The one thing I'll say about that initial proposal is putting the Giants and Dodgers in different divisions is just wrong.

South Platte said:

---

Why does North Carolina keep getting included in conversations they have no business being in? They barely support their NFL team, barely support the NBA team, and I guess the NHL team does OK because they are really good.

Just let that state focus on its contributions to college basketball.

Portland doesn't need a team.

---

The interesting thing is that their NHL team is the only one that isn't an expansion team. The Hurricanes used to be the Hartford Whalers, and they moved to Carolina in 1997.

To be honest, this description holds for the entire southeast with the notable exception of Atlanta and maybe Nashville.

Whether it's Charlotte or any of the teams they've tried in Florida they never really have had the rabid fan support that the college teams in the south enjoy.

When it comes to baseball, part of this is that I think baseball fandom is a generational thing and if your team only showed up in the 1990s like the Marlins and Rays you don't have that built in multiple generations that help you draw 2 to 3 million fans.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

Tampa and Miami rank last or next to last pretty much every year even when they are decent. Other teams only crater their attendence when they are terrible.

Arizona and Colorado have done pretty well though, so we'll see how Vegas does. Maybe there is something about these Rocky mountain teams and SLC would also thrive as a baseball market.

How do you think Las Vegas will do? It's not the attraction it used to be so I'll be curious how many fans travel there. Outside the metro area there's not any population to draw from. You mentioned Arizona. Phoenix is the 5th largest city but the metro is huge. Mesa is 600,000, Scottsdale, Chandler and Gilbert are all nearly 300,000. All are an easy trip to the ballpark.

Yeah, my parents live in Scottsdale. The Phoenix metro area was a perfect fit for a team, and geographically you're also going to draw from other parts of the state and surrounding states also because they're the only game in town. Having gone to a couple of games there though, they didn't hit a home run with the stadium design. It's kind of a meh overall and I don't think the Diamondbacks have a destination stadium that people feel like they have to see.

As for Vegas, the knights have done ok there, and I feel like it has to be better than Oakland was at a bare minimum. As long as they put the stadium on the strip and make going to a game and attraction of sorts they should be able to draw 25k a night. Part of this also is that they need to build up goodwill in the area, so hopefully they start out reasonable on the ticket prices and don't alienate the community with ticket prices designed just for the visitors to Vegas.

I also think at least for a while, fans of the road team might show up in bigger numbers than at most stadiums with the novelty of going to Vegas still holding some appeal.

I live in Phoenix suburbs and me and my buddies go to the 7 or 8 weekday games every year. Parts of the valley have light rail which makes it easy in and out. I don't know how much they draw from outside the metro though because population is sparse outside Phoenix.

I might be wrong but I just don't see going to Las Vegas to follow my team. Maybe it's just that I'm over going there.

I really enjoyed the Diamondbacks games I went to, but the stadium has this weird cavernous feel to it and the concourses seemed to force me to walk a long way to get stuff I wanted during the game.

Vegas and wherever these two new teams end up need to build 35k capacity stadiums with the emphasis on the gameday experience.

I lived in California for 7 years, and even though I hated going to San Francisco, going to games there was awesome. Great food and every seat is fantastic. Cincinnati did a good job with their new park too. Kansas City also has a great game day vibe with the ability to tail gate outside the stadium.

AggieEP said:

---

To be honest, this description holds for the entire southeast with the notable exception of Atlanta and maybe Nashville.

Whether it's Charlotte or any of the teams they've tried in Florida they never really have had the rabid fan support that the college teams in the south enjoy.

When it comes to baseball, part of this is that I think baseball fandom is a generational thing and if your team only showed up in the 1990s like the Marlins and Rays you don't have that built in multiple generations that help you draw 2 to 3 million fans.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

Tampa and Miami rank last or next to last pretty much every year even when they are decent. Other teams only crater their attendence when they are terrible.

Arizona and Colorado have done pretty well though, so we'll see how Vegas does. Maybe there is something about these Rocky mountain teams and SLC would also thrive as a baseball market.

---

Nashville having pro sports has always seemed like a joke to me. Florida's enormous market is too good to pass up, even if it doesn't translate into a stable fanbase.

Coors field is phenomenal. I hate that the organization is so horribly run. Denver's other franchises are first class.

I really like Chase but maybe it's because I'm used to it. Thankfully they fixed the roof so it was open several times early in the season.

I don't know about expansion overall. Pitching is the worst it's been in my life and I'm not sure there's one more worthy pitcher much less 25 or so.

Austin/San Antonio should be on any list

Would Houston and Arlington have any say so?

Probably, but they shouldn't.

jja79 said:

---

How do you think Las Vegas will do? It's not the attraction it used to be so I'll be curious how many fans travel there. Outside the metro area there's not any population to draw from.

---

I'm really interested to see how they work out. I could see it going either way. They're going to have to open the check book and bring in talent to support the young guys they will be starting with.

I agree in some ways, but we don't have any evidence that Austin would support 81 home baseball games per year. They don't have any other pro teams for us to gauge how the business community would support them either.

Then you'd have to make a really tough call on whether or not you put the team in downtown/southern Austin, or if you target the lucrative suburbs crowd like the Braves did by going to Cobb county. I can see strong arguments on both sides here, the downside to a downtown or south Austin location is that you make a brutal traffic situation even worse and might end up with people deciding it's not worth it to even try to go to a game.

The downside to the Williamson County location is that you make yourself even farther from San Antonio and you might lost the college student population that could be consistent patrons if the park is easily accessed.

For the record, and I've already stated this, more regional games are good for baseball. People still have local and regional pride and those are what create rivalries and those rivalries drive tickets sales and merch sales. So even though a new team in Austin would seem to hurt the Rangers and Astros (and would definitely hurt their local TV deals) the long term should be a positive in creating more regional interest in MLB games.

They've got a really exciting core. I hope they have the ability to sign Kurtz and Wilson to deals like what Roman Anthony just signed to keep those guys A's for the next 9-10 years.

Having a couple of stars on the team right from day 1 is going to be critical to them starting to build a positive connection with Vegas. If Leo de Vries hits also, then we're talking about maybe the best young core in MLB. They could be a fun team to follow.

AggieEP said:

---

I agree in some ways, but we don't have any evidence that Austin would support 81 home baseball games per year. They don't have any other pro teams for us to gauge how the business community would support them either.

Then you'd have to make a really tough call on whether or not you put the team in downtown/southern Austin, or if you target the lucrative suburbs crowd like the Braves did by going to Cobb county. I can see strong arguments on both sides here, the downside to a downtown or south Austin location is that you make a brutal traffic situation even worse and might end up with people deciding it's not worth it to even try to go to a game.

The downside to the Williamson County location is that you make yourself even farther from San Antonio and you might lost the college student population that could be consistent patrons if the park is easily accessed.

For the record, and I've already stated this, more regional games are good for baseball. People still have local and regional pride and those are what create rivalries and those rivalries drive tickets sales and merch sales. So even though a new team in Austin would seem to hurt the Rangers and Astros (and would definitely hurt their local TV deals) the long term should be a positive in creating more regional interest in MLB games.

---

I think you would to put it in north SA.....then get the weekend crowd to come down from Austin. I don't think Austin itself cares enough about sports.

AggieEP said:

---

I agree in some ways, but we don't have any evidence that Austin would support 81 home baseball games per year. They don't have any other pro teams for us to gauge how the business community would support them either.

Then you'd have to make a really tough call on whether or not you put the team in downtown/southern Austin, or if you target the lucrative suburbs crowd like the Braves did by going to Cobb county. I can see strong arguments on both sides here, the downside to a downtown or south Austin location is that you make a brutal traffic situation even worse and might end up with people deciding it's not worth it to even try to go to a game.

The downside to the Williamson County location is that you make yourself even farther from San Antonio and you might lost the college student population that could be consistent patrons if the park is easily accessed.

For the record, and I've already stated this, more regional games are good for baseball. People still have local and regional pride and those are what create rivalries and those rivalries drive tickets sales and merch sales. So even though a new team in Austin would seem to hurt the Rangers and Astros (and would definitely hurt their local TV deals) the long term should be a positive in creating more regional interest in MLB games.

---

Their MLS team gets around 20,000 fans per game

Expansion is all about: (1) Increasing broadcast revenue and (2) existing owners getting new franchise fees.

(2) will happen no matter who gets a franchise.

As for (1) - here are the markets without a MLB team:

19 Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto
22 Portland, OR
24 Charlotte, NC
25 Indianapolis
27 Raleigh-Durham
29 Nashville
30 Hartford-New Haven
32 Columbus, OH
33 Salt Lake City
36 Greenville-Spartanburg-Asheville-Anderson
37 San Antonio
39 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek
40 Birmingham
41 Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York
43 Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News
44 Albuquerque-Santa Fe
45 Oklahoma City
46 Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem
47 Jacksonville, FL
48 Memphis
49 Austin
50 Louisville

Orlando would get vetoed by Tampa Bay.

Austin isn't even close.

I really think they'll do one east and one west. Salt Lake City is supposedly shovel ready with financing for the new stadium ready. Back east, any of Charlotte, NC, Indianapolis, Raleigh-Durham or Nashville seem plausible.

I don't necessarily agree here, there is a reason the NFL has had an on again off again relationship with Los Angeles. Just because a market is big doesn't mean it's right for a pro team and will grab the eyeballs necessary to drive increased revenue.

It's a multi faceted issue that requires engagement on all sides to create the right conditions for success. SLC for example seems to be really working hard in recent years, first by grabbing an NHL team and now by positioning themselves for an MLB team to show that the market is ready for a team.

Above all other considerations, the other owners want to keep making stupid amounts of money, so if someone from Austin or San Antonio puts together a convincing expansion proposal there is no reason that MLB wouldn't listen to it seriously. Remember, the other owners already subsidize two crappy franchises in Florida, so I don't think any of them have any intention of bringing on another charity case in the state of Florida. You may be right that Tampa would balk at their region being violated, but I think there'd be 28 other no votes on Orlando as well.

This all goes back to my point that the SE hasn't proven that they will consistently support pro franchises. If the owners are paying attention to this trend I think they avoid the region and look for markets that they think can sustain a profitable team long term. What the Braves have done in the suburbs also creates a new model that an expansion team might try and use. Putting the team closer to the suburban families more likely to attend your games could be a winning strategy in the right market.

Here are the TV markets.

#15 Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne - highest without a team
#20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto
#21 Charlotte
#22 Raleigh-Durham
#23 Portland
#25 Indianapolis
#26 Nashville
#28 Salt Lake City
#31 San Antonio
#32 Hartford-New Haven
#34 Austin

The lowest with a "current" team is #40 Las Vegas, but not far from #38 Milwaukee & #37 Cincinnati

Not sure it matters, but the Nashville Sound are regularly near the top of the league in avg attendance.

Also I think it's worth noting that anyone pitching either Austin or San Antonio is likely to pitch those as a joint TV market. The combined metro populations of both cities would get you to 5 million people and make it a top 10 metro area.

There aren't any other 5 million eyeball markets out there.

Not saying that I think SA should or will get a team, but of the city is interested I bet they could put a good proposal together that would warrant serious interest.

I am very pro San An or Austin getting a team. There is no reason a massive state like Texas cannot support more than 2 teams. Plus, it makes for fun rivalries, road trips, and easier travel for the team.

Count me in favor of a north San Antonio team.

Farmer1906 said:

---

I am very pro San An or Austin getting a team. There is no reason a massive state like Texas cannot support more than 2 teams. Plus, it makes for fun rivalries, road trips, and easier travel for the team.

---

As long as they nail the location and ballpark (removable roof necessary) I think a MLB team would be a huge hit in San Antonio.

The real kicker is that you need to find someone with deep pockets willing to run the team as a baseball team and not as a business venture. Too many of the teams now are owned by "investment groups" and this negatively reflects on how they run the team.

Give me San Antonio Steve Cohen who just wants his ball club to win and the city will instantly be a baseball mecca.

You also need a market that has BIG corporate advertising dollars

AggieEP said:

---

Also I think it's worth noting that anyone pitching either Austin or San Antonio is likely to pitch those as a joint TV market. The combined metro populations of both cities would get you to 5 million people and make it a top 10 metro area.

There aren't any other 5 million eyeball markets out there.

Not saying that I think SA should or will get a team, but of the city is interested I bet they could put a good proposal together that would warrant serious interest.

---

Out of curiosity, how strong are the Spurs in the Austin market? I don't really follow basketball and don't spend a lot of time in Austin either, but I never felt the Spurs were really that strong in that market. Sure, stronger than any other team due to geography, but I didn't get the impression that they were really supported there to a level expected of a team in its own metro. Is my impression wrong?

nereus said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Also I think it's worth noting that anyone pitching either Austin or San Antonio is likely to pitch those as a joint TV market. The combined metro populations of both cities would get you to 5 million people and make it a top 10 metro area.

There aren't any other 5 million eyeball markets out there.

Not saying that I think SA should or will get a team, but of the city is interested I bet they could put a good proposal together that would warrant serious interest.

---

Out of curiosity, how strong are the Spurs in the Austin market? I don't really follow basketball and don't spend a lot of time in Austin either, but I never felt the Spurs were really that strong in that market. Sure, stronger than any other team due to geography, but I didn't get the impression that they were really supported there to a level expected of a team in its own metro. Is my impression wrong?

---

This is a good point. I've lived in Austin for a little more than 20 years. My observation is that people who are originally from the area are much more likely to support the Spurs than people who moved here from elsewhere. I'm originally from the Houston area, so I don't pay much attention to the Spurs. But I have a few friends who grew up in Austin and they're all about the Spurs. I think the city would embrace an MLB expansion team in the Austin/CenTex area, but not a San Antonio team. You'd have a lot of split loyalties, though. Take me for example: I'd still be an Astros fan first because they've always been my team, but I'd most definitely be a fan and season ticket holder for a local MLB team.

On a semi-related note, longhorns and Austin FC aside, the local media here is pretty fickle when it comes to sports -- they give more coverage to whichever team is winning. When the Rangers won the World Series, Austin was treated like more of a Rangers town. When the Astros were in it, it was treated like an Astros town.

ETA: The Spurs G league team is here, and it does ok on attendance/coverage.

San Antonio is building new MILB in northwest portion of downtown and getting final approval for that from COSA was like pulling teeth. COSA remembers what was promised with the Alamodome. The politics of COSA would likely preclude MLB from considering San Antonio.


My guess is you probably are looking at SLC and either Charlotte/Nashville/Indianapolis.

I can't see Portland because of the lunatic fringe that resides there. I could see bay area getting another team, either north bay or south bay.

I doubt you would see anything in the Bay Area, unless they went to Oakland. And getting money for a new stadium would be like pulling teeth. South Bay (San Jose area) is recognized by MLB as being the Giants' 'territory', and the Giants have previously nixed the As attempts to move there. North of the Bay doesn't really have the population, and transit routes into either Marin or Solano counties are severely bottlenecked. (There are a total of 4 bridges, 2 of which go to Marin county and 2 to Solano county. All of the bridges are toll bridges.)

I agree with this 100%, the answer to the issue of San Antonio local politics is an owner (or ownership group ugh) with the ability to finance most of the stadium themselves.

I don't think any SA bids will fly without that guarantee. The Alamodome issue definitely still resonates in local politics as an example of being forced to pay for something that doesn't deliver on what it promised.

I still don't really see it as a likely outcome, but if you made me choose between Charlotte, Nashville and San Antonio, I'd eliminate Charlotte immediately and it'd come down to what the stadium plan looks like for both of Nashville and San Antonio and how deep of pockets the ownership group has. To use the Rays again as an example, a proposal for a team without a state of the art facility is doomed from the start.

The existential threat facing baseball right now is the fact that about half the owners/ownership groups don't have the deep pockets and cajones necessary to play no limits poker with the big boys like the Dodgers, Phillies, Yankees, Mets, Cubs and Red Sox. There are about 10 franchises (Rangers, Astros, Padres, Angels, Giants, Braves, Nationals, Cardinals, Twins, Diamondbacks) that play at the big boy table occasionally, but still can't compete for the Soto's and Ohtani's of the world. The priority in expansion this time has to be a proposal that includes an owner who wants to play with the big boys. No more charity case teams that take revenue sharing.

Is there an "Arlington" that could make a play for a SA/Austin stadium/franchise?

I don't think so. Those cities are quite a bit farther apart than Dallas and Ft Worth and quite a lot less filled in.

Baseball has a ton of games during the week. I think putting it somewhere in the middle will make it hard to fill during the week. I think you would have to put it in either Austin or San Antonio (or just outside one of those cities) and hope that city can cover most of the attendance during the week by itself. Weekends you probably get more help from the other city.

I think there would be a better chance of that plan being successful for an nfl team than one of the other major sports. There you are looking at only 8-9 games (plus playoffs). I think you could reasonable draw well from each if you put the stadium somewhere in the middle for NFL games.

Its Friday and I'm bored, so I had ChatGPT make a logo for an Austin team. I've always liked how Pittsburgh teams have a consistent color scheme, so I had it go with green and black like Austin FC. Armadillos because its Texas. It's not happening, but it's fun to play around with the idea.