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

[gameFACE]

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 you first. Now Tagliabue is saying 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?

[Mark in Austin]

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. do ent. 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]

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

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...opulation.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]

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 you first. Now Tagliabue is saying 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]

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 ins utions 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/met....130e3ceb.html

[Mark in Austin]

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

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...opulation.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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

. 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]

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]

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]

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

[TheWriter]

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

US Census Bureau table. Internet release date December 30, 2003

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]

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.

[Vashner]

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

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

[Mark in Austin]

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.

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 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]

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.

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]

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

BTW HOw the 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]

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]

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 bent 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 su ious 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 bent 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 les 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/c....128b185c.html

[Marcus Bryant]

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

Seriously, where the 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.

[Marcus Bryant]

And NFL action is regional.

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

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]

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.

That's cute, but people need to understand that the comparision the NFL is looking at is not SA v. New Orleans or SA v. Green Bay or SA v. Buffalo but rather San Antonio v. Los Angeles.

Now, unless you are sniffing freon or are a shut-in, LA is a more attractive market for the NFL and one where having a franchise is important to their TV ratings. Another franchise in Texas is not going to provide a significant boost in those ratings. But one in the 2nd largest TV market in the US certainly will.

[Phil E.Buster]

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