Atlas
05-26-2005, 03:44 AM
Topping the expansion list
These four cities most deserve a major pro team
Posted: Tuesday May 24, 2005 11:12AM; Updated: Tuesday May 24, 2005 1:00PM
Some cities have one major pro team, and that's probably all they need (see Salt Lake City; Sacramento; and Columbus, Ohio).
Some cities have multiple pro franchises, perhaps too many (do we really need two NHL teams in Los Angeles?).
Whether a city measures itself by the amount of pro teams calling it home is a debate fought mostly in sports bars and local governments. But we do know there are certain voids in the geographical makeup of the four major sports, voids that could be filled with one word:
Expansion.
To be sure, the void could also be filled with another word -- relocation -- but we don't want to encourage the owners to continue playing musical chairs and causing messy divorces between their teams and the fans. Expansion is a much more humane approach to the problem, don't you think?
So without regard to the actual specifics of how to get it done, here are the American cities that should top each sport's wish list.
NBA
Attendance for the NBA's latest expansion team, the Charlotte Bobcats, wasn't exactly a rousing success during the club's inaugural season. The average of 14,475 was among the lowest in the league. Even more disconcerting was the Bobcats' percentage of capacity -- a league-low 61.9 percent. Perhaps the fans are waiting for the new Charlotte Arena to open for the 2005-06 campaign.
Those jarring numbers will prove valuable if and when the NBA decides to expand again. Instead of returning to a city that once had an NBA team (i.e. St. Louis, Kansas City, Baltimore, Buffalo), the league should make a bold move, one that would cement it as the most progressive -- and most hip -- league. It would involve expanding into ...
Las Vegas.
WHY LAS VEGAS? The four major sports leagues obviously have stayed away from the Sin City because of the gambling aspect, but let's face it -- with gambling on the Internet so prevalent, people are going to find a way to bet, no matter how close the team plays to an actual sports book. Worries about potential improprieties with a pro team playing in a state with legalized betting no longer are valid.
The NBA certainly doesn't seem worried. Preseason games have been played at the Thomas & Mack Center. The WNBA's Connecticut Sun play their home games at a casino (the Mohegan Sun). The Maloofs, who own the Sacramento Kings, also own a Vegas hotel-casino. And when the Grizzlies hightailed it out of Vancouver in 2001, Vegas was among the cities mentioned as their new home.
Meanwhile, the NBA is scouting Las Vegas as a possible site for the 2007 All-Star Game (the casinos have agreed not to take bets on the game). Might that be a precursor to something bigger?
"This is an international city," Gavin Maloof told the Sacramento Bee, "and the NBA is an international league."
Plus, basketball just seems to be a better fit in Vegas. It's a more intimate sport, like boxing. UNLV has created hoops buzz with its Runnin' Rebels; the NBA could take it one step further. Plus, have you seen how NBA players are introduced these days? Those theatrics are just a notch below what you might find at a show at the Bellagio.
At some point, one of the pro leagues is going to find a way to tap into the Vegas market (and all that Vegas money). NBA commissioner David Stern seems just the type to get it done first. And if he doesn't want to expand ... well, is there any chance the Clippers could be moved? How 'bout the Hawks? Or perhaps speculation, thus far unfounded, that the Maloofs might move the Kings to Vegas may one day come true.
Other cities worth considering: Louisville, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Kansas City, Baltimore, Buffalo.
MLB
Should the Washington Nationals really be somewhere else? Orioles owner Peter Angelos would say yes but the rest of us can take a wait-and-see approach before passing judgment on whether baseball will succeed in the nation's capital.
But if the ex-Expos had not moved to D.C., where would they have gone? One of the possibilities leads our list of best cities for MLB expansion ...
Portland.
WHY PORTLAND? Now that D.C. has a team, Portland is the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. without a baseball franchise. It's also the largest market with just one major sports team (the NBA's Trail Blazers). And it would offer a natural rival for the Seattle Mariners (and provide visiting teams a chance to play two series instead of one against teams in the Pacific Northwest, perhaps saving on travel costs).
Unlike, say, San Antonio or Sacramento, a Portland team would have the backing of the entire state. And unlike, say, too-hot Las Vegas, Portland just seems a better fit for baseball, with its more leisurely, less frenetic pace.
The Portland Baseball Group estimates that a major league team would "generate an estimated $433 million in revenues to the state over a 25-year period." That doesn't include another $53 million in income taxes from the workers at a new ballpark, the PBG adds.
Meanwhile, a coalition of groups is already working hard to get a major league stadium built. You can view the coalition's plan at www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/.
The city of Portland has been aggressive in pursuing a team. Maybe MLB should do more than just listen.
Other cities worth considering: San Antonio, Las Vegas, Orlando, Sacramento, Charlotte, Hartford.
NFL
Bigfoot. Loch Ness Monster. Paris Hilton's continued popularity. Meet the unexplained mysteries of life.
Add to that list a certain city in Southern California not having an NFL team.
Of course, there are some shades of explanation (see Davis, Al and Frontiere, Georgia). But really, there is no logic for the second biggest TV market in the U.S. not fielding a team from the country's most popular TV sports league. That's why only one city deserves the NFL's next expansion team ...
Los Angeles.
WHY LOS ANGELES? Because the timing couldn't be better. The Lakers, the city's favorite team, is in shambles. The Angels, no matter how many ways they add L.A. to their name, will never be the city's favored baseball team -- but the Dodgers haven't been to the World Series since 1988. And the NHL? Sorry, Wayne Gretzky's long gone.
Meanwhile, if NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue doesn't bring a team to L.A. before he hands over the reigns, it will be the darkest spot on an otherwise stellar resume. He has tried and failed in 1999, victimized by nasty politics in L.A. while attempting to develop a feasible stadium and ownership plan (the NFL eventually made the option pitch to Houston). But if he can get it done in an environment of mostly negative forces, then his mover-and-shaker status will be cemented.
At some point, the league will return to L.A. Sheer logic dictates it. Cooler political heads will prevail, stadium issues will be resolved and enough luxury boxes will be built to house all the celebrities who'll clamor for expensive digs.
Now if Tagliabue can just find a way to prevent Ms. Hilton from appearing on TV again ...
Other cities worth considering: San Antonio, Memphis, Portland.
NHL
If Houston is good enough for Gordie Howe, then it's good enough for the rest of us.
First of all, the NHL doesn't need to expand. If anything, it needs to contract. (Well, if anything, it needs to fix its labor problems and actually play games again. But that's a topic for another day).
Since our premise is to select one American city that should have an NHL franchise but currently doesn't (thus ruling out a selection of more deserving Canadian cities), then the choice is ...
Houston.
WHY HOUSTON? It's the biggest U.S. city without an NHL team. It has high-level hockey roots, dating back to Gordie Howe's Houston Aeros in the 1970s. And it has a current minor league team, the reincarnated Aeros of the AHL.
Although the Aeros' average attendance this season was roughly middle of the road among AHL teams (5.669 for 40 regular season dates), Houston is similar to its fellow Texas city up north, Dallas, which basically ignored its minor-league hockey team in the early '90s but now offers hearty support to the NHL's Stars.
Having Houston in the NHL would, of course, produce a natural rivalry in Texas (and cut down on travel costs, since visitors could now play two road games in fairly close proximity instead of going out of their way to play a single game in Dallas).
Plus, Houston is on a sports roll. The NFL has returned with the Texans. The Astros have a relatively new ballpark, and the Rockets have a relatively new arena. Local government has been very supportive of sports, and the chance to become a four-sport town might be one of the city's goals.
Other cities worth considering: Portland, Seattle, Hartford, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Cincinnati.
These four cities most deserve a major pro team
Posted: Tuesday May 24, 2005 11:12AM; Updated: Tuesday May 24, 2005 1:00PM
Some cities have one major pro team, and that's probably all they need (see Salt Lake City; Sacramento; and Columbus, Ohio).
Some cities have multiple pro franchises, perhaps too many (do we really need two NHL teams in Los Angeles?).
Whether a city measures itself by the amount of pro teams calling it home is a debate fought mostly in sports bars and local governments. But we do know there are certain voids in the geographical makeup of the four major sports, voids that could be filled with one word:
Expansion.
To be sure, the void could also be filled with another word -- relocation -- but we don't want to encourage the owners to continue playing musical chairs and causing messy divorces between their teams and the fans. Expansion is a much more humane approach to the problem, don't you think?
So without regard to the actual specifics of how to get it done, here are the American cities that should top each sport's wish list.
NBA
Attendance for the NBA's latest expansion team, the Charlotte Bobcats, wasn't exactly a rousing success during the club's inaugural season. The average of 14,475 was among the lowest in the league. Even more disconcerting was the Bobcats' percentage of capacity -- a league-low 61.9 percent. Perhaps the fans are waiting for the new Charlotte Arena to open for the 2005-06 campaign.
Those jarring numbers will prove valuable if and when the NBA decides to expand again. Instead of returning to a city that once had an NBA team (i.e. St. Louis, Kansas City, Baltimore, Buffalo), the league should make a bold move, one that would cement it as the most progressive -- and most hip -- league. It would involve expanding into ...
Las Vegas.
WHY LAS VEGAS? The four major sports leagues obviously have stayed away from the Sin City because of the gambling aspect, but let's face it -- with gambling on the Internet so prevalent, people are going to find a way to bet, no matter how close the team plays to an actual sports book. Worries about potential improprieties with a pro team playing in a state with legalized betting no longer are valid.
The NBA certainly doesn't seem worried. Preseason games have been played at the Thomas & Mack Center. The WNBA's Connecticut Sun play their home games at a casino (the Mohegan Sun). The Maloofs, who own the Sacramento Kings, also own a Vegas hotel-casino. And when the Grizzlies hightailed it out of Vancouver in 2001, Vegas was among the cities mentioned as their new home.
Meanwhile, the NBA is scouting Las Vegas as a possible site for the 2007 All-Star Game (the casinos have agreed not to take bets on the game). Might that be a precursor to something bigger?
"This is an international city," Gavin Maloof told the Sacramento Bee, "and the NBA is an international league."
Plus, basketball just seems to be a better fit in Vegas. It's a more intimate sport, like boxing. UNLV has created hoops buzz with its Runnin' Rebels; the NBA could take it one step further. Plus, have you seen how NBA players are introduced these days? Those theatrics are just a notch below what you might find at a show at the Bellagio.
At some point, one of the pro leagues is going to find a way to tap into the Vegas market (and all that Vegas money). NBA commissioner David Stern seems just the type to get it done first. And if he doesn't want to expand ... well, is there any chance the Clippers could be moved? How 'bout the Hawks? Or perhaps speculation, thus far unfounded, that the Maloofs might move the Kings to Vegas may one day come true.
Other cities worth considering: Louisville, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Kansas City, Baltimore, Buffalo.
MLB
Should the Washington Nationals really be somewhere else? Orioles owner Peter Angelos would say yes but the rest of us can take a wait-and-see approach before passing judgment on whether baseball will succeed in the nation's capital.
But if the ex-Expos had not moved to D.C., where would they have gone? One of the possibilities leads our list of best cities for MLB expansion ...
Portland.
WHY PORTLAND? Now that D.C. has a team, Portland is the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. without a baseball franchise. It's also the largest market with just one major sports team (the NBA's Trail Blazers). And it would offer a natural rival for the Seattle Mariners (and provide visiting teams a chance to play two series instead of one against teams in the Pacific Northwest, perhaps saving on travel costs).
Unlike, say, San Antonio or Sacramento, a Portland team would have the backing of the entire state. And unlike, say, too-hot Las Vegas, Portland just seems a better fit for baseball, with its more leisurely, less frenetic pace.
The Portland Baseball Group estimates that a major league team would "generate an estimated $433 million in revenues to the state over a 25-year period." That doesn't include another $53 million in income taxes from the workers at a new ballpark, the PBG adds.
Meanwhile, a coalition of groups is already working hard to get a major league stadium built. You can view the coalition's plan at www.oregonstadiumcampaign.com/.
The city of Portland has been aggressive in pursuing a team. Maybe MLB should do more than just listen.
Other cities worth considering: San Antonio, Las Vegas, Orlando, Sacramento, Charlotte, Hartford.
NFL
Bigfoot. Loch Ness Monster. Paris Hilton's continued popularity. Meet the unexplained mysteries of life.
Add to that list a certain city in Southern California not having an NFL team.
Of course, there are some shades of explanation (see Davis, Al and Frontiere, Georgia). But really, there is no logic for the second biggest TV market in the U.S. not fielding a team from the country's most popular TV sports league. That's why only one city deserves the NFL's next expansion team ...
Los Angeles.
WHY LOS ANGELES? Because the timing couldn't be better. The Lakers, the city's favorite team, is in shambles. The Angels, no matter how many ways they add L.A. to their name, will never be the city's favored baseball team -- but the Dodgers haven't been to the World Series since 1988. And the NHL? Sorry, Wayne Gretzky's long gone.
Meanwhile, if NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue doesn't bring a team to L.A. before he hands over the reigns, it will be the darkest spot on an otherwise stellar resume. He has tried and failed in 1999, victimized by nasty politics in L.A. while attempting to develop a feasible stadium and ownership plan (the NFL eventually made the option pitch to Houston). But if he can get it done in an environment of mostly negative forces, then his mover-and-shaker status will be cemented.
At some point, the league will return to L.A. Sheer logic dictates it. Cooler political heads will prevail, stadium issues will be resolved and enough luxury boxes will be built to house all the celebrities who'll clamor for expensive digs.
Now if Tagliabue can just find a way to prevent Ms. Hilton from appearing on TV again ...
Other cities worth considering: San Antonio, Memphis, Portland.
NHL
If Houston is good enough for Gordie Howe, then it's good enough for the rest of us.
First of all, the NHL doesn't need to expand. If anything, it needs to contract. (Well, if anything, it needs to fix its labor problems and actually play games again. But that's a topic for another day).
Since our premise is to select one American city that should have an NHL franchise but currently doesn't (thus ruling out a selection of more deserving Canadian cities), then the choice is ...
Houston.
WHY HOUSTON? It's the biggest U.S. city without an NHL team. It has high-level hockey roots, dating back to Gordie Howe's Houston Aeros in the 1970s. And it has a current minor league team, the reincarnated Aeros of the AHL.
Although the Aeros' average attendance this season was roughly middle of the road among AHL teams (5.669 for 40 regular season dates), Houston is similar to its fellow Texas city up north, Dallas, which basically ignored its minor-league hockey team in the early '90s but now offers hearty support to the NHL's Stars.
Having Houston in the NHL would, of course, produce a natural rivalry in Texas (and cut down on travel costs, since visitors could now play two road games in fairly close proximity instead of going out of their way to play a single game in Dallas).
Plus, Houston is on a sports roll. The NFL has returned with the Texans. The Astros have a relatively new ballpark, and the Rockets have a relatively new arena. Local government has been very supportive of sports, and the chance to become a four-sport town might be one of the city's goals.
Other cities worth considering: Portland, Seattle, Hartford, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Cincinnati.