Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"Just think, a Buc-ee's replacing an old Buc-ee's."
(set 10 days ago)
Location: Suburban Dallas
52,801 posts, read 48,208,715 times
Reputation: 34002
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkCity0416
Interesting thread. I think Carlotte would be perfect for a team. Atlanta isn't that far, and I think an Atlanta-Charlotte rivalry would be fun to watch. Also, I think San Antonio is a good pick. A city of over 1 million and 1 pro sport team? That needs to change.
Other places that I think will do well: New Jersey. Talk about a hypothetical Newark AL team playing the Yankees..
Upstate NY: A domed stadium in Buffalo.
California: Because the Central Valley needs a team.
Glad you enjoy the thread, too. Dreaming is fun, isn't it? I can make a case for Charlotte, but that would create a realignment problem no matter which league it goes to.
New Jersey??? Buffalo? L.A. with a third team?? Fresno?? I cannot see any of those scenarios happening. The best possible situation is an area that's never had MLB before.
Baseball definitely needs two more teams in the American League to balance out the two leagues. It always bugged me how the NL has 16 teams and the AL has 14. I think Las Vegas would make a great MLB city. If the XFL was able to have the Las Vegas Outlaws, then surely a baseball team can survive there. It all comes down to advertising the baseball games with all the casinos, because I'm sure they can draw a lot of fans when their own local teams are in town to play against the Vegas team. Also, any team in Vegas just needs to make sure they have a cool team name, like, the Las Vegas Cardsharks. That would be freaking cool. As for the 2nd expansion team, I would narrow it down to one of these cities: San Antonio, Louisville, or Salt Lake City. What about Anchorage, Alaska? If a baseball team was once situated in Montreal with the cold weather there, can Anchorage be home to a baseball team with their weather? Or would an Anchorage team have to have a 2nd stadium in Puerto Rico or something? One reason why I suggested Anchorage is because it seems like a city like that would have a lot of fans that would love to have a baseball team in town to give them something to have fun watching. I can imagine having a sports franchise in Anchorage would be a nice break from the monotonity in Alaska.
Status:
"Still out there somewhere."
(set 4 days ago)
Location: A Land Not So Far Away
4,358 posts, read 3,578,300 times
Reputation: 6129
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthSideWhiteTrash
Baseball definitely needs two more teams in the American League to balance out the two leagues. It always bugged me how the NL has 16 teams and the AL has 14. I think Las Vegas would make a great MLB city. If the XFL was able to have the Las Vegas Outlaws, then surely a baseball team can survive there. It all comes down to advertising the baseball games with all the casinos, because I'm sure they can draw a lot of fans when their own local teams are in town to play against the Vegas team. Also, any team in Vegas just needs to make sure they have a cool team name, like, the Las Vegas Cardsharks. That would be freaking cool. As for the 2nd expansion team, I would narrow it down to one of these cities: San Antonio, Louisville, or Salt Lake City. What about Anchorage, Alaska? If a baseball team was once situated in Montreal with the cold weather there, can Anchorage be home to a baseball team with their weather? Or would an Anchorage team have to have a 2nd stadium in Puerto Rico or something? One reason why I suggested Anchorage is because it seems like a city like that would have a lot of fans that would love to have a baseball team in town to give them something to have fun watching. I can imagine having a sports franchise in Anchorage would be a nice break from the monotonity in Alaska.
The AL definitely needs two more teams. But they have such an alignment malignment (if that's a word). The likelihood is that there should be two teams added in the west and that would be the most logical thing. Vegas would not be such a bad choice. But you mentioned Anchorage in your post. Too small. Not a chance, and no major leaguers would want to do road games there.
If/when MLB goes to 32 teams do you think they will go 4, 4 team divisions per league? and scratch the wild card.
They probably would go with this format, but I would be against it. Too easy to reward mediocrity. Just look at football as an example, the Chargers are in the playoffs with a 500 record because they won there 4 team division. Meanwhile in the east the Pats aren't in with 11 wins.
I would rather they did 2, 8 team divisions per league. and take the top 2 from each, it would be much tougher. But I doubt they'll do that. Finishing 4th always sounds better than finishing 8th.
I hope they don't keep the current system (5,6,5) Because that really is unfair to the teams in the NL Central, much more difficult to win the division.
I'd have MLB expand the AL by two teams, raising it from 14 teams to 16 as in the NL. My suggestions are:
1. Las Vegas gets an AL team, in the Western Div, which only has 4 teams. No other division in baseball has only 4 teams. There are NL teams in Phoenix and Denver but no team between Phoenix and the west coast. Las Vegas is a large city with the critical mass to support a team - plus hundreds of thousands of visitors on any given day. Its adds something to do for a change of pace besides sit in a casino all the time, but is compatible with that larger theme of the city.
2. Havana gets an AL team. Goes into the Eastern Div. Baseball is huge in the Caribbean, especially Cuba. After Fidel Castro passes, we should offer a team to Havana as a gesture to let old bygones be bygones, jumpstart modern investment there, generate tourism, and create decent economic conditions so Cubans will no longer need to flee to Miami.
Both proposed teams are warm weather cities. This allows to start the first two weeks of the season in milder climates without fear of snow delays, like we see some years when they try to play in early April in cities around the Great Lakes. Not a guarantee, but the odds favor the warmer cities.
Among the possible places mentioned in the OP: Portland, Las Vegas, San Antonio, and Virginia Beach, it seems Las Vegas is the best choice. I'm from VA, and I don't see VA Beach supporting it at all.
If/when MLB goes to 32 teams do you think they will go 4, 4 team divisions per league? and scratch the wild card.
They probably would go with this format, but I would be against it. Too easy to reward mediocrity. Just look at football as an example, the Chargers are in the playoffs with a 500 record because they won there 4 team division. Meanwhile in the east the Pats aren't in with 11 wins.
I would rather they did 2, 8 team divisions per league. and take the top 2 from each, it would be much tougher. But I doubt they'll do that. Finishing 4th always sounds better than finishing 8th.
I hope they don't keep the current system (5,6,5) Because that really is unfair to the teams in the NL Central, much more difficult to win the division.
I understand and fundamentally agree with your concerns about rewarding mediocrity. But the fact is that more divisions and more playoff slots means, obviously, that more teams have a chance at making the playoffs. And hey, let's face it, sometimes teams that are mediocre on paper turn out to be championship-quality teams (see: 2007 New York Giants; 2006 St. Louis Cardinals).
But back to the point about more divisions meaning more playoff slots: the more hope there is that a team will make the playoffs, the more likely a team is to maintain fan interest. This may strike some as a cynical money-grab by the team owners -- and let's not be naive, that's certainly a big part of it -- but it benefits the fans as well. Here's how: It generates more rivalries, more interest, more revenue per team, and a more equitable disbursement of talent.
As specifically concerns MLB, I was actually against the creation of 3 divisions per league and the whole wildcard concept when they were implemented. But I have since come around, and here's why: before the realignment, about half the teams were already effectively eliminated from the playoffs by the All-Star break. But the division realignment and wildcard paradigm has kept a lot more fans invested in their teams (literally and figuratively) deeper into the season. If you look back at when fan attendance, TV ratings and overall revenues started to soar, it started when more divisional competition and rivalries were created. I believe you'll find the same thing happened with the NFL when it went to 8 conferences.
Finally, as for why there are 2 more teams in the National League versus the American League, it has to do with scheduling, mathematics and tradition. If they had 15 teams in each league, the mathematics of scheduling would dictate one of the following outcomes: 1) one team from each league would have the day off, or 2) there would be inter-league play every day.
I understand and fundamentally agree with your concerns about rewarding mediocrity. But the fact is that more divisions and more playoff slots means, obviously, that more teams have a chance at making the playoffs. And hey, let's face it, sometimes teams that are mediocre on paper turn out to be championship-quality teams (see: 2007 New York Giants; 2006 St. Louis Cardinals).
But back to the point about more divisions meaning more playoff slots: the more hope there is that a team will make the playoffs, the more likely a team is to maintain fan interest. This may strike some as a cynical money-grab by the team owners -- and let's not be naive, that's certainly a big part of it -- but it benefits the fans as well. Here's how: It generates more rivalries, more interest, more revenue per team, and a more equitable disbursement of talent.
As specifically concerns MLB, I was actually against the creation of 3 divisions per league and the whole wildcard concept when they were implemented. But I have since come around, and here's why: before the realignment, about half the teams were already effectively eliminated from the playoffs by the All-Star break. But the division realignment and wildcard paradigm has kept a lot more fans invested in their teams (literally and figuratively) deeper into the season. If you look back at when fan attendance, TV ratings and overall revenues started to soar, it started when more divisional competition and rivalries were created. I believe you'll find the same thing happened with the NFL when it went to 8 conferences.
Finally, as for why there are 2 more teams in the National League versus the American League, it has to do with scheduling, mathematics and tradition. If they had 15 teams in each league, the mathematics of scheduling would dictate one of the following outcomes: 1) one team from each league would have the day off, or 2) there would be inter-league play every day.
you misunderstood my last point, but after re-reading my post I can see why. I was a little vague.
What I meant to say was that I don't want the same 5-6-5 to be in the American league if/when baseball goes to 32 teams. It's already a bad idea for the NL, it puts the NL central teams at a disadvantage.
But thanks for you reply, you made some good points. and I tend to agree that I too was against the last realignment and the wild card and I too have come around on that issue.
Milwaukee, Cincy, and KC all have teams because their metro areas were larger when compared to others 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago.
Nashville couldnt support a team. Theres no way. Just look at the Florida Marlins and Tampa Devil Rays. Those two areas are way larger than Nashville and they cant get nearly enough fans. It would take 15+ years to establish a good fan base. It hasnt happened in Tampa yet and they just went to the series.
While i also think the last thing the MLB needs is more teams, the places that could support one would be Suburban NYC in New Jersey, or maybe the Inland Empire. Maybe Portland, but i doubt they could get enough fans for 81 games.
How do the Brewers get enough fans: its because everyone that lives in the metro right now likely grew up around here. The transplant population in the south and west is so large. I mean look at the Dbacks games this year. Their metro area is 3 times as large as Milwaukees and their team was in the Pennant Race most of the year, and still Milwaukee whooped their asses at ticket sales. Milwaukee proved it was a baseball town this year. i mean the 9th highest attendance for the city with the smallest market in the MLB. As a vendor for the brewers, my hat goes off for those fans. sorry to stray off topic.
The above post gets at why expanding to southern/Sun Belt locales wouldn't be a good idea; the populations in those areas are mostly from somewhere else. Teams like Florida, Tampa Bay, and to lesser degree Arizona have never really drawn well and in large part IMO it's because the population is transient and doesn't care about the local team. Supporting a team for 81 games is not easy, which is why financially baseball expansion needs to be approached cautiously. Las Vegas in particular would be a terrible choice IMO for this reason, and Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh/Durham, and to a lesser degree San Antonio (or Austin) would all be poor choices for this reason as well. Some of those places are already struggling with supporting pro teams that play more than 8 home games per season.
The other factor that works against essentially all the markets already mentioned (definitely including Buffalo, Sacramento, and to some degree including my original suggestion, Portland) is the population in all of those markets is currently marginal to support a MLB franchise. Heck, places like Kansas City and Pittsburgh are marginal when it comes to being big enough support MLB, and many of the markets above would be the same way, with the added burden of being transient markets. (In some cases, especially with Las Vegas, the secondary market population the team could draw from is marginal too.)
The idea mentioned up thread on Page 2 of either Mexico City or Monterrey actually makes sense, though I'd personally rank both markets behind Portland, Montreal, San Antonio/Austin, and probably Vancouver, BC. (On an unrelated note, one can only imagine what MLB would be like in Mexico City, which is even higher in elevation than Denver.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
