Harvey: How winners could lose out: Spurs vs. Saints

Buck Harvey: How winners could lose out: Spurs vs. Saints
Web Posted: 10/13/2005 12:00 AM CDT


San Antonio Express-News

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/b....17da6279.html


The Saints will play in a full Alamodome Sunday, and this is another signal for Tom Benson. If 100 percent show up to see Michael Vick play at 50 percent, doesn't the math make relocation more promising?

Standing in the back of the crowd, more confused than excited, is a group that wonders if anyone is crunching the numbers. The Spurs won't say it publicly, because they know how it would look. But most in the organization know how hard they have had to work to sell the most successful franchise in sports in recent years, and they know about the pieces of this market pie.

They don't think two teams can make it in this city, not right now, and they have reason to be concerned.

The Spurs, not the Saints, would face the worst of this.

The Spurs' front office people have a territory to protect, all right. They also think the market might grow enough in the next 10 to 15 years to support both the NBA and the NFL.

But today? The Spurs know what they've done, and what they've had to sell. They were first blessed with David Robinson, then Tim Duncan, now Manu Ginobili. They've been lucky to market first-tier talent and first-class people.

Three championships? That ought to be worth a sold-out building every night.

But as one within the organization said Wednesday, using language that fits the sport, "nothing has been a slam dunk." These are the best of times for the Spurs, and yet marketing the team still requires the best from the sales force. The Spurs didn't come close to selling out every game last season, and they don't think they will this year, either.

Even though the Spurs draw massive television numbers and they draw the city together every spring, the attention doesn't necessarily spike at the box office. They make do by pairing together suite partners, by offering various ticket specials and by tapping into generous deals with sponsors.

The Spurs, a smaller NBA market, rank among the top five in the league in sponsorship money.

It's a formula built on hard work and good fortune, and it's a formula that Gary Woods knows well. He was the president of the franchise when Red McCombs owned the Spurs, and he's familiar enough with the books to wonder what would happen if the Saints relocate here.

He's not optimistic. "We had to hustle and scrap to make it," Woods said last week.

The Saints would have to hustle, too, and they would have a few things on their side. One would be the euphoria that would come when the NFL finally arrived in South Texas.

Remember the meeting Benson had with an overflowing room of San Antonio businesspeople earlier this fall? They would be ready to commit as sponsors — out of civic pride as much as anything — to make this happen.

The excitement would also cover up a few flaws, namely with the football team itself. As the Saints reminded everyone last week, they are still the Saints.

They lost to a previously winless team by 49 points, fitting for a franchise that needed 20 years to win more than they lost in a season. The Saints have won just one playoff game in their history, and, after losing their star runner last week, they shouldn't count on winning another this year.

They are the Clippers of football. That's a drastic contrast to the franchise already in town — the Patriots of basketball.

But the Saints would come with an inherent advantage. Whereas the Spurs try to sell a season-ticket package of about 45 games, the Saints can ask for less. Their usual home schedule is about 10 games, including exhibitions, and the majority of families can afford that.

That's why the Saints would likely do well here initially. But the losses would add up, and the Saints would eventually need to do more than show up. They would need to win, too, if just to lessen the Cowboys' popularity in the area.

The Spurs win already, but this can't last forever. Someday Duncan will retire, and another 7-foot savior might not appear.

And if the Saints are here? If sponsors are dividing their investments? If the Spurs are selling less of a product than they are selling now?

Crunch those numbers.

IMO If the Saints come and the Spurs go This Town will be the losers. This town does not have "enough avid NFL Football fans to support a non-winner" i.e. Check out the mass-exodus of Cowboy fans from the area a few years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFE7FATMAN

This town does not have "enough avid NFL Football fans to support a non-winner" i.e.

---

So when a team not even from San Antonio gets a 22 share, that doesn't show avid NFL football fans?

I didn't think "sell-outs" always equaled "success" in the NBA.

Didn't the Kings have one of the longest streaks for selling out yet they can't even get a new arena and will most likely relocate.

And as for most hollywood movies, even if they tank at the theaters, most/a lot make up with DVD sales.

The Spurs may not sell out every game of the season but how do you measure the highest ratings for an NBA team, how do you measure thousands of fans waiting at the airport after wins and losses in the playoffs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buck

The Spurs didn't come close to selling out every game last season, and they don't think they will this year, either.

---

San Antonio 41 games 750,970 attendance 99.0% capacity.

99% doesn't count as close?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

San Antonio 41 games 750,970 attendance 99.0% capacity.

99% doesn't count as close?

---

Exactly.

In terms of percentage:

The SBC was:

6th in 2003 (first year)
4th in 2004 (Up .4 for the previous year)
5th in 2005 (Best percentage at 99%)

2002-03 97.0%
2003-04 97.4%
2004-05 99.0% only Dallas, Miami, Detroit and Sac were 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

2004-05 99.0% only Dallas, Miami, Detroit and Sac were 100%.

---

What? You mean LA and New York and Chicago and Philly with their HUGE populations couldn't get better percentages? :oops

Quote:

---

They make do by pairing together suite partners, by offering various ticket specials and by tapping into generous deals with sponsors.

---

Maybe the percentage would be much lower if you subtract the ticket specials and sponsorship deals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slayermin

Maybe the percentage would be much lower if you subtract the ticket specials and sponsorship deals.

---

Not really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

Not really.

---

I would be more interested to know what the total revenue from ticket sales is for each team.

Buck sure is a BuzzKill.

I disagree with one of the points he was making...

The Spurs are not good at marketing themselves on the bigstage, and they never, ever have been, IMO.

With the exception of one brief period in the 80's they have never marketed themselves in Austin. I think they might rank 8th in popularity in Austin among the Texas sports franchises(to be fair they do show the Spurs games here over Rockets and Mavs, usually, but it would change in a second if the Spurs weren't winning)...Right after all the Dallas and Houston teams(and UT)...they have never done much to capture their surrounding market outside of SA, they have never done anything to capature the Austin market, other than holding a few exhibition games here 15 years+ years ago.

As brilliant as the Spurs have been, in terms of winning, for virtually all of their history...they have been lousy at marketing...

There is no Tex Scrammm in the Spurs history...so I don't think the Spurs lack of popularity is all due to the citizens of this area, a lot of it has to do with the Spurs just being marketing retards...It's amazing how naive they are, it's almost like they think the all the Cowboys had to do to becomes so popular was to win, and it's equally amazing how they are squandering this once in a lifetime opportunity to build a worldwide dominating fan base....

Knew this was coming. The Mouthpiece speaks... The Saints would only be playing 8 regular season home games. If the Spurs can't compete with that, they need a new staff. WTF?

I thought the Spurs had a sales team and office in Austin over off of Congress, kinda close to Sixth Street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

I disagree with one of the points he was making...

The Spurs are not good at marketing themselves on the bigstage, and they never, ever have been, IMO.

With the exception of one brief period in the 80's they have never marketed themselves in Austin. I think they might rank 8th in popularity in Austin among the Texas sports franchises(to be fair they do show the Spurs games here over Rockets and Mavs, usually, but it would change in a second if the Spurs weren't winning)...Right after all the Dallas and Houston teams(and UT)...they have never done much to capture their surrounding market outside of SA, they have never done anything to capature the Austin market, other than holding a few exhibition games here 15 years+ years ago.

As brilliant as the Spurs have been, in terms of winning, for virtually all of their history...they have been lousy at marketing...

There is no Tex Scrammm in the Spurs history...so I don't think the Spurs lack of popularity is all due to the citizens of this area, a lot of it has to do with the Spurs just being marketing retards...It's amazing how naive they are, it's almost like they think the all the Cowboys had to do to becomes so popular was to win, and it's equally amazing how they are squandering this once in a lifetime opportunity to build a worldwide dominating fan base....

---

To add to that they haven't even marketed the Victoria's, the Laredo's , the Brownsville-McAllen's and the Corpus' of Texas. They have super loyal fan bases in those areas, and other than a preseason game (once in a blue moon). The Spurs office hasn't done much to promote the team down here. The Rockets are scheduled to play in Corpus next preseason when this area is something on the order of 70+ percent silver blooded. But guess what.. all those children going to such games are then likely to embrace the Rockets.

I was surprised to see the Larry O'Briens come into town... but they were brought in by a lady and some security guards... It would have been amazing to have someone like Sean Marks or Barry down presenting them to town... That's the sort of thing that will make a lasting impression on a child and generate your fan base.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Buck sure is a BuzzKill.

---

exactly. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

I disagree with one of the points he was making...

The Spurs are not good at marketing themselves on the bigstage, and they never, ever have been, IMO.

With the exception of one brief period in the 80's they have never marketed themselves in Austin. I think they might rank 8th in popularity in Austin among the Texas sports franchises(to be fair they do show the Spurs games here over Rockets and Mavs, usually, but it would change in a second if the Spurs weren't winning)...Right after all the Dallas and Houston teams(and UT)...they have never done much to capture their surrounding market outside of SA, they have never done anything to capature the Austin market, other than holding a few exhibition games here 15 years+ years ago.

As brilliant as the Spurs have been, in terms of winning, for virtually all of their history...they have been lousy at marketing...

There is no Tex Scrammm in the Spurs history...so I don't think the Spurs lack of popularity is all due to the citizens of this area, a lot of it has to do with the Spurs just being marketing retards...It's amazing how naive they are, it's almost like they think the all the Cowboys had to do to becomes so popular was to win, and it's equally amazing how they are squandering this once in a lifetime opportunity to build a worldwide dominating fan base....

---

You make a great point here. I always wondered why they wouldn't put Austin a top priority. There is a good Spurs Fan base (say 40-50% of Bball fans) although I ran into Rockets fans very often. They could try having specials for Austin fans (like weekend specials with attractive offers, good transport facility to/from SBC center etc..)

Businesswise too it make sense to take a pie out big corporates' allocation to sports/advt.

IMO, it's still not too late for Spurs to build a base here - They have a very good chance of doing it in the next 4-5 yrs. It takes a long time before the fan base gets eroded (Read Rockets' fans in Austin).

Heaven forbid that the marketing and sales people for the franchise would actually have to perform WORK to promote their product in the community.:rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWC Bonfire

Heaven forbid that the marketing and sales people for the franchise would actually have to perform WORK to promote their product in the community.:rolleyes

---

Getting past the sarcasm it is a very true point and the reason why they fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kori Ellis

San Antonio 41 games 750,970 attendance 99.0% capacity.

99% doesn't count as close?

---

Look at attendence in the mid to late 80's.

It was around 50-60%.

This city does not have the money to support a loser team.

Every city supports a winner...that is nothing to brag about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

I didn't think "sell-outs" always equaled "success" in the NBA.

Didn't the Kings have one of the longest streaks for selling out yet they can't even get a new arena and will most likely relocate.

And as for most hollywood movies, even if they tank at the theaters, most/a lot make up with DVD sales.

The Spurs may not sell out every game of the season but how do you measure the highest ratings for an NBA team, how do you measure thousands of fans waiting at the airport after wins and losses in the playoffs?

---

You measure it by looking at the number of TV households, average per capita income, yearly spending by certain categories, etc...in the market.

You are right on one count though. Game attendance doesn't mean as much to franchise viability as some think. That is of even greater import in the NFL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DesiSpur_21

You make a great point here. I always wondered why they wouldn't put Austin a top priority. There is a good Spurs Fan base (say 40-50% of Bball fans) although I ran into Rockets fans very often. They could try having specials for Austin fans (like weekend specials with attractive offers, good transport facility to/from SBC center etc..)

Businesswise too it make sense to take a pie out big corporates' allocation to sports/advt.

IMO, it's still not too late for Spurs to build a base here - They have a very good chance of doing it in the next 4-5 yrs. It takes a long time before the fan base gets eroded (Read Rockets' fans in Austin).

---

Austin's full of transplants. It may be an hour away from SA but the distance is far greater, if you know what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Austin's full of transplants. It may be an hour away from SA but the distance is far greater, if you know what I mean.

---

Truer words have never been spoken. It's another world.

There were many playoff teams who didn't even get 90% capacity last year. (Houston had 88%, Philadelphia had 85%, Boston had 81%, and New Jersey had 75%) Yeah, the Spurs may not sold out last year, but they were pretty damn close.

Anyway, the Spurs have what any team wants, their own arena and luxury boxes. They're not going anywhere.

It may be just me, but I think the ticket prices need to be lowered. I am not talking about the good seats. Just the upper level type.

I have noticed that the majority of the loudest and craziest fans are those of lower income. The ones who wear the caps with the old Spurs logo. The ones who spray paint their older cars and trucks with #20, #21, and #9 because they don't have the money to buy the flags the guys sell on the corner gas station.

I have a lot of friends and know a lot of people who don't make too much money who are the best at supporting the Spurs. They try to catch all the games on TV because they can't even afford the upper level tickets. I know it won't happen, but I think the Spurs ought to lower prices on tickets. Excuse my English, but its too "white collar in the SBC during Spurs games.

I know the Spurs need the money from the white collar folks, but something should be done to address those blue collar folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

I disagree with one of the points he was making...

The Spurs are not good at marketing themselves on the bigstage, and they never, ever have been, IMO.

With the exception of one brief period in the 80's they have never marketed themselves in Austin. I think they might rank 8th in popularity in Austin among the Texas sports franchises(to be fair they do show the Spurs games here over Rockets and Mavs, usually, but it would change in a second if the Spurs weren't winning)...Right after all the Dallas and Houston teams(and UT)...they have never done much to capture their surrounding market outside of SA, they have never done anything to capature the Austin market, other than holding a few exhibition games here 15 years+ years ago.

As brilliant as the Spurs have been, in terms of winning, for virtually all of their history...they have been lousy at marketing...

There is no Tex Scrammm in the Spurs history...so I don't think the Spurs lack of popularity is all due to the citizens of this area, a lot of it has to do with the Spurs just being marketing retards...It's amazing how naive they are, it's almost like they think the all the Cowboys had to do to becomes so popular was to win, and it's equally amazing how they are squandering this once in a lifetime opportunity to build a worldwide dominating fan base....

---

not even close to the truth, in the mid 90s the Spurs had a package for Austin residents and used a bus sponsered by the Austin Statesman newspaper to bring the ticket holders to the Alamodome. I remember seeing that bus at all weekend games and some week day games.

As for sports team popularity in Austin
#1 UT football
#2 UT baseball
#3 Cowboys
#4 Spurs, Rockets, Mavs, Rangers, Astros, Texans, Ice Bats, Express

The tremendous TV percentages in the viewing audience is a direct result of the low income status of this market. Plenty of folks simply cannot afford the escalating price of Spurs tickets.

I suppose no one's to blame, but its a fact that many of my middle income friends who were long time season ticket holders gradually dropped their tickets as the prices rose. Sure there were richer folks who took their place, but these were the fans who had stabilized the team over the early years with their season tickets. I no longer have tickets since I live in Houston, but my last seats (on the floor, front row) would be priced out of my range now. They were $50 each per game when I left. And now they want you to buy a membership to the Spurs Corral club which used to be free.

Because of all the games and the extra expense of playoffs, I bet the Spurs tickets will cost more than comparable Saints tickets for a season.

If people in a big city can't afford to buy tickets to see the team play, then it's not a good place for two pro sports teams, which was the point of the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoSpurs21

not even close to the truth, in the mid 90s the Spurs had a package for Austin residents and used a bus sponsered by the Austin Statesman newspaper to bring the ticket holders to the Alamodome. I remember seeing that bus at all weekend games and some week day games.

As for sports team popularity in Austin
#1 UT football
#2 UT baseball
#3 Cowboys
#4 Spurs, Rockets, Mavs, Rangers, Astros, Texans, Ice Bats, Express

---

What? You mean there actually was lightrail/bus deals to the stadium? It can't be. ChumpDumper said it wasn't so!.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

And buy me some tickets for the light rail line to San Antonio so i can see a game a week......................

I think not. Only a handful of games are actually shown up here -- quite a few Maverick games make it on FSW as well. Austin is an island onto itself with UT dominating any other sports interest. After that, its pro sports loyalties are given to Dallas and Houston as much if not more than San Antonio.

---

Someone else dares say its an equal amount of Spur fans as other NBA teams? They must be idiots too, right Chump?

Sorry to burst SA's bubble but if the Saints or any other team permantly moved to SA, they would usurp the spurs in popularity. A crappy football team will over the long run be more popular than a great basketball team in most places.

NFL > NBA any day. You will also find when theres more games in towns, there becomes less rapid fans. If you had the major four, i guarandamntee you that you wouldn't have the outpouring you do for the spurs. People become more numb to sports. Its like if christmas came 4 times instead of once. Why make such a big deal about a team returning home after a loss when there is a major sport or two going on ALL YEAR LONG?

GoSpurs and SickHomer...

Chump is right on this one...the Spurs have never done shit to capture this market and it is a fucking rabid market for Sports...

Ok so maybe they did try it a bit in the 90's(That period you mentioned Go Spurs was I believe when the Spurs also held a couple of exhibition games here that I mentioned. 11 years ago believe it or not, and they also tried some limited marketing circa 80-83 as well. They pushed Gervin on the Austin market hard and I think that probably surpassed anything they did in the 90's..but Austin was really small back then)

They have NEVER made the attempts to capture this market like the Cowboys have...My whole life there have been uptenn billions signs promoting the Cowboys here, even the Rangers...I think I have seen one billboard for the Spurs in Austin...Hell I used to see more Spurs advertising in Waco(the Drob Dahill Industries signs).

Sorry...but they have more or less always been lacklustre in the Austin area in terms of marketing...either they take it for granted, or else they just don't think it's a winnable market.

And there shit that backs this up, that they really haven't got a fucking clue about how to get their product in the air here without a Television body doing it for them. EG: The fucking blacking out of games here...it's been this way the entire time the Spurs have been in SA...In the pre TNT cable days you never saw the Spurs on TV...it wasn't even that good in the late 80's and early 90's...if you wanted Spurs action in Austin you had to buy season tickets...or else

I assume this is because, in theory, KENS(or whatever the local SA station that carries them is) had Austin range and Austin is considered part of the Spurs home market...but you haven't been able to pick up KENS or any SA statio outside of DEEEEEEEEEP South Austin since like 1975 an they've never pushed any deal here for local broadcast rights, until about 4 years ago. I am not trying to make the blackouts the issue here...because you couldn't see the games whether or not they black them out or not...because they weren't on TV here...and no SA station could really reach here...even though they seemed to think otherwise for 30 fucking years.


It's only now...after TNT, after FSSW that the Spurs finally have a local broadcast deal here...and I swear it didn't happen until after the Spurs won their first title.

Shit like that...they never pushed their product on this market like the Cowboys did, and continue to do...

And they don't get as much coverage for a 3 time fucking champion as the other teams do for not doing shit...it's as easy to see an Astro Game here as it is a Spurs game...Hell, it's not that hard to see a Rangers game here...and that team has been in the toilet from day 1...but I could pick up local Rangers games for a decade before the Spurs had them.

No...the Spurs are not good at marketing their product to the Centex region...there are a lot of Sports dollars floating around this town. A lot. Austin is a wealthy town and the Spurs have never gone after that money hard...they've been very naive in their approach to Austin..very smalltownish.

MB is right to an extent...that there are a lot of transplants in Austin..but that doesn't keep the Cowboys from being king shit here.

And I'd argue that the Spurs are more popular here than the Icebats...hell the Icebats get coverage out the Wazoo on Sports radio here...The Spurs don't get anything until the finals...if I want Spurs talk I tune into WOAI or the Ticket.

And I bet the Round Rock express have more of an advertising budget for the Austin market than the Spurs do.

Sorry...but the Spurs have not been good at capturing this territory...they haven't even truly owned the SA market as evidenced by them nearly jumping several times...

No...if you understand anything about marketing then you cannpt say with any basis in reality that the Spurs are good at it...and you are just being needlessly homeristic and subjective...for some inane reason that really does nothing to improve the teams fortunes in the Centex area...Insecure maybe? But whatever it is...you are wrong.

Marketing is easily the worst aspect of the Spurs organization...and if they were as hafl as good at it as they have been at actually fielding competitive teams...SA would own the Centex, South of Texas...shit, even Mexico.

Go read up on some history sometime and see how Tex Schramm was such a visionary in building the Cowboys WORLD WIDE appeal...The Spurs had the guy who wrote the book living right up the road from them, they had a birdseyes view to it being done in their home market...and they never even got past the first page...

And the potential they have with this roster...is unlike any, that any American Franchise has ever had in history, to capture the World Market.

How often does a dynasty with an international roster come along in a sport that equally popular in America as it is the rest of the World?

Yet I see them doing the same stuff they have always done, with only a slight stepping up of the intensity ...just thinking an exhibition game will take care of it.

I do applaud their decision to start holding training camps in places like the VI...or Russia...this is definitely the Spurs improving in this area and attempting to capitalize on their situation...but I am going to withold judgement on their commitment to it until I see other things they are doing. I'd like to see them stepping outside of the NBA stock marketing campaign and take some initiative themselves...it's very concievable they could become the most popular sports team in the World...but they have to be able to dream it....and it's something they have to be willing to do for YEARS, to reap the benefits.


If they really wanted to rule ass they would hold some of the training camps in Western Europe and China in the basketball strongholds of those regions.....Go after Italy, France, Germany...etc as well.

But up to this point their marketing has always been Bush league and I just don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

Look at attendence in the mid to late 80's.

It was around 50-60%.

This city does not have the money to support a loser team.

Every city supports a winner...that is nothing to brag about.

---

Great point. Because San Antonio in the late 80's is the same city in 2005. :rolleyes

Also, would you please back up your statement with some kind of "proof."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildbill2u

The tremendous TV percentages in the viewing audience is a direct result of the low income status of this market. Plenty of folks simply cannot afford the escalating price of Spurs tickets.

---

Yeah, that's so true. I mean, in my entire life I've probably been to 4 or 5 Spurs games. So that makes me and my family poor, huh?

Wait, we're not.

I watch every game on tv, because I like it better than going to the game live.

The reason tv ratings in SA are so high is because people love the Spurs in this city. Sure they are the people who are low income who watch the game at home, but I'm sure you'll find some low income fans at each game in the nosebleed sections.

Relative to other NBA markets, San Antonio is one of the least attractive.

As for Austin, it is not a Spurs market. Even after winning 3 championships, the Spurs have not gotten any traction there. In addition to the out of state (and country) transplants, you have, well, a shitload of native Texans and there's nothing Texans love more than football. Also, a lot of those people are from the DFW and Houston areas. So to the extent they will watch NBA basketball, they already have a team.

Quote:

---

The Spurs didn't come close to selling out every game last season, and they don't think they will this year, either.

---

Every game or every home game?

If home........... then WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU F%^$&* PEOPLE.


I think the NFL is stupid if they try to invade this NBA city. Look at the affects.

Seattle. All the time the Sonics do pretty good the Seahawks blow ass. While only recently have they been truely competitive.

Go try St. Louis and see what they stick up your ass! sigh, Saint better look somewhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Relative to other NBA markets, San Antonio is one of the least attractive.

---

The same reguritaed nonsense for Mrs. Byrant.

Wow, I am utterly shocked. :rolleyes

You love to minimize San Antonio. From supercilious comments like "San Antonio de Bexar." To the fact your can never ever say anything positive of this city.

So I ask, explain please, how San Antonio is one the least attractive. Besides your own snobby opinion. Lay out some hard proof. Some data, some facts that state this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

If people in a big city can't afford to buy tickets to see the team play, then it's not a good place for two pro sports teams, which was the point of the article.

---

I don't think that was the point of the article. Harvey's gloomy world tells him a team is supported only by winning. That's what the Spurs and Cowboys have in their history - And not just winning but championships. The Saints have never even been able to surpass Tampa Bay. Non winning teams aren't attractive anywhere even in Atlanta or Chicago. Thus the stakes are high in SA (even thought the Cowboys are another city's team). And Buck thinks fans will be "light" their support. It's easy to mask it in affordability but that's not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

The same reguritaed nonsense for Mrs. Byrant.

Wow, I am utterly shocked. :rolleyes

You love to minimize San Antonio. From supercilious comments like "San Antonio de Bexar." To the fact your can never ever say anything positive of this city.

---

Ha. You take that as a slight?

Quote:

---

So I ask, explain please, how San Antonio is one the least attractive. Besides your own snobby opinion. Lay out some hard proof. Some data, some facts that state this.

---

You mean like the TV household data that's been posted in here? The per capita income ranking for MSAs? What hasn't been covered for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

You mean like the TV household data that's been posted in here? The per capita income ranking for MSAs? What hasn't been covered for you?

---

Again, how is San Antonio unattractive to the NBA when the Spurs are one of the most successful franchises financially?

All the same regurgitated bullshit you so freely pontificate is no measure of how attractive or unattractive a city is to the NBA.

It’s nothing more than your own rule based opinions.

Look at Atlanta, one of the largest TV markets, a large per capita income yet they can’t even fill up half their arena nor even get a majority of their games shown on local TV.

No, the NBA goes by that hard and fast stat of "city love".

The Spurs are successful financially because the county capitulated and gave them virtually all of the arena revenues and a very small share of the arena cost, in addition to the luxury tax program, the new (in '99) salary cap structure and doing well scouting international talent. Notice how the great SA market is not in the top 3 or 4 factors? SA's population on average is, yes, poorer than in other markets. The data bears that out. If you have a problem, get in touch with the US Census Bureau and tell them that they are not doing their job because they aren't measuring the true length of the erection you have for San Antonio de Bexar.

Just because someone points out the problems with SA's market doesn't mean anything. You need to get off this trip as the defender of all that is good and pure about San Antonio.

The Spurs are fucking bankrolling right now. They don't give a shit about the Eastsider, Westsider or Southsider.

They give a shit about the corporate guy, the big dollars.

The Spurs blow at marketing. But, they don't give a crap because they are rolling the dough.


The NBA shares the profit, don't they? Why in the hell would the Spurs run up expenses?

Why should they, they are the best team in the NBA.

They are going to lose again one day, they are one Duncan ankle away from being in the lottery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

No, the NBA goes by that hard and fast stat of "city love".

The Spurs are successful financially because the county capitulated and gave them virtually all of the arena revenues and a very small share of the arena cost, in addition to the luxury tax program, the new (in '99) salary cap structure and doing well scouting international talent. Notice how the great SA market is not in the top 3 or 4 factors? SA's population on average is, yes, poorer than in other markets. The data bears that out. If you have a problem, get in touch with the US Census Bureau and tell them that they are not doing their job because they aren't measuring the true length of the erection you have for San Antonio de Bexar.

Just because someone points out the problems with SA's market doesn't mean anything. You need to get off this trip as the defender of all that is good and pure about San Antonio.

---

In the past 15 years San Antonio has gone from 19 percent of city residents being under the pverty line to under 14 percent. In any city that is something very hard to do.

Not mention per city proper, San Antonio has a larger (per 2004) per capita income.

Please stop using 2000 census numbers.

That doesn't mean jack. Look at the avg per capita income of SA in relation to other NBA cities.

San Antonio can support both teams. However, there are alot of Cowboy fans here in town that might be apprehensive about throwing jack at the Saints.

But if the Saints move here, it's a fresh start whether they are the Clippers or not.

WGAF.

I don't like the Cowboys and you can book me for 2 season tickets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

That doesn't mean jack. Look at the avg per capita income of SA in relation to other NBA cities.

---

Again, WTF does that have to do with anything other than a rousing game of "my dick is bigger than yours?"

Spurs get high ratings, Spurs get great attendance. That's all that counts in the game of life in the NBA. Not how one city compares to another in per capita income.

Spurs get high ratings in a market in which the average fan is poorer than in most other NBA cities. Again, do you think that companies want to devote marketing resources into a market in which people don't have as much disposable income? Get a clue.

Also a source for your '04 data would be nice, even with it being just poverty data. The Census Bureau is an authoritative source on income stats and it takes them a while to put it together. The SA market didn't change overnight from 2000 to today.

Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Spurs get high ratings in a market in which the average fan is poorer than in most other NBA cities.

---

Again, you're chasing a MacGuffin. This means nothing. It's still high ratings. More people watching the more ad revenue. Super bowl commercials aren't so goddamn expensive for the sake of it. And I don't anyone is going: "Well, sure the Super bowl gets high ratings but I bet a lot of the people who are watching are... well poor. So it's just too unattractive for me to put an ad on."

Quote:

---

Again, do you think that companies want to devote marketing resources into a market in which people don't have as much disposable income? Get a clue.

---

I don't know, go ask Detroit, New Orleans, Houston, Orlando, Memphis.

Quote:

---

Also a source for your '04 data would be nice, even with it being just poverty data. The Census Bureau is an authoritative source on income stats and it takes them a while to put it together. The SA market didn't change overnight from 2000 to today.

---

Yeah it did. And look it up on Wikipedia.

The San Antonio economy has changed almost over night. In 2000 tourism was the largest economic industry.

Today, both Financial Service and Bioscience top tourism.

Go look at the BLS, BEA and Census Bureau websites. Look at the household television data that someone posted in here a few weeks back. You cannot make San Antonio out to be something it's not. I do not understand why on Earth you cannot force yourself to understand that San Antonio isn't anything other than a below average television market in the NBA. This isn't life or death. WTF?

You apparently missed this on the Wikipedia entry for SA that I guess you spend every day watching...

Quote:

---

Television

While the city may be one of the largest in the country, San Antonio is only the 37th largest television market in the United States, according to Neilsen. The following list are the major affiliate television stations in the city.

---

source

Also I cannot see the source for your assertion about the top industries in the city on the page. Please quote it and provide a link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Go look at the BLS, BEA and Census Bureau websites. Look at the household television data that someone posted in here a few weeks back. You cannot make San Antonio out to be something it's not. I do not understand why on Earth you cannot force yourself to understand that San Antonio isn't anything other than a below average television market in the NBA. This isn't life or death. WTF?

You apparently missed this on the Wikipedia entry for SA that I guess you spend every day watching...


source

Also I cannot see the source for your assertion about the top industries in the city on the page. Please quote it and provide a link.

---

You lose the battle on one subject and then bring up a completely new subject.

Yes, San Antonio has a below average TV market.

I never denied that nor have made it an issue.

You're still chasing a MacGuffin.

Still waiting on the quote for your assertion that tourism is no longer the top industry in SA. You said it was on the Wikipedia page. Where is it?

I didn't lose any "battle" and if anyone knows how to avoid a subject altogether, 'tis you. You wanted a explanation as to why SA is not an attractive market in the NBA and in pro sports in general. That's the "battle" you lost, kiddo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Still waiting on the quote for your assertion that tourism is no longer the top industry in SA. You said it was on the Wikipedia page. Where is it?

---

Never said that was listed at Wikipedia. The per capita listing is what I said was at Wikipedia.

But here's a link confirming it:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business....12b2a0fb.html

Quote:

---

I didn't lose any "battle" and if anyone knows how to avoid a subject altogether, 'tis you. You wanted a explanation as to why SA is not an attractive market in the NBA and in pro sports in general. That's the "battle" you lost, kiddo.

---

You won nothing. You regurgitated and then rode the same carousel you always do. Which will probably lead to you regurgitating again.

See, providing a link isn't too hard.

What the article fails to address is that tourism is the #1 employer in this area. Most jobs in SA are low paying, tourism related jobs. Sure, biotech and financial services may have larger revenues, but that doesn't really mean that much when it comes to the overall attractiveness of the SA market. I'd also like to see the model that was used to assess the economic impact. I've run some RIMS II models in my day. But I suspect the methodology was on the up and up.

Again, a population who on the whole are largely dependent on low paying tourism jobs translates to an unattractive media market. The Spurs have done fine in SA because they are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers as well as by the league. I've yet to see you offer anything that refutes this. All you've offered is that 'San Antonio loves the Spurs'. BFD.

Before I sign off tonight and let someone else kick around Buddy Holly:

In regards to the assertion that you did not cite Wikipedia as the source,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

Yeah it did. And look it up on Wikipedia.

The San Antonio economy has changed almost over night. In 2000 tourism was the largest economic industry.

Today, both Financial Service and Bioscience top tourism.

---

You offered no source other than Wikipedia. The plagarism continues, I suppose...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

See, providing a link isn't too hard.

What the article fails to address is that tourism is the #1 employer in this area. Most jobs in SA are low paying, tourism related jobs.

---

Boy are you scratching.

Quote:

---

Sure, biotech and financial services may have larger revenues, but that doesn't really mean that much when it comes to the overall attractiveness of the SA market.

---

153,649 very good high paying jobs in only two sectors isn't attractive?

That's not including the Military or Manufacturing.

Yes a lot of the Leisure and Hospitality jobs in the city ar low paying, but most are seasonal and hirees are usually teenagers looking for summer work.

Quote:

---

Again, a population who on the whole are largely dependent on low paying tourism jobs translates to an unattractive media market.

---

Do you know how many cities would love to have a tourism industry as big and as successful as San Antonio? Do you know how many cities would love to just have a tourism industry?

Sure, I guess Corpus would.

It takes more than a couple of sectors employing 100,000 people to turn SA into something other than the #37 media market in the US.

Go to any tourist spot in SA and the majority of employees aren't teenagers.

If you have a problem with the #37 ranking, don't tell me about it. Log into Wikipedia and change it to whatever you so fantasize. San Antonio de Bexar has a ways to go, kiddo. Love will find a way, but it doesn't pay the bills.

Adios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Before I sign off tonight and let someone else kick around Buddy Holly:

In regards to the assertion that you did not cite Wikipedia as the source,



You offered no source other than Wikipedia. The plagarism continues, I suppose...

---

Reading comprehension isn’t such a “bad thing.”

I said:

Quote:

---

Not mention per city proper, San Antonio has a larger (per 2004) per capita income.

---

You said:

Quote:

---

Also a source for your '04 data would be nice, even with it being just poverty data. The Census Bureau is an authoritative source on income stats and it takes them a while to put it together. The SA market didn't change overnight from 2000 to today.

---

I said:

Quote:

---

Yeah it did. And look it up on Wikipedia.

The San Antonio economy has changed almost over night. In 2000 tourism was the largest economic industry.

Today, both Financial Service and Bioscience top tourism.

---

You said:

Quote:

---

Still waiting on the quote for your assertion that tourism is no longer the top industry in SA. You said it was on the Wikipedia page. Where is it?

---

I said:

Quote:

---

Never said that was listed at Wikipedia. The per capita listing is what I said was at Wikipedia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

It takes more than a couple of sectors employing 100,000 people to turn SA into something other than the #37 media market in the US.

---

:lol :lol :lol :lol

So you rag about "per capita income" then lose the battle now you have to rag about "tv market."

:lol :lol :lol :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Adios.

---

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...eallyowned.jpg

Hmmm... I wonder...

In 2004:

San Antonio's MSA TV market was 760,410.

San Antonio's MSA Employment was 798,186.



I also wonder...

In 2004:

Houston's MSA TV market was 1,938,670.

Houston's MSA Employment was 2,200,287.


Weird.

God, why do I waste the time?

I never abandoned my point that San Antonio has a much lower per capita income than other NBA markets, a major reason why SA does not have an attractive media market. In addition, the #37 ranking is simply the number of TV households, not a ranking of per capita income in TV markets.

I was responding to your specific claim about those jobs.

You haven't owned anything, except an obvious inability to support your argument. You do not know anything about what you are attempting to argue and no amount of pics or superfluous noise is going to change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

Hmmm... I wonder...

In 2004:

San Antonio's MSA TV market was 760,410.

San Antonio's MSA Employment was 798,186.



I also wonder...

In 2004:

Houston's MSA TV market was 1,938,670.

Houston's MSA Employment was 2,200,287.


Weird.

---

Yeah, no surprise, assuming the data is valid. Link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Yeah, no surprise, assuming the data is valid. Link?

---

I thought you had said "adios."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

God, why do I waste the time?

I never abandoned my point that San Antonio has a much lower per capita income than other NBA markets, a major reason why SA does not have an attractive media market. In addition, the #37 ranking is simply the number of TV households, not a ranking of per capita income in TV markets.

I was responding to your specific claim about those jobs.

You haven't owned anything, except an obvious inability to support your argument. You do not know anything about what you are attempting to argue and no amount of pics or superfluous noise is going to change that.

---

All you've done is state your opinion as if it were fact. :spin

Here are some linky's for you MB:

Employment (Two different websites, both offering different numbers for all Texas cities)

http://recenter.tamu.edu/mreports/SanAntonio8.asp

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_7240.htm

TV

http://www.mediainfocenter.org/compare/top50/#tv

Have a field day buddy.

Quote:

---

The 15 smallest NBA cities - Listed by television market, out of 210 total areas (Number of Television Homes):

1. Memphis, Tennessee (658,250)
2. New Orleans, Louisiana (675,760)
3. San Antonio, Texas (748,950)
4. Salt Lake City, Utah (800,000)
5. Milwaukee, Wisconsin (886,770)
6. Charlotte, North Carolina (1,004,440)
7. Indianapolis, Indiana (1,053,020)
8. Portland, Oregon (1,086,900)
9. Orlando, Florida (1,303,150)
10. Sacramento, California (1,315,030)
11. Denver, Colorado (1,401,760)
12. Miami, Florida (1,496,810)
13. Cleveland, Ohio (1,556,670)
14. Phoenix, Arizona (1,596,950)
15. Minneapolis, Minnesota (1,665,540)

---

source

That's TV households.

Now how about per capita income?

Quote:

---

Table 1. Personal Income and Per Capita Personal Income by Metropolitan Area, 2001-2003
Personal income Per capita personal income/1
Millions of dollars Percent Dollars Rank in
Area name change/2 U.S.
2001 2002 2003 2002-2003 2001 2002 2003 2003
San Antonio, TX 47,218 47,797 49,733 4.1 27,044 26,832 27,381 186

---

What about other NBA TV markets in the bottom half of the league?

Quote:

---

Table 1. Personal Income and Per Capita Personal Income by Metropolitan Area, 2001-2003
Personal income Per capita personal income/1
Millions of dollars Percent Dollars Rank in
Area name change/2 U.S.
2001 2002 2003 2002-2003 2001 2002 2003 2003

Memphis, TN-MS-AR 36,241 37,767 39,244 3.9 29,790 30,787 31,677 79
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 36,923 38,211 39,595 3.6 28,142 29,091 30,092 116
Salt Lake City, UT 28,619 29,316 29,935 2.1 29,055 29,456 29,768 128
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 50,920 51,910 53,182 2.5 33,819 34,384 35,133 35
Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 44,820 46,485 47,850 2.9 32,604 33,045 33,251 52
Indianapolis, IN 50,515 52,040 53,816 3.4 32,484 32,983 33,618 42
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 63,933 64,395 65,629 1.9 32,345 31,988 32,152 70
Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 46,350 48,096 50,670 5.4 27,151 27,407 28,114 168
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA 57,532 59,439 62,079 4.4 30,807 30,864 31,425 83
Denver-Aurora, CO 87,646 88,602 90,239 1.8 39,432 38,923 39,203 11
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 163,860 169,151 174,652 3.3 32,025 32,493 33,094 55
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 68,208 69,022 71,051 2.9 31,799 32,219 33,196 54
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 97,139 101,447 106,327 4.8 28,712 29,080 29,590 131
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 113,012 115,401 119,080 3.2 37,370 37,773 38,601 14

---

BEA

Among the 15 smallest NBA markets in terms of TV households, San Antonio was the lowest in terms of per capita income in 2001 through 2003. The only reason the Spurs remain in San Antonio is because of the arena deal, which heavily subsidizes the team as well as due to the salary cap and in particular the luxury tax distributions as well as the institution of maximum salaries in the league.

None of what you offered above properly addresses this.

Now you have been "owned", as you like to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

Here are some linky's for you MB:

Employment (Two different websites, both offering different numbers for all Texas cities)

http://recenter.tamu.edu/mreports/SanAntonio8.asp

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_7240.htm

TV

http://www.mediainfocenter.org/compare/top50/#tv

Have a field day buddy.

---

Wow, 3 links. Now post the actual significance you claim from those links.

The A&M Real Estate Center link doesn't prove much as to how SA relates to other NBA markets. Neither does the BLS link.

The Nielsen data confirms what has already been cited.

Try again.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, although I'm sure someone has said something of the sorts. The Spurs should hold all regular season games in the SBC Center. But once playoff time roles around, the Spurs should move into the Alamodome. Even if the Saints did move hear, it wouldn't be bothersome May-June. Put Bon Jovi in the SBC Center. 50,000 people won't care to see him, especially if Spurs playoffs are going on. This, in turn, would allow Spurs fans to go to games for, oh, $10 a seat. It would also be to the Spurs advantage, cause teams would hate shooting at the Alamodome. If the Spurs begin to practice there in April, they should be ready come May. Good deal? Maybe?

Still waiting for you to refute the claim I have made that the San Antonio MSA is not an attractive TV market in the NBA. I have cited data which indicates that San Antonio had the 3rd smallest TV household market in the NBA in 2004 as well the lowest per capita income in 2003. That is in a league with 30 teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

source

That's TV households.

Now how about per capita income?



What about other NBA TV markets in the bottom 5 in the league?


BEA

Among the 15 smallest NBA markets in terms of TV households, San Antonio was the lowest in terms of per capita income in 2001 through 2003. The only reason the Spurs remain in San Antonio is because of the arena deal, which heavily subsidizes the team as well as due to the salary cap and in particular the luxury tax distributions as well as the institution of maximum salaries in the league.

None of what you offered above properly addresses this.

Now you have been "owned", as you like to say.

---

Wow! I love how much this bothers you, how much time you have so far put into this.

I guess I was right. You love to minimize San Antonio. For what reason? You don't like the city, you’re jealous, you have no life. I don't know.

First things first, I never said San Antonio had a large tv market. It doesn't,

Second "personal income per capita" is quite different from "median family income" But whatever, you want to see what you want to see.

Does San Antonio have a low personal income per capita, sure. Is it so low that everyone in San Antonio is considered "poor." No.

Is San Antonio a "wealthy" city. Parts, yes, all of it, no.

What your agenda in trying to make San Antonio look bad is, I don't know, but at the same time I could give a rats ass.

The topic is, could San Antonio support two teams. Not is it attractive enough for "Marcus Byrant."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Wow, 3 links. Now post the actual significance you claim from those links.

The A&M Real Estate Center link doesn't prove much as to how SA relates to other NBA markets. Neither does the BLS link.

The Nielsen data confirms what has already been cited.

Try again.

---

I'm proving with those links the numbers I used that you then asked for proof of.

Dude....


QUIT SMOKING POT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Still waiting for you to refute the claim I have made that the San Antonio MSA is not an attractive TV market in the NBA.

---

How can I refute an opinion? It's your opinion, you're entitled to it.

Yes, I am correct about the unattractiveness of the San Antonio TV market and now all you have left to do is to claim that I am "trying to make San Antonio look bad".

I'm not. I am only trying to get an accurate assessment of San Antonio's attractiveness as a NBA market.

San Antonio's rankings among NBA cities in terms of TV households and per capita income are quite germane to a discussion about the attractiveness of SA as a 'two team' town.

Yet, my original claim was...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Relative to other NBA markets, San Antonio is one of the least attractive.

---

The stats I have cited clearly bear that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

Damn, it sucks being you.

---

I'm not the depressed SAC dropout with a hardon for San Antonio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

I'm proving with those links the numbers I used that you then asked for proof of.

---

Actually you just posted 3 random links you googled.

Quote:

---

Dude....

QUIT SMOKING POT![/SIZE]

---

Dude, go back to school.

Well, this was fun. Tomorrow perhaps he will respond with news of a new Arby's on SW Military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

I'm not the depressed SAC dropout with a hardon for San Antonio.

---

SAC, never been there. But good assumption. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

How can I refute an opinion? It's your opinion, you're entitled to it.

---

What the fuck? Are you that stupid? You can start my addressing the TV household ranking and per capita income ranking of San Antonio among NBA cities.

My claim is that San Antonio is not an attractive NBA media market. I supported that claim with that specific data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Actually you just posted 3 random links you googled.




Dude, go back to school.

---

Actually the TAMU site I use quite often.

As for the other two, yes I googled them.
mn.
Which is where I got the numbers YOU ASKED A LINK FOR. :pctoss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

SAC, never been there. But good assumption. :lol

---

St. Phillip's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

Actually the TAMU site I use quite often.

As for the other two, yes I googled them.
mn.
Which is where I got the numbers YOU ASKED A LINK FOR. :pctoss

---

That's good. What does it have to do with the data that clearly shows San Antonio is not an attractive TV market among NBA cities?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Yes, I am correct about the unattractiveness of the San Antonio TV market

---

But smaller ones "were" attractive a few years ago? Did the tend end? Is the new black grey?

I don't get it.

Is your opinion worth more than a bag of sea shells? Probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

That's good. What does it have to do with the data that clearly shows San Antonio is not an attractive TV market among NBA cities?

---

Are you lost in your own world?

Anyway, San Antonio is an attractive TV market.

Ohmigod, there's your much awaited retort.

2004 for the TV data and 2003 for the per capita income data.

If you have more recent data, quote it.

San Antonio was dead last among NBA TV markets in per capita income in 2003, per the BEA.

I thought you said "ADIOS" a while back?

My spanish isn't very good but I'm pretty sure that means: "I just got owned so I'll see ya later."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

Are you lost in your own world?

Anyway, San Antonio is an attractive TV market.

Ohmigod, there's your much awaited retort.

---

No, address the data, chump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

I thought you said "ADIOS" a while back?

My spanish isn't very good but I'm pretty sure that means: "I just got owned so I'll see ya later."

---

Actually that means I went to get a beer.

I thought you had something to refute my claim that San Antonio is not an attractive NBA market. Bring it, you depressed little bitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

2004 for the TV data and 2003 for the per capita income data.

If you have more recent data, quote it.

San Antonio was dead last among NBA TV markets in per capita income in 2003, per the BEA.

---

Do you KNOW what PER CAPITA is?

If Bill Gates moved out of Seattle along with his pal Paul Allen, Seattle would probably fall off the list.

Get the median household income list going, see where SA compares.

Come on, I know you can do it. I believe in you.

Yes, I know what per capita means. Do you recognize that the BEA already accounts for outliers?

Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Actually that means I went to get a beer.

I thought you had something to refute my claim that San Antonio is not an attractive NBA market. Bring it, you depressed little bitch.

---

What claim?

The only claims you have gotten correct are well, the obvious ones. I believe Stevie Wonder pointed them out.

1. SA is last in the entire NBA of the whole wide world in per capita income.

2. SA is the fourth smallest TV market in the whole wide world of the NBA.

But then that doesn't go about proving your opinion correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Yes, I know what per capita means. Do you recognize that the BEA already accounts for outliers?

Try again.

---

Go get the median household income list.

Or does Uncle Derek have to do it?

Let's see, San Antonio has the 3rd lowest number of households watching TV and people there enjoy the least amount among NBA cities in per capita income. Do you really believe that makes for an attractive market? Come on, for a boy who lives with his mother and obsesses about demographic data 24/7 you should be able to comprehend why that does not make for an attractive TV market for companies to advertise in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

Go get the median household income list.

Or does Uncle Derek have to do it?

---

Go for it, kiddo.

Uncle Derek? Is that who gives you money for blow jobs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Go for it, kiddo.

Uncle Derek? Is that who gives you money for blow jobs?

---

Ah, aren't we the more sophisticated one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Let's see, San Antonio has the 3rd lowest number of households watching TV and people there enjoy the least amount among NBA cities in per capita income.

---

Wow, broken record.

I live with my mother? Wow, I could have sworn I had my own place. Weird.

Still waiting on your median household income data.

Well it's clear you have none to offer and, per usual, were talking out of your ass because you just had to defend the honor of San Antonio.

Well, here ya go friend:

As of 2003 (the latest data I could find) San Antonio's MHI is just over $41,000. That is up from 1990 when the MHI was 26,049.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

St. Phillip's?

---

Nope. But feel free to think poorer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Well it's clear you have none to offer and, per usual, were talking out of your ass because you just had to defend the honor of San Antonio.

---

No, because I hate when people who essentially "shouldn’t" care about the happenings going on in other city jsut for no reason talk bad about said city.

You know, it's a thing.

Seriously Marcus, explain why you even care about what's happening in San Antonio?

Why you would spend a night battling me over such a small issue?

I feel this bad vibe coming from your handle. Of jealously, envy, the green eyes monster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheWriter

Well, here ya go friend:

As of 2003 (the latest data I could find) San Antonio's MHI is just over $41,000. That is up from 1990 when the MHI was 26,049.

---

Source?