoNY]

All i know is i want more teams, make things more interesting, and allow for more people to be pro ball players.

- Andy

No, it means more delinquent franchises get welfare checks from the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox for owners who are often much wealthier than Steinbrenner to pad their pockets with, or blow at the racetrack, on hookers, or whatever those owners do besides spending it on their teams. As a Mets fan, you should realize that the higher your payroll goes (and you are catching up to us), the more you are supporting selfish pricks who don't give a damn about the fans. Besides the fact that playoffs are getting way too drawn-out, and if we add a couple more teams it'll be Christmas by the time we get around to the World Series. I hate how every sport is encroaching further and further into another sport's season, and part of that is the fact that there are too many teams, especially in the NBA and in baseball.

[Manhattan]

No, it means more delinquent franchises get welfare checks from the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox for owners who are often much wealthier than Steinbrenner to pad their pockets with, or blow at the racetrack, on hookers, or whatever those owners do besides spending it on their teams. As a Mets fan, you should realize that the higher your payroll goes (and you are catching up to us), the more you are supporting selfish pricks who don't give a damn about the fans. Besides the fact that playoffs are getting way too drawn-out, and if we add a couple more teams it'll be Christmas by the time we get around to the World Series. I hate how every sport is encroaching further and further into another sport's season, and part of that is the fact that there are too many teams, especially in the NBA and in baseball.
Could there be a major league baseball team in Rochester,New York?

[metsfan123]

No, it means more delinquent franchises get welfare checks from the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox for owners who are often much wealthier than Steinbrenner to pad their pockets with, or blow at the racetrack, on hookers, or whatever those owners do besides spending it on their teams. As a Mets fan, you should realize that the higher your payroll goes (and you are catching up to us), the more you are supporting selfish pricks who don't give a damn about the fans. Besides the fact that playoffs are getting way too drawn-out, and if we add a couple more teams it'll be Christmas by the time we get around to the World Series. I hate how every sport is encroaching further and further into another sport's season, and part of that is the fact that there are too many teams, especially in the NBA and in baseball.

Then the solution would be a modified schedule, and more oversight. Before the omalley ripped the dodgers out of brooklyn they had a pretty different season than when the dodgers played their first season and vs the schedules used today. Imagine no west coast teams, no diamondbacks, padres, mariners, athletics, angels.... Poor folks out west didn't get a world series till when? I think with the right planning it could & should be done, even if it meant for the time being playing at minor league parks for a season to see how it works out. Not saying its practical, i dont know everything about the logistics of baseball franchises, but its something i would be interested in seeing.

- Andy

[MarcianoNY]

Could there be a major league baseball team in Rochester,New York?
I honestly doubt it. Actually, I'll go ahead and say no way. The fact is that every major city in upstate NY besides Albany is declining in population and economic growth. I think there would be little incentive for a Major League franchise to be created in a city with negative growth. Also, like I've said before about Buffalo, which is even further from NYC, you already have the Yankees pretty much firmly established as New York State's team, with some Mets fans and a handful of other teams, as can be expected. The reason the Mets have been embraced is they filled a void for the NL fans in New York. There's no void now. Personally I don't think you could have another team IN New York State. Maybe Jersey, or Connecticut, but I think NY is tapped out personally. It would be like starting another team in Boston, which is definitely big enough market-wise to support two teams: who's gonna jump ships from the Red Sox? Probably no one.

[stlfan]

My opinion on the matter is there are too many teams as it is. Part of my reason for losing interest in hockey has nothing to do with the strike a few years back. It has to do with the fact that there are too many teams and too many rounds of playoffs. Too many teams are allowed in that have no business being in the post season. They, along with the NBA have playoffs that seem to last 2 months. I don't want to see baseball go the same route.

The playoff system they have now is fine. I like the inclusion of a Wild Card team. I won't lie, it has added some unpredictability to the MLB Playoffs as well as excitement. But if you add more rounds and let more teams make it into the playoffs, it cheapens it for those teams that battled all year and earned it. If MLB adds more teams, this is what they would have to do. I loved it when I heard about contraction years ago.

There are many cities in this country that don't have a MLB team but do have Minor League teams, and they have a great following and love it. In my opinion I am a little bit jealous of those cities because they get cheaper ticket/concession prices and get to see baseball in more of a pure form where players care more about the game and getting playing time than caring about their image and $$$.

[PeteU]

I don't think right now is the best time to either add new teams, nor certainly not the best time to contract either.

My guess is that we probably won't see another expansion round for about 15 years or so. Nor will we see a contraction, ever. As it should be.

[aqib]

Three years is nothing. Especially considering that by February 1996, you already were awarded the expansion Browns to begin play in 1999. So really you are talking about four months without a franchise.

Browns fans were able to put together a great campaign and won the rights to the Browns name and team history, an unprecedented deal. That speaks great volumes towards the dedication of Cleveland football fans. And that was the right thing to do by the NFL--the Browns name and history belonged in Cleveland.

Plus, you got a brand new, modern stadium (one that even avoids having a corporate name slapped on it), and you were free from the ownership of the man who moved the original Browns franchise, so you didn't have that cloud over your head.

Listen, I'm sorry that the Browns haven't had much success since 1999, but your city rallied around and got a team back within a matter of months, one that uniquely had the old team's name and history attached to it. Trust me, Baltimore football fans (who had to wait 12 years for another team and who are still suffered with the indignity of seeing Johnny Unitas in the Indianpolis Colts section of the Football Hall of Fame) would have loved for a deal like that. I'd say that all in all it was a pretty good result for Cleveland football fans.

Actually it wasn't decided we would get an expansion team until early 98 and the NFL then dragged out the owner wasn't picked until September of 98. Prior to the expansion decision every team needing a new stadium was using Cleveland as leverage. Tampa, Detroit, Seattle, Denver, and Cinci all got new stadiums using Cleveland. Indy got RCA dome renovations and others also made threats. By dragging out the ownership decision we then had no time to assemble a front office to get a decent scouting staff together. In essence we were set up to fail. As for getting the new stadium, its not like that was a gift, we had to foot the bill in taxes and PSLs.

[Chevy114]

A few quick points.

Alls well that ends well for the browns and baltimore? If modell didn't want to own the browns or be in cleveland, he should have sold the team to someone who wanted it. Jeffery Loria did it with the expos, he didn't want them so he sold them and bought a team he liked better. So then Baltimore gets that championship that clevland deserved. By the way Cleveland still has never won a superbowl and hasn't won a league championship since 1964.

As for Baltimore, they wouldn't have hurt so bad, seeing how both jacksonville and carolina both made their league championship games in only their 2nd season. Carolina then made it to the Superbowl a few years later. So Baltimore wouldn't have to live with the guilt that they just did it with cleveland's team or the guilt of being hypocrits. Don't get me wrong I am happy that all 4 cities worked out, but it wasn't the best situation for baltimore or cleveland if you asked me.

For Jacksvonille and carolina , the nfl did what what they always do when making an expansion team, go for the fast growing cities. I also think the nfl did the a better job than the mlb who is trying to turn already proven large cities into baseball towns i.e. tampa and miami and now they are looking stupid for coming around too late and having an uphill battle now. Just look at this list of the teams and the times they were let in the nfl and tell me they didn't nail some winners:
Dallas Cowboys - 1960
Minnesota Vikings - 1961
Miami Dolphins - 1966
Atlanta Falcons - 1966
New Orleans Saints - 1967
Cincinnati Bengals - 1968
Seattle Seahawks - 1976
Tampa Bay - 1976
Jacksonville Jaguars - 1995
Carolina Panthers - 1995
Houston Texans - 2002

I dare say over half of those teams have die hard fans now, so why not see if Jacksonville becomes the next dallas, miami, or seattle. The only difference between jville and those other nfl teams is that jville didn't let their stadium grow WITH their population, they are letting the population grown INTO their stadium. Unorthodox by all means, but the way the city is growing, not unfesable either. I feel like they got to preform a large quality expansion to their stadium while it was cheap and they get to make up the funds by hosting the superbowl every few years. Not bad if you ask me.

Quick question, I read that cleveland offered numerous times to build a dome stadium for the browns that always seemed to fall one or two votes short while modell still had the team in cleveland. Does anyone know what that dome would have looked like?

[aqib]

A few quick points.

Quick question, I read that cleveland offered numerous times to build a dome stadium for the browns that always seemed to fall one or two votes short while modell still had the team in cleveland. Does anyone know what that dome would have looked like?

There was an issue on the ballot sometime in the 80s to build a dome for both the Browns and Indians that didn't pass. Which was good, because it would have been obsolete by the late 90s like all the 70s/80s domes (Silverdome, Metrodome, etc.). Modell had asked for a major refurbishing of the old Stadium, which was on the ballot and passed with almost 80% of the vote. He announced the move the day before the vote, therein lies the rub.

There was talk of putting a dome on the new stadium and the NFL promised a Super Bowl if we did. The thing was it would have cost an extra $100 million which the city really didn't have and it would have taken an extra year to build and a 3 year hiatus was bad enough. The rush in planning also hurt, many thought and still do that the new stadium should have been in a different part of the city rather than right on the lake, so the Lakefront could be used for other things.

[PeteU]

As for Baltimore, they wouldn't have hurt so bad, seeing how both jacksonville and carolina both made their league championship games in only their 2nd season. Carolina then made it to the Superbowl a few years later. So Baltimore wouldn't have to live with the guilt that they just did it with cleveland's team or the guilt of being hypocrits. Don't get me wrong I am happy that all 4 cities worked out, but it wasn't the best situation for baltimore or cleveland if you asked me.



True, but had Baltimore and/or St. Louis gotten the expansion team in 1993 and Jacksonville and/or Charlotte been left out in the cold, chances are the original Browns would have still moved, just probably to Jacksonville or Charlotte. (As would have the Los Angeles Rams). So either way, you probably would have seen the team move.

What happened was probably the best out of a bad situation--Cleveland was without a team for 3 years, but that's not too bad knowing how long some cities are without teams. And they kept their name and team history. The Ravens may have won a Super Bowl a few years later, but that's one of those things that just happens in pro sports--you never know when a team will make a run at the title. Knowing the NFL and the way things are structured via the salary cap, I think it is only a matter of time before the Browns eventually make it to a Super Bowl or win a Super Bowl.

[jC...]

What I want to know is how these expansion teams get fans. I live in northern NY and have always been a Yankee fan. I would find it hard to believe that ,even if they put a team across the street from my house that I would change my allegience. If there are any fans of expansion teams...who were you a fan of before? Especially Baltimore Ravens fans. Did the old-timers stay Colts fans all those years? Did the younger fans become Redskin fans? Or did you just not care?

[PeteU]

What I want to know is how these expansion teams get fans. I live in northern NY and have always been a Yankee fan. I would find it hard to believe that ,even if they put a team across the street from my house that I would change my allegience. If there are any fans of expansion teams...who were you a fan of before? Especially Baltimore Ravens fans. Did the old-timers stay Colts fans all those years? Did the younger fans become Redskin fans? Or did you just not care?

Considering that the Baltimore Colts marching band never disbanded after 1984 (and became the Baltimore Ravens marching band), and that "Colts Corrals" (fan clubs) continued long after the last Mayflower truck pulled away, I would say Baltimore fans never gave up on the Baltimore Colts.

In their absence, some rooted for other teams, but most just anticipated the NFL's return. (They did root for the CFL Stallions for their two year tenure in town). Not a whole lot took up the Redskins--there's always been a major cultural divide between DC and Baltimore, and with Baltimore fans always suspecting that Redskin's owner Jack Kent Cooke was trying to block a team in Baltimore (much like Peter Angelos later tried to block a baseball team in DC), there wasn't much incentive to root for the Skins.

When the NFL came back to town, obviously the old Colts fans adopted the Ravens as their own. There still is a split as to if Baltimore could get back the old Colts name would they take it, but most would be simply happily just retiring it (or even something as simple as splitting the history of the Baltimore Colts and the Indianapolis Colts.)

[Chevy114]

What I want to know is how these expansion teams get fans. I live in northern NY and have always been a Yankee fan. I would find it hard to believe that ,even if they put a team across the street from my house that I would change my allegience. If there are any fans of expansion teams...who were you a fan of before? Especially Baltimore Ravens fans. Did the old-timers stay Colts fans all those years? Did the younger fans become Redskin fans? Or did you just not care?

I can't speak for what happens when a team moves, but when you get a new team you just keep trying to have the best promotions and put a winning team on the field. If they fans for another team come, good job, if not then you just convience the kids to grow up fans for the local team and slowly grow a fanbase.

The real question is how long does it take to build a franchise out of an expansion team? The issue is neither football or baseball has had an expansion team since 1977 when the blue jays were let in. It wasn't until 1993 that we saw any expansion teams again with the rockies and marlins. So no one can really gage in the modern era of having every team on tv with dish network and mlb.tv how long it takes to build a fanbase. back in the 70s and earlier when you added teams you didn't see the same team on tv everytime and were forced to read the papers. So I think it was easier to convert fans over, but now its going to take a while for the 4 teams made in the 90s to get there.

[six4three]

No, it means more delinquent franchises get welfare checks from the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox for owners who are often much wealthier than Steinbrenner to pad their pockets with, or blow at the racetrack, on hookers, or whatever those owners do besides spending it on their teams.

I'm forced to agree.

Carl Pohlad has been lining his pockets with revenue sharing - he certainly hasn't been putting that money back into his club.

[six4three]

True, but had Baltimore and/or St. Louis gotten the expansion team in 1993 and Jacksonville and/or Charlotte been left out in the cold, chances are the original Browns would have still moved, just probably to Jacksonville or Charlotte. (As would have the Los Angeles Rams).

I don't believe that.

Frontiere had a personal connection to St. Louis. I'm not convinced that she would have left LA if the Gateway City hadn't been available, especially when she was about to have the City of Angels all to herself....

[Chevy114]

I don't believe that.

Frontiere had a personal connection to St. Louis. I'm not convinced that she would have left LA if the Gateway City hadn't been available, especially when she was about to have the City of Angels all to herself....

Im still not sure how st. louis a better football market then la, is there something im missing?

[Reds41]

--Cleveland was without a team for 3 years,

Best 3 years a Bengals fan could wish for.

I despise the Ravens and everything about their existence.

[PeteU]

I despise the Ravens and everything about their existence.

Their existence since 1996? Because in theory the Baltimore Ravens have no franchise history prior to 1996.

In fact, the arrangement with Cleveland was that the Browns franchise was merely suspended from 1996-99 and reactivated in 1999. Therefore, while Baltimore was getting all the Browns players, the Ravens were viewed as a de facto expansion team, and the Browns got to keep all of their history and identity. That's a deal that was unprecedented prior to 1996 and since 1996. (And a just deal, may I add, but one that unfortunately has not been afforded to any other team in major league professional sports.)

And FWIW, the first two years of the Ravens existance, they actually played like an expansion team.

So what is it about the Ravens existence that you don't like?

[PeteU]

I don't believe that.

Frontiere had a personal connection to St. Louis. I'm not convinced that she would have left LA if the Gateway City hadn't been available, especially when she was about to have the City of Angels all to herself....

You think there may have been some collusion by Frontiere to not award St. Louis an expansion team in 1993? I know speculation was ripe about Baltimore...

In the end, it is interesting that Jacksonville, Charlotte, Baltimore, St. Louis and Memphis were all finalists for an NFL expansion team in 1993, and within a couple of years the first four would have teams via expansion or relocation, and while Memphis would not be the permanent home for the relocated Houston Oilers (although it would be a temporary home), the State of Tennessee benefited as well.

[six4three]

You think there may have been some collusion by Frontiere to not award St. Louis an expansion team in 1993? I know speculation was ripe about Baltimore...


Not at all. And FWIW, I don't believe there was any collusion to exclude Baltimore, either. There's always speculation when fans don't get what they want - there are currently rumors floating about that Rattner is colluding with Brooklyn for a sweetheart deal to move the Nets at the same time that there are rumors flying about that Rattner that is colluding with New Jersey for a sweetheart deal to keep the Nets there.

My point was that Georgia moved the Rams to her hometown. I know that she was openly shopping the team before that, but at the time it sure seemed like posturing. The second team to move from Los Angeles would have been in a very strong negotiating position, but Al Davis wasn't interested. If he had announced his move a month before she did instead of afterwards, I think there's a very good chance that if we weren't talking about her hometown, she would have stayed put.

[aqib]

No she was going to go somewhere, St Louis just stepped up with a great offer which included a stadium almost complete (it was under construction and was finished part way through the Rams first season there). She was shopping around similar to the Colts when they left Baltimore. For all the whining about leaving in the middle of the night Irsay was actively and openly shopping the team.

As for the collusion, Art Modell was very adamant about not expanding to Baltimore. The expansion decision was made in late 93, Modell began negotiations in early 95 so one could argue that he was against Baltimore so he could keep the option open for the future relocation.

[six4three]

Once Davis pulled out, I think she could have gotten a new stadium in LA. Would have scared them into action. But once the opportunity to be a bigshot in her hometown came up, she was gone baby gone.

[Twins91871977]

True for now. Twenty years down the road, with both the Marlins and Rays being more established and in new ballparks, things might be different. Florida teams typically take a while to "take", but they eventually will.

(As for Jacksonville and the Jaguars, Jacksonville actually has been pretty supportive of the Jaguars for a city of its size. The reason for the blackouts has been the fact they built the stadium much larger than the market for GA-FL and Super Bowl purposes.)
The Dolphins were well-established shortly after they arrived, making it to Super Bowl VI 5 years after the team was founded, then going undefeated the year after.

[MarcianoNY]

What I want to know is how these expansion teams get fans. I live in northern NY and have always been a Yankee fan. I would find it hard to believe that ,even if they put a team across the street from my house that I would change my allegience. If there are any fans of expansion teams...who were you a fan of before? Especially Baltimore Ravens fans. Did the old-timers stay Colts fans all those years? Did the younger fans become Redskin fans? Or did you just not care?

That's basically what I've been saying. Look, you're gonna have a tough time gaining fans if you infringe on another team's territory. And most baseball fans in upstate New York are die hard Yankee fans. On the other hand, its completely different when an expansion team fills a void that has been left by another team. If the Yankees moved to Oklahoma, I'm sure most New Yorkers would become Mets fans or fans of whatever new expansion team moved in. The tricky part is finding out where there actually is a void... its not always as simple as population numbers. I think there are many legitimate reasons why Florida does not represent a void that needed to be filled.

[Twins91871977]

I say MLB should only expand to 2 more teams. 2 American League teams to even out both leagues, than call off expansion for good. My choices would be Portland, Oregon, and Charlotte, NC.

[stejay]

They would be my main candidates for a new team, in a new state.
Alburquerque, NM.
Las Vegas, NV.
Louisville, KY.
Memphis, TN.

In a state where baseball is already played.
Buffalo, NY
Austin, TX
Orlando, FL
Jacksonville, FL

[stlfan]

I say MLB should only expand to 2 more teams. 2 American League teams to even out both leagues, than call off expansion for good. My choices would be Portland, Oregon, and Charlotte, NC.

I disagree. MLB should not expand anymore. Yes adding 2 more AL teams would balance the AL and NL, but you would have the same problem in the AL that you do the NL by having one division having more teams than the other. The NLE has 5 teams, the NLC has 6 teams and the NLW has 5 teams. The ALE has 5 teams, the ALC has 5 teams and the ALW has 4.

MLB needs to do minor shifting and balance all divisions out. I say move Houston to the NLW and move AZ to the ALW. The only thing I hate about this alignment is we'd lose the great rivalry of the Cards and the Astros that has been going on in the recent past.

If they were to add 2 more AL teams, then you would have to split each League into 4 divisions. Probably something like...

NL North: STL, CHC, MIL, COL
NL East: NYM, PHI, PIT, WAS
NL South: FLA, ATL, HOU, CIN
NL West: LAD, SF, SD, AZ

~~~~~~~~~~~~

AL North: TOR, CHW, MIN, DET
AL East: NYY, BOS, BAL, CLE
AL South: TX, TB, Expansion Team 1, Expansion Team 2
AL West: LAA, OAK, SEA, KC

But, I like the idea of not expanding, moving HOU to the NLW and AZ to the ALW.

[stejay]

if the expansin teams were AL South teams, then how does New Mexico and Austin sound?? Or Orlando??

[stlfan]

I think New Mexico and Austin would be logical choices, but are there enough baseball fans in those cities to support a MLB team? I would say Memphis but they have a successful AAA team already there. Maybe a team in Charlotte? But as I said, I am more in favor of no more expansion and moving the Astros to the NLW and AZ to the ALW.

In either scenario, I would never break up rivalries like the Cubs and Cards, Yankees and Red Sox or Giants and Dodgers.

[PeteU]

if the expansin teams were AL South teams, then how does New Mexico and Austin sound?? Or Orlando??

New Mexico (Albequrque?) and Austin would probably still be too small as major league markets, and Orlando is too close to Tampa Bay.

[six4three]

I disagree. MLB should not expand anymore. Yes adding 2 more AL teams would balance the AL and NL, but you would have the same problem in the AL that you do the NL by having one division having more teams than the other. The NLE has 5 teams, the NLC has 6 teams and the NLW has 5 teams. The ALE has 5 teams, the ALC has 5 teams and the ALW has 4.


So there's already disparity in the AL, adding two more teams would leave us with more disparity. I don't see that as a reason not to do it.

MLB needs to do minor shifting and balance all divisions out. I say move Houston to the NLW and move AZ to the ALW.

Can't do - Arizona has been in the NL too long, and the window to move them to the American League has closed. Besides, leagues with uneven numbers of teams are problematic.

[stlfan]

Of course, keeping the same teams we have now, they could keep it 3 divisions per league but shift some teams back and forth between the AL and NL. Maybe something like this....

NL East: NYM, PHI, ATL, WAS, FLA
NL Central: STL, CHC, PIT, CIN, KC
NL West: SF, LAD, SD, COL, HOU

~~~~~~~~~~~~

AL East: NYY, BOS, BAL, TOR, TB
AL Central: MIL, CHW, MIN, DET, CLE
AL West: LAA, OAK, SEA, AZ, TX

[stlfan]

Can't do - Arizona has been in the NL too long, and the window to move them to the American League has closed. Besides, leagues with uneven numbers of teams are problematic.

Been in the NL too long???? MIL was in the AL much longer when they moved over to the NL.

[Lions/Tigers@Cubs.OhMy!]

Can't do - Arizona has been in the NL too long, and the window to move them to the American League has closed. Besides, leagues with uneven numbers of teams are problematic.

Too long? what about the Milwaukee Brewers? They spent 23 years in the AL before moving into the already crowded NL Central?

I've thought for a long time that the Astros should head West and the "new" Diamond Backs should go to the smaller AL West. The desperity is too much right now. Would you rather be a Rangers fan in the celler of the AL West or the Reds in the celler of the NL Central? one has three teams to jump the other has five?!

I'm always a fan of expansion though (because it allows for talk about cities, nicknames, colors, uniforms, stadiums, etc., etc.) and I think that Memphis and then either Oklahoma City, New Orleans or Vegas would be good choices.

[MarcianoNY]

Of course, keeping the same teams we have now, they could keep it 3 divisions per league but shift some teams back and forth between the AL and NL. Maybe something like this....

NL East: NYM, PHI, ATL, WAS, FLA
NL Central: STL, CHC, PIT, CIN, KC
NL West: SF, LAD, SD, COL, HOU

~~~~~~~~~~~~

AL East: NYY, BOS, BAL, TOR, TB
AL Central: MIL, CHW, MIN, DET, CLE
AL West: LAA, OAK, SEA, AZ, TX

To me this would be ideal. Milwaukee should be in the AL. The reason they shifted to the NL was primarily due to Bud Selig's personal perogative: by shifting them to the NL, the Selig family could get more revenue from Cubs fans. Now that the Seligs are out, and the new owner Attanasio is an AL type guy, my guess is they wouldn't have a problem with moving back.

[Astros4Life]

In fact, the arrangement with Cleveland was that the Browns franchise was merely suspended from 1996-99 and reactivated in 1999. Therefore, while Baltimore was getting all the Browns players, the Ravens were viewed as a de facto expansion team, and the Browns got to keep all of their history and identity. That's a deal that was unprecedented prior to 1996 and since 1996. (And a just deal, may I add, but one that unfortunately has not been afforded to any other team in major league professional sports.)


this is the arrangement I wish the NFL had made between Tennessee and Houston, but Bud Adams wanted the oiler name to himself, it would have been a great sign from him if he had given houston the rights to the oilers name and history, but we do have the texans which is better than nothing i suppose

[Reds41]

Their existence since 1996? Because in theory the Baltimore Ravens have no franchise history prior to 1996.

In fact, the arrangement with Cleveland was that the Browns franchise was merely suspended from 1996-99 and reactivated in 1999. Therefore, while Baltimore was getting all the Browns players, the Ravens were viewed as a de facto expansion team, and the Browns got to keep all of their history and identity. That's a deal that was unprecedented prior to 1996 and since 1996. (And a just deal, may I add, but one that unfortunately has not been afforded to any other team in major league professional sports.)

And FWIW, the first two years of the Ravens existance, they actually played like an expansion team.

So what is it about the Ravens existence that you don't like?

I am glad that when the Browns II started up, they kept their records, history, etc., and not like that abomination, the Indianapolis Colts.

As far as the Ravens go, Art Modell, Ray Lewis, those hideous purple and gold logos, the hideous all-black monochrome uniforms, the Super Bowl victory that should have been Cleveland's, etc., etc., etc.

[Lafferty Daniel]

Of course, keeping the same teams we have now, they could keep it 3 divisions per league but shift some teams back and forth between the AL and NL. Maybe something like this....

NL East: NYM, PHI, ATL, WAS, FLA
NL Central: STL, CHC, PIT, CIN, KC
NL West: SF, LAD, SD, COL, HOU

~~~~~~~~~~~~

AL East: NYY, BOS, BAL, TOR, TB
AL Central: MIL, CHW, MIN, DET, CLE
AL West: LAA, OAK, SEA, AZ, TX

I always liked the idea of having the Astros move to the AL West. Then you'd have each division with five teams, plus a nice Texas rivalry in the AL.

[EdTarbusz]

In fact, the arrangement with Cleveland was that the Browns franchise was merely suspended from 1996-99 and reactivated in 1999. Therefore, while Baltimore was getting all the Browns players, the Ravens were viewed as a de facto expansion team, and the Browns got to keep all of their history and identity. That's a deal that was unprecedented prior to 1996 and since 1996. (And a just deal, may I add, but one that unfortunately has not been afforded to any other team in major league professional sports.)

?

The Clevwland Browns that I grew up now exist as the Baltimore Ravens. No amount of NFL spin-doctoring is going to make the expansion Browns the same franchise that played from 1946-1995.

[PeteU]

I am glad that when the Browns II started up, they kept their records, history, etc., and not like that abomination, the Indianapolis Colts.

As far as the Ravens go, Art Modell, Ray Lewis, those hideous purple and gold logos, the hideous all-black monochrome uniforms, the Super Bowl victory that should have been Cleveland's, etc., etc., etc.

As opposed to the oh-so-lovely combination of orange and brown?

Or tiger stripped helmets for that matter?

:D

Eh, to each his own.

Although I will say that 2001 was simply just desserts for the city of Baltimore for putting up with 12 years without an NFL team, having the NFL commissioner to tell them to forget a new team and just build a museum, and suffering through the indignity of the blue horseshoed Indianapolis NFL franchise. I don't regret that one bit.

[reh303]

To the people advocating making the AL and NL have 15 teams apiece:

The problem with that is that there would be an odd number of teams in each league, and the only way to make the schedule work would be to have at least one interleague series at virtually all times. That's why Milwaukee moved to the NL Central in 1998 in the first place.

[Reds41]

That's why Milwaukee moved to the NL Central in 1998 in the first place.

Or because Bud Selig (aka The Antichrist), wanted a NL team in Milwaukee again, but settled for the Pilots/Brewers in the AL until he became commissioner and switch leagues?

/just sayin'

[MarcianoNY]

Or because Bud Selig (aka The Antichrist), wanted a NL team in Milwaukee again, but settled for the Pilots/Brewers in the AL until he became commissioner and switch leagues?

/just sayin'

Lol. That's a little harsh, no? Well, I will say this... It can be argued that Bud Selig both "ruined" baseball by "presiding over" the cancellation of the world series in 1994, only to "save" it by looking the other way during the Great Steroid Race of '98. It was all part of his master plan. What an egomaniac... Lol. All part of a day's work as the Greatest Commissioner of All Time.

Actually, he did "save" baseball as far as great, illustrious franchises with devoted fanbases like the Marlins were concerned – by forcing George Steinbrenner to write welfare checks to them. If we're going to give credit to revenue sharing for saving baseball, then we should give the credit where its due - to Steinbrenner. Am I right?

[Chevy114]

Lol. That's a little harsh, no? Well, I will say this... It can be argued that Bud Selig both "ruined" baseball by "presiding over" the cancellation of the world series in 1994, only to "save" it by looking the other way during the Great Steroid Race of '98. It was all part of his master plan. What an egomaniac... Lol. All part of a day's work as the Greatest Commissioner of All Time.

Actually, he did "save" baseball as far as great, illustrious franchises with devoted fanbases like the Marlins were concerned – by forcing George Steinbrenner to write welfare checks to them. If we're going to give credit to revenue sharing for saving baseball, then we should give the credit where its due - to Steinbrenner. Am I right?

He did try to make up for 94 by looking away in 98, but man has that bite him in the butt recently! Now you can't tell if a player is having a great comeback thanks to hardwork or just using steriods to get an unfair advantage.

As for the revenue sharing, Im glad george is overpaying for players 3 years past their prime and not getting a world series out of it! I would prefer a salery cap, but I guess it doesn't matter when young cheap teams keep winning as much as high priced veterian teams.

[bleacherbum73]

Or because Bud Selig (aka The Antichrist), wanted a NL team in Milwaukee again, but settled for the Pilots/Brewers in the AL until he became commissioner and switch leagues?

/just sayin'

I thought at the time that KC was the first team invited to switch to the NL but they said "no, we are an american league city" so Milw. was the 2nd choice. If that's the case it was not a smart move on the part of KC. They could have had a rivalry with ST.L and Chi. Cubs, and maybe with Colo. For a team that has been struggling for years to draw any fans those extra dates against St.L and Chi alone would have given them a hugh boost in attendance.

[stlfan]

I thought at the time that KC was the first team invited to switch to the NL but they said "no, we are an american league city" so Milw. was the 2nd choice. If that's the case it was not a smart move on the part of KC. They could have had a rivalry with ST.L and Chi. Cubs, and maybe with Colo. For a team that has been struggling for years to draw any fans those extra dates against St.L and Chi alone would have given them a hugh boost in attendance.

I definately agree with you on this. KC switching instead of MIL would have been positive for all parties. Everytime the Cards play their interleague series with KC, the fans pack 'em in. It would have been a great rivalry.

[six4three]

True. KC really missed the boat with that one. Of all the franchises that could have made the move, they had the best natural rival waiting for them.

Reports were that if the Brewers had turned it down for some bizarre reason, the Twins would have been offered it next. But there was no way Milwaukee ownership would have made KC's mistake.

To me this would be ideal. Milwaukee should be in the AL. The reason they shifted to the NL was primarily due to Bud Selig's personal perogative: by shifting them to the NL, the Selig family could get more revenue from Cubs fans. Now that the Seligs are out, and the new owner Attanasio is an AL type guy, my guess is they wouldn't have a problem with moving back.
No way. The fans wanted back in the NL. They considered it a National League city going back to the Braves.

It does show you, though, that Selig was bending over backwards to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest to his former team. Milwaukee was desperate to move to the NL, but he offered it to another team first. You can say lots of things about Selig, but in this he was certainly more than fair.

[aqib]

As opposed to the oh-so-lovely combination of orange and brown?

Or tiger stripped helmets for that matter?

:D

Eh, to each his own.

Although I will say that 2001 was simply just desserts for the city of Baltimore for putting up with 12 years without an NFL team, having the NFL commissioner to tell them to forget a new team and just build a museum, and suffering through the indignity of the blue horseshoed Indianapolis NFL franchise. I don't regret that one bit.


First of all there is a tradition behind the Brown and Orange, a tradition Baltimorons were all too happy to steal. Malcom Glazer was talking about moving the Bucs there and John Moag (president of the stadium authority) wanted the Browns tradition over the losing (at the time) Bucs.

2001 was just deserts for stealing a team? Lets not forget the Colts left for a reason. It was to the point that a plane could crash into the stadium and no one was hurt other than the guy flying the plane. Irsay openly shopped the team around the country Modell had to do his deal in secret, flying in on a private jet and hiding on the runway. If he had been open it never would have come to that.

[MarcianoNY]

It does show you, though, that Selig was bending over backwards to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest to his former team. Milwaukee was desperate to move to the NL, but he offered it to another team first. You can say lots of things about Selig, but in this he was certainly more than fair.

What bizarre reason could they have turned it down for? His daughter owned the team. Generally speaking I agree with you, I think he was fair and I'm just griping because I'm not that big a fan of the guy, but I think its definitely a little bit of a stretch to think that he had no vested interest whatsoever in the Brewers by that point.

[Reds41]

True. KC really missed the boat with that one. Of all the franchises that could have made the move, they had the best natural rival waiting for them.

Reports were that if the Brewers had turned it down for some bizarre reason, the Twins would have been offered it next. But there was no way Milwaukee ownership would have made KC's mistake.


No way. The fans wanted back in the NL. They considered it a National League city going back to the Braves.

It does show you, though, that Selig was bending over backwards to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest to his former team. Milwaukee was desperate to move to the NL, but he offered it to another team first. You can say lots of things about Selig, but in this he was certainly more than fair.

Do you think that he offered it to KC, knowing that they would turn it down, so that he could at least look fair in offering Milwaukee the league switch?

Either way, given the choice myself, Milwaukee would have been my choice to switch leagues.

Now if we could convince Tampa Bay and Arizona to switch leagues.

[soberdennis]

In New York, I know Buffalo has long had strong support for their minor league franchise. It might draw fans from other central New York cities too. It is a long drive from Buffalo and Rochester to the Bronx.
Also the New York metro area has shown they can support three teams before. I wouldn't mind Brooklyn getting a team again. Or Long Island or northern New Jersey.
Other states that may be able to support another team are Texas and Ohio. San Antonio is large enough and far enough away from the Dallas and Houston areas that already have teams.
As for Ohio,Their largest city, Columbus, is out there. They have long had the Clippers. How about Toledo and the Mud Hens? Columbus has a major league hockey team already.
But I think the likely site of a new midwestern team would be Indianapolis.

[Reds41]

Lol. That's a little harsh, no? Well, I will say this... It can be argued that Bud Selig both "ruined" baseball by "presiding over" the cancellation of the world series in 1994, only to "save" it by looking the other way during the Great Steroid Race of '98. It was all part of his master plan. What an egomaniac... Lol. All part of a day's work as the Greatest Commissioner of All Time.

Also, remember his decision to let the All-Star Game in Milwaukee to end in a tie.

It could be worse, we still could have Bart Giamatti.

[six4three]

What bizarre reason could they have turned it down for? His daughter owned the team. Generally speaking I agree with you, I think he was fair and I'm just griping because I'm not that big a fan of the guy, but I think its definitely a little bit of a stretch to think that he had no vested interest whatsoever in the Brewers by that point.

That's why he bent over backwards to be fair, and first offer the opportunity to another club.

Any other Commissioner, one with no possibility of a conflict of interest, would have just awarded a spot in the NL to the team who made it clear that they desperately wanted it. Instead, Selig offered it to the team with the most obvious regional rival (remember, those are a particular favorite of his), even though he might personally benefit more from the Brewers switching.

[six4three]

Do you think that he offered it to KC, knowing that they would turn it down, so that he could at least look fair in offering Milwaukee the league switch?

Either way, given the choice myself, Milwaukee would have been my choice to switch leagues.

Now if we could convince Tampa Bay and Arizona to switch leagues.

I think that's a little bit paraniod. As I said above, he's all about developing regional rivalries (with interleague play, and remember the discussed realignment). So the Royals would be the logical choice to switch.

I read that there was a clause in Arizona's paperwork allowing MLB to switch them to the AL at any time in their first five or so years. But that deadline has long since passed, whatever it was.

[Reds41]

I think that's a little bit paranoid. As I said above, he's all about developing regional rivalries (with interleague play, and remember the discussed realignment). So the Royals would be the logical choice to switch.

No paranoia. I just wouldn't put anything past Selig.

[six4three]

...which is pretty much the definition of paranoia. :D

[marlins739]

Does anybody have the hard attendance numbers from before and after the Brewers' move to the NL? It's hard to believe it would have made much of a difference

[bleacherbum73]

Does anybody have the hard attendance numbers from before and after the Brewers' move to the NL? It's hard to believe it would have made much of a difference

1997 last year in A.L - 1,444,027

1998 first year in N.L.- 1,811,593

1999 2nd year in N.L.- 1,701,790

[six4three]

Does anybody have the hard attendance numbers from before and after the Brewers' move to the NL? It's hard to believe it would have made much of a difference

Here you go. (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/brewatte.shtml) Last two in the AL and first two in the NL:

1996: 1,327,155 total (16,385 per-game average)
1997: 1,444,027 (17,827)

Then they switch to the NL:

1998: 1,811,593 (22,365)
1999: 1,701,790 (21,010)

So yes, it did make a difference....

EDIT: Darn, beat me to it.

[MarcianoNY]

Here you go. (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/brewatte.shtml) Last two in the AL and first two in the NL:

1996: 1,327,155 total (16,385 per-game average)
1997: 1,444,027 (17,827)

Then they switch to the NL:

1998: 1,811,593 (22,365)
1999: 1,701,790 (21,010)

So yes, it did make a difference....

EDIT: Darn, beat me to it.

That's because about 75% of the tickets were sold to cubs fans whenever they played. I bet adding those sellouts accounts for the jump in attendance.

[aqib]

At the time they were talking more radival realingment including scenarios where the two leagues merged and they did NBA/NHL style. They also were looking at ways to get the Mets and Yankees in the same divisions, none of those plans got traction and they were trying to figure out a way to get a team to move. I think Selig had to move his own team so as to avoid looking stupid for not being able toget anything done.

[Reds41]

...which is pretty much the definition of paranoia. :D

No worries. Now where did I put my tinfoil hat? :shrug: :hyper:

[reh303]

Or because Bud Selig (aka The Antichrist), wanted a NL team in Milwaukee again, but settled for the Pilots/Brewers in the AL until he became commissioner and switch leagues?

/just sayin'

I understand (and indeed agree) with what your saying, but I was referring to it from a logistics standpoint. Of course, good old Bud allowed KC to choose first to avoid the appearance of "conflict of interest." I still cant believe the Royals decided against it.

[Chevy114]

I would love for the rays to be in the nl east. Just think of the rivalery between the marlins and braves, instead of the yanks and sox! A little more fair for and upstart team with a lack of money in the pocket playing teams closer to them!

The problem is you would have to move the astros over to the nl west to make up for the loss of the dbacks and the phillies over to the nl centeral so they could play with the pirates, but im sure thats not a big deal right?

[Lions/Tigers@Cubs.OhMy!]

The more I read these posts the more I think I would support (and it also seems likely) that MLB moves to a four division format like the NFL if they expand any further. The number one reason for doing this would be more playoffs. It would allow 6 teams as opposed to four enter the post season for each leage (conference). This also would mean one of two things: more scheduled double headers or a shortened season because they can not expand the season any further, it's a level of ridiculious now.

Although, I've seen a few articles that have hinted that MLB's huge profits and growth is starting to fall (talks of teams like the Cardinals breaking their sold-out streaks after years and teams like Arizona and others that despite being competitive can't bring in fans on a regular basis) So, we might not be that far away from more talks of retraction... which I'd hate to see that happen.

[six4three]

That's why I don't think we'll see any further expansion. The playoffs work really well right now - more Wild Card teams or bye weeks would only ruin it.

[stlfan]

The more I read these posts the more I think I would support (and it also seems likely) that MLB moves to a four division format like the NFL if they expand any further. The number one reason for doing this would be more playoffs. It would allow 6 teams as opposed to four enter the post season for each leage (conference). This also would mean one of two things: more scheduled double headers or a shortened season because they can not expand the season any further, it's a level of ridiculious now.

Although, I've seen a few articles that have hinted that MLB's huge profits and growth is starting to fall (talks of teams like the Cardinals breaking their sold-out streaks after years and teams like Arizona and others that despite being competitive can't bring in fans on a regular basis) So, we might not be that far away from more talks of retraction... which I'd hate to see that happen.

As much as I think the Wild Card has excited postseason baseball and made it more unpredictable, if the league were to expand and go to a 4 division set-up I would want them to get rid of the Wild Card. 4 rounds of playoffs would be too much and I don't want to shorten the season either. I say the playoff system would work like this:

1st round-LDS
• NLDS series 1 -
NL Division winner w/ best record vs. NL Division winner w/ 2nd best record (best of 5)
• NLDS series 2 -
NL Division winner w/ 3rd best record vs. NL Division winner w/ 4th best record (best of 5)

• ALDS series 1 -
AL Division winner w/ best record vs. AL Division winner w/ 2nd best record (best of 5)
• ALDS series 2 -
AL Division winner w/ 3rd best record vs. AL Division winner w/ 4th best record (best of 5)

2nd round-LCS
• Winner of NLDS series 1 vs. Winner of NLDS series 2 (best of 7)
• Winner of ALDS series 1 vs. Winner of ALDS series 2 (best of 7)

3rd round-WS
• NLCS winner vs. ALCS winner

[PeteU]

I think that the one round of divisional series and the one round of championship series, with four teams from each league, is plenty good enough.

Let's not be the NBA, whose playoffs last forever and ever and ever, and in order to qualify for the playoffs, all a team has to be is not awful.

[Reds41]

I understand (and indeed agree) with what your saying, but I was referring to it from a logistics standpoint. Of course, good old Bud allowed KC to choose first to avoid the appearance of "conflict of interest." I still cant believe the Royals decided against it.

Maybe because there would be no AL team from Minnesota to Arlington or from Chicago to Los Angeles?

While I am no artist, this is what I'm talking about with the Royals in the NL.

http://i28.tinypic.com/2eqb6v4.gif

[MarcianoNY]

I think that the one round of divisional series and the one round of championship series, with four teams from each league, is plenty good enough.

Let's not be the NBA, whose playoffs last forever and ever and ever, and in order to qualify for the playoffs, all a team has to be is not awful.

Yeah, "more teams" being able to make the playoffs means you get under .500 teams making it, like in the NBA East. What a joke.

[Dougman59]

Here you go. (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/brewatte.shtml) Last two in the AL and first two in the NL:

1996: 1,327,155 total (16,385 per-game average)
1997: 1,444,027 (17,827)

Then they switch to the NL:

1998: 1,811,593 (22,365)
1999: 1,701,790 (21,010)

So yes, it did make a difference....

EDIT: Darn, beat me to it.

The word at the time of move was that Milwaukee was always a NL city. Many old timers in town I talked to indicated being alienated from the Brewers. I don't know if they came back after the move or not.
But the Brewers had below medicore teams at the time and it was a way of drumming up business. Oblivously the Cubs and then the Cards were the top draws. Overall I think the attendence was pretty good with traditional (pre 1961) teams over some of more recent franchises.

[six4three]

Maybe because there would be no AL team from Minnesota to Arlington or from Chicago to Los Angeles?


Why should the Royals care about that?

Do they have a regional fanbase dependent upon being an American League town?

[bleacherbum73]

Why should the Royals care about that?

Do they have a regional fanbase dependent upon being an American League town?

They barely have a fanbase period :rolleyes:

[Astros4Life]

Yeah, "more teams" being able to make the playoffs means you get under .500 teams making it, like in the NBA East. What a joke.

but it also makes for entertaining months in 10 cities especially in the West where 1-10 was seperated by 4 games almost all year...thats when the season in itself turns into a playoff almost...in the west each night had the feel of a must win for the top 10 or 11 teams

[Reds41]

Why should the Royals care about that?

Do they have a regional fanbase dependent upon being an American League town?

I guess the same reason that MLB didn't put Tampa Bay in the NL where the whole southeastern part of the country would not have an AL team.

/just sayin'

[MNAFETSC]

As much as I think the Wild Card has excited postseason baseball and made it more unpredictable, if the league were to expand and go to a 4 division set-up I would want them to get rid of the Wild Card. 4 rounds of playoffs would be too much and I don't want to shorten the season either. I say the playoff system would work like this:

1st round-LDS
• NLDS series 1 -
NL Division winner w/ best record vs. NL Division winner w/ 2nd best record (best of 5)
• NLDS series 2 -
NL Division winner w/ 3rd best record vs. NL Division winner w/ 4th best record (best of 5)

• ALDS series 1 -
AL Division winner w/ best record vs. AL Division winner w/ 2nd best record (best of 5)
• ALDS series 2 -
AL Division winner w/ 3rd best record vs. AL Division winner w/ 4th best record (best of 5)

2nd round-LCS
• Winner of NLDS series 1 vs. Winner of NLDS series 2 (best of 7)
• Winner of ALDS series 1 vs. Winner of ALDS series 2 (best of 7)

3rd round-WS
• NLCS winner vs. ALCS winner

This is how I would like it as well but why would it be 1 v 2 and 3 v 4 in the division series?

[stlfan]

This is how I would like it as well but why would it be 1 v 2 and 3 v 4 in the division series?
I don't know, I always thought it was a little cheap that the team with the best record played the team with the team with the worst of the division winners.

[Chevy114]

I guess the same reason that MLB didn't put Tampa Bay in the NL where the whole southeastern part of the country would not have an AL team.

/just sayin'

Thanks Bud! I felt real warm and coozy watching the first 10 years of rays baseball as they got killed every year by the yanks, sox, o's, and jays all so the southeast could have the dh rule!

Also selig, what was the point of all that contration talk a few years ago, was it to light a fire under the twins ass and turn them into a playoff team every year?

I guess it worked because they have had 6 different world series winners in the past 7 years, unlike football were it just feels like its always the patriots in the superbowl and most afc teams don't stand a chance.

[six4three]

Hate to break it to you, but it was the Twins themselves who asked to be contracted. The team was driving that.

I don't know, I always thought it was a little cheap that the team with the best record played the team with the team with the worst of the division winners.

Not me - it makes perfect sense to pit top seed against the bottom seed. More incentive to win every game in the regular season, especially if you're even thinking about expanding the number of teams in the postseason.

[Chevy114]

Why did they ask to be contracted, to get a new stadium?

[six4three]

Yep.

Last-ditch attempt to force the state's hand.

[Chevy114]

Are stadiums that taxing on a city? Because man I feel like a new stadium espically compared to the metrodome is a must have sometimes. Even if attendence stays the same and you barely break even, it has to be good for player and fan happiness to have everything you want!

[six4three]

The new Twins stadium will cost people in the county $400,000,000. You can decide how "taxing" that is. They don't even control the naming rights - the Twins do, to reduce part of their contribution.

Sure, it's good for the team to have a shiny new park. One can argue, however, if the responsibility to provide "player and fan happiness" properly falls on the taxpayers.

[MNAFETSC]

I don't know, I always thought it was a little cheap that the team with the best record played the team with the team with the worst of the division winners.

I don't know. If my team was in second and random team was in third coming down the home stretch I would be cheering for my team to lose so we could be third and have home field advantage against the 4th seed.

I know the Australian soccer league does it that way but the format follows like this:
R1 G1 1 V 2
G3 3 V 4

R2 G1 loser V G3 Winner

Final G1 winner v R2 winner

But that would add an extra round if applied to baseball and that what everyone here doesn't want.

[MarcianoNY]

The new Twins stadium will cost people in the county $400,000,000. You can decide how "taxing" that is. They don't even control the naming rights - the Twins do, to reduce part of their contribution.

Sure, it's good for the team to have a shiny new park. One can argue, however, if the responsibility to provide "player and fan happiness" properly falls on the taxpayers.

Carl Pohlad is such a piece of work. The guy is worth $2 billion and goes around bitching like he needs to beg on the street for a new stadium, not to mention all the subsidies he gets from Steinbrenner, who's net worth is a fraction of Pohlad's. And those Timberwolves... WOW. I would hate to live in the Twin Cities and be stuck with a douchebag like this.

[six4three]

You're right - he's a scumbag.

I don't know if he's still doing it, but he used to pocket the "luxury tax" revenue sharing money he received. Instead of putting it back into the club, he and his partners distributed it as dividends.

Steinbrenner may be a piece of work, but he always put every single dime back into the team. His investors didn't get any money back until they sold.

[MarcianoNY]

You're right - he's a scumbag.

I don't know if he's still doing it, but he used to pocket the "luxury tax" revenue sharing money he received. Instead of putting it back into the club, he and his partners distributed it as dividends.

Steinbrenner may be a piece of work, but he always put every single dime back into the team. His investors didn't get any money back until they sold.

It makes me cringe to think that even for every Yankee shirt or hat I've bought, it contributes to more than $3 million per year to owners like this guy... merchandise alone! The fact that many small-market "poor" (cry me a freakin river) franchise owners are such snakes is one reason why I would never, ever apologize for being a Yankee fan...

[Chevy114]

Don't the royals have the same issues where their owner is either the owner or part owner of walmart but wont put any money into the team?

The problem with building a new stadium is im a sports fan so I say yes I wll pay for it, while others disagree. Just like how when people talk education money I say well im a teacher so spend more , but I don't care about social security so spend less. The thing is, I doubt every single person who makes a snide comment about the tax increases will protest going to the stadium their entire life.