San Antonio is too SMALL...according to the man in charge of the NFL [Archive]

Kip Fanatic

09-20-2005, 02:30 PM

NFL czar labels S.A. "small market"
Web Posted: 09/20/2005 12:25 PM CDT

Tom Orsborn
Express-News Staff Writer

NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue has an opinion on the issue of San Antonio’s viability as an NFL city. Two words. “Small market.”

In an interview with the New Orleans Times-Picayune published today, Tagliabue rejected the idea that San Antonio’s support for the displaced New Orleans Saints represents a chance for the city to prove its NFL worth. He inferred San Antonio isn’t capable of providing adequate support for an NFL team.

Responding to a question specifically about San Antonio’s qualifications, Tagliabue said the NFL has no plans to move “any teams into small markets.”

“We’re going to be moving up in market size, not down or flat,” Tagliabue said.

Tagliabue was blunt in his assessment of New Orleans’ chances, in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, to hold on to the Saints. He said the league has all but ruled out the possibility the Saints will be able to play in New Orleans in 2006.

He said the league’s initial plan for 2006 is to play all eight Saints home games at LSU’s Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, La., although he said logistics problems could prevent that. He also reiterated the league’s goal of placing a franchise in Los Angeles, which is currently without an NFL team.

Tagliabue said the NFL “is going to do everything possible to make sure there’s a New Orleans Saints. But people larger than us and institutions larger than us are going to have to succeed in making sure there is a robust, healthy New Orleans, you know, with fans and businesses and all the things hope a city can have.”

The Saints, who have relocated their training headquarters to the San Antonio, will play three of their scheduled 2005 home games in Alamodome. The Oct. 2 game between the Saints and the Buffalo Bills will be the first NFL regular-season contest ever played in the Alamo City.

Ticket sales for the three games have been brisk.

"We are going to prove him wrong," Christian Archer, special assistant to Mayor Phil Hardberger, said today. Tagliabue, who declined an interview request from the Express-News, was asked in the Times-Picayune interview if San Antonio is “dangerous territory” because local leaders have billed the three Alamodome games as an opportunity for the city to show it can support an NFL team.

Tagliabue alluded to comments from former mayor Henry Cisneros.

“They have got to be clear in what their motives are,” Tagliabue said of San Antonio civic leaders. “To be helpful in the contest of a national tragedy that grows out of an unprecedented disaster. And their motive is not to steal someone else’s team. He (Cisneros) said that.”

With regard to the city’s first-day sales of 50,000 tickets for the Saints games, Tagliabue was asked: “Might this turn into an opportunity for that city to prove that they should be in the mix?”

“Ever since we approved the move of the Raiders and the Rams, I’ve been saying that our goal is to get a team back to L.A., either through expansion or whatever, and we’re not going to be moving any teams into small markets,” Tagliabue said.

“We’re going to be moving up in market size, not either down or flat. That’s our goal. So that’s been my mindset. We’ve had enough teams move from large markets to small markets. So if … any teams are relocated in the future, the objective is going to be to concentrate them — put it this way — in markets that can really support them.”

BigDaddyMatty

09-20-2005, 02:33 PM

Thats a bummer

SpursWoman

09-20-2005, 02:35 PM

he's a putz. :flipoff

ChumpDumper

09-20-2005, 02:35 PM

Well, that's that -- I expected a few more platitudes, but the embarrassment of no LA franchise must be keeping these guys up at night.
Ever since we approved the move of the Raiders and the RamsWhose bright idea was that, dipshit?

BigDaddyMatty

09-20-2005, 02:36 PM

fucking tagliabue is going to use this to make sure that L.A. gets the Saints. Who wants an expansion team that is going to struggle for a few years in the nations 2nd biggest market. Lets give them a bonafide playoff contender.

SpursWoman

09-20-2005, 02:37 PM

Kip Fanatic

09-20-2005, 02:37 PM

I think San Antonio is a great city for the NFL. S. Texas loves them some foozball. I know I do. The city is growing and doesn't seem to be slowing down. The city has embraced the Spurs as if they were family and the guys love to play here and call SA home. I don't see how this would be different if it were the NFL.

FromWayDowntown

09-20-2005, 02:39 PM

Curious that Tagliabue would not talk directly to the Express-News about that characterization.

It's also interesting to me that SA continues to be labeled "small market" when at least 3 of the Fortune 25 have headquarters here (i.e., corporate support) and, with a surrounding area (including Austin, Corpus Christi, the Valley, and Laredo) that is comparable in both size and population to other "markets" in other big sports.

tlongII

09-20-2005, 02:41 PM

What an idiot! Those are stupid comments to make at this particular time.

BigDaddyMatty

09-20-2005, 02:42 PM

The Saints? :lol
Yeah, I'd say a team that missed last years playoffs by 1 game is a lot more ready to make the playoffs than an expansion team would be. Wouldn't you???

Trainwreck2100

09-20-2005, 02:49 PM

http://www.ezekielbearsports.com/bbs/images/smilies/asshole2.gif

Vashner

09-20-2005, 02:51 PM

He's Jerry Jones bed buddy... they do coke at the dallas White house together I bet....

Kip Fanatic

09-20-2005, 03:13 PM

I don't want San Antonio to change because of labels like the one this jerk put on San Antonio. The people of San Antonio are the greatest. I love how we support the Spurs. We shouldn't change.

SWC Bonfire

09-20-2005, 03:28 PM

Well, this is a big shocker.

His salary is probably based on how much revenue the league generates. San Antonio viewership/merchandizing probably isn't going to bring in much revenue to the league, at least not with respect to what a team in LA might bring in.

It's not really his decision, but he can make it difficult.

timvp

09-20-2005, 03:32 PM

Better get your tickets for the only three NFL games to ever be played in San Antonio.

TheTruth

09-20-2005, 03:33 PM

Better get your tickets for the only three NFL games to ever be played in San Antonio.
already did.

Kip Fanatic

09-20-2005, 03:35 PM

I don't see how a city like Jacksonville can support a NFL team.

spurs_fan_in_exile

09-20-2005, 03:39 PM

Brilliant logic. We couldn't keep a football team in a big city like LA but we won't give a team to the tenth largest metropolitan area in the country? Stupid, stupid, stupid. I know their thinking is probably that Texas already has two pro football teams, but come on! This is Texas, where football is damn near a state religion. The only problem I could see would be that the Spurs are so damn big here that once b-ball starts attendance could take a hit. Shit, I'm not much of a football fan, and I currently live in Houston, but I would still get behind this idea.

T Park

09-20-2005, 03:56 PM

If SA is a small market.

WTF is Jacksonville?!?!?

Vashner

09-20-2005, 03:57 PM

The only thing small is his penis....

2pac

09-20-2005, 04:05 PM

I don't see how a city like Jacksonville can support a NFL team.

What is the nearest pro team to Jacksonville?
Orlando Magic

Nearest Football teams?
Atl Falcons
Miami Dolphins
TampaBay Bucs

The Bucs always sucked until a couple years ago. The Dolphins were always good, so people in Jacksonville were probably Dolphins fans. (72 undefeated/80-90s Marino) Doubtful many people drive the length of Florida to go to Dolphin games.

Jacksonville has no other teams to support in any league. Southern Georgia and lots of Florida - its the closest they have to a pro team. Easy to support.

Why in the hell would anyone put a pro team in SA when you could put one in LA? Add to that that LA has grass and SA has turf (NFL hates turf.)

If I was looking at it from a business standpoint, I would fight tooth and nail to keep them from going to SA - a poor city that already supports the Cowboys without tons of industry and has astroturf over the second largest city in the nation which is also a rich city with a grass field.

Why is that so hard for SA residents to grasp?

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 04:06 PM

If SA is a small market.

WTF is Jacksonville?!?!?

Along with Green Bay.

New Orleans is not that much bigger than San Antonio....in fact it is much smaller in many regards.

Add to that, LA never really supported the teams it did have. They had their chances....plenty of them...it should now be ours.

Vashner

09-20-2005, 04:06 PM

How come no one buys my theory that Jerry Jones is the one objecting to SA town getting Saints?

Guru of Nothing

09-20-2005, 04:09 PM

“They have got to be clear in what their motives are,” Tagliabue said of San Antonio civic leaders. “To be helpful in the contest of a national tragedy that grows out of an unprecedented disaster. And their motive is not to steal someone else’s team. He (Cisneros) said that.”

So, it's L.A.'s motive (with Tagliabue's endorsement) to steal someone else's team?

Got it.

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 04:11 PM

How come no one buys my theory that Jerry Jones is the one objecting to SA town getting Saints?

I mentioned this in another thread in the NFL forum and was ignored.

If Mr. Jones were to field a more consistant team then he would not have to worry about other teams in the state. I have been a Cowboy fan but I am not a Jerry Jones fan whatsoever.

Kip Fanatic

09-20-2005, 04:15 PM

I agree with Cheryl. I am not a fan of Jerry Jones. I don't think SA is a bad market for the NFL. S. TX = Football.

j-6

09-20-2005, 04:17 PM

2pac

09-20-2005, 04:21 PM

What does the NFL gain by putting the Saints in SA?

SA folks already cheer for the cowboys.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 04:46 PM

SA folks already cheer for the cowboys.

I don't cheer for them. Nor the Texans.

I'm a football fan, I have no loyality to any team. If San Antonio gets a team, then I'd support as hard as I do the Spurs.

My father is a Packers fan. But he's not die hard.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 04:47 PM

New Orleans is not that much bigger than San Antonio.

New Orelans is smaller than San Antonio, in terms of everything. Population, jobs, economy, corp base, etc.

TheSuckUp

09-20-2005, 04:51 PM

NFL Commissioner Tagliabue is a very smart man.

2pac

09-20-2005, 04:53 PM

New Orelans is smaller than San Antonio, in terms of everything. Population, jobs, economy, corp base, etc.

New Orleans has big oil there as well as lots of things related to big oil. Lots of old money there, and lots of people that get skyboxes.

Ironically enough, I was in the last NO Saints game ever in one of those big oil company skyboxes.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 04:55 PM

New Orleans has big oil there as well as lots of things related to big oil. Lots of old money there, and lots of people that get skyboxes.

Ironically enough, I was in the last NO Saints game ever in one of those big oil company skyboxes.

Big oil?

They have a large oil port, that's it. Name me five "big oil" companies based in New Orleans.

They're largest industry was tourism with 5 billion annually. Compared to San Antonio's second largest industry, tourism, which brings in 8 billion annually. San Antonio's largest industry is biomedial and science which brings in 13 billion annually.

2pac

09-20-2005, 05:06 PM

Big oil?

They have a large oil port, that's it. Name me five "big oil" companies based in New Orleans.

They're largest industry was tourism with 5 billion annually. Compared to San Antonio's second largest industry, tourism, which brings in 8 billion annually. San Antonio's largest industry is biomedial and science which brings in 13 billion annually.

All major oil companies have large offices there.

Anyone who worked for any period of time for any oil company has probably spent time in New Orleans and Houston.

A company doesnt have to be based in a city to have a large corporate setting there.

Around every oil company are many smaller companies that have contracts with them.

Everything shipped to about half the country goes up the Mississippi River.

A lot of the biomed industry in SA is from BAMC and WHMC. As far as big companies go, KCI is probably the biggest at about $1b/year.

Sorry, but SA doesnt make top 20 met-areas in healthcare - and that is our biggest industry.

Until recently, NO only had one team to support and that was only for 8 games a year.

NO also had a big draw SA will probably never have - Harrah's.

Don't try to teach me about the population and industry of my hometown.

I love both NO and SA, but LA is a MUCH better place for a football team than SA. Anyone saying otherwise is stupid. There is much more to be had in LA than in SA.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:08 PM

All major oil companies have large offices there.

Anyone who worked for any period of time for any oil company has probably spent time in New Orleans and Houston.

A company doesnt have to be based in a city to have a large corporate setting there.

Around every oil company are many smaller companies that have contracts with them.

Everything shipped to about half the country goes up the Mississippi River.

A lot of the biomed industry in SA is from BAMC and WHMC. As far as big companies go, KCI is probably the biggest at about $1b/year.

Sorry, but SA doesnt make top 20 met-areas in healthcare - and that is our biggest industry.

Don't try to teach me about the population and industry of my hometown.

KCI? More like the UTHSCSA.

Also, I never said it was the largest bioscience industry in the US, but San Antonio's economy is very much diversified. And now with the manufactory industry on the rise, it’s only getting better.

2pac

09-20-2005, 05:13 PM

KCI? More like the UTHSCSA.

And what is their stock trading at? How many lux boxes do they have for the Spurs? How many season tickets?

Biomed research in SA is at 100mm/year.

UTHSCSA's 2005 budget is ~470mm. KCI's revenue is $1bb+

Its a school, not a company, smart guy.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:14 PM

And what is their stock trading at? How many lux boxes do they have for the Spurs? How many season tickets?

Biomed research in SA is at 100mm/year.

UTHSCSA's 2005 budget is ~470mm. KCI's revenue is $1bb+

Its a school, not a company, smart guy.

And UTHSCSA pumps out over one billion annually.

Vashner

09-20-2005, 05:16 PM

Just our military base alone is bigger than most whole cities combined..
The guy don't like Hispanics is my guess...

Time for a new commish...

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:17 PM

The guy don't like Hispanics is my guess...

But he has a hard on trying to get a team to LA?

Don't call the guy a racist, he's just a complete idiot.

2pac

09-20-2005, 05:20 PM

And UTHSCSA pumps out over one billion annually.

Their budget is half that. Things affiliated with them bring 1b total to the system area, which includes all of south texas. Their total budget is still only 470b.

KCI has a market cap of over $4bil, total revenues over $1.1b with a gross profit of about equal to UTHSC's tota budget.

Again - how many colleges buy season tickets and sky boxes to sporting events? They are a non-profit. They arent going to be one of the main companies to support.

You rag on NO for "only having oil" but you cant show better companies in SA, and when you try, you use a non-profit university.

You arent real, bright. I hope you realize that.

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 05:21 PM

New Orelans is smaller than San Antonio, in terms of everything. Population, jobs, economy, corp base, etc.

I looked up some of that info and you are right...I suspected it.
The only thing I can see that NO has over San Antonio is MAYBE tourism. It seems more people are aware of the French Quarter than the Riverwalk.

Why in the hell would anyone put a pro team in SA when you could put one in LA?
LA already had two teams that it refused to support. If they are so much bigger than why could they not support them?
The Raiders won a Super Bowl while in LA....and were forced to move because the city refused to show any incentive.

Same with the Rams except they never won a title....theydid go but lost to the Steelers....they made the playoffs frequently....but this so-called "great" city refused to support them as well.

Nearest Football teams?
Atl Falcons
Miami Dolphins
TampaBay Bucs

The Texans stinks so that is comprable to the Bucs until recently....especia;ly when Jacksonville got their team.

The Dolphins have been successful...like the Cowboys so you can base that as a comparison

What does Jacksonville have that SA doesn't?
A beach?
SA is bigger in population.
We have proven we can back a pro franchise.

I wonder if the NFL is basing their belief of SA's non-NFL abilities on those other "pro" football leagues that NOONE SUPPORTED....WFL, Riders, USFL?

Also Tagliabue was the lawyer involved the USFL lawsuit with the NFL and holds a grudge because of that?

2pac

09-20-2005, 05:22 PM

But he has a hard on trying to get a team to LA?

Don't call the guy a racist, he's just a complete idiot.

Arent you the guy who stole pictures, said they were yours and posted them on the nsync message board, then had a complete and total break down when called on it?

2pac

09-20-2005, 05:24 PM

We have proven we can back a pro franchise.

What is proven is that a city the size of Jacksonville or SA can well support one major franchise.

What is also proven is that cities our size struggle to support multiple teams. (New Orleans with the Jazz/Saints and Saints/Hornets.)

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:25 PM

Their budget is half that. Things affiliated with them bring 1b total to the system area, which includes all of south texas. Their total budget is still only 470b.

KCI has a market cap of over $4bil, total revenues over $1.1b with a gross profit of about equal to UTHSC's tota budget.

Again - how many colleges buy season tickets and sky boxes to sporting events? They are a non-profit. They arent going to be one of the main companies to support.

You rag on NO for "only having oil" but you cant show better companies in SA, and when you try, you use a non-profit university.

You arent real, bright. I hope you realize that.

I wasn't using the UTHSCSA as an example of a company (because its not) that would buy lux. boxes or whatever.

You said KCI was the largest economic stimulator. Granted you did say company but the UTHSCSA again, pumps in over 1 billion annually. Those poeple who make a living being employed by the UTHSCSA but tickets as well. Which, you know, helps make the Dome look more filled.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:27 PM

What is proven is that a city the size of Jacksonville or SA can well support one major franchise.

What is also proven is that cities our size struggle to support multiple teams. (New Orleans with the Jazz/Saints and Saints/Hornets.)

New Orleans is not our size.

Denver has a population of barely 400,000 more than San Antonio.

Buffalo? They have an NFL and NHL team. Pittsburgh with its NFL and NHL team. Indy with its NFL and NBA team

MannyIsGod

09-20-2005, 05:31 PM

:lmao

Never fails.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:33 PM

:lmao

Never fails.

Where is Manny?

On my nut sack

Where is Manny?

On my nut sack

Why is Manny

On your nut sack?

Why is Manny

On your nut sack?

TOP-CHERRY

09-20-2005, 05:33 PM

Arent you the guy who stole pictures, said they were yours and posted them on the nsync message board, then had a complete and total break down when called on it?
Yes, he is.

:D

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 05:34 PM

Where is this South Texas mecca with streets paved with gold and buxom senoritas with PhD's raking in six figure incomes TheWriter speaks of?

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:35 PM

Where is this South Texas mecca with streets paved with gold and buxom senoritas with PhD's raking in six figure incomes TheWriter speaks of?

Next to the city of white guys pretending to be big black guys on the internet.

2pac

09-20-2005, 05:36 PM

I wasn't using the UTHSCSA as an example of a company (because its not) that would buy lux. boxes or whatever.

You said KCI was the largest economic stimulator. Granted you did say company but the UTHSCSA again, pumps in over 1 billion annually. Those poeple who make a living being employed by the UTHSCSA but tickets as well. Which, you know, helps make the Dome look more filled.

I didnt say KCI was the largest economic stimulator - I said they were the largest company - which I believe they are.

Tickets are fine, but the NFL - and TOm Benson- want to see skyboxes sold, and the UTHSC isnt going to be buying them. Local companies buy them for use with their big clients and bigwigs. Universities dont buy them.

New Orleans is not our size.

The metro area of New Orleans is about 1.3mm people. Thats roughly comparible to SA.

SA is unique in that we dont have a ton of huge suburbs. Most of our people are in the actual city limits. In the past few years, Boerne has gotten bigger and more people commute from NewB, but it isnt like most big cities.

There are 2mil people in Houston, but 5mil in the metro area (sugarland, conroe, new caney, humble, katy, baytown, clear lake, etc.) There were 450,000 people in new orleans, but 1.3mm in the metro area (which includes Slidell, Gretna, Kenner, Metarie, Covington, Mandeville, etc)

Because of this, it is hard to compare total populations. SA at 1.2mm people has more people than Dallas, but does anyone want to compare the two? We have a lot of people, but we are one of the worst TV markets in the nation.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 05:37 PM

New Orleans is not our size.

Denver has a population of barely 400,000 more than San Antonio.

Buffalo? They have an NFL and NHL team. Pittsburgh with its NFL and NHL team. Indy with its NFL and NBA team

Have you ever in your life been to Denver? Denver's downtown puts SA's to shame.

Which MSA has a higher average per capita income? disposable income? Which MSA has a larger TV market? What other NFL franchises are there in Colorado? New Mexico? Wyoming?

There are some reasons Denver has four major pro sport franchises and San Antonio de Bexar has one.

whottt

09-20-2005, 05:37 PM

You poor San Antonians...I tole you guys the way this was going to get portrayed in the media and that the NFL would be resistant to moving the Saints, especially right now, and would nix itm and it would be a PR nightmare if ya'll went hard after the Saints while they are still pulling the bodies out of NO.

What did I get? A pile-on. Don't say you weren't warned...you should have let LA set themselves up as the bad guys.

And it is true...the NFL does have an interest in keeping the Saints in NO if only for it's Superbowl signifigance.

Oh and don't even think Austin is part of the SA market...it's UT's and the Cowboys market..no one else, they don't even care about the Spurs here.

But I don't believe him when he says there's no chance for SA...outside of LA...what other big cites don't have a football team? Isn't SA the biggest? Or close to it? So if he itends to go big SA has to be on his radar.

But I can tell you guys right now that thinking you can just stick a team into the Alamodome is very naive...That's not the kind of Stadium the NFL is looking for, it's a freaking dump....You guys want the NFL they are going to want to see serious money from you and commitment to a new state of the art stadium.

And your Mayor needs to play the political game...Tagliabue is putting the squeeze on ya'll for a bigger sign of commitment...you need to come up with a bigger play than just...hey we support the Spurs and we have the Alamodome. Talk about smalltime playyas...sheesh.

You guys are the Military hub for the entire Southern Unites States, SA is a miltary town...one of the backbones of America. Ya'll need to get a, "Tagliabue hates the Military and doesn't want them to have NFL" campaign going. The NFL is the military's bitch. You need to put his nuts in a political vice, ...and commit to a bigtime stadium.
BTW, Jones and Tagliabue don't like each other...Tagliabue had no problems fucking the Cowboys in the early 90's and destroying that dynasty and it's value as the #1 sports franchise...it's not about Jerry.

Don't give up SA...but stop being so crass about going after the Saints, at least wait until the bodies are buried..Geezus....and stop acting smalltime by thinking anyone is going to get excited about sticking a franchise in that Dome.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 05:38 PM

Vashner

09-20-2005, 05:38 PM

Ok that makes 2 people in bed with Jerry Jones ^^

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:39 PM

I didnt say KCI was the largest economic stimulator - I said they were the largest company - which I believe they are.

Tickets are fine, but the NFL - and TOm Benson- want to see skyboxes sold, and the UTHSC isnt going to be buying them. Local companies buy them for use with their big clients and bigwigs. Universities dont buy them.

That's where our wires were crossed. You were talking about a company buying skyboxes while I was simply talking dollar amounts put into the economy.

The metro area of New Orleans is about 1.3mm people. Thats roughly comparible to SA.

1.3 milion is comparible to 1.9 million?[/QUOTE]

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 05:40 PM

What is proven is that a city the size of Jacksonville or SA can well support one major franchise.

What is also proven is that cities our size struggle to support multiple teams. (New Orleans with the Jazz/Saints and Saints/Hornets.)
Gee....is it because the owners refused to field a competetive team?

So Green Bay....size 90,000....can support a team and SA...1.8 mil San info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio,_Texas).

Jacksonville 1.1mil
New Orleans 1.3mil

We are bigger than New Orleans and they still want to keep the team there?
They have no stadium. They are playing some home games in a college stadium in a city the size of Corpus Christi.
LA had TWO CHANCES....too bad....how many chances do they get?

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:40 PM

Have you ever in your life been to Denver? Denver's downtown puts SA's to shame.

Which MSA has a higher average per capita income? disposable income? Which MSA has a larger TV market? What other NFL franchises are there in Colorado? New Mexico? Wyoming?

There are some reasons Denver has four major pro sport franchises and San Antonio de Bexar has one.

What does Downtown Denver putting SA to shame (and how? Skyscrapers?) have anything to do with shit?

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:41 PM

Chamber of Commerce still does not seem able to grasp what that means.

Yeah, one of the worst, except s better than New Orleans, Buffalo, Jacksonville.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 05:42 PM

What does Downtown Denver putting SA to shame (and how? Skyscrapers?) have anything to do with shit?

When you cited Denver as an example of a similiar market that supports multiple pro sports franchises, numbnuts.

Again, go to Denver, take Slomo's camera and report back to me. You'll see.

Vashner

09-20-2005, 05:45 PM

We are big enough for a NFL team. Any other statement is stupid...

And if you don't support or think we should have a NFL team ... take a hike....

Horry For 3!

09-20-2005, 05:47 PM

Better get your tickets for the only three NFL games to ever be played in San Antonio.
Got mine.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:47 PM

When you cited Denver as an example of a similiar market that supports multiple pro sports franchises, numbnuts.

Again, go to Denver, take Slomo's camera and report back to me. You'll see.

Yes, the downtown is nice, skyscrpaper rise, but tell me what new skyscraper has been built in Denver in the last 25 years? That;s right, Denver has the same skyline it had 25 years ago.

2pac

09-20-2005, 05:49 PM

San Antonio's per capita income is $17k.
17% live under the poverty line.

New Orleans' per capita income was $17k.

Denver has a total metro population of 2.6mm.
Per capita income of $24K

Indianapolis, Indiana has a met pop of 1.6mm
Per capita income of $22K

Pittsburgh has a total metro population of 2.4mm
per capita income of $18K

Should your name be changed to "The Writer -Everyone's bitch"

2pac

09-20-2005, 05:51 PM

And BTW: New Orleans did NOT support the Hornets or the Saints very well. The government of Louisiana had to pay off both owners.

When there was just the Saints, they did a pretty good job supporting them.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:52 PM

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:53 PM

2pac

09-20-2005, 05:54 PM

Gee....is it because the owners refused to field a competetive team?

So Green Bay....size 90,000....can support a team and SA...1.8 mil San info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio,_Texas).

Jacksonville 1.1mil
New Orleans 1.3mil

We are bigger than New Orleans and they still want to keep the team there?
They have no stadium. They are playing some home games in a college stadium in a city the size of Corpus Christi.
LA had TWO CHANCES....too bad....how many chances do they get?

Green Bay has one pro team - and they have rabid fans that wait a lifetime for season tickets. If they didnt support their team like that, the Packers would be yanked in a heartbeat.

Jacksonville is only supporting the Jags - no other team.

That college stadium is bigger than any football stadium in Texas.

And the Hornets should have never been in NO - they should have gone to Vegas, baby.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 05:54 PM

Yes, the downtown is nice, skyscrpaper rise, but tell me what new skyscraper has been built in Denver in the last 25 years? That;s right, Denver has the same skyline it had 25 years ago.

:lol

It has nothing to do with the skyline. It has plenty to do with the retail and residential development there as well as the degree of fine urban planning. SA's downtown looks like a joke compared to Denver's. It's rather obvious that the Denver area has a much more attractive population from a TV market perspective than San Antonio, which is why, again, Denver has 4 pro teams and SA has 1. Denver's population has a higher avg per capita income, disposable income and # of households with TVs.

Plus the number of skyscrapers means jack shit. What matters more is the amount of overall office space and quality thereof in the MSA.

Vashner

09-20-2005, 05:55 PM

They are painting a 65 foot Saints logo on the dome right now...

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:55 PM

Green Bay has one pro team - and they have rabid fans that wait a lifetime for season tickets. If they didnt support their team like that, the Packers would be yanked in a heartbeat.

For someone who seems to think he knows everything. You'd think he'd know that the Green Bay Packers are the only pro team that is publicly traded, which is the reason they're still even in Green Bay.

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 05:56 PM

Because of this, it is hard to compare total populations. SA at 1.2mm people has more people than Dallas, but does anyone want to compare the two? We have a lot of people, but we are one of the worst TV markets in the nation.

No....because we are comparing SMSA not city population......Dallas includes Fort Worth as well

Just because we have fewer suburbs means nothing. SA's SMSA is bigger than New Orleans, dosen't matter if they are in the city limits or not.

The NFL doesn't want to move into a "small" market.....yet we have Jacksonville, Buffalo, Green Bay, etc.

Also, the Vikings ar not seeing much love and aren't they supposed to be a big market? They are wanting to move. Market size has nothing to do with NFL aspirations.

The Oilers moved but were in a big market, as did the Cardinals, Browns, Colts.

Indy is not much bigger than San Antonio...what major companies are based there?
It was mentioned somewhere that toyota would pitch in 25-30mil dollars to keep the Saints if needed. Plus Benson has implied that the Saints shpuld be in San Antonio and if NO is unavailable due to logistics he wants to play here. If you allow Al Davis to moved as he pleases along with Art Modell, and the Oilers' owner why not the Saints?

Ask Jerry Jones.

2pac

09-20-2005, 05:57 PM

Thanks for using the 2000 numbers.

Because last time I checked todays date is 9/20/00.

Right?

You know the census is only done every 10 years right. This isnt really news. Started that way in 1790 or so. Read up, dumbass.

The population of every city is estimated for this year.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:57 PM

:lol

It has nothing to do with the skyline. It has plenty to do with the retail and residential development there as well as the degree of fine urban planning. SA's downtown looks like a joke compared to Denver's. It's rather obvious that the Denver area has a much more attractive population from a TV market perspective than San Antonio, which is why, again, Denver has 4 pro teams and SA has 1. Denver's population has a higher avg per capita income, disposable income and # of households with TVs.

Plus the number of skyscrapers means jack shit. What matters more is the amount of overall office space and quality thereof in the MSA.

Much more attractive population from a TV market perspective?

Lets try a less vague next time.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:58 PM

You know the census is only done every 10 years right. This isnt really news. Started that way in 1790 or so. Read up, dumbass.

The population of every city is estimated for this year.

Yeah, and the 10 year census isn't estimated as well.... :rolleyes

The census releases yearly numbers that are as good as the 10 year census.

Read up, dipshit.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 05:58 PM

For someone who seems to think he knows everything. You'd think he'd know that the Green Bay Packers are the only pro team that is publicly traded, which is the reason they're still even in Green Bay.

Celtics, Boston.

From what I recall, the Packers are not public.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 05:59 PM

Much more attractive population from a TV market perspective?

Lets try a less vague next time.

How is that vague? Denver has a more affluent population with more disposable income. That is reflected in the development downtown as well as every govt stat you care to take a look at.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 05:59 PM

Celtics, Boston.

From what I recall, the Packers are not public.

Um, the Packers are public, and the only pro sports team in the USA that is.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 06:00 PM

How is that vague? Denver has a more affluent population with more disposable income. That is reflected in the development downtown as well as every govt stat you care to take a look at.

They do have a large "affluent" population in the core. But again, WTF does that have to do with landing a sports team, its superficial reasoning.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 06:02 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers

The Packers are now the only publicly owned company with a board of directors in American professional sports.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 06:03 PM

They do have a large "affluent" population in the core. But again, WTF does that have to do with landing a sports team, its superficial reasoning.

:lol

Yeah, after all what pro league would want an affluent population in a market when they could have SA's South side?

It has plenty to do with the location and relocation of pro sports franchises.

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 06:05 PM

And the Hornets should have never been in NO - they should have gone to Vegas, baby.

But they are....so that is part of the equation.

When there was just the Saints, they did a pretty good job supporting them.

That college stadium is bigger than any football stadium in Texas.
Stadium size doesn't mean all that much. LSU is a college....how many college students do you n=know that can afford a ticket to a pro game each week? The college fills that stadium with students where much of the cost of the tickets are included in tuition.
if that was case the Chargers wiuld play in the Rose Bowl 92,000
The spurs would still be playing the dome.
Pistons would play in the silverdome
Sonics would play in the Kingdome..until it was razed.
Size doesn't always matter.

You know the census is only done every 10 years right. This isnt really news. Started that way in 1790 or so. Read up, dumbass.
Yes....but they do make yearly estimate updates.....you read up.

2pac

09-20-2005, 06:05 PM

The NFL doesn't want to move into a "small" market.....yet we have Jacksonville, Buffalo, Green Bay, etc.
Buffalo and Green Bay are both old teams that have been supported every year for the life of the teams. If they werent supported, they would leave.

Jacksonville got a team because they were the biggest city in the nation without any sports teams. They seem happy to have them.

Also, the Vikings ar not seeing much love and aren't they supposed to be a big market? They are wanting to move. Market size has nothing to do with NFL aspirations.
It has a lot to do with where the NFL would put a team. They care about corporate support, population, income, media market, etc. There are more factors than just population.

The Oilers moved but were in a big market, as did the Cardinals, Browns, Colts.
Oilers and Browns were moved because of idiot owners. Same with the Raiders in both moves.

Indy is not much bigger than San Antonio...what major companies are based there?
I know this: Indianapolis has half the poverty of SA, much more GP than SA.
I dont know about specific companies - never been there, but they have the only two sports teams in the state. Always a plus.

It was mentioned somewhere that toyota would pitch in 25-30mil dollars to keep the Saints if needed. Plus Benson has implied that the Saints shpuld be in San Antonio and if NO is unavailable due to logistics he wants to play here. If you allow Al Davis to moved as he pleases along with Art Modell, and the Oilers' owner why not the Saints?

I'd love to see that support from Toyota. I'd love for the Saints to be in SA - they have always been my favorite team, but logistically there are places that make much better sense.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 06:05 PM

2pac

09-20-2005, 06:07 PM

Yeah, and the 10 year census isn't estimated as well.... :rolleyes

The census releases yearly numbers that are as good as the 10 year census.

Read up, dipshit.

Point me to those numbers for each city. I went to wikipedia for each city. If they are wrong, show it.

You really are a little bitch.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 06:08 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers

I don't see any registration statements with the SEC. It's not "public" as in listed on the NYSE, AMEX or Nasdaq.

ChumpDumper

09-20-2005, 06:08 PM

We'll get a team as soon as a Hays or Comal county stadium makes sense.

Give it 20 years.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 06:09 PM

I don't see any registration statements with the SEC. It's not "public" as in listed on the NYSE, AMEX or Nasdaq.

It's public as in the city of Green Bay bought the team. And sells shares to residents.

It's not on the NYSE.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 06:10 PM

Why bring up the southside?

I'm sure Denver has no poor sides of town. Right? I mean, your a home boy. you should know if there's any "hoods" in Denver.

And to tell me Downtown SA wouldn't look "good" on tv is complete horseshit spewed from a ignorant jackass.

WTF? How do you not comprehend that a MSA with a significantly higher avg per capita income is going to be a more desirable market for a pro franchise?

Again, 4 > 1. Apparently a host of wealthy individuals and experts don't know something you do. That appears to be the greatness that is Southside.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 06:10 PM

It's public as in the city of Green Bay bought the team. And sells shares to residents.

It's not on the NYSE.

That's different. "Public" in the securities business means something entirely different.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 06:10 PM

Point me to those numbers for each city. I went to wikipedia for each city. If they are wrong, show it.

You really are a little bitch.

San Antonio's 2003 numbers:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108597.html

Oh, and thank you.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 06:11 PM

That's different. "Public" in the securities business means something entirely different.

I never said it was in terms of business.

The city had to buy the team in order to keep them in Green Bay. They pay for stadium up keep, etc.

That's the only reason the Packers are still in Green Bay.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 06:13 PM

WTF? How do you not comprehend that a MSA with a significantly higher avg per capita income is going to be a more desirable market for a pro franchise?

Hey dumbass, reading comprehension is not a bad thing.

Where did I say a league wouldn’t choose a city with a higher per captia income? I never did.

You made a superficial comment that I gave my retort to.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 06:15 PM

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 06:16 PM

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 06:17 PM

Also, Denver's overall business base is a tad bit more appealing than SA's. That is reflected, again, in the per capita income stats and I'm sure in other stats that capture.

Ancedotally, anyone who's actually set foot in both SA and Denver for any amount of time knows that Denver is a much more attractive location for a pro franchise or two or three.

SA just does not have the economic base to support a NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL franchise combined.

End of discussion.

Why because your lard ass says so?

Because you know the in's and out's?

Show me the proof? So me how San Antonio's economic situation is the same as it was in 1990? Or the same as in 2000. Come on poser, do it.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 06:24 PM

What data have you provided? Above in the thread we have evidence that the Denver MSA had nearly a 50% higher average per capita income in 2000 than SA. That's not going to be overcome over 5 years.

Go to the Census Bureau, go to the BLS. Find me the stats that prove your point.

"Poser"? What are your credentials you little dumb bitch? That is, besides posting someone else's pictures on a boy band fan website.

You talk a lot of shit but you haven't a clue. When you are actually hired and paid to assess the economic characteristics of a given market and assess the economic impact of various industries in that market, let me know. Until then, shut the fuck up already.

hussker

09-20-2005, 06:29 PM

Hey dumbass, reading comprehension is not a bad thing.

Where did I say a league wouldn’t choose a city with a higher per captia income? I never did.

You made a superficial comment that I gave my retort to.

Reading Comprehension Test:

In reading the most recent report from the NFL Commissioner's office, which team is not getting an NFL franchise?

a) San Antonio
b) The home of the 2005 NBA Champions
c) a "small" market
d) All of the above

Let's face it, we can b!TC# about it all we want...P-Tags does not read this board and it carries no weight with the NFL.

Also, I heard on some local radio stations here (Houston radio) that San Antonio could "ONLY SELL" 100K tickets for the three games. Now, we all know why that is ALL we could buy...do you think the media would report accurately?

Have they ever?

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 06:30 PM

Jacksonville got a team because they were the biggest city in the nation without any sports teams.
Since we are including SMSA, the following cities are bigger than Jacksonville (1.2mil) and they have no sports teams...excpet columbus who was awarded an NHl after the Jacksonville recieved the Jaguars.

Greensboro/Winston-Salem 1.3mil
Raleigh-Durham 1.3mil
Austin 1.5mil....has Longhorns' stadium
Columbus, Oh. (at the time) 1.6mil....has OSU stadium

No one ever mentions Honolulu, they play the Pro-Bowl there...it is not as big though.

As you can see...size means nothing.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 06:31 PM

Reading Comprehension Test:

In reading the most recent report from the NFL Commissioner's office, which team is not getting an NFL franchise?

a) San Antonio
b) The home of the 2005 NBA Champions
c) a "small" market
d) All of the above

Let's face it, we can b!TC# about it all we want...P-Tags does not read this board and it carries no weight with the NFL.

Also, I heard on some local radio stations here (Houston radio) that San Antonio could "ONLY SELL" 100K tickets for the three games. Now, we all know why that is ALL we could buy...do you think the media would report accurately?

Have they ever?

If Benson

A) Wants to move the team here he will.

Well, there's the correct answer.

Opinionater

09-20-2005, 06:33 PM

IMHO, San Antonio is a Dallas Cowboy's city and always will be and that is why SA will not get an NFL team.

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 06:33 PM

Also, I heard on some local radio stations here (Houston radio) that San Antonio could "ONLY SELL" 100K tickets for the three games
The whole thing with this is that the Saints are waiting to hear from season ticket holders and are reserviing those tickets for them as long as possible....that is what I heard.

hussker

09-20-2005, 06:36 PM

The whole thing with this is that the Saints are waiting to hear from season ticket holders and are reserviing those tickets for them as long as possible....that is what I heard.

See... you know too! That is why I said "WE" all know...That is not being reported fairly, just like the press always does.

They do not just slam politicians ya know!

Vashner

09-20-2005, 06:41 PM

Someone make a video of the Commish like getting his balls kicked over and over and play team america BEEP yea as the soundtrack...

One of those ymtnd things.

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 06:45 PM

See... you know too! That is why I said "WE" all know...That is not being reported fairly, just like the press always does.

They do not just slam politicians ya know!
This is a unique situation and more accurate attendence figures won't be know until a few days before game day.

2pac

09-20-2005, 06:54 PM

Since we are including SMSA, the following cities are bigger than Jacksonville (1.2mil) and they have no sports teams...excpet columbus who was awarded an NHl after the Jacksonville recieved the Jaguars.

Greensboro/Winston-Salem 1.3mil
Raleigh-Durham 1.3mil
Austin 1.5mil....has Longhorns' stadium
Columbus, Oh. (at the time) 1.6mil....has OSU stadium

No one ever mentions Honolulu, they play the Pro-Bowl there...it is not as big though.

As you can see...size means nothing.

Are you that fucking dumb?

The state of Ohio has the Bengals and Browns. The whole city of Columbus goes to support the Buckeyes. (100k plus every week) Thats a lot to contend with.

Raleigh-Durham is multiple cities, but it also supports TWO major universities and is near the Bobcats, Panthers.
Greensboro/Winston-Salem - same fuckin deal. All these small cities are near each other and they got a football team in Charlotte the same year the Jags came about. You think the NFL is dumb enough to put two new football teams in North Carolina?

Population is 1.3 in Austin, and they all support a major university. City is built around the university, plus nearby football teams in Houston and the very supported Dallas Cowboys.

MannyIsGod

09-20-2005, 06:58 PM

People just refuse to admit it. They just don't get it.

hussker

09-20-2005, 07:01 PM

This is a unique situation and more accurate attendence figures won't be know until a few days before game day.

Very true indeed. Lies, damn lies, statistics... Twain or Disraeli (pick the one you think said it.)

The bottom line is, the NFL is against SA getting a team. Period.

exstatic

09-20-2005, 07:08 PM

Enjoy the three games. I have tickets for game one, and may attend game two, as well. That's all we're getting folks. PT has already set up a meeting to schedule next season in a fucking college stadium...that's how much he doesn't want the Saints in SA. We're not dealing with Al Davis here, folks. Tom Benson will toe the line.

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 07:14 PM

Are you that fucking dumb?

The state of Ohio has the Bengals and Browns. The whole city of Columbus goes to support the Buckeyes. (100k plus every week) Thats a lot to contend with.

Raleigh-Durham is multiple cities, but it also supports TWO major universities and is near the Bobcats, Panthers.
Greensboro/Winston-Salem - same fuckin deal. All these small cities are near each other and they got a football team in Charlotte the same year the Jags came about. You think the NFL is dumb enough to put two new football teams in North Carolina?

Population is 1.3 in Austin, and they all support a major university. City is built around the university, plus nearby football teams in Houston and the very supported Dallas Cowboys.

You said population in your initial statement....not who supported who.

Sure columbus is a buxckeye town....but you did say population is why Jacksonville got a team....you made no exceptions.

Raleigh-Durham supports colleges...so why have the Saints in Baton Rouge? They support LSU.

Bobcats were not even there at the time. Panthers came in at the same time, that is true.

Austin does have Arena football.

BTW....the obscenisties are not necessary...it is not needed to prove a point.

Would I like the Saints here? Sure. I am a cowboy fan but dispise Jerry Jones, his egos is what killed the Cowboys of the 90's and now have them stuck in mediocrity.

The Texans just plain stink...showing little signs of improvement.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 07:21 PM

Nashville and Memphis both larger than Jacksonville did not have any pro sports teams in 1995.

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 07:21 PM

People just refuse to admit it. They just don't get it.

I get it.....just don't like it.....I am h=just voicing my opinion....I know full well that it means little or nothing except to me and those who read it and agree with me.

I just think that San Antonio should have a chance to show it can support two pro teams. At this point San Antonio is a much better alternative than Baton Rouge. The players prefer SA over BR, it gives them at least some time of feeling of a home field. They have several displaced fans here in the area as well as Houston and Dallas. SA is a more centralized location for then to come see their hometown team play.

Tagliabue was the NFL lawyer in the USFL lawsuit as well, and I think he holds that against us as well.

CharlieMac

09-20-2005, 07:26 PM

A lot of South Texas would support an NFL franchise here. These country bumpkins have money and those without money (my family) would pawn shit to make an NFL game on a weekly basis.

Tags crushed a lot of hopes with that statement.

2pac

09-20-2005, 07:27 PM

Tennessee would have gotten an expansion team if Bud Adams hadnt already signed a relocation agreement in 1995. (16 Nov 95)

Vashner

09-20-2005, 07:28 PM

http://conanisannflref.ytmnd.com/

http://snitskypunt.ytmnd.com/

2pac

09-20-2005, 07:32 PM

The players prefer SA over BR, it gives them at least some time of feeling of a home field.
The players wanted SA because Benson worked out an agreement to practice there and so they moved their families there when they evacuated.

They have several displaced fans here in the area as well as Houston and Dallas.
A freakin ton of NO residents are in BR.

You rantings are increasingly illogical. So Tags has it out for SA?

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 07:36 PM

The players wanted SA because Benson worked out an agreement to practice there and so they moved their families there when they evacuated.

Excactly. The players and coaches have found housing and found schools for their kids.

So playing in the Dome is the truest sense of "home field advantage." Playing in BR requires them to fly over there days in advance meaning they'll be away from their families.

2pac

09-20-2005, 07:43 PM

Excactly. The players and coaches have found housing and found schools for their kids.

So playing in the Dome is the truest sense of "home field advantage." Playing in BR requires them to fly over there days in advance meaning they'll be away from their families.

Football teams dont really flys days in advance. Practice M-F, fly Sat meeting, game Sun.

cherylsteele

09-20-2005, 08:07 PM

Tennessee would have gotten an expansion team if Bud Adams hadnt already signed a relocation agreement in 1995. (16 Nov 95)

You don't know that for sure just like you have no idea wether or not we could support the NFL in SA. There were no owners coming forward that I know of to buy a expansion team. They built the stadium in Nashville to lure a relocating franchise.

If size mattered then LA should have a team and not Houston.

So Tags has it out for SA?
It sure seems that way....along with Jerry Jones.....and possibly you, probably becuase you are from Houston and just dislike San Antonio for whatever reason.

You have 3 NBA teams in Texas and are quite successful....the NFL should /could/can work as well.

Marcus Bryant

09-20-2005, 09:34 PM

What's the point in moving a franchise to SA? You aren't going to get more Texans to watch NFL football or Texans to watch more football, as the case may be. It's already been demonstrated that two NFL franchises in Texas, if that, are needed to gain viewers in football mad Texas.

Perhaps I'm off, but I'd suspect that a franchise in LA would be worth a couple of hundred mil more than one in good old San Antonio de Bexar. Some of you are counting perhaps a little too much on the civic pride of Mr. Benson. I don't know about you, but for $200 to 300 million I'd forget SA ever existed.

Maybe Chamber of Commerce's price is substantially higher. If true, at least he'd have an excuse for his stupidity.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 09:47 PM

Football teams dont really flys days in advance. Practice M-F, fly Sat meeting, game Sun.

Exactly. When they play in the city, they leave their home the day of the game.

Hense the home field advantage.

samikeyp

09-20-2005, 10:06 PM

He's Jerry Jones bed buddy... they do coke at the dallas White house together I bet....

Careful, your anti-Cowboy bias is showing. If you ever followed football, especially in the 90's, you will know that JJ is NOT one of Tags' favorite owners. With all the problems Jones has caused the commish over signing endorsement deals with the competitors of NFL sponsors (Nike, Pepsi, etc.) to line his own pockets, Jones and Tags are not buddies.

I do agree with you Cheryl....I would imagine JJ does have objections to a team in SA since this is a huge Cowboys area but its for those reasons and money, not because of loyalty to Tagliabue.

NZHayden

09-20-2005, 10:16 PM

that nfl guy sounds like a complete ass

Mark in Austin

09-20-2005, 10:27 PM

PT’s comments shouldn’t surprise anybody. The NFL would be crazy to support SA when Los Angeles is available at any time, much less given the current situation. Here’s why: The two main indicators to look at are Nielsen Media Research ranking of TV homes in a DMA (Designated Market Area) and to a lesser extent, MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) population. A distant third from the League’s perspective is corporate/fan support. The NFL cares much, much more about ad revenue (DMA & MSA rankings) than luxury box sales support (corporate base), which is more important to the individual owners.

When you look at rankings of the number of TV homes in a DMA, the picture becomes clear. (This is the ranking that the networks for the most part base their advertising fees on. The basic idea here is that the higher the total number of TV homes in local markets, generally the more $$$$ the networks can charge for commercial airtime during NFL games. The more money the networks can make, the more $$$$$$$ they are willing to pay the league for the rights to broadcast the games.)

Looking at the rankings, there are four NFL cities with a lower DMA rank than San Antonio’s #37 with 760,410 TV Homes (0.69% of US). Only one is a recent expansion franchise.

# 37 – San Antonio 760,410 (0.69% of total TV homes in the US)
# 43 – New Orleans 672,150 (0.61% of US)
# 49 – Buffalo 644,430 (0.59% of US)
# 52 – Jacksonville 624,220 (0.57% of US)
# 69 – Green Bay 432,810 (0.39% of US)

There are 9 cities ranked higher than San Antonio that don’t have NFL teams:

# 2 – Los Angeles 5,536,430 (5.02% of total TV homes in the US)
#19 – Sacramento 1,345,820 (1.22% of US)
#20 – Orlando 1,345,700 (1.22% of US)
#23 – Portland 1,099,890 (1.00 % of US)
#29 – Raleigh-Durham 985,200 (0.89% of US)
#32 – Columbus 890,770 (0.80% of US)
#33 – Milwaukee 880,390 (0.80% of US)
#35 – Greenville 815,460 (0.74% of US)
#36 – Salt Lake City 810,830 (0.74% of US)
# 37 – San Antonio 760,410 (0.69% of US)

__________________________________________________ _____________

Looking at the MSA rankings, there are 7 NFL cities with a lower MSA than San Antonio’s # 29 rank at 1.7 million:

# 29 - San Antonio: 1.7 million
# 34 - Indianapolis: 1.5 million
#37 - Charlotte: 1.3 million
# 38 - New Orleans: 1.3 million
# 39 - Nashville: 1.3 million
# 42 - Buffalo: 1.1 million
# 45 - Jacksonville: 1.1 million
# 152 - Green Bay: .28 million

There are five MSA's that are ranked higher than San Antonio that don’t have an NFL team:

# 2 - Los Angeles: 12.3 million
# 13 - Riverside: 3.2 million
# 25 - Portland: 1.9 million
# 27 – Sacramento: 1.7 million
# 28 – San Jose: 1.7 million
# 29 - San Antonio: 1.7 million

__________________________________________________ ___________

When you look at the numbers and see that Los Angeles has a 4.2 times the total number of TV homes and 7.2 times the population of San Antonio, there should be no doubt where the NFL is focused on going next. And even with LA off the board, both Sacramento and Orlando have almost 80% more TV homes than San Antonio, and Portland has over 40% more than SA. It's not like San Antonio is the clear-cut number two choice.

Looking at the MSA numbers, Portland has about 200,000 more people; with Sacramento and Orlando having about the same population as San Antonio. When you project out the 1990-2000 growth rate to 2010, Orlando will join Sacramento and Portland as having larger projected 2010 MSAs than San Antonio.

To put all this another way: Bob McNair (the owner of the Texans) had to keep raising his bid until he got to $700 million dollars plus a publicly financed $310 million retractable roof, state of the art stadium before getting the NFL to stop begging for LA to get a stadium plan together in 1999. And Houston, at #10 in DMA and #8 in MSA has over 2.5 times the number of TV homes and MSA population than San Antonio has. If Houston (who had a stadium financing plan in place a year before LA's deadline) was seen as clearly less desirable than LA (until McNair started raising his franchise fee bid in $50 million increments to get the league's attention), there is no way the league would ever endorse San Antonio as a viable city when LA still has no team. The difference in advertising revenue is just way too great. It's not the NFL or commish "hating on SA", it's just simple math.

Now, if Benson wants to move the team on his own it's a little different; but it still means 24 of 32 owners would have to approve the move. Would that happen? Probably, since they approved the Cardinals, Rams, Raiders, Browns, and Oilers moves in past/recent years. Prior to any approval though, the City would need to commit to either build a new stadium or renovate the Alamodome, (the 2001 study commissioned by the city said it would cost $140 million to get it close to NFL standards) plus match or somehow mitigate the ticket guarantees/subsidies that Benson has from the state of LA in the Superdome (which he has refused to give up in exchange for a renovated Superdome in the past). Per a recent article in the E-N, common thinking is 120 boxes and 10,000 club level seats need to be sold for a team to be financially viable for the owner.

Can San Antonio do it? Honestly, I don't know. It will require a tremendous amount of public money for (1) the stadium, and (2) ticket/box guarantees if sales fall short. Right now, I'd be willing to bet that a significant number of people are thinking the Saints can just move into the Dome with a minimum (MLS-sized) public investment in renovations. Once the real numbers for public spending become more widely known and understood though, I have a feeling that the general public's enthusiasm will be somewhat tempered. But as football crazy as San Antonio is right now, there still may be enough support for it to happen.

TheWriter

09-20-2005, 10:42 PM

PT’s comments shouldn’t surprise anybody. The NFL would be crazy to support SA when Los Angeles is available at any time, much less given the current situation. Here’s why: The two main indicators to look at are Nielsen Media Research ranking of TV homes in a DMA (Designated Market Area) and to a lesser extent, MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) population. A distant third from the League’s perspective is corporate/fan support. The NFL cares much, much more about ad revenue (DMA & MSA rankings) than luxury box sales support (corporate base), which is more important to the individual owners.

Good job. However, let me throw you a few curve balls.

San Antonio's percentage growth from 2000 to 2004 was 16.4%

Also, how does one find out the number of tv's a city has? Not by the Nielsen box they give people?

Because I have a tv, and I gave no Nielsen box. My parents home has six (five in the bedrooms and one in the kitchen that is never really used) none of which have the box.

So how do they know its only 760,410? Is it by "how many people have jobs in the city." If so, as of 2004 there were almost 900,000 (893,000) empolyed reisdents in San Antonio.

1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long................... 9,146.20
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana ................... 6,461.30 (8,143.20 with Riverside/San Bernardino)
3 Chicago-Naperville- .................................. 4,741.70
4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington .................................. 2,967.90
5 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington ........................ 2,918.50
6 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria ......................... 2,844.60
7 Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land ............................. 2,642.70
8 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach ................... 2,640.50
9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta ............................ 2,517.60
10 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy ................................... 2,429.00
11 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont ......................... 2,204.30 (3,058.00 with San Jose)
12 Detroit-Warren-Livonia ......................................... 2,174.20 2,364.50 with Ann Arbor
13 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale ..................................... 1,859.20
14 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington ....................... 1,833.60
15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue ..................................... 1,712.90 (1,961.3 with Olympia & Bremerton-Silverdale )
16 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario ....................... 1,681.90
17 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos ......................... 1,518.30
18 St. Louis .................................................. ............ 1,445.50
19 Baltimore-Towson ................................................. 1,334.60
20 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater ........................ 1,278.20
21 Denver-Aurora .................................................. .... 1,272.80 (1,436.00 with Boulder)
22 Pittsburgh .................................................. ........... 1,211.50
23 Kansas City .................................................. ........ 1,147.10 (1,390.60 with Topeka/St. Joe)
24 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton ............................ 1,099.20
25 Cincinnati-Middletown .......................................... 1,079.30 (1,528.10 with Dayton)
26 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor ....................................... 1,078.90 (1,452.70 with Akron)
27 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville ................. 1,022.00
28 Orlando .................................................. ............... 975.8
29 Columbus .................................................. ........... 907.50
30 San Antonio .................................................. ........ 893
31 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara ........................ 853.7
32 Las Vegas-Paradise ............................................. 835.8
33 Indianapolis .................................................. ........ 812.9
34 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News ................. 803.4
35 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis ......................... 801.4

I'd think they have tv's whether little or big screen.

I just don't get it.

Also, the MSA for San Antonio as of 2004 was 1,854,050 people.

RANK MSA 2004
1 New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA 18709802
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12925330
3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 9391515
4 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5800614
5 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 5700256
6 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 5361723
7 Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX 5180443
8 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 5139549
9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 4708297
10 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 4493165
11 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 4424649
12 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 4153870
13 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 3793081
14 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 3715360
15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3166828
16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 3116206
17 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 2931714
18 St. Louis, MO-IL 2764054
19 Baltimore-Towson, MD 2639213
20 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 2587967
21 Pittsburgh, PA 2401575
22 Denver-Aurora, CO 2287245
23 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 2137073
24 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 2064336
25 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 2058221
26 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 2016702
27 Kansas City, MO-KS 1925319
28 Orlando, FL 1861707
29 San Antonio, TX 1854050
30 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1741431

A lot of MSA's where shuffled around (Sac, Portland, and others) cities added and cities taken away.

Also, Riverside is part of metro LA. No way they're getting a team.

gameFACE

09-21-2005, 12:12 AM

Mark in Austin

09-21-2005, 12:54 AM

Also, how does one find out the number of tv's a city has? Not by the Nielsen box they give people?... I just don't get it.

Also, the MSA for San Antonio as of 2004 was 1,854,050 people.

RANK MSA 2004
1 New York-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA 18709802
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12925330
3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 9391515...
23 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 2137073
24 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 2064336
25 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 2058221
26 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA 2016702
27 Kansas City, MO-KS 1925319
28 Orlando, FL 1861707
29 San Antonio, TX 1854050
30 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1741431

A lot of MSA's where shuffled around (Sac, Portland, and others) cities added and cities taken away.

Also, Riverside is part of metro LA. No way they're getting a team.

As far as Nielsen Media Research goes, the numbers I am using are from their Estimates used throughout the 2005-2006 television season which starts on September 24, 2005. document. Check their website for their methodology. Regardless of how it is calculated, it is the source of the "Small Market" phrase, not a population count. And the San Antonio DMA is still significantly behind the Sacramento, Orlando, and Portland DMA's.

As far as MSA rank goes, even with the 16.4% growth, San Antonio's overall rank stayed the same - 29. You would need 16.4% growth every four years for twenty years to get San Antonio to a MSA population where the NFL and MLB start to consider it a city to target for expansion. Prior to that, you have to count on being able to bribe an owner of an existing franchise with more public money that what he's getting in his current city deal to get a team. It will be the same with Benson. SA will need to cough up a new or renovated stadium and most likely, box and club level sales guarantees.

As far as Riverside goes, why not? Oakland and San Francisco are part of the same MSA and DMA. They have NFL and MLB teams. LA has the Dodgers and Angels, Anaheim is closer than Riverside; NY has the Giants and Jets in the same stadium, and the Yankees and Mets. Baltimore is as close to DC as Riverside is to LA. They seem to be able to handle it. LA's team will come first, but after that...an argument could be made for Riverside over San Antonio. I think San Antonio would prevail in that debate, but it is a legit discussion to have from the NFL's perspective.

TheWriter

09-21-2005, 01:03 AM

San Antonio is the 3rd fastest growing city in the US behind Phoenix and Los Angeles:

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/us_cities_population.html

Also, if San Antonio grew by 16.4 percent every four years for 20 years, the metro population would be:

3,159,800

I don't think we need to wait 20 years. 3 million is a lot. If places like Charlotte and Jacksonville can get expansion teams with 1.2 and 1.7 million in 1995, then San Antonio should be able to get one now.

Mark in Austin

09-21-2005, 01:06 AM

What gets me is that Tagliabue doesn't have the balls to say "small TV market". Anything else he infers is fluff.

But here's my two cents on what I think this article is really about. Tagliabue is taking a shot back at Hardberger. Earlier in the week or late last week Hardberger said tounge-in-cheek that one seat would be reserved for the commish in the last row of the upper deck with the worst view because San Antonio was going to sell out all three games. I'm sure Tagliabue didn't take Hardberger's tough Texas talk kindly and is swiping back at him by even bringing up the idea of SA's real motive. The Mayor said fuck you first. Now Tagliabue is saying fuck you back. Enjoy the three games here because it's probably all we'll get for a while.

Sooooooo........In the mean time anyone know if there are any MLB teams looking to relocate in the next few years?

PT and other NFL reps omit TV from the "Small TV Market" phrase because from the NFL's perspective, television markets (or DMA's from the earlier post) are the only kinds of markets they consider - it is how their primary revenue source is determined.

I think Tagliabue could care less what the Mayor of San Antonio says about him personally (or in general for that matter) unless the mayor is interested in helping to finance a stadium to be built in LA. He cares a whole lot more about keeping the relocation of the Saints quiet for now because of the current level of sensitivity to all things New Orleans right now.

TheWriter

09-21-2005, 01:13 AM

Hardberger to NFL: S.A. is no 'small market'

Web Posted: 09/21/2005 12:00 AM CDT

Tom Orsborn
Express-News Staff Writer

Mayor Phil Hardberger on Tuesday dismissed NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue's characterization of San Antonio as a "small market" as the uninformed opinion of an outsider.

"Our market is becoming larger every day," Hardberger said. "But I can understand that people that don't live here, that live all the way across the United States, may not know that."

In an interview with the New Orleans Times-Picayune published Tuesday, Tagliabue rejected the idea that San Antonio's support for the displaced New Orleans Saints represents a chance for the city to prove its NFL worth. He implied San Antonio couldn't provide adequate support for an NFL team.

Responding specifically about San Antonio's qualifications, Tagliabue said the NFL has no plans to move "any teams into small markets."

Said Tagliabue: "We're going to be moving up in market size, not either down or flat."

Hardberger rejected Tagliabue's view, saying the league needs to look at "all the money" coming into San Antonio.

"The feeling the commissioner voiced, with due respect, is that of people who live a long way away and are not on the ground seeing what is happening here," Hardberger said.

There are many reasons the NFL labels San Antonio a "small market." Although it ranks eighth in the nation in population, the fan base is considered marginal because the total metropolitan area ranks 30th.

The NFL also dislikes San Antonio being only the 37th-largest television market. Still, it ranks ahead of NFL cities New Orleans (No. 43), Buffalo (No. 49), Jacksonville (No. 52) and Green Bay-Appleton (No. 69).

Tagliabue, through a league spokesman, declined an interview request from the San Antonio Express-News.

Tagliabue was blunt in his assessment of New Orleans' chances, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, of retaining the Saints. He said the league has all but ruled out the possibility the Saints would be able to play in New Orleans in 2006.

He said the league's initial plan for next season is to play the Saints' eight regular-season home games at LSU's Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, La., although he said logistical problems could prevent it. He also reiterated the league's goal of placing a franchise in Los Angeles, the nation's second largest TV market.

Tagliabue said the NFL "is going to do everything possible to make sure there's a New Orleans Saints. But people larger than us and institutions larger than us are going to have to succeed in making sure there is a robust, healthy New Orleans."

Saints owner Tom Benson could not be reached for comment.

The Saints, who have relocated their headquarters to San Antonio, will play three of their 2005 home games in the 65,000-seat Alamodome. The Oct. 2 contest between the Saints and the Buffalo Bills will be the first NFL regular-season game played in the Alamo City.

As of Tuesday, 66,348 tickets remained for the three contests, including just 6,883 for the Oct.16 game against the Atlanta Falcons, the Saints said.

"We will fill that stadium for all three games," Hardberger said.

Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff said fans from throughout South and Central Texas would buy tickets.

The NFL "may be right about San Antonio being a small market," Wolff said, "but we've always argued Austin, South Texas and even (northern) Mexico should be considered part of our market. The NFL has never bought that argument, but with these three games, we can prove them wrong."

Tagliabue was asked in the Times-Picayune interview if San Antonio is "dangerous territory" because local leaders have billed the three Alamodome games as an opportunity for the city to show it can support an NFL team.

Tagliabue alluded to comments from former Mayor Henry Cisneros, chairman of the economic development council of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce.

"They have to be clear in what their motives are," Tagliabue said. "To be helpful in the context of a national tragedy that grows out of an unprecedented disaster. And their motive is not to steal someone else's team. (Cisneros) said that."

On Tuesday, Cisneros was among city leaders who said Tagliabue's comments should not deter San Antonio from attempting to reach its goal of filling the Alamodome.

"We want to keep San Antonio in position for a team," Cisneros said. "We are only going to get stronger as the years go by. This should not deflate enthusiasm."

Still, Tagliabue made it clear he wants a team in Los Angeles.

"We've had enough teams move from large markets to small markets," Tagliabue said. "So if any teams are relocated in the future, the objective is going to be to concentrate them — put it this way — in markets that can really support them."

Those comments rankled David Lynd, chief operating officer of The Lynd Co., which manages apartments in nine states and has bought a sponsorship package for the Saints games.

"It doesn't surprise me (Tagliabue) would say that," Lynd said. "No one is going to give us anything. We have to prove ourselves. But the attendance at those three games will speak for itself."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA092105.01A.Tagliabue.130e3ceb.html

Mark in Austin

09-21-2005, 01:28 AM

San Antonio is the 3rd fastest growing city in the US behind Phoenix and Los Angeles:

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/us_cities_population.html

and?... you can keep quoting growth stats all you want. It doesn't change the fact that there are more desireable options for the NFL right now, and in the forseeable future than San Antonio.

Also, if San Antonio grew by 16.4 percent every four years for 20 years, the metro population would be:

3,159,800

I don't think we need to wait 20 years. 3 million is a lot.

You forgot to take into account the compounding growth rate. Starting in 2000 w/ 1,711,703, you would have:

2000: 1,711,703
2004: 1,992,422
2008: 2,319,180
2012: 2,699,525
2016: 3,142,247
2020: 3,657,576

so I actually think you need over 3.5 million for the NFL to target SA on their own.

If places like Charlotte and Jacksonville can get expansion teams with 1.2 and 1.7 million in 1995, then San Antonio should be able to get one now.

For expansion teams, you are absolutely wrong. As long as LA doesn't have a team, no other expansion teams will be granted. It took a $700 million dollar bribe to get the NFL to give an expansion team to Houston instead of LA, and that was with Houston having a stadium plan and LA not having one. And Houston is a city much more significant to the NFL than San Antonio is no matter how you measure it.

What the NFL did in 1995 has no bearing on the current state of the league. First, the League was looking to expand; now it is not. Second, in 1995, it didn't cost $700 million in franchise fees to get a team; now that is the minimum.

The only way the NFL comes to San Antonio in the next two decades is if the city offers a better deal to an existing franchise owner (like Benson) to get them to move to San Antonio.

TheWriter

09-21-2005, 01:30 AM

The only way the NFL comes to San Antonio in the next two decades is if the city offers a better deal to an existing franchise owner (like Benson) to get them to move to San Antonio.

Like they're doing now.

TheWriter

09-21-2005, 01:33 AM

Actually, San Antonio's 2000 metro population was 1,592,383

http://www.censusscope.org/us/m7240/chart_popl.html

http://www.demographia.com/db-usmet2000.htm

Vashner

09-21-2005, 01:37 AM

Can we sell tix and buy merchandise? Can we give first class TV coverage? First class hotels, food and entertainment? Yes...

The Commish can suck my BEEP....

Time for a new commish...

Mark in Austin

09-21-2005, 01:44 AM

Hardberger to NFL: S.A. is no 'small market'

Mayor Phil Hardberger on Tuesday dismissed NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue's characterization of San Antonio as a "small market" as the uninformed opinion of an outsider.

"Our market is becoming larger every day," Hardberger said. "But I can understand that people that don't live here, that live all the way across the United States, may not know that."

:lol. OK. Seriously, what else was the mayor going to do, publically agree with Tagliabue?

The NFL measures a market and classifies it according to its own standards. San Antonio might not be small market to San Antonians, but to the NFL, it is a small market.

oh, mayor? A lot of markets are getting larger every day. That's why in the past four years, San Antonio MSA population has moved up exactly 0 spots in the rankings despite 16.4% growth.

j-6

09-21-2005, 01:51 AM

This is San Antonio's last best chance at getting a team, no matter how steep the odds are. Minnesota is getting a new $675M Reliant-style stadium. Arizona will move in their new facility in Glendale next season. Indianapolis just signed a 30-year stadium contract in August with the city and will move into a new facility in '08. With those franchises settled, it really comes down to two other franchises besides the Saints: San Diego and Buffalo.

The Chargers lease is up in '08, and they've been rumored to be looking north at LA for at least a couple of years now. And Buffalo is in a year-to-year agreement with the city and Ralph Wilson Stadium, but hasn't really discussed relocation terms.

WIth NFL expansion a very distant thought, the best thing SA can do is sell out these three games and hope everyone around the league is paying attention. It's a simple solution to put the Saints in LA, since odds were that they might have left NO without Katrina in the next few years.

Maybe if the Chargers decide to go (back) to LA, SA has a shot. Or if ownership changes hands in Buffalo. Otherwise, just the sheer numbers difference versus LA will be the Alamo City's downfall. That and someone needs to be formulating a plan to bring the Alamodome up to 2005 NFL standards, making all the noise they can along the way, regardless of the political correctness involved. Make the NFL pay attention that the city wants a team in more than a caretaker capacity.

One other thing. Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge is going to host five games in fourteen days, according to Peter King at SI.com. LSU games on Oct. 22, 29 and Nov. 4; Saints games on Oct. 30 and Nov. 5.

TheWriter

09-21-2005, 01:56 AM

oh, mayor? A lot of markets are getting larger every day. That's why in the past four years, San Antonio MSA population has moved up exactly 0 spots in the rankings despite 16.4% growth.

In the combined consolidated and non-consolidated metros -- i.e. the true* picture, Portland fell 3 spots. Kansas City fell one spot. Boston fell one spot. Detroit fell one spot. Houston fell one spot. Atlanta fell one spot. Denver fell one spot.

Mark in Austin

09-21-2005, 02:01 AM

Actually, San Antonio's 2000 metro population was 1,592,383

http://www.censusscope.org/us/m7240/chart_popl.html

http://www.demographia.com/db-usmet2000.htm

Keep using secondary sources... I'll keep using primary ones.

US Census Bureau table. Internet release date December 30, 2003 (http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t29/tab03b.pdf)

TheWriter

09-21-2005, 02:04 AM

Keep using secondary sources... I'll keep using primary ones.

US Census Bureau table. Internet release date December 30, 2003 (http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t29/tab03b.pdf)

In 2003 the census added four new counties to SA's MSA, which is why they have the 1.7 number, because had those counties been included in 2000, that's what the population would have been.

The actual population in 2000 was 1,592,383.

Mark in Austin

09-21-2005, 02:13 AM

In the combined consolidated and non-consolidated metros -- i.e. the true* picture, Portland fell 3 spots. Kansas City fell one spot. Boston fell one spot. Detroit fell one spot. Houston fell one spot. Atlanta fell one spot. Denver fell one spot.

um... I didn't say every market was getting bigger. I said lots of them are.

And with all that moving around and the momentous growth rate of 16.4% that San Antonio had recently, San Antonio moved up a whopping 0 places in MSA population. Still 29th.

Keep digging. I'm sure you can find some stat that shows that San Antonio is a super double ultra extra special city with extra special growth that is vastly superior and more conducive to and supportive of professional football than the growth associated with general population explosion in states like Texas. :jack

Vashner

09-21-2005, 02:18 AM

Watch ass Commish blackout San Antonio games just to keep us out of the limelight..

BTW HOw the hell do we get Final 4 if we are too small market???

Mark in Austin

09-21-2005, 02:30 AM

In 2003 the census added four new counties to SA's MSA, which is why they have the 1.7 number, because had those counties been included in 2000, that's what the population would have been.

The actual population in 2000 was 1,592,383.

I would think you would be happy - San Antonio's MSA showed growth. :lol

If after analyzing the 2000 Census data, (which takes a couple years) the Census Bureau decided that the San Antonio MSA boundaries have changed; and therefore has updated its data to reflect the new MSA boundary, (Areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of June 6, 2003) then your secondary sources need to get off their asses and update their shit too. City limits aren't static. Why would you assume MSA's are?

The population of the San Antonio MSA in 2000 is what it reads on the Census Bureau table: 1,711,703.

TheWriter

09-21-2005, 02:33 AM

um... I didn't say every market was getting bigger. I said lots of them are.

And with all that moving around and the momentous growth rate of 16.4% that San Antonio had recently, San Antonio moved up a whopping [b]0 places[/0] in MSA population. Still 29th.

Keep digging. I'm sure you can find some stat that shows that San Antonio is a super double ultra extra special city with extra special growth that is vastly superior and more conducive to and supportive of professional football than the growth associated with general population explosion in states like Texas. :jack

I'm stating facts. You’re free to interpret them however you want.

For a city that probably had one of the worst decades (90-00) in terms of development economy, to grow by more than 300,000 thousand and not having not gone through some short lived “boom” is pretty damn good. Yes there was SBC but they were still a small fry during most of the 90’s.

In the last 2-3 years San Antonio has really began to pick up with Toyota, Washington Mutual, NSA, PGA Tour, A&M, The Shops, etc.

San Antonio has had a very nice consistent growth rate without any type of boom or major stimulation.

Now we have one, no we’re really going to see what San Antonio is made of.

Mark in Austin

09-21-2005, 02:39 AM

Watch ass Commish blackout San Antonio games just to keep us out of the limelight..

BTW HOw the hell do we get Final 4 if we are too small market???

Because the Final Four is a National Programming event, much like the Superbowl, the Oscars, etc. It doesn't matter where it is held. There is a built-in NATIONAL audience that tunes in to it.

TheWriter

09-21-2005, 02:52 AM

Because the Final Four is a National Programming event, much like the Superbowl, the Oscars, etc. It doesn't matter where it is held. There is a built-in NATIONAL audience that tunes in to it.

And NFL action is regional.

You could get up to 10 million people watching the game.

TheWriter

09-21-2005, 02:56 AM

David Flores: Mr. Commish, S.A. is no backwater town

Web Posted: 09/21/2005 12:00 AM CDT

San Antonio Express-News

TO: NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue

RE: Your perception of San Antonio

FROM: David Flores, San Antonio Express-News

Sir:

With all due respect, I'm still trying to find the logic in your decision to have the New Orleans Saints play their first "home" game at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J.

Correct me if I'm wrong — because I'm way down here in little ol' San Antone — but isn't that where the New York Giants, the Saints' opponent Monday night, play their home games?

Where was the fairness in that, Mr. Commish? Given New Orleans' poor play in the Giants' 27-10 victory, the outcome probably would have been the same at a neutral site. But that's not the point.

Besides being grossly unfair to the Saints, you gave the Giants an extra home game. I wonder how the Dallas Cowboys, Philadelphia Eagles and Washington Redskins, the Giants' NFC East rivals, feel about that.

Since the Saints relocated to San Antonio after being driven from New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina's devastation, they should have been allowed to play their home opener where they wanted: the Alamodome.

After everything they have been through, the Saints deserved that much. Unfortunately, you never gave the Saints that option. You blew it, sir.

But then, you were hellbent on playing Monday night's game at Giants Stadium.

Sure, the telethon to raise money for Katrina victims was a nice touch — but you could have had it in San Antonio. Believe it not, sir, we have telephones and televisions down here. Really.

At the risk of sounding provincial and being defensive, I think you need to rethink your perception of San Antonio. Moreover — and, again, con respeto — the way you so easily dismissed the Alamodome for Monday night's game smacks of the kind of arrogance that makes folks in these parts awfully suspicious of Yankees like you.

San Antonio is not the small-time, sleepy city you might think it is.

You see, I'm foolish enough to think San Antonio could support an NFL franchise — provided Austin is part of the equation. Not that San Antonio will ever get that chance.

I say this because I know you're hellbent on something else: putting an NFL franchise in Los Angeles.

If the Saints ever move from New Orleans, that's where you want them to land, not San Antonio.

For the record, I would hate to see the Saints leave Louisiana.

Just for fun, though, let's look at some interesting numbers. Combined, the number of "TV homes" in San Antonio and Austin would make the area No. 19 in the all-important Nielsen Ratings — between Denver and Sacramento, Calif.

San Antonio and Austin are No. 37 and No. 53 now, respectively. New Orleans, you might remember, is No. 43.

At the very least, sir, San Antonio has proven it can be a good, temporary home for the Saints. Did you read about the many fans who already have bought tickets for the three New Orleans games at the Alamodome this season?

Before I forget to ask, are you planning to come to San Antonio for any of the games?

If you do, I suggest you come a day or two early and get a flavor of San Antonio's rich history and culture. You will see a vibrant city steeped in tradition, yet ready to reach new heights in the 21st century.

Sure, we have our problems, but what big city doesn't? We still have too many high school dropouts and too much poverty — and there's a correlation, of course — but there is no denying San Antonio is on the rise.

While we have yet to join the elite list of NFL cities, San Antonio is the home of the reigning NBA champions. Fact is, the Spurs have won three NBA titles in the past seven seasons. Not bad for a backwater town, huh?

Ask the Spurs what kind of support they get from this city. It might be comparing apples and oranges, I know, but San Antonio has proven its mettle in pro basketball.

Would the city do the same for an NFL franchise? Maybe. I guess it would depend on the quality of the team.

But let's be clear on this, sir: Even if the NFL doesn't deign to bless us with a franchise, San Antonio will continue to be one of the most beautiful, unique cities in the country.

Fortunately, we don't need your approval for that.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/dflores/stories/MYSA092105.1C.COL.FBNflores.saints.128b185c.html

Marcus Bryant

09-21-2005, 07:34 AM

Marcus Bryant

09-21-2005, 07:42 AM

And NFL action is regional.

You could get up to 10 million people watching the game.

:rolleyes

As opposed to the 9.99 million who watch a NFL game now. Adding a 3rd NFL franchise in Texas to get more Texans to watch football isn't an attractive proposition. Why? Because those Texans are already watching football.

Marcus Bryant

09-21-2005, 07:47 AM

Phil E.Buster

09-21-2005, 07:58 AM

San Antonio will NOT get an NFL franchise and all the dreaming won't make it happen any time soon.

Aggie Hoopsfan

09-21-2005, 08:39 AM

It's not SA. It's Jerry Jones.

2pac

09-21-2005, 08:50 AM

It sure seems that way....along with Jerry Jones.....and possibly you, probably becuase you are from Houston and just dislike San Antonio for whatever reason.

EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET YOU!

Idiot.

I am from SA. I moved here because of a job after college. Furthermore, I was born in New Orleans and the Saints have ALWAYS been my football team. My grandfather had season tickets every year from their first year until last year - I went to their last game in the Superdome when I was in NO for his funeral.

So there is NOTHING I would want more than my favorite team either staying in NO or going to SA. Those are my two cities. Sorry to be a realist, but having all the medical schools in the world wont bring the NFL to SA.

Can we give first class TV coverage?
Sorry, but not really. They want bigger TV markets, not smaller.

cherylsteele

09-21-2005, 09:58 AM

EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET YOU!

Idiot.

I am from SA. I moved here because of a job after college. Furthermore, I was born in New Orleans and the Saints have ALWAYS been my football team. My grandfather had season tickets every year from their first year until last year - I went to their last game in the Superdome when I was in NO for his funeral.

So there is NOTHING I would want more than my favorite team either staying in NO or going to SA. Those are my two cities. Sorry to be a realist, but having all the medical schools in the world wont bring the NFL to SA.

Sorry, but not really. They want bigger TV markets, not smaller.

You are from SA? How long ago was this? We are much bigger than say 20 yrs ago.....even 10 yrs ago. We are probably a bigger market than Jacksonville or NO. So you are saying we will never get a team? what happens if the Packers were to somehow leave (I know it is a longshot)? we are much bigger than Green Bay, the NFL would be moving up if it were to move the team to SA.

Yes it is Jerry Jones and Tagliabue that just don't trust San Antonio for whatever reason.

Jones wants to keep his $$$$ from San Antonio for the constantly mediocre Cowboys....I still say if he fielded a decent team he would not have to really worry about that.

The Texans stink....I see nothing that makes me think that their team is going to improve any time soon.

Tags doesn't care what the Saints want...the organization prefers to play here over Baton Rouge for their home games for the immediate future. The Dome was available, the city bent over backwards to accomodate the Saints for the entire season. They postponed a few conventions to do this. The NFL scoffed at this. It would have been more sensible to do this, give them a level playing field and some sense of home field. And yes...the USFL lawsuit is in the back of his mind, wether he or anyone else says so or not.
NO did not fill the Superdome as well as you think. Stadium size has nothing to do with it either. The RCA dome only seats 60,272, the Dome seats 65,000 for football.

Benson does not want the Saints in LA. Tags has been implying differently.

You still don't want to acknowledge that you stated that you said population decided that Jacksonville got a team over the others I mentioned. You said nothing about who backs what team. We had a stadium built and McCombs put up the $200,000 expansion fee.

someone mentioned Las Vegas.....I think that won't happen because of the gambling.

cherylsteele

09-21-2005, 10:03 AM

This just in, SA added a retail development. NFL, here we come!

Seriously, where the fuck is the city going to come up with $600+ mil for a new stadium? Lay off your pipe dreams about the Alamodome being upgraded. A new stadium is going to be required and this one isn't likely to be financed by a tourist tax.

Except in Chamber of Commerce's wet dreams, Los Angeles is clearly a more preferable destination to move a franchise in the NFL's estimation. Tom Benson may be in love with San Antonio, but when someone shows up with a $1+ billion exit for him with the plan being to move to LA, you can forget about all the great growth trumpeted by the San Antoniohomer.
A new Stadium? It has been said many times local officials all that is needed is a few upgrades to the Dome...a few Skyboxes to be more precise and some other superficial improvements. It won't cost anywhere near $600mil.

Besides even the newest field Soldier Field II in chicago opened in 2003 only costed 365mil nfl stadiums (http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/opened.htm)

j-6

09-21-2005, 10:10 AM

Soldier Field went under a huge renovation in 00-01. The Bears played home games for one season at UI in Champaign, which is more than two hours south of Chicago.

The Colts just signed a deal for a larger stadium just a few days ago.

cherylsteele

09-21-2005, 10:22 AM

Even the newest stadiums don't cost that much. Reliant (texans) was omly $325mil

Johnny_Blaze_47

09-21-2005, 10:25 AM

A new Stadium? It has been said many times local officials all that is needed is a few upgrades to the Dome...a few Skyboxes to be more precise and some other superficial improvements. It won't cost anywhere near $600mil.

Besides even the newest field Soldier Field II in chicago opened in 2003 only costed 365mil nfl stadiums (http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/opened.htm)

Of course local officials are going to say that the Dome only requires upgrades. Do you think that if they came out right now and said we'd have to build a new facility to even have a shot that the people would go for it.

I actually think a new facility along I-35 would be the best shot, but that's a pipe dream that sits right behind SA ponying up for a new stadium.

San Antonio hasn't even sold out the games yet. If the people from Austin, S. Texas and Mexico are clamoring that much for football, then they're not showing it too much yet.

The Dome is a temporary solution.

The NFL wants a team in Los Angeles, which is a vastly more profitable situation for them than a team in SA.

IIRC, Texas Stadium had more luxury boxes when it was first built than the Dome did. Just imagine the exact count of the new stadium for the Cowboys.

Oh, and the "constantly-mediocre" Cowboys...

Super Bowl V
Super Bowl VI
Super Bowl X
Super Bowl XII
Super Bowl XIII
Super Bowl XXVII
Super Bowl XXVIII
Super Bowl XXX

Nearly every other team...

Not even close.

j-6

09-21-2005, 10:30 AM

Even the newest stadiums don't cost that much. Reliant (texans) was omly $325mil

No, it was like $450 million. I lived in Arlington last year and the Cowboys stadium is projected to cost $500 million, and all the shiny flyers I got kept saying that after adjustments for inflation, the new Cowboys stadium would have almost double the amenities of Reliant at virtually the same price.

cherylsteele

09-21-2005, 10:42 AM

Oh, and the "constantly-mediocre" Cowboys...

Super Bowl V
Super Bowl VI
Super Bowl X
Super Bowl XII
Super Bowl XIII
Super Bowl XXVII
Super Bowl XXVIII
Super Bowl XXX

Nearly every other team...

Not even close.

For the last ten years they have been totally inconsistent. They had a great thing going in the early 90's and Jerry's ego helped bring that down very early. He forces Jimmy Johnson to leave and brings in Switzer, Campo, Gailey, and Parcells all because of his ego thinking he knows what is best for the team on the field.

Of course local officials are going to say that the Dome only requires upgrades.
Can you tell me where people say we need more? It certainly will be much less that $600mil.

You have no idea if SA can support a local team unless there is a local team to support. I know of many Cowboy fans who say they would buy Saints (or any expansion team that is local) tickets in an instant. Unless given the chance it is all speculation.

Marcus Bryant

09-21-2005, 10:44 AM

You have no idea if SA can support a local team unless there is a local team to support. I know of many Cowboy fans who say they would buy Saints (or any expansion team that is local) tickets in an instant. Unless given the chance it is all speculation.

From the NFL's persective, how many new viewers are you creating? Next to none.

2pac

09-21-2005, 10:44 AM

You are from SA? How long ago was this? We are much bigger than say 20 yrs ago.....even 10 yrs ago.
Lived in SA from 1986-1998. Parents and sister still live there and I visit many times a year and still go to 4-5 Spurs games a year.

We are probably a bigger market than Jacksonville or NO.
The NFL isnt comparing SA to current locations of teams. They are looking at POSSIBLE locations for teams.

Why is it so fucking hard for you to understand that LA is infinately more appealing to the NFL than SA?

So you are saying we will never get a team?
Not any time soon, unless Benson pulls off a miracle. If the 4th largest city in the nation had to pay a $700mm ransom to get the team, SA is way down the list.

Yes it is Jerry Jones and Tagliabue that just don't trust San Antonio for whatever reason.

If you put tin foil over your head, they cant read your thoughts.

Tags doesn't care what the Saints want
His job is to look out for the betterment of the league. Moving the Saints from NO to LA is better for the league than moving them from NO to SA.

the organization prefers to play here over Baton Rouge for their home games for the immediate future.
Which has no bearing on distant future.

The Dome was available, the city bent over backwards to accomodate the Saints for the entire season.
The city didnt bend over backwards, they were foaming at the mouth at the prospect of having an NFL team and would do anything they could to make it happen.

And yes...the USFL lawsuit is in the back of his mind, wether he or anyone else says so or not.

Distant memory. Why do you assume he is such a vindictive guy?
He allowed a team to move to Tennessee (Showboats), an expansion team in Houston (Gamblers), a team to Jacksonville (Bulls), a team to move to Arizona (Wranglers, Outlaws), a team to move to Baltimore (Stars) and allowed a team to move back to Oakland (Invaders). Clearly he is punishing each and every USFL city.

Your idiotic ramblings about a hate for SA because of the USFL are just unfounded.

And yes...the USFL lawsuit is in the back of his mind, wether he or anyone else says so or not.

That $3.00 award really crushed the NFL.

NO did not fill the Superdome as well as you think.
How many Saints games have you been to in the Superdome? My family had season tickets from 1967 until 2004. 4 tickets, 40 yard line, second deck 5th row.

You still don't want to acknowledge that you stated that you said population decided that Jacksonville got a team over the others I mentioned. You said nothing about who backs what team. We had a stadium built and McCombs put up the $200,000 expansion fee.

Population is a very important factor in why the NFL chooses a city. My posts have clearly shown that there is more that goes into it besides population. I even detailed a lot of the things they look for, including TV Market and sizeable companies to support the team.

Marcus Bryant

09-21-2005, 10:45 AM

As for the cost of Reliant Stadium, a cursory googling finds:

>24 June, 2002 - The Houston Chronicle reports that the stadium's price tag will increase from $367,000,000.00 to $449,000,000.00 to cover the cost of extra restrooms, more parking, landscaping, and additional concession areas.

source (http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/ShowBuilding.php?ID=165)

Marcus Bryant

09-21-2005, 10:47 AM

Also, I'd like to add that Reliant Stadium is hot as fuck when you are sitting in the sun, 5 rows from the field and the roof is open with the temp on the field at 120 degrees F, as it was last weekend. Otherwise it's an awesome facility.

2pac

09-21-2005, 10:50 AM

Only 38 luxury boxes in the alamo dome is pretty weak.

Marcus Bryant

09-21-2005, 10:55 AM

What it comes down to is whether or not Benson wants to leave a shitload of $ on the table in the name of civic pride, as well as to fight his fellow owners. Not having a team in the US's 2nd largest media market, let alone two, is indeed an embarassment to the league and an opportunity lost.

In order for SA to land a team, you have to find someone willing to locate a team here for altruistic reasons and you'd have to believe that the city/county will approve the most expensive public project ever in the county for a football team. Some of you have a jaded view of the voters of San Antonio de Bexar.

Remember the fuss when those voters were asked to come up with like $130 mil over 30 years to fund the SBC Center...and that was with someone else picking up the tab through a tourist tax. Shit, I recall some activists or whatever seriously arguing that the Freeman Coliseum was a suitable facility for the Spurs to move into. The Spurs had to spend $3 to 5 mil to fund their pro-arena campaign, they had the Spurs' coming off their 1st title, and the margin of victory couldn't break 10%.

If Henry C wasn't JC to some parts of San Antonio de Bexar the Alamodome would never have been approved. Plenty of people still bitch about that in the city.

The Alamodome is not old enough or decrepit enough in the minds of the electorate of San Antonio de Bexar to justify the public funding of a new stadium.

As much as some of you love to pimp San Antonio, there are a ton of people in the city with a backwards ass mentality. And the city overall is one of the poorest in the US for its size. It is not an attractive media market. One pro franchise is about right for the city.

And, again, SA is not an attractive market when compared to Los Angeles.

samikeyp

09-21-2005, 12:26 PM

Jones wants to keep his $$$$ from San Antonio for the constantly mediocre Cowboys....I still say if he fielded a decent team he would not have to really worry about that.

They were in the playoffs two years ago. Careful...your bias is showing. :p

If anyone thinks that Jerry Jones and not Tagliabue is pulling the strings, you are nuts.

bigzak25

09-21-2005, 12:52 PM

Vashner

09-21-2005, 12:58 PM

They need to make a bunch of those square signs so that we can hand them out in the doom.. then on que turnh them over..

And have it say like "Small Market this bitch"... with about 10,000 people holding the
sign message up.

bigzak25

09-21-2005, 01:02 PM

only 10,000 holding up the signs? that's no good...

we'd need 65,000 to prove our point, and you don't ever want to bite the hand you want to feed you, but i like your idea...:tu

Vashner

09-21-2005, 01:10 PM

:rolleyes

As opposed to the 9.99 million who watch a NFL game now. Adding a 3rd NFL franchise in Texas to get more Texans to watch football isn't an attractive proposition. Why? Because those Texans are already watching football.

Wow I just now realized... Jerry Jones IS a Spurstalk lurker...

Hello Mr Jones... we appreciate you stopping buy the Spurs forum.

Have a nice day...

Triumph

09-21-2005, 01:19 PM

it's a good point though...sanantonio supports two markets right now...the cowboys and texans...a third team would further dilute the support...but that's stupid...cowboy fans (the real ones) will always watch their team...texans fans from SA are new, so those could switch and that is a valid argument, but dayum, houston is way bigger than satown...they should be able to support their own dam team on their own...

NameDropper

09-21-2005, 01:19 PM

I've heard that San Antonio has a one in a million shot of getting an NFL franchise....so keep your fingers crossed.

Triumph

09-21-2005, 01:36 PM

so your saying theres a chance...

http://www.hollywood-diecast.com/dumb%20dumber%20eBay.jpg

Marcus Bryant

09-21-2005, 03:52 PM

bigzak25

09-21-2005, 04:18 PM

If you put a franchise in SA/Austin are you really going to convince that many more Texans to watch NFL football or Texans to watch more football? Even before you get into the relative media market size of LA v. SA, those are the basic questions. We all know the answers.

i see your point MB, but you have to think outside the box. YES you can convince many more Texans to watch the new San Antonio Saints. You know how? By putting a winning product on the field, by keeping with the hardworking, no nonsense image that the Spurs have already established for this city, and IF Possible, by drafting, signing Quality Hispanic and Latino Players, when they fit, to contribute to the teams sucess. Watch and see how many people in Texas and THROUGHOUT AMERICA jump on the saints bandwagon, not to mention the latin population, illegal or not, that would watch as well. It's up to the people here now to show Benson the money and fan support, and the rest will take care of itself...:tu

TheWriter

09-21-2005, 04:38 PM

bigzak25

09-21-2005, 04:50 PM

MB is a new generation of the same shitbricks who told Red back in the 70's that San Antonio couldn't handle the ABA, couldn't support, was never gonna get it.

To them he said STFU, to you MB I say STFU.

Hey Writer, I like the sig...and I admire your hope and big dreams for our beloved city...lemme tell you something though, you will get further with your viewpoints by expressing the reasons behind them, than you will with namecalling such as 'shitbrick' and simply telling opposing viewpoints to STFU. just sayin. :tu

j-6

09-21-2005, 04:50 PM

I'm not saying that SA couldn't handle an NFL 'chise, but when the commish has already stated that he wants a team in LA by 2008, and LA (especially adding in Riverside, San Bernadino, and all that other western growth) dwarfs what SA can bring to the table as far as a prospective NFL city.

Add in a outdated dome and the fact that it's like eighty miles to downtown SA from Austin (three times as far as Anaheim is from LA), too.

Look, I bought tickets and am coming in from out of town to support the Saints and the city of San Antonio. But you have to be realistic here, and I realize from all your other posts that you're as big of a homer as one will find.

That's cool, but don't be peeved when the league and Tom Benson make a business decision that doesn't include SA.

bigzak25

09-21-2005, 04:58 PM

that's the ace in the hole we got...Tom Benson is the owner.

if it wasn't for him, than yeah, it would be a pipe dream.

JoeChalupa

09-21-2005, 05:03 PM

It doesn't matter to me because my cheap ass won't buy those expensive NFL tickets. :oops

Marcus Bryant

09-21-2005, 05:10 PM

i see your point MB, but you have to think outside the box. YES you can convince many more Texans to watch the new San Antonio Saints. You know how? By putting a winning product on the field, by keeping with the hardworking, no nonsense image that the Spurs have already established for this city, and IF Possible, by drafting, signing Quality Hispanic and Latino Players, when they fit, to contribute to the teams sucess. Watch and see how many people in Texas and THROUGHOUT AMERICA jump on the saints bandwagon, not to mention the latin population, illegal or not, that would watch as well. It's up to the people here now to show Benson the money and fan support, and the rest will take care of itself...:tu

I'm not advancing an absolutist position. Sure, there will be some incremental gains, but when you compare that with the difference such a team would have in Los Angeles, well, there's the proposition.

Marcus Bryant

09-21-2005, 05:10 PM

that's the ace in the hole we got...Tom Benson is the owner.

if it wasn't for him, than yeah, it would be a pipe dream.

Tom Benson has to leave $ on the table in order for SA to end up with a team.

Marcus Bryant

09-21-2005, 05:14 PM

MB is a new generation of the same shitbricks who told Red back in the 70's that San Antonio couldn't handle the ABA, couldn't support, was never gonna get it.

To them he said STFU, to you MB I say STFU.

Sorry, I just like to analyze situations with facts and logic.

And again, for the benefit of those who obviously are not paying attention, I am not saying that San Antonio could not handle a NFL franchise, just that it is not an attractive market in comparison to Los Angeles.

Not everyone is as mindnumbingly provincial and ignorant as yourself. No amount of namecalling is going to improve your argument.

bigzak25

09-21-2005, 05:33 PM

I'm not advancing an absolutist position. Sure, there will be some incremental gains, but when you compare that with the difference such a team would have in Los Angeles, well, there's the proposition.

well, here you have an outstanding point. IF/When LA builds a NEW Stadium for an NFL franchise, any owner looking to make cash and without a huge city fanbase would be stupid to not relocate there...it's only a matter of time...minny has a penchant for moving their teams to la...unless mccombs signed a contract, i bet he has his eyes on the prize...

but San Antonio is up to bat RIGHT NOW...we can TAKE this Franchise with our support. We only have to win Tom Benson over...the Rest will fall into place. Hardberger is on board...and sure, it will take millions to bring the dome up to par, but not as much as it would to break ground and build a whole new one...all it needs is updated lux sweets, maybe new seating in Benson's favorite colors and to update the bathroom and concession facilities...

I'll pay a few extra cents for a year or two as a San Antonio citizen to help get the job done if necessary. :tu

Tom Benson has to leave $ on the table in order for SA to end up with a team.

short term ONLY brother. obviously a smart business man is not going to choose a lose money proposition, but the same smart business man will take a short term loss for a long term gain. :tu

It doesn't matter to me because my cheap ass won't buy those expensive NFL tickets. :oops

yeah right Joe, i KNOW you have disposable income and Benson would be a fool not to make those upper level seats VERY affordable so that anyone with a job could afford to go with family in tow if wanted...beware expensive concessions though...get wifey to take her bigass purse and pack a lunch...:tu