Reply With Quote
, the metroplex can't even support the Rangers. How the does SA expect to sell out a 45,000 stadium 81 nights a year.
Well, RC and Pop, if they are doing their jobs properly, are aware that this group of players will not always be able to play at this level and will someday retire. That's why they are prepping picks overseas, such as Ian Mahinmi. Folks that are developing on someone else's dime, and will be able to come over here and produce fairly quickly. They are also fairly good at signing vets who want a winning system, and Parker will be around after Duncan and after Ginobli.
This will not be a Bulls like meltdown after Duncan retires. The front office is smart enough to be looking ahead and taking steps to be contenders (if not champions) in ten years as well as now. That's not to say that there is not going to be a drop off in performance, but it can be minimized.
People in San Antonio were fans for 26 years of heartbreak before they were fans of the champs. A big part of that is because they were the only thing going, and that brought more emotional investment. Houston experiences a severe drop off at the end of the season when the Astros start up, because Houston isn't a team with any real potential right now. When the Texans first came the Astros experienced a decline, because the crowds go where the interest is.
I do not think it is in the best interest of the city to add another professional sports team, particularly one that has such a long season, and so many series against the big teams.
, the metroplex can't even support the Rangers. How the does SA expect to sell out a 45,000 stadium 81 nights a year.
So if the Spurs own the MLB team, do both teams go when the Spurs relocate?
, the metroplex can't even support the Rangers. How the does SA expect to sell out a 45,000 stadium 81 nights a year.
You doubt the greatness that is San Antonio de Bexar?
I believe that is the sentiment the city has had for quite awhile, but it has been made very clear that as long as Tags is commisioner, SA will not let a franchise be placed here. So, might as well go for baseball.
No Baseball teams sell out, so don't worry about it, just sell as many as you can.I rather have a football team here instead of Baseball. Baseball has too many games to worry about selling out.
Not even the Yankees can dream about filling those numbers.I can't see 60,000 to 70,000 showing up day in and night out for Baseball in San Antonio.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance
And the people in SA are the only ones that have the problems that come with work?Some games start early 1 P.M and late during the week. People jobs and their employers will stand in the way of afternoon games. Night games sometimes go extra innings and the thought of sleeping will keep many away.
You got me there, the missions drew 272,000 fans last year. Not too shabby though.Besides, the Missions can't sell out Wolf Stadium. MLB will not work in San Antonio.
http://www.ballparkdigest.com/featur...team_2005.html
Vote on what people want? It's a business, they have every right to try to come here if they want. I'm sure most people do want football over baseball, but again, unless the CFL decides to come here, if you want to cheer for a local football team, better get used to cheering for the High school teams. Just because you don't want a baseball team here, don't assume that others don't, and why should you choose for them? If you're not interested, don't go.A vote on what the people want, either Baseball or Football as the next Pro sport for San Antonio should come up for vote to the citizens before shoving something we don't want. I bet the majority would say football over Baseball.
And the city has a good tax situation set up for this kind of stuff, very little impact is felt to local citizens, and for that, yes, I do think they still have a vote.
Sorry I went off, just that I always hear these same excuses. And they are not always valid. My only concern is the Spurs, as long as they are contenders, or at least a playoff team, very little revenue or excitement lost. However, when we become a lottery team is when we should worry.
Personally, I'd hate to see the city face the embarassing prospect of failure of a team just due to impatience. San Antonio is growing by leaps and bounds. I'm not sure why there's such a big rush. Keeping the Spurs atop the best sports teams list will make San Antonio a very attractive location over the next 10 to 20 years as the economy grows.
It makes sense for the Spurs to get their fingers in the pie.
Anyways, the team doesn't strike me as exactly milking 3 les in the last 7 seasons for all they're worth. I'd hate to see how'd they fare if they ever had a couple of losing seasons in a row.
As for SA, if it was going to be able to support two pro franchises I would expect a NFL franchise to be the other one, not MLB. I guess the TV revenue share is quite lucrative, for I couldn't imagine that a team would fare that well at the gate with 81 home games through a South Texas summer (which lasts about from March to November). NFL means getting out 50,000+ on average to 8 home games. Definitely a lot more feasible than trying to pull 20,000 on average to 81.
Finally, if a MLB franchise has trouble in Miami, Oakland, or Minneapolis-St.Paul, how exactly is it supposed to thrive in SA?
Did the commissioner actually make a statement to that effect, or are there possibly practical reasons that he doesn't want to poison San Antonio as a potential future location by putting a team in too soon? I can hardly imagine a commissioner of a sport insulting a city in such a way, especially when he actually allowed them to have an NFL franchise for part of a season.
So long, Fancy Feast.
From tkt 760 today: Basically Leo Gomez said that they (Spurs) have started a "sincere" effort to study viability of the MLB in SA. Doesn't know if it is viable yet but if it comes they want it to be successful. (i.e. they want a piece of the pie if it is viable)
A baseball team here would bomb. In fact, the next time the Spurs are a lottery team, San Antonio wouldn't fill up 50% of the SBC/AT&T Center.
1996-97 comes to mind. The Spurs at least had a DRob return and a high lottery pick to look forward to.
Houston is much larger than san Antonio.. and has more of the economy to support sports franchises.I mean I know h town is pretty much in the same boat as us and they have all three teams but i would love to see
san anton step up and bring a franchise to the home team. but i do worry that it would be a losin team. but as far as us attending i mean look at the love we showed N.O. 65 thousand a game.... and sometimmes compe ion is good, right?
they are actually proposing to extend the Hotel and Tourism Tax, not add a tax for the citizens to pay.
besides part of the attraction about baseball is generally the ticket prices, great for families who can't afford 30 bucks a ticke to a spurs game(when they are even available).
The problem for the Spurs is that the sponsorship, season tix, and suite $ will be hit. As long as the Spurs are a contender, that shouldn't be a big problem, but once they start losing, look out.
I agree.
Even when they were good and not winning championships, the dome/sbc center was not filled. Now that they are winning all of my customers want access to my tickets no matter what day of the week the game is. My customers used to call me and say" if you have all 4 tickets availaible for a saturday game I will go." not anymore.
But then again the lakers can't sell half of there stadium out.
If the spurs were smart they would do like the cowboys did back in the early 90's, you had to purchase multiple season, season tickets to sit in certain sections. They sold them out because nobody wanted to miss out on a superbowl le.
Leave the baseball discussion to baseball fans.
Comparing a minor league baseball team to the MLB is like comparing the WNBA to the NBA. It isn't even close.
I have been to more MLB games > than 200 miles away in the past 5 years than I have been to the Missions.
They aren't trying to sell out. Baseball teams get money from attendance, TV, concessions, parking, apparel, collectibles, sponsorships etc. etc.... The money is damn near guaranteed.
Teams are not doing well because their stadium deals ing blow.... They probably don't give a rats ass if the place is half full for games. They understand there are 81 got damn games in a season.
Comparing the NBA to MLB is stupid as well, two totally different business models and arrangements.
MLB will do fine as long as the stadium deal supports it.
Right, those teams (Marlins, A's & Twins) are shopping for the best cornholing a city is willing to offer.
Seriously, my guess is that an MLB team requires less local high-income support than an NFL team, but that the local intrinsic support for baseball as a sport is way less than for football.
My guess is that it also provides serious compe ion for the wallet of Spurs fans. The fact that the Spurs are involved to me says that either:
1) much smarter economic analysts than me have figured it will work, or
2) they have figured that it won't work, and the easiest way to prevent it is to have the Spurs in control of it.
He made several backhanded comments about SA. I'm not sure why he dislikes SA, maybe he had some bad Guacamole here. Maybe it's because we were a nuisance in his side with the Saints deal, maybe he thinks we can't support it. He has also put the hammer down and only allowed 3 games here, while LA's replacement city had horrible ticket sales, and he would rather have the games there than here next year also.
That is true.
I personally think that a baseball team would bring in a lot of fans that are not really spurs fans or even basketball fans. As stated by segu most current teams could care less about promoting the team to fill the stadium because they don't make jack off of people being present.
the problem would lie in the amount of luxury boxes sold, However most corporations are going to purchase both the spurs and the alleged teams boxes since it is not really that much money for a company like At&t or WAMU. etc...
, the metroplex can't even support the Rangers. How the does SA expect to sell out a 45,000 stadium 81 nights a year.
they can support the rangers, by evidence that they are still there. However they happen to be the only team without a winning record in the Metroplex. Who would you buy tickets for?
[QUOTE=kskonn]Houston is much larger than san Antonio.. and has more of the economy to support sports franchises.
i was talkin bout there lack of mrket value...they always get brushed off just like we do when we when les
The Spurs are damn smart to line up as owners. If it looks like the stadium is going to happen, then they need to do everything that they possibly can to make sure they minimize the extent to which they are in direct compe ion w/ the MLB team for sponsorships, seating, etc. If you own both teams, then you can at least have a coordinated strategy to divvy up the limited pie, cross market, etc. instead of busting your ass to compete with another ownership group for revenue from corporate sponsors, season tix, etc.
Basketball and Baseball are two totally different sports. I don't understand how a baseball game affects a basketball game or vice versa?
If I buy a ticket to a Spurs game, does that mean I am choosing over a baseball game?
Uhhhhh... I don't get you all's rationale except for maybe you aren't a baseball fan and your pulling straws.
I played baseball/softball my whole life and I am not drawing the connection between basketball and baseball.
The SBC Center is filled with people who live North of 1604 now anyway, maybe the community needs something a little cheaper.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
