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

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.