(07-24-2018 04:28 PM)TigersTigers Wrote:  IMO... the Nashville City Council will approve the remaining items on their agenda.

You kidding me any time a city has an opportunity to land a Major League sports team you do what it takes. That's what separates the Major league cities from the minor league cities....

(07-24-2018 02:50 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The MLS team in Nashville is not a done deal.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/20...819881002/

I agree approval is the likely outcome, but the issue is more contentious now than even a few months ago. Besides, MLS is “major” in name only. The general consensus among soccer aficionados is the MLS is a minor league by world standards.

(07-24-2018 04:28 PM)TigersTigers Wrote:  IMO... the Nashville City Council will approve the remaining items on their agenda.

You kidding me any time a city has an opportunity to land a Major League sports team you do what it takes. That's what separates the Major league cities from the minor league cities....

(07-24-2018 02:50 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The MLS team in Nashville is not a done deal.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/20...819881002/

This isn’t 1994.

Public municipalities and taxpayers are realizing building stadiums (especially limited use stadiums for football, baseball, and soccer) for wealthy sports team owners isn’t the best use of public money.

(05-03-2018 10:01 AM)k2tigers Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 09:49 AM)Collegiate Black Man Wrote:  

(05-01-2018 04:30 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  A significant $EC program would be more valuable in terms of exposure; though less of the focus would be on Memphis. National $EC football ratings are usually higher than the NBA ratings. In addition, it is hard to get a small market like Memphis on national games without a franchise star or well known reputation. I think it took three seasons for the Grizzlies to get a significant number of national games in the grit-grind era.

If the Memphis Tigers were in the top third of the $EC and contending every three or four years, they would get more national coverage than the Grizzlies. But there would only be 7 home games versus 41 Grizz games. One bowl versus potentially two months of playoff basketball happening in the home stadium.

Personally I’d rather have an NBA franchise. But the Memphis Tigers in the top conference wouldn’t be a threat to relocate though. But college athletics could always have a sea change if the system of amateurism was properly challenged.

If Memphis was in the $EC, would the football compete on the level of Bama, Florida, or LSU? Keep in mind the investment it would take t compete at that level. It is easier for places like Gainesville and Tuscaloosa to accommodate that type of investment because there is nothing else in those towns but the Schools. Memphis is bigger and ha more attractions. I do not know if the people around the City would stand for the U of M football coach to make $8 Mill/year, too much economic inequality on too big of a scale and too little "fanaticism" about college football among alumni base in Memphis to really justify that, IMHO. Kabluey brings up excellent points about economic development needs around Memphis . How would an $EC program weigh in on that as opposed to what the Grizz do and bring?

You bring up excellent points about the popularity of national College Football. But only a handful of College football teams attract national ratings higher than NBA on a regular basis. Also, you'd have to figure in the reality that NBA is exposed a lot wider, even on a global scale, for longer periods (more games during the week) than College football. A pro team doing well is better for the city as a whole than a College team that costs as much as an $EC program would.

while that's obvious, many of the old school types here don't care.....

they view the city as a life support system for the university

(07-24-2018 04:57 PM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 04:28 PM)TigersTigers Wrote:  IMO... the Nashville City Council will approve the remaining items on their agenda.

You kidding me any time a city has an opportunity to land a Major League sports team you do what it takes. That's what separates the Major league cities from the minor league cities....

(07-24-2018 02:50 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The MLS team in Nashville is not a done deal.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/20...819881002/

This isn’t 1994.

Public municipalities and taxpayers are realizing building stadiums (especially limited use stadiums for football, baseball, and soccer) for wealthy sports team owners isn’t the best use of public money.

Yeah, the idea that you "do what it takes" to attract every major pro franchise you can has peaked and is either on the downslope or on a plateau. St. Louis learned that leason the hard way, with the NFL (I think they still have payments to make on the Dome? maybe?), and San Diego decided as a community to allow them to leave rather than subsidizing a new stadium. The billionaire behind Cerner Health and Sporting KC was asked about bringing NBA there, and he sounded very cautious possibly pessimistic, despite a facility there, citing several prudent fiscally mature and responsible concerns of stretching their corporate and fan dollars. Seattle and San Fran are moving to more privately funded projects. The issue of massive public subsidies is somewhat similar to that for mega projects like Amazon HQ2, FoxConn, and Tesla Gigafactory. But cities I suspect will continue trying to entice the huge anchor employers even if they stopped subsidizing pro sports. And metros with 0 or 1 team will see a greater benefit than those with 2 or more already (ie Louisville pursuing the NBA more than KC, they always have been public with their ambition, all the way back to their pursuit of the Grizz and Hornets).